conciencious objections in the workplace, what to do?

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm curious, why would you not consider the bits I've highlighted, and the process you wen through, as "falling in love"?

Its not really that I don't. Its just not very concise or descriptive as to what is going on. It can mean whatever you want it to mean. Sure, as a communicative tool, people pretty much know what you mean when you say it, but it really falls short of describibing what actually happens, and can be deceptive.

You basically say you picked your wife over the other things in your life such as lustful encounters with other women (totally jealous btw :pac:). Did you not do this because you were falling in love with her and wanted to be with her?

Again, 'falling in love' I find quite meaningless in this context. It doesn't describe what actually went on in any tangiable manner. I was still selfish, desire was my king, and I loved my ego-boosting, exciting, illicit ways. I would actually say Love had quite little to do with it. I desired her, but unlike the 'conquests', I desired her company and companionship more than her body to put it bluntly. My reasons for not 'doing the dirty', was my for my own sense of honour, and that I didn't want to lose her. I still desired others though, and wasn't really motivated by concern for her and her feelings.

It was my dormant faith, that finally got me on the right track. I can state that it was categorically my faith, i.e. trust, in God and his advices that made me 'decide' to go for it with her. His way was that intamacy with one woman, and becoming one with one woman was his created ideal. My desire told me otherwise, but I decided to trust God. Its been the best decision of my life, but it was also one of the hardest. Its not been happy ever after stuff neither. Love is still at odds with much of my nature, so it still takes work, responsibilty and decision making. It has been the most amazing experience thus far. Love truly NEVER fails, even if those of us striving towards it do.

Below is IMO, the most tangiable description of Love and its worth ever written.

1 Corinthians 13 wrote:

1If I speak in the tongues[a] of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

I Love my wife. However, we see our love relative to Gods. We realise it takes work, and that its not just our emotional feelings. There are degrees of Love, and the Love we strive for. I do not have perfect love, but Godly Love is the key to life and happiness.


Man, this thread has taken quite the OT tangeant.

plein de force

JimiTime wrote: »

We don't even need to introduce the God question to this scenario tbh. Marriage was clearly defined when the job was taken. All of a sudden, its been redefined, and only this one specific redefinition is causing a problem. I can continue to conduct marriage services, but civil unions, no. Do you think its fair to sack me?

yes i do
you are employed by the state to carry out something defined by the state, not what's defined by your particular belief system, if you refuse to carry out what you are employed to do i think that's more than fair ground of dismissal.

Genghiz Cohen

The longer this thread goes on the more confused I get.
Is the person in question now being asked to Marry homosexual couples or perform Civil Unions?

Victor

PDN wrote: »

Indeed, if it is later demonstrated that the marriage vows were not made in good faith (eg a sham marriage to help an immigrant get a visa) then the marriage will be seen as legally invalid.

Not all sham / temporary marriages are there for the purposes of fraud as such. Sometimes an inheritance might be contingent on marriage, other times its designed for getting away from overbearing parents or military conscription. There will of course be the people who do it for kicks or as "temporary little arrangements".

Victor

Will religious judges have qualms about dissolving (divorcing) civil unions?

elekid

jimitime wrote:

I actually agree with that. In this 'Been a registrar for 16 years, but they've just dramatically redefined one of my duties' case though, I believe that there is a human element to be considered. The attitude that you and others have encouraged I find quite cold. . I personally see how in this case they could be easily accomodated. Rules or not, I'd prefer to encourage a bit more than heartless legalistic attitudes.

So if, due to unforseen circumstances, the only registrars working on a particular day all objected to same-sex unions, a tax paying same-sex couple would be refused their civil partnership ceremony? 'Rules are rules, like it or p!ss off' Sounds a bit cold (and completely unacceptable) to me...

PDN

elekid wrote: »

So if, due to unforseen circumstances, the only registrars working on a particular day all objected to same-sex unions, a tax paying same-sex couple would be refused their civil partnership ceremony? 'Rules are rules, like it or p!ss off' Sounds a bit cold (and completely unacceptable) to me...

Actually, until a few years ago, that was the way everyone except Church of Ireland or Catholics was treated.

Most people wanted to hold their weddings on a Saturday, but civil registrars didn't work Saturdays. Catholics and CoI were allowed to register their own weddings, the rest of us were not. Therefore none of us could get married on a Saturday.

Ickle Magoo

PDN wrote: »

Actually, until a few years ago, that was the way everyone except Church of Ireland or Catholics was treated.

Most people wanted to hold their weddings on a Saturday, but civil registrars didn't work Saturdays. Catholics and CoI were allowed to register their own weddings, the rest of us were not. Therefore none of us could get married on a Saturday.

All registry offices being closed on a particular day is not really the same as them being open for business to all but gays...