|
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 05:46 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 05:43 Klondikebar wrote:On December 12 2012 05:40 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:34 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 05:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:20 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:12 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 05:09 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:06 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
The title says UK, if you cannot or are unwilling to justify the statement "because it is a fundamental right" then it should not be assumed to be a fundamental right in the UK. The question of why you get an exemption if a burning bush says to oppose the gays but not if a regular bush says to oppose the gays remains. i am pretty sure its considered a fundamental right through most of the modern, western world. its in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after all. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml An awful lot of those are infringed upon, if not outright disregarded, by pretty much all of the modern, western world. There's a reason nobody cares about those. The fact that some people 60 years ago pandered to the religious groups is not exactly surprising and should not in any way be viewed as the last word on the matter. The right to ones opinions is one thing but special rights given to opinions of a religious nature and then the right to discriminate because of those opinions is quite another. so, you dont think that religion should be a fundamental right? why exactly? I think that in order for a fair society to operate there has to be limits upon our freedoms regarding the treatment of each other. While you can believe what you like, as that only impacts yourself, there have to be rules imposed upon your conduct with others. One of these is anti-discrimination legislation and in every case except religion it is seen as being necessary. I see no compelling case why religious opinions such as "marriage is between a man and a woman because God" should be protected but secular opinions such as "marriage is between two people of the same skin colour because dog" should not. With neither protected they both fall victim to my belief that society has the right to intervene in our conduct towards each other, sacrificing one but protecting the other as a fundamental right is contradictory, hypocritical and nonsensical. fundamental rights were created to prevent the majority from discriminating against the minority. you are willing to sacrifice people's right to their religion because you think its more important that gays be allowed to be married by priests and on church properties. i think that is wrong especially considering there is no significant reason to do so. why cant people just get married in churches that allow gay marriage? or why not just get married by a non-priest? there is very little infringement in the right to marry, and huge infringement in the right to religion. i will assume that you dont really care about the right to religion in the first place, and that is why you are so willing to place it on the sacrificial altar. Fundamental rights were created to prevent the guys writing the fundamental rights down from not having the things they thought were important, nothing more. Humans cannot escape their humanity. There are limitless fundamental rights which are disregarded daily because they weren't written down as a fundamental right in 1948 because nobody really cared about them, fundamental is simply a word. Caring more does not make something a right, nor more fundamental. You have yet to do anything other than restate over and over that it is a fundamental right, the question is why are religious convictions and not comparable secular convictions. so the universal declaration of human rights is a farce. okay. i wont speak in terms of fundamental rights then. individuals have the right to practice their religion without infringement, just as individuals have the right to practice their hetero- or homosexuality without infringement. anything that unnecessarily infringes one or the other is a violation of their rights and inappropriate. allowing homosexuals to marry and allowing religions not to have to perform the marriages is a reasonable compromise that protects both individual's rights. disallowing individuals to practice their religion (i.e., forcing them to do things that are against firmly held beliefs) is as discriminatory as disallowing homosexuals to marry. Did you miss the part where this law would make it illegal for individuals to practice their religion because their institution said so? This law would make it illegal for any catholic priest to perform a gay marriage if the catholic church decided it wanted to be protected. This means that if an INDIVIDUAL thought that the catholic faith allowed gay marriages, his right to practice his belief would be trampled by the institution. i have no problem with that. they can disassociate themselves with the catholic church and there is no infringement on their rights. i do have a problem with a religion saying they firmly believe that gay marriage is wrong, refuse to do it, but then allow certain members of the church to do it. i think the law was drafted in that way to prevent such pretext. edit: its a right to practice religion, it is not a right to be part of a certain religious organization.
But they're catholic! The law can't tell them not to be catholic! It's an infringement on their rights to tell them that they HAVE to believe gay marriage is wrong in order to be catholic!
This whole thing is silly. When an institution gains the legal power to begin speaking for it's individual members, it will trample on the right to believe what you want in the very same way it claims it needs to be protected.
And my issue is not that someone should dissociate from their church...I've long though that moderate christians should get the hell away from organized religion. My issue is not that they are by secular law forced to dissociate.
|
On December 12 2012 05:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 05:34 Crushinator wrote:On December 12 2012 05:20 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:12 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 05:09 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:06 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 04:54 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 04:47 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 04:43 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
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. =) The title says UK, if you cannot or are unwilling to justify the statement "because it is a fundamental right" then it should not be assumed to be a fundamental right in the UK. The question of why you get an exemption if a burning bush says to oppose the gays but not if a regular bush says to oppose the gays remains. i am pretty sure its considered a fundamental right through most of the modern, western world. its in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after all. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml An awful lot of those are infringed upon, if not outright disregarded, by pretty much all of the modern, western world. There's a reason nobody cares about those. The fact that some people 60 years ago pandered to the religious groups is not exactly surprising and should not in any way be viewed as the last word on the matter. The right to ones opinions is one thing but special rights given to opinions of a religious nature and then the right to discriminate because of those opinions is quite another. so, you dont think that religion should be a fundamental right? why exactly? I think that in order for a fair society to operate there has to be limits upon our freedoms regarding the treatment of each other. While you can believe what you like, as that only impacts yourself, there have to be rules imposed upon your conduct with others. One of these is anti-discrimination legislation and in every case except religion it is seen as being necessary. I see no compelling case why religious opinions such as "marriage is between a man and a woman because God" should be protected but secular opinions such as "marriage is between two people of the same skin colour because dog" should not. With neither protected they both fall victim to my belief that society has the right to intervene in our conduct towards each other, sacrificing one but protecting the other as a fundamental right is contradictory, hypocritical and nonsensical. Religious institutions are also different from other institutions in that they are a very personal matter, that primarily concerns itself with how one's personal life must be lived. Contrary to you, I do have to concede that in this way, religion is special. Beliefs about how ones personal life should be lived do not have to be religious in nature. Vegans have beliefs about how ones personal life should be lived. The hypocrisy is that if a Buddhist believes that he is morally obligated to avoid meat then that is his fundamental right and if, for example, he were in prison and served only food with meat then you would be infringing upon it but a secular vegetarian who believes very strongly in animal rights and is far more passionate about it that the Buddhist who sometimes sneaks a burger is not protected because although his convictions are personal and deeply held they are not based on intangible concept or, even if they are, they're based on the wrong concept. There is a massive discrepancy there.
I agree, that personal beliefs are often granted a special respect they don't deserve if they are religious in nature. But I do not think this is in conflict with what I wrote earlier. Private secular institutions are not in the business of marrying people, and as such we dont need to consider them. And if you could point to a case where a private secular institution discriminates on the basis of these kinds of convictions, I think they should be allowed to do that aswell.
|
On December 12 2012 04:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 04:42 cLAN.Anax wrote: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?? Goodness. I'll need to look into that....
On December 12 2012 05:43 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 05:40 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:34 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 05:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:20 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:12 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 05:09 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:06 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 04:54 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
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. =) The title says UK, if you cannot or are unwilling to justify the statement "because it is a fundamental right" then it should not be assumed to be a fundamental right in the UK. The question of why you get an exemption if a burning bush says to oppose the gays but not if a regular bush says to oppose the gays remains. i am pretty sure its considered a fundamental right through most of the modern, western world. its in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after all. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml An awful lot of those are infringed upon, if not outright disregarded, by pretty much all of the modern, western world. There's a reason nobody cares about those. The fact that some people 60 years ago pandered to the religious groups is not exactly surprising and should not in any way be viewed as the last word on the matter. The right to ones opinions is one thing but special rights given to opinions of a religious nature and then the right to discriminate because of those opinions is quite another. so, you dont think that religion should be a fundamental right? why exactly? I think that in order for a fair society to operate there has to be limits upon our freedoms regarding the treatment of each other. While you can believe what you like, as that only impacts yourself, there have to be rules imposed upon your conduct with others. One of these is anti-discrimination legislation and in every case except religion it is seen as being necessary. I see no compelling case why religious opinions such as "marriage is between a man and a woman because God" should be protected but secular opinions such as "marriage is between two people of the same skin colour because dog" should not. With neither protected they both fall victim to my belief that society has the right to intervene in our conduct towards each other, sacrificing one but protecting the other as a fundamental right is contradictory, hypocritical and nonsensical. fundamental rights were created to prevent the majority from discriminating against the minority. you are willing to sacrifice people's right to their religion because you think its more important that gays be allowed to be married by priests and on church properties. i think that is wrong especially considering there is no significant reason to do so. why cant people just get married in churches that allow gay marriage? or why not just get married by a non-priest? there is very little infringement in the right to marry, and huge infringement in the right to religion. i will assume that you dont really care about the right to religion in the first place, and that is why you are so willing to place it on the sacrificial altar. Fundamental rights were created to prevent the guys writing the fundamental rights down from not having the things they thought were important, nothing more. Humans cannot escape their humanity. There are limitless fundamental rights which are disregarded daily because they weren't written down as a fundamental right in 1948 because nobody really cared about them, fundamental is simply a word. Caring more does not make something a right, nor more fundamental. You have yet to do anything other than restate over and over that it is a fundamental right, the question is why are religious convictions and not comparable secular convictions. so the universal declaration of human rights is a farce. okay. i wont speak in terms of fundamental rights then. individuals have the right to practice their religion without infringement, just as individuals have the right to practice their hetero- or homosexuality without infringement. anything that unnecessarily infringes one or the other is a violation of their rights and inappropriate. allowing homosexuals to marry and allowing religions not to have to perform the marriages is a reasonable compromise that protects both individual's rights. disallowing individuals to practice their religion (i.e., forcing them to do things that are against firmly held beliefs) is as discriminatory as disallowing homosexuals to marry. Did you miss the part where this law would make it illegal for individuals to practice their religion because their institution said so? This law would make it illegal for any catholic priest to perform a gay marriage if the catholic church decided it wanted to be protected. This means that if an INDIVIDUAL thought that the catholic faith allowed gay marriages, his right to practice his belief would be trampled by the institution.
If that's really the case, I'd be more in agreement with letting churches deciding on their own, regardless of denomination or greater organization. Then again, if a single church decides that what its denomination is doing differs with that sole church's standards, they don't have to affiliate themselves with said denomination. For example, if the Presbyterian church I attend back home when I'm on break suddenly started performing ceremonies for same-sex couples, I'd be okay with the PCA and that church breaking ties.
Ideally, though, it would work more along the lines of: the Presbyterian church here locally and back home have fundamentally different views on this issue, even though they are part of the same PCA. I believe it should vary more from congregation to congregation, and that the law should allow that.
|
On December 12 2012 05:49 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 05:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:43 Klondikebar wrote:On December 12 2012 05:40 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:34 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 05:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:20 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:12 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 05:09 dAPhREAk wrote:[quote] i am pretty sure its considered a fundamental right through most of the modern, western world. its in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after all. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml An awful lot of those are infringed upon, if not outright disregarded, by pretty much all of the modern, western world. There's a reason nobody cares about those. The fact that some people 60 years ago pandered to the religious groups is not exactly surprising and should not in any way be viewed as the last word on the matter. The right to ones opinions is one thing but special rights given to opinions of a religious nature and then the right to discriminate because of those opinions is quite another. so, you dont think that religion should be a fundamental right? why exactly? I think that in order for a fair society to operate there has to be limits upon our freedoms regarding the treatment of each other. While you can believe what you like, as that only impacts yourself, there have to be rules imposed upon your conduct with others. One of these is anti-discrimination legislation and in every case except religion it is seen as being necessary. I see no compelling case why religious opinions such as "marriage is between a man and a woman because God" should be protected but secular opinions such as "marriage is between two people of the same skin colour because dog" should not. With neither protected they both fall victim to my belief that society has the right to intervene in our conduct towards each other, sacrificing one but protecting the other as a fundamental right is contradictory, hypocritical and nonsensical. fundamental rights were created to prevent the majority from discriminating against the minority. you are willing to sacrifice people's right to their religion because you think its more important that gays be allowed to be married by priests and on church properties. i think that is wrong especially considering there is no significant reason to do so. why cant people just get married in churches that allow gay marriage? or why not just get married by a non-priest? there is very little infringement in the right to marry, and huge infringement in the right to religion. i will assume that you dont really care about the right to religion in the first place, and that is why you are so willing to place it on the sacrificial altar. Fundamental rights were created to prevent the guys writing the fundamental rights down from not having the things they thought were important, nothing more. Humans cannot escape their humanity. There are limitless fundamental rights which are disregarded daily because they weren't written down as a fundamental right in 1948 because nobody really cared about them, fundamental is simply a word. Caring more does not make something a right, nor more fundamental. You have yet to do anything other than restate over and over that it is a fundamental right, the question is why are religious convictions and not comparable secular convictions. so the universal declaration of human rights is a farce. okay. i wont speak in terms of fundamental rights then. individuals have the right to practice their religion without infringement, just as individuals have the right to practice their hetero- or homosexuality without infringement. anything that unnecessarily infringes one or the other is a violation of their rights and inappropriate. allowing homosexuals to marry and allowing religions not to have to perform the marriages is a reasonable compromise that protects both individual's rights. disallowing individuals to practice their religion (i.e., forcing them to do things that are against firmly held beliefs) is as discriminatory as disallowing homosexuals to marry. Did you miss the part where this law would make it illegal for individuals to practice their religion because their institution said so? This law would make it illegal for any catholic priest to perform a gay marriage if the catholic church decided it wanted to be protected. This means that if an INDIVIDUAL thought that the catholic faith allowed gay marriages, his right to practice his belief would be trampled by the institution. i have no problem with that. they can disassociate themselves with the catholic church and there is no infringement on their rights. i do have a problem with a religion saying they firmly believe that gay marriage is wrong, refuse to do it, but then allow certain members of the church to do it. i think the law was drafted in that way to prevent such pretext. edit: its a right to practice religion, it is not a right to be part of a certain religious organization. But they're catholic! The law can't tell them not to be catholic! It's an infringement on their rights to tell them that they HAVE to believe gay marriage is wrong in order to be catholic! This whole thing is silly. When an institution gains the legal power to begin speaking for it's individual members, it will trample on the right to believe what you want in the very same way it claims it needs to be protected.
ummm, what are you talking about? most religions are based on the fact that the institution speaks for its members, not the other way around. its not a democracy. church leaders usually interpret and enforce religious doctrines, which are usually based on a governing document (e.g., bible, koran, etc.).
also, when you refer to rights, it is usually preventing the government from interfering in an individual's rights, not, for example, preventing the catholic church to excommunicate priests who preach gay marraige.
|
On December 12 2012 05:55 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 05:49 Klondikebar wrote:On December 12 2012 05:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:43 Klondikebar wrote:On December 12 2012 05:40 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:34 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 05:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:20 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:12 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
An awful lot of those are infringed upon, if not outright disregarded, by pretty much all of the modern, western world. There's a reason nobody cares about those. The fact that some people 60 years ago pandered to the religious groups is not exactly surprising and should not in any way be viewed as the last word on the matter. The right to ones opinions is one thing but special rights given to opinions of a religious nature and then the right to discriminate because of those opinions is quite another. so, you dont think that religion should be a fundamental right? why exactly? I think that in order for a fair society to operate there has to be limits upon our freedoms regarding the treatment of each other. While you can believe what you like, as that only impacts yourself, there have to be rules imposed upon your conduct with others. One of these is anti-discrimination legislation and in every case except religion it is seen as being necessary. I see no compelling case why religious opinions such as "marriage is between a man and a woman because God" should be protected but secular opinions such as "marriage is between two people of the same skin colour because dog" should not. With neither protected they both fall victim to my belief that society has the right to intervene in our conduct towards each other, sacrificing one but protecting the other as a fundamental right is contradictory, hypocritical and nonsensical. fundamental rights were created to prevent the majority from discriminating against the minority. you are willing to sacrifice people's right to their religion because you think its more important that gays be allowed to be married by priests and on church properties. i think that is wrong especially considering there is no significant reason to do so. why cant people just get married in churches that allow gay marriage? or why not just get married by a non-priest? there is very little infringement in the right to marry, and huge infringement in the right to religion. i will assume that you dont really care about the right to religion in the first place, and that is why you are so willing to place it on the sacrificial altar. Fundamental rights were created to prevent the guys writing the fundamental rights down from not having the things they thought were important, nothing more. Humans cannot escape their humanity. There are limitless fundamental rights which are disregarded daily because they weren't written down as a fundamental right in 1948 because nobody really cared about them, fundamental is simply a word. Caring more does not make something a right, nor more fundamental. You have yet to do anything other than restate over and over that it is a fundamental right, the question is why are religious convictions and not comparable secular convictions. so the universal declaration of human rights is a farce. okay. i wont speak in terms of fundamental rights then. individuals have the right to practice their religion without infringement, just as individuals have the right to practice their hetero- or homosexuality without infringement. anything that unnecessarily infringes one or the other is a violation of their rights and inappropriate. allowing homosexuals to marry and allowing religions not to have to perform the marriages is a reasonable compromise that protects both individual's rights. disallowing individuals to practice their religion (i.e., forcing them to do things that are against firmly held beliefs) is as discriminatory as disallowing homosexuals to marry. Did you miss the part where this law would make it illegal for individuals to practice their religion because their institution said so? This law would make it illegal for any catholic priest to perform a gay marriage if the catholic church decided it wanted to be protected. This means that if an INDIVIDUAL thought that the catholic faith allowed gay marriages, his right to practice his belief would be trampled by the institution. i have no problem with that. they can disassociate themselves with the catholic church and there is no infringement on their rights. i do have a problem with a religion saying they firmly believe that gay marriage is wrong, refuse to do it, but then allow certain members of the church to do it. i think the law was drafted in that way to prevent such pretext. edit: its a right to practice religion, it is not a right to be part of a certain religious organization. But they're catholic! The law can't tell them not to be catholic! It's an infringement on their rights to tell them that they HAVE to believe gay marriage is wrong in order to be catholic! This whole thing is silly. When an institution gains the legal power to begin speaking for it's individual members, it will trample on the right to believe what you want in the very same way it claims it needs to be protected. ummm, what are you talking about? most religions are based on the fact that the institution speaks for its members, not the other way around. its not a democracy. church leaders usually interpret and enforce religious doctrines, which are usually based on a governing document (e.g., bible, koran, etc.). also, when you refer to rights, it is usually preventing the government from interfering in an individual's rights, not, for example, preventing the catholic church to excommunicate priests who preach gay marraige.
But now they speak for their members with legal authority. I find that very weird.
|
Honestly I think this is how the US should handle it. Gay marriage should be legal, but why should religions be forced to marry gay couples against the religion's belief?
|
On December 12 2012 05:55 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 05:49 Klondikebar wrote:On December 12 2012 05:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:43 Klondikebar wrote:On December 12 2012 05:40 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:34 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 05:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:20 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:12 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
An awful lot of those are infringed upon, if not outright disregarded, by pretty much all of the modern, western world. There's a reason nobody cares about those. The fact that some people 60 years ago pandered to the religious groups is not exactly surprising and should not in any way be viewed as the last word on the matter. The right to ones opinions is one thing but special rights given to opinions of a religious nature and then the right to discriminate because of those opinions is quite another. so, you dont think that religion should be a fundamental right? why exactly? I think that in order for a fair society to operate there has to be limits upon our freedoms regarding the treatment of each other. While you can believe what you like, as that only impacts yourself, there have to be rules imposed upon your conduct with others. One of these is anti-discrimination legislation and in every case except religion it is seen as being necessary. I see no compelling case why religious opinions such as "marriage is between a man and a woman because God" should be protected but secular opinions such as "marriage is between two people of the same skin colour because dog" should not. With neither protected they both fall victim to my belief that society has the right to intervene in our conduct towards each other, sacrificing one but protecting the other as a fundamental right is contradictory, hypocritical and nonsensical. fundamental rights were created to prevent the majority from discriminating against the minority. you are willing to sacrifice people's right to their religion because you think its more important that gays be allowed to be married by priests and on church properties. i think that is wrong especially considering there is no significant reason to do so. why cant people just get married in churches that allow gay marriage? or why not just get married by a non-priest? there is very little infringement in the right to marry, and huge infringement in the right to religion. i will assume that you dont really care about the right to religion in the first place, and that is why you are so willing to place it on the sacrificial altar. Fundamental rights were created to prevent the guys writing the fundamental rights down from not having the things they thought were important, nothing more. Humans cannot escape their humanity. There are limitless fundamental rights which are disregarded daily because they weren't written down as a fundamental right in 1948 because nobody really cared about them, fundamental is simply a word. Caring more does not make something a right, nor more fundamental. You have yet to do anything other than restate over and over that it is a fundamental right, the question is why are religious convictions and not comparable secular convictions. so the universal declaration of human rights is a farce. okay. i wont speak in terms of fundamental rights then. individuals have the right to practice their religion without infringement, just as individuals have the right to practice their hetero- or homosexuality without infringement. anything that unnecessarily infringes one or the other is a violation of their rights and inappropriate. allowing homosexuals to marry and allowing religions not to have to perform the marriages is a reasonable compromise that protects both individual's rights. disallowing individuals to practice their religion (i.e., forcing them to do things that are against firmly held beliefs) is as discriminatory as disallowing homosexuals to marry. Did you miss the part where this law would make it illegal for individuals to practice their religion because their institution said so? This law would make it illegal for any catholic priest to perform a gay marriage if the catholic church decided it wanted to be protected. This means that if an INDIVIDUAL thought that the catholic faith allowed gay marriages, his right to practice his belief would be trampled by the institution. i have no problem with that. they can disassociate themselves with the catholic church and there is no infringement on their rights. i do have a problem with a religion saying they firmly believe that gay marriage is wrong, refuse to do it, but then allow certain members of the church to do it. i think the law was drafted in that way to prevent such pretext. edit: its a right to practice religion, it is not a right to be part of a certain religious organization. But they're catholic! The law can't tell them not to be catholic! It's an infringement on their rights to tell them that they HAVE to believe gay marriage is wrong in order to be catholic! This whole thing is silly. When an institution gains the legal power to begin speaking for it's individual members, it will trample on the right to believe what you want in the very same way it claims it needs to be protected. ummm, what are you talking about? most religions are based on the fact that the institution speaks for its members, not the other way around. its not a democracy. church leaders usually interpret and enforce religious doctrines, which are usually based on a governing document (e.g., bible, koran, etc.). also, when you refer to rights, it is usually preventing the government from interfering in an individual's rights, not, for example, preventing the catholic church to excommunicate priests who preach gay marraige.
The CofE doesn't speak for its members on women bishops, as noted above.
The members of the head councils voted in majority for women bishops, but it was blocked by the minority.
So it's irrelevant what the members think in the CofE.
|
I think the analogy of the BNP is important.
Unless you can justify that the BNP should be allowed to exclude black people then you can't justify religions excluding gay people.
Do you want the BNP to rename themselves to the RBNP and then gain the right to discriminate because their white God told them it was okay?
That doesn't seem like progress to me.
|
On December 12 2012 06:23 Reason wrote:
I think the analogy of the BNP is important.
Unless you can justify that the BNP should be allowed to exclude black people then you can't justify religions excluding gay people.
Do you want the BNP to rename themselves to the RBNP and then gain the right to discriminate because their white God told them it was okay?
That doesn't seem like progress to me.
I don't agree that this justification is necessary. The BNP can still function as an uncompromised political party, even when they have to give up their official policy of not accepting black people. I don't think it is analogous to churches not wanting to marry gay people. It would be analogous to churches not wanting to accept gays as members, which in my opinion is a different kind of thing.
|
On December 12 2012 05:55 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 05:49 Klondikebar wrote:On December 12 2012 05:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:43 Klondikebar wrote:On December 12 2012 05:40 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:34 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 05:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:20 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:12 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
An awful lot of those are infringed upon, if not outright disregarded, by pretty much all of the modern, western world. There's a reason nobody cares about those. The fact that some people 60 years ago pandered to the religious groups is not exactly surprising and should not in any way be viewed as the last word on the matter. The right to ones opinions is one thing but special rights given to opinions of a religious nature and then the right to discriminate because of those opinions is quite another. so, you dont think that religion should be a fundamental right? why exactly? I think that in order for a fair society to operate there has to be limits upon our freedoms regarding the treatment of each other. While you can believe what you like, as that only impacts yourself, there have to be rules imposed upon your conduct with others. One of these is anti-discrimination legislation and in every case except religion it is seen as being necessary. I see no compelling case why religious opinions such as "marriage is between a man and a woman because God" should be protected but secular opinions such as "marriage is between two people of the same skin colour because dog" should not. With neither protected they both fall victim to my belief that society has the right to intervene in our conduct towards each other, sacrificing one but protecting the other as a fundamental right is contradictory, hypocritical and nonsensical. fundamental rights were created to prevent the majority from discriminating against the minority. you are willing to sacrifice people's right to their religion because you think its more important that gays be allowed to be married by priests and on church properties. i think that is wrong especially considering there is no significant reason to do so. why cant people just get married in churches that allow gay marriage? or why not just get married by a non-priest? there is very little infringement in the right to marry, and huge infringement in the right to religion. i will assume that you dont really care about the right to religion in the first place, and that is why you are so willing to place it on the sacrificial altar. Fundamental rights were created to prevent the guys writing the fundamental rights down from not having the things they thought were important, nothing more. Humans cannot escape their humanity. There are limitless fundamental rights which are disregarded daily because they weren't written down as a fundamental right in 1948 because nobody really cared about them, fundamental is simply a word. Caring more does not make something a right, nor more fundamental. You have yet to do anything other than restate over and over that it is a fundamental right, the question is why are religious convictions and not comparable secular convictions. so the universal declaration of human rights is a farce. okay. i wont speak in terms of fundamental rights then. individuals have the right to practice their religion without infringement, just as individuals have the right to practice their hetero- or homosexuality without infringement. anything that unnecessarily infringes one or the other is a violation of their rights and inappropriate. allowing homosexuals to marry and allowing religions not to have to perform the marriages is a reasonable compromise that protects both individual's rights. disallowing individuals to practice their religion (i.e., forcing them to do things that are against firmly held beliefs) is as discriminatory as disallowing homosexuals to marry. Did you miss the part where this law would make it illegal for individuals to practice their religion because their institution said so? This law would make it illegal for any catholic priest to perform a gay marriage if the catholic church decided it wanted to be protected. This means that if an INDIVIDUAL thought that the catholic faith allowed gay marriages, his right to practice his belief would be trampled by the institution. i have no problem with that. they can disassociate themselves with the catholic church and there is no infringement on their rights. i do have a problem with a religion saying they firmly believe that gay marriage is wrong, refuse to do it, but then allow certain members of the church to do it. i think the law was drafted in that way to prevent such pretext. edit: its a right to practice religion, it is not a right to be part of a certain religious organization. But they're catholic! The law can't tell them not to be catholic! It's an infringement on their rights to tell them that they HAVE to believe gay marriage is wrong in order to be catholic! This whole thing is silly. When an institution gains the legal power to begin speaking for it's individual members, it will trample on the right to believe what you want in the very same way it claims it needs to be protected. ummm, what are you talking about? most religions are based on the fact that the institution speaks for its members, not the other way around. its not a democracy. church leaders usually interpret and enforce religious doctrines, which are usually based on a governing document (e.g., bible, koran, etc.).
also, when you refer to rights, it is usually preventing the government from interfering in an individual's rights, not, for example, preventing the catholic church to excommunicate priests who preach gay marraige.
While this is debatable, you cant deny that the doctrine of the religion, how the bible,coran etc are interpreted, keeps evolving. And this is part of why i think this debate is really interesting. Let me try to explain myself.
The church's doctrine ( I am implicitly speaking of the christian church, as I do not know much of the other religions) evolves with time. Sometime in a wrong way, ( e.g. the inquisition...), but lately ( I mean over the last 100 years) it has become better and better with time. Lately, the christian church has, in my opinion, done a good job of coming back to the values taught in the new testament. The best example would of course be the Second Vatican Council. Sure some extremist group still exist, but they are smaller and smaller, when not excluded from the catholic church (e.g the Civitas extrem group in France).
Most young (< 35 ) christian I know, and I admit this might not be representative, have absolutely no issue with the gay marriage. They see it as a great step forward against discrimination. I've even see some priest prieching in favor of gay marriage. I have absolutely no doubt that in a few decade, gay marriage will be accepted by the christian church.
It will be slow however, as the religions are not known for adapting quickly. One good way i see to make it happen faster, is simply to not wait for them to agree to legalize gay marriage. Hopefully people will soon notice that they were worried for nothing, and that gay marriage will not be the end of the society. I also hope that pro-gay religious will speak up and that the church will keep moving in the right direction. I have already heard people asking for a 3rd Vatican coucil.
Now, should the government force religious organization to marry gay people. I dont think so. In France, we strongly believe in Laicity. This is ( quoting Wikipedia) "the concept denoting the absence of religious involvement in government affairs as well as absence of government involvement in religious affairs". Both part are important. I understand it is a bit different in the UK, but the government should not be able to decide what the religion should or should not be able to do. Leave it to them to evolve, or to simply disappear because what they teach does not correspond to the values of the people. Forcing the religion into marrying gay people would create in my opinion a very dangerous precedence. If the government can change how the religion function for the gay marriage, they could potentially change it for any other topic. And as a firm believer of separation of church and state, I don't want this to happen.
TL:DR : Should governments enforce religious gay marriage : No. Should the religion evolve and accept religious gay marriage: Yes.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51449 Posts
I think the government has finally done something good. I mean all party's are happy no? Gay marriage is allowed, but you can't get married in a church, under God. Which again i see nothing wrong with that. It's not like Gays look to go to a Church to get married, they would not be looking for God to accept them, they would just be looking for society to accept they are married?. This is a good piece of law imo. Gays can marry, but not in churches that don't want them too
|
While I have no problem with, say the Catholic Church or a Hebrew synagogue, refusing to marry homosexual couples on their church grounds. I don't see how the Church of England could participate in denying marriage to homosexual couples since CoE churches are technically property of the Queen and thus of the government. Although I could be mistaken since I am not British.
But potentially could this see the CoE no longer as the official church of the country, and wouldn't that be a good thing?
|
On December 12 2012 06:38 Pandemona wrote:
I think the government has finally done something good. I mean all party's are happy no? Gay marriage is allowed, but you can't get married in a church, under God. Which again i see nothing wrong with that. It's not like Gays look to go to a Mosque to get married, they would be killed before they entered it etc. This is a good piece of law imo. Gays can marry, but not in churches that don't want them too
The funny thing is that most people aren't even discussing the implications for gays, because it's not got a significant impact on them (in real terms, status under law etc, marriage doesn't confer any extra rights. Maybe in some ways they would want the term marriage rather than civil partnership, but that will become more accepted over time, and at least it's some degree of progress).
But it is not good for religious organisations/churches, because it's a very badly written law which screws over some people.
Gay people kind of win a bit, but moderate religious people get kicked squarely in the nuts.
|
On December 12 2012 05:51 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 05:42 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 05:34 Crushinator wrote:On December 12 2012 05:20 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:12 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 05:09 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:06 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 04:54 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 04:47 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
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. =) The title says UK, if you cannot or are unwilling to justify the statement "because it is a fundamental right" then it should not be assumed to be a fundamental right in the UK. The question of why you get an exemption if a burning bush says to oppose the gays but not if a regular bush says to oppose the gays remains. i am pretty sure its considered a fundamental right through most of the modern, western world. its in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after all. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml An awful lot of those are infringed upon, if not outright disregarded, by pretty much all of the modern, western world. There's a reason nobody cares about those. The fact that some people 60 years ago pandered to the religious groups is not exactly surprising and should not in any way be viewed as the last word on the matter. The right to ones opinions is one thing but special rights given to opinions of a religious nature and then the right to discriminate because of those opinions is quite another. so, you dont think that religion should be a fundamental right? why exactly? I think that in order for a fair society to operate there has to be limits upon our freedoms regarding the treatment of each other. While you can believe what you like, as that only impacts yourself, there have to be rules imposed upon your conduct with others. One of these is anti-discrimination legislation and in every case except religion it is seen as being necessary. I see no compelling case why religious opinions such as "marriage is between a man and a woman because God" should be protected but secular opinions such as "marriage is between two people of the same skin colour because dog" should not. With neither protected they both fall victim to my belief that society has the right to intervene in our conduct towards each other, sacrificing one but protecting the other as a fundamental right is contradictory, hypocritical and nonsensical. Religious institutions are also different from other institutions in that they are a very personal matter, that primarily concerns itself with how one's personal life must be lived. Contrary to you, I do have to concede that in this way, religion is special. Beliefs about how ones personal life should be lived do not have to be religious in nature. Vegans have beliefs about how ones personal life should be lived. The hypocrisy is that if a Buddhist believes that he is morally obligated to avoid meat then that is his fundamental right and if, for example, he were in prison and served only food with meat then you would be infringing upon it but a secular vegetarian who believes very strongly in animal rights and is far more passionate about it that the Buddhist who sometimes sneaks a burger is not protected because although his convictions are personal and deeply held they are not based on intangible concept or, even if they are, they're based on the wrong concept. There is a massive discrepancy there. I agree, that personal beliefs are often granted a special respect they don't deserve if they are religious in nature. But I do not think this is in conflict with what I wrote earlier. Private secular institutions are not in the business of marrying people, and as such we dont need to consider them. And if you could point to a case where a private secular institution discriminates on the basis of these kinds of convictions, I think they should be allowed to do that aswell.
This whole quote-thread I've got here reminds me very much of a certain period in English history and the irony is pretty delicious. The attitude exemplified by the statement "personal beliefs are often granted a special respect they don't deserve if they are religious in nature" would be right up the alley of Henry VIII, the only difference being that in the context of the Tudors the beliefs in question were all religious in nature.
|
United States41958 Posts
On December 12 2012 06:38 Pandemona wrote:
I think the government has finally done something good. I mean all party's are happy no? Gay marriage is allowed, but you can't get married in a church, under God. Which again i see nothing wrong with that. It's not like Gays look to go to a Mosque to get married, they would be killed before they entered it etc. This is a good piece of law imo. Gays can marry, but not in churches that don't want them too
But if I ran a discriminatory bakery that had a policy of "gays can buy bread, but not in my bakery because I don't want them to" then I'd be breaking the law, no matter how many good reasons I could come up with. In every other scenario in which a service is available to the general public but denied to a specific group on the grounds of skin colour, gender, sexual orientation etc then it's illegal but when it's religious groups doing it to gays then it gets a pass. If a non religious group tried it then they'd fall victim to the law. Likewise if a religious group did it to blacks then they'd fall victim to the law. It's a very bizarre situation when it is permissible to deny a service on the grounds of the sexual orientation of an individual but only if your convictions involve a supernatural deity. If you have evidence for your convictions (for example if gays were actively and publicly destroying society through marriage with a public manifesto stating their intent to do so) then you'd still fall victim to discrimination laws, no matter how strongly you held your personal convictions, but if you have no evidence and subscribe to a religious group then you're in the clear.
It kinda makes me want to start a small religion just to see what I can get permission to do on the basis of religious freedom, this sets a precedent for exemptions from what was previously a universal standard we applied to society.
|
United States41958 Posts
On December 12 2012 06:40 Brosy wrote:
While I have no problem with, say the Catholic Church or a Hebrew synagogue, refusing to marry homosexual couples on their church grounds. I don't see how the Church of England could participate in denying marriage to homosexual couples since CoE churches are technically property of the Queen and thus of the government. Although I could be mistaken since I am not British.
No, you're correct and it's a huge constitutional issue which needs to be addressed at some point.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51449 Posts
On December 12 2012 06:41 Lonyo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 06:38 Pandemona wrote:
I think the government has finally done something good. I mean all party's are happy no? Gay marriage is allowed, but you can't get married in a church, under God. Which again i see nothing wrong with that. It's not like Gays look to go to a Mosque to get married, they would be killed before they entered it etc. This is a good piece of law imo. Gays can marry, but not in churches that don't want them too The funny thing is that most people aren't even discussing the implications for gays, because it's not got a significant impact on them (in real terms, status under law etc, marriage doesn't confer any extra rights. Maybe in some ways they would want the term marriage rather than civil partnership, but that will become more accepted over time, and at least it's some degree of progress). But it is not good for religious organisations/churches, because it's a very badly written law which screws over some people. Gay people kind of win a bit, but moderate religious people get kicked squarely in the nuts.
But isn't the law basically allowing churches to not marry them? Ala, all churches of England could be not allowed to marry Gay's because the Arch Bishop of Cantebury (think he runs the church of England?) said his churches wont be involved in gay marriages? So then gays can only marry in "registry" offices (is how im looking at it) around England? Isn't that fine? Doesn't religion win and Gays win then?
(do tell me if im wrong)
On December 12 2012 06:47 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 06:38 Pandemona wrote:
I think the government has finally done something good. I mean all party's are happy no? Gay marriage is allowed, but you can't get married in a church, under God. Which again i see nothing wrong with that. It's not like Gays look to go to a Mosque to get married, they would be killed before they entered it etc. This is a good piece of law imo. Gays can marry, but not in churches that don't want them too But if I ran a discriminatory bakery that had a policy of "gays can buy bread, but not in my bakery because I don't want them to" then I'd be breaking the law, no matter how many good reasons I could come up with. In every other scenario in which a service is available to the general public but denied to a specific group on the grounds of skin colour, gender, sexual orientation etc then it's illegal but when it's religious groups doing it to gays then it gets a pass. If a non religious group tried it then they'd fall victim to the law. Likewise if a religious group did it to blacks then they'd fall victim to the law. It's a very bizarre situation when it is permissible to deny a service on the grounds of the sexual orientation of an individual but only if your convictions involve a supernatural deity. If you have evidence for your convictions (for example if gays were actively and publicly destroying society through marriage with a public manifesto stating their intent to do so) then you'd still fall victim to discrimination laws, no matter how strongly you held your personal convictions, but if you have no evidence and subscribe to a religious group then you're in the clear. It kinda makes me want to start a small religion just to see what I can get permission to do on the basis of religious freedom, this sets a precedent for exemptions from what was previously a universal standard we applied to society.
Totally agree with what your saying, but without starting me off on all my beliefs of what should and should not be in the world, this is how the world is going. And to allow people to do certain things, idiotic laws have to come out like this.
(Please tell me to stop if i take this next part a bit to far) The Muslim religion in England have way more power than any other religion in our country, the followers and mosque's can do as they please (in a sense). Not just the other month, there was a local butcher who was being told by the Muslim community that it could not sell Bacon no more as it was "offending" the Muslim's who were passing by!! That is how much of a joke Religion is becoming in the power of Laws.
There is many many many more cases of anything and everything that is being effected by religion, some people cant do "x" because of their religion, some people can only do "y" because of their religion, the list is endless. The only way to stop this, is to stop giving people the freedom OUTSIDE there Mosques/Churches/Temples to worship/live in law. Or go and live in countries where this is allowed (Dubai - Muslim Law / Israel - Jewish Law) . The fact that this is all able to be stopped if the country grew a backbone and said, look this country is run by parliament, if you want a law passed it has to go threw us. Not through a Mosque/Church/Temple.
That's my view on what your saying. Without what i just said, i see this as a win win situation to all partys.
|
On December 12 2012 06:23 Reason wrote:
Unless you can justify that the BNP should be allowed to exclude black people then you can't justify religions excluding gay people.
Call me crazy, but I'd approve of letting churches do this, refusing to marry interracial couples. (you won't see me knowingly donating a dime to such a religious institution, however) In my opinion, the state shouldn't force a church to marry anyone that they don't want to. As well, I wouldn't disapprove of this BNP disallowing black people to join their party. If you're black and you want to run for office, something tells me you wouldn't want to support that particular party anyway, lol.
Organizations should have the choice to discriminate. The people should have the choice to refuse such organizations and form their own based on their personal beliefs and opinions.
|
Got to give it to you Kwark that is a mighty fine OP, good example for everyone. I don't really have a strong opinion on this topic but I am for gays getting equal rights in every sense of the word. I'm also annoyed by religions demanding special treatment. However forcing vicars to conduct ceremonies that they believe to be against their religion seems a little curmudgeonly, so I guess the current solution makes sense. There are plenty of religious and non-religious people happy to marry homosexuals. Messing with people's superstitions may be, technically, nothing wrong, but for example demanding that people sign a contract giving the government 'their eternal souls' in exchange for welfare benefits would be pushing the boat a little too far out as far as I'm concerned. A total governmental denial of religion would be, in my opinion, 'unfair'. Even though I am extremely skeptical of the religions.
|
United States41958 Posts
On December 12 2012 06:50 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 06:23 Reason wrote:
Unless you can justify that the BNP should be allowed to exclude black people then you can't justify religions excluding gay people.
Call me crazy, but I'd approve of letting churches do this, refusing to marry interracial couples. (you won't see me knowingly donating a dime to such a religious institution, however) In my opinion, the state shouldn't force a church to marry anyone that they don't want to. As well, I wouldn't disapprove of this BNP disallowing black people to join their party. If you're black and you want to run for office, something tells me you wouldn't want to support that particular party anyway, lol. Organizations should have the choice to discriminate. The people should have the choice to refuse such organizations and form their own based on their personal beliefs and opinions.
Sounds great in theory but in practice what you end up with is a fuckload of discrimination everywhere because people like discriminating. The reason there is such a consensus that we're all pretty much the same these days is because of things like mixed race schools. You need to end discrimination legislatively before it becomes self evident and ceases to really be viable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
