|
Try and keep it on the political/societal/cultural end of the discussion. This deals not only with gay rights but also the larger issue of looking at the interaction of religious groups within secular society, their rights and their influence, in contrast with the privileges of other groups. Which religion, if any, is right is irrelevant and arguments of that nature will be moderated. |
On December 12 2012 10:24 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 09:40 Mercy13 wrote:On December 12 2012 05:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:20 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:12 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 05:09 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:06 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 04:54 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 04:47 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
The issue secularists like myself have with this statement is the "because it is a fundamental right". In the UK it is currently against the law to discriminate against gays on the basis of their sexuality, even if you have really strongly held homophobic convictions and a load of subjective experience that validated them. This law will grant an exemption to the anti discrimination laws for churches which can't even agree amongst themselves most of the time whether or not they oppose gay marriage. Religious people do not have a monopoly on strength of conviction and yet they seem to have inherited a fundamental right to have their convictions protected. I'd like to see it justified. history and society has determined that it is a fundamental right, and in america it is written into our constitution. the justification for that is something that would take a lot of research and time to write a thoughtful piece, which i am not willing to do. =) The title says UK, if you cannot or are unwilling to justify the statement "because it is a fundamental right" then it should not be assumed to be a fundamental right in the UK. The question of why you get an exemption if a burning bush says to oppose the gays but not if a regular bush says to oppose the gays remains. i am pretty sure its considered a fundamental right through most of the modern, western world. its in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after all. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml An awful lot of those are infringed upon, if not outright disregarded, by pretty much all of the modern, western world. There's a reason nobody cares about those. The fact that some people 60 years ago pandered to the religious groups is not exactly surprising and should not in any way be viewed as the last word on the matter. The right to ones opinions is one thing but special rights given to opinions of a religious nature and then the right to discriminate because of those opinions is quite another. so, you dont think that religion should be a fundamental right? why exactly? I think that in order for a fair society to operate there has to be limits upon our freedoms regarding the treatment of each other. While you can believe what you like, as that only impacts yourself, there have to be rules imposed upon your conduct with others. One of these is anti-discrimination legislation and in every case except religion it is seen as being necessary. I see no compelling case why religious opinions such as "marriage is between a man and a woman because God" should be protected but secular opinions such as "marriage is between two people of the same skin colour because dog" should not. With neither protected they both fall victim to my belief that society has the right to intervene in our conduct towards each other, sacrificing one but protecting the other as a fundamental right is contradictory, hypocritical and nonsensical. fundamental rights were created to prevent the majority from discriminating against the minority. you are willing to sacrifice people's right to their religion because you think its more important that gays be allowed to be married by priests and on church properties. i think that is wrong especially considering there is no significant reason to do so. why cant people just get married in churches that allow gay marriage? or why not just get married by a non-priest? there is very little infringement in the right to marry, and huge infringement in the right to religion. i will assume that you dont really care about the right to religion in the first place, and that is why you are so willing to place it on the sacrificial altar. I thought I'd weigh in on the discussion between you guys. Instead of talking about fundamental rights and such, I think the real issue is whether or not the state should allow private discrimination, because that seems to be the big difference between you two. In the US there is no general law that prohibits discrimination by private individuals or entities. In the absence of a contrary law, people, businesses, clubs, churches, etc. can discriminate against whoever they want for any reason. For examples of laws that overcome the general allowance of private discrimination, see the Civil Rights Acts (which protect members of certain "protected classes" from discrimination by private individuals in certain contexts), and the Americans with Disabilities Act. From something Kwark said earlier it seems that this is the opposite approach from that in the UK - Instead, there is a broad prohibition of private discrimination, that can be overcome by laws like the one discussed in the OP. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think dAPhREAk's position is that churches should get special treatment, though it might seem that way to a person coming from a UK perspective. Instead dAPhREAk may be arguing that churches should get the same treatment as other US private entities. It should also be noted that sexual orientation is not considered a protected class in the US, so not only are churches allowed to discriminate against people based on sexual orientation, but it is also legal for a company to not hire a person simply because he is gay, or to pay him less solely for that reason. This is of course awful in my opinion, and will hopefully change in the next 10 years or so when the Civil Rights Act is amended to include sexual orientation as a protected class. Sorry if this is off topic, but I thought it might be useful to talk a bit about the US approach in comparison to the one in the UK. generally, i believe in people's right to do whatever they want without interference by the gov't as long as it does not materially affect others or is otherwise consensual. this includes their right to practice religion and their right to marry whomever they want (man, woman). the issue arises when one person's right affects another, and then there is a balancing act. gay dude wants to marry another gay dude, but hetero church wont allow it. in this circumstance, gay dude can marry gay dude elsewhere, which allows him to practice his right and the church is not prevented from practicing its right. case closed. if i am presented with a different situation such as a law that says all marriages must be performed in hetero church or they are not recognized by the gov't then i would agree that the church must be forced to allow marriages, or the law be changed. you shouldnt be able to completely destroy one right in favor of another. i think kwark and my disagreement stems from whether such a right to practice religion should be allowed or considered (especially where, as here, the religion condones homophobia). he also points out that the gov't is allowing religions a pass on "discrimination" when it wouldn't allow others (e.g., an individual or organization who has a personal, but not religious, belief in anti-gay marriage). this is an interesting question that i have been thinking about since he pointed it out. on one hand, if the individual or organization can practice its beliefs (religious or not) without harm to others then i say go for it. i do not support the BSA's stance on homosexuals, but i do support its ability to take that stance as a private organization. on the other hand, i wonder where the US would be if it had not passed the civil rights act and related legislation. i vehemently opposed gov't intervention in my life, but in this circumstance the interference has done great wonders for the U.S. hard question.
Thanks for the clarification, and sorry if it was presumptuous to put words in your mouth!
I agree that it's a very difficult question to determine the extent to which the government should be allowed to intervene in private interactions. Personally, I feel that it is not the government's role to prevent discrimination, absent special circumstances, such as those that gave rise to the necessity of the Civil Rights Act. As a result, I don't believe that the government should force churches to allow people to marry, because such circumstances don't exist with respect to same-sex marriage. In the UK, and hopefully soon in the US, homosexual couples are allowed to marry and enjoy the same benefits that heterosexual couples receive. To be clear, I find it reprehensible that most states don't recognize marriages between same-sex couples that are performed by the state, or by a religion that recognizes the validity of same-sex marriage. I just don't think churches should be forced to recognize such marriages if they don't want to.
It should also be noted that there are all sorts of reasons that seem silly (at least to me) that churches prevent people from getting married. For example, the Catholic church will not allow a Catholic to marry a non-Catholic, unless both partners agree that any children that result from the union will be raised Catholic.
|
It is no longer possible for the Mosques to stop homosexual marriage from being allowed? Whether Allah hates homosexuals or not? Allah is Great.
|
On December 12 2012 03:22 KwarK wrote:
It will be illegal for a Catholic priest to perform a gay marriage under the new law, for example, whereas at the moment they could perform the ceremony legally.
Assuming I'm reading this right, a lot of the discussion seems to be missing the point.
This isn't analogous to a restaurant being allowed to discriminate against blacks. It's more like a legal injunction on every employee of the restaurant, FORCING them to discriminate against blacks because their manager said so.
Which is absolutely ridiculous.
|
I like every part of this law, except for the illegal for catholics to marry gays. It should be up to the individual priest/reverand. The churchs right to refuse to marry (endorse) a gay marriage is protected, and the ability for gay couples to recieve the same benefits and even have it called a marriage is protected.
Thumbs up here.
Edit:
On December 12 2012 13:06 pirsq wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 03:22 KwarK wrote:
It will be illegal for a Catholic priest to perform a gay marriage under the new law, for example, whereas at the moment they could perform the ceremony legally. Assuming I'm reading this right, a lot of the discussion seems to be missing the point. This isn't analogous to a restaurant being allowed to discriminate against blacks. It's more like a legal injunction on every employee of the restaurant, FORCING them to discriminate against blacks because their manager said so. Which is absolutely ridiculous.
Sums up my only problem with the law perfectly.
|
On December 12 2012 13:24 Jisall wrote:I like every part of this law, except for the illegal for catholics to marry gays. It should be up to the individual priest/reverand. The churchs right to refuse to marry (endorse) a gay marriage is protected, and the ability for gay couples to recieve the same benefits and even have it called a marriage is protected. Thumbs up here. Edit: Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 13:06 pirsq wrote:On December 12 2012 03:22 KwarK wrote:
It will be illegal for a Catholic priest to perform a gay marriage under the new law, for example, whereas at the moment they could perform the ceremony legally. Assuming I'm reading this right, a lot of the discussion seems to be missing the point. This isn't analogous to a restaurant being allowed to discriminate against blacks. It's more like a legal injunction on every employee of the restaurant, FORCING them to discriminate against blacks because their manager said so. Which is absolutely ridiculous. Sums up my only problem with the law perfectly.
then the catholic church would just excommunicate them all. so, what exactly are you protecting?
|
On December 12 2012 13:30 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 13:24 Jisall wrote:I like every part of this law, except for the illegal for catholics to marry gays. It should be up to the individual priest/reverand. The churchs right to refuse to marry (endorse) a gay marriage is protected, and the ability for gay couples to recieve the same benefits and even have it called a marriage is protected. Thumbs up here. Edit: On December 12 2012 13:06 pirsq wrote:On December 12 2012 03:22 KwarK wrote:
It will be illegal for a Catholic priest to perform a gay marriage under the new law, for example, whereas at the moment they could perform the ceremony legally. Assuming I'm reading this right, a lot of the discussion seems to be missing the point. This isn't analogous to a restaurant being allowed to discriminate against blacks. It's more like a legal injunction on every employee of the restaurant, FORCING them to discriminate against blacks because their manager said so. Which is absolutely ridiculous. Sums up my only problem with the law perfectly. then the catholic church would just excommunicate them all. so, what exactly are you protecting?
Excommunication is an issue between the Catholic Church and its Priest. Thats a intra-church issue. I come from a protestant church, so the issue of excommunication never crossed my mind.
Personally I'm against gay marriage being held in a church because it disagrees with my church's teachings, that doesn't mean that all churches interpret the bible the way mine does, so forcing them to act a certain way is wrong. If they hold gay marriage ceremonies in their place of worship that is between them, God, and in the Catholic Churches case their hierarchy. If a Priest in any church deems it appropriate he should be able to marry a gay couple.
Blanket laws (such as the one in the bill) are almost always bad because they limit freedom and do not provide for exceptions.
|
This is good. Allow gays to get married, but also preserve the churches right to set their own rules and moral codes.
I don't understand the ppl who are against them having this right. You're telling the churches that they must go against their own moral code, just because your personal moral code is different. That's you discriminating against churches. Just let the churches do what they want.
|
On December 12 2012 13:46 ninini wrote:
This is good. Allow gays to get married, but also preserve the churches right to set their own rules and moral codes.
I don't understand the ppl who are against them having this right. You're telling the churches that they must go against their own moral code, just because your personal moral code is different. That's you discriminating against churches. Just let the churches do what they want.
I'm against the law forcing churches to reject marrying gays or face legal troubles. Some churches are more liberal then others. Other then that the law is perfect.
|
On December 12 2012 13:49 Jisall wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 13:46 ninini wrote:
This is good. Allow gays to get married, but also preserve the churches right to set their own rules and moral codes.
I don't understand the ppl who are against them having this right. You're telling the churches that they must go against their own moral code, just because your personal moral code is different. That's you discriminating against churches. Just let the churches do what they want. I'm against the law forcing churches to reject marrying gays or face legal troubles. Some churches are more liberal then others. Other then that the law is perfect.
The churches can make their own decisions on the matter. Noone is forcing anyone. Well, if one priest disagrees with his churches stance, he will need to switch to another church, but that's a good thing. The churches (especially the Protestant ones) could use some more consistency in their teachings. Give gays the option of marriage, and let each church have a right to turn them down if their moral code doesn't agree with it.
|
I see the concern. If it looks like a duck, and quack likes a duck, it's a duck. But legally, religious institutions (and in result, all members) can call it a sea otter under this law, and not be called arrogant or crazy. It gives them powers to refuse to identify something that is accepted and defined under national law.
|
On December 12 2012 14:01 ninini wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 13:49 Jisall wrote:On December 12 2012 13:46 ninini wrote:
This is good. Allow gays to get married, but also preserve the churches right to set their own rules and moral codes.
I don't understand the ppl who are against them having this right. You're telling the churches that they must go against their own moral code, just because your personal moral code is different. That's you discriminating against churches. Just let the churches do what they want. I'm against the law forcing churches to reject marrying gays or face legal troubles. Some churches are more liberal then others. Other then that the law is perfect. The churches can make their own decisions on the matter. Noone is forcing anyone. Well, if one priest disagrees with his churches stance, he will need to switch to another church, but that's a good thing. The churches (especially the Protestant ones) could use some more consistency in their teachings. Give gays the option of marriage, and let each church have a right to turn them down if their moral code doesn't agree with it.
This sentiment ignores the very foundation of the Church of England and the manner with which doctrinal change occurs in the Anglican tradition. This sort of legislation would have felt very at home amongst Catholic sympathizers circa 1525.
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
It will be illegal for a Catholic priest to perform a gay marriage under the new law, for example, whereas at the moment they could perform the ceremony legally.
Can you clarify? It will be codified into law that a Catholic priest cannot perform a gay marriage? Or does the law merely preclude the state from forcing a church to perform a gay marriage? (Assuming the former...if so that is actually one of the most spectacularly incompetent attempts at "compromise" I've seen)
Seems to me that it is best to sever the state from recognizing any sort of marriage at all (for legal purposes, recognizing a civil union that is not dependent on a sexual relationship between the partners), and simply allow private organizations to discriminate against people as they will. This would at least seem to resolve the implied inconsistency between government treatment of religion and other private organizations.*
unless the 'right' you allude to in the OP:
Do religions have the right to discriminate privately as long as it doesn't deny any rights to the individual?
means the right to have your marriage recognized by all individuals in society as such, and the right to never have their choices characterized as something immoral (which are hardly rights at all, in my opinion, but then, people have advanced the arguments that they are -- see certain hate speech law implementations, etc.).
*Semi off-topic aside: I imagine you would ask whether religious groups should be allowed to discriminate against X minority -- I would argue that private organizations be allowed to do the same -- societal ostracism should ideally prove sufficient to discourage such things. Though, if the population at large agrees with this discrimination, then of course that is a 'bad outcome' -- but that is the cost of a free society. In its very nature, it can ensure its own suicide...
|
Given that this is already 10 pages in on a controversial topic this viewpoint may have been stated already, but I think that the church really ought to be allowed some exemptions from laws like these. I'm all for gay marriage as recognized by the state, and I do believe that calling it marriage is important in that it isn't just equal, its the same thing.
That said, I don't really see a good reason why the church ought to be forced to do something they view as immoral. For starters, from now on when I use "the church" I will be referring to a generalized view from american protestant and roman catholic churches. I understand that there are other religions that may seek exceptions, and that individual christian churches may be more tolerant, but for the sake of generalization I think this wording is justified. I personally find the church's stance on gays pretty backward, but it is to some extent a tenet of of their doctrine and it can be interpreted from the documents that the church is based on (notably the bible). And while the comparison to the BNP could be useful I think it falls apart under close scrutiny.
For example, discrimination vs religion is generally illegal, but shouldn't the church have the ability to screen applicants for church positions and make sure that they are christian? I believe that forcing the hand of the church on an issue like this will likely lead to no good and could be a dangerous violation of civil liberties.
On the other hand I think that the way that the law deals with these exemptions is not a good one. There really ought to be a registry somewhere of churches. The law need merely state that religious entities (as defined by those on the registry) may decline to perform marriages in their institution on a case by case basis. This allows for more liberal priests and pastors to continue to perform same sex marriages while not forcing the policy of the church as a whole.
I think in general a solution that would be better is for the government no longer to offer marriages, i.e. everything is a civil union in the eyes of the government and if you want to get "married" then you take it up with your religious leader. Marriage to me does have it roots in religion along with the state, and for the purposes of law it would make some sense to simply have the government no longer engage in what many still view to be a religious institution. Civil unions serve the same purpose because in the eyes of the government, marriage is essentially an economic contract between 2 people, and there is no reason those 2 people can't be of the same sex. I think this could go hand in hand with regulations making divorce much simpler, but that is a debate for another day.
|
Yeah I am not getting the confusion. This is a good thing for homosexuals. It seems people want to have their cake and eat it too.
The law is essentially forcing Religious institutions to stick to their doctrines, and not try to customize them to their own views.
As a theist, I perfectly fine with this. Even if you believe that discrimination against homosexuals is immoral. There are no provision for practicing homosexuality in theology. Key word being practicing.
In simpler terms even if the church were to somehow allow homosexuality, all those involved are still going against the doctrine, and therefore condemned sinners.
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
The law is essentially forcing Religious institutions to stick to their doctrines, and not try to customize them to their own views.
Do you really think it should be within the state's powers to enforce a religion's self-consistency?
In simpler terms even if the church we to somehow allow homosexuality, all those involved are still going against the doctrine, and therefore condemned sinners.
Okay, fine, then they are guilty of being "condemned sinners," should that really be a crime?
|
On December 12 2012 14:34 419 wrote:Show nested quote +The law is essentially forcing Religious institutions to stick to their doctrines, and not try to customize them to their own views.
Do you really think it should be within the state's powers to enforce a religion's self-consistency? Show nested quote +In simpler terms even if the church we to somehow allow homosexuality, all those involved are still going against the doctrine, and therefore condemned sinners.
Okay, fine, then they are guilty of being "condemned sinners," should that really be a crime?
In this situation yes.
This seems to be the conclusion. To essentially have it both ways. Allow gay marriage while maintaining the religious doctrine of marriage being between a man and a woman.
It's a crime because it's no longer just a religious doctrine, but a state law.
|
On December 12 2012 14:15 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 14:01 ninini wrote:On December 12 2012 13:49 Jisall wrote:On December 12 2012 13:46 ninini wrote:
This is good. Allow gays to get married, but also preserve the churches right to set their own rules and moral codes.
I don't understand the ppl who are against them having this right. You're telling the churches that they must go against their own moral code, just because your personal moral code is different. That's you discriminating against churches. Just let the churches do what they want. I'm against the law forcing churches to reject marrying gays or face legal troubles. Some churches are more liberal then others. Other then that the law is perfect. The churches can make their own decisions on the matter. Noone is forcing anyone. Well, if one priest disagrees with his churches stance, he will need to switch to another church, but that's a good thing. The churches (especially the Protestant ones) could use some more consistency in their teachings. Give gays the option of marriage, and let each church have a right to turn them down if their moral code doesn't agree with it. This sentiment ignores the very foundation of the Church of England and the manner with which doctrinal change occurs in the Anglican tradition. This sort of legislation would have felt very at home amongst Catholic sympathizers circa 1525.
Are you for real? All this hatred towards religion that we see today is disgusting. Hundreds of years ago, we were forced to accept religion in most of the western world, and now, extreme leftists wants to remove all religious rights. You say you want perfect freedom, but you don't want to include the freedom of ppl who views things differently than you. That's not freedom.
|
On December 12 2012 16:39 ninini wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 14:15 farvacola wrote:On December 12 2012 14:01 ninini wrote:On December 12 2012 13:49 Jisall wrote:On December 12 2012 13:46 ninini wrote:
This is good. Allow gays to get married, but also preserve the churches right to set their own rules and moral codes.
I don't understand the ppl who are against them having this right. You're telling the churches that they must go against their own moral code, just because your personal moral code is different. That's you discriminating against churches. Just let the churches do what they want. I'm against the law forcing churches to reject marrying gays or face legal troubles. Some churches are more liberal then others. Other then that the law is perfect. The churches can make their own decisions on the matter. Noone is forcing anyone. Well, if one priest disagrees with his churches stance, he will need to switch to another church, but that's a good thing. The churches (especially the Protestant ones) could use some more consistency in their teachings. Give gays the option of marriage, and let each church have a right to turn them down if their moral code doesn't agree with it. This sentiment ignores the very foundation of the Church of England and the manner with which doctrinal change occurs in the Anglican tradition. This sort of legislation would have felt very at home amongst Catholic sympathizers circa 1525. Are you for real? All this hatred towards religion that we see today is disgusting. Hundreds of years ago, we were forced to accept religion in most of the western world, and now, extreme leftists wants to remove all religious rights. You say you want perfect freedom, but you don't want to include the freedom of ppl who views things differently than you. That's not freedom.
you're criticizing the wrong guy. (edit: on this count at least)
|
On December 12 2012 16:39 ninini wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 14:15 farvacola wrote:On December 12 2012 14:01 ninini wrote:On December 12 2012 13:49 Jisall wrote:On December 12 2012 13:46 ninini wrote:
This is good. Allow gays to get married, but also preserve the churches right to set their own rules and moral codes.
I don't understand the ppl who are against them having this right. You're telling the churches that they must go against their own moral code, just because your personal moral code is different. That's you discriminating against churches. Just let the churches do what they want. I'm against the law forcing churches to reject marrying gays or face legal troubles. Some churches are more liberal then others. Other then that the law is perfect. The churches can make their own decisions on the matter. Noone is forcing anyone. Well, if one priest disagrees with his churches stance, he will need to switch to another church, but that's a good thing. The churches (especially the Protestant ones) could use some more consistency in their teachings. Give gays the option of marriage, and let each church have a right to turn them down if their moral code doesn't agree with it. This sentiment ignores the very foundation of the Church of England and the manner with which doctrinal change occurs in the Anglican tradition. This sort of legislation would have felt very at home amongst Catholic sympathizers circa 1525. Are you for real? All this hatred towards religion that we see today is disgusting. Hundreds of years ago, we were forced to accept religion in most of the western world, and now, extreme leftists wants to remove all religious rights. You say you want perfect freedom, but you don't want to include the freedom of ppl who views things differently than you. That's not freedom.
Please read my previous posts in this thread, I think what I said will make more sense that way. I don't want to remove religious rights, I want the government to stay out of laity-clergy dynamics of doctrinal determination.
|
I may be misinterpreting the law but I don't understand what utility there is in making it illegal for a church to perform a gay marriage if they put their name on the list. I don't really understand why people are so against changing the legal definition either. It's like people make up all these pretend reasons why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed to hide the real reason they are against it.
If they aren't insisting their church would be forced to marry gay people they are insisting it would erode "moral values" or that marriage is a religious concept. Guess what, is not a religious concept. A church doesn't legally marry someone the government does and they do not have a monopoly on marriage nor should they be able to define marriage because it offends them and their god.
Marriage literally predates religions such as Christianity by at least 5000 years. Yeah, you can say god created marriage when he made adam and eve but you have to realize not everyone believes that and just because you do doesn't mean you can force your religious laws on people who don't subscribe to your beliefs.
excuse the bad english it's really late.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
