|
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 13 2012 02:48 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 02:38 Penev wrote:On December 13 2012 02:30 ZasZ. wrote:On December 13 2012 02:00 KwarK wrote:
We have no problems kicking out rude people or denying alcohol to drunks despite the current rules, you can deny service for any non discriminatory reason legally. But it is so difficult to prove unlawful discrimination unless the person is dumb enough to say "You're black/gay/female, get the fuck out." Businesses would like to avoid disgruntled customers who are pissed they are being denied service so claim discrimination. It may not hold up in court when it's discovered this person was a shoplifter/drunk/generally rude, but it's still a pain in the ass. The UK can do what it wants, and it sounds like there is legal precedent for cracking down on unlawful discrimination. It's just my personal belief that if a business owner wants to make the social and economical (poor) decision of excluding a particular demographic, it will result in social and economical consequences, and legal consequences shouldn't be piled on. But that's a business, not a religion. I think religion should be even safer from these laws, because it is essentially a club with a system of beliefs. Forcing them to go against their beliefs, or welcome people they do not wish to welcome, defeats the purpose of allowing the religion to exist in the first place. I am not a religious person at all, btw, and support homosexual marriage. I'm curious; Do you think the right to discriminate should be limitless? The word "limitless" is a bit of a trap, so no. But I believe that it is the right of both the customer and the business to be able to conduct business with whomever they like for whatever reason they deem appropriate. If that reason is inappropriate, by public standards, that will reflect on their business and public perception. This isn't the 1960's, restaurants can't refuse to serve black people on principle and expect that to go over O.K.. I wouldn't agree with their decision to discriminate, and I wouldn't support their business, but I would respect their right to run the business however the fuck they want. But again, people are getting off-topic with the business discussion. A religion isn't a business. It's essentially a club with a specific set of beliefs. If you force a religion to welcome people they don't want or perform a ceremony in violation of their beliefs, why allow them to exist in the first place? The problem here is the religious association with marriage, and I'm not really sure why people get caught up in it. Unless you are a religious homosexual couple, in which case you should probably re-evaluate your commitment to the faith that doesn't want you.
Please don't think I'm trying to trap you because I'm not. I just feel that your line of thinking is a bit .. utopian for lack of a better word. I'm really curious as of where you draw the line on this. That's why I asked these "extreme" questions. I hope that you and people with the same opinion will still answer them or can explain in your own words where you'd draw the line.
|
On December 13 2012 02:58 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 02:55 sam!zdat wrote:
did you really just quote me a dictionary definition? (edit: and if you'll keep reading even that same article you quoted from, you'll find that it explicitly does not say "not religious by definition")
Is the purpose of the legislature to impose secular worldview on others?
edit: if you ever, ever say "by definition" in order to "prove" something, please take a moment to ask yourself whether you really know what you are saying Ah so we're going to be skeptical of wikipedia now. Ok, there's nothing left for me to do here.
Off-topic, but you should always be skeptical of Wikipedia. It's why they provide those fancy sources at the bottom, and should they be absent or lacking substance, you know that particular article is untrustworthy.
Wikipedia is widely considered a joke when it comes to reliable sources, and most professors would not be happy if you used it without vetting the sources that supplied the article.
|
On December 13 2012 02:37 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 02:30 ZasZ. wrote:On December 13 2012 02:00 KwarK wrote:
We have no problems kicking out rude people or denying alcohol to drunks despite the current rules, you can deny service for any non discriminatory reason legally. But it is so difficult to prove unlawful discrimination unless the person is dumb enough to say "You're black/gay/female, get the fuck out." Businesses would like to avoid disgruntled customers who are pissed they are being denied service so claim discrimination. It may not hold up in court when it's discovered this person was a shoplifter/drunk/generally rude, but it's still a pain in the ass. The UK can do what it wants, and it sounds like there is legal precedent for cracking down on unlawful discrimination. It's just my personal belief that if a business owner wants to make the social and economical (poor) decision of excluding a particular demographic, it will result in social and economical consequences, and legal consequences shouldn't be piled on. But that's a business, not a religion. I think religion should be even safer from these laws, because it is essentially a club with a system of beliefs. Forcing them to go against their beliefs, or welcome people they do not wish to welcome, defeats the purpose of allowing the religion to exist in the first place. I am not a religious person at all, btw, and support homosexual marriage. I still haven't seen anyone provide any reason for why a church is different than any other business from the perspective of secular law makers. People just keep saying it is...why? Because it's "important" to churchgoers? People are still taking for granted that church is more special than a bakery and I want them to justify it.
The short answer is that, in the US at least, freedom of religion is protected by the Constitution. Freedom of religion has been interpreted by the courts to mean that churches are generally exempted from even neutral legislation that burdens religous practices.
Justifying the rationale for this approach would require a pretty long essay, but basically I think you are right when you say that it's "Because it's 'important' to churchgoers," though "important" might be a bit of an understatement. Many people view their religion as a fundamental characteristic of their lives. You and I might argue about whether this is a healthy thing for people to base their lives on, but regardless, the US government has determined since its founding that allowing the government to interfere in things like this creates more harm than good, both to religions and to the state.
|
On December 13 2012 02:58 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 02:55 sam!zdat wrote:
did you really just quote me a dictionary definition? (edit: and if you'll keep reading even that same article you quoted from, you'll find that it explicitly does not say "not religious by definition")
Is the purpose of the legislature to impose secular worldview on others?
edit: if you ever, ever say "by definition" in order to "prove" something, please take a moment to ask yourself whether you really know what you are saying Ah so we're going to be skeptical of wikipedia now. Ok, there's nothing left for me to do here.
Wikipedia is an excellent "support" resource for online discourse. You've turned it into the structure of your argument itself, and that speaks volumes in terms of your willingness to do the very footwork you've been loudly expecting from everyone else in this thread.
"Hey everyone, bakerys and churches are exactly the same"
"Prove it!"
"Wikipedia says so, other than that no you prove I'm wrong!"
No one wants to debate with wikipedia, they want to debate with you.
|
On December 13 2012 03:01 Penev wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 02:48 ZasZ. wrote:On December 13 2012 02:38 Penev wrote:On December 13 2012 02:30 ZasZ. wrote:On December 13 2012 02:00 KwarK wrote:
We have no problems kicking out rude people or denying alcohol to drunks despite the current rules, you can deny service for any non discriminatory reason legally. But it is so difficult to prove unlawful discrimination unless the person is dumb enough to say "You're black/gay/female, get the fuck out." Businesses would like to avoid disgruntled customers who are pissed they are being denied service so claim discrimination. It may not hold up in court when it's discovered this person was a shoplifter/drunk/generally rude, but it's still a pain in the ass. The UK can do what it wants, and it sounds like there is legal precedent for cracking down on unlawful discrimination. It's just my personal belief that if a business owner wants to make the social and economical (poor) decision of excluding a particular demographic, it will result in social and economical consequences, and legal consequences shouldn't be piled on. But that's a business, not a religion. I think religion should be even safer from these laws, because it is essentially a club with a system of beliefs. Forcing them to go against their beliefs, or welcome people they do not wish to welcome, defeats the purpose of allowing the religion to exist in the first place. I am not a religious person at all, btw, and support homosexual marriage. I'm curious; Do you think the right to discriminate should be limitless? The word "limitless" is a bit of a trap, so no. But I believe that it is the right of both the customer and the business to be able to conduct business with whomever they like for whatever reason they deem appropriate. If that reason is inappropriate, by public standards, that will reflect on their business and public perception. This isn't the 1960's, restaurants can't refuse to serve black people on principle and expect that to go over O.K.. I wouldn't agree with their decision to discriminate, and I wouldn't support their business, but I would respect their right to run the business however the fuck they want. But again, people are getting off-topic with the business discussion. A religion isn't a business. It's essentially a club with a specific set of beliefs. If you force a religion to welcome people they don't want or perform a ceremony in violation of their beliefs, why allow them to exist in the first place? The problem here is the religious association with marriage, and I'm not really sure why people get caught up in it. Unless you are a religious homosexual couple, in which case you should probably re-evaluate your commitment to the faith that doesn't want you. Please don't think I'm trying to trap you because I'm not. I just feel that your line of thinking is a bit .. utopian for lack of a better word. I'm really curious as of where you draw the line on this. That's why I asked these "extreme" questions. I hope that you and people with the same opinion will still answer them or can explain in your own words where you'd draw the line.
imo as long as it's a private business or something where you arent obligated by some sort of qualifications (i.e. hippocratic oath) then they should have the right to do whatever they want with their business
|
On December 13 2012 03:01 Penev wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 02:48 ZasZ. wrote:On December 13 2012 02:38 Penev wrote:On December 13 2012 02:30 ZasZ. wrote:On December 13 2012 02:00 KwarK wrote:
We have no problems kicking out rude people or denying alcohol to drunks despite the current rules, you can deny service for any non discriminatory reason legally. But it is so difficult to prove unlawful discrimination unless the person is dumb enough to say "You're black/gay/female, get the fuck out." Businesses would like to avoid disgruntled customers who are pissed they are being denied service so claim discrimination. It may not hold up in court when it's discovered this person was a shoplifter/drunk/generally rude, but it's still a pain in the ass. The UK can do what it wants, and it sounds like there is legal precedent for cracking down on unlawful discrimination. It's just my personal belief that if a business owner wants to make the social and economical (poor) decision of excluding a particular demographic, it will result in social and economical consequences, and legal consequences shouldn't be piled on. But that's a business, not a religion. I think religion should be even safer from these laws, because it is essentially a club with a system of beliefs. Forcing them to go against their beliefs, or welcome people they do not wish to welcome, defeats the purpose of allowing the religion to exist in the first place. I am not a religious person at all, btw, and support homosexual marriage. I'm curious; Do you think the right to discriminate should be limitless? The word "limitless" is a bit of a trap, so no. But I believe that it is the right of both the customer and the business to be able to conduct business with whomever they like for whatever reason they deem appropriate. If that reason is inappropriate, by public standards, that will reflect on their business and public perception. This isn't the 1960's, restaurants can't refuse to serve black people on principle and expect that to go over O.K.. I wouldn't agree with their decision to discriminate, and I wouldn't support their business, but I would respect their right to run the business however the fuck they want. But again, people are getting off-topic with the business discussion. A religion isn't a business. It's essentially a club with a specific set of beliefs. If you force a religion to welcome people they don't want or perform a ceremony in violation of their beliefs, why allow them to exist in the first place? The problem here is the religious association with marriage, and I'm not really sure why people get caught up in it. Unless you are a religious homosexual couple, in which case you should probably re-evaluate your commitment to the faith that doesn't want you. Please don't think I'm trying to trap you because I'm not. I just feel that your line of thinking is a bit .. utopian for lack of a better word. I'm really curious as of where you draw the line on this. That's why I asked these "extreme" questions. I hope that you and people with the same opinion will still answer them or can explain in your own words where you'd draw the line.
I'm not sure what you mean about where I would draw the line. I felt I was pretty clear when I said I felt business should be able to serve who they want for whatever reason they want, and let society/economics sort them out if that is an unacceptable reason for their customer base.
In terms of practicality, it means that a business owner can refuse service to anyone, and does not have to give a reason why. I'm not necessarily opposed to unlawful discrimination laws, I'm just wary of their enforcement and the possibility of disgruntled customers, who were refused service for completely legitimate reasons, claiming discrimination and wasting people's time and money. It's an example of government involvement in an area that I believe can be better resolved by allowing society and economy to sort it out.
I am, however, opposed to unlawful discrimination laws for religious organizations. It completely defeats the purpose of allowing religious organizations to exist when you tell them who they can and cannot include and which religious ceremonies they must conduct whether they want to or not.
|
On December 13 2012 03:12 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 03:01 Penev wrote:On December 13 2012 02:48 ZasZ. wrote:On December 13 2012 02:38 Penev wrote:On December 13 2012 02:30 ZasZ. wrote:On December 13 2012 02:00 KwarK wrote:
We have no problems kicking out rude people or denying alcohol to drunks despite the current rules, you can deny service for any non discriminatory reason legally. But it is so difficult to prove unlawful discrimination unless the person is dumb enough to say "You're black/gay/female, get the fuck out." Businesses would like to avoid disgruntled customers who are pissed they are being denied service so claim discrimination. It may not hold up in court when it's discovered this person was a shoplifter/drunk/generally rude, but it's still a pain in the ass. The UK can do what it wants, and it sounds like there is legal precedent for cracking down on unlawful discrimination. It's just my personal belief that if a business owner wants to make the social and economical (poor) decision of excluding a particular demographic, it will result in social and economical consequences, and legal consequences shouldn't be piled on. But that's a business, not a religion. I think religion should be even safer from these laws, because it is essentially a club with a system of beliefs. Forcing them to go against their beliefs, or welcome people they do not wish to welcome, defeats the purpose of allowing the religion to exist in the first place. I am not a religious person at all, btw, and support homosexual marriage. I'm curious; Do you think the right to discriminate should be limitless? The word "limitless" is a bit of a trap, so no. But I believe that it is the right of both the customer and the business to be able to conduct business with whomever they like for whatever reason they deem appropriate. If that reason is inappropriate, by public standards, that will reflect on their business and public perception. This isn't the 1960's, restaurants can't refuse to serve black people on principle and expect that to go over O.K.. I wouldn't agree with their decision to discriminate, and I wouldn't support their business, but I would respect their right to run the business however the fuck they want. But again, people are getting off-topic with the business discussion. A religion isn't a business. It's essentially a club with a specific set of beliefs. If you force a religion to welcome people they don't want or perform a ceremony in violation of their beliefs, why allow them to exist in the first place? The problem here is the religious association with marriage, and I'm not really sure why people get caught up in it. Unless you are a religious homosexual couple, in which case you should probably re-evaluate your commitment to the faith that doesn't want you. Please don't think I'm trying to trap you because I'm not. I just feel that your line of thinking is a bit .. utopian for lack of a better word. I'm really curious as of where you draw the line on this. That's why I asked these "extreme" questions. I hope that you and people with the same opinion will still answer them or can explain in your own words where you'd draw the line. I'm not sure what you mean about where I would draw the line. I felt I was pretty clear when I said I felt business should be able to serve who they want for whatever reason they want, and let society/economics sort them out if that is an unacceptable reason for their customer base. In terms of practicality, it means that a business owner can refuse service to anyone, and does not have to give a reason why. I'm not necessarily opposed to unlawful discrimination laws, I'm just wary of their enforcement and the possibility of disgruntled customers, who were refused service for completely legitimate reasons, claiming discrimination and wasting people's time and money. It's an example of government involvement in an area that I believe can be better resolved by allowing society and economy to sort it out.
I am, however, opposed to unlawful discrimination laws for religious organizations. It completely defeats the purpose of allowing religious organizations to exist when you tell them who they can and cannot include and which religious ceremonies they must conduct whether they want to or not.
Do you apply this same logic to the Civil Rights Act of 1964? If not, why?
|
On December 13 2012 03:12 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 03:01 Penev wrote:On December 13 2012 02:48 ZasZ. wrote:On December 13 2012 02:38 Penev wrote:On December 13 2012 02:30 ZasZ. wrote:On December 13 2012 02:00 KwarK wrote:
We have no problems kicking out rude people or denying alcohol to drunks despite the current rules, you can deny service for any non discriminatory reason legally. But it is so difficult to prove unlawful discrimination unless the person is dumb enough to say "You're black/gay/female, get the fuck out." Businesses would like to avoid disgruntled customers who are pissed they are being denied service so claim discrimination. It may not hold up in court when it's discovered this person was a shoplifter/drunk/generally rude, but it's still a pain in the ass. The UK can do what it wants, and it sounds like there is legal precedent for cracking down on unlawful discrimination. It's just my personal belief that if a business owner wants to make the social and economical (poor) decision of excluding a particular demographic, it will result in social and economical consequences, and legal consequences shouldn't be piled on. But that's a business, not a religion. I think religion should be even safer from these laws, because it is essentially a club with a system of beliefs. Forcing them to go against their beliefs, or welcome people they do not wish to welcome, defeats the purpose of allowing the religion to exist in the first place. I am not a religious person at all, btw, and support homosexual marriage. I'm curious; Do you think the right to discriminate should be limitless? The word "limitless" is a bit of a trap, so no. But I believe that it is the right of both the customer and the business to be able to conduct business with whomever they like for whatever reason they deem appropriate. If that reason is inappropriate, by public standards, that will reflect on their business and public perception. This isn't the 1960's, restaurants can't refuse to serve black people on principle and expect that to go over O.K.. I wouldn't agree with their decision to discriminate, and I wouldn't support their business, but I would respect their right to run the business however the fuck they want. But again, people are getting off-topic with the business discussion. A religion isn't a business. It's essentially a club with a specific set of beliefs. If you force a religion to welcome people they don't want or perform a ceremony in violation of their beliefs, why allow them to exist in the first place? The problem here is the religious association with marriage, and I'm not really sure why people get caught up in it. Unless you are a religious homosexual couple, in which case you should probably re-evaluate your commitment to the faith that doesn't want you. Please don't think I'm trying to trap you because I'm not. I just feel that your line of thinking is a bit .. utopian for lack of a better word. I'm really curious as of where you draw the line on this. That's why I asked these "extreme" questions. I hope that you and people with the same opinion will still answer them or can explain in your own words where you'd draw the line. I'm not sure what you mean about where I would draw the line. I felt I was pretty clear when I said I felt business should be able to serve who they want for whatever reason they want, and let society/economics sort them out if that is an unacceptable reason for their customer base. In terms of practicality, it means that a business owner can refuse service to anyone, and does not have to give a reason why. I'm not necessarily opposed to unlawful discrimination laws, I'm just wary of their enforcement and the possibility of disgruntled customers, who were refused service for completely legitimate reasons, claiming discrimination and wasting people's time and money. It's an example of government involvement in an area that I believe can be better resolved by allowing society and economy to sort it out. I am, however, opposed to unlawful discrimination laws for religious organizations. It completely defeats the purpose of allowing religious organizations to exist when you tell them who they can and cannot include and which religious ceremonies they must conduct whether they want to or not.
Can you address shinosai's post from page 13?
This kind of post tends to completely ignore the historical reality that came from anti-discrimination laws. It's a sort of ad hoc mistake. Since the political climate has changed to be more tolerant of so-called deviants, it's obviously okay for people to discriminate, because they will suffer economic ruination if they do. But to say this completely ignores what actually happened 50 years ago. The reason that it's unacceptable to discriminate now is in part because the anti-discrimination laws increased awareness.
If McDonald's refused to serve African Americans, yes, people would stop going to McDonald's. But, on the other hand, if McDonald's refused to employ a relatively unknown minority (say transgender) then I'd be pretty willing to bet that no one would care. You base your argument on the fact that discrimination against well known and already protected minorities wouldn't be harmed, because it would be economically irrational for a corporation or company to do so. But actually, it's only economically irrational because we systematically made it so. Our anti-discrimination laws contributed to the cultural belief that discriminating against race is not okay. And for those minorities who are not well represented, well, they have no protection, either culturally or legally, so it would perfectly within McDonald's economic inclinations to refuse to hire or serve these people.
In other words, your logic of "economic correcting" only works for those who are already well represented both culturally and legally. It fucks everyone else.
History has shown that leaving society/economics to sort them out does not work.
|
On December 13 2012 02:39 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 02:34 Caihead wrote:On December 13 2012 02:30 ZasZ. wrote:On December 13 2012 02:00 KwarK wrote:
We have no problems kicking out rude people or denying alcohol to drunks despite the current rules, you can deny service for any non discriminatory reason legally. But it is so difficult to prove unlawful discrimination unless the person is dumb enough to say "You're black/gay/female, get the fuck out." Businesses would like to avoid disgruntled customers who are pissed they are being denied service so claim discrimination. It may not hold up in court when it's discovered this person was a shoplifter/drunk/generally rude, but it's still a pain in the ass. The UK can do what it wants, and it sounds like there is legal precedent for cracking down on unlawful discrimination. It's just my personal belief that if a business owner wants to make the social and economical (poor) decision of excluding a particular demographic, it will result in social and economical consequences, and legal consequences shouldn't be piled on. But that's a business, not a religion. I think religion should be even safer from these laws, because it is essentially a club with a system of beliefs. Forcing them to go against their beliefs, or welcome people they do not wish to welcome, defeats the purpose of allowing the religion to exist in the first place. I am not a religious person at all, btw, and support homosexual marriage. All of this is fine, but there's no alternative to getting married by religious institutions in most regions in the world, and often there is only THE religious institution endorsed by the state. You are forced to play ball with this club regardless of whether you want to join it or not, or if the owners want to keep you out or not. Which is why I stated, in an earlier post, that I am assuming that secular marriages for homosexual couples exist. If we are suddenly talking about countries that don't allow homosexuals to marry in any sense of the word or custom, that's a completely different can of worms. In that case, I would advise pushing for secular "civil partnerships" before trying to breach the marriage barrier, as it is much easier for people to swallow. Currently I'm imagining a muslim nation suddenly trying to force religious officials to perform gay marriages, and I don't see it going well. Many parts of the world are just behind when it comes to this particular issue, but that doesn't mean we can force them to catch up with everybody else. They have to make the transition slowly like the rest of us did.
Couldn't stay away... I think you are forgetting that marriage, particularly in the UK, has a strong cultural element rather than it being a purely religious institution. Specifically due to our pple religion being a state one, as well as to the decline of religious activity generally in this country.
And it is because of this social status that a couple gain when being 'married' rather than being 'partners' which means that it transcends questions of equality in law, as we still need to address questions of equality in fact which have yet to be resolved.
|
I'm not really sure why there's such a climate of tolerance of other people's beliefs. I'm not sure why it seems wrong for me to hate on religious people but religious people are allowed to hate gays/other religions/atheists because it's part of a belief system with no empirical basis. It's not the same as tolerating something which is intrinsically personal such as race or sexuality. You don't choose to be the race and sexuality you are and you won't hurt anyone by being it. You choose to have a religion (or rather someone or a collection of someones convinces you) and you can use religion as a tool to hurt people.
I think these new laws are a bad idea in the short term due to the extra grief the lgbts will get from it but a good thing in the long term as it should help to highlight the problems with religion i.e. it's use as a vehicle for intolerance. I'd like to think that within 50 or 60 years if society keeps moving forward in terms of tolerance, education and enlightenment religion will be illegal or treated like an illness where you can be cured by attending a logic class.
On a separate note I think this will allow society to become more accepting of gay couples. Ignoring the religious aspect altogether, calling what was previously a civil partnership a marriage makes it seem a lot more normal, like the same rules for everyone else also apply to gay couples, whereas not allowing gay people to marry just marks them out as separate from "normal" society which can't be a nice feeling.
|
On December 13 2012 03:19 Zrana wrote:
I'm not really sure why there's such a climate of tolerance of other people's beliefs. I'm not sure why it seems wrong for me to hate on religious people but religious people are allowed to hate gays/other religions/atheists because it's part of a belief system with no empirical basis. It's not the same as tolerating something which is intrinsically personal such as race or sexuality. You don't choose to be the race and sexuality you are and you won't hurt anyone by being it. You choose to have a religion (or rather someone or a collection of someones convinces you) and you can use religion as a tool to hurt people.
I think these new laws are a bad idea in the short term due to the extra grief the lgbts will get from it but a good thing in the long term as it should help to highlight the problems with religion i.e. it's use as a vehicle for intolerance. I'd like to think that within 50 or 60 years if society keeps moving forward in terms of tolerance, education and enlightenment religion will be illegal or treated like an illness where you can be cured by attending a logic class.
On a separate note I think this will allow society to become more accepting of gay couples. Ignoring the religious aspect altogether, calling what was previously a civil partnership a marriage makes it seem a lot more normal, like the same rules for everyone else also apply to gay couples, whereas not allowing gay people to marry just marks them out as separate from "normal" society which can't be a nice feeling.
I'm pretty sure there's nothing preventing you from disliking religious people, or treating them any way you want, provided that you don't violate any of the laws that also prevent athiests from being discriminated against...
|
It would help (me) if you just would answer my questions. Or give an example of discrimination that you, as a legislator, wouldn't allow a business and/ or an religion to get away with; Where would you limit their freedom to discriminate?
I personally think that the lesser evil is certainly having quite strict anti discrimination laws. The problem of people abusing such laws is much smaller than the problems that will arise when those laws would be absent.
|
On December 13 2012 03:32 Penev wrote:
It would help (me) if you just would answer my questions. Or give an example of discrimination that you, as a legislator, wouldn't allow a business and/ or an religion to get away with; Where would you limit their freedom to discriminate?
I would allow religion to discriminate much more freely than businesses. Businesses I think should be held to the common values of the society. Religions I do not, for me that is the point. Religion at this point serves an important function as heterotopia!
edit: you get a problem when religious people organize to extend discrimination into other spheres of society. Then the government can step in to fix things, analogously to affirmative action. But I think they cannot enter the sanctuary.
|
On December 12 2012 17:55 sam!zdat wrote:
You realize religion was around long before invention of writing, ya?
On December 12 2012 17:55 sam!zdat wrote:
Yes you're claiming that very loudly but I don't believe you.
Really means nothing, I'm positive you won't find a legit source saying marriage was a product of religion. People were cohabiting and starting families in monogamous relationships for almost the entirety of human history. I don't really want to play semantics but I think people living together like a family would constitute marriage even if there was no church, government, or invention of writing to officiate it.
On December 12 2012 17:55 sam!zdat wrote:
They didn't have priests? What happens when you get married in ancient egypt? Do you actually know? I don't, but I'd be surprised if you went to the courthouse and signed a contract.
edit: seems they didn't make an enormous deal of it. Whether this is separate from "religion" or not I think is an interesting question. I can't find any convincing source about this. Do you have one?
edit: at any rate, it doesn't matter. It's not a debate over the "intellectual property" of marriage, whether or not it belongs to "religion." The point is that, for the vast majority of the world's population, marriage IS a religious matter. You are far in the minority here. If you'd like to proselytize your views, go ahead, maybe you can convince everybody, but don't act like it's obvious because it's certainly not.
As for some sources on ancient egyptian marriage.
Marriage in ancient Egypt was a totally private affair in which the state took no interest and of which the state kept no record. There is no evidence for any legal or religious ceremony establishing the marriage, although there was probably a party.
http://fathom.lib.uchicago.edu/1/777777190170/
Marriage was purely a social arrangement that regulated property. Neither religious nor state doctrines entered into the marriage and, unlike other documents that related to economic matters (such as the so-called "marriage contracts"), marriages themselves were not registered. Apparently once a couple started living together, they were acknowledged to be married.
http://fathom.lib.uchicago.edu/2/21701778/
Excerpts from two different books on ancient egypt.
|
Interesting!
At any rate, it doesn't matter. It's not a question of the "intellectual property" of who "owns" marriage based on who seen 'er first. The point is that for the vast majority of people in the world, marriage IS a religious thing. The secularist view is in the minority here.
edit: I don't think simple cohabitation consitutes marriage in the sense we are discussing here, but far be it from me to argue "semantics" (pardon me while I stab myself with a rusty fork)
edit: yeah, it can't be, because the issue is not whether or not gay people should be allowed to cohabitate.
|
I've quite frequently thought that a reasonable approach would be for the government (any government) to not recognize the word "marriage" whatsoever (be it homosexual or heterosexual), and just have people call it what they want (like if they have a formal service at some church that allows their marriage then call it a marriage (or even if there isn't any group that allows it)).
The government would oversee the legal/secular/relevant part, and have all relationships called partnerships or personal unions.
Maybe someone mentioned this already, because I see the discussion above seems somewhat related to this ("why throw away a perfectly good word like marriage if it doesn't have religious origins?"). While the fact marriage was likely originally secular, now it's no longer the case really, and there's no sense in trying to reclaim a word when there's other perfectly fine words that can be used.
|
On December 13 2012 03:41 sam!zdat wrote:
Interesting!
At any rate, it doesn't matter. It's not a question of the "intellectual property" of who "owns" marriage based on who seen 'er first. The point is that for the vast majority of people in the world, marriage IS a religious thing. The secularist view is in the minority here.
edit: I don't think simple cohabitation consitutes marriage in the sense we are discussing here, but far be it from me to argue "semantics" (pardon me while I stab myself with a rusty fork)
edit: yeah, it can't be, because the issue is not whether or not gay people should be allowed to cohabitate.
Yeah, now you're just skewing our discussion. It started off with me saying marriage was a concept created separate from religion. I'm actually not sure what you're even arguing anymore, it evolved from marriage is a religious concept into marriage is a religious concept for most people.
|
Yes, fair enough. I'll concede the point and we can leave it to the anthropologists.
edit: oh, well marriage IS a religious concept. I'll stand by that. You were saying marriage isn't a religious concept because it didn't start out as a religious concept. I reject that, regardless of the truth of the second proposition.
|
A very good analysis KwarK, my first thought was also that legalising discrimination in one form yet making another form illegal was totally ridiculous. In my view it would be best to let people do what they want. If a gay couple wish to marry or become partners in a legal sense, that is fine and the procedure should be the same as any hetrosexual couple. If a religious group don't wish to marry homosexuals, again, fine - it is their choice as private citizens to marry who they wish. This requires no contradictory legislation. Enshrining the catholic churches right to discrimination in law is a total joke.
|
On December 13 2012 03:49 Xapti wrote:
I've quite frequently thought that a reasonable approach would be for the government (any government) to not recognize the word "marriage" whatsoever (be it homosexual or heterosexual), and just have people call it what they want (like if they have a formal service at some church that allows their marriage then call it a marriage (or even if there isn't any group that allows it)).
The government would oversee the legal/secular/relevant part, and have all relationships called partnerships or personal unions.
Maybe someone mentioned this already, because I see the discussion above seems somewhat related to this ("why throw away a perfectly good word like marriage if it doesn't have religious origins?"). While the fact marriage was likely originally secular, now it's no longer the case really, and there's no sense in trying to reclaim a word when there's other perfectly fine words that can be used.
Well 16% of the worlds population is non religious. That's a pretty large chunk. So for a minimum of 16% of the earth's population marriage is not a religious ceremony.
edt;wrong numbers
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
