|
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 07:41 ampson wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 06:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 13 2012 06:47 ampson wrote:On December 13 2012 05:46 dAPhREAk wrote: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. 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: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. 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? 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. Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 07:05 meadbert wrote: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 homosexuals, 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. 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.
Criteria are things we use to discriminate. In this case criteria are used to discriminate agains homosexuals. These are facts.
|
United States41961 Posts
On December 13 2012 07:41 ampson wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 06:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 13 2012 06:47 ampson wrote:On December 13 2012 05:46 dAPhREAk wrote: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. 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: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. 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? 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. Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 07:05 meadbert wrote: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 homosexuals, 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. 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.
You haven't addressed how this "private clubs can exercise their discretion over their own matters including discriminatory policies" can be reconciled with the UK anti discrimination laws which have previously seen other private clubs forced to act against their fundamental beliefs. Intellectual honesty requires that all discrimination by private groups is permitted or none is permitted, or that religious discrimination can be shown to be permissible in situations where other groups would not be allowed to. Remember, what this law grants them is a special exemption from previous laws which they could fall victim to, it is an unprecedented move and it is offered only to religious groups.
|
On December 13 2012 07:41 ampson wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 06:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 13 2012 06:47 ampson wrote:On December 13 2012 05:46 dAPhREAk wrote: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. 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: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. 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? 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.
lol. you are so off from the point. just as religions have used their religious scripture to say that blacks dont deserve rights, they have used religious scripture to say that gays dont deserve rights. i am not sure why you are even attempting to debate this.
regardless, my point was that there is no possible way to say that preventing gays from marrying is not discrimination. it is by definition discrimination because you are saying that marriage should be allowed for heterosexuals, but not homosexuals. you seem to think that if you define the term marriage as only applying to heterosexuals then it no longer becomes discrimination, but that is off base because by defining it that way, you are discriminating.
the real question, which is not the point of this thread, is not whether its discrimination, which it is, but whether such discrimination is wrong. a lot of people use the word discrimination likes its a naughty word, it is not. i discriminate all the time. i like chocolate, not vanilla, ice cream. i like mt dew, not sierra mist. discrimination is not inherently wrong. religions discriminate, but whether it is wrong is a different question.
|
On December 13 2012 07:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 07:41 ampson wrote:On December 13 2012 06:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 13 2012 06:47 ampson wrote:On December 13 2012 05:46 dAPhREAk wrote: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. 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: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. 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? 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: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 homosexuals, 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. 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. You haven't addressed how this "private clubs can exercise their discretion over their own matters including discriminatory policies" can be reconciled with the UK anti discrimination laws which have previously seen other private clubs forced to act against their fundamental beliefs.
In the case of the BNP that you talked about, I fundamentally disagree with whatever anti-discrimination legislation forced them to accept black people into their party and hope that this law will be the new precedent. As long as the "discrimination" against people by private clubs does not hurt anyone or deny them of rights that the government gives to all under their jurisdiction, it is absolutely fine, and while it may be "discrimination" it hurts nobody and I am completely for a private groups right to it. It is still not discrimination in the sense that it is bad according to the law. It is discrimination as in choosiness. It does not deserve the negative connotation that is being applied to it by many on this forum.
On December 13 2012 07:44 Crushinator wrote:
Criteria are things we use to discriminate. In this case criteria are used to discriminate agains homosexuals. These are facts.
In the sense that discrimination is simply who can and can not do something, you would be correct. I will say, as I am with other posters, that it is discrimination but it is not negative discrimination in the same vein that the blacks were discriminated against.
On December 13 2012 07:53 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 07:41 ampson wrote:On December 13 2012 06:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 13 2012 06:47 ampson wrote:On December 13 2012 05:46 dAPhREAk wrote: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. 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: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. 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? 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. lol. you are so off from the point. just as religions have used their religious scripture to say that blacks dont deserve rights, they have used religious scripture to say that gays dont deserve rights. i am not sure why you are even attempting to debate this. regardless, my point was that there is no possible way to say that preventing gays from marrying is not discrimination. it is by definition discrimination because you are saying that marriage should be allowed for heterosexuals, but not homosexuals. you seem to think that if you define the term marriage as only applying to heterosexuals then it no longer becomes discrimination, but that is off base because by defining it that way, you are discriminating. the real question, which is not the point of this thread, is not whether its discrimination, which it is, but whether such discrimination is wrong. a lot of people use the word discrimination likes its a naughty word, it is not. i discriminate all the time. i like chocolate, not vanilla, ice cream. i like mt dew, not sierra mist. discrimination is not inherently wrong. religions discriminate, but whether it is wrong is a different question.
Marriage is not a right. Stop saying that it is. Marriage in the religious sense is a privilege for members of whichever church is in question. In the way that you define discrimination, I agree. Religious marriage does discriminate who can receive it, just as nearly everything on this earth discriminates according to your definition.
|
marriage is not only a right, it is a fundamental right (in the United States).
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
|
On December 13 2012 07:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 07:41 ampson wrote:On December 13 2012 06:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 13 2012 06:47 ampson wrote:On December 13 2012 05:46 dAPhREAk wrote: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. 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: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. 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? 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: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 homosexuals, 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. 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. You haven't addressed how this "private clubs can exercise their discretion over their own matters including discriminatory policies" can be reconciled with the UK anti discrimination laws which have previously seen other private clubs forced to act against their fundamental beliefs. Intellectual honesty requires that all discrimination by private groups is permitted or none is permitted, or that religious discrimination can be shown to be permissible in situations where other groups would not be allowed to. Remember, what this law grants them is a special exemption from previous laws which they could fall victim to, it is an unprecedented move and it is offered only to religious groups.
So then would you be comfortable with the first option you present, that all private discrimination be legalized? Don't know if you're actually presenting them as two realistic possibilities, or are just sarcastic about the first one.
|
On December 13 2012 08:07 dAPhREAk wrote:marriage is not only a right, it is a fundamental right (in the United States). Show nested quote +Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
That decision was about legislation which would limit marriage, not the ability of the church to choose who they would marry. And I do not agree with the United States' current laws regarding gay marriage, as if a government is issuing marriages (As the US government does) they should give them to all. Forcing the church to do it is another matter. Clearly the UK recognizes marriage as a right, and apply it to all, but they should not be able to force religious marriages to follow suit.
|
On December 13 2012 08:14 soon.Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 07:45 KwarK wrote:On December 13 2012 07:41 ampson wrote:On December 13 2012 06:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 13 2012 06:47 ampson wrote:On December 13 2012 05:46 dAPhREAk wrote: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. 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: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. 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? 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: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 homosexuals, 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. 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. You haven't addressed how this "private clubs can exercise their discretion over their own matters including discriminatory policies" can be reconciled with the UK anti discrimination laws which have previously seen other private clubs forced to act against their fundamental beliefs. Intellectual honesty requires that all discrimination by private groups is permitted or none is permitted, or that religious discrimination can be shown to be permissible in situations where other groups would not be allowed to. Remember, what this law grants them is a special exemption from previous laws which they could fall victim to, it is an unprecedented move and it is offered only to religious groups. So then would you be comfortable with the first option you present, that all private discrimination be legalized? Don't know if you're actually presenting them as two realistic possibilities, or are just sarcastic about the first one.
You should probably read the OP. It explains how some racist organizations were forced to let blacks join them and also how this "discrimination lawsuit immunity" will only be available to religious institutions who choose to accept it's regulations.
|
On December 13 2012 08:15 ampson wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 08:07 dAPhREAk wrote:marriage is not only a right, it is a fundamental right (in the United States). Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) That decision was about legislation which would limit marriage, not the ability of the church to choose who they would marry. And I do not agree with the United States' current laws regarding gay marriage, as if a government is issuing marriages (As the US government does) they should give them to all. Forcing the church to do it is another matter. Clearly the UK recognizes marriage as a right, and apply it to all, but they should not be able to force religious marriages to follow suit.
i dont know what you are talking about anymore. you said marriage wasnt a right; it clearly is a right. you are now saying you dont agree with the law (you know, the thing that defines people's rights), which is completely irrelevant to anything i have said. and now you are talking about forcing the church to do something, which is something i never even discussed. i feel like i am playing whack-a-mole.
|
On December 13 2012 08:15 ampson wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 08:07 dAPhREAk wrote:marriage is not only a right, it is a fundamental right (in the United States). Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) That decision was about legislation which would limit marriage, not the ability of the church to choose who they would marry. And I do not agree with the United States' current laws regarding gay marriage, as if a government is issuing marriages (As the US government does) they should give them to all. Forcing the church to do it is another matter. Clearly the UK recognizes marriage as a right, and apply it to all, but they should not be able to force religious marriages to follow suit.
Absolutely no church is being forced to perform religious ceremonies for homosexuals who are married or getting married. I think you are misunderstanding the law.
|
On December 13 2012 08:03 ampson wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 07:44 Crushinator wrote:
Criteria are things we use to discriminate. In this case criteria are used to discriminate agains homosexuals. These are facts. In the sense that discrimination is simply who can and can not do something, you would be correct. I will say, as I am with other posters, that it is discrimination but it is not negative discrimination in the same vein that the blacks were discriminated against.
I am glad to see you concede this semantics point. But I don't understand what '''negative discrimination in the same vein that the blacks were discriminated against'' means.
Are you saying that it isn't negative discrimination? (because it clearly isn't positive discrimination) Or are you saying that the discrimination is justified? Or simply that religious institutions must have the freedom to discriminate in this manner? Or simply that while its bad, it isn't as bad as another bad thing?
|
United States41961 Posts
On December 13 2012 08:14 soon.Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 07:45 KwarK wrote:On December 13 2012 07:41 ampson wrote:On December 13 2012 06:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 13 2012 06:47 ampson wrote:On December 13 2012 05:46 dAPhREAk wrote: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. 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: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. 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? 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: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 homosexuals, 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. 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. You haven't addressed how this "private clubs can exercise their discretion over their own matters including discriminatory policies" can be reconciled with the UK anti discrimination laws which have previously seen other private clubs forced to act against their fundamental beliefs. Intellectual honesty requires that all discrimination by private groups is permitted or none is permitted, or that religious discrimination can be shown to be permissible in situations where other groups would not be allowed to. Remember, what this law grants them is a special exemption from previous laws which they could fall victim to, it is an unprecedented move and it is offered only to religious groups. So then would you be comfortable with the first option you present, that all private discrimination be legalized? Don't know if you're actually presenting them as two realistic possibilities, or are just sarcastic about the first one.
No, I think that if private groups are allowed to discriminate and say "if you don't like it then go to one of our rivals" doesn't work in a system that relies on private enterprise for so much of the foundations of society and that the long term social benefits of integration and worth the lack of freedom. It is distorting society but the shape it is moulding is simply better.
However it is one of the options, you can either accept that they are comparable and then apply the same standard to both, a standard I would disagree with if it legalised discrimination for both, or explain why they are not comparable. It wasn't sarcastic, it was trying to explain that the reason this law is interesting (to me, it's messed up in a bunch of other ways too like the state punishing schism) is precisely because the UK does have laws against private discrimination and that this exemption is unprecedented. Saying that this new law is fine because the old laws are wrong is a coherent stance, although not one I hold.
|
On December 13 2012 08:18 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 08:15 ampson wrote:On December 13 2012 08:07 dAPhREAk wrote:marriage is not only a right, it is a fundamental right (in the United States). Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) That decision was about legislation which would limit marriage, not the ability of the church to choose who they would marry. And I do not agree with the United States' current laws regarding gay marriage, as if a government is issuing marriages (As the US government does) they should give them to all. Forcing the church to do it is another matter. Clearly the UK recognizes marriage as a right, and apply it to all, but they should not be able to force religious marriages to follow suit. i dont know what you are talking about anymore. you said marriage wasnt a right; it clearly is a right. you are now saying you dont agree with the law (you know, the thing that defines people's rights), which is completely irrelevant to anything i have said. and now you are talking about forcing the church to do something, which is something i never even discussed. i feel like i am playing whack-a-mole.
Perhaps I should specify. Religious marriage (what I am mostly talking about) is not a right. Whether or not a government gives out secular marriages depends on the government. If the government gives these marriages, then they are a right. I say that I disagree with the U.S. gov't giving out only heterosexual marriages because the U.S. gov't has defined it as a right, and as such, refusing it to homosexual couples goes against my line of thinking. The part about forcing the churches to enforce these gov't given rights is simply to specify between Religious and Secular (gov't issued) marriage. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
On December 13 2012 08:19 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 08:15 ampson wrote:On December 13 2012 08:07 dAPhREAk wrote:marriage is not only a right, it is a fundamental right (in the United States). Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) That decision was about legislation which would limit marriage, not the ability of the church to choose who they would marry. And I do not agree with the United States' current laws regarding gay marriage, as if a government is issuing marriages (As the US government does) they should give them to all. Forcing the church to do it is another matter. Clearly the UK recognizes marriage as a right, and apply it to all, but they should not be able to force religious marriages to follow suit. Absolutely no church is being forced to perform religious ceremonies for homosexuals who are married or getting married. I think you are misunderstanding the law.
I'm not misunderstanding the law. I'm saying that I agree with it.
|
A lot of folks debating whether marriage is a right or whether allowing churches to not perform certain marriages is discrimination or not... I think it is not the central issue but to attend to it there is only one relevant question:
Is homosexuality an immutable trait? If you can't be in the tennis club because you don't play tennis, the fact that you don't play tennis is not an immutable trait--you can always go learn to play tennis. If you can't join a club because you are homosexual, you can't be told "just don't be homosexual". Sexual orientation, like race and gender and age, are immutable traits (as defined by the US Supreme Court for suspect or quasi-suspect classification) at least to the extent that they are immutable when it comes to matters of discriminitation--i.e. it is unfair for the government to ask you to just switch these things. That being the case, people of different sexual orientation should not be discriminated by public OR private entities. A restaurant cannot refuse service to a black person; a person who performs marriage ceremonies should not be able to refuse the service of marrying someone to a homosexual person. Whether marriage is a right or not is irrelevant--it is a legal procedure/service that is legislated and authorized by the government and the government should and cannot apply it differently to different groups of people without a compelling interest, and there is none in this respect.
Otherwise, I think the central issue here is:
Does requiring an ordained minister to perform a legal marriage inflict on the religious freedom of the church and/or the minister? This is tricky because a legal procedure is entangled with a religious procedure. In the eyes of the government the result of a marriage is no different when it is performed by a secular justice of the peace or a church-affiliated ordained minister; the resulting rights and laws that are applied are the same. Is forcing an ordained minister to perform a wedding ceremony a violation of religious freedom if he/she believes that ceremony violates his/her religious rights? The question then becomes "who's religious freedom" is specifically being violated. Does a pharmacist have to provide abortion-inducing drugs to a customer with a legally-procured prescription from a doctor, when said pharmacist does not believe in abortion? A pharmacists job is to provide prescribed drugs, they aren't supposed to be deciding which ones THEY want to give; should a person who performs a marriage ceremony be obligated to peform it for anyone that wants one? I'm not sure.
|
what is "religious marriage?" i have never heard of that before. as far as i know, if the gov't (U.S.) doesnt approve of the marriage (i.e., marriage certificate, witnesses, etc.), its not a marriage.
|
On December 13 2012 08:22 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 08:14 soon.Cloak wrote:On December 13 2012 07:45 KwarK wrote:On December 13 2012 07:41 ampson wrote:On December 13 2012 06:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 13 2012 06:47 ampson wrote:On December 13 2012 05:46 dAPhREAk wrote: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. 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: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. 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? 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: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 homosexuals, 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. 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. You haven't addressed how this "private clubs can exercise their discretion over their own matters including discriminatory policies" can be reconciled with the UK anti discrimination laws which have previously seen other private clubs forced to act against their fundamental beliefs. Intellectual honesty requires that all discrimination by private groups is permitted or none is permitted, or that religious discrimination can be shown to be permissible in situations where other groups would not be allowed to. Remember, what this law grants them is a special exemption from previous laws which they could fall victim to, it is an unprecedented move and it is offered only to religious groups. So then would you be comfortable with the first option you present, that all private discrimination be legalized? Don't know if you're actually presenting them as two realistic possibilities, or are just sarcastic about the first one. No, I think that if private groups are allowed to discriminate and say "if you don't like it then go to one of our rivals" doesn't work in a system that relies on private enterprise for so much of the foundations of society and that the long term social benefits of integration and worth the lack of freedom. It is distorting society but the shape it is moulding is simply better. However it is one of the options, you can either accept that they are comparable and then apply the same standard to both, a standard I would disagree with if it legalised discrimination for both, or explain why they are not comparable. It wasn't sarcastic, it was trying to explain that the reason this law is interesting (to me, it's messed up in a bunch of other ways too like the state punishing schism) is precisely because the UK does have laws against private discrimination and that this exemption is unprecedented. Saying that this new law is fine because the old laws are wrong is a coherent stance, although not one I hold.
I understand what you are saying, except for one part:
...doesn't work in a system that relies on private enterprise for so much of the foundations of society and that the long term social benefits of integration and worth the lack of freedom.
I don't know if this is true,as a general rule. I agree that in a commercial, economic sense, it must be true. However, is there any benefit of being part of a religious institution? If not, then what are the negative impacts of their discrimination?
I'm not trying to draw a line between religious and secular;I'm trying to draw a line between "Provides a service" and "Doesn't provide a service".
|
On December 13 2012 08:22 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 08:14 soon.Cloak wrote:On December 13 2012 07:45 KwarK wrote:On December 13 2012 07:41 ampson wrote:On December 13 2012 06:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 13 2012 06:47 ampson wrote:On December 13 2012 05:46 dAPhREAk wrote: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. 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: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. 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? 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: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 homosexuals, 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. 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. You haven't addressed how this "private clubs can exercise their discretion over their own matters including discriminatory policies" can be reconciled with the UK anti discrimination laws which have previously seen other private clubs forced to act against their fundamental beliefs. Intellectual honesty requires that all discrimination by private groups is permitted or none is permitted, or that religious discrimination can be shown to be permissible in situations where other groups would not be allowed to. Remember, what this law grants them is a special exemption from previous laws which they could fall victim to, it is an unprecedented move and it is offered only to religious groups. So then would you be comfortable with the first option you present, that all private discrimination be legalized? Don't know if you're actually presenting them as two realistic possibilities, or are just sarcastic about the first one. No, I think that if private groups are allowed to discriminate and say "if you don't like it then go to one of our rivals" doesn't work in a system that relies on private enterprise for so much of the foundations of society and that the long term social benefits of integration and worth the lack of freedom. It is distorting society but the shape it is moulding is simply better. However it is one of the options, you can either accept that they are comparable and then apply the same standard to both, a standard I would disagree with if it legalised discrimination for both, or explain why they are not comparable. It wasn't sarcastic, it was trying to explain that the reason this law is interesting (to me, it's messed up in a bunch of other ways too like the state punishing schism) is precisely because the UK does have laws against private discrimination and that this exemption is unprecedented. Saying that this new law is fine because the old laws are wrong is a coherent stance, although not one I hold.
You are presenting what I think is a false dilemma. There is no objective reason why all different kinds of private enterprises should be held to the same standard. A bakery is different from a church which is different from apolitical party. You could argue that a bakery must be held to a different standard than the other two, because a racist baker can still perform his function of being a baker even if he is forced to allow black people. The same cannot be said of a church that is in the business of advocating homophobia, or a political party that is in the business of advocating racism.
|
On December 13 2012 07:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 07:41 ampson wrote:On December 13 2012 06:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 13 2012 06:47 ampson wrote:On December 13 2012 05:46 dAPhREAk wrote: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. 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: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. 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? 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: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 homosexuals, 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. 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. You haven't addressed how this "private clubs can exercise their discretion over their own matters including discriminatory policies" can be reconciled with the UK anti discrimination laws which have previously seen other private clubs forced to act against their fundamental beliefs. Intellectual honesty requires that all discrimination by private groups is permitted or none is permitted, or that religious discrimination can be shown to be permissible in situations where other groups would not be allowed to. Remember, what this law grants them is a special exemption from previous laws which they could fall victim to, it is an unprecedented move and it is offered only to religious groups.
I'll take a stab at explaining why I believe churches deserve special attention with respect to laws, specifically why I believe that they should be excepted from laws that contradict church tenets ("Excepted").
Basically, I believe that the societal benefits created when churches are Excepted outweigh the societal costs. Below I will outline a few of the costs that I am referring to, followed by the benefits.
Costs of Excepting Churches
- Reduces the ability of the state to regulate behavior that it finds harmful to society
- Reduces the access certain groups have to social services provided by churches
- Limits the utility people would otherwise receive if churces were not Excepted, for example if churches were forced to offer same-sex marriage, or to allow members of any faith or creed to attend services
- Excepting churches appears hypocritical when other entities, like private clubs, are not Excepted
- I'm sure there are a lot more, but I am going to move on due to space and time constraints
Benefits of Excepting Churches
- People enjoy participating in faiths that reflect their personal moral views. Mandating that churches adopt positions contrary to their desires would make many people very unhappy.
- I can't think of any service provided by a specific church that can't be provided by the government or another private entity. For example, in the UK I expect that some churches take a more equitable approach to marriage, and even if they don't, the state can provide marriages (actually this is my ethnocentrism talking, I'm not sure whether the UK provides marriage licenses like the US does).
- As a result of the previous point, forcing churches to provide services to certain classes of people only benefits a small number of people, because such services are available from other willing entities.
- A "hands off" approach between the state and churches allows philosopical and theological doctrine to develop freely, without being forced to comform with the rest of society. This creates a check on the potential for "tyranny by the majority."
- The state is not very good at regulating interactions between private entities, and it should not do it except in unusual circumstances
I believe that the benefits I have identified outweigh the costs that I can think of, but I would be interested in hearing whether anyone thinks that I am missing significant costs or benefits, or whether my approach of trying to compare admittedly subjective costs and benefits is stupid in the first place : )
|
On December 13 2012 08:34 dAPhREAk wrote:
what is "religious marriage?" i have never heard of that before. as far as i know, if the gov't (U.S.) doesnt approve of the marriage (i.e., marriage certificate, witnesses, etc.), its not a marriage.
The way I'm using it it is simply a marriage recognized and performed by a church.
|
On December 13 2012 06:50 koreasilver wrote:
I like how so many of you simply have not read the OP at all. The theme of this topic isn't about a nonexistent law that will force churches to may gay couples. It's about the implementation of a law that would make it illegal for gay marriage to occur under certain religious establishments.
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 William's 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.
Thank you.
If one more person says something about forcing churches to marry gay people I think my head is going to explode.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
