EPTBut I think the onus should be on them to justify why they are discriminating. It's enormously hypocritical and the logic behind it is clearly unsound. If they want their decision to be enshrined in law then they should be able to justify it before a panel of scholars and intellectuals. Why would we make laws based on a schizophrenic interpretation of religion? Religions of all types ignore vast swaths of their own doctrine...they should be able to tell us why we should legislate the few pieces they decide to follow. It just seems like it's democratizing truth and doing a disservice to logic and progress.
UK to legalise gay marriage, religious exemptions - Page 2
| 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. | ||
|
Klondikebar
United States2227 Posts
But I think the onus should be on them to justify why they are discriminating. It's enormously hypocritical and the logic behind it is clearly unsound. If they want their decision to be enshrined in law then they should be able to justify it before a panel of scholars and intellectuals. Why would we make laws based on a schizophrenic interpretation of religion? Religions of all types ignore vast swaths of their own doctrine...they should be able to tell us why we should legislate the few pieces they decide to follow. It just seems like it's democratizing truth and doing a disservice to logic and progress. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
On December 12 2012 04:08 KwarK wrote: Guys, whether or not God hates fags is not going to be decided by you shitting up my topic. Take it to PMs, it's simply not relevant to whether or not religions have the right to discriminate. Well to some degree it is (though not in those words), in that this legislation effectively caters to a specific brand of Christian bigotry, meaning the state is effectively legitimizing one Christian doctrine over others. The specifics of Christian doctrine as they pertain to social policy are an unavoidable component of understanding the nature of exactly what this legislation speaks to, as it does not speak to religion in general, rather a particularly conservative vein of Christianity that includes Catholicism. This has nothing to do with which religion is "right". | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
| ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
people who want to get married (gay or not) have options, they do not need to infringe believer's fundamental rights to do so. by the way, freedom from discrimination is not a fundamental right, and never has been. edit: by the way, i support gay marriage. | ||
KwarK
United States43971 Posts
On December 12 2012 04:17 dAPhREAk wrote: you are infringing their right to practice their religion as long as its an actual belief of the church Would you support a church refusing to marry interracial couples on the basis of religious beliefs? | ||
|
Miscellany
Wales125 Posts
Regardless of what the Bible says, it is not God's nature to deny love to any. The word of God is clear in a very simple way, but unfortunately bigotry will always be present in such matters. User was warned for feeling the need to add that his religious views are the ones which are correct | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On December 12 2012 04:20 KwarK wrote: Would you support a church refusing to marry interracial couples on the basis of religious beliefs? no, i would not "support" them. however, if its an actual belief of the church (not pretext) then i would not object to them doing it. the interracial couple can be married elsewhere. if a gay couple wants to get married, why would they want or even need to be married (for example) at a catholic church, or by a catholic priest? they have absolutely no reason to do so. so, it seems, that you (metaphorically) are concerned about a non-issue. | ||
|
manofthesea
1 Post
If religious institutions don't want to marry gay couples, that's ok. Let's just take away their right to marry people in the secular way (the only way that matters). So after you've done your ceremony in the church/whatever, then you can get paper that says the state sees you as a married couple from district court. No need to make things so hard. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43971 Posts
On December 12 2012 04:24 dAPhREAk wrote: no, i would not "support" them. however, if its an actual belief of the church (not pretext) then i would not object to them doing it. the interracial couple can be married elsewhere. if a gay couple wants to get married, why would they want or even need to be married (for example) at a catholic church, or by a catholic priest? they have absolutely no reason to do so. so, it seems, that you (metaphorically) are concerned about a non-issue. Do you feel there is a potential issue in whether or not discrimination can actually be dealt with if private groups are allowed to discriminate? Do you feel religious convictions are any more important than any other strongly held conviction? A man could genuinely believe that gay marriage would destroy society by eroding the morals enshrined by traditional marriage without involving God and feel the same passion regarding the issue. | ||
|
Lonyo
United Kingdom3884 Posts
It might cause the CofE to lose some support/followers, and have some churches/etc split off into a new organisation that does allow gay marriage. The law is too restrictive because it forbids gay marriage, rather than allowing it to be forbidden. That's not giving religious people freedom, that's taking away freedom, which is bad for people who aren't hardliners in the church. It is reasonable to allow people to discriminate based on their beliefs in a private setting, IMO, as long as it's a right of refusal and not actively going against it and inciting problems. I think for gay people it shouldn't be a mega issue, since eventually the religious fringes will crumble and it will all settle out, and it's still some progress. I think it's a bigger problem for religious groups as it creates problems for them that they didn't have before, and may make gay rights a bigger issue within those religious groups than it was before, which may negatively impact both those groups, and gays or supporters of gays. That's where the main problem might be. (Religious descrimination basically has to be tolerated because religious groups are very resistant to change and are pretty institutionalised, any progress is good progress, and this exact ruling may actually help more progress being made rather than forcing things upon people and making them not discriminate. While it may not seem sensible or right, that's just how it is with religion, and sometimes you have to take what you can get). | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On December 12 2012 04:28 manofthesea wrote: The main point here is, that marriage is not a religious sacrament anymore. It has become a secular institution and should be treated as one. If religious institutions don't want to marry gay couples, that's ok. Let's just take away their right to marry people in the secular way (the only way that matters). So after you've done your ceremony in the church/whatever, then you can get paper that says the state sees you as a married couple from district court. No need to make things so hard. thats the way it is in america already; i dont know about england. marriages arent official without a marriage license. | ||
|
AnachronisticAnarchy
United States2957 Posts
On December 12 2012 03:58 KwarK wrote: I'm not sure I get your point, legally in the UK this law will make it very unlike the KKK accepting blacks. Would you deal with the hypocrisy of denying racist political groups racial discrimination while allowing homophobic religious groups homophobic discrimination by allowing all private entities to discriminate as they see fit? I wasn't sure but I think that was what you were advocating. I view the morals of the law and personal morals as different and separate. Since morals are subjective but laws are all-encompassing, laws must follow a different moral code than the morality of individuals. I feel that, barring the part about religious leaders outlawing their underling's ability to perform certain actions (as I said before, they should only be able to dole out religious consequences for religious deviants), this law is in keeping with the legal moral code I believe in. However, I also said that I believe this is ok only in this specific circumstance, and I believe this must be stressed. As this involves a conflict between two separate rights every human being should possess, it is a VERY tricky moral area. I ONLY agree with the specific parts I outlined in this specific law, not anything else. Circumstances like these are impossibly complicated, and must be evaluated on a case by case basis every time. As for your question, I feel that racist groups should be able to deny admission into their group, but if said group controls something, like, say, a trucking company, they should put their beliefs aside and run the company as a company should be run, and not as an extension of their beliefs. You see, the company offers tangible, secular benefits, just like the secular portions of a marriage. The secular portions should be free from discrimination, but the religious portions that involve subjective things like morality should be able to discriminate, as long as it does not harm others. Also, holy motherfucking goddamn shit. Writing out my complex moral beliefs and reasoning in such a way as to remove the possibility of misinterpretation is one of the most difficult tasks to do on this forum. Furthermore, I'm trying to do it fast (you want to do that with damage control, things tend to snowball), am talking to a prominent community member who I respect, am doing it on a fucking tiny iPhone on a bumpy car ride, etc etc. I'm actually running into the limits of my command of the English language, which has never happened before. I guess I now know firsthand why legal documents are always so long, now. This is getting really, really hard. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
On December 12 2012 04:24 dAPhREAk wrote: no, i would not "support" them. however, if its an actual belief of the church (not pretext) then i would not object to them doing it. the interracial couple can be married elsewhere. if a gay couple wants to get married, why would they want or even need to be married (for example) at a catholic church, or by a catholic priest? they have absolutely no reason to do so. so, it seems, that you (metaphorically) are concerned about a non-issue. This presumes a bit much, as I'd imagine you'd feel differently had you been born Catholic and gay. Contrary to popular belief, there are a great many devoted Christians, Catholics included, who are still just as devoted once they come out of the closet. Granted, I personally don't understand why these folks would still seek to be a part of a group that so clearly shuns them, but I digress. I guess my point in the end is that the church's place in society might relegate its policies to a different standard than one might typically apply, those being freedom of association and collective rights. | ||
|
XeliN
United Kingdom1755 Posts
I think it should be down to individual ministers or the people performing the ceremony. If they do not wish to on the grounds of their religious belief, fine. If they do not feel that marriage should be restricted on the grounds of sexuality, also fine. Allowing institutions as a whole to opt out is the wrong way to go I think, but hey ultimately this is a step forward for equality. | ||
|
Klondikebar
United States2227 Posts
On December 12 2012 04:17 dAPhREAk wrote: debated whether to even get into this, but here is where i stand: the right to marriage (gay or not) and the right to practice religion are both fundamental rights that should not be infringed lightly. if you force a church to allow gay marriage (by forcing their priests (or whatever they call themselves) to be subject to discrimination lawsuits because they wont violate their religious principals) you are infringing their right to practice their religion as long as its an actual belief of the church. so, i am opposed to that. you may not like that result, but thats why we have fundamental rights--to prevent others from forcing their beliefs on others. people who want to get married (gay or not) have options, they do not need to infringe believer's fundamental rights to do so. by the way, freedom from discrimination is not a fundamental right, and never has been. edit: by the way, i support gay marriage. But at some point, are we allowed to ask for some sort of evidence or justification for their beliefs? ESPECIALLY if we're going to be protecting those beliefs with laws. "It's in my religious text!" won't work because religions ignore TONS of stuff in their texts. The legislature needs to get them into a hearing where they say "we will protect your beliefs if you can provide some sort of evidence or coherent logic for them." Why do we just accept religious belief as something to be protected? If beliefs can't be even remotely justified, why do we treat them any differently than a belief in santa? | ||
|
kornetka
Poland129 Posts
On December 12 2012 04:20 KwarK wrote: Would you support a church refusing to marry interracial couples on the basis of religious beliefs? I don't think that question whether he supports it should be asked, since it is not the case here. As I understand it now, the question is as follows: should society force upon an organizaton creation of additional internal ceremony, that is accesible for anybody not belonging to this organization. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14113 Posts
I don't see why you have to force a religious institution to do something that they feel is against they're religion. They can say or do whatever they want inside their church (or other religious organization) as long as it doesn't exercise any action or authority over people that do not choose to take part in their religion. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32132 Posts
However, if a church wants to place itself on that list, I think the state should start charging religious institutions tax on their properties, much in the same way that I believe that the state should revoke federal funding for hospitals that want to opt out of abortions and contraception for religious purposes. I still don't think that it is the place of the state to intervene on religious matters like this. There will also be churches that will happily marry gays. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On December 12 2012 04:29 KwarK wrote: Do you feel there is a potential issue in whether or not discrimination can actually be dealt with if private groups are allowed to discriminate? Do you feel religious convictions are any more important than any other strongly held conviction? A man could genuinely believe that gay marriage would destroy society by eroding the morals enshrined by traditional marriage without involving God and feel the same passion regarding the issue. i think government enforced anti-discrimination is a good thing (within limits of course), but i dont think it does anything to curb racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. it prevents the symptoms, but does not destroy the cause. so, do i think that allowing a church to refuse to do gay marriages will promote homophobia? no, it will be no worse than it already is. i do think that religious convictions are more important than other strongly held convictions. that is because of the cultural issues involved, not because its logical. | ||
|
Lonyo
United Kingdom3884 Posts
On December 12 2012 04:37 QuanticHawk wrote: I think that this is pretty awesome and fair. Pro marriage, but I don't think that the state should be able to force religious institutions to marry people. However, if a church wants to place itself on that list, I think the state should start charging religious institutions tax on their properties... thought that should probably happen either way though. I still don't think that it is the place of the state to intervene on religious matters like this. There will also be churches that will happily marry gays. The main issue is that you won't be legally allowed to marry gays if you are a member of a group which does not allow it. It's not allowing refusal, it's making acceptance illegal on an individual basis if you are part of a group that does not accept it. | ||
| ||
