|
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. |
Can Synagogues/etc refuse to marry non-Jewish people (or whoever the relevant non-denominational party is)?
|
On December 12 2012 06:53 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 06:50 cLAN.Anax wrote: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.
I simply do not agree with this. You seem to suggest that the morality of the people can only be changed through laws. I believe people determine for themselves what discrimination (if any) they deem is appropriate, and I believe it should stay that way. Having the government step in and enforce integration is no better than the government stepping in to enforce segregation. I believe it will work the same way for same-sex couples and the churches: if the government strong-arms this belief that congregations must accept these couples as "married," that would be no better than the state strong-arming a certain morality stating that marriage is only to be defined as between a man and a woman.
+ Show Spoiler [On DOMA.] +Someone's going to ask me about DOMA. I support it only on the grounds of letting the states decide on their own. Refusing federal benefits, like taxes and such, for certain couples over others is not something I approve of.
|
On December 12 2012 04:08 KwarK wrote:
Guys, whether or not God hates fags is not going to be decided by you shitting up my topic. Take it to PMs, it's simply not relevant to whether or not religions have the right to discriminate.
Its extremely relevant to the subject, the religious view that being gay/gay marriage is wrong is central to everything in this debate. But the question is should equality trump religious freedom? or vice versa?
The simple answer is that religions view being gay a sin, that is their view, which doesn't make it right or wrong, its what they believe. But people saying that they can't or shouldn't say that is suppressing their freedoms.
While I don't think that gay marriage or gay relationships are morally right based upon my religious beliefs, I understand that the same freedoms that give me the right to think that also protect their rights to think and do what they want.
People just need to get over themselves and realize that just because they think and believe something doesn't mean its right, and that they can impose what they want. That goes for both sides of the fight.
And this is coming from the son of a pastor in the South.
Roll Tide Roll
User was temp banned for reading a mod post saying to stop arguing about a thing and deciding the thing to do is quote it to start arguing about it.
The topic was otherwise doing so well too.
|
Nevermind. Post got him temp banned between my reading and my posting a reply. Apologies.
|
Marriage is not a strictly religious institution if the state recognizes marriage and you must obtain a marriage license from the state in order to obtain such a status; it irreverent if you had a wedding ceremony in a church or not.
Then unless the state deems gay couples as not real couples then at least under it's own house it cannot refuse them. Once the UK established civil unions, it established separate but equal status. Which ionno about the UK but under the US separate but equal is not truly equal and not a valid court supported argument when it comes to discrimination.
Which basically my line of thought to why either under the state everyone has to be under a civil union or under marriage it has to be everyone under the same word, else you establish one of them has 2nd class even if it's just in name, word carry connotations. The state cannot recognize both and hope to achieve true equality.
Also people harping about private institutions and right to infringe rights, even in the US there are exceptions such as dealing with jobs and housing which are 100% illegal to discriminate you can't pay a woman 50% of man's salary just because she is a woman, you can pay her less because she never asked for raises as much as men but the reason cannot be because she is a woman.
|
I am queer. I don't believe churches should be forced to marry anyone. If there is a church out there whose religious beliefs dictate that only people named "Dave" can get married, thats fine by me. But in the US this position is easily held because the government and religion are (suppose to be) separate. Until we decide to abolish the word "marriage" from any government contract, I want the right to get married. "Civil union" doesn't cut it. If the government can't give up using the word marriage then religious folk will just have to get used to the idea that government "marriage" is not the same thing as their precious church marriage.
|
the world is really coming to an end if people really think to approve such abominations,i mean really,its not natural guys,its not how we (humans) were created in the first place. i am not supporting gay marriage
User was banned for a catastrophic failure to read the topic, understand the purpose of it and read the mod note.
|
On December 12 2012 03:59 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 03:53 Bobgrimly wrote:
This is a good thing. The bible is against homosexual relationships. So it obviously doesn't matter to a gay person if the church does or does not allow weddings on their property. No gay person can be a "christian" if they have ever TRULY read the bible.
If Homosexual couples wish to make their own religion and have a highly edited bible there is no one stopping them. God knows the catholic church is no stranger to editing the bible. Along with most if not all religions. Just edit the bible and make your own religion. Then build your own churches.
I don't know what people want to steal other peoples freedoms and force homosexuals on them. Seriously be happy that they are being allowed equal rights. Equal rights does not mean the ability to force people to do everything your way. A religious person shouldn't have the right to tell you to force you to stop being gay and a gay person shouldn't have the right to force a religious person to accept them. AGREE TO DISAGREE. That's called freedom.
This is utterly wrong, for you've presupposed a standard for literal biblical interpretation that is only a component of a relatively small share of Christian denominations. For example, Episocopalianism, historically aka the Church of England, in the United States does not preach biblical literalism, and gay bishops in states like Mass. are pretty obvious proof of that.
As I said... if you can read more than one paragraph... you can edit it to say what you want and mean what you want. Hence the many variations of "christianity". So if the catholic or any other religious denomination wishes to take a literal view then that should be their choice. I am not for discrimination of any sort. But I also despise people who feel it's their right to tell others how to think.
Agree to disagree and live and let live.
User was temp banned for failing to take it to PMs
|
On December 12 2012 06:28 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +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.
The church can still function as an uncompromised religious organisation, even when they have to give up their official policy of not accepting homosexuals.
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
This sounds like it isn't actually going to change much. The only reason I could see a gay couple wanting a marriage instead of a civil partnership is if they were religious and this will let the religions get out of doing it anyway. I'm not sure how I feel about the forcing inclusiveness thing, I'd like everyone to allow anyone membership to a group regardless of race, sexuality, gender etc. but I'm not sure forcing it is the best way to go about that or even if its a good thing to do. However whichever way it goes it should apply to everyone, allowing religions to discriminate but no one else is pretty bullshit. Religions getting preferential treatment is stupid and archaic but unfortunately is entrenched fairly solidly in our law.
|
On December 12 2012 08:03 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 06:28 Crushinator wrote: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. The church can still function as an uncompromised religious organisation, even when they have to give up their official policy of not accepting homosexuals.
That sounds like a compromised theological position to me.
|
On December 12 2012 08:12 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 08:03 Reason wrote:On December 12 2012 06:28 Crushinator wrote: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. The church can still function as an uncompromised religious organisation, even when they have to give up their official policy of not accepting homosexuals. That sounds like a compromised theological position to me.
Because the only reason the church is still functional is because it's NEVER compromised a theological position before...
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On December 12 2012 08:12 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 08:03 Reason wrote:On December 12 2012 06:28 Crushinator wrote: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. The church can still function as an uncompromised religious organisation, even when they have to give up their official policy of not accepting homosexuals. That sounds like a compromised theological position to me.
No more so than allowing black people into the BNP compromises their political position.
|
On December 12 2012 08:17 imallinson wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 08:12 sam!zdat wrote:On December 12 2012 08:03 Reason wrote:On December 12 2012 06:28 Crushinator wrote: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. The church can still function as an uncompromised religious organisation, even when they have to give up their official policy of not accepting homosexuals. That sounds like a compromised theological position to me. No more so than allowing black people into the BNP compromises their political position.
The analogy doesn't hold though, right? Because that party still maintains a racist platform even if they allow black people, so it just lets black people for whatever reason decide to join a party that explicitly is against them (maybe I'm wrong I don't really know the BNP). Likewise, churches are perfectly happy to have gay people, so long as they don't do "gay stuff". Marrying them however is different than accepting them into a church in which they cannot get married.
The question of whether or not they SHOULD compromise the theological position is the question explicitly banned by Kwark, if I understand correctly, so I won't comment on that. but you might be able to guess what I think.
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On December 12 2012 08:22 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 08:17 imallinson wrote:On December 12 2012 08:12 sam!zdat wrote:On December 12 2012 08:03 Reason wrote:On December 12 2012 06:28 Crushinator wrote: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. The church can still function as an uncompromised religious organisation, even when they have to give up their official policy of not accepting homosexuals. That sounds like a compromised theological position to me. No more so than allowing black people into the BNP compromises their political position. The analogy doesn't hold though, right? Because that party still maintains a racist platform even if they allow black people, so it just lets black people for whatever reason decide to join a party that explicitly is against them (maybe I'm wrong I don't really know the BNP). Likewise, churches are perfectly happy to have gay people, so long as they don't do "gay stuff". Marrying them however is different than accepting them into a church in which they cannot get married. The question of whether or not they SHOULD compromise the theological position is the question explicitly banned by Kwark, if I understand correctly, so I won't comment on that. but you might be able to guess what I think.
Well the BNP's main platform is basically "we are going to kick anyone who isn't British or doesn't have an entirely British family out of the country" so having people who don't fit that category as members of their organisation is as much a compromise of their position as the church allowing gay people to do "gay things."
|
What a disaster. Looks like a shitstorm hit page 7.
Anyway, it's true you can make the argument that a business or service should also have the right to discriminate if a church is allowed to, as well. While compromise would be nice, I doubt you will ever be able to achieve such a thing when it's related to something like religion. Obviously it'd be best if every group, organization, and business just didn't discriminate or have any bias, but there's no way to remove that. If government were to enforce that every church cannot discriminate and MUST marry a same-sex couple, then you would have people going against what they believe. No church or strongly religious person would ever be alright with that, and logically so if they actually believe that it is wrong.
Either the government (laws) need to change or the people do. The system is inherently flawed. There is no way to resolve this issue without SOME disagreement, and so it seems the best way to fix the problem is just please the majority of people or attempt to please as many as possible. The UK's current system seems to do that just fine, at least from my perspective. Same-sex couples may have civil unions and receive any benefit an official religious 'marriage' would give. Churches and religious individuals are not forced to disobey their religion.
In regards to businesses, if the head of a big business SPECIFICALLY discriminates (homosexuals are against his religion, for example) and refuses to hire a gay person, then there will likely be issues (at least in California... ). It would be unlawful for the business owner to discriminate solely based on the fact that the person was gay. So, in this scenario, the business owner feels like he is getting screwed, having to hire some "blasphemous" person. With these kinds of laws, SOMEONE has to lose, it's just a matter of who. May as well make it so as few people feel like they "lost" and as many people are satisfied.
|
On December 12 2012 08:28 imallinson wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 08:22 sam!zdat wrote:On December 12 2012 08:17 imallinson wrote:On December 12 2012 08:12 sam!zdat wrote:On December 12 2012 08:03 Reason wrote:On December 12 2012 06:28 Crushinator wrote: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. The church can still function as an uncompromised religious organisation, even when they have to give up their official policy of not accepting homosexuals. That sounds like a compromised theological position to me. No more so than allowing black people into the BNP compromises their political position. The analogy doesn't hold though, right? Because that party still maintains a racist platform even if they allow black people, so it just lets black people for whatever reason decide to join a party that explicitly is against them (maybe I'm wrong I don't really know the BNP). Likewise, churches are perfectly happy to have gay people, so long as they don't do "gay stuff". Marrying them however is different than accepting them into a church in which they cannot get married. The question of whether or not they SHOULD compromise the theological position is the question explicitly banned by Kwark, if I understand correctly, so I won't comment on that. but you might be able to guess what I think. Well the BNP's main platform is basically "we are going to kick anyone who isn't British or doesn't have an entirely British family out of the country" so having people who don't fit that category as members of their organisation is as much a compromise of their position as the church allowing gay people to do "gay things."
No, it's not though. Reread what I wrote. It means that they allow non-British people to join their party and also hold their view that non-British people should be kicked out. Nothing compromised about that, because the BNP's principle is not that "non-British people should not join the BNP."
That is analogous to a church allowing homosexuals to join the church and accept the view that homosexuality is a sin and that homosexuals should not marry. this is already an active agenda of many homophobic churches, so no problem there. In your scenario the BNP has not compromised its principles, it has simply allowed the targets of those principles to agree with them, if they so choose, for whatever strange reason. Same with the church. Forcing the churches to marry people, however, WOULD compromise their principles (however benighted those principles may be)
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On December 12 2012 08:34 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 08:28 imallinson wrote:On December 12 2012 08:22 sam!zdat wrote:On December 12 2012 08:17 imallinson wrote:On December 12 2012 08:12 sam!zdat wrote:On December 12 2012 08:03 Reason wrote:On December 12 2012 06:28 Crushinator wrote: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. The church can still function as an uncompromised religious organisation, even when they have to give up their official policy of not accepting homosexuals. That sounds like a compromised theological position to me. No more so than allowing black people into the BNP compromises their political position. The analogy doesn't hold though, right? Because that party still maintains a racist platform even if they allow black people, so it just lets black people for whatever reason decide to join a party that explicitly is against them (maybe I'm wrong I don't really know the BNP). Likewise, churches are perfectly happy to have gay people, so long as they don't do "gay stuff". Marrying them however is different than accepting them into a church in which they cannot get married. The question of whether or not they SHOULD compromise the theological position is the question explicitly banned by Kwark, if I understand correctly, so I won't comment on that. but you might be able to guess what I think. Well the BNP's main platform is basically "we are going to kick anyone who isn't British or doesn't have an entirely British family out of the country" so having people who don't fit that category as members of their organisation is as much a compromise of their position as the church allowing gay people to do "gay things." No, it's not though. Reread what I wrote. It means that they allow non-British people to join their party and also hold their view that non-British people should be kicked out. Nothing compromised about that, because the BNP's principle is not that "non-British people should not join the BNP." That is analogous to a church allowing homosexuals to join the church and accept the view that homosexuality is a sin and that homosexuals should not marry. this is already an active agenda of many homophobic churches, so no problem there. In your scenario the BNP has not compromised its principles, it has simply allowed the targets of those principles to agree with them, if they so choose, for whatever strange reason. Same with the church. Forcing the churches to marry people, however, WOULD compromise their principles (however benighted those principles may be)
I don't really see much of a difference in the church letting gay people become members and marrying them apart from the later situation being a bit more in your face. Both go against the gay people are sinners principle that the church holds.
|
On December 12 2012 08:43 imallinson wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 08:34 sam!zdat wrote:On December 12 2012 08:28 imallinson wrote:On December 12 2012 08:22 sam!zdat wrote:On December 12 2012 08:17 imallinson wrote:On December 12 2012 08:12 sam!zdat wrote:On December 12 2012 08:03 Reason wrote:On December 12 2012 06:28 Crushinator wrote: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. The church can still function as an uncompromised religious organisation, even when they have to give up their official policy of not accepting homosexuals. That sounds like a compromised theological position to me. No more so than allowing black people into the BNP compromises their political position. The analogy doesn't hold though, right? Because that party still maintains a racist platform even if they allow black people, so it just lets black people for whatever reason decide to join a party that explicitly is against them (maybe I'm wrong I don't really know the BNP). Likewise, churches are perfectly happy to have gay people, so long as they don't do "gay stuff". Marrying them however is different than accepting them into a church in which they cannot get married. The question of whether or not they SHOULD compromise the theological position is the question explicitly banned by Kwark, if I understand correctly, so I won't comment on that. but you might be able to guess what I think. Well the BNP's main platform is basically "we are going to kick anyone who isn't British or doesn't have an entirely British family out of the country" so having people who don't fit that category as members of their organisation is as much a compromise of their position as the church allowing gay people to do "gay things." No, it's not though. Reread what I wrote. It means that they allow non-British people to join their party and also hold their view that non-British people should be kicked out. Nothing compromised about that, because the BNP's principle is not that "non-British people should not join the BNP." That is analogous to a church allowing homosexuals to join the church and accept the view that homosexuality is a sin and that homosexuals should not marry. this is already an active agenda of many homophobic churches, so no problem there. In your scenario the BNP has not compromised its principles, it has simply allowed the targets of those principles to agree with them, if they so choose, for whatever strange reason. Same with the church. Forcing the churches to marry people, however, WOULD compromise their principles (however benighted those principles may be) I don't really see much of a difference in the church letting gay people become members and marrying them apart from the later situation being a bit more in your face. Both go against the gay people are sinners principle that the church holds.
There is a huge difference and I feel like I've done my best to explain it. If allowing sinners into a church went against christian doctrine, they wouldn't be able to let anybody in!
|
I never understood why any of this is really an issue. 1) civil marriage seems to be what really counts, no? So, to me that should be enough but for whatever it's not so then 2) why not refer to the ancient texts xyz religion is built upon. If said text is openly against gay marriage then I see no reason why they should be legally bound to permit such a ceremony nor why the couple would want it in the first place. I personally have nothing against gay marriage but think it is just silly bickering to try and force any religious organization to permit something that is clearly against their beliefs.
So my stance: gays should be perfectly happy with the civil marriage. If they are not because they choose to identify with a particular religion that is clearly against gay marriage then it should only be considered a personal issue that they need to resolve themselves (probably disassociate with the religion). If a law forces an organization to grant something they really do not want to is that really any good to you since it has nothing to do with benefits and everything to do with some higher power?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
