UK to legalise gay marriage, religious exemptions - Page 30

On December 20 2012 17:07 KwarK wrote:
Hattori, I think you're confused about what coming out is. It's not when you make up your mind and decide to be gay, it's when you decide to inform your social group that their default assumption about your sexuality is wrong. A mixed race man whose friends thought he was just tanned could absolutely come out about his race. All coming out is is sharing information about yourself to your peers so they can make their assumptions more accurate. I live in England, have an English accent and made this topic, you could assume I have four English grandparents. If I then said my grandfather spoke Welsh you would change your assumption to me being a quarter Welsh. That would be coming out about my cultural heritage. The only difference is that I'd rather be gay than a quarter Welsh.

On December 23 2012 18:54 iFU.pauline wrote:
You don't have to be religious in order to get married. I think religious institutions think they own the marriage concept somehow so they feel involved in it. They also refuse new idea that would go against their belief system simple as that.

On December 23 2012 12:08 sam!zdat wrote:


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 21:48 Reason wrote:

As far as I'm concerned no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another, until you are prepared to offer a reason as to why this might be don't bother talking to me about philosophical discourse.

On December 23 2012 21:48 Reason wrote:

As far as I'm concerned no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another, until you are prepared to offer a reason as to why this might be don't bother talking to me about philosophical discourse.

On December 23 2012 13:22 The Final Boss wrote:


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.

On December 23 2012 19:29 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:


If the institution is private property, run by a private organisations, funded by private individuals, don't you think they have that right?

On December 23 2012 18:42 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:


You have serious self-esteem issues. It shows as you believe in dictating as an atheist to how and what actions the religious and their institutions may perform. How is that different when Jews were forced to leave their companies and their work places because "it is the law".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Jewish_legislation_in_prewar_Nazi_Germany

By what power do you do these things?
We are right because we say so?

User was temp banned for this post.

On December 24 2012 00:23 Gendi2545 wrote:


If religion is nothing but fairy tales then why do more enlightened people take it so seriously? Let Christians practice their harmless rituals without interfering. If someone wants to join in, then it seems reasonable that they become a Christian themselves and follow the rules of the church.

On December 24 2012 00:24 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:


Last I checked, private property rights are made up?
You contradict yourself.

On December 23 2012 08:56 KwarK wrote:

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.

On December 12 2012 04:41 farvacola wrote:

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 24 2012 07:19 KwarK wrote:

Okay, firstly, I've not called anyone but the BNP fascists in this topic and the BNP are an openly fascist party so I'm not sure where you're going with that one.
Secondly, "stomping over freedom of religion" is not actually making a point, it's simply describing an action. To make a point you need to go further and explain why stomping over freedom of religion is bad. It's like the whole "it's socialism!!!" thing where you describe a policy rather than actually explaining the bits you disagree with. In this case what it comes down to is your unconditional support for the legal freedom to do whatever actions you feel are endorsed, as long as they're the ones endorsed by your particular brand of religion. It's an utterly shameless hypocritical nonsense and flies in the face of rationality and equality.
Thirdly, this is in the UK, not the US, so I don't know why you're involving "the majority" and their support for your libertarian views or invoking your rights. Your constitution has no power here, this land still belongs to King George.

On December 24 2012 08:35 The Final Boss wrote:

Not to skip over your first statement, but I'm a little confused. You want me to explain why I think stomping all over freedom of religion is bad, or to put it in another perspective, why I think freedom of religion is a quintessential right to promoting liberty and equality? There are arguments against freedom of religion and even arguments against freedom of speech + Show Spoiler [tangent] + and frankly if you hold those views there is nothing wrong with that. However, you should not try to hide behind the banner of equality if that is not what you are actually standing for.

Before I continue, i think it is very important to make a distinction. There is religious marriage, and then there is civil marriage. If you don't know, civil marriage is the state run institution that offers legal benefits to those who are married. Religious marriage is each individual's--or institution's--interpretation of marriage. What I am talking about is not civil marriage, as the legal benefits are there for straight and gay couples, but rather religious marriage, which is a part of each individual's religious beliefs. Limiting religious marriage is limiting a facet of religious freedom, which--as I said before--you can make an argument for, but do not think that you are promoting equality and don't try to deceive others into thinking that you are.

If it is discriminatory for the Catholic Church to not offer marriage to gay couples--those who interpret marriage differently than the Catholic Church do--does this also mean that it is discriminatory for the Catholic Church to not marry a polygamist and three women or a man and a horse? If a person has a truly outlandish interpretation of marriage, should we be forced to marry them in any institution and provide them with economic benefits. Frankly, when people talk about legalizing gay marriage in American politics, they have stated to use the phrase "marriage equality," which is a bit of a misnomer because it is actually just another interpretation of marriage which we then use to define civil marriage (for instance polygamy is still illegal).

But if you really want me to explain why freedom of religion is important, it is because faith is an important part of some people's identity. While you may not feel that way, there are people who feel strongly about their faith, just as others feel that their heritage, race, gender, or sexual orientation is an important part of their identity. I am of the opinion that limiting freedom of speech or religion is destructive to a free society. What you want is not a secular state, but rather an atheist state. A secular state would have no opinion, but you have a clearly biased view, and while you can call your views whatever you'd like, calling yourself a "secularist" is a frankly not true.

But back to the first statement you made about fascism, from your posts I got the sense that you are addressing the BNP as being the main enemies against your suggested idea, which simply is not true. They surely are against it because it's a terrible idea that is offensive and oppressive against everyone who has different religious views than you, but there are a lot more people than those fascists who disagree with that idea. Also, I don't know as much about British politics as I do about American ones, but I don't think that all of the BNP identifies themselves as fascists, and since that term has a very negative connotation going along with it, I think a better way of viewing them is a socially highly conservative party. For the premises of this thread--particularly because not everybody in this thread is well versed in British politics--I think it would be best to change "fascist" to "socially conservative" at least in the OP, so as to remain impartial.

And finally, I understand that you are in the UK and I am in the United States of America. However, just as I am critical of oppressive policies in China, France, and the United States of America, I will voice my opinions on the UK's policies. We have a different political system, but my convictions about human rights, freedom of religion, and equality do not adhere to where you live, but rather simply the fact that we all are human beings.

On December 24 2012 07:54 Zergofobic wrote:


No. If I make a law that says: The people right to free speech shall not be abridged by any law. That is a law that guarantees the free speech of the people and protects it from law.

If I create a law that says: Person who commits a violent crime against another person shall be persecuted in a court of law. I just created a law that punishes violent crime, yet protects the persons right to trial.

So no, not all laws force people to so something, nor should they. Laws should be there to protect rights and expand liberties, not the opposite.

On December 24 2012 07:56 NEOtheONE wrote:


Except the whole basis as to why you are a part of the denomination to begin with is because you agree with their views on big issues such as Abortion, Gay Marriage, End of Life Decisions, et cetera. If you disagree on a fundamentally held view within your religious denomination, then it is time to seriously consider no longer being part of that denomination.

On December 24 2012 09:22 KwarK wrote:

Regarding not marrying a horse being discrimination. This is either confusion on your part or a bad attempt to make an argument out of word games. I shall clarify. Discrimination means, in it's simplest sense, identifying a difference and choosing one. That isn't illegal in general. Identifying that a horse isn't a person isn't illegal. What we use discrimination to mean in this discussion is the sense in which it is relevant, grounds upon which discrimination is illegal. Sexual orientation is one of those. So, not marrying a horse because it's a horse is technically discrimination but as a horse is not a protected group it would not be illegal discrimination. Refusing to marry a homosexual couple however would be.

You have again tied things which are unrelated together. You start with the premise that a church can choose to treat homosexuals and heterosexuals differently, an action that exists in the secular world. You then say that them making that choice is freedom of religion. You then go further to say that it is the same as freedom of speech. This is an unproven syllogism and one that I challenge. Therefore your conclusion that I oppose freedom of speech is completely without basis, I oppose freedom of religious action when it contradicts the limits that we put upon the rest of actions we have in society, and, making this even more hypocritical, so do you for every religion but your own.

Take the putting of apostates to the sword. If a Muslim man murdered another who had converted from Islam to Christianity then you would want him prosecuted for murder (I assume). However the religious legitimacy of his action cannot be contested, it comes straight from the Koran, nor can the sincerity of the religion as it is a major world religion. What you have is a man acting in accordance with his religious beliefs and if the society was built on religious rules then there would be no issue with it. The reason you take issue with it is because you apply secular principles on what a moral society looks like to his action and conclude that what he has done is wrong, despite the religious convictions that lay behind it. Although it is based in religious belief it is an action by which he physically expresses his religious belief and therefore it has real consequences in the secular world and falls under secular law. If however the same man were to believe with his whole heart that the apostate deserved to be put to death but not murder him then he would be believing what his religion believed but would be in line with secular law. His belief, as an opinion, would be protected by the exact same freedom of opinions that protects every other opinion and speech we have.

The exact same system applies here. The idea that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry is protected under freedom of speech, as are all such ideas. However the action of discriminating against them is not protected because it falls under secular law.

I pose you the following questions.
Firstly, if religious expression is granted protection from secular law on the basis of religious freedom then is there any limit? Is it merely the religious beliefs you approve of that get protection or is it all of them?
Secondly, how does religious belief in the personal sense (what you think, what it means to you) differ from any other strongly held conviction, for example those held by animal rights activists? Do you think there people within vegan communities who are more passionate and derive more meaning from their beliefs than some of the less zealous within a religion?
Thirdly, how do you reconcile this entire issue with Jesus' recommendation that his followers "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's", Christianity was from it's outset submissive to the secular authority, it existed against a background in which the Jewish people were next to wiped out for resistance to the overwhelming power of the Roman state. The Middle Ages happened and it no longer suited the clergy to submit to kings because the power of the kings was a shadow of that which the Roman Emperor commanded but the words are still right there in Jesus' mouth.