|
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 12 2012 04:40 Lonyo wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Yes, this is the part that troubles me most greatly, the government has effectively quashed inner-denominational social policy debate as it pertains to the treatment of homosexuality, and that seems utterly wrong to me.
|
On December 12 2012 04:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 03:58 semantics wrote:
I'm curious in the UK are they really 100% identical, civil unions and marriages. They are. If you get into an argument with a pedant then they'll insist that you're not married, you're unioned, but you have all the same legal protections and you're allowed to tick the married box on forms etc. This will let you win the argument with a pedant, but at what price.
If my state here in the U.S. had a bill that said this, that civil unions had the same outward legal benefits as a marriage but still differentiated by the term used, I'd be extremely receptive to it versus the whole "we want our union to be called a marriage too" crusade.
Also, I stand by their decision to let churches choose who they let marry under their approval. We would argue that under "separation of church and state" in the U.S.; don't know if there's a similar catchy term over the water where you live.
|
On December 12 2012 04:36 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +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?
the supreme court has a test for this. you cant question the facts of their beliefs; you can only question whether they actually have the belief. i am fine with this test.
we accept religious beliefs as something to be protected because its a fundamental right.
|
United States41958 Posts
On December 12 2012 04:42 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 04:00 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 03:58 semantics wrote:
I'm curious in the UK are they really 100% identical, civil unions and marriages. They are. If you get into an argument with a pedant then they'll insist that you're not married, you're unioned, but you have all the same legal protections and you're allowed to tick the married box on forms etc. This will let you win the argument with a pedant, but at what price. If my state here in the U.S. had a bill that said this, that civil unions had the same outward legal benefits as a marriage but still differentiated by the term used, I'd be extremely receptive to it versus the whole "we want our union to be called a marriage too" crusade. Also, I stand by their decision to let churches choose who they let marry under their approval. We would argue that under "separation of church and state" in the U.S.; don't know if there's a similar catchy term over the water where you live.
Our head of state is also the head of the official church of the country. We are what your founders had in mind when they separated church and state.
|
What the heck? This depends entirely on how you define a marriage. What they are doing here is redefining what marriage is. That's why people are getting so upset.
Frankly, homosexuals should be content with civil partnerships. Marriage is defined as a religious institution between a man and a woman...as long as you abide by that definition there's nothing wrong with letting homosexuals get the same benefits that marriages recieve under a different name...
Obviously there are extreme religious groups who won't accept union of homosexuals in any way, but there are likely many who are pissed because government is attempting to re-write the definition of marriage.
Just call it a civil union. Don't shit on a major religious institution. Homosexuals should recognize their union goes against many major religiuous doctrines....simply be content in recieving the same benefits.
|
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, 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.
Wouldn't putting a tax on churches like you said be punishing churches for expressing their religion? Punishing a religion for the exercise thereof is apart of the first amendment.
|
United States41958 Posts
On December 12 2012 04:43 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 04:36 Klondikebar wrote: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? the supreme court has a test for this. you cant question the facts of their beliefs; you can only question whether they actually have the belief. i am fine with this test. we accept religious beliefs as something to be protected because its a fundamental right.
The issue secularists like myself have with this statement is the "because it is a fundamental right". In the UK it is currently against the law to discriminate against gays on the basis of their sexuality, even if you have really strongly held homophobic convictions and a load of subjective experience that validated them. This law will grant an exemption to the anti discrimination laws for churches which can't even agree amongst themselves most of the time whether or not they oppose gay marriage. Religious people do not have a monopoly on strength of conviction and yet they seem to have inherited a fundamental right to have their convictions protected. I'd like to see it justified.
|
On December 12 2012 04:44 Qwyn wrote:
What the heck? This depends entirely on how you define a marriage. What they are doing here is redefining what marriage is. That's why people are getting so upset.
Frankly, homosexuals should be content with civil partnerships. Marriage is defined as a religious institution between a man and a woman...as long as you abide by that definition there's nothing wrong with letting homosexuals get the same benefits that marriages recieve under a different name...
Obviously there are extreme religious groups who won't accept union of homosexuals in any way, but there are likely many who are pissed because government is attempting to re-write the definition of marriage.
Just call it a civil union. Don't shit on a major religious institution. Homosexuals should recognize their union goes against many major religiuous doctrines....simply be content in recieving the same benefits.
separate but equal, right? history has taught us that that is not a legitimate way of handling things.
|
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.
I think this is an interesting point though. In a sense the church is infringing on the religious freedom of the gay community by refusing them recognition within the church. Obviously this would vary from institution to institution (even within the churches themselves. Catholic church I was made to attend services at exceedingly liberal venues.)
Obviously it doing so on the basis of a codified faith complicates the matter but per Kwark's OP the UK does have some interesting precedent for pushing the issue. That exemption clause is the most interesting addition to this law imo. Will be curious to see which names wind up on the final form in Parliament.
|
On December 12 2012 04:43 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 04:36 Klondikebar wrote: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? the supreme court has a test for this. you cant question the facts of their beliefs; you can only question whether they actually have the belief. i am fine with this test. we accept religious beliefs as something to be protected because its a fundamental right.
I'm not sure I am fine with that test. Do we protect the beliefs of cults? The KKK? A belief in Santa? Simply having a belief is not grounds for protecting it. The "religious" adjective doesn't really change anything.
I guess I'm saying that if a belief is going to be a protected, it should also be justified. I want SOME rigor in the legislature. You're still free to believe whatever you want, but if you can't justify or lay out some argument for holding it, it doesn't deserve to be protected.
|
On December 12 2012 04:49 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 04:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 04:36 Klondikebar wrote: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? the supreme court has a test for this. you cant question the facts of their beliefs; you can only question whether they actually have the belief. i am fine with this test. we accept religious beliefs as something to be protected because its a fundamental right. I'm not sure I am fine with that test. Do we protect the beliefs of cults? The KKK? A belief in Santa? Simply having a belief is not grounds for protecting it. The "religious" adjective doesn't really change anything. I guess I'm saying that if a belief is going to be a protected, it should also be justified. I want SOME rigor in the legislature. You're still free to believe whatever you want, but if you can't justify or lay out some argument for holding it, it doesn't deserve to be protected.
then you just open it up to abuse. questioning whether they have a belief prevents pretext, but does not infringe religious beliefs. forcing them to justify their beliefs, which in effect allows you to say their beliefs are unjustified, infringes religious beliefs.
|
Basically nothing is changing except couples who have had or will have a civil partnership, will "legally" be allowed to call themselves married!!!
|
On December 12 2012 04:49 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 04:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 04:36 Klondikebar wrote: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? the supreme court has a test for this. you cant question the facts of their beliefs; you can only question whether they actually have the belief. i am fine with this test. we accept religious beliefs as something to be protected because its a fundamental right. I'm not sure I am fine with that test. Do we protect the beliefs of cults? The KKK? A belief in Santa? Simply having a belief is not grounds for protecting it. The "religious" adjective doesn't really change anything. I guess I'm saying that if a belief is going to be a protected, it should also be justified. I want SOME rigor in the legislature. You're still free to believe whatever you want, but if you can't justify or lay out some argument for holding it, it doesn't deserve to be protected.
While I agree with your point on believing something is not grounds to protect it, yes we do protect them. Their actions as they may affect individuals in a direct and physical fashion is what we don't protect.
|
On December 12 2012 04:47 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 04:44 Qwyn wrote:
What the heck? This depends entirely on how you define a marriage. What they are doing here is redefining what marriage is. That's why people are getting so upset.
Frankly, homosexuals should be content with civil partnerships. Marriage is defined as a religious institution between a man and a woman...as long as you abide by that definition there's nothing wrong with letting homosexuals get the same benefits that marriages recieve under a different name...
Obviously there are extreme religious groups who won't accept union of homosexuals in any way, but there are likely many who are pissed because government is attempting to re-write the definition of marriage.
Just call it a civil union. Don't shit on a major religious institution. Homosexuals should recognize their union goes against many major religiuous doctrines....simply be content in recieving the same benefits.
separate but equal, right? history has taught us that that is not a legitimate way of handling things.
Seperation of church and state yo <3.
|
On December 12 2012 04:47 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 04:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 04:36 Klondikebar wrote: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? the supreme court has a test for this. you cant question the facts of their beliefs; you can only question whether they actually have the belief. i am fine with this test. we accept religious beliefs as something to be protected because its a fundamental right. The issue secularists like myself have with this statement is the "because it is a fundamental right". In the UK it is currently against the law to discriminate against gays on the basis of their sexuality, even if you have really strongly held homophobic convictions and a load of subjective experience that validated them. This law will grant an exemption to the anti discrimination laws for churches which can't even agree amongst themselves most of the time whether or not they oppose gay marriage. Religious people do not have a monopoly on strength of conviction and yet they seem to have inherited a fundamental right to have their convictions protected. I'd like to see it justified.
history and society has determined that it is a fundamental right, and in america it is written into our constitution. the justification for that is something that would take a lot of research and time to write a thoughtful piece, which i am not willing to do. =)
|
Personally, I am all for gays being allowed to married, as it makes sense especially sense with the divoce rate so high, its not really a um "Sacred institution" that churches have been using to block gay marriage. Personally though, I don't think its right to force a religion to do something they preach against. I know technically if your married by the Catholic Church unless you get an anule\ment from a Bishup, which doesn't happen often, you do not get a divorce. Or at least, you don' get one that is recognized by the Catholic Church and they won't remarry you to someone else. And I dont believe the goverment can force the Church to marry a divorced person. So I guess what I'm trying to say is I don't really see an issue with the Churchs holding onto their certain views so long as they are not violent. (IE Churches should not be allowed to speak about eradicating all the gays or anything of the sort.)
Again, I personally as a Catholic man, admititelyed not a very strongly faithed one,have no issue with homosexual marriage and think the United States should follow the UKs example.Just that the Churchs shouldn't be forced to give them if they don't wish to.
|
On December 12 2012 04:44 Qwyn wrote:
What the heck? This depends entirely on how you define a marriage. What they are doing here is redefining what marriage is. That's why people are getting so upset.
Frankly, homosexuals should be content with civil partnerships. Marriage is defined as a religious institution between a man and a woman...as long as you abide by that definition there's nothing wrong with letting homosexuals get the same benefits that marriages recieve under a different name...
Obviously there are extreme religious groups who won't accept union of homosexuals in any way, but there are likely many who are pissed because government is attempting to re-write the definition of marriage.
Just call it a civil union. Don't shit on a major religious institution. Homosexuals should recognize their union goes against many major religiuous doctrines....simply be content in recieving the same benefits.
Marriage is a concept that permeates the whole of society, almost every culture on earth uses marriage, it is not the sole ownership of any one religious group or interpretation.
Given this, restricting peoples ability to enter into it on the grounds of sexuality is discriminatory if only in legally restricting committed gay couples from entering into it.
If it is a religious institution which religion holds it? All of them? One of them? There are hundreds of thousands of people who are married and yet do not belong to a religious group or identify as being religious.
Yes this is redefining marriage, and thats a good thing as it removes a blockage to equality within increasingly diverse societies.
It was once illegal for white people to marry black people, and similar arguments against interracial marriage were being made a century ago, the only difference is now its not on the grounds of race but sexuality.
|
On December 12 2012 04:52 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 04:47 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 04:44 Qwyn wrote:
What the heck? This depends entirely on how you define a marriage. What they are doing here is redefining what marriage is. That's why people are getting so upset.
Frankly, homosexuals should be content with civil partnerships. Marriage is defined as a religious institution between a man and a woman...as long as you abide by that definition there's nothing wrong with letting homosexuals get the same benefits that marriages recieve under a different name...
Obviously there are extreme religious groups who won't accept union of homosexuals in any way, but there are likely many who are pissed because government is attempting to re-write the definition of marriage.
Just call it a civil union. Don't shit on a major religious institution. Homosexuals should recognize their union goes against many major religiuous doctrines....simply be content in recieving the same benefits.
separate but equal, right? history has taught us that that is not a legitimate way of handling things. Seperation of church and state yo <3.
i hope you understand that those are two entirely different things.
|
On December 12 2012 04:44 Qwyn wrote:
What the heck? This depends entirely on how you define a marriage. What they are doing here is redefining what marriage is. That's why people are getting so upset.
Frankly, homosexuals should be content with civil partnerships. Marriage is defined as a religious institution between a man and a woman...as long as you abide by that definition there's nothing wrong with letting homosexuals get the same benefits that marriages recieve under a different name...
Obviously there are extreme religious groups who won't accept union of homosexuals in any way, but there are likely many who are pissed because government is attempting to re-write the definition of marriage.
Just call it a civil union. Don't shit on a major religious institution. Homosexuals should recognize their union goes against many major religiuous doctrines....simply be content in recieving the same benefits.
Marriage isn't a purely religious institution but another social contract. You may get married in a church but it isn't official, no matter what the priest may say. Until you register the marriage with your local government you're not legally married.
The law is symbolic and represents equality without discriminating based on sexual preference. The US tried your "separate but equal" before; it didn't work then and it doesn't work now. Until 1971, there were some states in the US that still didn't allow interracial marriage even between the same denomination.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
The whole irony of this is the Church of England itself was founded in order for Henry VIII to not be forced to adhere to the laws surrounding marriage, at the time governed by the Catholic Church
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ly_xvk7evEY/SfG8Y1cV__I/AAAAAAAAA5A/X72njBC0zbY/s320/450px-New_York_City_Proposition_8_Protest_outside_LDS_temple_20.jpg)
