|
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. |
United States41960 Posts
On December 23 2012 06:06 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 05:46 KwarK wrote:On December 23 2012 00:19 silynxer wrote:On December 22 2012 23:47 teapot wrote:On December 22 2012 22:57 silynxer wrote:On December 22 2012 22:34 Reason wrote:On December 22 2012 17:49 Maenander wrote:On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:
First of all, the definition of marriage.
A mixed badminton tournament is, by definition, one male and one female.
Are you trying to say you think marriage is also so defined?
In my opinion there is no general definition of marriage, every religious sect should define marriage however it pleases. They can marry themselves to ants for all I care. It is the definition of marriages that are legally binding that we should worry about. On December 22 2012 17:16 KwarK wrote:On December 22 2012 07:07 Maenander wrote:
On another note should same-sex couples be allowed in Mixed Badminton tournaments?
I am neither religious nor against same-sex marriage, but I just don't see how one can have a right to be married by a certain religious organization. Religious marriages should just be irrelevant from the perspective of the state. Of course the Anglican church is a special and very different case.
If we want to force state-independent churches to allow same-sex marriages we should do so by public pressure and not by creating laws in my opinion. Of course not. Gay men aren't women, they just like dick as much as straight women. Entry to badminton tournaments isn't based upon how much you like dick. But it is based upon gender. Leave the "sexual"(a linguistic mess) aspect out of it and call it same-sex doubles and it is still a valid point. On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:
Secondly, are you are saying religious organisations shouldn't be subject to the same anti-discrimination laws as non-religious organisations and if so, why?
I think there should be a limit to how much the state interferes in private matters. Religion should be a private matter. As Kwark already pointed out the problems in the UK stem from the lack of separation of religion and state. If the state endorses a religion it also takes responsibility for its contents. So why did you bring up mixed badminton doubles then? It makes no sense. The church is offering a public service and charging for it, once they did that it no longer became a private matter. No one is telling the church what to believe or to teach to their followers. You don't need to be a member of the church to get married there, nor even part of their religion. This is very far from a private matter. I do not know much about the Anglican Church but from what I read you would want to force all churches to perform marriage rites for same sex couples. So concerning for example the Catholic Church the above is plain wrong. One person must be Catholic for a Catholic marriage to take place. Furthermore, if the partner is not Catholic you need to get a special permission to be married and it's basically up to the priest to decide. In this day and age this could be a formality, I don't know, but the priest could decline to marry you. This makes sense because for the priest it's more than a service, it's a holy rite and he probably loads sin on himself if he doesn't adhere to his beliefs. Protestants are not that strict but something similar is in place for them as well, if i recall correctly. Does anyone know about Muslim marriages? Btw Wikipedia says you cannot be married in a Catholic church if you are permanently impotent, they really believe this stuff about procreation and traditional family etc. ..and there's the difference. 'Church of England' is just something people tick on a box when they fill out forms, but don't think about, or really believe in ... until they want to get married in the traditional manner i.e. in a church. Read what I wrote in the post directly above yours. Can you guys (Kwark, Reason, etc.) clarify if you want to force all churches to marry homosexual couples or only the Church of England? Sorry if you already did, but the thread is quite long and from your posts I genuinely think you argued for the former. I want to force all churches to, if they offer a service to the public (such as marriage), offer it in a non discriminatory way. With the CoE I'd ideally like a host of other reforms pushed through too such as women bishops and the like because it's absurd that what is essentially a branch of our executive is allowed to operate an openly sexist policy. If the church were to cease to provide marriages to any heterosexual couple who wanted them for a fee then the issue would also be solved, the problem is that it is a publicly available service being made available in a discriminatory way. So in the situation of Catholic marriages, where heterosexual couples can be denied marriage for a number of reasons (not being Catholic, partner not being Catholic, permanent impotence, etc.) you would actually be fine with it (sorry it's hard for me to interpret the "any")? If not I don't think there is more to be said. Me and others simply disagree with the notion that the state may define the meaning of a ritual for all religious institutions (and like written again and again the meaning is explicit procreation and a traditional family in the Catholic case, for example). I'd also disagree that marriage is a simple service for any religious person (it's a holy act, changing it's nature desecrates it) if it is taken serious like in the Catholic case but I suppose this was argued to death as well.
Yes, for the same reason as you're allowed to deny a gay man alcohol at a bar if he's already had too much. As long as the grounds for denial of service isn't race, gender, sexuality etc then you can choose. You're just not allowed to offer the service to everyone but gays.
|
Uhm your answer was actually a no then, my question was a bit convoluted (marriage is not available for any heterosexual couple who pays a fee, there are a lot of strings attached as it is more than a service). I would have never thought a moment could come where I side with the Catholic Church in a discussion.
|
Let them marry I say, in the end we are all going to die and no one will give a shit about this.
|
United States41960 Posts
On December 23 2012 06:27 silynxer wrote:
Uhm your answer was actually a no then, my question was a bit convoluted (marriage is not available for any heterosexual couple who pays a fee, there are a lot of strings attached as it is more than a service). I would have never thought a moment could come where I side with the Catholic Church in a discussion.
That would become one for the lawyers I think. If they would refuse a marriage to two heterosexual non Catholics then they could deny it legally to two homosexual non Catholics on the grounds that they weren't Catholic, but not on the grounds that they were homosexuals. If, however, the homosexual couple wished to become Catholic then they couldn't be denied entry to Catholicism on the basis of their homosexuality, they would have to be accepted or rejected for some other reason. If they were accepted and then wished to get married, a service available to heterosexual Catholic couples, they could not be refused it on the grounds of their sexuality. It's messy but basically an extension of the "the BNP must accept blacks, no matter how strongly held their racist convictions are" principle.
|
The question is rather if there may be any rite by any church that has a component based on any of the components from your anti-discrimination law (which is rather arbitrary I might add). Note that all rites of passage are inherently ageist (sure they also don't make any sense for older people but the same is true for marriage of homosexuals from the viewpoint of the Catholic Church).
But like I said this all was inconclusively discussed before and if you feel we are not making any progress I'm at ease to drop the discussion here.
|
|
|
On December 23 2012 05:49 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 01:04 teapot wrote:On December 23 2012 00:19 silynxer wrote:On December 22 2012 23:47 teapot wrote:On December 22 2012 22:57 silynxer wrote:On December 22 2012 22:34 Reason wrote:On December 22 2012 17:49 Maenander wrote:On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:
First of all, the definition of marriage.
A mixed badminton tournament is, by definition, one male and one female.
Are you trying to say you think marriage is also so defined?
In my opinion there is no general definition of marriage, every religious sect should define marriage however it pleases. They can marry themselves to ants for all I care. It is the definition of marriages that are legally binding that we should worry about. On December 22 2012 17:16 KwarK wrote:On December 22 2012 07:07 Maenander wrote:
On another note should same-sex couples be allowed in Mixed Badminton tournaments?
I am neither religious nor against same-sex marriage, but I just don't see how one can have a right to be married by a certain religious organization. Religious marriages should just be irrelevant from the perspective of the state. Of course the Anglican church is a special and very different case.
If we want to force state-independent churches to allow same-sex marriages we should do so by public pressure and not by creating laws in my opinion. Of course not. Gay men aren't women, they just like dick as much as straight women. Entry to badminton tournaments isn't based upon how much you like dick. But it is based upon gender. Leave the "sexual"(a linguistic mess) aspect out of it and call it same-sex doubles and it is still a valid point. On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:
Secondly, are you are saying religious organisations shouldn't be subject to the same anti-discrimination laws as non-religious organisations and if so, why?
I think there should be a limit to how much the state interferes in private matters. Religion should be a private matter. As Kwark already pointed out the problems in the UK stem from the lack of separation of religion and state. If the state endorses a religion it also takes responsibility for its contents. So why did you bring up mixed badminton doubles then? It makes no sense. The church is offering a public service and charging for it, once they did that it no longer became a private matter. No one is telling the church what to believe or to teach to their followers. You don't need to be a member of the church to get married there, nor even part of their religion. This is very far from a private matter. I do not know much about the Anglican Church but from what I read you would want to force all churches to perform marriage rites for same sex couples. So concerning for example the Catholic Church the above is plain wrong. One person must be Catholic for a Catholic marriage to take place. Furthermore, if the partner is not Catholic you need to get a special permission to be married and it's basically up to the priest to decide. In this day and age this could be a formality, I don't know, but the priest could decline to marry you. This makes sense because for the priest it's more than a service, it's a holy rite and he probably loads sin on himself if he doesn't adhere to his beliefs. Protestants are not that strict but something similar is in place for them as well, if i recall correctly. Does anyone know about Muslim marriages? Btw Wikipedia says you cannot be married in a Catholic church if you are permanently impotent, they really believe this stuff about procreation and traditional family etc. ..and there's the difference. 'Church of England' is just something people tick on a box when they fill out forms, but don't think about, or really believe in ... until they want to get married in the traditional manner i.e. in a church. Read what I wrote in the post directly above yours. Can you guys (Kwark, Reason, etc.) clarify if you want to force all churches to marry homosexual couples or only the Church of England? Sorry if you already did, but the thread is quite long and from your posts I genuinely think you argued for the former. I don't think it is forcing any particular church to provide same-sex marriage, just legalizing it for those that are willing. What I want would be forcing, that's what I've been arguing for. What this bill would do is several things. It would legalise it for the churches that are willing, it would provide unprecedented exemptions from antidiscrimination laws for those that aren't, it would act as a precedent that religious convictions should not be held to the same common standards as secular convictions in society and it would involve secular law heavily in the church including laying out a legally approved doctrine and making apostasy and schism illegal. This bill satisfies nobody. It's a complete clusterfuck.
You would be discriminating against those people by forcing them to do something against their will by the threat of violence.
You would be literally serving evil, because the road to hell is paved with good intentions and your aren't even good to begin with.
|
Bill that gives gays the right to marry and be considered equal in committed partnership, in word and legailty. As well as giving every "church//group" the right to not be forced to perform the ceremony on an individual basis if they so choose would be right imo.
|
United States41960 Posts
On December 23 2012 08:36 Zergofobic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 05:49 KwarK wrote:On December 23 2012 01:04 teapot wrote:On December 23 2012 00:19 silynxer wrote:On December 22 2012 23:47 teapot wrote:On December 22 2012 22:57 silynxer wrote:On December 22 2012 22:34 Reason wrote:On December 22 2012 17:49 Maenander wrote:On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:
First of all, the definition of marriage.
A mixed badminton tournament is, by definition, one male and one female.
Are you trying to say you think marriage is also so defined?
In my opinion there is no general definition of marriage, every religious sect should define marriage however it pleases. They can marry themselves to ants for all I care. It is the definition of marriages that are legally binding that we should worry about. On December 22 2012 17:16 KwarK wrote:On December 22 2012 07:07 Maenander wrote:
On another note should same-sex couples be allowed in Mixed Badminton tournaments?
I am neither religious nor against same-sex marriage, but I just don't see how one can have a right to be married by a certain religious organization. Religious marriages should just be irrelevant from the perspective of the state. Of course the Anglican church is a special and very different case.
If we want to force state-independent churches to allow same-sex marriages we should do so by public pressure and not by creating laws in my opinion. Of course not. Gay men aren't women, they just like dick as much as straight women. Entry to badminton tournaments isn't based upon how much you like dick. But it is based upon gender. Leave the "sexual"(a linguistic mess) aspect out of it and call it same-sex doubles and it is still a valid point. On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:
Secondly, are you are saying religious organisations shouldn't be subject to the same anti-discrimination laws as non-religious organisations and if so, why?
I think there should be a limit to how much the state interferes in private matters. Religion should be a private matter. As Kwark already pointed out the problems in the UK stem from the lack of separation of religion and state. If the state endorses a religion it also takes responsibility for its contents. So why did you bring up mixed badminton doubles then? It makes no sense. The church is offering a public service and charging for it, once they did that it no longer became a private matter. No one is telling the church what to believe or to teach to their followers. You don't need to be a member of the church to get married there, nor even part of their religion. This is very far from a private matter. I do not know much about the Anglican Church but from what I read you would want to force all churches to perform marriage rites for same sex couples. So concerning for example the Catholic Church the above is plain wrong. One person must be Catholic for a Catholic marriage to take place. Furthermore, if the partner is not Catholic you need to get a special permission to be married and it's basically up to the priest to decide. In this day and age this could be a formality, I don't know, but the priest could decline to marry you. This makes sense because for the priest it's more than a service, it's a holy rite and he probably loads sin on himself if he doesn't adhere to his beliefs. Protestants are not that strict but something similar is in place for them as well, if i recall correctly. Does anyone know about Muslim marriages? Btw Wikipedia says you cannot be married in a Catholic church if you are permanently impotent, they really believe this stuff about procreation and traditional family etc. ..and there's the difference. 'Church of England' is just something people tick on a box when they fill out forms, but don't think about, or really believe in ... until they want to get married in the traditional manner i.e. in a church. Read what I wrote in the post directly above yours. Can you guys (Kwark, Reason, etc.) clarify if you want to force all churches to marry homosexual couples or only the Church of England? Sorry if you already did, but the thread is quite long and from your posts I genuinely think you argued for the former. I don't think it is forcing any particular church to provide same-sex marriage, just legalizing it for those that are willing. What I want would be forcing, that's what I've been arguing for. What this bill would do is several things. It would legalise it for the churches that are willing, it would provide unprecedented exemptions from antidiscrimination laws for those that aren't, it would act as a precedent that religious convictions should not be held to the same common standards as secular convictions in society and it would involve secular law heavily in the church including laying out a legally approved doctrine and making apostasy and schism illegal. This bill satisfies nobody. It's a complete clusterfuck. You would be discriminating against those people by forcing them to do something against their will by the threat of violence. You would be literally serving evil, because the road to hell is paved with good intentions and your aren't even good to begin with.
Every single law ever forces people to do something against their will by the threat of violence. That's not the definition of discrimination. You need to look these words up before you use them.
|
There is a very intresting factor here , why nobody complains about muslim marriage ? don't they have the same rights ? what about the areas where you can't get married in church if you can't procreate ? isn't that a little discriminating ?
There are a lot more things that you can't do as a couple with your gay partner. You must remember that the Catholic Church allows a lot of things and it's very understanding and bends the rules too much sometimes. If you search you can find a lot of "bad things" in every religion and a lot of good things. Religion is something you belive or not , it's not something you can manipulate on others.
Sorry for my bad english.
|
On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 05:36 sam!zdat wrote:
I don't think that the belief "Black people are an inferior race" is a valid religious belief Lol? You think you can dictate what is and is not a valid religious belief? All religious beliefs are valid, or none of them are.
Yes, of course I can offer a judgment about the validity of some religious belief. Your position is the worst sort of vulgar relativism. There is no way to go about doing anything without making judgments of this sort. In fact, your position is self-contradictory - can you see how?
edit: you do this too, all the time, you just deny that you do because your ideology tells you that you are "rational" and "objective" and that religion is "all made up." But making judgments of this sort presents no problem at all for me, because I take religion seriously as philosophical discourse and therefore hold that it is open to critique.
|
On December 23 2012 06:42 number01 wrote:
Let them marry I say, in the end we are all going to die and no one will give a shit about this.
Although very poorly written and lazy post, this is my favorite view so far and I agree
|
On December 23 2012 12:08 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:On December 22 2012 05:36 sam!zdat wrote:
I don't think that the belief "Black people are an inferior race" is a valid religious belief Lol? You think you can dictate what is and is not a valid religious belief? All religious beliefs are valid, or none of them are. Yes, of course I can offer a judgment about the validity of some religious belief. Your position is the worst sort of vulgar relativism. There is no way to go about doing anything without making judgments of this sort. In fact, your position is self-contradictory - can you see how?
How could you deny one belief and then accept another? Where do you draw the line on what is acceptable? We're not dealing with hard measurable facts after all.
|
On December 23 2012 12:15 snam wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 12:08 sam!zdat wrote:On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:On December 22 2012 05:36 sam!zdat wrote:
I don't think that the belief "Black people are an inferior race" is a valid religious belief Lol? You think you can dictate what is and is not a valid religious belief? All religious beliefs are valid, or none of them are. Yes, of course I can offer a judgment about the validity of some religious belief. Your position is the worst sort of vulgar relativism. There is no way to go about doing anything without making judgments of this sort. In fact, your position is self-contradictory - can you see how? How could you deny one belief and then accept another? Where do you draw the line on what is acceptable? We're not dealing with hard measurable facts after all.
You think honestly and seriously about it, read things about it, and talk to other people who have read things about it and thought honestly and seriously about it, especially when they think differently than you. Same as anything else.
|
This seems interesting because it provides gays the chance to be married and still provides enough freedom such that religious groups have the option of still banning it privately. I don't know how it works in Canada as it's not a topic talked about much here, it just happens and we let it slide.
Is making it specifically illegal for a group to marry gay couples as well as protecting them from discrimination laws too far?
Insofar as this it's interesting that all Catholics (brought up in the OP) will NOT allow this form of marriage to occur which may or may not infringe upon a specific Catholic priest's right to marry a gay couple and their specific views on the topic.
|
I'm a bit confused, could somebody clarify something for me? Are you claiming that you believe that Catholic churches and other religious institutions should be forced to recognize gay marriage and perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples? I don't know if that's what you're implying, but frankly that's ridiculous and would never happen, as that would be infringing upon the right to practice religion. While I understand the problems with not offering the same legal benefits to gay couples in terms of civil marriage, the way I practice religious marriage is my choice. What I call "marriage" is up to me, I can say I'm married to three women, a man, my brother, a horse, or whatever else I choose, but I will only get the legal benefits if I practice the form of civil marriage that is accepted by the state. Declaring that there is one interpretation for religious marriage is ridiculous. Frankly, as a practicing Catholic, I understand the desire for civil unions and such, but gay couples are never going to be able to get married in a Catholic church because that's not what marriage is, at least as far as religious marriage is defined by the Catholic church. Just as I don't need to recognize other people's religions, I do not need to recognize the religious marriages that others celebrate.
|
On December 23 2012 12:50 The Final Boss wrote:
I'm a bit confused, could somebody clarify something for me? Are you claiming that you believe that Catholic churches and other religious institutions should be forced to recognize gay marriage and perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples? I don't know if that's what you're implying, but frankly that's ridiculous and would never happen, as that would be infringing upon the right to practice religion. While I understand the problems with not offering the same legal benefits to gay couples in terms of civil marriage, the way I practice religious marriage is my choice. What I call "marriage" is up to me, I can say I'm married to three women, a man, my brother, a horse, or whatever else I choose, but I will only get the legal benefits if I practice the form of civil marriage that is accepted by the state. Declaring that there is one interpretation for religious marriage is ridiculous. Frankly, as a practicing Catholic, I understand the desire for civil unions and such, but gay couples are never going to be able to get married in a Catholic church because that's not what marriage is, at least as far as religious marriage is defined by the Catholic church. Just as I don't need to recognize other people's religions, I do not need to recognize the religious marriages that others celebrate.
No they have the choice (before the law is passed) to choose whether or not they'll allow their institutions to host gay marriage. Catholics I think (I think it was mentioned in the OP) already said that they would not be alright with it.
edit: and thus the law would mean that Catholic churches would not be allowed to host gay marriage.
|
On December 23 2012 12:53 IntoTheheart wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 12:50 The Final Boss wrote:
I'm a bit confused, could somebody clarify something for me? Are you claiming that you believe that Catholic churches and other religious institutions should be forced to recognize gay marriage and perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples? I don't know if that's what you're implying, but frankly that's ridiculous and would never happen, as that would be infringing upon the right to practice religion. While I understand the problems with not offering the same legal benefits to gay couples in terms of civil marriage, the way I practice religious marriage is my choice. What I call "marriage" is up to me, I can say I'm married to three women, a man, my brother, a horse, or whatever else I choose, but I will only get the legal benefits if I practice the form of civil marriage that is accepted by the state. Declaring that there is one interpretation for religious marriage is ridiculous. Frankly, as a practicing Catholic, I understand the desire for civil unions and such, but gay couples are never going to be able to get married in a Catholic church because that's not what marriage is, at least as far as religious marriage is defined by the Catholic church. Just as I don't need to recognize other people's religions, I do not need to recognize the religious marriages that others celebrate. No they have the choice (before the law is passed) to choose whether or not they'll allow their institutions to host gay marriage. Catholics I think (I think it was mentioned in the OP) already said that they would not be alright with it. edit: and thus the law would mean that Catholic churches would not be allowed to host gay marriage.
On December 23 2012 08:56 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 08:36 Zergofobic wrote:On December 23 2012 05:49 KwarK wrote:On December 23 2012 01:04 teapot wrote:On December 23 2012 00:19 silynxer wrote:On December 22 2012 23:47 teapot wrote:On December 22 2012 22:57 silynxer wrote:On December 22 2012 22:34 Reason wrote:On December 22 2012 17:49 Maenander wrote:On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:
First of all, the definition of marriage.
A mixed badminton tournament is, by definition, one male and one female.
Are you trying to say you think marriage is also so defined?
In my opinion there is no general definition of marriage, every religious sect should define marriage however it pleases. They can marry themselves to ants for all I care. It is the definition of marriages that are legally binding that we should worry about. On December 22 2012 17:16 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Of course not. Gay men aren't women, they just like dick as much as straight women. Entry to badminton tournaments isn't based upon how much you like dick. But it is based upon gender. Leave the "sexual"(a linguistic mess) aspect out of it and call it same-sex doubles and it is still a valid point. On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:
Secondly, are you are saying religious organisations shouldn't be subject to the same anti-discrimination laws as non-religious organisations and if so, why?
I think there should be a limit to how much the state interferes in private matters. Religion should be a private matter. As Kwark already pointed out the problems in the UK stem from the lack of separation of religion and state. If the state endorses a religion it also takes responsibility for its contents. So why did you bring up mixed badminton doubles then? It makes no sense. The church is offering a public service and charging for it, once they did that it no longer became a private matter. No one is telling the church what to believe or to teach to their followers. You don't need to be a member of the church to get married there, nor even part of their religion. This is very far from a private matter. I do not know much about the Anglican Church but from what I read you would want to force all churches to perform marriage rites for same sex couples. So concerning for example the Catholic Church the above is plain wrong. One person must be Catholic for a Catholic marriage to take place. Furthermore, if the partner is not Catholic you need to get a special permission to be married and it's basically up to the priest to decide. In this day and age this could be a formality, I don't know, but the priest could decline to marry you. This makes sense because for the priest it's more than a service, it's a holy rite and he probably loads sin on himself if he doesn't adhere to his beliefs. Protestants are not that strict but something similar is in place for them as well, if i recall correctly. Does anyone know about Muslim marriages? Btw Wikipedia says you cannot be married in a Catholic church if you are permanently impotent, they really believe this stuff about procreation and traditional family etc. ..and there's the difference. 'Church of England' is just something people tick on a box when they fill out forms, but don't think about, or really believe in ... until they want to get married in the traditional manner i.e. in a church. Read what I wrote in the post directly above yours. Can you guys (Kwark, Reason, etc.) clarify if you want to force all churches to marry homosexual couples or only the Church of England? Sorry if you already did, but the thread is quite long and from your posts I genuinely think you argued for the former. I don't think it is forcing any particular church to provide same-sex marriage, just legalizing it for those that are willing. What I want would be forcing, that's what I've been arguing for. What this bill would do is several things. It would legalise it for the churches that are willing, it would provide unprecedented exemptions from antidiscrimination laws for those that aren't, it would act as a precedent that religious convictions should not be held to the same common standards as secular convictions in society and it would involve secular law heavily in the church including laying out a legally approved doctrine and making apostasy and schism illegal. This bill satisfies nobody. It's a complete clusterfuck. You would be discriminating against those people by forcing them to do something against their will by the threat of violence. You would be literally serving evil, because the road to hell is paved with good intentions and your aren't even good to begin with. Every single law ever forces people to do something against their will by the threat of violence. That's not the definition of discrimination. You need to look these words up before you use them.
According to some of the stuff KwarK is saying, I think he's saying that he thinks that Catholic churches and other religious bodies should be forced to marry gay people. Frankly, that is a gross abuse of government power over the individual's freedom. It goes against freedom of religion, the freedom of religious marriage, and--this is the best part--will never happen, primarily because its batshit crazy. Protecting the "rights" of gays by taking away the right to practice religion is not promoting universal civil rights, but rather is just a disgusting suggestion that infringes upon the rights of everyone who practices a religion.
Frankly, I find it funny that KwarK labels others as fascists, but doesn't see a problem with stomping all over freedom of religion. A truly "secular state"--like he claims he is for--should not be viewed as a state with atheistic views and values, but rather a state with no views. What you are espousing is not equal rights, but rather spitting in the face of anyone with different religious views and different values than you yourself hold. As an actual Libertarian, I view your suggested "solution" as simply being an Atheist promoted fascism hiding behind the visage of equality. The best part, though, is that the Catholic Church and other religious institutions will never have to marry gay couples, because while the majority may not always support my Libertarian views, the proposed plan that you have would NEVER be viewed as anything other than it is, a fascist attempt to inhibit the right to practice religion.
|
Nm, doesn't really contribute.
|
Totally agree with what the final boss is saying.
Also, we seem to be forgetting that in the religious context, it's not discriminating against homosexuality, it's just the biblical institution of marriage (and oh boy are there many other forms) is between a man and a woman, it has nothing to do with what they proclaim their sexual orientation to be. A self proclaimed "gay" man can still marry a "gay" woman or whatever, as nowhere in any religious text is sexual preference taken into account in regards to marriage, merely biological gender.
What's next, the bar mitzvah is legally required to be available to boys and girls because it's "discriminatory" to have a ceremony for a male person? That's precisely where this [kwark's] logic is headed.
+ Show Spoiler [Disclaimer] +
A marriage isn't so much a profitable service where I come from (at churches anyway), it's more of a service out of kindness, with few fees entailed from the church specifically, occasionally none at all, which may be why I interpret this differently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
