|
Try and keep it on the political/societal/cultural end of the discussion. This deals not only with gay rights but also the larger issue of looking at the interaction of religious groups within secular society, their rights and their influence, in contrast with the privileges of other groups. Which religion, if any, is right is irrelevant and arguments of that nature will be moderated. |
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On December 12 2012 08:45 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 08:43 imallinson wrote: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!
To phrase it better sinners who have no interest in being redeemed. Someone who is gay and has no intention to try and not be gay is allowed to become a member of the church. Surely that is just as much a compromise as allowing gay marriage.
|
On December 12 2012 08:59 imallinson wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 08:45 sam!zdat wrote:On December 12 2012 08:43 imallinson wrote: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:
[quote]
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! To phrase it better sinners who have no interest in being redeemed. Someone who is gay and has no intention to try and not be gay is allowed to become a member of the church. Surely that is just as much a compromise as allowing gay marriage.
It's same thing (well not exactly same thing) as believing world is round, that earth orbit around sun, or evolution. Church position changes all the time, and it would an abomination otherwise considering everything else in the society changes.
|
When will people learn that religion and state shouldn't be involved. The law should be for anyone to marry anyone s/he wants, and regardless of what the Church or whoever says they can do that.
Fucking ridiculous that in 2012 (or 2015) religion still has a hold over a government.
|
On December 12 2012 08:59 imallinson wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 08:45 sam!zdat wrote:On December 12 2012 08:43 imallinson wrote: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:
[quote]
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! To phrase it better sinners who have no interest in being redeemed. Someone who is gay and has no intention to try and not be gay is allowed to become a member of the church. Surely that is just as much a compromise as allowing gay marriage.
performance of a rite seems much more fundamental than question of membership. Also you would want him in your church anyway so you could try to change his mind and save him.
edit: I think you are having trouble putting yourself in evangelical mindset
|
On December 12 2012 08:59 imallinson wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 08:45 sam!zdat wrote:On December 12 2012 08:43 imallinson wrote: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:
[quote]
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! To phrase it better sinners who have no interest in being redeemed. Someone who is gay and has no intention to try and not be gay is allowed to become a member of the church. Surely that is just as much a compromise as allowing gay marriage.
I was about to agree with sam, but your post here holds truth (in my opinion) as well. Though we're dealing more with what sam is getting at: what discrimination churches may use while still obeying the law, in this case for the UK the one concerning requiring churches to wed same-sex couples regardless of the faith's beliefs or practices.
On December 12 2012 09:06 Larkin wrote:
When will people learn that religion and state shouldn't be involved. The law should be for anyone to marry anyone s/he wants, and regardless of what the Church or whoever says they can do that.
Fucking ridiculous that in 2012 (or 2015) religion still has a hold over a government.
The argument isn't really about who is able to marry whom, but if churches should be required to wed same-sex couples even if they disagree with the practice.
|
On December 12 2012 09:08 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 08:59 imallinson wrote:On December 12 2012 08:45 sam!zdat wrote:On December 12 2012 08:43 imallinson wrote: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:
[quote]
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! To phrase it better sinners who have no interest in being redeemed. Someone who is gay and has no intention to try and not be gay is allowed to become a member of the church. Surely that is just as much a compromise as allowing gay marriage. I was about to agree with sam, but your post here holds truth (in my opinion) as well. Though we're dealing more with what sam is getting at: what discrimination churches may use while still obeying the law, in this case for the UK the one concerning requiring churches to wed same-sex couples regardless of the faith's beliefs or practices. Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 09:06 Larkin wrote:
When will people learn that religion and state shouldn't be involved. The law should be for anyone to marry anyone s/he wants, and regardless of what the Church or whoever says they can do that.
Fucking ridiculous that in 2012 (or 2015) religion still has a hold over a government. The argument isn't really about who is able to marry whom, but if churches should be required to wed same-sex couples even if they disagree with the practice.
Actually no, the argument is even worse. If I understand the OP correctly, the argument is whether or not it should be ILLEGAL for churches to marry same sex couples. It goes much further than simply giving them permission to decline.
|
Only if their organization is "non-juring" so to speak, right?
|
On December 12 2012 09:12 Klondikebar wrote:
Actually no, the argument is even worse. If I understand the OP correctly, the argument is whether or not it should be ILLEGAL for churches to marry same sex couples. It goes much further than simply giving them permission to decline.
Exactly, it's illegalising it for the Church. I get it politically, it's to keep the right wing Christian morons voting Tory like they always do, but it's social enough to get the disillusioned Labour voters to vote Tory again - and maybe even sway the mindless drones who support the Lib Dems.
It's just mindblowing that organised religion even still exists, let alone has such influence over a first world government.
|
Why the heck are ppl making such a big deal about Gay people? stupid humans ;<
But what I would rly like to know is if Gay people really want the "Churches Blessing" to Marry ?
The "same rights" thing is out of the question, everyone is created equal.
|
Firm believer of separation of church and state. Leave the religious institutions alone and let the gays do whatever they want and call it whatever they want. Whether they call it a "civil partnership" or a "marriage" seems trivial, since they're essentially getting the same exact thing.
|
Well to me civil union and marriage is the same thing, one is married in the name of the law, another is married in the name of God,
Marriage=Civil Union, just confused why its a big deal to be honest
|
On December 12 2012 08:58 Footler wrote:
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.
Nobody is proposing the churches be bound to. It's all entirely optional, the religion, church, and individual clurgy can all refuse. Except for the CofE, they're not allowed at all for some reason.
It's possible some troll will take it to the European courts to force the issue, which will no doubt screw everything up, but the legislation's intentions are entirely reasonable.
In this case it's allowing one groups bigot-y views to oppress others, which can't stand. We (UK) seem to be overly protective of crazy religious peoples right to be bigots. I'm not a fan of it but while increasing rapidly, rational thinkers are not yet in the majority here. It sometimes even goes dangerously far, for example a few years ago when the police were being reluctant to pursue honour killings in some Muslim communities.
|
On December 12 2012 08:58 Footler wrote:
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?
My feelings are something like this as well. I perfectly understand why one may not want a government to only give rights to heterosexual, and not homosexual couples. But why should religions be forced to recognize them?
My issue with Kwark's bakery example is that there is a tangible benefit to being able to buy something from the bakery, so discrimination is an issue. But if I, say, form a club called "The 5-foot-Asian-Men-Only club", is that an issue? Should that be an issue?
Of course, that would lead into the question of permitting religious groups to make certain decisions while at the same time giving them government benefits, but I rather just clear up that first point, as this may not be relevant.
|
On December 12 2012 09:34 soon.Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 08:58 Footler wrote:
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? My feelings are something like this as well. I perfectly understand why one may not want a government to only give rights to heterosexual, and not homosexual couples. But why should religions be forced to recognize them? My issue with Kwark's bakery example is that there is a tangible benefit to being able to buy something from the bakery, so discrimination is an issue. But if I, say, form a club called "The 5-foot-Asian-Men-Only club", is that an issue? Should that be an issue? Of course, that would lead into the question of permitting religious groups to make certain decisions while at the same time giving them government benefits, but I rather just clear up that first point, as this may not be relevant.
It's not whether or not religions are being forced to recognize them. If this law passes, it will be ILLEGAL for some churches to recognize or perform same sex marriages. This is government enforcement of religious belief.
|
On December 12 2012 05:27 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +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:On December 12 2012 04:36 Klondikebar wrote:
[quote]
But at some point, are we allowed to ask for some sort of evidence or justification for their beliefs? ESPECIALLY if we're going to be protecting those beliefs with laws. "It's in my religious text!" won't work because religions ignore TONS of stuff in their texts. The legislature needs to get them into a hearing where they say "we will protect your beliefs if you can provide some sort of evidence or coherent logic for them."
Why do we just accept religious belief as something to be protected? If beliefs can't be even remotely justified, why do we treat them any differently than a belief in santa? the supreme court has a test for this. you cant question the facts of their beliefs; you can only question whether they actually have the belief. i am fine with this test. we accept religious beliefs as something to be protected because its a fundamental right. The issue secularists like myself have with this statement is the "because it is a fundamental right". In the UK it is currently against the law to discriminate against gays on the basis of their sexuality, even if you have really strongly held homophobic convictions and a load of subjective experience that validated them. This law will grant an exemption to the anti discrimination laws for churches which can't even agree amongst themselves most of the time whether or not they oppose gay marriage. Religious people do not have a monopoly on strength of conviction and yet they seem to have inherited a fundamental right to have their convictions protected. I'd like to see it justified. history and society has determined that it is a fundamental right, and in america it is written into our constitution. the justification for that is something that would take a lot of research and time to write a thoughtful piece, which i am not willing to do. =) 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.
I thought I'd weigh in on the discussion between you guys. Instead of talking about fundamental rights and such, I think the real issue is whether or not the state should allow private discrimination, because that seems to be the big difference between you two. In the US there is no general law that prohibits discrimination by private individuals or entities. In the absence of a contrary law, people, businesses, clubs, churches, etc. can discriminate against whoever they want for any reason.
For examples of laws that overcome the general allowance of private discrimination, see the Civil Rights Acts (which protect members of certain "protected classes" from discrimination by private individuals in certain contexts), and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
From something Kwark said earlier it seems that this is the opposite approach from that in the UK - Instead, there is a broad prohibition of private discrimination, that can be overcome by laws like the one discussed in the OP.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think dAPhREAk's position is that churches should get special treatment, though it might seem that way to a person coming from a UK perspective. Instead dAPhREAk may be arguing that churches should get the same treatment as other US private entities. It should also be noted that sexual orientation is not considered a protected class in the US, so not only are churches allowed to discriminate against people based on sexual orientation, but it is also legal for a company to not hire a person simply because he is gay, or to pay him less solely for that reason. This is of course awful in my opinion, and will hopefully change in the next 10 years or so when the Civil Rights Act is amended to include sexual orientation as a protected class.
Sorry if this is off topic, but I thought it might be useful to talk a bit about the US approach in comparison to the one in the UK.
|
On December 12 2012 09:33 PiPoGevy wrote:
Well to me civil union and marriage is the same thing, one is married in the name of the law, another is married in the name of God,
Marriage=Civil Union, just confused why its a big deal to be honest
As petty as this may be, asking my partner to "civil union me" is the most ridiculous thing to say during what could be the most important moment in your life. And having a different name for a different kind of relationship recognized by an institution still implies that gay people are still somehow different.
|
On December 12 2012 09:37 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 09:34 soon.Cloak wrote:On December 12 2012 08:58 Footler wrote:
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? My feelings are something like this as well. I perfectly understand why one may not want a government to only give rights to heterosexual, and not homosexual couples. But why should religions be forced to recognize them? My issue with Kwark's bakery example is that there is a tangible benefit to being able to buy something from the bakery, so discrimination is an issue. But if I, say, form a club called "The 5-foot-Asian-Men-Only club", is that an issue? Should that be an issue? Of course, that would lead into the question of permitting religious groups to make certain decisions while at the same time giving them government benefits, but I rather just clear up that first point, as this may not be relevant. It's not whether or not religions are being forced to recognize them. If this law passes, it will be ILLEGAL for some churches to recognize or perform same sex marriages. This is government enforcement of religious belief.
No, it will be illegal for some clergy to perform the ceremony, if their church has put itself on the Do-Not-Gay list
edit: which has the hilarious consequence of making schism punishable by law!
|
On December 12 2012 09:37 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 09:34 soon.Cloak wrote:On December 12 2012 08:58 Footler wrote:
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? My feelings are something like this as well. I perfectly understand why one may not want a government to only give rights to heterosexual, and not homosexual couples. But why should religions be forced to recognize them? My issue with Kwark's bakery example is that there is a tangible benefit to being able to buy something from the bakery, so discrimination is an issue. But if I, say, form a club called "The 5-foot-Asian-Men-Only club", is that an issue? Should that be an issue? Of course, that would lead into the question of permitting religious groups to make certain decisions while at the same time giving them government benefits, but I rather just clear up that first point, as this may not be relevant. It's not whether or not religions are being forced to recognize them. If this law passes, it will be ILLEGAL for some churches to recognize or perform same sex marriages. This is government enforcement of religious belief.
...that's....er...
But I'm confused now. If man from religious group X doesn't allow two gays to marry, he's not breaking a law- he's just not acting in accordance with his religion, and is therefore not part of that religion. It's catch-22-y. How can anyone ever be prosecuted for this?
|
On December 12 2012 09:06 Larkin wrote:
When will people learn that religion and state shouldn't be involved. The law should be for anyone to marry anyone s/he wants, and regardless of what the Church or whoever says they can do that.
Fucking ridiculous that in 2012 (or 2015) religion still has a hold over a government.
Ive been wondering about this too...
|
Big step forward by the uk, happy for all the couples who can marry now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
