EPTUK to legalise gay marriage, religious exemptions - Page 15
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
deth2munkies
United States4051 Posts
Having a Christian/Muslim official marriage is NOT a right, and is definitely not something that the government should be enforcing. This isn't the same as a political party introducing racial exclusions, this would be closer to enforcing affirmative action policies to get more minorities into a racist party. | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
On December 13 2012 03:57 Trowa127 wrote: 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. That's basically my opinion also. I don't think a church should marry anyone if they don't want to. I'm also ignorant on the issue of gays wanting to be married in a church is that a thing? I think it should be a legal contract between man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman. The church can still do their thing like normal, but the legal aspect should be equal for all orientations. The biggest part of the law that is strange to me is making it illegal to marry gays for the entirety of the group if this groups leaders decide to go ahead with taking the immunity. Why illegal? On December 13 2012 04:15 deth2munkies wrote: Why on Earth would a homosexual couple WANT to be married in the church of a religion whose central tenants include opposing homosexuality including (Old Testament style) it being punishable by death? The only reason I can think of is just to piss off Christians/Muslims. I mean there's no reason at all that these are legally different, why the hell is the government trampling over freedom of religious doctrine? It does not infringe at all on the civil liberties of homosexuals who already have a perfectly legal method of obtaining the same thing, all it is doing is enforcing an obligation on religious institutions to go against their own creeds for no reason. Having a Christian/Muslim official marriage is NOT a right, and is definitely not something that the government should be enforcing. This isn't the same as a political party introducing racial exclusions, this would be closer to enforcing affirmative action policies to get more minorities into a racist party. Exactly what religious freedoms are being trampled? I've seen a few posters say this and I don't see how this law tramples any religious freedoms besides what seems to be forcing entire groups of religions to be uniform on their gay marriage stance. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On December 13 2012 04:17 heliusx wrote: That's basically my opinion also. I don't think a church should marry anyone if they don't want to. I'm also ignorant on the issue of gays wanting to be married in a church is that a thing? I think it should be a legal contract between man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman. The church can still do their thing like normal, but the legal aspect should be equal for all orientations. The biggest part of the law that is strange to me is making it illegal to marry gays for the entirety of the group if this groups leaders decide to go ahead with taking the immunity. Why illegal? to avoid pretext. it is either the religion's belief that it is a sin, or it is not. if you allow a religion to say they refuse to do gay marriages because its a sin, but allow the members to pick and choose then you are establishing that it truly isnt a belief of the church. dont forget that this is an exception to the rule (i.e., we are banning "discrimination," but will provide an exception to those religions that it is against their religious tenants). if religions want to be wishy-washy on this issue, they shouldnt be allowed to "discriminate" under an exception to the general rule. | ||
|
ampson
United States2355 Posts
| ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On December 13 2012 05:42 ampson wrote: The law doesn't give religions the right to discriminate. As they define marriage as being between a man and a woman (this is true for almost all religions almost all of the time), it is not discrimination to deny a marriage to two men. Would it be discrimination for a rabbi not to perform Bar Mitzvah for some random kid who had never read the Torah in his life? No, as he does not meet the criteria for the ceremony. As being a couple of a man and a woman is part of almost all religions criteria for marriage, it is not discrimination for them to deny same-sex marriage. if i define white people as non-humans, and then say that they don't have any rights because--similar to animals--they are non-human, then i guess i am not discriminating against white people by denying them rights. | ||
|
meadbert
United States681 Posts
Can you marry your son so he can inherit your property without paying inheritance tax? If you cannot why? Traditionally marriage between close relatives was banned largely to prevent inbreeding, but since there is 0 chance of breeding would that matter? Also, would you need to consummate a marriage or is it none of the government's business how often (if ever) you have sex? | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
On December 13 2012 05:42 ampson wrote: The law doesn't give religions the right to discriminate. As they define marriage as being between a man and a woman (this is true for almost all religions almost all of the time), it is not discrimination to deny a marriage to two men. Would it be discrimination for a rabbi not to perform Bar Mitzvah for some random kid who had never read the Torah in his life? No, as he does not meet the criteria for the ceremony. As being a couple of a man and a woman is part of almost all religions criteria for marriage, it is not discrimination for them to deny same-sex marriage. Well your analogy is broken, a kid who didn't read his torah is a preventable situation and is not at all comparable to a homosexual not being able to chose what his orientation is. On December 13 2012 05:48 meadbert wrote: So what are rules regarding "marriages" between siblings or parents and does it matter whether they are same sex or not? Can you marry your son so he can inherit your property without paying inheritance tax? If you cannot why? Traditionally marriage between close relatives was banned largely to prevent inbreeding, but since there is 0 chance of breeding would that matter? Also, would you need to consummate a marriage or is it none of the government's business how often (if ever) you have sex? I'm guessing you're going to do the slippery slope thing and your next post will be about bestiality or some crap because it would literally take you 20 seconds to google those questions. Incest is illegal in Scotland England and Wales. It is defined as sexual intercourse between a person and their parent (including adoptive parent), grandparent, child, grandchild, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece. It is punishable with up to two years' imprisonment. For familial child sex offenses, the parent and sibling relationship definitions include step-parents and step-siblings | ||
|
BallinWitStalin
1177 Posts
However, I do have a question: It seems pretty stupid that it would now be "illegal" for homosexual marriages to occur in church bodies, according to the law. This is going to be a large problem for churches that have traditionally been decentralized. The side effect of this law is that the government is essentially forcing centralized decision making on church bodies, ignoring their past traditions. In Canada, for example, the United Church of Canada is a very decentralized church, with a lot of decisions made on a local basis. I think a lot of protestant churches operate this way. The UCC made an executive decision to recognize gay marriages. However, there was a small dissenting minority of "more conservative" churches. These churches were never "forced" to perform gay marriage, the ruling ultimately meant that churches that wanted to do them could. Under this law, it's a "yea" or "nay" for a particular national church. National church governing structures that previously allowed for dissenting opinions and respected decentralized decision making (fantastic things, in my opinion) are being forced to make all churches belonging to a specific denomination "tow the line" At the least, this erodes the power of individual parishes to govern their own affairs, which sucks, and at the worst it will cause schisms in religious denominations that would otherwise have "agreed to disagree". Trust me when I say this is a make or break issue for many churches, even within a particular denomination. TLDR: This law, as I understand it from Kwark's post, will impose centralized decision making on church denominations that otherwise allowed for dissenting opinions and decentralization. I think that sucks. | ||
|
ampson
United States2355 Posts
On December 13 2012 05:46 dAPhREAk wrote: if i define white people as non-humans, and then say that they don't have any rights because--similar to animals--they are non-human, then i guess i am not discriminating against white people by denying them rights. Except it is established that white people, and every other race, are humans. Religious marriage has a long and established definition of being between a man and a woman. In a secular marriage or civil union (AKA a right given to the people by the government) it is a different story. But if someone wants to be married by a church they should have to adhere to that church's conditions. It's not discrimination. On December 13 2012 06:13 heliusx wrote: Well your analogy is broken, a kid who didn't read his torah is a preventable situation and is not at all comparable to a homosexual not being able to chose what his orientation is. The analogy is fine. A kid who didn't read the Torah should not be able to force people to give him a religious designation he is not qualified for. Two men or two women do not meet the qualifications for most religious marriages, so they should not be able to force a church which does not wish to to marry them. Preventable situation or not, it does not matter. | ||
|
ninini
Sweden1204 Posts
On December 12 2012 18:03 KwarK wrote: You have failed to read and to understand his post. Following the foundation of the Church of England there were a series of religious conflicts in which orthodoxy was enforced by the state, men who translated the Bible into English were burned for example. This is comparable to that and it is certainly not religion bashing, it's a point regarding the relationship between church and state This is not the same. This doesn't mean that the state can enforce the churches morals. What this means is that the state grants the church the right to restrict the constitution of marriage if they wish. Since marriage is alteast partly a religious practice they should have the religious right to define the difference between a legal and illegal marriage. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
The main problem I have with this is that the secular law can serve as a weapon for whatever internal camp of a religious sect that wields the most political power at the given moment. It's completely inaccurate and seriously asinine to think that any of the Christian sects in the present day UK does not have debates and dissent when it comes to some of the more popular social questions like gay marriage or the ordination of women. The question of gay marriage, women clergy, and gay clergymen have been such a huge point of debate, dissent, and even division within the Anglican Church all throughout the period of Rowan Williams' time as Archbishop of Canterbury (he is retiring at the end of this year). So what this law would do is give pretty much complete power to the conservatives and utterly stifle any dissent that may come from the progressives and the liberals. Not only would their dissent be viewed as contrary opinion that can be opposed through orthodoxy, but also something that can be brought to secular court if they go as far as to marry a gay couple as it would be illegal under the law of the nation - and this is just absurd. Imagine how insane it would be if we go back to when that Catholic bishop ordained a number of women as priests and the aftermath of this heresy wasn't only the prompt excommunication of the bishop and the women, but also prosecution for breaking secular law. It's just insane. edit: You guys are fucking silly "debating" the same tired polemic, ignorant, dumb "talking points" about religion instead of actually looking and discussing the actual goddamned case that has been presented to us in the OP. | ||
|
meadbert
United States681 Posts
On December 13 2012 06:13 heliusx wrote: Well your analogy is broken, a kid who didn't read his torah is a preventable situation and is not at all comparable to a homosexual not being able to chose what his orientation is. I'm guessing you're going to do the slippery slope thing and your next post will be about bestiality or some crap because it would literally take you 20 seconds to google those questions. You misunderstand me. I am not curious about sexual relationships between family members. I want to know if an asexual marriage would be legal. For instance if you have two elderly siblings who have already lost their first spouses, can they marry each other for all of the other advantages it would give them even though there would be no sex involved. So lets say two sisters both lose their husbands and they are now in their 70s or 80s and live together. Would they be able to marry each other so that if one dies the other can inherit their property (which might consist of the other half or even the whole house they live in) without paying inheritance tax? | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On December 13 2012 06:47 ampson wrote: Except it is established that white people, and every other race, are humans. Religious marriage has a long and established definition of being between a man and a woman. In a secular marriage or civil union (AKA a right given to the people by the government) it is a different story. But if someone wants to be married by a church they should have to adhere to that church's conditions. It's not discrimination. The analogy is fine. A kid who didn't read the Torah should not be able to force people to give him a religious designation he is not qualified for. Two men or two women do not meet the qualifications for most religious marriages, so they should not be able to force a church which does not wish to to marry them. Preventable situation or not, it does not matter. just because they have been "discriminating" for a millennium or more does not not make it any less "discriminatory." do we really need to get into the "mark of cain," and how slavery was justified? | ||
|
Crushinator
Netherlands2138 Posts
On December 13 2012 06:47 ampson wrote: Except it is established that white people, and every other race, are humans. Religious marriage has a long and established definition of being between a man and a woman. In a secular marriage or civil union (AKA a right given to the people by the government) it is a different story. But if someone wants to be married by a church they should have to adhere to that church's conditions. It's not discrimination. The analogy is fine. A kid who didn't read the Torah should not be able to force people to give him a religious designation he is not qualified for. Two men or two women do not meet the qualifications for most religious marriages, so they should not be able to force a church which does not wish to to marry them. Preventable situation or not, it does not matter. Clearly many religions do discriminate between homosexual and heterosexual relationships, since they find one, but not the other, worthy of marriage. This clearly fits the definition of the word discrimination. The whole claim that the church does not discriminate against homesexuals, because they are totally free to marry someone of the opposite sex, is ridiculous. | ||
|
meadbert
United States681 Posts
On December 13 2012 07:01 Crushinator wrote: Clearly many religions do discriminate between homosexual and heterosexual relationships, since they find one, but not the other, worthy of marriage. This clearly fits the definition of the word discrimination. The whole claim that the church does not discriminate against homesexuals, because they are totally free to marry someone of the opposite sex, is ridiculous. This guy is correct. When you only allow person A to marry from one set of people and you only allow person B to marry from a completely different set then you have discriminated between them and in this case it is by their gender. | ||
|
deth2munkies
United States4051 Posts
On December 13 2012 04:17 heliusx wrote: That's basically my opinion also. I don't think a church should marry anyone if they don't want to. I'm also ignorant on the issue of gays wanting to be married in a church is that a thing? I think it should be a legal contract between man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman. The church can still do their thing like normal, but the legal aspect should be equal for all orientations. The biggest part of the law that is strange to me is making it illegal to marry gays for the entirety of the group if this groups leaders decide to go ahead with taking the immunity. Why illegal? Exactly what religious freedoms are being trampled? I've seen a few posters say this and I don't see how this law tramples any religious freedoms besides what seems to be forcing entire groups of religions to be uniform on their gay marriage stance. Religions that have prohibitions on certain activities should be respected. There's a reason why the army provides kosher meals, special accomodations for fasting Muslims, etc. This is absolutely no different, it's forcing a religion to violate its own tenants under government decree. Again, they're totally free to have a legal marriage, there's no reason to force churches to perform religious ceremonies that violate the tenants of their own religion. | ||
|
Crushinator
Netherlands2138 Posts
On December 13 2012 07:28 deth2munkies wrote: Religions that have prohibitions on certain activities should be respected. There's a reason why the army provides kosher meals, special accomodations for fasting Muslims, etc. This is absolutely no different, it's forcing a religion to violate its own tenants under government decree. Again, they're totally free to have a legal marriage, there's no reason to force churches to perform religious ceremonies that violate the tenants of their own religion. The laws discussed in the OP do not force anyone to perform ceremonies of any kind. Which is exactly what the person you quoted was saying. | ||
KwarK
United States43664 Posts
On December 13 2012 07:28 deth2munkies wrote: Religions that have prohibitions on certain activities should be respected. There's a reason why the army provides kosher meals, special accomodations for fasting Muslims, etc. This is absolutely no different, it's forcing a religion to violate its own tenants under government decree. Again, they're totally free to have a legal marriage, there's no reason to force churches to perform religious ceremonies that violate the tenants of their own religion. Violating your tenants doesn't mean what you think it means, it's something landlords do to deep sleepers when they have spare keys to properties. The army is free to chose to do whatever it likes to accommodate its employees although I suspect that when you say "the army" you mean the American one because of overwhelming ethnocentrism. In the UK the army offers all sorts of food packs ranging from kosher to vegetarian to halal to Gurkha and many more, it's not an exclusively religious thing, they're just trying to be nice to the soldiers. | ||
|
ampson
United States2355 Posts
On December 13 2012 06:57 dAPhREAk wrote: just because they have been "discriminating" for a millennium or more does not not make it any less "discriminatory." do we really need to get into the "mark of cain," and how slavery was justified? Slavery was not justified as it can be scientifically proven that blacks are in fact human and deserving of every right that other humans enjoy from their government. You can not scientifically prove that homosexuals should be able to marry each other. It is an opinion, and religious marriage is a religious construct. Secular, government issued marriages and civil unions are, as I said, a different story. But one can not force a religion to perform their own service for people who it was not intended for. Religions are not making homosexuals suffer. They are not depriving homosexuals any rights, as rights come from the government. On December 13 2012 07:05 meadbert wrote: This guy is correct. When you only allow person A to marry from one set of people and you only allow person B to marry from a completely different set then you have discriminated between them and in this case it is by their gender. Again, it is not discrimination. Religious marriage can be seen as a private club in this case. To be in a private club, you must fulfill some kind of criteria (member dues, special abilities or qualifications). In this case, that criteria is that to enter this "Club" is you must be a man and a woman. It is a completely private club, and nobody is being forced to enter. There are no unfair advantages for being in this club. The government should in no way be able to force a private institution such as this to change a long and established tradition that belongs to them. | ||
| ||
