|
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 09:43 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 09:37 Klondikebar wrote: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
And I think Kwark's analogy works well. If there was a list of restaurants that didn't want to serve black people and the government protected them from discrimination lawsuits, we'd be up in arms. But, because it's "church" they get to have a list exactly like that and everyone defends their right to do so.
|
that's only analogous to a person who can conceive of a restaurant and a church as being fundamentally commensurate, i.e. an (particular kind of) atheist
|
On December 12 2012 09:51 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 09:43 sam!zdat wrote:On December 12 2012 09:37 Klondikebar wrote: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 And I think Kwark's analogy works well. If there was a list of restaurants that didn't want to serve black people and the government protected them from discrimination lawsuits, we'd be up in arms. But, because it's "church" they get to have a list exactly like that and everyone defends their right to do so.
My last post:
...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?
And I still think the analogy is weak, because there's no tangible benefit to joining a church. I think a better analogy is just a backyard club. But whatever, the analogy isn't important, I'm significantly more curious about my post above.
|
On December 12 2012 09:55 soon.Cloak wrote:
And I still think the analogy is weak, because there's no tangible benefit to joining a church. I think a better analogy is just a backyard club. But whatever, the analogy isn't important, I'm significantly more curious about my post above.
You get to go to heaven. It's not like whether something is tangible or not matters, people believe in God don't they?
|
On December 12 2012 09:52 sam!zdat wrote:
that's only analogous to a person who can conceive of a restaurant and a church as being fundamentally commensurate, i.e. an (particular kind of) atheist
They both provide goods and services. Hell, it is literally called a church service. You might feel that a church provides a far more important service than a restaurant but I fail to see how that exempts it from other goods and services providers. Can you offer me any reason why a church is special? Or rather, why it should be special for a secular legislature?
|
On December 12 2012 09:57 Larkin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 09:55 soon.Cloak wrote:
And I still think the analogy is weak, because there's no tangible benefit to joining a church. I think a better analogy is just a backyard club. But whatever, the analogy isn't important, I'm significantly more curious about my post above. You get to go to heaven. It's not like whether something is tangible or not matters, people believe in God don't they?
? Take it all or leave it all. If you believe that religion is the way to heaven, stay with the rules of that religion. If you don't, drop it. You can't say "I want to join this religion, because it's how I get to heaven, but I object to how the religion says I get to heaven".
Though you are right that "tangible" may have been the wrong word.
Ick, but ignore the analogy, that's not really important in the big picture, I feel.
|
On December 12 2012 09:58 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 09:52 sam!zdat wrote:
that's only analogous to a person who can conceive of a restaurant and a church as being fundamentally commensurate, i.e. an (particular kind of) atheist They both provide goods and services. Hell, it is literally called a church service. You might feel that a church provides a far more important service than a restaurant but I fail to see how that exempts it from other goods and services providers. Can you offer me any reason why a church is special? Or rather, why it should be special for a secular legislature?
Yes but you're already coming at it from a secular worldview in order to think about it that way. Is the point that the legislature is secular or that it imposes secular worldview on others? It's tricky.
A church is special because, from a religious view, that is axiomatic and the whole point of the church in the first place. A church is not-special because, from a secular worldview, it is axiomatic that nothing is special. Can this be resolved? Not sure yet.
|
On December 12 2012 09:52 sam!zdat wrote:
that's only analogous to a person who can conceive of a restaurant and a church as being fundamentally commensurate, i.e. an (particular kind of) atheist
Precisely, there exists a "genealogy of cultural influence" specific to religious institutions that fundamentally changes their place in society.
I think KwarK's analogy only works in specific situations, such as the one we are discussing in which the UK government is effectively solidifying top-end religious leadership's influence over their respective constituencies, a legislative regard for specific organizational religiosity that prevents a congregation from challenging the decrees of the ministry in a manner given precedent by the Protestant Reformation. A government can regard a religion with intent to enforce the proper recognition of certain rights, not with intent to effectively stifle inner-denominational change.
|
On December 12 2012 09:12 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 09:08 cLAN.Anax wrote: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:
[quote]
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. 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.
What? That's not how I'm seeing it right now. To quote the OP:
Any religious group has until the law is finalised to put themselves forwards to be named in the law as being not required to perform gay marriages and exempted from any discrimination suit that may result from the refusal to perform gay marriages.
To me, that says that anyone who wants to be able to refuse to wed same-sex couples has to get their church onto that law so that they aren't hit with a discrimination lawsuit. However, that's immediately followed up by:
It will be illegal for a Catholic priest to perform a gay marriage under the new law, for example, whereas at the moment they could perform the ceremony legally.
That part's confusing me. It seems to me as though they are mutually exclusive or contradicting issues. Looked at the article in the OP too, and this is what I found about it:
In her statement, Mrs Miller promised a "quadruple lock" to protect religious freedom, involving:
-No religious organisation or individual minister being compelled to marry same-sex couples or to permit this to happen on their premises
-Making it unlawful for religious organisations or their ministers to marry same-sex couples unless their organisation's governing body has expressly opted in to provisions for doing so
-Amending the 2010 Equality Act to ensure no discrimination claim can be brought against religious organisations or individual ministers for refusing to marry a same-sex couple
-The legislation explicitly stating that it will be illegal for the Church of England and the Church in Wales to marry same-sex couples and that Canon Law, which bans same-sex weddings, will continue to apply
Mrs Miller said the Church of England and Church in Wales had "explicitly stated" their opposition to offering same-sex ceremonies, so the government would "explicitly state that it will be illegal for the Churches of England and Wales to marry same-sex couples".
Lord, that's a semantic nightmare. A real linguistic loop-de-loop.... >_<' I'm taking this with a few grains of salt because, for all the confusing wording, it looks more like a paraphrased version (perhaps biased) version of the law than the actual wording in the law. But assuming it's true, I agree with the first and third points, whereas the second and fourth points I... think are rather strong. They both look as if they give those in charge of those churches the power to dictate what the stance is for all of the churches beneath them. If it doesn't happen, great; just make sure points 1. and 3. pass so that individual congregations can at least decide for themselves where they want to stand on this subject.
If it does happen, then I am still okay with it, albeit less pleased. Those who govern these churches have the authority to dictate what their church represents and stands for; they are entrusted with this power. I'm more for less centralized and more local government, both in the church and the state, but if the greater church wants to play hardball like this, I say let them. 'S their deal. If an individual church within that group doesn't like that, they can (and probably should) defect from them.
My brain is fried and I think I've said enough on the matter. Probably misinterpreting something(s) in there but oh well. I've voiced my opinion and tried to contribute what I can. Hopefully something constructive can be gleaned from it.
|
On December 12 2012 10:02 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 09:58 Klondikebar wrote:On December 12 2012 09:52 sam!zdat wrote:
that's only analogous to a person who can conceive of a restaurant and a church as being fundamentally commensurate, i.e. an (particular kind of) atheist They both provide goods and services. Hell, it is literally called a church service. You might feel that a church provides a far more important service than a restaurant but I fail to see how that exempts it from other goods and services providers. Can you offer me any reason why a church is special? Or rather, why it should be special for a secular legislature? Yes but you're already coming at it from a secular worldview in order to think about it that way. Is the point that the legislature is secular or that it imposes secular worldview on others? It's tricky. A church is special because, from a religious view, that is axiomatic and the whole point of the church in the first place. A church is not-special because, from a secular worldview, it is axiomatic that nothing is special. Can this be resolved? Not sure yet.
It's not tricky. The legislature is secular...that's obvious. And it's easy to resolve, the secular legislature doesn't give a church special status because that special status is axiomatic only within the church itself. A legislature that makes no laws respecting religion or the free practice thereof (a VERY American thing I know) then it has no business protecting religious practices or beliefs anymore than that of a bakery.
|
You realize the whole point of establishment clause is to protect religious practice?
(I understand it's the UK, he brought up America)
edit: it is freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion
|
On December 12 2012 10:12 sam!zdat wrote:
You realize the whole point of establishment clause is to protect religious practice?
(I understand it's the UK, he brought up America)
edit: it is freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion
It's as much to prevent a theocracy as it is to prevent religious persecution. The point is that they should be separate and religious belief shouldn't translate into law.
|
the point is that you want to translate a religious belief into law. Granted, it's a negative religious belief, but that doesn't matter.
I don't think requiring churches to marry gay people is a good idea any way you slice it
|
I actually find that this bizarre idea of making it illegal for same-sex marriage to occur under certain religious organizations to be a problem of the secular government muddling themselves too much in religious affairs. Is it simply not enough for a clergyman to exercise their right to refuse to perform a religious rite (the rituals of marriage under their sect)? Why in the world does their rights to refuse something that goes against their doctrine have to be codified under secular law? This shit is just bizarre. It's not as if any organization didn't already have the rights to not perform a marriage anyway, regardless of whether it's a hetero or homo marriage.
|
yeah the real problem with this is the effective illegalization of schism, imo
|
On December 12 2012 10:18 koreasilver wrote:
I actually find that this bizarre idea of making it illegal for same-sex marriage to occur under certain religious organizations to be a problem of the secular government muddling themselves too much in religious affairs. Is it simply not enough for a clergyman to exercise their right to refuse to perform a religious rite (the rituals of marriage under their sect)? Why in the world does their rights to refuse something that goes against their doctrine have to be codified under secular law? This shit is just bizarre. It's not as if any organization didn't already have the rights to not perform a marriage anyway, regardless of whether it's a hetero or homo marriage.
Like a previous poster and koreasilver point out, it is indeed incredibly bizarre; the Church of England can trace its roots directly to the divergent practice of clergy across England, emboldened by the words of Martin Luther and Huldrych Zwingli. Sure, Henry VIII's desire for a fruitful marriage played a role, but the seeds of the Reformation were planted long before he tired of Catharine of Aragon, and this new legislation more or less laughs in the face of this precedent for religious change.
|
On December 12 2012 09:40 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +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: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. 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.
generally, i believe in people's right to do whatever they want without interference by the gov't as long as it does not materially affect others or is otherwise consensual. this includes their right to practice religion and their right to marry whomever they want (man, woman). the issue arises when one person's right affects another, and then there is a balancing act.
gay dude wants to marry another gay dude, but hetero church wont allow it. in this circumstance, gay dude can marry gay dude elsewhere, which allows him to practice his right and the church is not prevented from practicing its right. case closed. if i am presented with a different situation such as a law that says all marriages must be performed in hetero church or they are not recognized by the gov't then i would agree that the church must be forced to allow marriages, or the law be changed. you shouldnt be able to completely destroy one right in favor of another.
i think kwark and my disagreement stems from whether such a right to practice religion should be allowed or considered (especially where, as here, the religion condones homophobia). he also points out that the gov't is allowing religions a pass on "discrimination" when it wouldn't allow others (e.g., an individual or organization who has a personal, but not religious, belief in anti-gay marriage). this is an interesting question that i have been thinking about since he pointed it out. on one hand, if the individual or organization can practice its beliefs (religious or not) without harm to others then i say go for it. i do not support the BSA's stance on homosexuals, but i do support its ability to take that stance as a private organization. on the other hand, i wonder where the US would be if it had not passed the civil rights act and related legislation. i vehemently opposed gov't intervention in my life, but in this circumstance the interference has done great wonders for the U.S. hard question.
|
Does this go far enough in giving gays the right to marry? Will it lead to an entrenchment of religious opposition to homosexuality where previously there was a slow retreat towards accepting equal rights?
I'm not sure how much further the issue can reasonably be taken.
I think it absolutely will further entrench religious opposition to gay marriage, but their stance on homosexuality isn't likely to change much. Live and let live is my motto, until you come inside my bubble and start telling me what I can and can't do.
I believe gay people should receive the same government benefits that traditional marriage enjoys, but if you tell me that because my church wasn't registered with the government that we have to allow gay marriages to take place in our chapel or go to jail then I'm going to have a problem big enough to move me into full blown activist mode as opposed to the more neutral position I have now.
Do religions have the right to discriminate privately as long as it doesn't deny any rights to the individual?
A lot of private organization discriminate in some way or another. This isn't an uncommon thing, and it isn't necessarily a neon sign for bigotry or repression. Its the nature of private organizations to limit membership and access based on some set of criteria. So, yes, I do think religions (and every other private organization that isn't funded by tax payer dollars) have the right to discriminate privately.
If religions have the right to discriminate privately on the grounds of sexual orientation why should other groups not also have similar rights?
I think its important to note that most religions aren't prohibiting people from attending their religious ceremonies, worship services, and events. As far as an individual benefiting from a private group/organizations resources, the respective group should be allowed to discriminate based on any set of criteria as long as its consistent with their organization's standards and said organization is not being funded by tax payers.
Is it an acceptable price to pay for homosexual couples to call themselves married and be technically correct?
Personally, I don't understand the importance of legally defining ones self as married when the legal benefits aren't an issue. I don't think gay couples referred to themselves as anything but married before this proposed legislation, and people who continue to oppose it aren't going to start referring to their union any differently than they already were. The only real benefit I can see in this is that now gay people can tell the opposition that, "legally we are married, so stick it." That still does nothing to address the basis for the opposition in the first place.
If the government stopped calling it "marriage" tomorrow, it wouldn't change how I view my relationship with my wife. For me, marriage isn't about the label, its about the shared commitment between myself and my wife.
If the goal is to stamp out hate and bigotry, then sticking your thumb in the eye of those who oppose your position seems like a backwards way of doing it.
I agree with Kwark's assessment.
Rather than wait for social progress to allow an evolution of religious beliefs to the point that their congregation no longer oppose gay marriage they have turned it into a fight over religious freedoms
Nobody is going to change the mind of the other any time soon, and this legislation is only going to drive the wedge that divides us even deeper. Certainly not worth it in my opinion.
|
On December 12 2012 10:25 Joedaddy wrote:
Nobody is going to change the mind of the other any time soon, and this legislation is only going to drive the wedge that divides us even deeper. Certainly not worth it in my opinion.
This is really not so true, and the rather dramatic shift in Anglican regard for homosexuality these past few decades is proof of that. The Catholic Church is a different story, but many Protestants are and have been changing their mind, both in the laity and amongst clergy.
|
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.
If a religion existed that said "only a man who has not lain with another man may eat meat" and a butcher that was a part of that religion did not want to sell meat to homosexual men then he would probably get away with refusing them service on the grounds that complying with anti-discrimination legislation would infringe upon his own freedom of religion. It's a touchy thing, when you have society at large accept something that certain religions do not, and it reminds me of that whole kosher/halal butchering thread that sprung up a while ago.
In this situation, by enforcing one person's (or in the case of marriage, two) rights (that of receiving equal service) you infringe upon another's rights (that of freedom to practice their religion) you fall exactly into the grey area of "whose rights are more important?" My basic guideline is: if me following my religion does not force you to adhere to the practices of my religion (in the above hypothetical example, if I do not prevent you eating meat *in general*), then my religious freedom is more important; if me following my religion forces you to adhere to some tenant of my religion (for instance, if homosexual couples were prevented from marrying *at all*) then your freedom of action is more important. Just as a Christian couple should expect to be denied if they wanted to be married in a mosque or a synagogue, or a Methodist couple that wanted to be married in a Catholic Cathedral; when you ask to be included in the religious practice of a denomination, you should be expected to adhere to their beliefs.
EDIT: In the U.S., with respect to race, "separate but equal" was ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS; in our politics, Ron Paul made a good point in the Republican primary, I thought: just make it all "civil union" and let religions keep "marriage". In that way, everyone is equal under the law and priests et al would only be empowered to "civilly unite" members of their own denomination who adhere to their religious rules.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
