|
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 States42437 Posts
There are plans (in the sense that it will happen, not just sensationalist news) for the British parliament to introduce gay marriage in the UK before 2015. It is receiving cross party support with the Conservative (centre right)/Lib Dem (socially liberal) coalition government pushing the bill and the Labour opposition (centre left economically) also backing it. Principle opposition is likely to be from backbench Conservative MPs but the party leadership in the UK is way more able to make MPs vote their way than in the US for example.
What we currently have
Same sex couples can currently get civil partnerships which give them the same legal protections and entitlements as married couples, protected under anti discrimination laws. These are effectively marriages but as they are opposed by most Christian and Muslim groups they have a different names and Catholic/Anglican churches/ministers don't let them happen.
What will change
Civil partnerships will remain (heterosexual couples could get them too, it's just a secular marriage) but the option of a marriage and calling it a marriage will be open to homosexual couples. In practice very little will change because they already call themselves married because they pretty much are in every sense that counts, it'll just be one less distinction between heterosexual and homosexual couples. Children growing up may grow up to be less homophobic but to be honest it's largely a formality. A formality that is long overdue but still, simply tidying up after the introduction of civil partnerships did most of the work.
What will stay the same and what will get worse (for gays), also known as "the issue"
To counter the religious freedom argument against gay marriage the freedom for religions to discriminate against homosexuals on the basis of their beliefs is being enshrined in this law. 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 refusual to perform gay marriages. 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. The same protection applies to church property, a Catholic church will not be forced to allow a gay marriage to happen on their premises, nor will one be legal.
We have a fascist party in the UK called the BNP who used to have a no blacks policy on their membership because they want Britain to be purely white because they're a bunch of racists. They got hit by anti discrimination legislation and now can't refuse membership to black people on the basis of their skin colour, despite being an independent organisation. There is a clear legal and social precedent that private groups do not have the right to discriminate. The proposed new law runs directly counter to that and grants new exemptions to religious groups wanting to discriminate against homosexual couples who wish to get married and actually legally enforces discrimination, making not discriminating while an official of the named groups a crime. It's a step back in terms of civil rights and a secular society.
Talking points
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?
Do religions have the right to discriminate privately as long as it doesn't deny any rights to the individual?
If religions have the right to discriminate privately on the grounds of sexual orientation why should other groups not also have similar rights?
Is making it specifically illegal for a group to marry gay couples as well as protecting them from discrimination laws too far?
Is it an acceptable price to pay for homosexual couples to call themselves married and be technically correct?
Not talking points
This law is bad because it lets gays marry.
This law is bad because God doesn't exist.
Related reading
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20680924
If any gays, particularly British gays, would like to weigh in their input would be particularly appreciated.
|
United States42437 Posts
My view is that this is an entrenchment of religious discrimination against homosexual couples. It is no longer possible for the church to stop homosexual marriage from being allowed, they simply have too little sway in social policy these days. However this is not a defeat for the church, although this law will allow gays to marry it also enshrines the right for religious groups to discriminate against gays. 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 and this law will institute not only protections for discrimination but a legal requirement for all officials of the religions named in the bill to discriminate. It should be opposed, better to wait a few years for the corpse to stop kicking than let rigor mortis set in in the position its currently in. Discrimination is discrimination, divinely inspired or not.
Furthermore as a secularist it frustrates me that religious groups get a special permission to discriminate. No matter how strongly held your convictions are or how much personal subjective experience you have justifying it it is illegal for a private secular group to have a discriminatory policy towards members of the public. You could believe gays are destroying society, have had only negative experiences with gay people and have a recurring dream in which a thundering voice tells you not to interact with gays but unless you believe that voice is God then you can't refuse people things on the grounds of their sexual preference. If private bodies are allowed to discriminate then all of them should be able to on whatever grounds, I wouldn't advocate that but religious privilege in this regard frustrates me as they have no monopoly on strongly held convictions.
Also relevant is the meshing of religion with the legislative in a way that would make a large portion of the American population wet in the loins. I'll edit in an explanation of that stuff in a few minutes after I've eaten but basically our system is evolved from one that included "divine right of kings", there's a reason why the separation of church and state was a big thing in the US, there is a lot of that stuff still lurking in the system like an appendix, useless until it fucks you over.
Okay, we don't have a separation of church and state in the UK, in fact we have the opposite. We have a state religion, the Church of England, created by Henry VIII because he was tired of the Pope outranking him but thought promoting himself to God would be pushing it. Instead he made his own religion in which he could be Pope as well as King and everyone went along with it because he was a big angry man. Since then the monarch has been the head of the Church of England as well as our head of state. While you may think this doesn't matter so much anymore now we have a constitutional monarchy we still have an awful of left over stuff from those days. 26 bishops from the Church of England sit in our upper legislative house for example, theoretically to advise on spiritual matters but in practice voting on everything, unelected and unaccountable to a population that is increasingly divergent from their beliefs. Likewise an awful lot of our education and other public institutions are a hybrid of church run charities (harking back to when public works were the preserve of the church) and the state which has never declared a secular society and nationalised them all. Religion, such as hymns and prayer service in schools, are unquestioningly accepted and religious groups are openly invited to take part in the legislative process. The lack of a revolution and a new constitution following it has left us bereft of some of the most crucial parts of the enlightenment.
|
It may just be my lack of reading comprehension or lack of understanding british politics, but I don't see the issue. Isn't there a difference between civil marriage and religious marriage in Britain like in Germany? In Germany civil marriage is basically the "real" marriage, while the religious marriage is just a ceremony. There's currently a huge debate within the conservative party in Germany as well concerning gay marriage, but it's only about giving gay couples the same tax benefits as heterosexuals. It doesn't have anything to do with the church.
|
On the one hand, it's pretty much the law that every gay-rights advocate in the States is hoping for, because it allows for legal equality while letting religious individuals be bigots without hurting homosexual individuals.
That said, I think you're right. It allows religious institutions to entrench themselves and continue bigotry that is counter to social progress, and I don't feel like this is a good thing. This would set a precedent that certain groups can discriminate based on ridiculous reasoning just because they are "exempt" groups; obviously, religions would benefit the most. What's to stop them from discriminating against women, or black individuals?
|
United States42437 Posts
|
It seems like a big victory for the religious side in the uk. I don't see any real downside from them in this new law and I don't see any upside for the pro gay rights side.
How is this getting such support from the left when its only a formality victory but a fundamental lasting loss for them? This will probably solve the issue for generations forward and a good framework for how it could work in the US. For me it as always been forcing religious organizations like faith based charities like adoption agencies to recognize gay marriage being the problem with me voting for it.
It is a painful precedent to give a certain faction within your country a special designation to ignore the law but it has been used in the past to allow certain religious organizations exemption from the draft per say.
|
Hm, it seems a bit of a waste. I'm not sure why homosexual individuals would even want to be "married" in the first place. The church/multiple religions are pretty openly against it, and civil unions pretty much provide all that a marriage does, as Zetter said. So, what's the point? If everyone is getting what they want, what's the need for change? Arguing over names and definitions is always silly...
Now, if only Americans had a bit better compromising skills, we would have same-sex unions in every state instead of just a few (the heavily liberal ones?). It really is a shame.
User was warned for the "Americans higher reasoning" bit
|
On December 12 2012 03:41 KwarK wrote:
We have a fascist party in the UK called the BNP who used to have a no blacks policy on their membership because they want Britain to be purely white because they're a bunch of racists. They got hit by anti discrimination legislation and now can't refuse membership to black people on the basis of their skin colour, despite being an independent organisation. There is a clear legal and social precedent that private groups do not have the right to discriminate. The proposed new law runs directly counter to that and grants new exemptions to religious groups wanting to discriminate against homosexual couples who wish to get married and actually legally enforces discrimination, making not discriminating while an official of the named groups a crime. It's a step back in terms of civil rights and a secular society.
Yes, this is more or less how I see things, this sort of legislation effectively legitimizes certain sorts of discrimination, though I am not familiar enough with the general pulse of the British population insofar as eliminating discrimination is concerned. I do think that this speaks to a trend of reactionary cultural expression that has a lot to do with the eurozone crisis and burgeoning immigration.
|
I feel a little ashamed that I haven't thought about this on my own! It's actually brillitant. Yes, from the Brittish point of view it seems basically like a step backward, but in many other places, this would be a leap forward. And I think that this mechanism of "let's give people freedoms, while keeping churces to their business" could be actually useful for some positive agendas in places where religion has strong hold on the politics.
|
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 an odd moral quandary, I'll admit.
I won't deny the fact that I am strongly pro-gay rights; however, I also believe in certain rights that every human possesses or should possess, and this law is pitting two of those rights against each other (equality and freedom of religion, in case anyone's wondering).
The way I see it, marriage has two parts: the secular parts and the ceremonial parts. Gays already had full access to the secular parts, such as tax breaks. The ceremonial parts, on the other hand, were off limits. It was marriage in every practical sense, but the last (and most important to some) parts were off limits.
I think that, for a lot of religious leaders at least, accepting gays into, for example, Catholicism (and other religious services they provide, including marriage) is like the KKK accepting blacks. It sucks, but it's part of their religion. As long as gays still receive the secular benefits and can still go to a religious official who agrees with their views for a marriage, I think this specific type of religious discrimination is OK legally, but morally debatable (as morality is subjective).
However, I disagree with how the leaders of a religion can outlaw their priests' ability to provide services. I feel that, at worst, they should be able to excommunicate deviant priests, not take them to court. That part of the law I strongly disagree with.
|
does britain have a "right to marry" type of law/constitutional interpretation/whatever similar to america? we have the loving v. virginia case. the U.S. Sup. Ct. has currently taken up the issue of gay marriage and i am curious how they will rule. i imagine they will punt the issue like they usually do though.
|
Thanks for the write up kwark.
On it surface this is a victory for equal rights for gay couples, yes it is merely a change in the legal name for the partnership but that is what counts here -establishing parity between homosexual and heterosexual couples.
However, at it's heart is a serious issue case of discrimination being enshrined in law. The bill will actually legitimate certain kinds of discrimination and favouritizing certain lines of organisation to do so. How hard is it then going to become to change the minds of members of these organisations when the very law legitimates their prejudice?
To run with your cadaverous metaphor, this bill could potentially raise a zombie from a slowly dying corpse of religious intolerance.
|
I'm curious in the UK are they really 100% identical, civil unions and marriages. In the US they are usually not, well intentioned they often are unable to cover all the laws on the books and so here and there they end up different some states more covered then other but none 100%. Also I can't see how any nation that would identify itself as free from organized religion influence in government and have civil unions. Marriage if it exists on the state books you shouldn't be calling it something else when you marry gay couples it inevitably will carry connotations. So choose one or the other either everyone is married or everyone are under civil unions under the law, separate but equal is never quite equal when it comes to people.
|
United States42437 Posts
On December 12 2012 03:54 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
I think that, for a lot of leaders at least, accepting gays into Catholicism (and other religious services they provide, including marriage) is like the KKK accepting blacks. It sucks, but it's part of their religion. As long as gays still receive the secular benefits and can still go to a religious official who agrees with their views for a marriage, I think this specific type of religious discrimination is OK legally, but morally debatable (as morality is subjective).
I'm not sure I get your point, legally in the UK this law will make it very unlike the KKK accepting blacks as the KKK (or their British equivalent) would have no exemption from discrimination laws.
Would you deal with the hypocrisy of denying racist political groups racial discrimination while allowing homophobic religious groups homophobic discrimination by allowing all private entities to discriminate as they see fit? I wasn't sure but I think that was what you were advocating.
|
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.
|
United States42437 Posts
On December 12 2012 03:58 semantics wrote:
I'm curious in the UK are they really 100% identical, civil unions and marriages.
They are. If you get into an argument with a pedant then they'll insist that you're not married, you're unioned, but you have all the same legal protections and you're allowed to tick the married box on forms etc. This will let you win the argument with a pedant, but at what price.
|
Not too worried about the discrimination vs. religious freedom bit. It's clear that discrimination is on a continuum and as long as religious doctrine clashes with public opinion (as it does on many issues in most of Europe) there will be discrimination.
But a real problem is having a state religion with doctrine that goes directly against the will of the public. In the long run something has to change. As I don't really see the UK turning back to homophobia, this either means the Church of England changing their stance or declaring their freedom from the state and going their separate ways.
|
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.
That's most definitely not true. It's actually the most important theological debate as of right now and while there are theologians who'd say the same as you, I know a lot of gay christians and usually their congregation doesn't say a lot against it. We even had a gay treasurer in ours.
There are just a few quotes in the bible against gay couples and in my personal opinion they are extremely questionable from a theological point of view.
|
United States42437 Posts
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.
|
I guess...through cringed teeth I have to admit that private organizations do have the right to discriminate as long as they don't infringe on the rights of anyone else.
But I think the onus should be on them to justify why they are discriminating. It's enormously hypocritical and the logic behind it is clearly unsound. If they want their decision to be enshrined in law then they should be able to justify it before a panel of scholars and intellectuals. Why would we make laws based on a schizophrenic interpretation of religion? Religions of all types ignore vast swaths of their own doctrine...they should be able to tell us why we should legislate the few pieces they decide to follow. It just seems like it's democratizing truth and doing a disservice to logic and progress.
|
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.
Well to some degree it is (though not in those words), in that this legislation effectively caters to a specific brand of Christian bigotry, meaning the state is effectively legitimizing one Christian doctrine over others. The specifics of Christian doctrine as they pertain to social policy are an unavoidable component of understanding the nature of exactly what this legislation speaks to, as it does not speak to religion in general, rather a particularly conservative vein of Christianity that includes Catholicism. This has nothing to do with which religion is "right".
|
Pretty badly played by Maria Miller tbh, she gave too much ground to religious groups IMO she should have made it legal but not compulsory for all religious groups and if it was taken to the european court of human rights and religions were told to marry people even if they didn't want the conservatives could have used it as an excuse to leave the court and they would have a win-win situation.
|
debated whether to even get into this, but here is where i stand: the right to marriage (gay or not) and the right to practice religion are both fundamental rights that should not be infringed lightly. if you force a church to allow gay marriage (by forcing their priests (or whatever they call themselves) to be subject to discrimination lawsuits because they wont violate their religious principals) you are infringing their right to practice their religion as long as its an actual belief of the church. so, i am opposed to that. you may not like that result, but thats why we have fundamental rights--to prevent others from forcing their beliefs on others.
people who want to get married (gay or not) have options, they do not need to infringe believer's fundamental rights to do so.
by the way, freedom from discrimination is not a fundamental right, and never has been.
edit: by the way, i support gay marriage.
|
United States42437 Posts
On December 12 2012 04:17 dAPhREAk wrote:
you are infringing their right to practice their religion as long as its an actual belief of the church
Would you support a church refusing to marry interracial couples on the basis of religious beliefs?
|
It is probably worth noting that the Church of England's submission was definitely not a consensus view. (It was submitted without consultation).
Regardless of what the Bible says, it is not God's nature to deny love to any. The word of God is clear in a very simple way, but unfortunately bigotry will always be present in such matters.
User was warned for feeling the need to add that his religious views are the ones which are correct
|
On December 12 2012 04:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 04:17 dAPhREAk wrote:
you are infringing their right to practice their religion as long as its an actual belief of the church Would you support a church refusing to marry interracial couples on the basis of religious beliefs?
no, i would not "support" them. however, if its an actual belief of the church (not pretext) then i would not object to them doing it. the interracial couple can be married elsewhere.
if a gay couple wants to get married, why would they want or even need to be married (for example) at a catholic church, or by a catholic priest? they have absolutely no reason to do so. so, it seems, that you (metaphorically) are concerned about a non-issue.
|
The main point here is, that marriage is not a religious sacrament anymore. It has become a secular institution and should be treated as one.
If religious institutions don't want to marry gay couples, that's ok. Let's just take away their right to marry people in the secular way (the only way that matters). So after you've done your ceremony in the church/whatever, then you can get paper that says the state sees you as a married couple from district court.
No need to make things so hard.
|
United States42437 Posts
On December 12 2012 04:24 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 04:20 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 04:17 dAPhREAk wrote:
you are infringing their right to practice their religion as long as its an actual belief of the church Would you support a church refusing to marry interracial couples on the basis of religious beliefs? no, i would not "support" them. however, if its an actual belief of the church (not pretext) then i would not object to them doing it. the interracial couple can be married elsewhere. if a gay couple wants to get married, why would they want or even need to be married (for example) at a catholic church, or by a catholic priest? they have absolutely no reason to do so. so, it seems, that you (metaphorically) are concerned about a non-issue.
Do you feel there is a potential issue in whether or not discrimination can actually be dealt with if private groups are allowed to discriminate?
Do you feel religious convictions are any more important than any other strongly held conviction? A man could genuinely believe that gay marriage would destroy society by eroding the morals enshrined by traditional marriage without involving God and feel the same passion regarding the issue.
|
I think it will be interesting to see what happens from a Church point of view. I would expect the Catholic church will be as it ever was, but it may create a split in the CofE with regards to gay marriage vs no gay marriage, since it would not even be legal to marry a gay couple as a member of the CofE.
It might cause the CofE to lose some support/followers, and have some churches/etc split off into a new organisation that does allow gay marriage.
The law is too restrictive because it forbids gay marriage, rather than allowing it to be forbidden. That's not giving religious people freedom, that's taking away freedom, which is bad for people who aren't hardliners in the church.
It is reasonable to allow people to discriminate based on their beliefs in a private setting, IMO, as long as it's a right of refusal and not actively going against it and inciting problems.
I think for gay people it shouldn't be a mega issue, since eventually the religious fringes will crumble and it will all settle out, and it's still some progress.
I think it's a bigger problem for religious groups as it creates problems for them that they didn't have before, and may make gay rights a bigger issue within those religious groups than it was before, which may negatively impact both those groups, and gays or supporters of gays. That's where the main problem might be.
(Religious descrimination basically has to be tolerated because religious groups are very resistant to change and are pretty institutionalised, any progress is good progress, and this exact ruling may actually help more progress being made rather than forcing things upon people and making them not discriminate. While it may not seem sensible or right, that's just how it is with religion, and sometimes you have to take what you can get).
|
On December 12 2012 04:28 manofthesea wrote:
The main point here is, that marriage is not a religious sacrament anymore. It has become a secular institution and should be treated as one.
If religious institutions don't want to marry gay couples, that's ok. Let's just take away their right to marry people in the secular way (the only way that matters). So after you've done your ceremony in the church/whatever, then you can get paper that says the state sees you as a married couple from district court.
No need to make things so hard.
thats the way it is in america already; i dont know about england. marriages arent official without a marriage license.
|
On December 12 2012 03:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 03:54 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
I think that, for a lot of leaders at least, accepting gays into Catholicism (and other religious services they provide, including marriage) is like the KKK accepting blacks. It sucks, but it's part of their religion. As long as gays still receive the secular benefits and can still go to a religious official who agrees with their views for a marriage, I think this specific type of religious discrimination is OK legally, but morally debatable (as morality is subjective). I'm not sure I get your point, legally in the UK this law will make it very unlike the KKK accepting blacks. Would you deal with the hypocrisy of denying racist political groups racial discrimination while allowing homophobic religious groups homophobic discrimination by allowing all private entities to discriminate as they see fit? I wasn't sure but I think that was what you were advocating.
I view the morals of the law and personal morals as different and separate. Since morals are subjective but laws are all-encompassing, laws must follow a different moral code than the morality of individuals.
I feel that, barring the part about religious leaders outlawing their underling's ability to perform certain actions (as I said before, they should only be able to dole out religious consequences for religious deviants), this law is in keeping with the legal moral code I believe in.
However, I also said that I believe this is ok only in this specific circumstance, and I believe this must be stressed. As this involves a conflict between two separate rights every human being should possess, it is a VERY tricky moral area. I ONLY agree with the specific parts I outlined in this specific law, not anything else. Circumstances like these are impossibly complicated, and must be evaluated on a case by case basis every time.
As for your question, I feel that racist groups should be able to deny admission into their group, but if said group controls something, like, say, a trucking company, they should put their beliefs aside and run the company as a company should be run, and not as an extension of their beliefs.
You see, the company offers tangible, secular benefits, just like the secular portions of a marriage. The secular portions should be free from discrimination, but the religious portions that involve subjective things like morality should be able to discriminate, as long as it does not harm others.
Also, holy motherfucking goddamn shit. Writing out my complex moral beliefs and reasoning in such a way as to remove the possibility of misinterpretation is one of the most difficult tasks to do on this forum. Furthermore, I'm trying to do it fast (you want to do that with damage control, things tend to snowball), am talking to a prominent community member who I respect, am doing it on a fucking tiny iPhone on a bumpy car ride, etc etc. I'm actually running into the limits of my command of the English language, which has never happened before. I guess I now know firsthand why legal documents are always so long, now. This is getting really, really hard.
|
On December 12 2012 04:24 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 04:20 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 04:17 dAPhREAk wrote:
you are infringing their right to practice their religion as long as its an actual belief of the church Would you support a church refusing to marry interracial couples on the basis of religious beliefs? no, i would not "support" them. however, if its an actual belief of the church (not pretext) then i would not object to them doing it. the interracial couple can be married elsewhere. if a gay couple wants to get married, why would they want or even need to be married (for example) at a catholic church, or by a catholic priest? they have absolutely no reason to do so. so, it seems, that you (metaphorically) are concerned about a non-issue.
This presumes a bit much, as I'd imagine you'd feel differently had you been born Catholic and gay. Contrary to popular belief, there are a great many devoted Christians, Catholics included, who are still just as devoted once they come out of the closet. Granted, I personally don't understand why these folks would still seek to be a part of a group that so clearly shuns them, but I digress. I guess my point in the end is that the church's place in society might relegate its policies to a different standard than one might typically apply, those being freedom of association and collective rights.
|
It's a good thing, removing a needless distinction.
I think it should be down to individual ministers or the people performing the ceremony. If they do not wish to on the grounds of their religious belief, fine. If they do not feel that marriage should be restricted on the grounds of sexuality, also fine.
Allowing institutions as a whole to opt out is the wrong way to go I think, but hey ultimately this is a step forward for equality.
|
On December 12 2012 04:17 dAPhREAk wrote:
debated whether to even get into this, but here is where i stand: the right to marriage (gay or not) and the right to practice religion are both fundamental rights that should not be infringed lightly. if you force a church to allow gay marriage (by forcing their priests (or whatever they call themselves) to be subject to discrimination lawsuits because they wont violate their religious principals) you are infringing their right to practice their religion as long as its an actual belief of the church. so, i am opposed to that. you may not like that result, but thats why we have fundamental rights--to prevent others from forcing their beliefs on others.
people who want to get married (gay or not) have options, they do not need to infringe believer's fundamental rights to do so.
by the way, freedom from discrimination is not a fundamental right, and never has been.
edit: by the way, i support gay marriage.
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?
|
On December 12 2012 04:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 04:17 dAPhREAk wrote:
you are infringing their right to practice their religion as long as its an actual belief of the church Would you support a church refusing to marry interracial couples on the basis of religious beliefs?
I don't think that question whether he supports it should be asked, since it is not the case here. As I understand it now, the question is as follows: should society force upon an organizaton creation of additional internal ceremony, that is accesible for anybody not belonging to this organization.
|
You don't even have to have the ceremony to be "married" I know a bunch of people who just decided to go to the courthouse and get a marriage licence with a few friends and saved the money from the whole thing to buy a house.
I don't see why you have to force a religious institution to do something that they feel is against they're religion. They can say or do whatever they want inside their church (or other religious organization) as long as it doesn't exercise any action or authority over people that do not choose to take part in their religion.
|
I think that this is pretty awesome and fair. Pro marriage, but I don't think that the state should be able to force religious institutions to marry people.
However, if a church wants to place itself on that list, I think the state should start charging religious institutions tax on their properties, much in the same way that I believe that the state should revoke federal funding for hospitals that want to opt out of abortions and contraception for religious purposes.
I still don't think that it is the place of the state to intervene on religious matters like this. There will also be churches that will happily marry gays.
|
On December 12 2012 04:29 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 04:24 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 04:20 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 04:17 dAPhREAk wrote:
you are infringing their right to practice their religion as long as its an actual belief of the church Would you support a church refusing to marry interracial couples on the basis of religious beliefs? no, i would not "support" them. however, if its an actual belief of the church (not pretext) then i would not object to them doing it. the interracial couple can be married elsewhere. if a gay couple wants to get married, why would they want or even need to be married (for example) at a catholic church, or by a catholic priest? they have absolutely no reason to do so. so, it seems, that you (metaphorically) are concerned about a non-issue. Do you feel there is a potential issue in whether or not discrimination can actually be dealt with if private groups are allowed to discriminate? Do you feel religious convictions are any more important than any other strongly held conviction? A man could genuinely believe that gay marriage would destroy society by eroding the morals enshrined by traditional marriage without involving God and feel the same passion regarding the issue.
i think government enforced anti-discrimination is a good thing (within limits of course), but i dont think it does anything to curb racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. it prevents the symptoms, but does not destroy the cause. so, do i think that allowing a church to refuse to do gay marriages will promote homophobia? no, it will be no worse than it already is.
i do think that religious convictions are more important than other strongly held convictions. that is because of the cultural issues involved, not because its logical.
|
On December 12 2012 04:37 QuanticHawk wrote:
I think that this is pretty awesome and fair. Pro marriage, but I don't think that the state should be able to force religious institutions to marry people.
However, if a church wants to place itself on that list, I think the state should start charging religious institutions tax on their properties... thought that should probably happen either way though.
I still don't think that it is the place of the state to intervene on religious matters like this. There will also be churches that will happily marry gays.
The main issue is that you won't be legally allowed to marry gays if you are a member of a group which does not allow it.
It's not allowing refusal, it's making acceptance illegal on an individual basis if you are part of a group that does not accept it.
|
On December 12 2012 04:40 Lonyo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 04:37 QuanticHawk wrote:
I think that this is pretty awesome and fair. Pro marriage, but I don't think that the state should be able to force religious institutions to marry people.
However, if a church wants to place itself on that list, I think the state should start charging religious institutions tax on their properties... thought that should probably happen either way though.
I still don't think that it is the place of the state to intervene on religious matters like this. There will also be churches that will happily marry gays. The main issue is that you won't be legally allowed to marry gays if you are a member of a group which does not allow it. It's not allowing refusal, it's making acceptance illegal on an individual basis if you are part of a group that does not accept it.
Yes, this is the part that troubles me most greatly, the government has effectively quashed inner-denominational social policy debate as it pertains to the treatment of homosexuality, and that seems utterly wrong to me.
|
On December 12 2012 04:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 03:58 semantics wrote:
I'm curious in the UK are they really 100% identical, civil unions and marriages. They are. If you get into an argument with a pedant then they'll insist that you're not married, you're unioned, but you have all the same legal protections and you're allowed to tick the married box on forms etc. This will let you win the argument with a pedant, but at what price.
If my state here in the U.S. had a bill that said this, that civil unions had the same outward legal benefits as a marriage but still differentiated by the term used, I'd be extremely receptive to it versus the whole "we want our union to be called a marriage too" crusade.
Also, I stand by their decision to let churches choose who they let marry under their approval. We would argue that under "separation of church and state" in the U.S.; don't know if there's a similar catchy term over the water where you live.
|
On December 12 2012 04:36 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 04:17 dAPhREAk wrote:
debated whether to even get into this, but here is where i stand: the right to marriage (gay or not) and the right to practice religion are both fundamental rights that should not be infringed lightly. if you force a church to allow gay marriage (by forcing their priests (or whatever they call themselves) to be subject to discrimination lawsuits because they wont violate their religious principals) you are infringing their right to practice their religion as long as its an actual belief of the church. so, i am opposed to that. you may not like that result, but thats why we have fundamental rights--to prevent others from forcing their beliefs on others.
people who want to get married (gay or not) have options, they do not need to infringe believer's fundamental rights to do so.
by the way, freedom from discrimination is not a fundamental right, and never has been.
edit: by the way, i support gay marriage. 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.
|
United States42437 Posts
On December 12 2012 04:42 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 04:00 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 03:58 semantics wrote:
I'm curious in the UK are they really 100% identical, civil unions and marriages. They are. If you get into an argument with a pedant then they'll insist that you're not married, you're unioned, but you have all the same legal protections and you're allowed to tick the married box on forms etc. This will let you win the argument with a pedant, but at what price. If my state here in the U.S. had a bill that said this, that civil unions had the same outward legal benefits as a marriage but still differentiated by the term used, I'd be extremely receptive to it versus the whole "we want our union to be called a marriage too" crusade. Also, I stand by their decision to let churches choose who they let marry under their approval. We would argue that under "separation of church and state" in the U.S.; don't know if there's a similar catchy term over the water where you live.
Our head of state is also the head of the official church of the country. We are what your founders had in mind when they separated church and state.
|
What the heck? This depends entirely on how you define a marriage. What they are doing here is redefining what marriage is. That's why people are getting so upset.
Frankly, homosexuals should be content with civil partnerships. Marriage is defined as a religious institution between a man and a woman...as long as you abide by that definition there's nothing wrong with letting homosexuals get the same benefits that marriages recieve under a different name...
Obviously there are extreme religious groups who won't accept union of homosexuals in any way, but there are likely many who are pissed because government is attempting to re-write the definition of marriage.
Just call it a civil union. Don't shit on a major religious institution. Homosexuals should recognize their union goes against many major religiuous doctrines....simply be content in recieving the same benefits.
|
On December 12 2012 04:37 QuanticHawk wrote:
I think that this is pretty awesome and fair. Pro marriage, but I don't think that the state should be able to force religious institutions to marry people.
However, if a church wants to place itself on that list, I think the state should start charging religious institutions tax on their properties, much in the same way that I believe that the state should revoke federal funding for hospitals that want to opt out of abortions and contraception for religious purposes.
I still don't think that it is the place of the state to intervene on religious matters like this. There will also be churches that will happily marry gays.
Wouldn't putting a tax on churches like you said be punishing churches for expressing their religion? Punishing a religion for the exercise thereof is apart of the first amendment.
|
United States42437 Posts
On December 12 2012 04:43 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 04:36 Klondikebar wrote:On December 12 2012 04:17 dAPhREAk wrote:
debated whether to even get into this, but here is where i stand: the right to marriage (gay or not) and the right to practice religion are both fundamental rights that should not be infringed lightly. if you force a church to allow gay marriage (by forcing their priests (or whatever they call themselves) to be subject to discrimination lawsuits because they wont violate their religious principals) you are infringing their right to practice their religion as long as its an actual belief of the church. so, i am opposed to that. you may not like that result, but thats why we have fundamental rights--to prevent others from forcing their beliefs on others.
people who want to get married (gay or not) have options, they do not need to infringe believer's fundamental rights to do so.
by the way, freedom from discrimination is not a fundamental right, and never has been.
edit: by the way, i support gay marriage. 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.
|
On December 12 2012 04:44 Qwyn wrote:
What the heck? This depends entirely on how you define a marriage. What they are doing here is redefining what marriage is. That's why people are getting so upset.
Frankly, homosexuals should be content with civil partnerships. Marriage is defined as a religious institution between a man and a woman...as long as you abide by that definition there's nothing wrong with letting homosexuals get the same benefits that marriages recieve under a different name...
Obviously there are extreme religious groups who won't accept union of homosexuals in any way, but there are likely many who are pissed because government is attempting to re-write the definition of marriage.
Just call it a civil union. Don't shit on a major religious institution. Homosexuals should recognize their union goes against many major religiuous doctrines....simply be content in recieving the same benefits.
separate but equal, right? history has taught us that that is not a legitimate way of handling things.
|
On December 12 2012 04:28 manofthesea wrote:
The main point here is, that marriage is not a religious sacrament anymore. It has become a secular institution and should be treated as one.
If religious institutions don't want to marry gay couples, that's ok. Let's just take away their right to marry people in the secular way (the only way that matters). So after you've done your ceremony in the church/whatever, then you can get paper that says the state sees you as a married couple from district court.
No need to make things so hard.
I think this is an interesting point though. In a sense the church is infringing on the religious freedom of the gay community by refusing them recognition within the church. Obviously this would vary from institution to institution (even within the churches themselves. Catholic church I was made to attend services at exceedingly liberal venues.)
Obviously it doing so on the basis of a codified faith complicates the matter but per Kwark's OP the UK does have some interesting precedent for pushing the issue. That exemption clause is the most interesting addition to this law imo. Will be curious to see which names wind up on the final form in Parliament.
|
On December 12 2012 04:43 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 04:36 Klondikebar wrote:On December 12 2012 04:17 dAPhREAk wrote:
debated whether to even get into this, but here is where i stand: the right to marriage (gay or not) and the right to practice religion are both fundamental rights that should not be infringed lightly. if you force a church to allow gay marriage (by forcing their priests (or whatever they call themselves) to be subject to discrimination lawsuits because they wont violate their religious principals) you are infringing their right to practice their religion as long as its an actual belief of the church. so, i am opposed to that. you may not like that result, but thats why we have fundamental rights--to prevent others from forcing their beliefs on others.
people who want to get married (gay or not) have options, they do not need to infringe believer's fundamental rights to do so.
by the way, freedom from discrimination is not a fundamental right, and never has been.
edit: by the way, i support gay marriage. 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.
I'm not sure I am fine with that test. Do we protect the beliefs of cults? The KKK? A belief in Santa? Simply having a belief is not grounds for protecting it. The "religious" adjective doesn't really change anything.
I guess I'm saying that if a belief is going to be a protected, it should also be justified. I want SOME rigor in the legislature. You're still free to believe whatever you want, but if you can't justify or lay out some argument for holding it, it doesn't deserve to be protected.
|
On December 12 2012 04:49 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 04:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 04:36 Klondikebar wrote:On December 12 2012 04:17 dAPhREAk wrote:
debated whether to even get into this, but here is where i stand: the right to marriage (gay or not) and the right to practice religion are both fundamental rights that should not be infringed lightly. if you force a church to allow gay marriage (by forcing their priests (or whatever they call themselves) to be subject to discrimination lawsuits because they wont violate their religious principals) you are infringing their right to practice their religion as long as its an actual belief of the church. so, i am opposed to that. you may not like that result, but thats why we have fundamental rights--to prevent others from forcing their beliefs on others.
people who want to get married (gay or not) have options, they do not need to infringe believer's fundamental rights to do so.
by the way, freedom from discrimination is not a fundamental right, and never has been.
edit: by the way, i support gay marriage. 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. I'm not sure I am fine with that test. Do we protect the beliefs of cults? The KKK? A belief in Santa? Simply having a belief is not grounds for protecting it. The "religious" adjective doesn't really change anything. I guess I'm saying that if a belief is going to be a protected, it should also be justified. I want SOME rigor in the legislature. You're still free to believe whatever you want, but if you can't justify or lay out some argument for holding it, it doesn't deserve to be protected.
then you just open it up to abuse. questioning whether they have a belief prevents pretext, but does not infringe religious beliefs. forcing them to justify their beliefs, which in effect allows you to say their beliefs are unjustified, infringes religious beliefs.
|
Basically nothing is changing except couples who have had or will have a civil partnership, will "legally" be allowed to call themselves married!!!
|
On December 12 2012 04:49 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 04:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 04:36 Klondikebar wrote:On December 12 2012 04:17 dAPhREAk wrote:
debated whether to even get into this, but here is where i stand: the right to marriage (gay or not) and the right to practice religion are both fundamental rights that should not be infringed lightly. if you force a church to allow gay marriage (by forcing their priests (or whatever they call themselves) to be subject to discrimination lawsuits because they wont violate their religious principals) you are infringing their right to practice their religion as long as its an actual belief of the church. so, i am opposed to that. you may not like that result, but thats why we have fundamental rights--to prevent others from forcing their beliefs on others.
people who want to get married (gay or not) have options, they do not need to infringe believer's fundamental rights to do so.
by the way, freedom from discrimination is not a fundamental right, and never has been.
edit: by the way, i support gay marriage. 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. I'm not sure I am fine with that test. Do we protect the beliefs of cults? The KKK? A belief in Santa? Simply having a belief is not grounds for protecting it. The "religious" adjective doesn't really change anything. I guess I'm saying that if a belief is going to be a protected, it should also be justified. I want SOME rigor in the legislature. You're still free to believe whatever you want, but if you can't justify or lay out some argument for holding it, it doesn't deserve to be protected.
While I agree with your point on believing something is not grounds to protect it, yes we do protect them. Their actions as they may affect individuals in a direct and physical fashion is what we don't protect.
|
On December 12 2012 04:47 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 04:44 Qwyn wrote:
What the heck? This depends entirely on how you define a marriage. What they are doing here is redefining what marriage is. That's why people are getting so upset.
Frankly, homosexuals should be content with civil partnerships. Marriage is defined as a religious institution between a man and a woman...as long as you abide by that definition there's nothing wrong with letting homosexuals get the same benefits that marriages recieve under a different name...
Obviously there are extreme religious groups who won't accept union of homosexuals in any way, but there are likely many who are pissed because government is attempting to re-write the definition of marriage.
Just call it a civil union. Don't shit on a major religious institution. Homosexuals should recognize their union goes against many major religiuous doctrines....simply be content in recieving the same benefits.
separate but equal, right? history has taught us that that is not a legitimate way of handling things.
Seperation of church and state yo <3.
|
On December 12 2012 04:47 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 04:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 04:36 Klondikebar wrote:On December 12 2012 04:17 dAPhREAk wrote:
debated whether to even get into this, but here is where i stand: the right to marriage (gay or not) and the right to practice religion are both fundamental rights that should not be infringed lightly. if you force a church to allow gay marriage (by forcing their priests (or whatever they call themselves) to be subject to discrimination lawsuits because they wont violate their religious principals) you are infringing their right to practice their religion as long as its an actual belief of the church. so, i am opposed to that. you may not like that result, but thats why we have fundamental rights--to prevent others from forcing their beliefs on others.
people who want to get married (gay or not) have options, they do not need to infringe believer's fundamental rights to do so.
by the way, freedom from discrimination is not a fundamental right, and never has been.
edit: by the way, i support gay marriage. 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. =)
|
Personally, I am all for gays being allowed to married, as it makes sense especially sense with the divoce rate so high, its not really a um "Sacred institution" that churches have been using to block gay marriage. Personally though, I don't think its right to force a religion to do something they preach against. I know technically if your married by the Catholic Church unless you get an anule\ment from a Bishup, which doesn't happen often, you do not get a divorce. Or at least, you don' get one that is recognized by the Catholic Church and they won't remarry you to someone else. And I dont believe the goverment can force the Church to marry a divorced person. So I guess what I'm trying to say is I don't really see an issue with the Churchs holding onto their certain views so long as they are not violent. (IE Churches should not be allowed to speak about eradicating all the gays or anything of the sort.)
Again, I personally as a Catholic man, admititelyed not a very strongly faithed one,have no issue with homosexual marriage and think the United States should follow the UKs example.Just that the Churchs shouldn't be forced to give them if they don't wish to.
|
On December 12 2012 04:44 Qwyn wrote:
What the heck? This depends entirely on how you define a marriage. What they are doing here is redefining what marriage is. That's why people are getting so upset.
Frankly, homosexuals should be content with civil partnerships. Marriage is defined as a religious institution between a man and a woman...as long as you abide by that definition there's nothing wrong with letting homosexuals get the same benefits that marriages recieve under a different name...
Obviously there are extreme religious groups who won't accept union of homosexuals in any way, but there are likely many who are pissed because government is attempting to re-write the definition of marriage.
Just call it a civil union. Don't shit on a major religious institution. Homosexuals should recognize their union goes against many major religiuous doctrines....simply be content in recieving the same benefits.
Marriage is a concept that permeates the whole of society, almost every culture on earth uses marriage, it is not the sole ownership of any one religious group or interpretation.
Given this, restricting peoples ability to enter into it on the grounds of sexuality is discriminatory if only in legally restricting committed gay couples from entering into it.
If it is a religious institution which religion holds it? All of them? One of them? There are hundreds of thousands of people who are married and yet do not belong to a religious group or identify as being religious.
Yes this is redefining marriage, and thats a good thing as it removes a blockage to equality within increasingly diverse societies.
It was once illegal for white people to marry black people, and similar arguments against interracial marriage were being made a century ago, the only difference is now its not on the grounds of race but sexuality.
|
On December 12 2012 04:52 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 04:47 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 04:44 Qwyn wrote:
What the heck? This depends entirely on how you define a marriage. What they are doing here is redefining what marriage is. That's why people are getting so upset.
Frankly, homosexuals should be content with civil partnerships. Marriage is defined as a religious institution between a man and a woman...as long as you abide by that definition there's nothing wrong with letting homosexuals get the same benefits that marriages recieve under a different name...
Obviously there are extreme religious groups who won't accept union of homosexuals in any way, but there are likely many who are pissed because government is attempting to re-write the definition of marriage.
Just call it a civil union. Don't shit on a major religious institution. Homosexuals should recognize their union goes against many major religiuous doctrines....simply be content in recieving the same benefits.
separate but equal, right? history has taught us that that is not a legitimate way of handling things. Seperation of church and state yo <3.
i hope you understand that those are two entirely different things.
|
On December 12 2012 04:44 Qwyn wrote:
What the heck? This depends entirely on how you define a marriage. What they are doing here is redefining what marriage is. That's why people are getting so upset.
Frankly, homosexuals should be content with civil partnerships. Marriage is defined as a religious institution between a man and a woman...as long as you abide by that definition there's nothing wrong with letting homosexuals get the same benefits that marriages recieve under a different name...
Obviously there are extreme religious groups who won't accept union of homosexuals in any way, but there are likely many who are pissed because government is attempting to re-write the definition of marriage.
Just call it a civil union. Don't shit on a major religious institution. Homosexuals should recognize their union goes against many major religiuous doctrines....simply be content in recieving the same benefits.
Marriage isn't a purely religious institution but another social contract. You may get married in a church but it isn't official, no matter what the priest may say. Until you register the marriage with your local government you're not legally married.
The law is symbolic and represents equality without discriminating based on sexual preference. The US tried your "separate but equal" before; it didn't work then and it doesn't work now. Until 1971, there were some states in the US that still didn't allow interracial marriage even between the same denomination.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
The whole irony of this is the Church of England itself was founded in order for Henry VIII to not be forced to adhere to the laws surrounding marriage, at the time governed by the Catholic Church
|
On December 12 2012 04:52 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 04:49 Klondikebar wrote:On December 12 2012 04:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 04:36 Klondikebar wrote:On December 12 2012 04:17 dAPhREAk wrote:
debated whether to even get into this, but here is where i stand: the right to marriage (gay or not) and the right to practice religion are both fundamental rights that should not be infringed lightly. if you force a church to allow gay marriage (by forcing their priests (or whatever they call themselves) to be subject to discrimination lawsuits because they wont violate their religious principals) you are infringing their right to practice their religion as long as its an actual belief of the church. so, i am opposed to that. you may not like that result, but thats why we have fundamental rights--to prevent others from forcing their beliefs on others.
people who want to get married (gay or not) have options, they do not need to infringe believer's fundamental rights to do so.
by the way, freedom from discrimination is not a fundamental right, and never has been.
edit: by the way, i support gay marriage. 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. I'm not sure I am fine with that test. Do we protect the beliefs of cults? The KKK? A belief in Santa? Simply having a belief is not grounds for protecting it. The "religious" adjective doesn't really change anything. I guess I'm saying that if a belief is going to be a protected, it should also be justified. I want SOME rigor in the legislature. You're still free to believe whatever you want, but if you can't justify or lay out some argument for holding it, it doesn't deserve to be protected. then you just open it up to abuse. questioning whether they have a belief prevents pretext, but does not infringe religious beliefs. forcing them to justify their beliefs, which in effect allows you to say their beliefs are unjustified, infringes religious beliefs.
I'm not talking about a thesis. Just making sure there aren't egregious errors in logic. Positive assertions always have a burden of proof. Take something even opinion based: "I believe chocolate ice cream is more delicious than vanilla ice cream." Why? "Because chocolate tastes more savory to me and I generally prefer savory tastes." DONE! You have justified your opinion that chocolate ice cream is more delicious than vanilla ice cream.
Here is how I imagine a catholic justification would go before the UK legislature: "I believe gay marriage is a sin." Why? "Because it says so in my religious text." But you don't really believe that religious text... "Yes we do!" There are many many sins in that religious text that you ignore, why should we (a secular legislature) protect your definition of only ONE of those things as a sin? Do you have any rationale for why that one is worse or more sinful? "..."
Especially in America, religion has sorta gotten a free pass for a long time. It's never been pressured to justify itself because it's always been presumed that it's ok to have religious belief. Why aren't we actually allowed to call people to justify their beliefs? If we're going to protect a belief WITH SECULAR LAW, surely we should have some rationale for doing so.
And in general, think about the beliefs that have to rely on that sort of protection...it's always logically unsound ones. Science has never required the law to protect it's beliefs. History, math, even softer sciences like Economics and Sociology...all of the worldviews provided by those disciplines can lay out arguments for what they believe, they don't need laws to protect them. The worldviews that need laws to protect them always seem to be religious, cult driven, or satire.
|
Marriage isn't a purely religious institution but another social contract. You may get married in a church but it isn't official, no matter what the priest may say. Until you register the marriage with your local government you're not legally married.
This is a fantastic point, and probably the are in which State and church must necessarily be most inline but not overlap. Marriage has permeated or bled through into the secular social fabric and in doing so is subject to socials pressures.
There is simply no monopoly on marriage for anyone.
|
|
|
United States42437 Posts
On December 12 2012 04:54 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 04:47 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 04:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 04:36 Klondikebar wrote:On December 12 2012 04:17 dAPhREAk wrote:
debated whether to even get into this, but here is where i stand: the right to marriage (gay or not) and the right to practice religion are both fundamental rights that should not be infringed lightly. if you force a church to allow gay marriage (by forcing their priests (or whatever they call themselves) to be subject to discrimination lawsuits because they wont violate their religious principals) you are infringing their right to practice their religion as long as its an actual belief of the church. so, i am opposed to that. you may not like that result, but thats why we have fundamental rights--to prevent others from forcing their beliefs on others.
people who want to get married (gay or not) have options, they do not need to infringe believer's fundamental rights to do so.
by the way, freedom from discrimination is not a fundamental right, and never has been.
edit: by the way, i support gay marriage. 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.
|
On December 12 2012 04:40 Lonyo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 04:37 QuanticHawk wrote:
I think that this is pretty awesome and fair. Pro marriage, but I don't think that the state should be able to force religious institutions to marry people.
However, if a church wants to place itself on that list, I think the state should start charging religious institutions tax on their properties... thought that should probably happen either way though.
I still don't think that it is the place of the state to intervene on religious matters like this. There will also be churches that will happily marry gays. The main issue is that you won't be legally allowed to marry gays if you are a member of a group which does not allow it. It's not allowing refusal, it's making acceptance illegal on an individual basis if you are part of a group that does not accept it.
I assume you mean a priest can't marry if his group doesn't believe in it?
I would assume that any Catholic priest who married two gays would also be quickly kicked out of his congregation, so it is kind of moot.
I guess my question would be if, as a catholic priest, you felt strongly enough to marry two gay people despite it being against the rules of your religion... why the fuck are you a member of a church that discrimates in such a fashion>
|
On December 12 2012 05:06 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +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:On December 12 2012 04:17 dAPhREAk wrote:
debated whether to even get into this, but here is where i stand: the right to marriage (gay or not) and the right to practice religion are both fundamental rights that should not be infringed lightly. if you force a church to allow gay marriage (by forcing their priests (or whatever they call themselves) to be subject to discrimination lawsuits because they wont violate their religious principals) you are infringing their right to practice their religion as long as its an actual belief of the church. so, i am opposed to that. you may not like that result, but thats why we have fundamental rights--to prevent others from forcing their beliefs on others.
people who want to get married (gay or not) have options, they do not need to infringe believer's fundamental rights to do so.
by the way, freedom from discrimination is not a fundamental right, and never has been.
edit: by the way, i support gay marriage. 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
|
On December 12 2012 05:09 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +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:On December 12 2012 04:17 dAPhREAk wrote:
debated whether to even get into this, but here is where i stand: the right to marriage (gay or not) and the right to practice religion are both fundamental rights that should not be infringed lightly. if you force a church to allow gay marriage (by forcing their priests (or whatever they call themselves) to be subject to discrimination lawsuits because they wont violate their religious principals) you are infringing their right to practice their religion as long as its an actual belief of the church. so, i am opposed to that. you may not like that result, but thats why we have fundamental rights--to prevent others from forcing their beliefs on others.
people who want to get married (gay or not) have options, they do not need to infringe believer's fundamental rights to do so.
by the way, freedom from discrimination is not a fundamental right, and never has been.
edit: by the way, i support gay marriage. 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
Was about to point this out as well.
|
This seems really well thought out. Bottom line is this in theology there is no advocate for homosexuality. This is not about God hating Gays...like some may say. The act itself is forbidden.
So it's perfectly reasonable for Religion to discriminate against gay marriage. I don't see what the issue is.
|
On December 12 2012 05:08 QuanticHawk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 04:40 Lonyo wrote:On December 12 2012 04:37 QuanticHawk wrote:
I think that this is pretty awesome and fair. Pro marriage, but I don't think that the state should be able to force religious institutions to marry people.
However, if a church wants to place itself on that list, I think the state should start charging religious institutions tax on their properties... thought that should probably happen either way though.
I still don't think that it is the place of the state to intervene on religious matters like this. There will also be churches that will happily marry gays. The main issue is that you won't be legally allowed to marry gays if you are a member of a group which does not allow it. It's not allowing refusal, it's making acceptance illegal on an individual basis if you are part of a group that does not accept it. I assume you mean a priest can't marry if his group doesn't believe in it? I would assume that any Catholic priest who married two gays would also be quickly kicked out of his congregation, so it is kind of moot. I guess my question would be if, as a catholic priest, you felt strongly enough to marry two gay people despite it being against the rules of your religion... why the fuck are you a member of a church that discrimates in such a fashion>
If enough catholic priests support gay marriage, the catholic church as an institution will eventually change its views. I for one support the presence of more enlightened clergy in the largest religious institution in the world.
|
United States42437 Posts
On December 12 2012 05:09 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +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:On December 12 2012 04:17 dAPhREAk wrote:
debated whether to even get into this, but here is where i stand: the right to marriage (gay or not) and the right to practice religion are both fundamental rights that should not be infringed lightly. if you force a church to allow gay marriage (by forcing their priests (or whatever they call themselves) to be subject to discrimination lawsuits because they wont violate their religious principals) you are infringing their right to practice their religion as long as its an actual belief of the church. so, i am opposed to that. you may not like that result, but thats why we have fundamental rights--to prevent others from forcing their beliefs on others.
people who want to get married (gay or not) have options, they do not need to infringe believer's fundamental rights to do so.
by the way, freedom from discrimination is not a fundamental right, and never has been.
edit: by the way, i support gay marriage. 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. I strongly believe that if the out group in question wasn't gays then arguments like "but you can't make them stop discriminating, it's religion" wouldn't be voiced.
|
On December 12 2012 05:12 KingAce wrote:
This seems really well thought out. Bottom line is this in theology there is no advocate for homosexuality. This is not about God hating Gays...like some may say. The act itself is forbidden.
So it's perfectly reasonable for Religion to discriminate against gay marriage. I don't see what the issue is.
If you don't understand the issue you are simply poorly educated. You may hold conservative views, but to not understand the opposing viewpoint is extreme intellectual laziness.
|
On December 12 2012 05:12 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +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:On December 12 2012 04:17 dAPhREAk wrote:
debated whether to even get into this, but here is where i stand: the right to marriage (gay or not) and the right to practice religion are both fundamental rights that should not be infringed lightly. if you force a church to allow gay marriage (by forcing their priests (or whatever they call themselves) to be subject to discrimination lawsuits because they wont violate their religious principals) you are infringing their right to practice their religion as long as its an actual belief of the church. so, i am opposed to that. you may not like that result, but thats why we have fundamental rights--to prevent others from forcing their beliefs on others.
people who want to get married (gay or not) have options, they do not need to infringe believer's fundamental rights to do so.
by the way, freedom from discrimination is not a fundamental right, and never has been.
edit: by the way, i support gay marriage. 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?
|
On December 12 2012 04:45 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 04:37 QuanticHawk wrote:
I think that this is pretty awesome and fair. Pro marriage, but I don't think that the state should be able to force religious institutions to marry people.
However, if a church wants to place itself on that list, I think the state should start charging religious institutions tax on their properties, much in the same way that I believe that the state should revoke federal funding for hospitals that want to opt out of abortions and contraception for religious purposes.
I still don't think that it is the place of the state to intervene on religious matters like this. There will also be churches that will happily marry gays. Wouldn't putting a tax on churches like you said be punishing churches for expressing their religion? Punishing a religion for the exercise thereof is apart of the first amendment.
They shouldn't receive any special benefits (tax exemption) if they're not benefiting society as a whole
|
On December 12 2012 05:08 QuanticHawk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 04:40 Lonyo wrote:On December 12 2012 04:37 QuanticHawk wrote:
I think that this is pretty awesome and fair. Pro marriage, but I don't think that the state should be able to force religious institutions to marry people.
However, if a church wants to place itself on that list, I think the state should start charging religious institutions tax on their properties... thought that should probably happen either way though.
I still don't think that it is the place of the state to intervene on religious matters like this. There will also be churches that will happily marry gays. The main issue is that you won't be legally allowed to marry gays if you are a member of a group which does not allow it. It's not allowing refusal, it's making acceptance illegal on an individual basis if you are part of a group that does not accept it. I assume you mean a priest can't marry if his group doesn't believe in it? I would assume that any Catholic priest who married two gays would also be quickly kicked out of his congregation, so it is kind of moot. I guess my question would be if, as a catholic priest, you felt strongly enough to marry two gay people despite it being against the rules of your religion... why the fuck are you a member of a church that discrimates in such a fashion>
It's not really a catholic issue at the moment, but there are other denominations which do not support gay marriage on the whole, but for whom some groups/etc may be more progressive and not have a problem with it.
For those people, it would be illegal.
Catholics are generally going to be on the anti gay marriage side, but there are other groups which are much more divided, and the ruling parties will be able to make the decision, and individuals at lower levels won't be able to go against that.
An easy example is what happened recently with regards to women bishops in the Church of England.
There was a majority vote at all levels in favour, but because of the way their system works, it needed 2/3rd or 75% or something majority in all three levels of whatever structure they have, and it failed at one of the levels, and therefore no women bishops.
If the same sort of vote was done regarding gay marriage, you would have the majority in support, but it would be ILLEGAL to perform gay marriage.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20423664
While 324 synod members voted for women bishops, Church voting rules mean 122 votes against were enough to block it.
122 votes against gay marriage would make it ILLEGAL to perform for Church of England members.
This is relevant because the CofE is one of the groups who would not allow gay marriage.
If the MAJORITY ever did want to through changes in attitudes, they would need a vast majority to get that changed, under current rules.
Basically, it's NOT majority rules in the church, and that means a minority can screw over the rest through their beliefs, which leads to it being illegal to do something which people who aren't members of that church can do.
What does that mean? That means the CofE is probably screwed by this even more in the long run than just by the women bishops vote they rejected.
That can be solved by changing the voting rules to have more of a majority vote rule, this will add to that, but mean that a significant minority are seriously restricted BY LAW, and they could potentially decide to break away if they feel strongly enough.
|
I've gotten to the point where I'm ok with religions being ass-backwards on this issue. They are just making it more likely they will die out and we will eventually be free of religion. Let them have the right to discriminate against gays, they are just driving young people away in droves. The only way a religion can survive is if they have a continuous supply of young, easily malleable minds to mold in to their belief system. Every time they take a position against an issue as widely accepted as gay rights is in the UK, they are whacking another nail in to their own coffin... so let them.
The law basically says that gay couples are no different in legal terms than straight ones and that is all that matters. The distinction we have currently have may be minor but still there is a difference between gay "married" couples and straight married couples, it's disgusting that I have to put the quotation marks around it but thats how it currently stands. After this law, there will no longer be anyone who can deny gay couples their rights or use the "married" thing as an insult or quip against gay couples as less than equal legal standing with straight couples.
|
On December 12 2012 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +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:On December 12 2012 04:17 dAPhREAk wrote:
debated whether to even get into this, but here is where i stand: the right to marriage (gay or not) and the right to practice religion are both fundamental rights that should not be infringed lightly. if you force a church to allow gay marriage (by forcing their priests (or whatever they call themselves) to be subject to discrimination lawsuits because they wont violate their religious principals) you are infringing their right to practice their religion as long as its an actual belief of the church. so, i am opposed to that. you may not like that result, but thats why we have fundamental rights--to prevent others from forcing their beliefs on others.
people who want to get married (gay or not) have options, they do not need to infringe believer's fundamental rights to do so.
by the way, freedom from discrimination is not a fundamental right, and never has been.
edit: by the way, i support gay marriage. 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?
Religion should be a fundamental human right. What should not be allowed is for law to be defined in ways that satisfy the individual beliefs of some, but discriminate against the rights of human beings. Whether it be on the grounds of gender, sexuality, race.
|
United States42437 Posts
On December 12 2012 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +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:On December 12 2012 04:17 dAPhREAk wrote:
debated whether to even get into this, but here is where i stand: the right to marriage (gay or not) and the right to practice religion are both fundamental rights that should not be infringed lightly. if you force a church to allow gay marriage (by forcing their priests (or whatever they call themselves) to be subject to discrimination lawsuits because they wont violate their religious principals) you are infringing their right to practice their religion as long as its an actual belief of the church. so, i am opposed to that. you may not like that result, but thats why we have fundamental rights--to prevent others from forcing their beliefs on others.
people who want to get married (gay or not) have options, they do not need to infringe believer's fundamental rights to do so.
by the way, freedom from discrimination is not a fundamental right, and never has been.
edit: by the way, i support gay marriage. 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.
|
here, the marriage is a pure religious thing. the state doesn't even recognize you as legally married, untill you get the civil union.
the priest can't even marry you without some papers from city hall that allows him(in a way), to marry you but the public, still sees the religious marriage as the right of passage into a family life.
religion can discriminate against what ever they want imo.
|
On December 12 2012 05:15 Lonyo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 05:08 QuanticHawk wrote:On December 12 2012 04:40 Lonyo wrote:On December 12 2012 04:37 QuanticHawk wrote:
I think that this is pretty awesome and fair. Pro marriage, but I don't think that the state should be able to force religious institutions to marry people.
However, if a church wants to place itself on that list, I think the state should start charging religious institutions tax on their properties... thought that should probably happen either way though.
I still don't think that it is the place of the state to intervene on religious matters like this. There will also be churches that will happily marry gays. The main issue is that you won't be legally allowed to marry gays if you are a member of a group which does not allow it. It's not allowing refusal, it's making acceptance illegal on an individual basis if you are part of a group that does not accept it. I assume you mean a priest can't marry if his group doesn't believe in it? I would assume that any Catholic priest who married two gays would also be quickly kicked out of his congregation, so it is kind of moot. I guess my question would be if, as a catholic priest, you felt strongly enough to marry two gay people despite it being against the rules of your religion... why the fuck are you a member of a church that discrimates in such a fashion> It's not really a catholic issue at the moment, but there are other denominations which do not support gay marriage on the whole, but for whom some groups/etc may be more progressive and not have a problem with it. For those people, it would be illegal. Catholics are generally going to be on the anti gay marriage side, but there are other groups which are much more divided, and the ruling parties will be able to make the decision, and individuals at lower levels won't be able to go against that. An easy example is what happened recently with regards to women bishops in the Church of England. There was a majority vote at all levels in favour, but because of the way their system works, it needed 2/3rd majority in all three levels of whatever structure they have, and it failed at one of the levels, and therefore no women bishops. If the same sort of vote was done regarding gay marriage, you would have the majority in support, but it would be ILLEGAL to perform gay marriage.
Do you mean the various branches and offshoots in the Catholic church (or whatever institution)?
I guess it comes down to how the law is written in exact terms. I first thought it meant it would be illegal to force the church to do it, which i am ok with. But if a priest wishes to defy the church and do it, he could be arrested? That's nutty.
On December 12 2012 05:12 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 05:08 QuanticHawk wrote:On December 12 2012 04:40 Lonyo wrote:On December 12 2012 04:37 QuanticHawk wrote:
I think that this is pretty awesome and fair. Pro marriage, but I don't think that the state should be able to force religious institutions to marry people.
However, if a church wants to place itself on that list, I think the state should start charging religious institutions tax on their properties... thought that should probably happen either way though.
I still don't think that it is the place of the state to intervene on religious matters like this. There will also be churches that will happily marry gays. The main issue is that you won't be legally allowed to marry gays if you are a member of a group which does not allow it. It's not allowing refusal, it's making acceptance illegal on an individual basis if you are part of a group that does not accept it. I assume you mean a priest can't marry if his group doesn't believe in it? I would assume that any Catholic priest who married two gays would also be quickly kicked out of his congregation, so it is kind of moot. I guess my question would be if, as a catholic priest, you felt strongly enough to marry two gay people despite it being against the rules of your religion... why the fuck are you a member of a church that discrimates in such a fashion> If enough catholic priests support gay marriage, the catholic church as an institution will eventually change its views. I for one support the presence of more enlightened clergy in the largest religious institution in the world.
Yeah, I would hope so, but if you were to perform a gay marriage as a catholic priest at this time, wouldn't you not be a priest much longer?
|
Gays shouldn't marry.
I mean, obviously they should be allowed to, but I don't get why they want to subscribe to a an institution that has discriminated against them for two thousand years straight, no pun intended. The civil partnerships offer all benefits that traditional marriages do and have much fewer religious connotations and are far less derogatory towards gays.
I mean, have you read the bible? Have you read anything any pope during the past 200 years has ever said?
If I were gay or bi, I would steer clear of that narrow-minded, backwards biggot-club.
That's like jews wanting to join the Nazi party.
|
On December 12 2012 05:15 QuanticHawk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 04:45 Sermokala wrote:On December 12 2012 04:37 QuanticHawk wrote:
I think that this is pretty awesome and fair. Pro marriage, but I don't think that the state should be able to force religious institutions to marry people.
However, if a church wants to place itself on that list, I think the state should start charging religious institutions tax on their properties, much in the same way that I believe that the state should revoke federal funding for hospitals that want to opt out of abortions and contraception for religious purposes.
I still don't think that it is the place of the state to intervene on religious matters like this. There will also be churches that will happily marry gays. Wouldn't putting a tax on churches like you said be punishing churches for expressing their religion? Punishing a religion for the exercise thereof is apart of the first amendment. They shouldn't receive any special benefits (tax exemption) if they're not benefiting society as a whole
And how do you suppose the government figures that out? They can't discriminate between the red cross the salvation army and WBT.
|
On December 12 2012 05:23 QuanticHawk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 05:15 Lonyo wrote:On December 12 2012 05:08 QuanticHawk wrote:On December 12 2012 04:40 Lonyo wrote:On December 12 2012 04:37 QuanticHawk wrote:
I think that this is pretty awesome and fair. Pro marriage, but I don't think that the state should be able to force religious institutions to marry people.
However, if a church wants to place itself on that list, I think the state should start charging religious institutions tax on their properties... thought that should probably happen either way though.
I still don't think that it is the place of the state to intervene on religious matters like this. There will also be churches that will happily marry gays. The main issue is that you won't be legally allowed to marry gays if you are a member of a group which does not allow it. It's not allowing refusal, it's making acceptance illegal on an individual basis if you are part of a group that does not accept it. I assume you mean a priest can't marry if his group doesn't believe in it? I would assume that any Catholic priest who married two gays would also be quickly kicked out of his congregation, so it is kind of moot. I guess my question would be if, as a catholic priest, you felt strongly enough to marry two gay people despite it being against the rules of your religion... why the fuck are you a member of a church that discrimates in such a fashion> It's not really a catholic issue at the moment, but there are other denominations which do not support gay marriage on the whole, but for whom some groups/etc may be more progressive and not have a problem with it. For those people, it would be illegal. Catholics are generally going to be on the anti gay marriage side, but there are other groups which are much more divided, and the ruling parties will be able to make the decision, and individuals at lower levels won't be able to go against that. An easy example is what happened recently with regards to women bishops in the Church of England. There was a majority vote at all levels in favour, but because of the way their system works, it needed 2/3rd majority in all three levels of whatever structure they have, and it failed at one of the levels, and therefore no women bishops. If the same sort of vote was done regarding gay marriage, you would have the majority in support, but it would be ILLEGAL to perform gay marriage. Do you mean the various branches and offshoots in the Catholic church (or whatever institution)? I guess it comes down to how the law is written in exact terms. I first thought it meant it would be illegal to force the church to do it, which i am ok with. But if a priest wishes to defy the church and do it, he could be arrested? That's nutty. Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 05:12 Crushinator wrote:On December 12 2012 05:08 QuanticHawk wrote:On December 12 2012 04:40 Lonyo wrote:On December 12 2012 04:37 QuanticHawk wrote:
I think that this is pretty awesome and fair. Pro marriage, but I don't think that the state should be able to force religious institutions to marry people.
However, if a church wants to place itself on that list, I think the state should start charging religious institutions tax on their properties... thought that should probably happen either way though.
I still don't think that it is the place of the state to intervene on religious matters like this. There will also be churches that will happily marry gays. The main issue is that you won't be legally allowed to marry gays if you are a member of a group which does not allow it. It's not allowing refusal, it's making acceptance illegal on an individual basis if you are part of a group that does not accept it. I assume you mean a priest can't marry if his group doesn't believe in it? I would assume that any Catholic priest who married two gays would also be quickly kicked out of his congregation, so it is kind of moot. I guess my question would be if, as a catholic priest, you felt strongly enough to marry two gay people despite it being against the rules of your religion... why the fuck are you a member of a church that discrimates in such a fashion> If enough catholic priests support gay marriage, the catholic church as an institution will eventually change its views. I for one support the presence of more enlightened clergy in the largest religious institution in the world. Yeah, I would hope so, but if you were to perform a gay marriage as a catholic priest at this time, wouldn't you not be a priest much longer?
That depends on who knows it happened, what dioceses it took place in, and the standing of the priest in question. Some have been excommunicated while others have not.
|
The law is that it would be explicitly banned across the board for anyone operating under an organisation which is covered by the law.
That means if you are a member of the Church of England, it is banned for you to perform gay marriage, whatever your own personal opinions or beliefs or convictions.
Currently you could, if you wanted, perform a gay civil ceremony.
With the new law it would be illegal to do so while part of the CofE (or any other organisation which opts in).
:: It will be 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;
:: The legislation will explicitly state 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.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/gay-marriage-church-of-england-will-not-1484855 (Bad source but it's copy paste from elsewhere too)
|
I don't see the problem. Aren't religious marriage and real marriage seperated? Let them have their religious ceremonies where they refuse to 'marry' couples. All that matters is the real marriage.
Forcing religions to set aside their beliefs and have them religious-marry people would be silly.
|
On December 12 2012 05:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +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:On December 12 2012 04:17 dAPhREAk wrote:
debated whether to even get into this, but here is where i stand: the right to marriage (gay or not) and the right to practice religion are both fundamental rights that should not be infringed lightly. if you force a church to allow gay marriage (by forcing their priests (or whatever they call themselves) to be subject to discrimination lawsuits because they wont violate their religious principals) you are infringing their right to practice their religion as long as its an actual belief of the church. so, i am opposed to that. you may not like that result, but thats why we have fundamental rights--to prevent others from forcing their beliefs on others.
people who want to get married (gay or not) have options, they do not need to infringe believer's fundamental rights to do so.
by the way, freedom from discrimination is not a fundamental right, and never has been.
edit: by the way, i support gay marriage. 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.
|
On December 12 2012 05:23 QuanticHawk wrote:
Yeah, I would hope so, but if you were to perform a gay marriage as a catholic priest at this time, wouldn't you not be a priest much longer?
I would expect you would be kicked out. But I assume you can still fight for the cause in the internally, hopefully bringing about some change as time goes on. Its not like the catholic church hasn't changed its mind before.
|
On December 12 2012 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +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:On December 12 2012 04:17 dAPhREAk wrote:
debated whether to even get into this, but here is where i stand: the right to marriage (gay or not) and the right to practice religion are both fundamental rights that should not be infringed lightly. if you force a church to allow gay marriage (by forcing their priests (or whatever they call themselves) to be subject to discrimination lawsuits because they wont violate their religious principals) you are infringing their right to practice their religion as long as its an actual belief of the church. so, i am opposed to that. you may not like that result, but thats why we have fundamental rights--to prevent others from forcing their beliefs on others.
people who want to get married (gay or not) have options, they do not need to infringe believer's fundamental rights to do so.
by the way, freedom from discrimination is not a fundamental right, and never has been.
edit: by the way, i support gay marriage. 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?
For an individual, yes. But The Catholic Church, as an institution, doesn't have rights...the same way corporations don't have rights. Individuals should be protected by the law. I see no reason that the beliefs of an institution should have any protection...certainly not as a fundamental right.
If an individual priest does not want to marry a gay couple then fine, as an individual he is allowed to decline. I respect his religious beliefs. However, this law would make it so that the Catholic Church makes it illegal for any priest to perform a gay marriage so that if there was a priest who did support gay marriage, he would be barred from doing so.. I do not respect the beliefs of the Catholic Church. Many moderate religious people claim they support gay marriage and their institution does not always speak for them. I think that this law makes it so that the Institution DOES speak for them, which is wrong.
|
British bisexual here.
The only real disadvantage to this is we couldn't get the churches to bend over backwards for their poor congregations who, by and large, don't care what gender are getting married so long as it is under God. Otherwise it's pretty much a solid win for the gay rights community:
- reinforces the point of religious bigotry against homosexuals
- another point for the requirement of secular law trumping religious doctrine
- piles pressure onto the NI government in order to do the same
|
On December 12 2012 05:27 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +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:On December 12 2012 04:17 dAPhREAk wrote:
debated whether to even get into this, but here is where i stand: the right to marriage (gay or not) and the right to practice religion are both fundamental rights that should not be infringed lightly. if you force a church to allow gay marriage (by forcing their priests (or whatever they call themselves) to be subject to discrimination lawsuits because they wont violate their religious principals) you are infringing their right to practice their religion as long as its an actual belief of the church. so, i am opposed to that. you may not like that result, but thats why we have fundamental rights--to prevent others from forcing their beliefs on others.
people who want to get married (gay or not) have options, they do not need to infringe believer's fundamental rights to do so.
by the way, freedom from discrimination is not a fundamental right, and never has been.
edit: by the way, i support gay marriage. 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? For an individual, yes. But The Catholic Church, as an institution, doesn't have rights...the same way corporations don't have rights. Individuals should be protected by the law. I see no reason that the beliefs of an institution should have any protection...certainly not as a fundamental right.
this doesnt make any sense: we can't ban the priests from discriminating, but we can ban the church (who only acts through its priests and does not exist outside of its members) from discrimination? also, corporations and churches do have rights.
|
On December 12 2012 05:12 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 05:08 QuanticHawk wrote:On December 12 2012 04:40 Lonyo wrote:On December 12 2012 04:37 QuanticHawk wrote:
I think that this is pretty awesome and fair. Pro marriage, but I don't think that the state should be able to force religious institutions to marry people.
However, if a church wants to place itself on that list, I think the state should start charging religious institutions tax on their properties... thought that should probably happen either way though.
I still don't think that it is the place of the state to intervene on religious matters like this. There will also be churches that will happily marry gays. The main issue is that you won't be legally allowed to marry gays if you are a member of a group which does not allow it. It's not allowing refusal, it's making acceptance illegal on an individual basis if you are part of a group that does not accept it. I assume you mean a priest can't marry if his group doesn't believe in it? I would assume that any Catholic priest who married two gays would also be quickly kicked out of his congregation, so it is kind of moot. I guess my question would be if, as a catholic priest, you felt strongly enough to marry two gay people despite it being against the rules of your religion... why the fuck are you a member of a church that discrimates in such a fashion> If enough catholic priests support gay marriage, the catholic church as an institution will eventually change its views. I for one support the presence of more enlightened clergy in the largest religious institution in the world.
This is essentially why Religion has degraded over the years. By constantly going against it's fundamental design. Always religion tries to change with the times. Religions are the most conservative practices we have. There is very little that's progressive about them. If the doctrines aren't the same as they were fundamentally designed; there is no point to any of it.
My point is, even if these priests accept homosexuality, it doesn't change the fact that they are going against their beliefs and contradict themselves.
|
On December 12 2012 05:29 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 05:27 Klondikebar 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? For an individual, yes. But The Catholic Church, as an institution, doesn't have rights...the same way corporations don't have rights. Individuals should be protected by the law. I see no reason that the beliefs of an institution should have any protection...certainly not as a fundamental right. this doesnt make any sense: we can't ban the priests from discriminating, but we can ban the church (who only acts through its priests and does not exist outside of its members) from discrimination? also, corporations and churches do have rights.
I edited in what is hopefully some "sense."
|
On December 12 2012 05:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +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:On December 12 2012 04:17 dAPhREAk wrote:
debated whether to even get into this, but here is where i stand: the right to marriage (gay or not) and the right to practice religion are both fundamental rights that should not be infringed lightly. if you force a church to allow gay marriage (by forcing their priests (or whatever they call themselves) to be subject to discrimination lawsuits because they wont violate their religious principals) you are infringing their right to practice their religion as long as its an actual belief of the church. so, i am opposed to that. you may not like that result, but thats why we have fundamental rights--to prevent others from forcing their beliefs on others.
people who want to get married (gay or not) have options, they do not need to infringe believer's fundamental rights to do so.
by the way, freedom from discrimination is not a fundamental right, and never has been.
edit: by the way, i support gay marriage. 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.
I have a more pragmatic view. Forcing religious institutions to marry gays, will not bring about more acceptance of gays, but rather it will further antagonize homophobic religious groups, perhaps bringing about the opposite effect. Forcing employers not to discriminate against minorities is more practical and effective.
Religious institutions are also different from other institutions in that they are a very personal matter, that primarily concerns itself with how one's personal life must be lived. Contrary to you, I do have to concede that in this way, religion is special.
|
United States42437 Posts
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.
Fundamental rights were created to prevent the guys writing the fundamental rights down from not having the things they thought were important, nothing more. Humans cannot escape their humanity. There are limitless fundamental rights which are disregarded daily because they weren't written down as a fundamental right in 1948 because nobody really cared about them, fundamental is simply a word. Caring more does not make something a right, nor more fundamental. You have yet to do anything other than restate over and over that it is a fundamental right, the question is why are religious convictions and not comparable secular convictions.
|
On December 12 2012 05:34 Crushinator 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. I have a more pragmatic view. Forcing religious institutions to marry gays, will not bring about more acceptance of gays, but rather it will further antagonize homophobic religious groups, perhaps bringing about the opposite effect. Forcing employers not to discriminate against minorities is more practical and effective. Religious institutions are also different from other institutions in that they are a very personal matter, that primarily concerns itself with how one's personal life must be lived. Contrary to you, I do have to concede that in this way, religion is special.
So because it's personal it's protected? Isn't marriage extremely personal for homosexual couples? How come homosexual marriage isn't being granted protection?
|
the argument here doesn't even make sense.
it's - the believes of some VS the believes of some...one else, with the question: whose believes should have precedence under the law.
no ones?, it's not like they cause physical harm and should be stopped.
|
On December 12 2012 05:34 KwarK 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. Fundamental rights were created to prevent the guys writing the fundamental rights down from not having the things they thought were important, nothing more. Humans cannot escape their humanity. There are limitless fundamental rights which are disregarded daily because they weren't written down as a fundamental right in 1948 because nobody really cared about them, fundamental is simply a word. Caring more does not make something a right, nor more fundamental. You have yet to do anything other than restate over and over that it is a fundamental right, the question is why are religious convictions and not comparable secular convictions.
so the universal declaration of human rights is a farce. okay. i wont speak in terms of fundamental rights then.
individuals have the right to practice their religion without infringement, just as individuals have the right to practice their hetero- or homosexuality without infringement. anything that unnecessarily infringes one or the other is a violation of their rights and inappropriate. allowing homosexuals to marry and allowing religions not to have to perform the marriages is a reasonable compromise that protects both individual's rights. disallowing individuals to practice their religion (i.e., forcing them to do things that are against firmly held beliefs) is as discriminatory as disallowing homosexuals to marry.
|
On December 12 2012 05:39 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 05:34 Crushinator wrote:On December 12 2012 05:20 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:12 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 05:09 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:06 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 04:54 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 04:47 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 04:43 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
the supreme court has a test for this. you cant question the facts of their beliefs; you can only question whether they actually have the belief. i am fine with this test.
we accept religious beliefs as something to be protected because its a fundamental right. The issue secularists like myself have with this statement is the "because it is a fundamental right". In the UK it is currently against the law to discriminate against gays on the basis of their sexuality, even if you have really strongly held homophobic convictions and a load of subjective experience that validated them. This law will grant an exemption to the anti discrimination laws for churches which can't even agree amongst themselves most of the time whether or not they oppose gay marriage. Religious people do not have a monopoly on strength of conviction and yet they seem to have inherited a fundamental right to have their convictions protected. I'd like to see it justified. history and society has determined that it is a fundamental right, and in america it is written into our constitution. the justification for that is something that would take a lot of research and time to write a thoughtful piece, which i am not willing to do. =) The title says UK, if you cannot or are unwilling to justify the statement "because it is a fundamental right" then it should not be assumed to be a fundamental right in the UK. The question of why you get an exemption if a burning bush says to oppose the gays but not if a regular bush says to oppose the gays remains. i am pretty sure its considered a fundamental right through most of the modern, western world. its in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after all. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml An awful lot of those are infringed upon, if not outright disregarded, by pretty much all of the modern, western world. There's a reason nobody cares about those. The fact that some people 60 years ago pandered to the religious groups is not exactly surprising and should not in any way be viewed as the last word on the matter. The right to ones opinions is one thing but special rights given to opinions of a religious nature and then the right to discriminate because of those opinions is quite another. so, you dont think that religion should be a fundamental right? why exactly? I think that in order for a fair society to operate there has to be limits upon our freedoms regarding the treatment of each other. While you can believe what you like, as that only impacts yourself, there have to be rules imposed upon your conduct with others. One of these is anti-discrimination legislation and in every case except religion it is seen as being necessary. I see no compelling case why religious opinions such as "marriage is between a man and a woman because God" should be protected but secular opinions such as "marriage is between two people of the same skin colour because dog" should not. With neither protected they both fall victim to my belief that society has the right to intervene in our conduct towards each other, sacrificing one but protecting the other as a fundamental right is contradictory, hypocritical and nonsensical. I have a more pragmatic view. Forcing religious institutions to marry gays, will not bring about more acceptance of gays, but rather it will further antagonize homophobic religious groups, perhaps bringing about the opposite effect. Forcing employers not to discriminate against minorities is more practical and effective. Religious institutions are also different from other institutions in that they are a very personal matter, that primarily concerns itself with how one's personal life must be lived. Contrary to you, I do have to concede that in this way, religion is special. So because it's personal it's protected? Isn't marriage extremely personal for homosexual couples? How come homosexual marriage isn't being granted protection?
It should be protected, obviously, and gays can marry without the need for a church to perform the ceremony, like it is done in my country, and (it appears) soon in the UK.
|
United States42437 Posts
On December 12 2012 05:34 Crushinator 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. Religious institutions are also different from other institutions in that they are a very personal matter, that primarily concerns itself with how one's personal life must be lived. Contrary to you, I do have to concede that in this way, religion is special.
Beliefs about how ones personal life should be lived do not have to be religious in nature. Vegans have beliefs about how ones personal life should be lived. The hypocrisy is that if a Buddhist believes that he is morally obligated to avoid meat then that is his fundamental right and if, for example, he were in prison and served only food with meat then you would be infringing upon it but a secular vegetarian who believes very strongly in animal rights and is far more passionate about it that the Buddhist who sometimes sneaks a burger is not protected because although his convictions are personal and deeply held they are not based on an intangible concept or, even if they are, they're based on the wrong concept. There is a massive discrepancy there.
|
On December 12 2012 05:40 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 05:34 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 05:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:20 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:12 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 05:09 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:06 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 04:54 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 04:47 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
The issue secularists like myself have with this statement is the "because it is a fundamental right". In the UK it is currently against the law to discriminate against gays on the basis of their sexuality, even if you have really strongly held homophobic convictions and a load of subjective experience that validated them. This law will grant an exemption to the anti discrimination laws for churches which can't even agree amongst themselves most of the time whether or not they oppose gay marriage. Religious people do not have a monopoly on strength of conviction and yet they seem to have inherited a fundamental right to have their convictions protected. I'd like to see it justified. history and society has determined that it is a fundamental right, and in america it is written into our constitution. the justification for that is something that would take a lot of research and time to write a thoughtful piece, which i am not willing to do. =) The title says UK, if you cannot or are unwilling to justify the statement "because it is a fundamental right" then it should not be assumed to be a fundamental right in the UK. The question of why you get an exemption if a burning bush says to oppose the gays but not if a regular bush says to oppose the gays remains. i am pretty sure its considered a fundamental right through most of the modern, western world. its in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after all. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml An awful lot of those are infringed upon, if not outright disregarded, by pretty much all of the modern, western world. There's a reason nobody cares about those. The fact that some people 60 years ago pandered to the religious groups is not exactly surprising and should not in any way be viewed as the last word on the matter. The right to ones opinions is one thing but special rights given to opinions of a religious nature and then the right to discriminate because of those opinions is quite another. so, you dont think that religion should be a fundamental right? why exactly? I think that in order for a fair society to operate there has to be limits upon our freedoms regarding the treatment of each other. While you can believe what you like, as that only impacts yourself, there have to be rules imposed upon your conduct with others. One of these is anti-discrimination legislation and in every case except religion it is seen as being necessary. I see no compelling case why religious opinions such as "marriage is between a man and a woman because God" should be protected but secular opinions such as "marriage is between two people of the same skin colour because dog" should not. With neither protected they both fall victim to my belief that society has the right to intervene in our conduct towards each other, sacrificing one but protecting the other as a fundamental right is contradictory, hypocritical and nonsensical. fundamental rights were created to prevent the majority from discriminating against the minority. you are willing to sacrifice people's right to their religion because you think its more important that gays be allowed to be married by priests and on church properties. i think that is wrong especially considering there is no significant reason to do so. why cant people just get married in churches that allow gay marriage? or why not just get married by a non-priest? there is very little infringement in the right to marry, and huge infringement in the right to religion. i will assume that you dont really care about the right to religion in the first place, and that is why you are so willing to place it on the sacrificial altar. Fundamental rights were created to prevent the guys writing the fundamental rights down from not having the things they thought were important, nothing more. Humans cannot escape their humanity. There are limitless fundamental rights which are disregarded daily because they weren't written down as a fundamental right in 1948 because nobody really cared about them, fundamental is simply a word. Caring more does not make something a right, nor more fundamental. You have yet to do anything other than restate over and over that it is a fundamental right, the question is why are religious convictions and not comparable secular convictions. so the universal declaration of human rights is a farce. okay. i wont speak in terms of fundamental rights then. individuals have the right to practice their religion without infringement, just as individuals have the right to practice their hetero- or homosexuality without infringement. anything that unnecessarily infringes one or the other is a violation of their rights and inappropriate. allowing homosexuals to marry and allowing religions not to have to perform the marriages is a reasonable compromise that protects both individual's rights. disallowing individuals to practice their religion (i.e., forcing them to do things that are against firmly held beliefs) is as discriminatory as disallowing homosexuals to marry.
Did you miss the part where this law would make it illegal for individuals to practice their religion because their institution said so? This law would make it illegal for any catholic priest to perform a gay marriage if the catholic church decided it wanted to be protected. This means that if an INDIVIDUAL thought that the catholic faith allowed gay marriages, his right to practice his belief would be trampled by the institution.
Like I said in a previous post, institutions shouldn't be able to speak for individuals, at least not legally.
|
On December 12 2012 05:43 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 05:40 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:34 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 05:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:20 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:12 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 05:09 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:06 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 04:54 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
history and society has determined that it is a fundamental right, and in america it is written into our constitution. the justification for that is something that would take a lot of research and time to write a thoughtful piece, which i am not willing to do. =) The title says UK, if you cannot or are unwilling to justify the statement "because it is a fundamental right" then it should not be assumed to be a fundamental right in the UK. The question of why you get an exemption if a burning bush says to oppose the gays but not if a regular bush says to oppose the gays remains. i am pretty sure its considered a fundamental right through most of the modern, western world. its in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after all. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml An awful lot of those are infringed upon, if not outright disregarded, by pretty much all of the modern, western world. There's a reason nobody cares about those. The fact that some people 60 years ago pandered to the religious groups is not exactly surprising and should not in any way be viewed as the last word on the matter. The right to ones opinions is one thing but special rights given to opinions of a religious nature and then the right to discriminate because of those opinions is quite another. so, you dont think that religion should be a fundamental right? why exactly? I think that in order for a fair society to operate there has to be limits upon our freedoms regarding the treatment of each other. While you can believe what you like, as that only impacts yourself, there have to be rules imposed upon your conduct with others. One of these is anti-discrimination legislation and in every case except religion it is seen as being necessary. I see no compelling case why religious opinions such as "marriage is between a man and a woman because God" should be protected but secular opinions such as "marriage is between two people of the same skin colour because dog" should not. With neither protected they both fall victim to my belief that society has the right to intervene in our conduct towards each other, sacrificing one but protecting the other as a fundamental right is contradictory, hypocritical and nonsensical. fundamental rights were created to prevent the majority from discriminating against the minority. you are willing to sacrifice people's right to their religion because you think its more important that gays be allowed to be married by priests and on church properties. i think that is wrong especially considering there is no significant reason to do so. why cant people just get married in churches that allow gay marriage? or why not just get married by a non-priest? there is very little infringement in the right to marry, and huge infringement in the right to religion. i will assume that you dont really care about the right to religion in the first place, and that is why you are so willing to place it on the sacrificial altar. Fundamental rights were created to prevent the guys writing the fundamental rights down from not having the things they thought were important, nothing more. Humans cannot escape their humanity. There are limitless fundamental rights which are disregarded daily because they weren't written down as a fundamental right in 1948 because nobody really cared about them, fundamental is simply a word. Caring more does not make something a right, nor more fundamental. You have yet to do anything other than restate over and over that it is a fundamental right, the question is why are religious convictions and not comparable secular convictions. so the universal declaration of human rights is a farce. okay. i wont speak in terms of fundamental rights then. individuals have the right to practice their religion without infringement, just as individuals have the right to practice their hetero- or homosexuality without infringement. anything that unnecessarily infringes one or the other is a violation of their rights and inappropriate. allowing homosexuals to marry and allowing religions not to have to perform the marriages is a reasonable compromise that protects both individual's rights. disallowing individuals to practice their religion (i.e., forcing them to do things that are against firmly held beliefs) is as discriminatory as disallowing homosexuals to marry. Did you miss the part where this law would make it illegal for individuals to practice their religion because their institution said so? This law would make it illegal for any catholic priest to perform a gay marriage if the catholic church decided it wanted to be protected. This means that if an INDIVIDUAL thought that the catholic faith allowed gay marriages, his right to practice his belief would be trampled by the institution.
i have no problem with that. they can disassociate themselves with the catholic church and there is no infringement on their rights. i do have a problem with a religion saying they firmly believe that gay marriage is wrong, refuse to do it, but then allow certain members of the church to do it. i think the law was drafted in that way to prevent such pretext.
edit: its a right to practice religion, it is not a right to be part of a certain religious organization.
|
On December 12 2012 05:46 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 05:43 Klondikebar wrote:On December 12 2012 05:40 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:34 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 05:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:20 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:12 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 05:09 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:06 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
The title says UK, if you cannot or are unwilling to justify the statement "because it is a fundamental right" then it should not be assumed to be a fundamental right in the UK. The question of why you get an exemption if a burning bush says to oppose the gays but not if a regular bush says to oppose the gays remains. i am pretty sure its considered a fundamental right through most of the modern, western world. its in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after all. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml An awful lot of those are infringed upon, if not outright disregarded, by pretty much all of the modern, western world. There's a reason nobody cares about those. The fact that some people 60 years ago pandered to the religious groups is not exactly surprising and should not in any way be viewed as the last word on the matter. The right to ones opinions is one thing but special rights given to opinions of a religious nature and then the right to discriminate because of those opinions is quite another. so, you dont think that religion should be a fundamental right? why exactly? I think that in order for a fair society to operate there has to be limits upon our freedoms regarding the treatment of each other. While you can believe what you like, as that only impacts yourself, there have to be rules imposed upon your conduct with others. One of these is anti-discrimination legislation and in every case except religion it is seen as being necessary. I see no compelling case why religious opinions such as "marriage is between a man and a woman because God" should be protected but secular opinions such as "marriage is between two people of the same skin colour because dog" should not. With neither protected they both fall victim to my belief that society has the right to intervene in our conduct towards each other, sacrificing one but protecting the other as a fundamental right is contradictory, hypocritical and nonsensical. fundamental rights were created to prevent the majority from discriminating against the minority. you are willing to sacrifice people's right to their religion because you think its more important that gays be allowed to be married by priests and on church properties. i think that is wrong especially considering there is no significant reason to do so. why cant people just get married in churches that allow gay marriage? or why not just get married by a non-priest? there is very little infringement in the right to marry, and huge infringement in the right to religion. i will assume that you dont really care about the right to religion in the first place, and that is why you are so willing to place it on the sacrificial altar. Fundamental rights were created to prevent the guys writing the fundamental rights down from not having the things they thought were important, nothing more. Humans cannot escape their humanity. There are limitless fundamental rights which are disregarded daily because they weren't written down as a fundamental right in 1948 because nobody really cared about them, fundamental is simply a word. Caring more does not make something a right, nor more fundamental. You have yet to do anything other than restate over and over that it is a fundamental right, the question is why are religious convictions and not comparable secular convictions. so the universal declaration of human rights is a farce. okay. i wont speak in terms of fundamental rights then. individuals have the right to practice their religion without infringement, just as individuals have the right to practice their hetero- or homosexuality without infringement. anything that unnecessarily infringes one or the other is a violation of their rights and inappropriate. allowing homosexuals to marry and allowing religions not to have to perform the marriages is a reasonable compromise that protects both individual's rights. disallowing individuals to practice their religion (i.e., forcing them to do things that are against firmly held beliefs) is as discriminatory as disallowing homosexuals to marry. Did you miss the part where this law would make it illegal for individuals to practice their religion because their institution said so? This law would make it illegal for any catholic priest to perform a gay marriage if the catholic church decided it wanted to be protected. This means that if an INDIVIDUAL thought that the catholic faith allowed gay marriages, his right to practice his belief would be trampled by the institution. i have no problem with that. they can disassociate themselves with the catholic church and there is no infringement on their rights. i do have a problem with a religion saying they firmly believe that gay marriage is wrong, refuse to do it, but then allow certain members of the church to do it. i think the law was drafted in that way to prevent such pretext. edit: its a right to practice religion, it is not a right to be part of a certain religious organization.
But they're catholic! The law can't tell them not to be catholic! It's an infringement on their rights to tell them that they HAVE to believe gay marriage is wrong in order to be catholic!
This whole thing is silly. When an institution gains the legal power to begin speaking for it's individual members, it will trample on the right to believe what you want in the very same way it claims it needs to be protected.
And my issue is not that someone should dissociate from their church...I've long though that moderate christians should get the hell away from organized religion. My issue is not that they are by secular law forced to dissociate.
|
On December 12 2012 05:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 05:34 Crushinator wrote:On December 12 2012 05:20 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:12 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 05:09 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:06 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 04:54 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 04:47 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 04:43 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
the supreme court has a test for this. you cant question the facts of their beliefs; you can only question whether they actually have the belief. i am fine with this test.
we accept religious beliefs as something to be protected because its a fundamental right. The issue secularists like myself have with this statement is the "because it is a fundamental right". In the UK it is currently against the law to discriminate against gays on the basis of their sexuality, even if you have really strongly held homophobic convictions and a load of subjective experience that validated them. This law will grant an exemption to the anti discrimination laws for churches which can't even agree amongst themselves most of the time whether or not they oppose gay marriage. Religious people do not have a monopoly on strength of conviction and yet they seem to have inherited a fundamental right to have their convictions protected. I'd like to see it justified. history and society has determined that it is a fundamental right, and in america it is written into our constitution. the justification for that is something that would take a lot of research and time to write a thoughtful piece, which i am not willing to do. =) The title says UK, if you cannot or are unwilling to justify the statement "because it is a fundamental right" then it should not be assumed to be a fundamental right in the UK. The question of why you get an exemption if a burning bush says to oppose the gays but not if a regular bush says to oppose the gays remains. i am pretty sure its considered a fundamental right through most of the modern, western world. its in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after all. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml An awful lot of those are infringed upon, if not outright disregarded, by pretty much all of the modern, western world. There's a reason nobody cares about those. The fact that some people 60 years ago pandered to the religious groups is not exactly surprising and should not in any way be viewed as the last word on the matter. The right to ones opinions is one thing but special rights given to opinions of a religious nature and then the right to discriminate because of those opinions is quite another. so, you dont think that religion should be a fundamental right? why exactly? I think that in order for a fair society to operate there has to be limits upon our freedoms regarding the treatment of each other. While you can believe what you like, as that only impacts yourself, there have to be rules imposed upon your conduct with others. One of these is anti-discrimination legislation and in every case except religion it is seen as being necessary. I see no compelling case why religious opinions such as "marriage is between a man and a woman because God" should be protected but secular opinions such as "marriage is between two people of the same skin colour because dog" should not. With neither protected they both fall victim to my belief that society has the right to intervene in our conduct towards each other, sacrificing one but protecting the other as a fundamental right is contradictory, hypocritical and nonsensical. Religious institutions are also different from other institutions in that they are a very personal matter, that primarily concerns itself with how one's personal life must be lived. Contrary to you, I do have to concede that in this way, religion is special. Beliefs about how ones personal life should be lived do not have to be religious in nature. Vegans have beliefs about how ones personal life should be lived. The hypocrisy is that if a Buddhist believes that he is morally obligated to avoid meat then that is his fundamental right and if, for example, he were in prison and served only food with meat then you would be infringing upon it but a secular vegetarian who believes very strongly in animal rights and is far more passionate about it that the Buddhist who sometimes sneaks a burger is not protected because although his convictions are personal and deeply held they are not based on intangible concept or, even if they are, they're based on the wrong concept. There is a massive discrepancy there.
I agree, that personal beliefs are often granted a special respect they don't deserve if they are religious in nature. But I do not think this is in conflict with what I wrote earlier. Private secular institutions are not in the business of marrying people, and as such we dont need to consider them. And if you could point to a case where a private secular institution discriminates on the basis of these kinds of convictions, I think they should be allowed to do that aswell.
|
On December 12 2012 04:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 04:42 cLAN.Anax wrote:On December 12 2012 04:00 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 03:58 semantics wrote:
I'm curious in the UK are they really 100% identical, civil unions and marriages. They are. If you get into an argument with a pedant then they'll insist that you're not married, you're unioned, but you have all the same legal protections and you're allowed to tick the married box on forms etc. This will let you win the argument with a pedant, but at what price. If my state here in the U.S. had a bill that said this, that civil unions had the same outward legal benefits as a marriage but still differentiated by the term used, I'd be extremely receptive to it versus the whole "we want our union to be called a marriage too" crusade. Also, I stand by their decision to let churches choose who they let marry under their approval. We would argue that under "separation of church and state" in the U.S.; don't know if there's a similar catchy term over the water where you live. Our head of state is also the head of the official church of the country. We are what your founders had in mind when they separated church and state.
What?? Goodness. I'll need to look into that....
On December 12 2012 05:43 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 05:40 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:34 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 05:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:20 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:12 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 05:09 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:06 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 04:54 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
history and society has determined that it is a fundamental right, and in america it is written into our constitution. the justification for that is something that would take a lot of research and time to write a thoughtful piece, which i am not willing to do. =) The title says UK, if you cannot or are unwilling to justify the statement "because it is a fundamental right" then it should not be assumed to be a fundamental right in the UK. The question of why you get an exemption if a burning bush says to oppose the gays but not if a regular bush says to oppose the gays remains. i am pretty sure its considered a fundamental right through most of the modern, western world. its in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after all. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml An awful lot of those are infringed upon, if not outright disregarded, by pretty much all of the modern, western world. There's a reason nobody cares about those. The fact that some people 60 years ago pandered to the religious groups is not exactly surprising and should not in any way be viewed as the last word on the matter. The right to ones opinions is one thing but special rights given to opinions of a religious nature and then the right to discriminate because of those opinions is quite another. so, you dont think that religion should be a fundamental right? why exactly? I think that in order for a fair society to operate there has to be limits upon our freedoms regarding the treatment of each other. While you can believe what you like, as that only impacts yourself, there have to be rules imposed upon your conduct with others. One of these is anti-discrimination legislation and in every case except religion it is seen as being necessary. I see no compelling case why religious opinions such as "marriage is between a man and a woman because God" should be protected but secular opinions such as "marriage is between two people of the same skin colour because dog" should not. With neither protected they both fall victim to my belief that society has the right to intervene in our conduct towards each other, sacrificing one but protecting the other as a fundamental right is contradictory, hypocritical and nonsensical. fundamental rights were created to prevent the majority from discriminating against the minority. you are willing to sacrifice people's right to their religion because you think its more important that gays be allowed to be married by priests and on church properties. i think that is wrong especially considering there is no significant reason to do so. why cant people just get married in churches that allow gay marriage? or why not just get married by a non-priest? there is very little infringement in the right to marry, and huge infringement in the right to religion. i will assume that you dont really care about the right to religion in the first place, and that is why you are so willing to place it on the sacrificial altar. Fundamental rights were created to prevent the guys writing the fundamental rights down from not having the things they thought were important, nothing more. Humans cannot escape their humanity. There are limitless fundamental rights which are disregarded daily because they weren't written down as a fundamental right in 1948 because nobody really cared about them, fundamental is simply a word. Caring more does not make something a right, nor more fundamental. You have yet to do anything other than restate over and over that it is a fundamental right, the question is why are religious convictions and not comparable secular convictions. so the universal declaration of human rights is a farce. okay. i wont speak in terms of fundamental rights then. individuals have the right to practice their religion without infringement, just as individuals have the right to practice their hetero- or homosexuality without infringement. anything that unnecessarily infringes one or the other is a violation of their rights and inappropriate. allowing homosexuals to marry and allowing religions not to have to perform the marriages is a reasonable compromise that protects both individual's rights. disallowing individuals to practice their religion (i.e., forcing them to do things that are against firmly held beliefs) is as discriminatory as disallowing homosexuals to marry. Did you miss the part where this law would make it illegal for individuals to practice their religion because their institution said so? This law would make it illegal for any catholic priest to perform a gay marriage if the catholic church decided it wanted to be protected. This means that if an INDIVIDUAL thought that the catholic faith allowed gay marriages, his right to practice his belief would be trampled by the institution.
If that's really the case, I'd be more in agreement with letting churches deciding on their own, regardless of denomination or greater organization. Then again, if a single church decides that what its denomination is doing differs with that sole church's standards, they don't have to affiliate themselves with said denomination. For example, if the Presbyterian church I attend back home when I'm on break suddenly started performing ceremonies for same-sex couples, I'd be okay with the PCA and that church breaking ties.
Ideally, though, it would work more along the lines of: the Presbyterian church here locally and back home have fundamentally different views on this issue, even though they are part of the same PCA. I believe it should vary more from congregation to congregation, and that the law should allow that.
|
On December 12 2012 05:49 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 05:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:43 Klondikebar wrote:On December 12 2012 05:40 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:34 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 05:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:20 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:12 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 05:09 dAPhREAk wrote:[quote] i am pretty sure its considered a fundamental right through most of the modern, western world. its in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after all. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml An awful lot of those are infringed upon, if not outright disregarded, by pretty much all of the modern, western world. There's a reason nobody cares about those. The fact that some people 60 years ago pandered to the religious groups is not exactly surprising and should not in any way be viewed as the last word on the matter. The right to ones opinions is one thing but special rights given to opinions of a religious nature and then the right to discriminate because of those opinions is quite another. so, you dont think that religion should be a fundamental right? why exactly? I think that in order for a fair society to operate there has to be limits upon our freedoms regarding the treatment of each other. While you can believe what you like, as that only impacts yourself, there have to be rules imposed upon your conduct with others. One of these is anti-discrimination legislation and in every case except religion it is seen as being necessary. I see no compelling case why religious opinions such as "marriage is between a man and a woman because God" should be protected but secular opinions such as "marriage is between two people of the same skin colour because dog" should not. With neither protected they both fall victim to my belief that society has the right to intervene in our conduct towards each other, sacrificing one but protecting the other as a fundamental right is contradictory, hypocritical and nonsensical. fundamental rights were created to prevent the majority from discriminating against the minority. you are willing to sacrifice people's right to their religion because you think its more important that gays be allowed to be married by priests and on church properties. i think that is wrong especially considering there is no significant reason to do so. why cant people just get married in churches that allow gay marriage? or why not just get married by a non-priest? there is very little infringement in the right to marry, and huge infringement in the right to religion. i will assume that you dont really care about the right to religion in the first place, and that is why you are so willing to place it on the sacrificial altar. Fundamental rights were created to prevent the guys writing the fundamental rights down from not having the things they thought were important, nothing more. Humans cannot escape their humanity. There are limitless fundamental rights which are disregarded daily because they weren't written down as a fundamental right in 1948 because nobody really cared about them, fundamental is simply a word. Caring more does not make something a right, nor more fundamental. You have yet to do anything other than restate over and over that it is a fundamental right, the question is why are religious convictions and not comparable secular convictions. so the universal declaration of human rights is a farce. okay. i wont speak in terms of fundamental rights then. individuals have the right to practice their religion without infringement, just as individuals have the right to practice their hetero- or homosexuality without infringement. anything that unnecessarily infringes one or the other is a violation of their rights and inappropriate. allowing homosexuals to marry and allowing religions not to have to perform the marriages is a reasonable compromise that protects both individual's rights. disallowing individuals to practice their religion (i.e., forcing them to do things that are against firmly held beliefs) is as discriminatory as disallowing homosexuals to marry. Did you miss the part where this law would make it illegal for individuals to practice their religion because their institution said so? This law would make it illegal for any catholic priest to perform a gay marriage if the catholic church decided it wanted to be protected. This means that if an INDIVIDUAL thought that the catholic faith allowed gay marriages, his right to practice his belief would be trampled by the institution. i have no problem with that. they can disassociate themselves with the catholic church and there is no infringement on their rights. i do have a problem with a religion saying they firmly believe that gay marriage is wrong, refuse to do it, but then allow certain members of the church to do it. i think the law was drafted in that way to prevent such pretext. edit: its a right to practice religion, it is not a right to be part of a certain religious organization. But they're catholic! The law can't tell them not to be catholic! It's an infringement on their rights to tell them that they HAVE to believe gay marriage is wrong in order to be catholic! This whole thing is silly. When an institution gains the legal power to begin speaking for it's individual members, it will trample on the right to believe what you want in the very same way it claims it needs to be protected.
ummm, what are you talking about? most religions are based on the fact that the institution speaks for its members, not the other way around. its not a democracy. church leaders usually interpret and enforce religious doctrines, which are usually based on a governing document (e.g., bible, koran, etc.).
also, when you refer to rights, it is usually preventing the government from interfering in an individual's rights, not, for example, preventing the catholic church to excommunicate priests who preach gay marraige.
|
On December 12 2012 05:55 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 05:49 Klondikebar wrote:On December 12 2012 05:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:43 Klondikebar wrote:On December 12 2012 05:40 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:34 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 05:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:20 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:12 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
An awful lot of those are infringed upon, if not outright disregarded, by pretty much all of the modern, western world. There's a reason nobody cares about those. The fact that some people 60 years ago pandered to the religious groups is not exactly surprising and should not in any way be viewed as the last word on the matter. The right to ones opinions is one thing but special rights given to opinions of a religious nature and then the right to discriminate because of those opinions is quite another. so, you dont think that religion should be a fundamental right? why exactly? I think that in order for a fair society to operate there has to be limits upon our freedoms regarding the treatment of each other. While you can believe what you like, as that only impacts yourself, there have to be rules imposed upon your conduct with others. One of these is anti-discrimination legislation and in every case except religion it is seen as being necessary. I see no compelling case why religious opinions such as "marriage is between a man and a woman because God" should be protected but secular opinions such as "marriage is between two people of the same skin colour because dog" should not. With neither protected they both fall victim to my belief that society has the right to intervene in our conduct towards each other, sacrificing one but protecting the other as a fundamental right is contradictory, hypocritical and nonsensical. fundamental rights were created to prevent the majority from discriminating against the minority. you are willing to sacrifice people's right to their religion because you think its more important that gays be allowed to be married by priests and on church properties. i think that is wrong especially considering there is no significant reason to do so. why cant people just get married in churches that allow gay marriage? or why not just get married by a non-priest? there is very little infringement in the right to marry, and huge infringement in the right to religion. i will assume that you dont really care about the right to religion in the first place, and that is why you are so willing to place it on the sacrificial altar. Fundamental rights were created to prevent the guys writing the fundamental rights down from not having the things they thought were important, nothing more. Humans cannot escape their humanity. There are limitless fundamental rights which are disregarded daily because they weren't written down as a fundamental right in 1948 because nobody really cared about them, fundamental is simply a word. Caring more does not make something a right, nor more fundamental. You have yet to do anything other than restate over and over that it is a fundamental right, the question is why are religious convictions and not comparable secular convictions. so the universal declaration of human rights is a farce. okay. i wont speak in terms of fundamental rights then. individuals have the right to practice their religion without infringement, just as individuals have the right to practice their hetero- or homosexuality without infringement. anything that unnecessarily infringes one or the other is a violation of their rights and inappropriate. allowing homosexuals to marry and allowing religions not to have to perform the marriages is a reasonable compromise that protects both individual's rights. disallowing individuals to practice their religion (i.e., forcing them to do things that are against firmly held beliefs) is as discriminatory as disallowing homosexuals to marry. Did you miss the part where this law would make it illegal for individuals to practice their religion because their institution said so? This law would make it illegal for any catholic priest to perform a gay marriage if the catholic church decided it wanted to be protected. This means that if an INDIVIDUAL thought that the catholic faith allowed gay marriages, his right to practice his belief would be trampled by the institution. i have no problem with that. they can disassociate themselves with the catholic church and there is no infringement on their rights. i do have a problem with a religion saying they firmly believe that gay marriage is wrong, refuse to do it, but then allow certain members of the church to do it. i think the law was drafted in that way to prevent such pretext. edit: its a right to practice religion, it is not a right to be part of a certain religious organization. But they're catholic! The law can't tell them not to be catholic! It's an infringement on their rights to tell them that they HAVE to believe gay marriage is wrong in order to be catholic! This whole thing is silly. When an institution gains the legal power to begin speaking for it's individual members, it will trample on the right to believe what you want in the very same way it claims it needs to be protected. ummm, what are you talking about? most religions are based on the fact that the institution speaks for its members, not the other way around. its not a democracy. church leaders usually interpret and enforce religious doctrines, which are usually based on a governing document (e.g., bible, koran, etc.). also, when you refer to rights, it is usually preventing the government from interfering in an individual's rights, not, for example, preventing the catholic church to excommunicate priests who preach gay marraige.
But now they speak for their members with legal authority. I find that very weird.
|
Honestly I think this is how the US should handle it. Gay marriage should be legal, but why should religions be forced to marry gay couples against the religion's belief?
|
On December 12 2012 05:55 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 05:49 Klondikebar wrote:On December 12 2012 05:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:43 Klondikebar wrote:On December 12 2012 05:40 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:34 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 05:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:20 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:12 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
An awful lot of those are infringed upon, if not outright disregarded, by pretty much all of the modern, western world. There's a reason nobody cares about those. The fact that some people 60 years ago pandered to the religious groups is not exactly surprising and should not in any way be viewed as the last word on the matter. The right to ones opinions is one thing but special rights given to opinions of a religious nature and then the right to discriminate because of those opinions is quite another. so, you dont think that religion should be a fundamental right? why exactly? I think that in order for a fair society to operate there has to be limits upon our freedoms regarding the treatment of each other. While you can believe what you like, as that only impacts yourself, there have to be rules imposed upon your conduct with others. One of these is anti-discrimination legislation and in every case except religion it is seen as being necessary. I see no compelling case why religious opinions such as "marriage is between a man and a woman because God" should be protected but secular opinions such as "marriage is between two people of the same skin colour because dog" should not. With neither protected they both fall victim to my belief that society has the right to intervene in our conduct towards each other, sacrificing one but protecting the other as a fundamental right is contradictory, hypocritical and nonsensical. fundamental rights were created to prevent the majority from discriminating against the minority. you are willing to sacrifice people's right to their religion because you think its more important that gays be allowed to be married by priests and on church properties. i think that is wrong especially considering there is no significant reason to do so. why cant people just get married in churches that allow gay marriage? or why not just get married by a non-priest? there is very little infringement in the right to marry, and huge infringement in the right to religion. i will assume that you dont really care about the right to religion in the first place, and that is why you are so willing to place it on the sacrificial altar. Fundamental rights were created to prevent the guys writing the fundamental rights down from not having the things they thought were important, nothing more. Humans cannot escape their humanity. There are limitless fundamental rights which are disregarded daily because they weren't written down as a fundamental right in 1948 because nobody really cared about them, fundamental is simply a word. Caring more does not make something a right, nor more fundamental. You have yet to do anything other than restate over and over that it is a fundamental right, the question is why are religious convictions and not comparable secular convictions. so the universal declaration of human rights is a farce. okay. i wont speak in terms of fundamental rights then. individuals have the right to practice their religion without infringement, just as individuals have the right to practice their hetero- or homosexuality without infringement. anything that unnecessarily infringes one or the other is a violation of their rights and inappropriate. allowing homosexuals to marry and allowing religions not to have to perform the marriages is a reasonable compromise that protects both individual's rights. disallowing individuals to practice their religion (i.e., forcing them to do things that are against firmly held beliefs) is as discriminatory as disallowing homosexuals to marry. Did you miss the part where this law would make it illegal for individuals to practice their religion because their institution said so? This law would make it illegal for any catholic priest to perform a gay marriage if the catholic church decided it wanted to be protected. This means that if an INDIVIDUAL thought that the catholic faith allowed gay marriages, his right to practice his belief would be trampled by the institution. i have no problem with that. they can disassociate themselves with the catholic church and there is no infringement on their rights. i do have a problem with a religion saying they firmly believe that gay marriage is wrong, refuse to do it, but then allow certain members of the church to do it. i think the law was drafted in that way to prevent such pretext. edit: its a right to practice religion, it is not a right to be part of a certain religious organization. But they're catholic! The law can't tell them not to be catholic! It's an infringement on their rights to tell them that they HAVE to believe gay marriage is wrong in order to be catholic! This whole thing is silly. When an institution gains the legal power to begin speaking for it's individual members, it will trample on the right to believe what you want in the very same way it claims it needs to be protected. ummm, what are you talking about? most religions are based on the fact that the institution speaks for its members, not the other way around. its not a democracy. church leaders usually interpret and enforce religious doctrines, which are usually based on a governing document (e.g., bible, koran, etc.). also, when you refer to rights, it is usually preventing the government from interfering in an individual's rights, not, for example, preventing the catholic church to excommunicate priests who preach gay marraige.
The CofE doesn't speak for its members on women bishops, as noted above.
The members of the head councils voted in majority for women bishops, but it was blocked by the minority.
So it's irrelevant what the members think in the CofE.
|
I think the analogy of the BNP is important.
Unless you can justify that the BNP should be allowed to exclude black people then you can't justify religions excluding gay people.
Do you want the BNP to rename themselves to the RBNP and then gain the right to discriminate because their white God told them it was okay?
That doesn't seem like progress to me.
|
On December 12 2012 06:23 Reason wrote:
I think the analogy of the BNP is important.
Unless you can justify that the BNP should be allowed to exclude black people then you can't justify religions excluding gay people.
Do you want the BNP to rename themselves to the RBNP and then gain the right to discriminate because their white God told them it was okay?
That doesn't seem like progress to me.
I don't agree that this justification is necessary. The BNP can still function as an uncompromised political party, even when they have to give up their official policy of not accepting black people. I don't think it is analogous to churches not wanting to marry gay people. It would be analogous to churches not wanting to accept gays as members, which in my opinion is a different kind of thing.
|
On December 12 2012 05:55 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 05:49 Klondikebar wrote:On December 12 2012 05:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:43 Klondikebar wrote:On December 12 2012 05:40 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:34 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 05:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:20 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:12 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
An awful lot of those are infringed upon, if not outright disregarded, by pretty much all of the modern, western world. There's a reason nobody cares about those. The fact that some people 60 years ago pandered to the religious groups is not exactly surprising and should not in any way be viewed as the last word on the matter. The right to ones opinions is one thing but special rights given to opinions of a religious nature and then the right to discriminate because of those opinions is quite another. so, you dont think that religion should be a fundamental right? why exactly? I think that in order for a fair society to operate there has to be limits upon our freedoms regarding the treatment of each other. While you can believe what you like, as that only impacts yourself, there have to be rules imposed upon your conduct with others. One of these is anti-discrimination legislation and in every case except religion it is seen as being necessary. I see no compelling case why religious opinions such as "marriage is between a man and a woman because God" should be protected but secular opinions such as "marriage is between two people of the same skin colour because dog" should not. With neither protected they both fall victim to my belief that society has the right to intervene in our conduct towards each other, sacrificing one but protecting the other as a fundamental right is contradictory, hypocritical and nonsensical. fundamental rights were created to prevent the majority from discriminating against the minority. you are willing to sacrifice people's right to their religion because you think its more important that gays be allowed to be married by priests and on church properties. i think that is wrong especially considering there is no significant reason to do so. why cant people just get married in churches that allow gay marriage? or why not just get married by a non-priest? there is very little infringement in the right to marry, and huge infringement in the right to religion. i will assume that you dont really care about the right to religion in the first place, and that is why you are so willing to place it on the sacrificial altar. Fundamental rights were created to prevent the guys writing the fundamental rights down from not having the things they thought were important, nothing more. Humans cannot escape their humanity. There are limitless fundamental rights which are disregarded daily because they weren't written down as a fundamental right in 1948 because nobody really cared about them, fundamental is simply a word. Caring more does not make something a right, nor more fundamental. You have yet to do anything other than restate over and over that it is a fundamental right, the question is why are religious convictions and not comparable secular convictions. so the universal declaration of human rights is a farce. okay. i wont speak in terms of fundamental rights then. individuals have the right to practice their religion without infringement, just as individuals have the right to practice their hetero- or homosexuality without infringement. anything that unnecessarily infringes one or the other is a violation of their rights and inappropriate. allowing homosexuals to marry and allowing religions not to have to perform the marriages is a reasonable compromise that protects both individual's rights. disallowing individuals to practice their religion (i.e., forcing them to do things that are against firmly held beliefs) is as discriminatory as disallowing homosexuals to marry. Did you miss the part where this law would make it illegal for individuals to practice their religion because their institution said so? This law would make it illegal for any catholic priest to perform a gay marriage if the catholic church decided it wanted to be protected. This means that if an INDIVIDUAL thought that the catholic faith allowed gay marriages, his right to practice his belief would be trampled by the institution. i have no problem with that. they can disassociate themselves with the catholic church and there is no infringement on their rights. i do have a problem with a religion saying they firmly believe that gay marriage is wrong, refuse to do it, but then allow certain members of the church to do it. i think the law was drafted in that way to prevent such pretext. edit: its a right to practice religion, it is not a right to be part of a certain religious organization. But they're catholic! The law can't tell them not to be catholic! It's an infringement on their rights to tell them that they HAVE to believe gay marriage is wrong in order to be catholic! This whole thing is silly. When an institution gains the legal power to begin speaking for it's individual members, it will trample on the right to believe what you want in the very same way it claims it needs to be protected. ummm, what are you talking about? most religions are based on the fact that the institution speaks for its members, not the other way around. its not a democracy. church leaders usually interpret and enforce religious doctrines, which are usually based on a governing document (e.g., bible, koran, etc.).
also, when you refer to rights, it is usually preventing the government from interfering in an individual's rights, not, for example, preventing the catholic church to excommunicate priests who preach gay marraige.
While this is debatable, you cant deny that the doctrine of the religion, how the bible,coran etc are interpreted, keeps evolving. And this is part of why i think this debate is really interesting. Let me try to explain myself.
The church's doctrine ( I am implicitly speaking of the christian church, as I do not know much of the other religions) evolves with time. Sometime in a wrong way, ( e.g. the inquisition...), but lately ( I mean over the last 100 years) it has become better and better with time. Lately, the christian church has, in my opinion, done a good job of coming back to the values taught in the new testament. The best example would of course be the Second Vatican Council. Sure some extremist group still exist, but they are smaller and smaller, when not excluded from the catholic church (e.g the Civitas extrem group in France).
Most young (< 35 ) christian I know, and I admit this might not be representative, have absolutely no issue with the gay marriage. They see it as a great step forward against discrimination. I've even see some priest prieching in favor of gay marriage. I have absolutely no doubt that in a few decade, gay marriage will be accepted by the christian church.
It will be slow however, as the religions are not known for adapting quickly. One good way i see to make it happen faster, is simply to not wait for them to agree to legalize gay marriage. Hopefully people will soon notice that they were worried for nothing, and that gay marriage will not be the end of the society. I also hope that pro-gay religious will speak up and that the church will keep moving in the right direction. I have already heard people asking for a 3rd Vatican coucil.
Now, should the government force religious organization to marry gay people. I dont think so. In France, we strongly believe in Laicity. This is ( quoting Wikipedia) "the concept denoting the absence of religious involvement in government affairs as well as absence of government involvement in religious affairs". Both part are important. I understand it is a bit different in the UK, but the government should not be able to decide what the religion should or should not be able to do. Leave it to them to evolve, or to simply disappear because what they teach does not correspond to the values of the people. Forcing the religion into marrying gay people would create in my opinion a very dangerous precedence. If the government can change how the religion function for the gay marriage, they could potentially change it for any other topic. And as a firm believer of separation of church and state, I don't want this to happen.
TL:DR : Should governments enforce religious gay marriage : No. Should the religion evolve and accept religious gay marriage: Yes.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51472 Posts
I think the government has finally done something good. I mean all party's are happy no? Gay marriage is allowed, but you can't get married in a church, under God. Which again i see nothing wrong with that. It's not like Gays look to go to a Church to get married, they would not be looking for God to accept them, they would just be looking for society to accept they are married?. This is a good piece of law imo. Gays can marry, but not in churches that don't want them too
|
While I have no problem with, say the Catholic Church or a Hebrew synagogue, refusing to marry homosexual couples on their church grounds. I don't see how the Church of England could participate in denying marriage to homosexual couples since CoE churches are technically property of the Queen and thus of the government. Although I could be mistaken since I am not British.
But potentially could this see the CoE no longer as the official church of the country, and wouldn't that be a good thing?
|
On December 12 2012 06:38 Pandemona wrote:
I think the government has finally done something good. I mean all party's are happy no? Gay marriage is allowed, but you can't get married in a church, under God. Which again i see nothing wrong with that. It's not like Gays look to go to a Mosque to get married, they would be killed before they entered it etc. This is a good piece of law imo. Gays can marry, but not in churches that don't want them too
The funny thing is that most people aren't even discussing the implications for gays, because it's not got a significant impact on them (in real terms, status under law etc, marriage doesn't confer any extra rights. Maybe in some ways they would want the term marriage rather than civil partnership, but that will become more accepted over time, and at least it's some degree of progress).
But it is not good for religious organisations/churches, because it's a very badly written law which screws over some people.
Gay people kind of win a bit, but moderate religious people get kicked squarely in the nuts.
|
On December 12 2012 05:51 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 05:42 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 05:34 Crushinator wrote:On December 12 2012 05:20 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:12 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 05:09 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:06 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 04:54 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 04:47 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
The issue secularists like myself have with this statement is the "because it is a fundamental right". In the UK it is currently against the law to discriminate against gays on the basis of their sexuality, even if you have really strongly held homophobic convictions and a load of subjective experience that validated them. This law will grant an exemption to the anti discrimination laws for churches which can't even agree amongst themselves most of the time whether or not they oppose gay marriage. Religious people do not have a monopoly on strength of conviction and yet they seem to have inherited a fundamental right to have their convictions protected. I'd like to see it justified. history and society has determined that it is a fundamental right, and in america it is written into our constitution. the justification for that is something that would take a lot of research and time to write a thoughtful piece, which i am not willing to do. =) The title says UK, if you cannot or are unwilling to justify the statement "because it is a fundamental right" then it should not be assumed to be a fundamental right in the UK. The question of why you get an exemption if a burning bush says to oppose the gays but not if a regular bush says to oppose the gays remains. i am pretty sure its considered a fundamental right through most of the modern, western world. its in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after all. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml An awful lot of those are infringed upon, if not outright disregarded, by pretty much all of the modern, western world. There's a reason nobody cares about those. The fact that some people 60 years ago pandered to the religious groups is not exactly surprising and should not in any way be viewed as the last word on the matter. The right to ones opinions is one thing but special rights given to opinions of a religious nature and then the right to discriminate because of those opinions is quite another. so, you dont think that religion should be a fundamental right? why exactly? I think that in order for a fair society to operate there has to be limits upon our freedoms regarding the treatment of each other. While you can believe what you like, as that only impacts yourself, there have to be rules imposed upon your conduct with others. One of these is anti-discrimination legislation and in every case except religion it is seen as being necessary. I see no compelling case why religious opinions such as "marriage is between a man and a woman because God" should be protected but secular opinions such as "marriage is between two people of the same skin colour because dog" should not. With neither protected they both fall victim to my belief that society has the right to intervene in our conduct towards each other, sacrificing one but protecting the other as a fundamental right is contradictory, hypocritical and nonsensical. Religious institutions are also different from other institutions in that they are a very personal matter, that primarily concerns itself with how one's personal life must be lived. Contrary to you, I do have to concede that in this way, religion is special. Beliefs about how ones personal life should be lived do not have to be religious in nature. Vegans have beliefs about how ones personal life should be lived. The hypocrisy is that if a Buddhist believes that he is morally obligated to avoid meat then that is his fundamental right and if, for example, he were in prison and served only food with meat then you would be infringing upon it but a secular vegetarian who believes very strongly in animal rights and is far more passionate about it that the Buddhist who sometimes sneaks a burger is not protected because although his convictions are personal and deeply held they are not based on intangible concept or, even if they are, they're based on the wrong concept. There is a massive discrepancy there. I agree, that personal beliefs are often granted a special respect they don't deserve if they are religious in nature. But I do not think this is in conflict with what I wrote earlier. Private secular institutions are not in the business of marrying people, and as such we dont need to consider them. And if you could point to a case where a private secular institution discriminates on the basis of these kinds of convictions, I think they should be allowed to do that aswell.
This whole quote-thread I've got here reminds me very much of a certain period in English history and the irony is pretty delicious. The attitude exemplified by the statement "personal beliefs are often granted a special respect they don't deserve if they are religious in nature" would be right up the alley of Henry VIII, the only difference being that in the context of the Tudors the beliefs in question were all religious in nature.
|
United States42437 Posts
On December 12 2012 06:38 Pandemona wrote:
I think the government has finally done something good. I mean all party's are happy no? Gay marriage is allowed, but you can't get married in a church, under God. Which again i see nothing wrong with that. It's not like Gays look to go to a Mosque to get married, they would be killed before they entered it etc. This is a good piece of law imo. Gays can marry, but not in churches that don't want them too
But if I ran a discriminatory bakery that had a policy of "gays can buy bread, but not in my bakery because I don't want them to" then I'd be breaking the law, no matter how many good reasons I could come up with. In every other scenario in which a service is available to the general public but denied to a specific group on the grounds of skin colour, gender, sexual orientation etc then it's illegal but when it's religious groups doing it to gays then it gets a pass. If a non religious group tried it then they'd fall victim to the law. Likewise if a religious group did it to blacks then they'd fall victim to the law. It's a very bizarre situation when it is permissible to deny a service on the grounds of the sexual orientation of an individual but only if your convictions involve a supernatural deity. If you have evidence for your convictions (for example if gays were actively and publicly destroying society through marriage with a public manifesto stating their intent to do so) then you'd still fall victim to discrimination laws, no matter how strongly you held your personal convictions, but if you have no evidence and subscribe to a religious group then you're in the clear.
It kinda makes me want to start a small religion just to see what I can get permission to do on the basis of religious freedom, this sets a precedent for exemptions from what was previously a universal standard we applied to society.
|
United States42437 Posts
On December 12 2012 06:40 Brosy wrote:
While I have no problem with, say the Catholic Church or a Hebrew synagogue, refusing to marry homosexual couples on their church grounds. I don't see how the Church of England could participate in denying marriage to homosexual couples since CoE churches are technically property of the Queen and thus of the government. Although I could be mistaken since I am not British.
No, you're correct and it's a huge constitutional issue which needs to be addressed at some point.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51472 Posts
On December 12 2012 06:41 Lonyo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 06:38 Pandemona wrote:
I think the government has finally done something good. I mean all party's are happy no? Gay marriage is allowed, but you can't get married in a church, under God. Which again i see nothing wrong with that. It's not like Gays look to go to a Mosque to get married, they would be killed before they entered it etc. This is a good piece of law imo. Gays can marry, but not in churches that don't want them too The funny thing is that most people aren't even discussing the implications for gays, because it's not got a significant impact on them (in real terms, status under law etc, marriage doesn't confer any extra rights. Maybe in some ways they would want the term marriage rather than civil partnership, but that will become more accepted over time, and at least it's some degree of progress). But it is not good for religious organisations/churches, because it's a very badly written law which screws over some people. Gay people kind of win a bit, but moderate religious people get kicked squarely in the nuts.
But isn't the law basically allowing churches to not marry them? Ala, all churches of England could be not allowed to marry Gay's because the Arch Bishop of Cantebury (think he runs the church of England?) said his churches wont be involved in gay marriages? So then gays can only marry in "registry" offices (is how im looking at it) around England? Isn't that fine? Doesn't religion win and Gays win then?
(do tell me if im wrong)
On December 12 2012 06:47 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 06:38 Pandemona wrote:
I think the government has finally done something good. I mean all party's are happy no? Gay marriage is allowed, but you can't get married in a church, under God. Which again i see nothing wrong with that. It's not like Gays look to go to a Mosque to get married, they would be killed before they entered it etc. This is a good piece of law imo. Gays can marry, but not in churches that don't want them too But if I ran a discriminatory bakery that had a policy of "gays can buy bread, but not in my bakery because I don't want them to" then I'd be breaking the law, no matter how many good reasons I could come up with. In every other scenario in which a service is available to the general public but denied to a specific group on the grounds of skin colour, gender, sexual orientation etc then it's illegal but when it's religious groups doing it to gays then it gets a pass. If a non religious group tried it then they'd fall victim to the law. Likewise if a religious group did it to blacks then they'd fall victim to the law. It's a very bizarre situation when it is permissible to deny a service on the grounds of the sexual orientation of an individual but only if your convictions involve a supernatural deity. If you have evidence for your convictions (for example if gays were actively and publicly destroying society through marriage with a public manifesto stating their intent to do so) then you'd still fall victim to discrimination laws, no matter how strongly you held your personal convictions, but if you have no evidence and subscribe to a religious group then you're in the clear. It kinda makes me want to start a small religion just to see what I can get permission to do on the basis of religious freedom, this sets a precedent for exemptions from what was previously a universal standard we applied to society.
Totally agree with what your saying, but without starting me off on all my beliefs of what should and should not be in the world, this is how the world is going. And to allow people to do certain things, idiotic laws have to come out like this.
(Please tell me to stop if i take this next part a bit to far) The Muslim religion in England have way more power than any other religion in our country, the followers and mosque's can do as they please (in a sense). Not just the other month, there was a local butcher who was being told by the Muslim community that it could not sell Bacon no more as it was "offending" the Muslim's who were passing by!! That is how much of a joke Religion is becoming in the power of Laws.
There is many many many more cases of anything and everything that is being effected by religion, some people cant do "x" because of their religion, some people can only do "y" because of their religion, the list is endless. The only way to stop this, is to stop giving people the freedom OUTSIDE there Mosques/Churches/Temples to worship/live in law. Or go and live in countries where this is allowed (Dubai - Muslim Law / Israel - Jewish Law) . The fact that this is all able to be stopped if the country grew a backbone and said, look this country is run by parliament, if you want a law passed it has to go threw us. Not through a Mosque/Church/Temple.
That's my view on what your saying. Without what i just said, i see this as a win win situation to all partys.
|
On December 12 2012 06:23 Reason wrote:
Unless you can justify that the BNP should be allowed to exclude black people then you can't justify religions excluding gay people.
Call me crazy, but I'd approve of letting churches do this, refusing to marry interracial couples. (you won't see me knowingly donating a dime to such a religious institution, however) In my opinion, the state shouldn't force a church to marry anyone that they don't want to. As well, I wouldn't disapprove of this BNP disallowing black people to join their party. If you're black and you want to run for office, something tells me you wouldn't want to support that particular party anyway, lol.
Organizations should have the choice to discriminate. The people should have the choice to refuse such organizations and form their own based on their personal beliefs and opinions.
|
Got to give it to you Kwark that is a mighty fine OP, good example for everyone. I don't really have a strong opinion on this topic but I am for gays getting equal rights in every sense of the word. I'm also annoyed by religions demanding special treatment. However forcing vicars to conduct ceremonies that they believe to be against their religion seems a little curmudgeonly, so I guess the current solution makes sense. There are plenty of religious and non-religious people happy to marry homosexuals. Messing with people's superstitions may be, technically, nothing wrong, but for example demanding that people sign a contract giving the government 'their eternal souls' in exchange for welfare benefits would be pushing the boat a little too far out as far as I'm concerned. A total governmental denial of religion would be, in my opinion, 'unfair'. Even though I am extremely skeptical of the religions.
|
United States42437 Posts
On December 12 2012 06:50 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 06:23 Reason wrote:
Unless you can justify that the BNP should be allowed to exclude black people then you can't justify religions excluding gay people.
Call me crazy, but I'd approve of letting churches do this, refusing to marry interracial couples. (you won't see me knowingly donating a dime to such a religious institution, however) In my opinion, the state shouldn't force a church to marry anyone that they don't want to. As well, I wouldn't disapprove of this BNP disallowing black people to join their party. If you're black and you want to run for office, something tells me you wouldn't want to support that particular party anyway, lol. Organizations should have the choice to discriminate. The people should have the choice to refuse such organizations and form their own based on their personal beliefs and opinions.
Sounds great in theory but in practice what you end up with is a fuckload of discrimination everywhere because people like discriminating. The reason there is such a consensus that we're all pretty much the same these days is because of things like mixed race schools. You need to end discrimination legislatively before it becomes self evident and ceases to really be viable.
|
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?
|
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.
|
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.
|
On December 12 2012 10:24 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 09:40 Mercy13 wrote:On December 12 2012 05:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:20 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:12 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 05:09 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 05:06 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 04:54 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 04:47 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
The issue secularists like myself have with this statement is the "because it is a fundamental right". In the UK it is currently against the law to discriminate against gays on the basis of their sexuality, even if you have really strongly held homophobic convictions and a load of subjective experience that validated them. This law will grant an exemption to the anti discrimination laws for churches which can't even agree amongst themselves most of the time whether or not they oppose gay marriage. Religious people do not have a monopoly on strength of conviction and yet they seem to have inherited a fundamental right to have their convictions protected. I'd like to see it justified. history and society has determined that it is a fundamental right, and in america it is written into our constitution. the justification for that is something that would take a lot of research and time to write a thoughtful piece, which i am not willing to do. =) The title says UK, if you cannot or are unwilling to justify the statement "because it is a fundamental right" then it should not be assumed to be a fundamental right in the UK. The question of why you get an exemption if a burning bush says to oppose the gays but not if a regular bush says to oppose the gays remains. i am pretty sure its considered a fundamental right through most of the modern, western world. its in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after all. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml An awful lot of those are infringed upon, if not outright disregarded, by pretty much all of the modern, western world. There's a reason nobody cares about those. The fact that some people 60 years ago pandered to the religious groups is not exactly surprising and should not in any way be viewed as the last word on the matter. The right to ones opinions is one thing but special rights given to opinions of a religious nature and then the right to discriminate because of those opinions is quite another. so, you dont think that religion should be a fundamental right? why exactly? I think that in order for a fair society to operate there has to be limits upon our freedoms regarding the treatment of each other. While you can believe what you like, as that only impacts yourself, there have to be rules imposed upon your conduct with others. One of these is anti-discrimination legislation and in every case except religion it is seen as being necessary. I see no compelling case why religious opinions such as "marriage is between a man and a woman because God" should be protected but secular opinions such as "marriage is between two people of the same skin colour because dog" should not. With neither protected they both fall victim to my belief that society has the right to intervene in our conduct towards each other, sacrificing one but protecting the other as a fundamental right is contradictory, hypocritical and nonsensical. 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.
Thanks for the clarification, and sorry if it was presumptuous to put words in your mouth!
I agree that it's a very difficult question to determine the extent to which the government should be allowed to intervene in private interactions. Personally, I feel that it is not the government's role to prevent discrimination, absent special circumstances, such as those that gave rise to the necessity of the Civil Rights Act. As a result, I don't believe that the government should force churches to allow people to marry, because such circumstances don't exist with respect to same-sex marriage. In the UK, and hopefully soon in the US, homosexual couples are allowed to marry and enjoy the same benefits that heterosexual couples receive. To be clear, I find it reprehensible that most states don't recognize marriages between same-sex couples that are performed by the state, or by a religion that recognizes the validity of same-sex marriage. I just don't think churches should be forced to recognize such marriages if they don't want to.
It should also be noted that there are all sorts of reasons that seem silly (at least to me) that churches prevent people from getting married. For example, the Catholic church will not allow a Catholic to marry a non-Catholic, unless both partners agree that any children that result from the union will be raised Catholic.
|
It is no longer possible for the Mosques to stop homosexual marriage from being allowed? Whether Allah hates homosexuals or not? Allah is Great.
|
On December 12 2012 03:22 KwarK wrote:
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.
Assuming I'm reading this right, a lot of the discussion seems to be missing the point.
This isn't analogous to a restaurant being allowed to discriminate against blacks. It's more like a legal injunction on every employee of the restaurant, FORCING them to discriminate against blacks because their manager said so.
Which is absolutely ridiculous.
|
I like every part of this law, except for the illegal for catholics to marry gays. It should be up to the individual priest/reverand. The churchs right to refuse to marry (endorse) a gay marriage is protected, and the ability for gay couples to recieve the same benefits and even have it called a marriage is protected.
Thumbs up here.
Edit:
On December 12 2012 13:06 pirsq wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 03:22 KwarK wrote:
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. Assuming I'm reading this right, a lot of the discussion seems to be missing the point. This isn't analogous to a restaurant being allowed to discriminate against blacks. It's more like a legal injunction on every employee of the restaurant, FORCING them to discriminate against blacks because their manager said so. Which is absolutely ridiculous.
Sums up my only problem with the law perfectly.
|
On December 12 2012 13:24 Jisall wrote:I like every part of this law, except for the illegal for catholics to marry gays. It should be up to the individual priest/reverand. The churchs right to refuse to marry (endorse) a gay marriage is protected, and the ability for gay couples to recieve the same benefits and even have it called a marriage is protected. Thumbs up here. Edit: Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 13:06 pirsq wrote:On December 12 2012 03:22 KwarK wrote:
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. Assuming I'm reading this right, a lot of the discussion seems to be missing the point. This isn't analogous to a restaurant being allowed to discriminate against blacks. It's more like a legal injunction on every employee of the restaurant, FORCING them to discriminate against blacks because their manager said so. Which is absolutely ridiculous. Sums up my only problem with the law perfectly.
then the catholic church would just excommunicate them all. so, what exactly are you protecting?
|
On December 12 2012 13:30 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 13:24 Jisall wrote:I like every part of this law, except for the illegal for catholics to marry gays. It should be up to the individual priest/reverand. The churchs right to refuse to marry (endorse) a gay marriage is protected, and the ability for gay couples to recieve the same benefits and even have it called a marriage is protected. Thumbs up here. Edit: On December 12 2012 13:06 pirsq wrote:On December 12 2012 03:22 KwarK wrote:
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. Assuming I'm reading this right, a lot of the discussion seems to be missing the point. This isn't analogous to a restaurant being allowed to discriminate against blacks. It's more like a legal injunction on every employee of the restaurant, FORCING them to discriminate against blacks because their manager said so. Which is absolutely ridiculous. Sums up my only problem with the law perfectly. then the catholic church would just excommunicate them all. so, what exactly are you protecting?
Excommunication is an issue between the Catholic Church and its Priest. Thats a intra-church issue. I come from a protestant church, so the issue of excommunication never crossed my mind.
Personally I'm against gay marriage being held in a church because it disagrees with my church's teachings, that doesn't mean that all churches interpret the bible the way mine does, so forcing them to act a certain way is wrong. If they hold gay marriage ceremonies in their place of worship that is between them, God, and in the Catholic Churches case their hierarchy. If a Priest in any church deems it appropriate he should be able to marry a gay couple.
Blanket laws (such as the one in the bill) are almost always bad because they limit freedom and do not provide for exceptions.
|
This is good. Allow gays to get married, but also preserve the churches right to set their own rules and moral codes.
I don't understand the ppl who are against them having this right. You're telling the churches that they must go against their own moral code, just because your personal moral code is different. That's you discriminating against churches. Just let the churches do what they want.
|
On December 12 2012 13:46 ninini wrote:
This is good. Allow gays to get married, but also preserve the churches right to set their own rules and moral codes.
I don't understand the ppl who are against them having this right. You're telling the churches that they must go against their own moral code, just because your personal moral code is different. That's you discriminating against churches. Just let the churches do what they want.
I'm against the law forcing churches to reject marrying gays or face legal troubles. Some churches are more liberal then others. Other then that the law is perfect.
|
On December 12 2012 13:49 Jisall wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 13:46 ninini wrote:
This is good. Allow gays to get married, but also preserve the churches right to set their own rules and moral codes.
I don't understand the ppl who are against them having this right. You're telling the churches that they must go against their own moral code, just because your personal moral code is different. That's you discriminating against churches. Just let the churches do what they want. I'm against the law forcing churches to reject marrying gays or face legal troubles. Some churches are more liberal then others. Other then that the law is perfect.
The churches can make their own decisions on the matter. Noone is forcing anyone. Well, if one priest disagrees with his churches stance, he will need to switch to another church, but that's a good thing. The churches (especially the Protestant ones) could use some more consistency in their teachings. Give gays the option of marriage, and let each church have a right to turn them down if their moral code doesn't agree with it.
|
I see the concern. If it looks like a duck, and quack likes a duck, it's a duck. But legally, religious institutions (and in result, all members) can call it a sea otter under this law, and not be called arrogant or crazy. It gives them powers to refuse to identify something that is accepted and defined under national law.
|
On December 12 2012 14:01 ninini wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 13:49 Jisall wrote:On December 12 2012 13:46 ninini wrote:
This is good. Allow gays to get married, but also preserve the churches right to set their own rules and moral codes.
I don't understand the ppl who are against them having this right. You're telling the churches that they must go against their own moral code, just because your personal moral code is different. That's you discriminating against churches. Just let the churches do what they want. I'm against the law forcing churches to reject marrying gays or face legal troubles. Some churches are more liberal then others. Other then that the law is perfect. The churches can make their own decisions on the matter. Noone is forcing anyone. Well, if one priest disagrees with his churches stance, he will need to switch to another church, but that's a good thing. The churches (especially the Protestant ones) could use some more consistency in their teachings. Give gays the option of marriage, and let each church have a right to turn them down if their moral code doesn't agree with it.
This sentiment ignores the very foundation of the Church of England and the manner with which doctrinal change occurs in the Anglican tradition. This sort of legislation would have felt very at home amongst Catholic sympathizers circa 1525.
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
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.
Can you clarify? It will be codified into law that a Catholic priest cannot perform a gay marriage? Or does the law merely preclude the state from forcing a church to perform a gay marriage? (Assuming the former...if so that is actually one of the most spectacularly incompetent attempts at "compromise" I've seen)
Seems to me that it is best to sever the state from recognizing any sort of marriage at all (for legal purposes, recognizing a civil union that is not dependent on a sexual relationship between the partners), and simply allow private organizations to discriminate against people as they will. This would at least seem to resolve the implied inconsistency between government treatment of religion and other private organizations.*
unless the 'right' you allude to in the OP:
Do religions have the right to discriminate privately as long as it doesn't deny any rights to the individual?
means the right to have your marriage recognized by all individuals in society as such, and the right to never have their choices characterized as something immoral (which are hardly rights at all, in my opinion, but then, people have advanced the arguments that they are -- see certain hate speech law implementations, etc.).
*Semi off-topic aside: I imagine you would ask whether religious groups should be allowed to discriminate against X minority -- I would argue that private organizations be allowed to do the same -- societal ostracism should ideally prove sufficient to discourage such things. Though, if the population at large agrees with this discrimination, then of course that is a 'bad outcome' -- but that is the cost of a free society. In its very nature, it can ensure its own suicide...
|
Given that this is already 10 pages in on a controversial topic this viewpoint may have been stated already, but I think that the church really ought to be allowed some exemptions from laws like these. I'm all for gay marriage as recognized by the state, and I do believe that calling it marriage is important in that it isn't just equal, its the same thing.
That said, I don't really see a good reason why the church ought to be forced to do something they view as immoral. For starters, from now on when I use "the church" I will be referring to a generalized view from american protestant and roman catholic churches. I understand that there are other religions that may seek exceptions, and that individual christian churches may be more tolerant, but for the sake of generalization I think this wording is justified. I personally find the church's stance on gays pretty backward, but it is to some extent a tenet of of their doctrine and it can be interpreted from the documents that the church is based on (notably the bible). And while the comparison to the BNP could be useful I think it falls apart under close scrutiny.
For example, discrimination vs religion is generally illegal, but shouldn't the church have the ability to screen applicants for church positions and make sure that they are christian? I believe that forcing the hand of the church on an issue like this will likely lead to no good and could be a dangerous violation of civil liberties.
On the other hand I think that the way that the law deals with these exemptions is not a good one. There really ought to be a registry somewhere of churches. The law need merely state that religious entities (as defined by those on the registry) may decline to perform marriages in their institution on a case by case basis. This allows for more liberal priests and pastors to continue to perform same sex marriages while not forcing the policy of the church as a whole.
I think in general a solution that would be better is for the government no longer to offer marriages, i.e. everything is a civil union in the eyes of the government and if you want to get "married" then you take it up with your religious leader. Marriage to me does have it roots in religion along with the state, and for the purposes of law it would make some sense to simply have the government no longer engage in what many still view to be a religious institution. Civil unions serve the same purpose because in the eyes of the government, marriage is essentially an economic contract between 2 people, and there is no reason those 2 people can't be of the same sex. I think this could go hand in hand with regulations making divorce much simpler, but that is a debate for another day.
|
Yeah I am not getting the confusion. This is a good thing for homosexuals. It seems people want to have their cake and eat it too.
The law is essentially forcing Religious institutions to stick to their doctrines, and not try to customize them to their own views.
As a theist, I perfectly fine with this. Even if you believe that discrimination against homosexuals is immoral. There are no provision for practicing homosexuality in theology. Key word being practicing.
In simpler terms even if the church were to somehow allow homosexuality, all those involved are still going against the doctrine, and therefore condemned sinners.
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
The law is essentially forcing Religious institutions to stick to their doctrines, and not try to customize them to their own views.
Do you really think it should be within the state's powers to enforce a religion's self-consistency?
In simpler terms even if the church we to somehow allow homosexuality, all those involved are still going against the doctrine, and therefore condemned sinners.
Okay, fine, then they are guilty of being "condemned sinners," should that really be a crime?
|
On December 12 2012 14:34 419 wrote:Show nested quote +The law is essentially forcing Religious institutions to stick to their doctrines, and not try to customize them to their own views.
Do you really think it should be within the state's powers to enforce a religion's self-consistency? Show nested quote +In simpler terms even if the church we to somehow allow homosexuality, all those involved are still going against the doctrine, and therefore condemned sinners.
Okay, fine, then they are guilty of being "condemned sinners," should that really be a crime?
In this situation yes.
This seems to be the conclusion. To essentially have it both ways. Allow gay marriage while maintaining the religious doctrine of marriage being between a man and a woman.
It's a crime because it's no longer just a religious doctrine, but a state law.
|
On December 12 2012 14:15 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 14:01 ninini wrote:On December 12 2012 13:49 Jisall wrote:On December 12 2012 13:46 ninini wrote:
This is good. Allow gays to get married, but also preserve the churches right to set their own rules and moral codes.
I don't understand the ppl who are against them having this right. You're telling the churches that they must go against their own moral code, just because your personal moral code is different. That's you discriminating against churches. Just let the churches do what they want. I'm against the law forcing churches to reject marrying gays or face legal troubles. Some churches are more liberal then others. Other then that the law is perfect. The churches can make their own decisions on the matter. Noone is forcing anyone. Well, if one priest disagrees with his churches stance, he will need to switch to another church, but that's a good thing. The churches (especially the Protestant ones) could use some more consistency in their teachings. Give gays the option of marriage, and let each church have a right to turn them down if their moral code doesn't agree with it. This sentiment ignores the very foundation of the Church of England and the manner with which doctrinal change occurs in the Anglican tradition. This sort of legislation would have felt very at home amongst Catholic sympathizers circa 1525.
Are you for real? All this hatred towards religion that we see today is disgusting. Hundreds of years ago, we were forced to accept religion in most of the western world, and now, extreme leftists wants to remove all religious rights. You say you want perfect freedom, but you don't want to include the freedom of ppl who views things differently than you. That's not freedom.
|
On December 12 2012 16:39 ninini wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 14:15 farvacola wrote:On December 12 2012 14:01 ninini wrote:On December 12 2012 13:49 Jisall wrote:On December 12 2012 13:46 ninini wrote:
This is good. Allow gays to get married, but also preserve the churches right to set their own rules and moral codes.
I don't understand the ppl who are against them having this right. You're telling the churches that they must go against their own moral code, just because your personal moral code is different. That's you discriminating against churches. Just let the churches do what they want. I'm against the law forcing churches to reject marrying gays or face legal troubles. Some churches are more liberal then others. Other then that the law is perfect. The churches can make their own decisions on the matter. Noone is forcing anyone. Well, if one priest disagrees with his churches stance, he will need to switch to another church, but that's a good thing. The churches (especially the Protestant ones) could use some more consistency in their teachings. Give gays the option of marriage, and let each church have a right to turn them down if their moral code doesn't agree with it. This sentiment ignores the very foundation of the Church of England and the manner with which doctrinal change occurs in the Anglican tradition. This sort of legislation would have felt very at home amongst Catholic sympathizers circa 1525. Are you for real? All this hatred towards religion that we see today is disgusting. Hundreds of years ago, we were forced to accept religion in most of the western world, and now, extreme leftists wants to remove all religious rights. You say you want perfect freedom, but you don't want to include the freedom of ppl who views things differently than you. That's not freedom.
you're criticizing the wrong guy. (edit: on this count at least)
|
On December 12 2012 16:39 ninini wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 14:15 farvacola wrote:On December 12 2012 14:01 ninini wrote:On December 12 2012 13:49 Jisall wrote:On December 12 2012 13:46 ninini wrote:
This is good. Allow gays to get married, but also preserve the churches right to set their own rules and moral codes.
I don't understand the ppl who are against them having this right. You're telling the churches that they must go against their own moral code, just because your personal moral code is different. That's you discriminating against churches. Just let the churches do what they want. I'm against the law forcing churches to reject marrying gays or face legal troubles. Some churches are more liberal then others. Other then that the law is perfect. The churches can make their own decisions on the matter. Noone is forcing anyone. Well, if one priest disagrees with his churches stance, he will need to switch to another church, but that's a good thing. The churches (especially the Protestant ones) could use some more consistency in their teachings. Give gays the option of marriage, and let each church have a right to turn them down if their moral code doesn't agree with it. This sentiment ignores the very foundation of the Church of England and the manner with which doctrinal change occurs in the Anglican tradition. This sort of legislation would have felt very at home amongst Catholic sympathizers circa 1525. Are you for real? All this hatred towards religion that we see today is disgusting. Hundreds of years ago, we were forced to accept religion in most of the western world, and now, extreme leftists wants to remove all religious rights. You say you want perfect freedom, but you don't want to include the freedom of ppl who views things differently than you. That's not freedom.
Please read my previous posts in this thread, I think what I said will make more sense that way. I don't want to remove religious rights, I want the government to stay out of laity-clergy dynamics of doctrinal determination.
|
I may be misinterpreting the law but I don't understand what utility there is in making it illegal for a church to perform a gay marriage if they put their name on the list. I don't really understand why people are so against changing the legal definition either. It's like people make up all these pretend reasons why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed to hide the real reason they are against it.
If they aren't insisting their church would be forced to marry gay people they are insisting it would erode "moral values" or that marriage is a religious concept. Guess what, is not a religious concept. A church doesn't legally marry someone the government does and they do not have a monopoly on marriage nor should they be able to define marriage because it offends them and their god.
Marriage literally predates religions such as Christianity by at least 5000 years. Yeah, you can say god created marriage when he made adam and eve but you have to realize not everyone believes that and just because you do doesn't mean you can force your religious laws on people who don't subscribe to your beliefs.
excuse the bad english it's really late.
|
United States33313 Posts
what is this, a blatant trap set by kwark?
|
On December 12 2012 17:39 heliusx wrote:
Guess what, is not a religious concept.
what?
Seems religious to me. Are there cultures prior to modernity in which marriage is not associated with religious ritual?
|
On December 12 2012 17:39 heliusx wrote:
Marriage literally predates religions such as Christianity by at least 5000 years.
Marriage is very much so a religious concept. Just because it predates Christianity doesn't make it a secular one - it's not the only religion in the world. As far as I know, marriage was always very ritualistic and heavily based on whatever beliefs the society held at the time.
I wish modern societies moved towards and promoted the civil partnership concept (for everybody) a long time ago.
|
United States42437 Posts
On December 12 2012 16:39 ninini wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 14:15 farvacola wrote:On December 12 2012 14:01 ninini wrote:On December 12 2012 13:49 Jisall wrote:On December 12 2012 13:46 ninini wrote:
This is good. Allow gays to get married, but also preserve the churches right to set their own rules and moral codes.
I don't understand the ppl who are against them having this right. You're telling the churches that they must go against their own moral code, just because your personal moral code is different. That's you discriminating against churches. Just let the churches do what they want. I'm against the law forcing churches to reject marrying gays or face legal troubles. Some churches are more liberal then others. Other then that the law is perfect. The churches can make their own decisions on the matter. Noone is forcing anyone. Well, if one priest disagrees with his churches stance, he will need to switch to another church, but that's a good thing. The churches (especially the Protestant ones) could use some more consistency in their teachings. Give gays the option of marriage, and let each church have a right to turn them down if their moral code doesn't agree with it. This sentiment ignores the very foundation of the Church of England and the manner with which doctrinal change occurs in the Anglican tradition. This sort of legislation would have felt very at home amongst Catholic sympathizers circa 1525. Are you for real? All this hatred towards religion that we see today is disgusting. Hundreds of years ago, we were forced to accept religion in most of the western world, and now, extreme leftists wants to remove all religious rights. You say you want perfect freedom, but you don't want to include the freedom of ppl who views things differently than you. That's not freedom.
You have failed to read and to understand his post. Following the foundation of the Church of England there were a series of religious conflicts in which orthodoxy was enforced by the state, men who translated the Bible into English were burned for example. This is comparable to that and it is certainly not religion bashing, it's a point regarding the relationship between church and state
|
I've always found Gay Couples getting married under a Christian motive to be some what hypocritical towards the texts in the bible. However, at the same time I think if gay people want to get married, that is their choice.
Also, the fact that 95% of people who get married in general under Christian lore most likely are condemned to hell anyway, just due to the simple fact that they haven't followed some small little text in the bible.
"All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men ... whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. Matthew 12:31-32". (We are all fucked)
Their is already so much corruption, most people who get married aren't actually avid in terms of being Spiritual. If someone asks me personally if I'm religious, I can't exactly say that I am a Christian, but if I were to get married, I would most certainly get married under Christian pretenses.
It's gotten corrupt to the point where it's just hypocritical not to allow Gays to get married, but we allow every single other sinning doomed to hell person get married (Doomed to hell under current texts).
I say let gays get married and good on them, it seems like marriage these days is just for show and has no real meaning to it anyways.
PS. I'm not trying to be holier than thou, in fact, if we are following the current scriptures I would be doomed to hell 400,000 times over... probably like most people.
|
On December 12 2012 17:55 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 17:39 heliusx wrote:
Guess what, is not a religious concept. what?
People were clearly "married" in the essence of making a family and having a monogamous relationship long before there were civilizations or even the invention of writing. Lets not pretend that religion created marriage because that is not true.
On December 12 2012 17:55 sam!zdat wrote:
Seems religious to me. Are there cultures prior to modernity in which marriage is not associated with religious ritual?
As for cultures for whom marriage wasn't a religious ceremony ancient egypt is a clear example.
|
The state should not recognize religion in any way, shape, or form. No special privileges; no special restrictions. Figure out one set of rights and privileges that applies to everyone, and quit making exceptions.
If moral objection is an excuse not to render a service that you normally offer to the public, OK... but then everyone gets that right. Not just religious figures.
|
Until 1978 the Mormon church didn't allow blacks to be ordained, but change happened without any direct government intervention. I think it's better if churches are given the chance to modernize independently as heavy-handed government interference will likely cause resentment. If it was the case that gays had no other way to get married outside of discriminatory religious organizations it would be different but as it stands there are other options. I can only imagine what kind of severe reaction there would be from Muslims in the UK if their organizations were forced to perform wedding ceremonies for gays.
|
On December 12 2012 18:51 tomatriedes wrote:
Until 1978 the Mormon church didn't allow blacks to be ordained, but change happened without any direct government intervention. I think it's better if churches are given the chance to modernize independently as heavy-handed government interference will likely cause resentment. If it was the case that gays had no other way to get married outside of discriminatory religious organizations it would be different but as it stands there are other options. I can only imagine what kind of severe reaction there would be from Muslims in the UK if their organizations were forced to perform wedding ceremonies for gays.
I happen to agree. Institutions will modernise independently of the mainstream and eventually the Church and similar institutions will give way.
All it requires is the mainstream to change. That is all I am concerned about.
Forcing churches to marry gay couples is not going to accomplish that. All it is going to do is form a hideous wrangling where backwater Tories try and push the issue through the courts. We don't want that - we definitely don't need people quoting freedom of speech in favour of what is essentially bigotry. Much better to exclude them by law, let people choose whether they want to engage with such obviously homophobic institutions and let them change over time as they have done over the last few hundred years.
Give the CofE 30 years or so and they will catch up, assuming they have any congregation left by that time.
|
This is excellent legislation as it respects the views of religious people in the UK but does not stop homosexuals from marrying. Everyone has the same rights in this way. Gays have the right to marry but do not have the right to force people who believe that they are committing a sin against god to marry them. It may not be tasteful but it is a great step in the right direction!
|
nice try kwark, but im not going to post about this and avoid the ban! you sneaky devil!
|
This is a very interesting topic for many reason, but I don't think this is a matter of religion, although I deeply hate all religions (most of which are based on discrimination of people who believe in something else). Wether religious people (or religions) are a good thing or not, I shall not discuss.
However I believe the notion of gay marriage is a major absurdity for the simple fact that "gay marriage" doesn't exist. Marriage does. Between men, women and both. An analogy for this would be a "gay car", which is not a car for gay people because "gay cars" don't exist. Gays use cars. In a similar way, gays don't get gay married, they get married.
For certain, someday, I'll have to explain to my kids why their History teacher told them a while ago blacks were slaves. And great shame will haunt me (for I am white and so were my fathers). For certain, someday, I'll have to explain why gays didn't have equal rights. And great shame will haunt me once more (for I live in a time where gays are still viewed as more different then any other bloke).
An issue like this reveals humanity as it really is: utter shit. We are flawed in every possible way and we strive to hate each other. As a whole, we are so viciously stupid that our combined average intelligence is lower than the average intelligence of each individual. (I'm not sure my english is clear here. I mean that ten united people's intelligence divided by ten is lower than ten seperate people's intelligence divided by ten. However this is true on a huge scale such as we now have.)
I don't believe discrimination should be allowed outside of a private context. Everyone should have the right to hate anyone inside their own home, but outside that private residence, it shouldn't be tolerated. Religion is often a state recognized institution and benefits from the government's help (tax exemption, for one). Therefore, it shouldn't be considered "private" and discrimination shouldn't be tolerated.
In the end, change is never an easy process. This change will come and those who oppose it will stand proud, covering everyone else with shame. This pattern isn't new because History repeats itself. It's funny to think how we could explain ourselves in front of a superior intelligence. "Well, we really didn't like them (very long list of people) because they looked different and we weren't ready for it yet, so we didn't treat them as equals. Can you, O very powerful aliens, consider us as equals, please?" They shouldn't.
|
I am offended that westminster is successfully passing this off as being anti-discrimination. What this law will actually do it make the church immune to prosecution due to discrimination against homosexuals. I do not see how this law stops discrimination in any way, or how it benefits gays who want to be married.
Correct me if I am wrong, but what will happen is: All major religions will opt-in. Same sex marriage will not be performed by any major religions in the UK, while hetrosexual marriage will continue to be performed in churches. There will be no grounds for homosexual couples to take a church to court for discrimination over refusing to marry them.
What am I missing?
|
On December 12 2012 17:55 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 17:39 heliusx wrote:
Guess what, is not a religious concept. what? Seems religious to me. Are there cultures prior to modernity in which marriage is not associated with religious ritual?
Ancient greece.
|
Honestly, churches should be able to refuse to marry gay couples if that is against their religious beliefs. As long as there is a way for a homosexual couple to be married in the eyes of the law, with all the same bells and whistles heterosexual couples get, religious institutions should be allowed to marry whoever the hell they want. It's called the separation of church and state, and these are all private organizations (albeit large) free to conduct themselves however they like.
I think the bigger problem here is the homosexual couples wanting to get married in religious settings that clearly want nothing to do with them. Time to find a more open-minded higher power.
Keep in mind that this is all assuming homosexual couples are able to obtain marriage licenses, and are just seeking a religious ceremony to go along with it. It is my opinion that religious institutions should be able to decide who they perform ceremonies for on whatever basis they deem appropriate. All that shit is arbitrary anyways.
|
On December 13 2012 00:41 ZasZ. wrote:
Honestly, churches should be able to refuse to marry gay couples if that is against their religious beliefs. As long as there is a way for a homosexual couple to be married in the eyes of the law, with all the same bells and whistles heterosexual couples get, religious institutions should be allowed to marry whoever the hell they want. It's called the separation of church and state, and these are all private organizations (albeit large) free to conduct themselves however they like.
I think the bigger problem here is the homosexual couples wanting to get married in religious settings that clearly want nothing to do with them. Time to find a more open-minded higher power.
Keep in mind that this is all assuming homosexual couples are able to obtain marriage licenses, and are just seeking a religious ceremony to go along with it. It is my opinion that religious institutions should be able to decide who they perform ceremonies for on whatever basis they deem appropriate. All that shit is arbitrary anyways.
The Church of England is the state religion here in the UK. This gives them representation in the house of lords. Our church and our state is not separated.
|
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 think it does. I'm surprised churches are allowing them to use the word Marry, but I'm not going to complain. I don't think you can change religions and FORCE them to accept gays into their churches or even marry them. I think of churches or religions like clubs - You can't join a club that's only for women if you're a man, right? It's a restriction the club is giving. If a church says you can't join their church because they believe that homosexuality is wrong and is a sin, it's no different than that same women only club claiming that being a man is a sin. It's absurd either way to a lot of people, but it's not belief you can take away from someone. If you feel left you, then welcome to real life.
Do religions have the right to discriminate privately as long as it doesn't deny any rights to the individual? If religions have the right to discriminate privately on the grounds of sexual orientation why should other groups not also have similar rights?
I don't see why not? We allow a lot of other groups to do this. Black college grants? Boy Scouts of America? The club example I gave above? Discrimination is not something you can make against the law in our society because everyone discriminates whether or not they want to admit it. You know certain stereotypes don't work in your belief system, so you avoid them. That's discrimination.
Is making it specifically illegal for a group to marry gay couples as well as protecting them from discrimination laws too far?
Is it an acceptable price to pay for homosexual couples to call themselves married and be technically correct?
No, I don't think so. It's funny because a lot of my answers I bet sound like i'm christian, but I don't even believe in a deity. I just think that while homosexuals should be able to marry, there's no way you can stop someone's belief that the idea is wrong. There are people out there who think stealing is ok as long as it's from those who don't need (Robin Hood), and those who don't believe in stealing at all, yet both sides have a point right? it's only about who you agree with.
What this comes down to was that homosexuals were technically being treated as second class, but the only thing it felt religions were afraid of was that they would have to compromise their beliefs, whatever that may be, for laws. No religion or person wants to face that, so I think the UK did a great job of compromising.
|
On December 13 2012 00:45 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 00:41 ZasZ. wrote:
Honestly, churches should be able to refuse to marry gay couples if that is against their religious beliefs. As long as there is a way for a homosexual couple to be married in the eyes of the law, with all the same bells and whistles heterosexual couples get, religious institutions should be allowed to marry whoever the hell they want. It's called the separation of church and state, and these are all private organizations (albeit large) free to conduct themselves however they like.
I think the bigger problem here is the homosexual couples wanting to get married in religious settings that clearly want nothing to do with them. Time to find a more open-minded higher power.
Keep in mind that this is all assuming homosexual couples are able to obtain marriage licenses, and are just seeking a religious ceremony to go along with it. It is my opinion that religious institutions should be able to decide who they perform ceremonies for on whatever basis they deem appropriate. All that shit is arbitrary anyways. The Church of England is the state religion here in the UK. This gives them representation in the house of lords. Our church and our state is not separated.
Hrm, didn't know that. But it's my understanding that what you currently have for homosexual couples is essentially "marriage" in that it conveys the same benefits as marriage does to heterosexual couples, it just isn't called marriage.
I can understand wanting to be able to call it marriage, but I'm not sure if that warrants its own legislation. I can't understand wanting to force religious institutions to conduct marriage ceremonies that they are uncomfortable with, for whatever reason.
But if there is a legal precedent for not allowing private organizations to discriminate as they see fit, as mentioned in the OP, I suppose that is what the UK wants.
|
I don't know, moving marriage "back"(even though it's always been there) into the domain of jurisdiction of private institutions (which is essentially what happens if Religious institutions have the last word in marriages) and not the jurisdiction of the government may sound like a freedom or right of said private institution, but if there is actually no alternative or legally binding route other than one private institution (a state church) it's no different than monopoly on said service. On the ground that monopolies infringe on consumer or individual rights I don't think bills like this actually go far enough, religious institutions are exercising a separable decision from the state decision on one hand with the defense of religious freedom, yet denying what is thought of as both a legally and socially binding right for individuals to associate which lies outside of their jurisdiction.
The idea that marriage has to be embedded with religious institutions I feel is outdated, infact I feel that the idea that marriage has to be embedded with in government jurisdiction itself is also outdated. Individuals should have the ability, freedom, and also the avenue of pursuing marriage or civil union without the restriction of state or religious affiliation. But for much of the world's populace the two concepts are deeply embedded with in each other, and I can understand that and accept that, as long as it's on an individual decision basis where the right to both decline and accept exist. If you remove the right to choice in this respect, or monopolize the avenue, I see it as an infringement of the rights of the individual.
|
To give you a recent example of homosexual discrimination in the UK: A few years ago a gay couple were refused entry into a bed & breakfast (motel to americans?). The couple sued and recently won the case. The b&b owner had to pay a fine and compensation.
This is why this piece of legislation is going to be passed. The state does not want gays suing churches for discrimination. The legislation grants no additional rights for gays except that they can call their civil partnership a marriage. They will still be married in the same place, by the same person and with the same traditions. They will still be given the same legal status. This legislation is to protect the church.
I am also curious as to what the European court of human rights will think of this legislation. I imagine they will not like it, but what can they say? the UK is becoming more anti-europe every day and the british people particularly do ot like it when europe tries to make us change our laws (eg, voting rights for prisoners). This legislation is almost a taunt to Strasbourg.
|
The UK is an increasingly secular country. No politician can be influenced by religion and be elected, a stark opposite to the US situation. The Church of England is increasingly redundant as the number of church goers declines. Public opinion is in the favour of modern humanist principles of equality in the UK, rather than bigotry based on religious dogma or other grounds. The Church of England are losing their 'principles' and are increasingly bowing to the demands of a modern society - hence their introduction of women priests, overturning centuries of 'tradition'.
In the UK most people only go to Church to get married or to get buried. Church in the UK is increasingly seen as oudated and soon to be out of influence. It is great to live in a progressive society, governed by rationality rather than dogma born of superstition.
|
On December 13 2012 01:08 hzflank wrote:
To give you a recent example of homosexual discrimination in the UK: A few years ago a gay couple were refused entry into a bed & breakfast (motel to americans?). The couple sued and recently won the case. The b&b owner had to pay a fine and compensation.
This is why this piece of legislation is going to be passed. The state does not want gays suing churches for discrimination. The legislation grants no additional rights for gays except that they can call their civil partnership a marriage. They will still be married in the same place, by the same person and with the same traditions. They will still be given the same legal status. This legislation is to protect the church.
I am also curious as to what the European court of human rights will think of this legislation. I imagine they will not like it, but what can they say? the UK is becoming more anti-europe every day and the british people particularly do ot like it when europe tries to make us change our laws (eg, voting rights for prisoners). This legislation is almost a taunt to Strasbourg.
i think its kind of silly that business owners dont have the right to refuse service to whoever they want in the first place. seems like something that should be mandatory legislation anyways
|
seems like a pretty good compromise, if you ask me. more than you'd get in America, anyway. I mean, I don't support homosexual marriage, but if it's what society wants then it's what society should get. but you do have to protect religious freedom also, so unless either side is freaking out, I think this would be the way to go.
|
On December 13 2012 01:33 FrankWalls wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 01:08 hzflank wrote:
To give you a recent example of homosexual discrimination in the UK: A few years ago a gay couple were refused entry into a bed & breakfast (motel to americans?). The couple sued and recently won the case. The b&b owner had to pay a fine and compensation.
This is why this piece of legislation is going to be passed. The state does not want gays suing churches for discrimination. The legislation grants no additional rights for gays except that they can call their civil partnership a marriage. They will still be married in the same place, by the same person and with the same traditions. They will still be given the same legal status. This legislation is to protect the church.
I am also curious as to what the European court of human rights will think of this legislation. I imagine they will not like it, but what can they say? the UK is becoming more anti-europe every day and the british people particularly do ot like it when europe tries to make us change our laws (eg, voting rights for prisoners). This legislation is almost a taunt to Strasbourg. i think its kind of silly that business owners dont have the right to refuse service to whoever they want in the first place. seems like something that should be mandatory legislation anyways
So a business should be allowed to refused to serve a person because they are female? Jewish? Short?
|
British Christian here (albeit pretty lazy and liberal). I preferred the previous iteration of this law, where Gay marriage was to be legalised, but no church/mosque etc. would be forced to carry it out. I feel like the law has gone the wrong way about it now, as it leaves much less flexibility for proponents of gay marriage within religions.
As a side note, I personally am happy for gay couples to be afforded all the same rights as heterosexual couples, but in the UK that was already legislated for under Civil partnerships. For some reason, and I can't completely explain it, I'm slightly wary of changes to the definition of "Marriage". I guess I don't see why hetero and homosexual relationships can't have different labels for what is basically the same thing. We already use different names for them, hetero/straight, homo/gay/lesbian etc.
|
On December 13 2012 01:33 FrankWalls wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 01:08 hzflank wrote:
To give you a recent example of homosexual discrimination in the UK: A few years ago a gay couple were refused entry into a bed & breakfast (motel to americans?). The couple sued and recently won the case. The b&b owner had to pay a fine and compensation.
This is why this piece of legislation is going to be passed. The state does not want gays suing churches for discrimination. The legislation grants no additional rights for gays except that they can call their civil partnership a marriage. They will still be married in the same place, by the same person and with the same traditions. They will still be given the same legal status. This legislation is to protect the church.
I am also curious as to what the European court of human rights will think of this legislation. I imagine they will not like it, but what can they say? the UK is becoming more anti-europe every day and the british people particularly do ot like it when europe tries to make us change our laws (eg, voting rights for prisoners). This legislation is almost a taunt to Strasbourg. i think its kind of silly that business owners dont have the right to refuse service to whoever they want in the first place. seems like something that should be mandatory legislation anyways
You probably didn't think that one through. An example for you: What would happen if say, McDonalds would'nt serve to African Americans. You would be ok with that?
|
Although the state should certainly allow gay marriage, I'm cautious and will remain to be cautious regarding the state forcing private entities to grant marriage to people. The state should be set up such that it allows it, but making catholics marry gays won't establish anything. While I find their actions amoral I don't thing it is better to force a private entity to marry than to just allow those who want to marry to marry. As long as the state sanctions it, there is an alternative to a religious service. If your religion doesn't want to do the service, then go to the state. While it's not an ideal arrangement I think it both protects the religions right to association/freedom of speech vs the rights of the individual.
However, this is coming at it from an american perspective (bias disclosed)
|
On December 13 2012 01:47 Savern101 wrote:
British Christian here (albeit pretty lazy and liberal). I preferred the previous iteration of this law, where Gay marriage was to be legalised, but no church/mosque etc. would be forced to carry it out. I feel like the law has gone the wrong way about it now, as it leaves much less flexibility for proponents of gay marriage within religions.
As a side note, I personally am happy for gay couples to be afforded all the same rights as heterosexual couples, but in the UK that was already legislated for under Civil partnerships. For some reason, and I can't completely explain it, I'm slightly wary of changes to the definition of "Marriage". I guess I don't see why hetero and homosexual relationships can't have different labels for what is basically the same thing. We already use different names for them, hetero/straight, homo/gay/lesbian etc.
"Interracial marriage" isn't a legal thing, for example, and it shouldn't be. Having different labels for what is basically the same thing (your words), invites some discrimination in my opinion.
|
On December 13 2012 01:42 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 01:33 FrankWalls wrote:On December 13 2012 01:08 hzflank wrote:
To give you a recent example of homosexual discrimination in the UK: A few years ago a gay couple were refused entry into a bed & breakfast (motel to americans?). The couple sued and recently won the case. The b&b owner had to pay a fine and compensation.
This is why this piece of legislation is going to be passed. The state does not want gays suing churches for discrimination. The legislation grants no additional rights for gays except that they can call their civil partnership a marriage. They will still be married in the same place, by the same person and with the same traditions. They will still be given the same legal status. This legislation is to protect the church.
I am also curious as to what the European court of human rights will think of this legislation. I imagine they will not like it, but what can they say? the UK is becoming more anti-europe every day and the british people particularly do ot like it when europe tries to make us change our laws (eg, voting rights for prisoners). This legislation is almost a taunt to Strasbourg. i think its kind of silly that business owners dont have the right to refuse service to whoever they want in the first place. seems like something that should be mandatory legislation anyways So a business should be allowed to refused to serve a person because they are female? Jewish? Short?
Well yes, but a business wouldn't last long in today's economic climate if they refuse major demographics purely based on discrimination. The problem with discrimination laws is that they can be abused.
In the U.S. most businesses reserve the right to refuse to serve any person for any reason. This covers a variety of situations, like cutting people off of alcohol at bars/restaurants, kicking out unruly customers or kids that don't want to pay for anything, etc. Yes, it can be used to discriminate, but this isn't the 1960's. Restaurants aren't separated into black joints and white joints. If a business owner openly discriminates against a specific group, that is not going to be good for his business, and if he discriminates against his workers he faces legal action. But if you have convoluted discrimination laws in place, that drunk you throw out of your bar for being too drunk can claim it was because he was black, or the teenager you don't let into your store because you're sure she's a shoplifter can claim it is because she is a woman.
Businesses are not public or governmental institutions and shouldn't be required to serve every single person that walks into their door. Religion is a bit different in terms of being a public entity, but since their system of beliefs is really all a religion has you really shouldn't be able to force them to perform a ceremony they don't believe in. Again, this is assuming that secular homosexual marriages are possible and the religious ceremony is purely cosmetic/spiritual.
|
Very nice OP, and I hope people stick to the framework of debate provided in the mod notes if they wish to respond to this. Here are my thoughts.
1. Labelling: I think you (Kwark) underestimate the power of naming and labelling. I think its an amazing thing that a society has not only alligned gay's rights with straight people's in law but is also calling bringing them together under the same label. A 'separate but equal' policy is not healthy and has proven (IMO) to not work as it still emphasises the 'otherness' of civil partnerships.
2. Unlawful Discrimination: I have always found the exemptions under UK discrimination law to be very odd. Technically (though it has not been challenged in courts yet), a buddhist vegetarian can ask for special treatment (e.g. food suiting his needs in prison - though this example didn't go to court a UK prison changed its policy for fear of a legal challenge) based on his faith, but if I were to make a case based on reason, pertaining to no particular religious/social group (vegetarians have not yet been classed as such, but I'm sure may be in the future) the outcome is less certain. My point is that religious insititutions have been afforded a certain amount of leeway e.g. gender discrination in recruitment, and more and more I find it very difficult to accept that we have this kind of double standard with regards to secular organisations and religious ones. Which leads me to my next point
3. Moral Relativism: quite a few posters have argued that morality is subjective etc... I assume they also mean relative as there is a fair bit of overlap/confusion between the two terms. But as a UK resident/citizen it is impossible not to notice that British civil society seems unwilling to pronounce judgment on other cultures/religions for fear, perhaps, of being perceived as cultural imperialists. This is a fine, very British, way of dealing with a multi-cultural society but I think this 'Politically Correct' (apologies) approach is being pushed to its very limit and is in some ways incredibly insulting. We are essentially saying that we do not need to hold certain cultures/beliefs/ways of life to the same, I would say very high, standard that we would apply to others. Though it is not my opinion that anyone should be repressed from practicing and celebrating their beliefs/cultures, we have got to apply principles of rule of law, equality (I can already see the angry responses to the use of this rather dubious term) and all the other qualities that make a just society to all sections of said society.
Thanks,
froggynoddy
|
On December 13 2012 01:54 Penev wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 01:33 FrankWalls wrote:On December 13 2012 01:08 hzflank wrote:
To give you a recent example of homosexual discrimination in the UK: A few years ago a gay couple were refused entry into a bed & breakfast (motel to americans?). The couple sued and recently won the case. The b&b owner had to pay a fine and compensation.
This is why this piece of legislation is going to be passed. The state does not want gays suing churches for discrimination. The legislation grants no additional rights for gays except that they can call their civil partnership a marriage. They will still be married in the same place, by the same person and with the same traditions. They will still be given the same legal status. This legislation is to protect the church.
I am also curious as to what the European court of human rights will think of this legislation. I imagine they will not like it, but what can they say? the UK is becoming more anti-europe every day and the british people particularly do ot like it when europe tries to make us change our laws (eg, voting rights for prisoners). This legislation is almost a taunt to Strasbourg. i think its kind of silly that business owners dont have the right to refuse service to whoever they want in the first place. seems like something that should be mandatory legislation anyways You probably didn't think that one through. An example for you: What would happen if say, McDonalds would'nt serve to African Americans. You would be ok with that?
there is a line of thinking (that I am very sympathetic with) that says if McDonald's did that, they would suffer economic consequences which would either force them to reconsider this policy, or would force them to downgrade the scope of the services they offer. so in either way, the economic reality would force them and their disgusting opinions to be relegated to a much less influential position.
it is a common line of thinking in American politics (and elsewhere to a lesser degree) that McDonalds (for example) should be allowed to ban whomever they please, and if the people don't like it, they can stop going to McDonalds. there are definitely arguments for both sides, though, and in my opinion they are both legitimate positions to hold (right to discriminate, no right to discriminate).
|
United States42437 Posts
We have no problems kicking out rude people or denying alcohol to drunks despite the current rules, you can deny service for any non discriminatory reason legally.
|
Unless I read the article wrong no religions are being forced to marry anyone. I'm confused why so many people continuously repeat that same line, "I don't think forcing religions to marry gay couples is right." If a religious group doesn't want their churches performing marriage ceremonies for gay couples they don't have to as long as they add their name to the do not gay list.
|
on a side note, would it be off-topic to discuss the actual ideas behind "separate but equal" and it's actual effects on society? (as in the 1950s and 60s American Civil Rights movement)
|
On December 13 2012 01:54 Penev wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 01:33 FrankWalls wrote:On December 13 2012 01:08 hzflank wrote:
To give you a recent example of homosexual discrimination in the UK: A few years ago a gay couple were refused entry into a bed & breakfast (motel to americans?). The couple sued and recently won the case. The b&b owner had to pay a fine and compensation.
This is why this piece of legislation is going to be passed. The state does not want gays suing churches for discrimination. The legislation grants no additional rights for gays except that they can call their civil partnership a marriage. They will still be married in the same place, by the same person and with the same traditions. They will still be given the same legal status. This legislation is to protect the church.
I am also curious as to what the European court of human rights will think of this legislation. I imagine they will not like it, but what can they say? the UK is becoming more anti-europe every day and the british people particularly do ot like it when europe tries to make us change our laws (eg, voting rights for prisoners). This legislation is almost a taunt to Strasbourg. i think its kind of silly that business owners dont have the right to refuse service to whoever they want in the first place. seems like something that should be mandatory legislation anyways You probably didn't think that one through. An example for you: What would happen if say, McDonalds would'nt serve to African Americans. You would be ok with that?
On December 13 2012 01:42 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 01:33 FrankWalls wrote:On December 13 2012 01:08 hzflank wrote:
To give you a recent example of homosexual discrimination in the UK: A few years ago a gay couple were refused entry into a bed & breakfast (motel to americans?). The couple sued and recently won the case. The b&b owner had to pay a fine and compensation.
This is why this piece of legislation is going to be passed. The state does not want gays suing churches for discrimination. The legislation grants no additional rights for gays except that they can call their civil partnership a marriage. They will still be married in the same place, by the same person and with the same traditions. They will still be given the same legal status. This legislation is to protect the church.
I am also curious as to what the European court of human rights will think of this legislation. I imagine they will not like it, but what can they say? the UK is becoming more anti-europe every day and the british people particularly do ot like it when europe tries to make us change our laws (eg, voting rights for prisoners). This legislation is almost a taunt to Strasbourg. i think its kind of silly that business owners dont have the right to refuse service to whoever they want in the first place. seems like something that should be mandatory legislation anyways So a business should be allowed to refused to serve a person because they are female? Jewish? Short?
am i ok with it? well no i dont agree with their decision, but i think that they should have that right to make their stupid decision
|
On December 13 2012 01:54 Penev wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 01:33 FrankWalls wrote:On December 13 2012 01:08 hzflank wrote:
To give you a recent example of homosexual discrimination in the UK: A few years ago a gay couple were refused entry into a bed & breakfast (motel to americans?). The couple sued and recently won the case. The b&b owner had to pay a fine and compensation.
This is why this piece of legislation is going to be passed. The state does not want gays suing churches for discrimination. The legislation grants no additional rights for gays except that they can call their civil partnership a marriage. They will still be married in the same place, by the same person and with the same traditions. They will still be given the same legal status. This legislation is to protect the church.
I am also curious as to what the European court of human rights will think of this legislation. I imagine they will not like it, but what can they say? the UK is becoming more anti-europe every day and the british people particularly do ot like it when europe tries to make us change our laws (eg, voting rights for prisoners). This legislation is almost a taunt to Strasbourg. i think its kind of silly that business owners dont have the right to refuse service to whoever they want in the first place. seems like something that should be mandatory legislation anyways You probably didn't think that one through. An example for you: What would happen if say, McDonalds would'nt serve to African Americans. You would be ok with that?
Did you think it through? No, few people would be OK with that, and they would demonstrate that by refusing to eat at McDonalds. McDonalds is a public company and probably would suffer a crippling backlash if they came out and said they would not serve African Americans. That doesn't mean there should be a law preventing them from doing so. In addition, each individual restaurant is held accountable by the corporation, so an individual store manager can't suddenly decide to stop serving black people without facing consequences from those above him. You should probably think about what is socially and economically acceptable before slapping laws onto everything.
But a small business owner has the right to refuse service to whoever they want, for whatever reason they want. If that means they won't serve blacks or women that's his prerogative but it's really not a good business model and won't garner him any good will with his community.
I've always believed that if you force someone, by law, to put aside their bigotry and prejudices, it's not nearly as effective as showing them that their bigotry and prejudices are no longer acceptable in society. It's already happening, but as religions continue to lose clout among the world's youth they will realize that if they want to perpetuate their faith they need to be able to appeal to this generation. That includes more modern views on homosexuals.
|
On December 13 2012 02:00 KwarK wrote:
We have no problems kicking out rude people or denying alcohol to drunks despite the current rules, you can deny service for any non discriminatory reason legally.
Just to emphasise what I think Kwark is saying. There is a difference between discrimination (a normal human process used in practically all decision making) and unlawful discrimination, which aims to stop people from applying non-relevant factors (i.e. protected characteristics of gender, sexual orientation, religion etc...) to certain decisions in society (e.g. in domains of employment, public services, consumer issues etc...). Throwing out a customer because he is being aggressive/drunk is a relevant factor to consider when making the decision of whether to serve him/her. Refusing to serve him because he is gay or catholic is not relevant (or at least not deemed to be based on democratic/rule of law principles).
EDIT:
Applying the above logic to the topic at hand: refusing, or allowing a particular segment of society to refuse individuals to be afforded the same respect by being brought under the same label of 'marriage', based on their sexuality seems to me to be like such an example of a non-relevant factor being applied to a pretty fundamental process of UK society. (i.e. sharing ones life with another).
|
On December 13 2012 01:55 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 01:42 hzflank wrote:On December 13 2012 01:33 FrankWalls wrote:On December 13 2012 01:08 hzflank wrote:
To give you a recent example of homosexual discrimination in the UK: A few years ago a gay couple were refused entry into a bed & breakfast (motel to americans?). The couple sued and recently won the case. The b&b owner had to pay a fine and compensation.
This is why this piece of legislation is going to be passed. The state does not want gays suing churches for discrimination. The legislation grants no additional rights for gays except that they can call their civil partnership a marriage. They will still be married in the same place, by the same person and with the same traditions. They will still be given the same legal status. This legislation is to protect the church.
I am also curious as to what the European court of human rights will think of this legislation. I imagine they will not like it, but what can they say? the UK is becoming more anti-europe every day and the british people particularly do ot like it when europe tries to make us change our laws (eg, voting rights for prisoners). This legislation is almost a taunt to Strasbourg. i think its kind of silly that business owners dont have the right to refuse service to whoever they want in the first place. seems like something that should be mandatory legislation anyways So a business should be allowed to refused to serve a person because they are female? Jewish? Short? Well yes, but a business wouldn't last long in today's economic climate if they refuse major demographics purely based on discrimination. The problem with discrimination laws is that they can be abused. In the U.S. most businesses reserve the right to refuse to serve any person for any reason. This covers a variety of situations, like cutting people off of alcohol at bars/restaurants, kicking out unruly customers or kids that don't want to pay for anything, etc. Yes, it can be used to discriminate, but this isn't the 1960's. Restaurants aren't separated into black joints and white joints. If a business owner openly discriminates against a specific group, that is not going to be good for his business, and if he discriminates against his workers he faces legal action. But if you have convoluted discrimination laws in place, that drunk you throw out of your bar for being too drunk can claim it was because he was black, or the teenager you don't let into your store because you're sure she's a shoplifter can claim it is because she is a woman. Businesses are not public or governmental institutions and shouldn't be required to serve every single person that walks into their door. Religion is a bit different in terms of being a public entity, but since their system of beliefs is really all a religion has you really shouldn't be able to force them to perform a ceremony they don't believe in. Again, this is assuming that secular homosexual marriages are possible and the religious ceremony is purely cosmetic/spiritual.
Actually in the US you cannot deny service to anyone for ANY reason.
Federal law prohibits privately owned facilities that offer food, lodging, gasoline or entertainment to the public from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin.
California takes it a step further by adding a few more limitations.
The Unruh Civil Rights Act , or Unruh Act, as discussed in the housing chapter of this publication, applies to all business establishments of every kind whatsoever which provide services, goods, or accommodations to the public. Businesses subject to the Unruh Act include bookstores, gymnasiums, shopping centers, mobile home parks, bars and restaurants, schools, medical and dental offices, hotels and motels, and condominium homeowners associations. The Unruh Act prohibits all types of arbitrary discrimination, and not just discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, age, disability or medical condition. The Unruh Act also prohibits discrimination based on personal characteristics, geographical origin, physical attributes, and individual beliefs. For example, the arbitrary exclusion of individuals from a restaurant based on their sexual orientation is prohibited.
http://oag.ca.gov/publications/CRhandbook/ch4
|
On December 13 2012 01:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 01:54 Penev wrote:On December 13 2012 01:33 FrankWalls wrote:On December 13 2012 01:08 hzflank wrote:
To give you a recent example of homosexual discrimination in the UK: A few years ago a gay couple were refused entry into a bed & breakfast (motel to americans?). The couple sued and recently won the case. The b&b owner had to pay a fine and compensation.
This is why this piece of legislation is going to be passed. The state does not want gays suing churches for discrimination. The legislation grants no additional rights for gays except that they can call their civil partnership a marriage. They will still be married in the same place, by the same person and with the same traditions. They will still be given the same legal status. This legislation is to protect the church.
I am also curious as to what the European court of human rights will think of this legislation. I imagine they will not like it, but what can they say? the UK is becoming more anti-europe every day and the british people particularly do ot like it when europe tries to make us change our laws (eg, voting rights for prisoners). This legislation is almost a taunt to Strasbourg. i think its kind of silly that business owners dont have the right to refuse service to whoever they want in the first place. seems like something that should be mandatory legislation anyways You probably didn't think that one through. An example for you: What would happen if say, McDonalds would'nt serve to African Americans. You would be ok with that? there is a line of thinking (that I am very sympathetic with) that says if McDonald's did that, they would suffer economic consequences which would either force them to reconsider this policy, or would force them to downgrade the scope of the services they offer. so in either way, the economic reality would force them and their disgusting opinions to be relegated to a much less influential position. it is a common line of thinking in American politics (and elsewhere to a lesser degree) that McDonalds (for example) should be allowed to ban whomever they please, and if the people don't like it, they can stop going to McDonalds. there are definitely arguments for both sides, though, and in my opinion they are both legitimate positions to hold (right to discriminate, no right to discriminate).
I like your attitude of being able (trying) to see more than just one side of an argument but in this case I think it's a good idea to test this stance with an (more) extreme example. Should people/ businesses be allowed to not help someone in mortal danger because of their ethnicity?
|
On December 13 2012 02:02 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 01:54 Penev wrote:On December 13 2012 01:33 FrankWalls wrote:On December 13 2012 01:08 hzflank wrote:
To give you a recent example of homosexual discrimination in the UK: A few years ago a gay couple were refused entry into a bed & breakfast (motel to americans?). The couple sued and recently won the case. The b&b owner had to pay a fine and compensation.
This is why this piece of legislation is going to be passed. The state does not want gays suing churches for discrimination. The legislation grants no additional rights for gays except that they can call their civil partnership a marriage. They will still be married in the same place, by the same person and with the same traditions. They will still be given the same legal status. This legislation is to protect the church.
I am also curious as to what the European court of human rights will think of this legislation. I imagine they will not like it, but what can they say? the UK is becoming more anti-europe every day and the british people particularly do ot like it when europe tries to make us change our laws (eg, voting rights for prisoners). This legislation is almost a taunt to Strasbourg. i think its kind of silly that business owners dont have the right to refuse service to whoever they want in the first place. seems like something that should be mandatory legislation anyways You probably didn't think that one through. An example for you: What would happen if say, McDonalds would'nt serve to African Americans. You would be ok with that? Did you think it through? No, few people would be OK with that, and they would demonstrate that by refusing to eat at McDonalds. McDonalds is a public company and probably would suffer a crippling backlash if they came out and said they would not serve African Americans. That doesn't mean there should be a law preventing them from doing so. In addition, each individual restaurant is held accountable by the corporation, so an individual store manager can't suddenly decide to stop serving black people without facing consequences from those above him. You should probably think about what is socially and economically acceptable before slapping laws onto everything. But a small business owner has the right to refuse service to whoever they want, for whatever reason they want. If that means they won't serve blacks or women that's his prerogative but it's really not a good business model and won't garner him any good will with his community. I've always believed that if you force someone, by law, to put aside their bigotry and prejudices, it's not nearly as effective as showing them that their bigotry and prejudices are no longer acceptable in society. It's already happening, but as religions continue to lose clout among the world's youth they will realize that if they want to perpetuate their faith they need to be able to appeal to this generation. That includes more modern views on homosexuals.
Yes I did; See my previous post.
Edit: What if all the restaurants in a little town wouldn't serve to women and you're a (hungry) woman just passing through. Should be allowed?
|
United States42437 Posts
On December 13 2012 02:01 sc2superfan101 wrote:
on a side note, would it be off-topic to discuss the actual ideas behind "separate but equal" and it's actual effects on society? (as in the 1950s and 60s American Civil Rights movement)
Not at all. That's one of the more comparable situations regarding whether there is a legislative need to end segregation or whether to wait for social pressure.
|
On December 13 2012 02:02 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 01:54 Penev wrote:On December 13 2012 01:33 FrankWalls wrote:On December 13 2012 01:08 hzflank wrote:
To give you a recent example of homosexual discrimination in the UK: A few years ago a gay couple were refused entry into a bed & breakfast (motel to americans?). The couple sued and recently won the case. The b&b owner had to pay a fine and compensation.
This is why this piece of legislation is going to be passed. The state does not want gays suing churches for discrimination. The legislation grants no additional rights for gays except that they can call their civil partnership a marriage. They will still be married in the same place, by the same person and with the same traditions. They will still be given the same legal status. This legislation is to protect the church.
I am also curious as to what the European court of human rights will think of this legislation. I imagine they will not like it, but what can they say? the UK is becoming more anti-europe every day and the british people particularly do ot like it when europe tries to make us change our laws (eg, voting rights for prisoners). This legislation is almost a taunt to Strasbourg. i think its kind of silly that business owners dont have the right to refuse service to whoever they want in the first place. seems like something that should be mandatory legislation anyways You probably didn't think that one through. An example for you: What would happen if say, McDonalds would'nt serve to African Americans. You would be ok with that? Did you think it through? No, few people would be OK with that, and they would demonstrate that by refusing to eat at McDonalds. McDonalds is a public company and probably would suffer a crippling backlash if they came out and said they would not serve African Americans. That doesn't mean there should be a law preventing them from doing so. In addition, each individual restaurant is held accountable by the corporation, so an individual store manager can't suddenly decide to stop serving black people without facing consequences from those above him. You should probably think about what is socially and economically acceptable before slapping laws onto everything. But a small business owner has the right to refuse service to whoever they want, for whatever reason they want. If that means they won't serve blacks or women that's his prerogative but it's really not a good business model and won't garner him any good will with his community. I've always believed that if you force someone, by law, to put aside their bigotry and prejudices, it's not nearly as effective as showing them that their bigotry and prejudices are no longer acceptable in society. It's already happening, but as religions continue to lose clout among the world's youth they will realize that if they want to perpetuate their faith they need to be able to appeal to this generation. That includes more modern views on homosexuals.
This kind of post tends to completely ignore the historical reality that came from anti-discrimination laws. It's a sort of ad hoc mistake. Since the political climate has changed to be more tolerant of so-called deviants, it's obviously okay for people to discriminate, because they will suffer economic ruination if they do. But to say this completely ignores what actually happened 50 years ago. The reason that it's unacceptable to discriminate now is in part because the anti-discrimination laws increased awareness.
If McDonald's refused to serve African Americans, yes, people would stop going to McDonald's. But, on the other hand, if McDonald's refused to employ a relatively unknown minority (say transgender) then I'd be pretty willing to bet that no one would care. You base your argument on the fact that discrimination against well known and already protected minorities wouldn't be harmed, because it would be economically irrational for a corporation or company to do so. But actually, it's only economically irrational because we systematically made it so. Our anti-discrimination laws contributed to the cultural belief that discriminating against race is not okay. And for those minorities who are not well represented, well, they have no protection, either culturally or legally, so it would perfectly within McDonald's economic inclinations to refuse to hire or serve these people.
In other words, your logic of "economic correcting" only works for those who are already well represented both culturally and legally. It fucks everyone else.
|
On December 13 2012 01:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 01:54 Penev wrote:On December 13 2012 01:33 FrankWalls wrote:On December 13 2012 01:08 hzflank wrote:
To give you a recent example of homosexual discrimination in the UK: A few years ago a gay couple were refused entry into a bed & breakfast (motel to americans?). The couple sued and recently won the case. The b&b owner had to pay a fine and compensation.
This is why this piece of legislation is going to be passed. The state does not want gays suing churches for discrimination. The legislation grants no additional rights for gays except that they can call their civil partnership a marriage. They will still be married in the same place, by the same person and with the same traditions. They will still be given the same legal status. This legislation is to protect the church.
I am also curious as to what the European court of human rights will think of this legislation. I imagine they will not like it, but what can they say? the UK is becoming more anti-europe every day and the british people particularly do ot like it when europe tries to make us change our laws (eg, voting rights for prisoners). This legislation is almost a taunt to Strasbourg. i think its kind of silly that business owners dont have the right to refuse service to whoever they want in the first place. seems like something that should be mandatory legislation anyways You probably didn't think that one through. An example for you: What would happen if say, McDonalds would'nt serve to African Americans. You would be ok with that? there is a line of thinking (that I am very sympathetic with) that says if McDonald's did that, they would suffer economic consequences which would either force them to reconsider this policy, or would force them to downgrade the scope of the services they offer. so in either way, the economic reality would force them and their disgusting opinions to be relegated to a much less influential position. it is a common line of thinking in American politics (and elsewhere to a lesser degree) that McDonalds (for example) should be allowed to ban whomever they please, and if the people don't like it, they can stop going to McDonalds. there are definitely arguments for both sides, though, and in my opinion they are both legitimate positions to hold (right to discriminate, no right to discriminate).
Historically the "economic reality" has not been enough to prevent discrimination in certain contexts that is particularly damaging to society, such as food service, lodging, medical care, employment, etc. I don't believe serious commentators make the argument you are citing anymore, because it is clear that people aren't economically rational actors - they would rather discriminate than maximize profit.
|
On December 13 2012 01:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 01:54 Penev wrote:On December 13 2012 01:33 FrankWalls wrote:On December 13 2012 01:08 hzflank wrote:
To give you a recent example of homosexual discrimination in the UK: A few years ago a gay couple were refused entry into a bed & breakfast (motel to americans?). The couple sued and recently won the case. The b&b owner had to pay a fine and compensation.
This is why this piece of legislation is going to be passed. The state does not want gays suing churches for discrimination. The legislation grants no additional rights for gays except that they can call their civil partnership a marriage. They will still be married in the same place, by the same person and with the same traditions. They will still be given the same legal status. This legislation is to protect the church.
I am also curious as to what the European court of human rights will think of this legislation. I imagine they will not like it, but what can they say? the UK is becoming more anti-europe every day and the british people particularly do ot like it when europe tries to make us change our laws (eg, voting rights for prisoners). This legislation is almost a taunt to Strasbourg. i think its kind of silly that business owners dont have the right to refuse service to whoever they want in the first place. seems like something that should be mandatory legislation anyways You probably didn't think that one through. An example for you: What would happen if say, McDonalds would'nt serve to African Americans. You would be ok with that? there is a line of thinking (that I am very sympathetic with) that says if McDonald's did that, they would suffer economic consequences which would either force them to reconsider this policy, or would force them to downgrade the scope of the services they offer. so in either way, the economic reality would force them and their disgusting opinions to be relegated to a much less influential position. it is a common line of thinking in American politics (and elsewhere to a lesser degree) that McDonalds (for example) should be allowed to ban whomever they please, and if the people don't like it, they can stop going to McDonalds. there are definitely arguments for both sides, though, and in my opinion they are both legitimate positions to hold (right to discriminate, no right to discriminate).
My problem with this line of thinking is that you are assuming people/companies/'the market' act rationally. The owner of McDonalds might be perfectly happy to take an economic hit as long as he was allowed to continue to be a racist. Also you are assuming consumers are both enlightened and rational, look at the Starbucks scandal in this country, yet people are still a significant amount of people who simply don't care enough about the issue at hand because either it doesn't affect them or they are simply aware that anything is wrong.
For minor changes and minor tweaks I think its all right to wait for society to 'catch up', but when you are trying to break a taboo (e.g. african americans going to Harvard, Women CEOs, Gay Parents) I think the harm is too great for us to simply 'hope' that people see the light as it were.
EDIT: Ninja'd, by a better written post as well 
|
On December 13 2012 02:00 KwarK wrote:
We have no problems kicking out rude people or denying alcohol to drunks despite the current rules, you can deny service for any non discriminatory reason legally.
But it is so difficult to prove unlawful discrimination unless the person is dumb enough to say "You're black/gay/female, get the fuck out."
Businesses would like to avoid disgruntled customers who are pissed they are being denied service so claim discrimination. It may not hold up in court when it's discovered this person was a shoplifter/drunk/generally rude, but it's still a pain in the ass.
The UK can do what it wants, and it sounds like there is legal precedent for cracking down on unlawful discrimination. It's just my personal belief that if a business owner wants to make the social and economical (poor) decision of excluding a particular demographic, it will result in social and economical consequences, and legal consequences shouldn't be piled on.
But that's a business, not a religion. I think religion should be even safer from these laws, because it is essentially a club with a system of beliefs. Forcing them to go against their beliefs, or welcome people they do not wish to welcome, defeats the purpose of allowing the religion to exist in the first place. I am not a religious person at all, btw, and support homosexual marriage.
|
On December 13 2012 02:30 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 02:00 KwarK wrote:
We have no problems kicking out rude people or denying alcohol to drunks despite the current rules, you can deny service for any non discriminatory reason legally. But it is so difficult to prove unlawful discrimination unless the person is dumb enough to say "You're black/gay/female, get the fuck out." Businesses would like to avoid disgruntled customers who are pissed they are being denied service so claim discrimination. It may not hold up in court when it's discovered this person was a shoplifter/drunk/generally rude, but it's still a pain in the ass. The UK can do what it wants, and it sounds like there is legal precedent for cracking down on unlawful discrimination. It's just my personal belief that if a business owner wants to make the social and economical (poor) decision of excluding a particular demographic, it will result in social and economical consequences, and legal consequences shouldn't be piled on. But that's a business, not a religion. I think religion should be even safer from these laws, because it is essentially a club with a system of beliefs. Forcing them to go against their beliefs, or welcome people they do not wish to welcome, defeats the purpose of allowing the religion to exist in the first place. I am not a religious person at all, btw, and support homosexual marriage.
But it won't necessarily result in social or economical consequences. There's nothing logically connecting the two. It only results in social or economic consequences if the majority of people have a corresponding belief that such discrimination is wrong. This is not always the case. It wasn't the case 50 years ago, and that's why companies that discriminated proliferated.
|
|
|
On December 13 2012 02:30 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 02:00 KwarK wrote:
We have no problems kicking out rude people or denying alcohol to drunks despite the current rules, you can deny service for any non discriminatory reason legally. But it is so difficult to prove unlawful discrimination unless the person is dumb enough to say "You're black/gay/female, get the fuck out." Businesses would like to avoid disgruntled customers who are pissed they are being denied service so claim discrimination. It may not hold up in court when it's discovered this person was a shoplifter/drunk/generally rude, but it's still a pain in the ass. The UK can do what it wants, and it sounds like there is legal precedent for cracking down on unlawful discrimination. It's just my personal belief that if a business owner wants to make the social and economical (poor) decision of excluding a particular demographic, it will result in social and economical consequences, and legal consequences shouldn't be piled on. But that's a business, not a religion. I think religion should be even safer from these laws, because it is essentially a club with a system of beliefs. Forcing them to go against their beliefs, or welcome people they do not wish to welcome, defeats the purpose of allowing the religion to exist in the first place. I am not a religious person at all, btw, and support homosexual marriage.
All of this is fine, but there's no alternative to getting married by religious institutions in most regions in the world, and often there is only THE religious institution endorsed by the state. You are forced to play ball with this club regardless of whether you want to join it or not, or if the owners want to keep you out or not.
|
On December 13 2012 02:28 froggynoddy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 01:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 13 2012 01:54 Penev wrote:On December 13 2012 01:33 FrankWalls wrote:On December 13 2012 01:08 hzflank wrote:
To give you a recent example of homosexual discrimination in the UK: A few years ago a gay couple were refused entry into a bed & breakfast (motel to americans?). The couple sued and recently won the case. The b&b owner had to pay a fine and compensation.
This is why this piece of legislation is going to be passed. The state does not want gays suing churches for discrimination. The legislation grants no additional rights for gays except that they can call their civil partnership a marriage. They will still be married in the same place, by the same person and with the same traditions. They will still be given the same legal status. This legislation is to protect the church.
I am also curious as to what the European court of human rights will think of this legislation. I imagine they will not like it, but what can they say? the UK is becoming more anti-europe every day and the british people particularly do ot like it when europe tries to make us change our laws (eg, voting rights for prisoners). This legislation is almost a taunt to Strasbourg. i think its kind of silly that business owners dont have the right to refuse service to whoever they want in the first place. seems like something that should be mandatory legislation anyways You probably didn't think that one through. An example for you: What would happen if say, McDonalds would'nt serve to African Americans. You would be ok with that? there is a line of thinking (that I am very sympathetic with) that says if McDonald's did that, they would suffer economic consequences which would either force them to reconsider this policy, or would force them to downgrade the scope of the services they offer. so in either way, the economic reality would force them and their disgusting opinions to be relegated to a much less influential position. it is a common line of thinking in American politics (and elsewhere to a lesser degree) that McDonalds (for example) should be allowed to ban whomever they please, and if the people don't like it, they can stop going to McDonalds. there are definitely arguments for both sides, though, and in my opinion they are both legitimate positions to hold (right to discriminate, no right to discriminate). My problem with this line of thinking is that you are assuming people/companies/'the market' act rationally. The owner of McDonalds might be perfectly happy to take an economic hit as long as he was allowed to continue to be a racist. Also you are assuming consumers are both enlightened and rational, look at the Starbucks scandal in this country, yet people are still a significant amount of people who simply don't care enough about the issue at hand because either it doesn't affect them or they are simply aware that anything is wrong. For minor changes and minor tweaks I think its all right to wait for society to 'catch up', but when you are trying to break a taboo (e.g. african americans going to Harvard, Women CEOs, Gay Parents) I think the harm is too great for us to simply 'hope' that people see the light as it were. EDIT: Ninja'd, by a better written post as well
Your Starbucks example isn't a very good one. There is a difference between making a social decision like discrimination and evading your taxes, which is very clearly a legal issue. The government will hopefully get them in line on that particular front, but I'm not sure why you expect the average citizen to give two shits about whether Starbucks pays their taxes.
My issue is that you often cause more harm than good when you try to force people to catch up to the rest of society. Force religions to marry gay couples and you foster resentment. Show religions that if they want to perpetuate their faith in this ever-changing social climate, they need to appeal to the younger generation, and they may decide to change their views on homosexuals. It may take more time, but it's the more organic solution and requires less government intervention.
|
On December 13 2012 02:30 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 02:00 KwarK wrote:
We have no problems kicking out rude people or denying alcohol to drunks despite the current rules, you can deny service for any non discriminatory reason legally. But it is so difficult to prove unlawful discrimination unless the person is dumb enough to say "You're black/gay/female, get the fuck out." Businesses would like to avoid disgruntled customers who are pissed they are being denied service so claim discrimination. It may not hold up in court when it's discovered this person was a shoplifter/drunk/generally rude, but it's still a pain in the ass. The UK can do what it wants, and it sounds like there is legal precedent for cracking down on unlawful discrimination. It's just my personal belief that if a business owner wants to make the social and economical (poor) decision of excluding a particular demographic, it will result in social and economical consequences, and legal consequences shouldn't be piled on. But that's a business, not a religion. I think religion should be even safer from these laws, because it is essentially a club with a system of beliefs. Forcing them to go against their beliefs, or welcome people they do not wish to welcome, defeats the purpose of allowing the religion to exist in the first place. I am not a religious person at all, btw, and support homosexual marriage.
I still haven't seen anyone provide any reason for why a church is different than any other business from the perspective of secular law makers. People just keep saying it is...why? Because it's "important" to churchgoers? People are still taking for granted that church is more special than a bakery and I want them to justify it.
|
On December 13 2012 02:30 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 02:00 KwarK wrote:
We have no problems kicking out rude people or denying alcohol to drunks despite the current rules, you can deny service for any non discriminatory reason legally. But it is so difficult to prove unlawful discrimination unless the person is dumb enough to say "You're black/gay/female, get the fuck out." Businesses would like to avoid disgruntled customers who are pissed they are being denied service so claim discrimination. It may not hold up in court when it's discovered this person was a shoplifter/drunk/generally rude, but it's still a pain in the ass. The UK can do what it wants, and it sounds like there is legal precedent for cracking down on unlawful discrimination. It's just my personal belief that if a business owner wants to make the social and economical (poor) decision of excluding a particular demographic, it will result in social and economical consequences, and legal consequences shouldn't be piled on. But that's a business, not a religion. I think religion should be even safer from these laws, because it is essentially a club with a system of beliefs. Forcing them to go against their beliefs, or welcome people they do not wish to welcome, defeats the purpose of allowing the religion to exist in the first place. I am not a religious person at all, btw, and support homosexual marriage.
Unlawful discrimination is easier to prove than you might think, and we are getting better at identifying better ways of proving its taken place. For example you can look at the patern of behaviour rather than a single act (e.g. all the people they have 'happened' to exclude are black/gay etc... Anyway just because its difficult to prove does not justify its abolition.
Also I think most people would argue that this 'club's' (I like this term) system of beliefs is incompatible with the system of beliefs by UK civil society. There is no 'right to be free to discriminate' within the concept 'freedom of religion', or at least there shouldn't be IMO.
|
On December 13 2012 02:30 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 02:00 KwarK wrote:
We have no problems kicking out rude people or denying alcohol to drunks despite the current rules, you can deny service for any non discriminatory reason legally. But it is so difficult to prove unlawful discrimination unless the person is dumb enough to say "You're black/gay/female, get the fuck out." Businesses would like to avoid disgruntled customers who are pissed they are being denied service so claim discrimination. It may not hold up in court when it's discovered this person was a shoplifter/drunk/generally rude, but it's still a pain in the ass. The UK can do what it wants, and it sounds like there is legal precedent for cracking down on unlawful discrimination. It's just my personal belief that if a business owner wants to make the social and economical (poor) decision of excluding a particular demographic, it will result in social and economical consequences, and legal consequences shouldn't be piled on. But that's a business, not a religion. I think religion should be even safer from these laws, because it is essentially a club with a system of beliefs. Forcing them to go against their beliefs, or welcome people they do not wish to welcome, defeats the purpose of allowing the religion to exist in the first place. I am not a religious person at all, btw, and support homosexual marriage.
I'm curious; Do you think the right to discriminate should be limitless?
|
On December 13 2012 02:34 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 02:30 ZasZ. wrote:On December 13 2012 02:00 KwarK wrote:
We have no problems kicking out rude people or denying alcohol to drunks despite the current rules, you can deny service for any non discriminatory reason legally. But it is so difficult to prove unlawful discrimination unless the person is dumb enough to say "You're black/gay/female, get the fuck out." Businesses would like to avoid disgruntled customers who are pissed they are being denied service so claim discrimination. It may not hold up in court when it's discovered this person was a shoplifter/drunk/generally rude, but it's still a pain in the ass. The UK can do what it wants, and it sounds like there is legal precedent for cracking down on unlawful discrimination. It's just my personal belief that if a business owner wants to make the social and economical (poor) decision of excluding a particular demographic, it will result in social and economical consequences, and legal consequences shouldn't be piled on. But that's a business, not a religion. I think religion should be even safer from these laws, because it is essentially a club with a system of beliefs. Forcing them to go against their beliefs, or welcome people they do not wish to welcome, defeats the purpose of allowing the religion to exist in the first place. I am not a religious person at all, btw, and support homosexual marriage. All of this is fine, but there's no alternative to getting married by religious institutions in most regions in the world, and often there is only THE religious institution endorsed by the state. You are forced to play ball with this club regardless of whether you want to join it or not, or if the owners want to keep you out or not.
Which is why I stated, in an earlier post, that I am assuming that secular marriages for homosexual couples exist. If we are suddenly talking about countries that don't allow homosexuals to marry in any sense of the word or custom, that's a completely different can of worms. In that case, I would advise pushing for secular "civil partnerships" before trying to breach the marriage barrier, as it is much easier for people to swallow. Currently I'm imagining a muslim nation suddenly trying to force religious officials to perform gay marriages, and I don't see it going well. Many parts of the world are just behind when it comes to this particular issue, but that doesn't mean we can force them to catch up with everybody else. They have to make the transition slowly like the rest of us did.
|
On December 12 2012 18:20 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 17:55 sam!zdat wrote:On December 12 2012 17:39 heliusx wrote:
Guess what, is not a religious concept. what? People were clearly "married" in the essence of making a family and having a monogamous relationship long before there were civilizations or even the invention of writing.
You realize religion was around long before invention of writing, ya?
Lets not pretend that religion created marriage because that is not true.
Yes you're claiming that very loudly but I don't believe you.
Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 17:55 sam!zdat wrote:
Seems religious to me. Are there cultures prior to modernity in which marriage is not associated with religious ritual?
As for cultures for whom marriage wasn't a religious ceremony ancient egypt is a clear example.
They didn't have priests? What happens when you get married in ancient egypt? Do you actually know? I don't, but I'd be surprised if you went to the courthouse and signed a contract.
edit: seems they didn't make an enormous deal of it. Whether this is separate from "religion" or not I think is an interesting question. I can't find any convincing source about this. Do you have one?
edit: at any rate, it doesn't matter. It's not a debate over the "intellectual property" of marriage, whether or not it belongs to "religion." The point is that, for the vast majority of the world's population, marriage IS a religious matter. You are far in the minority here. If you'd like to proselytize your views, go ahead, maybe you can convince everybody, but don't act like it's obvious because it's certainly not.
On December 13 2012 02:37 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 02:30 ZasZ. wrote:On December 13 2012 02:00 KwarK wrote:
We have no problems kicking out rude people or denying alcohol to drunks despite the current rules, you can deny service for any non discriminatory reason legally. But it is so difficult to prove unlawful discrimination unless the person is dumb enough to say "You're black/gay/female, get the fuck out." Businesses would like to avoid disgruntled customers who are pissed they are being denied service so claim discrimination. It may not hold up in court when it's discovered this person was a shoplifter/drunk/generally rude, but it's still a pain in the ass. The UK can do what it wants, and it sounds like there is legal precedent for cracking down on unlawful discrimination. It's just my personal belief that if a business owner wants to make the social and economical (poor) decision of excluding a particular demographic, it will result in social and economical consequences, and legal consequences shouldn't be piled on. But that's a business, not a religion. I think religion should be even safer from these laws, because it is essentially a club with a system of beliefs. Forcing them to go against their beliefs, or welcome people they do not wish to welcome, defeats the purpose of allowing the religion to exist in the first place. I am not a religious person at all, btw, and support homosexual marriage. I still haven't seen anyone provide any reason for why a church is different than any other business from the perspective of secular law makers. People just keep saying it is...why? Because it's "important" to churchgoers? People are still taking for granted that church is more special than a bakery and I want them to justify it.
Because a church is not a secular institution. You are concerned with matters of ultimate importance. It's one of the most important functions of the church to be opposed in some important way to the secular authority. You're looking for someone to "prove" it to you, when I think you are the one who should give a reason why you think a church and a bakery are the same. Can you say it in a way that doesn't presuppose a secularist worldview?
|
On December 13 2012 02:35 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 02:28 froggynoddy wrote:On December 13 2012 01:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 13 2012 01:54 Penev wrote:On December 13 2012 01:33 FrankWalls wrote:On December 13 2012 01:08 hzflank wrote:
To give you a recent example of homosexual discrimination in the UK: A few years ago a gay couple were refused entry into a bed & breakfast (motel to americans?). The couple sued and recently won the case. The b&b owner had to pay a fine and compensation.
This is why this piece of legislation is going to be passed. The state does not want gays suing churches for discrimination. The legislation grants no additional rights for gays except that they can call their civil partnership a marriage. They will still be married in the same place, by the same person and with the same traditions. They will still be given the same legal status. This legislation is to protect the church.
I am also curious as to what the European court of human rights will think of this legislation. I imagine they will not like it, but what can they say? the UK is becoming more anti-europe every day and the british people particularly do ot like it when europe tries to make us change our laws (eg, voting rights for prisoners). This legislation is almost a taunt to Strasbourg. i think its kind of silly that business owners dont have the right to refuse service to whoever they want in the first place. seems like something that should be mandatory legislation anyways You probably didn't think that one through. An example for you: What would happen if say, McDonalds would'nt serve to African Americans. You would be ok with that? there is a line of thinking (that I am very sympathetic with) that says if McDonald's did that, they would suffer economic consequences which would either force them to reconsider this policy, or would force them to downgrade the scope of the services they offer. so in either way, the economic reality would force them and their disgusting opinions to be relegated to a much less influential position. it is a common line of thinking in American politics (and elsewhere to a lesser degree) that McDonalds (for example) should be allowed to ban whomever they please, and if the people don't like it, they can stop going to McDonalds. there are definitely arguments for both sides, though, and in my opinion they are both legitimate positions to hold (right to discriminate, no right to discriminate). My problem with this line of thinking is that you are assuming people/companies/'the market' act rationally. The owner of McDonalds might be perfectly happy to take an economic hit as long as he was allowed to continue to be a racist. Also you are assuming consumers are both enlightened and rational, look at the Starbucks scandal in this country, yet people are still a significant amount of people who simply don't care enough about the issue at hand because either it doesn't affect them or they are simply aware that anything is wrong. For minor changes and minor tweaks I think its all right to wait for society to 'catch up', but when you are trying to break a taboo (e.g. african americans going to Harvard, Women CEOs, Gay Parents) I think the harm is too great for us to simply 'hope' that people see the light as it were. EDIT: Ninja'd, by a better written post as well Your Starbucks example isn't a very good one. There is a difference between making a social decision like discrimination and evading your taxes, which is very clearly a legal issue. The government will hopefully get them in line on that particular front, but I'm not sure why you expect the average citizen to give two shits about whether Starbucks pays their taxes. My issue is that you often cause more harm than good when you try to force people to catch up to the rest of society. Force religions to marry gay couples and you foster resentment. Show religions that if they want to perpetuate their faith in this ever-changing social climate, they need to appeal to the younger generation, and they may decide to change their views on homosexuals. It may take more time, but it's the more organic solution and requires less government intervention.
From what I understand of the situation they were caught tax avoiding (technically a moral issue), not tax evasion (as you said a legal one). I expect the average citizen to care that everyone is contributing to the running of society, perhaps this has a certain political colouring from my point but I still think its rational to expect that everyone pays there taxes properly. That being said I agree, it wasn't a great analogy (most aren't).
I understand with what you are saying, but I think this belief that you cause more harm by intervention is an unproven one and has its own political colouring. As far as I can tell most unpopular decisions with regards to enfranchisement have not had these harmful effects that you mention, women's suffrage (very unpopular, despite the long and prolonged action by women's lib movements) for example.
Anyway its an interesting topic but I have to get back to work. I hope people keep things civil [/bad double entendre].
|
On December 13 2012 02:38 Penev wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 02:30 ZasZ. wrote:On December 13 2012 02:00 KwarK wrote:
We have no problems kicking out rude people or denying alcohol to drunks despite the current rules, you can deny service for any non discriminatory reason legally. But it is so difficult to prove unlawful discrimination unless the person is dumb enough to say "You're black/gay/female, get the fuck out." Businesses would like to avoid disgruntled customers who are pissed they are being denied service so claim discrimination. It may not hold up in court when it's discovered this person was a shoplifter/drunk/generally rude, but it's still a pain in the ass. The UK can do what it wants, and it sounds like there is legal precedent for cracking down on unlawful discrimination. It's just my personal belief that if a business owner wants to make the social and economical (poor) decision of excluding a particular demographic, it will result in social and economical consequences, and legal consequences shouldn't be piled on. But that's a business, not a religion. I think religion should be even safer from these laws, because it is essentially a club with a system of beliefs. Forcing them to go against their beliefs, or welcome people they do not wish to welcome, defeats the purpose of allowing the religion to exist in the first place. I am not a religious person at all, btw, and support homosexual marriage. I'm curious; Do you think the right to discriminate should be limitless?
The word "limitless" is a bit of a trap, so no. But I believe that it is the right of both the customer and the business to be able to conduct business with whomever they like for whatever reason they deem appropriate. If that reason is inappropriate, by public standards, that will reflect on their business and public perception. This isn't the 1960's, restaurants can't refuse to serve black people on principle and expect that to go over O.K.. I wouldn't agree with their decision to discriminate, and I wouldn't support their business, but I would respect their right to run the business however the fuck they want.
But again, people are getting off-topic with the business discussion. A religion isn't a business. It's essentially a club with a specific set of beliefs. If you force a religion to welcome people they don't want or perform a ceremony in violation of their beliefs, why allow them to exist in the first place? The problem here is the religious association with marriage, and I'm not really sure why people get caught up in it. Unless you are a religious homosexual couple, in which case you should probably re-evaluate your commitment to the faith that doesn't want you.
|
On December 13 2012 02:40 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 18:20 heliusx wrote:On December 12 2012 17:55 sam!zdat wrote:On December 12 2012 17:39 heliusx wrote:
Guess what, is not a religious concept. what? People were clearly "married" in the essence of making a family and having a monogamous relationship long before there were civilizations or even the invention of writing. You realize religion was around long before invention of writing, ya? Yes you're claiming that very loudly but I don't believe you. Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 17:55 sam!zdat wrote:
Seems religious to me. Are there cultures prior to modernity in which marriage is not associated with religious ritual?
As for cultures for whom marriage wasn't a religious ceremony ancient egypt is a clear example. They didn't have priests? What happens when you get married in ancient egypt? Do you actually know? I don't, but I'd be surprised if you went to the courthouse and signed a contract. edit: seems they didn't make an enormous deal of it. Whether this is separate from "religion" or not I think is an interesting question. I can't find any convincing source about this. Do you have one? Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 02:37 Klondikebar wrote:On December 13 2012 02:30 ZasZ. wrote:On December 13 2012 02:00 KwarK wrote:
We have no problems kicking out rude people or denying alcohol to drunks despite the current rules, you can deny service for any non discriminatory reason legally. But it is so difficult to prove unlawful discrimination unless the person is dumb enough to say "You're black/gay/female, get the fuck out." Businesses would like to avoid disgruntled customers who are pissed they are being denied service so claim discrimination. It may not hold up in court when it's discovered this person was a shoplifter/drunk/generally rude, but it's still a pain in the ass. The UK can do what it wants, and it sounds like there is legal precedent for cracking down on unlawful discrimination. It's just my personal belief that if a business owner wants to make the social and economical (poor) decision of excluding a particular demographic, it will result in social and economical consequences, and legal consequences shouldn't be piled on. But that's a business, not a religion. I think religion should be even safer from these laws, because it is essentially a club with a system of beliefs. Forcing them to go against their beliefs, or welcome people they do not wish to welcome, defeats the purpose of allowing the religion to exist in the first place. I am not a religious person at all, btw, and support homosexual marriage. I still haven't seen anyone provide any reason for why a church is different than any other business from the perspective of secular law makers. People just keep saying it is...why? Because it's "important" to churchgoers? People are still taking for granted that church is more special than a bakery and I want them to justify it. Because a church is not a secular institution. You are concerned with matters of ultimate importance. It's one of the most important functions of the church to be opposed in some important way to the secular authority. You're looking for someone to "prove" it to you, when I think you are the one who should give a reason why you think a church and a bakery are the same. Can you say it in a way that doesn't presuppose a secularist worldview?
Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that establishes rights and obligations between the spouses, between the spouses and their children, and between the spouses and their in-laws.
From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
Marriage is not by definition religious. It's simply a legal contract.
And again, hand waving about why church is special. Matters of "ultimate importance" don't make it any less a service. So they sell a REALLY AWESOME cupcake...I still don't understand how that makes them more special than a bakery. And the burden of proof is on you to prove they're different, that's the positive assertion. And if a church is supposed to be opposed to a secular authority, then why is it looking to the secular authority for protection?
And I get to presuppose a secular worldview because that's what the legislature is...secular.
|
did you really just quote me a dictionary definition? (edit: and if you'll keep reading even that same article you quoted from, you'll find that it explicitly does not say "not religious by definition")
Is the purpose of the legislature to impose secular worldview on others?
edit: if you ever, ever say "by definition" in order to "prove" something, please take a moment to ask yourself whether you really know what you are saying
edit: ultimate importance DOES make it more than just a service. Your refusal to accept this is AS MUCH OF A RELIGIOUS BELIEF as the opposite. You are simply demanding that others accept your secularist worldview of universal commensurability and so on.
|
On December 13 2012 02:55 sam!zdat wrote:
did you really just quote me a dictionary definition? (edit: and if you'll keep reading even that same article you quoted from, you'll find that it explicitly does not say "not religious by definition")
Is the purpose of the legislature to impose secular worldview on others?
edit: if you ever, ever say "by definition" in order to "prove" something, please take a moment to ask yourself whether you really know what you are saying
Ah so we're going to be skeptical of wikipedia now. Ok, there's nothing left for me to do here.
|
On December 13 2012 02:58 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 02:55 sam!zdat wrote:
did you really just quote me a dictionary definition? (edit: and if you'll keep reading even that same article you quoted from, you'll find that it explicitly does not say "not religious by definition")
Is the purpose of the legislature to impose secular worldview on others?
edit: if you ever, ever say "by definition" in order to "prove" something, please take a moment to ask yourself whether you really know what you are saying Ah so we're going to be skeptical of wikipedia now. Ok, there's nothing left for me to do here.
If you wrote me a paper about the significance of marriage and quoted from wikipedia, I would fail you.
Yes, on matters of philosophical discourse we will be skeptical of wikipedia. Do you seriously think otherwise?
Is wikipedia your sacred scripture?
edit: this attitude of yours i feel is the height of laziness. You just throw out the first sentence of a wikipedia article and expect a conversation to be over? kids these days...
|
On December 13 2012 02:48 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 02:38 Penev wrote:On December 13 2012 02:30 ZasZ. wrote:On December 13 2012 02:00 KwarK wrote:
We have no problems kicking out rude people or denying alcohol to drunks despite the current rules, you can deny service for any non discriminatory reason legally. But it is so difficult to prove unlawful discrimination unless the person is dumb enough to say "You're black/gay/female, get the fuck out." Businesses would like to avoid disgruntled customers who are pissed they are being denied service so claim discrimination. It may not hold up in court when it's discovered this person was a shoplifter/drunk/generally rude, but it's still a pain in the ass. The UK can do what it wants, and it sounds like there is legal precedent for cracking down on unlawful discrimination. It's just my personal belief that if a business owner wants to make the social and economical (poor) decision of excluding a particular demographic, it will result in social and economical consequences, and legal consequences shouldn't be piled on. But that's a business, not a religion. I think religion should be even safer from these laws, because it is essentially a club with a system of beliefs. Forcing them to go against their beliefs, or welcome people they do not wish to welcome, defeats the purpose of allowing the religion to exist in the first place. I am not a religious person at all, btw, and support homosexual marriage. I'm curious; Do you think the right to discriminate should be limitless? The word "limitless" is a bit of a trap, so no. But I believe that it is the right of both the customer and the business to be able to conduct business with whomever they like for whatever reason they deem appropriate. If that reason is inappropriate, by public standards, that will reflect on their business and public perception. This isn't the 1960's, restaurants can't refuse to serve black people on principle and expect that to go over O.K.. I wouldn't agree with their decision to discriminate, and I wouldn't support their business, but I would respect their right to run the business however the fuck they want. But again, people are getting off-topic with the business discussion. A religion isn't a business. It's essentially a club with a specific set of beliefs. If you force a religion to welcome people they don't want or perform a ceremony in violation of their beliefs, why allow them to exist in the first place? The problem here is the religious association with marriage, and I'm not really sure why people get caught up in it. Unless you are a religious homosexual couple, in which case you should probably re-evaluate your commitment to the faith that doesn't want you.
Please don't think I'm trying to trap you because I'm not. I just feel that your line of thinking is a bit .. utopian for lack of a better word. I'm really curious as of where you draw the line on this. That's why I asked these "extreme" questions. I hope that you and people with the same opinion will still answer them or can explain in your own words where you'd draw the line.
|
On December 13 2012 02:58 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 02:55 sam!zdat wrote:
did you really just quote me a dictionary definition? (edit: and if you'll keep reading even that same article you quoted from, you'll find that it explicitly does not say "not religious by definition")
Is the purpose of the legislature to impose secular worldview on others?
edit: if you ever, ever say "by definition" in order to "prove" something, please take a moment to ask yourself whether you really know what you are saying Ah so we're going to be skeptical of wikipedia now. Ok, there's nothing left for me to do here.
Off-topic, but you should always be skeptical of Wikipedia. It's why they provide those fancy sources at the bottom, and should they be absent or lacking substance, you know that particular article is untrustworthy.
Wikipedia is widely considered a joke when it comes to reliable sources, and most professors would not be happy if you used it without vetting the sources that supplied the article.
|
On December 13 2012 02:37 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 02:30 ZasZ. wrote:On December 13 2012 02:00 KwarK wrote:
We have no problems kicking out rude people or denying alcohol to drunks despite the current rules, you can deny service for any non discriminatory reason legally. But it is so difficult to prove unlawful discrimination unless the person is dumb enough to say "You're black/gay/female, get the fuck out." Businesses would like to avoid disgruntled customers who are pissed they are being denied service so claim discrimination. It may not hold up in court when it's discovered this person was a shoplifter/drunk/generally rude, but it's still a pain in the ass. The UK can do what it wants, and it sounds like there is legal precedent for cracking down on unlawful discrimination. It's just my personal belief that if a business owner wants to make the social and economical (poor) decision of excluding a particular demographic, it will result in social and economical consequences, and legal consequences shouldn't be piled on. But that's a business, not a religion. I think religion should be even safer from these laws, because it is essentially a club with a system of beliefs. Forcing them to go against their beliefs, or welcome people they do not wish to welcome, defeats the purpose of allowing the religion to exist in the first place. I am not a religious person at all, btw, and support homosexual marriage. I still haven't seen anyone provide any reason for why a church is different than any other business from the perspective of secular law makers. People just keep saying it is...why? Because it's "important" to churchgoers? People are still taking for granted that church is more special than a bakery and I want them to justify it.
The short answer is that, in the US at least, freedom of religion is protected by the Constitution. Freedom of religion has been interpreted by the courts to mean that churches are generally exempted from even neutral legislation that burdens religous practices.
Justifying the rationale for this approach would require a pretty long essay, but basically I think you are right when you say that it's "Because it's 'important' to churchgoers," though "important" might be a bit of an understatement. Many people view their religion as a fundamental characteristic of their lives. You and I might argue about whether this is a healthy thing for people to base their lives on, but regardless, the US government has determined since its founding that allowing the government to interfere in things like this creates more harm than good, both to religions and to the state.
|
On December 13 2012 02:58 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 02:55 sam!zdat wrote:
did you really just quote me a dictionary definition? (edit: and if you'll keep reading even that same article you quoted from, you'll find that it explicitly does not say "not religious by definition")
Is the purpose of the legislature to impose secular worldview on others?
edit: if you ever, ever say "by definition" in order to "prove" something, please take a moment to ask yourself whether you really know what you are saying Ah so we're going to be skeptical of wikipedia now. Ok, there's nothing left for me to do here.
Wikipedia is an excellent "support" resource for online discourse. You've turned it into the structure of your argument itself, and that speaks volumes in terms of your willingness to do the very footwork you've been loudly expecting from everyone else in this thread.
"Hey everyone, bakerys and churches are exactly the same"
"Prove it!"
"Wikipedia says so, other than that no you prove I'm wrong!"
No one wants to debate with wikipedia, they want to debate with you.
|
On December 13 2012 03:01 Penev wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 02:48 ZasZ. wrote:On December 13 2012 02:38 Penev wrote:On December 13 2012 02:30 ZasZ. wrote:On December 13 2012 02:00 KwarK wrote:
We have no problems kicking out rude people or denying alcohol to drunks despite the current rules, you can deny service for any non discriminatory reason legally. But it is so difficult to prove unlawful discrimination unless the person is dumb enough to say "You're black/gay/female, get the fuck out." Businesses would like to avoid disgruntled customers who are pissed they are being denied service so claim discrimination. It may not hold up in court when it's discovered this person was a shoplifter/drunk/generally rude, but it's still a pain in the ass. The UK can do what it wants, and it sounds like there is legal precedent for cracking down on unlawful discrimination. It's just my personal belief that if a business owner wants to make the social and economical (poor) decision of excluding a particular demographic, it will result in social and economical consequences, and legal consequences shouldn't be piled on. But that's a business, not a religion. I think religion should be even safer from these laws, because it is essentially a club with a system of beliefs. Forcing them to go against their beliefs, or welcome people they do not wish to welcome, defeats the purpose of allowing the religion to exist in the first place. I am not a religious person at all, btw, and support homosexual marriage. I'm curious; Do you think the right to discriminate should be limitless? The word "limitless" is a bit of a trap, so no. But I believe that it is the right of both the customer and the business to be able to conduct business with whomever they like for whatever reason they deem appropriate. If that reason is inappropriate, by public standards, that will reflect on their business and public perception. This isn't the 1960's, restaurants can't refuse to serve black people on principle and expect that to go over O.K.. I wouldn't agree with their decision to discriminate, and I wouldn't support their business, but I would respect their right to run the business however the fuck they want. But again, people are getting off-topic with the business discussion. A religion isn't a business. It's essentially a club with a specific set of beliefs. If you force a religion to welcome people they don't want or perform a ceremony in violation of their beliefs, why allow them to exist in the first place? The problem here is the religious association with marriage, and I'm not really sure why people get caught up in it. Unless you are a religious homosexual couple, in which case you should probably re-evaluate your commitment to the faith that doesn't want you. Please don't think I'm trying to trap you because I'm not. I just feel that your line of thinking is a bit .. utopian for lack of a better word. I'm really curious as of where you draw the line on this. That's why I asked these "extreme" questions. I hope that you and people with the same opinion will still answer them or can explain in your own words where you'd draw the line.
imo as long as it's a private business or something where you arent obligated by some sort of qualifications (i.e. hippocratic oath) then they should have the right to do whatever they want with their business
|
On December 13 2012 03:01 Penev wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 02:48 ZasZ. wrote:On December 13 2012 02:38 Penev wrote:On December 13 2012 02:30 ZasZ. wrote:On December 13 2012 02:00 KwarK wrote:
We have no problems kicking out rude people or denying alcohol to drunks despite the current rules, you can deny service for any non discriminatory reason legally. But it is so difficult to prove unlawful discrimination unless the person is dumb enough to say "You're black/gay/female, get the fuck out." Businesses would like to avoid disgruntled customers who are pissed they are being denied service so claim discrimination. It may not hold up in court when it's discovered this person was a shoplifter/drunk/generally rude, but it's still a pain in the ass. The UK can do what it wants, and it sounds like there is legal precedent for cracking down on unlawful discrimination. It's just my personal belief that if a business owner wants to make the social and economical (poor) decision of excluding a particular demographic, it will result in social and economical consequences, and legal consequences shouldn't be piled on. But that's a business, not a religion. I think religion should be even safer from these laws, because it is essentially a club with a system of beliefs. Forcing them to go against their beliefs, or welcome people they do not wish to welcome, defeats the purpose of allowing the religion to exist in the first place. I am not a religious person at all, btw, and support homosexual marriage. I'm curious; Do you think the right to discriminate should be limitless? The word "limitless" is a bit of a trap, so no. But I believe that it is the right of both the customer and the business to be able to conduct business with whomever they like for whatever reason they deem appropriate. If that reason is inappropriate, by public standards, that will reflect on their business and public perception. This isn't the 1960's, restaurants can't refuse to serve black people on principle and expect that to go over O.K.. I wouldn't agree with their decision to discriminate, and I wouldn't support their business, but I would respect their right to run the business however the fuck they want. But again, people are getting off-topic with the business discussion. A religion isn't a business. It's essentially a club with a specific set of beliefs. If you force a religion to welcome people they don't want or perform a ceremony in violation of their beliefs, why allow them to exist in the first place? The problem here is the religious association with marriage, and I'm not really sure why people get caught up in it. Unless you are a religious homosexual couple, in which case you should probably re-evaluate your commitment to the faith that doesn't want you. Please don't think I'm trying to trap you because I'm not. I just feel that your line of thinking is a bit .. utopian for lack of a better word. I'm really curious as of where you draw the line on this. That's why I asked these "extreme" questions. I hope that you and people with the same opinion will still answer them or can explain in your own words where you'd draw the line.
I'm not sure what you mean about where I would draw the line. I felt I was pretty clear when I said I felt business should be able to serve who they want for whatever reason they want, and let society/economics sort them out if that is an unacceptable reason for their customer base.
In terms of practicality, it means that a business owner can refuse service to anyone, and does not have to give a reason why. I'm not necessarily opposed to unlawful discrimination laws, I'm just wary of their enforcement and the possibility of disgruntled customers, who were refused service for completely legitimate reasons, claiming discrimination and wasting people's time and money. It's an example of government involvement in an area that I believe can be better resolved by allowing society and economy to sort it out.
I am, however, opposed to unlawful discrimination laws for religious organizations. It completely defeats the purpose of allowing religious organizations to exist when you tell them who they can and cannot include and which religious ceremonies they must conduct whether they want to or not.
|
On December 13 2012 03:12 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 03:01 Penev wrote:On December 13 2012 02:48 ZasZ. wrote:On December 13 2012 02:38 Penev wrote:On December 13 2012 02:30 ZasZ. wrote:On December 13 2012 02:00 KwarK wrote:
We have no problems kicking out rude people or denying alcohol to drunks despite the current rules, you can deny service for any non discriminatory reason legally. But it is so difficult to prove unlawful discrimination unless the person is dumb enough to say "You're black/gay/female, get the fuck out." Businesses would like to avoid disgruntled customers who are pissed they are being denied service so claim discrimination. It may not hold up in court when it's discovered this person was a shoplifter/drunk/generally rude, but it's still a pain in the ass. The UK can do what it wants, and it sounds like there is legal precedent for cracking down on unlawful discrimination. It's just my personal belief that if a business owner wants to make the social and economical (poor) decision of excluding a particular demographic, it will result in social and economical consequences, and legal consequences shouldn't be piled on. But that's a business, not a religion. I think religion should be even safer from these laws, because it is essentially a club with a system of beliefs. Forcing them to go against their beliefs, or welcome people they do not wish to welcome, defeats the purpose of allowing the religion to exist in the first place. I am not a religious person at all, btw, and support homosexual marriage. I'm curious; Do you think the right to discriminate should be limitless? The word "limitless" is a bit of a trap, so no. But I believe that it is the right of both the customer and the business to be able to conduct business with whomever they like for whatever reason they deem appropriate. If that reason is inappropriate, by public standards, that will reflect on their business and public perception. This isn't the 1960's, restaurants can't refuse to serve black people on principle and expect that to go over O.K.. I wouldn't agree with their decision to discriminate, and I wouldn't support their business, but I would respect their right to run the business however the fuck they want. But again, people are getting off-topic with the business discussion. A religion isn't a business. It's essentially a club with a specific set of beliefs. If you force a religion to welcome people they don't want or perform a ceremony in violation of their beliefs, why allow them to exist in the first place? The problem here is the religious association with marriage, and I'm not really sure why people get caught up in it. Unless you are a religious homosexual couple, in which case you should probably re-evaluate your commitment to the faith that doesn't want you. Please don't think I'm trying to trap you because I'm not. I just feel that your line of thinking is a bit .. utopian for lack of a better word. I'm really curious as of where you draw the line on this. That's why I asked these "extreme" questions. I hope that you and people with the same opinion will still answer them or can explain in your own words where you'd draw the line. I'm not sure what you mean about where I would draw the line. I felt I was pretty clear when I said I felt business should be able to serve who they want for whatever reason they want, and let society/economics sort them out if that is an unacceptable reason for their customer base. In terms of practicality, it means that a business owner can refuse service to anyone, and does not have to give a reason why. I'm not necessarily opposed to unlawful discrimination laws, I'm just wary of their enforcement and the possibility of disgruntled customers, who were refused service for completely legitimate reasons, claiming discrimination and wasting people's time and money. It's an example of government involvement in an area that I believe can be better resolved by allowing society and economy to sort it out.
I am, however, opposed to unlawful discrimination laws for religious organizations. It completely defeats the purpose of allowing religious organizations to exist when you tell them who they can and cannot include and which religious ceremonies they must conduct whether they want to or not.
Do you apply this same logic to the Civil Rights Act of 1964? If not, why?
|
On December 13 2012 03:12 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 03:01 Penev wrote:On December 13 2012 02:48 ZasZ. wrote:On December 13 2012 02:38 Penev wrote:On December 13 2012 02:30 ZasZ. wrote:On December 13 2012 02:00 KwarK wrote:
We have no problems kicking out rude people or denying alcohol to drunks despite the current rules, you can deny service for any non discriminatory reason legally. But it is so difficult to prove unlawful discrimination unless the person is dumb enough to say "You're black/gay/female, get the fuck out." Businesses would like to avoid disgruntled customers who are pissed they are being denied service so claim discrimination. It may not hold up in court when it's discovered this person was a shoplifter/drunk/generally rude, but it's still a pain in the ass. The UK can do what it wants, and it sounds like there is legal precedent for cracking down on unlawful discrimination. It's just my personal belief that if a business owner wants to make the social and economical (poor) decision of excluding a particular demographic, it will result in social and economical consequences, and legal consequences shouldn't be piled on. But that's a business, not a religion. I think religion should be even safer from these laws, because it is essentially a club with a system of beliefs. Forcing them to go against their beliefs, or welcome people they do not wish to welcome, defeats the purpose of allowing the religion to exist in the first place. I am not a religious person at all, btw, and support homosexual marriage. I'm curious; Do you think the right to discriminate should be limitless? The word "limitless" is a bit of a trap, so no. But I believe that it is the right of both the customer and the business to be able to conduct business with whomever they like for whatever reason they deem appropriate. If that reason is inappropriate, by public standards, that will reflect on their business and public perception. This isn't the 1960's, restaurants can't refuse to serve black people on principle and expect that to go over O.K.. I wouldn't agree with their decision to discriminate, and I wouldn't support their business, but I would respect their right to run the business however the fuck they want. But again, people are getting off-topic with the business discussion. A religion isn't a business. It's essentially a club with a specific set of beliefs. If you force a religion to welcome people they don't want or perform a ceremony in violation of their beliefs, why allow them to exist in the first place? The problem here is the religious association with marriage, and I'm not really sure why people get caught up in it. Unless you are a religious homosexual couple, in which case you should probably re-evaluate your commitment to the faith that doesn't want you. Please don't think I'm trying to trap you because I'm not. I just feel that your line of thinking is a bit .. utopian for lack of a better word. I'm really curious as of where you draw the line on this. That's why I asked these "extreme" questions. I hope that you and people with the same opinion will still answer them or can explain in your own words where you'd draw the line. I'm not sure what you mean about where I would draw the line. I felt I was pretty clear when I said I felt business should be able to serve who they want for whatever reason they want, and let society/economics sort them out if that is an unacceptable reason for their customer base. In terms of practicality, it means that a business owner can refuse service to anyone, and does not have to give a reason why. I'm not necessarily opposed to unlawful discrimination laws, I'm just wary of their enforcement and the possibility of disgruntled customers, who were refused service for completely legitimate reasons, claiming discrimination and wasting people's time and money. It's an example of government involvement in an area that I believe can be better resolved by allowing society and economy to sort it out. I am, however, opposed to unlawful discrimination laws for religious organizations. It completely defeats the purpose of allowing religious organizations to exist when you tell them who they can and cannot include and which religious ceremonies they must conduct whether they want to or not.
Can you address shinosai's post from page 13?
This kind of post tends to completely ignore the historical reality that came from anti-discrimination laws. It's a sort of ad hoc mistake. Since the political climate has changed to be more tolerant of so-called deviants, it's obviously okay for people to discriminate, because they will suffer economic ruination if they do. But to say this completely ignores what actually happened 50 years ago. The reason that it's unacceptable to discriminate now is in part because the anti-discrimination laws increased awareness.
If McDonald's refused to serve African Americans, yes, people would stop going to McDonald's. But, on the other hand, if McDonald's refused to employ a relatively unknown minority (say transgender) then I'd be pretty willing to bet that no one would care. You base your argument on the fact that discrimination against well known and already protected minorities wouldn't be harmed, because it would be economically irrational for a corporation or company to do so. But actually, it's only economically irrational because we systematically made it so. Our anti-discrimination laws contributed to the cultural belief that discriminating against race is not okay. And for those minorities who are not well represented, well, they have no protection, either culturally or legally, so it would perfectly within McDonald's economic inclinations to refuse to hire or serve these people.
In other words, your logic of "economic correcting" only works for those who are already well represented both culturally and legally. It fucks everyone else.
History has shown that leaving society/economics to sort them out does not work.
|
On December 13 2012 02:39 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 02:34 Caihead wrote:On December 13 2012 02:30 ZasZ. wrote:On December 13 2012 02:00 KwarK wrote:
We have no problems kicking out rude people or denying alcohol to drunks despite the current rules, you can deny service for any non discriminatory reason legally. But it is so difficult to prove unlawful discrimination unless the person is dumb enough to say "You're black/gay/female, get the fuck out." Businesses would like to avoid disgruntled customers who are pissed they are being denied service so claim discrimination. It may not hold up in court when it's discovered this person was a shoplifter/drunk/generally rude, but it's still a pain in the ass. The UK can do what it wants, and it sounds like there is legal precedent for cracking down on unlawful discrimination. It's just my personal belief that if a business owner wants to make the social and economical (poor) decision of excluding a particular demographic, it will result in social and economical consequences, and legal consequences shouldn't be piled on. But that's a business, not a religion. I think religion should be even safer from these laws, because it is essentially a club with a system of beliefs. Forcing them to go against their beliefs, or welcome people they do not wish to welcome, defeats the purpose of allowing the religion to exist in the first place. I am not a religious person at all, btw, and support homosexual marriage. All of this is fine, but there's no alternative to getting married by religious institutions in most regions in the world, and often there is only THE religious institution endorsed by the state. You are forced to play ball with this club regardless of whether you want to join it or not, or if the owners want to keep you out or not. Which is why I stated, in an earlier post, that I am assuming that secular marriages for homosexual couples exist. If we are suddenly talking about countries that don't allow homosexuals to marry in any sense of the word or custom, that's a completely different can of worms. In that case, I would advise pushing for secular "civil partnerships" before trying to breach the marriage barrier, as it is much easier for people to swallow. Currently I'm imagining a muslim nation suddenly trying to force religious officials to perform gay marriages, and I don't see it going well. Many parts of the world are just behind when it comes to this particular issue, but that doesn't mean we can force them to catch up with everybody else. They have to make the transition slowly like the rest of us did.
Couldn't stay away... I think you are forgetting that marriage, particularly in the UK, has a strong cultural element rather than it being a purely religious institution. Specifically due to our pple religion being a state one, as well as to the decline of religious activity generally in this country.
And it is because of this social status that a couple gain when being 'married' rather than being 'partners' which means that it transcends questions of equality in law, as we still need to address questions of equality in fact which have yet to be resolved.
|
I'm not really sure why there's such a climate of tolerance of other people's beliefs. I'm not sure why it seems wrong for me to hate on religious people but religious people are allowed to hate gays/other religions/atheists because it's part of a belief system with no empirical basis. It's not the same as tolerating something which is intrinsically personal such as race or sexuality. You don't choose to be the race and sexuality you are and you won't hurt anyone by being it. You choose to have a religion (or rather someone or a collection of someones convinces you) and you can use religion as a tool to hurt people.
I think these new laws are a bad idea in the short term due to the extra grief the lgbts will get from it but a good thing in the long term as it should help to highlight the problems with religion i.e. it's use as a vehicle for intolerance. I'd like to think that within 50 or 60 years if society keeps moving forward in terms of tolerance, education and enlightenment religion will be illegal or treated like an illness where you can be cured by attending a logic class.
On a separate note I think this will allow society to become more accepting of gay couples. Ignoring the religious aspect altogether, calling what was previously a civil partnership a marriage makes it seem a lot more normal, like the same rules for everyone else also apply to gay couples, whereas not allowing gay people to marry just marks them out as separate from "normal" society which can't be a nice feeling.
|
On December 13 2012 03:19 Zrana wrote:
I'm not really sure why there's such a climate of tolerance of other people's beliefs. I'm not sure why it seems wrong for me to hate on religious people but religious people are allowed to hate gays/other religions/atheists because it's part of a belief system with no empirical basis. It's not the same as tolerating something which is intrinsically personal such as race or sexuality. You don't choose to be the race and sexuality you are and you won't hurt anyone by being it. You choose to have a religion (or rather someone or a collection of someones convinces you) and you can use religion as a tool to hurt people.
I think these new laws are a bad idea in the short term due to the extra grief the lgbts will get from it but a good thing in the long term as it should help to highlight the problems with religion i.e. it's use as a vehicle for intolerance. I'd like to think that within 50 or 60 years if society keeps moving forward in terms of tolerance, education and enlightenment religion will be illegal or treated like an illness where you can be cured by attending a logic class.
On a separate note I think this will allow society to become more accepting of gay couples. Ignoring the religious aspect altogether, calling what was previously a civil partnership a marriage makes it seem a lot more normal, like the same rules for everyone else also apply to gay couples, whereas not allowing gay people to marry just marks them out as separate from "normal" society which can't be a nice feeling.
I'm pretty sure there's nothing preventing you from disliking religious people, or treating them any way you want, provided that you don't violate any of the laws that also prevent athiests from being discriminated against...
|
It would help (me) if you just would answer my questions. Or give an example of discrimination that you, as a legislator, wouldn't allow a business and/ or an religion to get away with; Where would you limit their freedom to discriminate?
I personally think that the lesser evil is certainly having quite strict anti discrimination laws. The problem of people abusing such laws is much smaller than the problems that will arise when those laws would be absent.
|
On December 13 2012 03:32 Penev wrote:
It would help (me) if you just would answer my questions. Or give an example of discrimination that you, as a legislator, wouldn't allow a business and/ or an religion to get away with; Where would you limit their freedom to discriminate?
I would allow religion to discriminate much more freely than businesses. Businesses I think should be held to the common values of the society. Religions I do not, for me that is the point. Religion at this point serves an important function as heterotopia!
edit: you get a problem when religious people organize to extend discrimination into other spheres of society. Then the government can step in to fix things, analogously to affirmative action. But I think they cannot enter the sanctuary.
|
On December 12 2012 17:55 sam!zdat wrote:
You realize religion was around long before invention of writing, ya?
On December 12 2012 17:55 sam!zdat wrote:
Yes you're claiming that very loudly but I don't believe you.
Really means nothing, I'm positive you won't find a legit source saying marriage was a product of religion. People were cohabiting and starting families in monogamous relationships for almost the entirety of human history. I don't really want to play semantics but I think people living together like a family would constitute marriage even if there was no church, government, or invention of writing to officiate it.
On December 12 2012 17:55 sam!zdat wrote:
They didn't have priests? What happens when you get married in ancient egypt? Do you actually know? I don't, but I'd be surprised if you went to the courthouse and signed a contract.
edit: seems they didn't make an enormous deal of it. Whether this is separate from "religion" or not I think is an interesting question. I can't find any convincing source about this. Do you have one?
edit: at any rate, it doesn't matter. It's not a debate over the "intellectual property" of marriage, whether or not it belongs to "religion." The point is that, for the vast majority of the world's population, marriage IS a religious matter. You are far in the minority here. If you'd like to proselytize your views, go ahead, maybe you can convince everybody, but don't act like it's obvious because it's certainly not.
As for some sources on ancient egyptian marriage.
Marriage in ancient Egypt was a totally private affair in which the state took no interest and of which the state kept no record. There is no evidence for any legal or religious ceremony establishing the marriage, although there was probably a party.
http://fathom.lib.uchicago.edu/1/777777190170/
Marriage was purely a social arrangement that regulated property. Neither religious nor state doctrines entered into the marriage and, unlike other documents that related to economic matters (such as the so-called "marriage contracts"), marriages themselves were not registered. Apparently once a couple started living together, they were acknowledged to be married.
http://fathom.lib.uchicago.edu/2/21701778/
Excerpts from two different books on ancient egypt.
|
Interesting!
At any rate, it doesn't matter. It's not a question of the "intellectual property" of who "owns" marriage based on who seen 'er first. The point is that for the vast majority of people in the world, marriage IS a religious thing. The secularist view is in the minority here.
edit: I don't think simple cohabitation consitutes marriage in the sense we are discussing here, but far be it from me to argue "semantics" (pardon me while I stab myself with a rusty fork)
edit: yeah, it can't be, because the issue is not whether or not gay people should be allowed to cohabitate.
|
I've quite frequently thought that a reasonable approach would be for the government (any government) to not recognize the word "marriage" whatsoever (be it homosexual or heterosexual), and just have people call it what they want (like if they have a formal service at some church that allows their marriage then call it a marriage (or even if there isn't any group that allows it)).
The government would oversee the legal/secular/relevant part, and have all relationships called partnerships or personal unions.
Maybe someone mentioned this already, because I see the discussion above seems somewhat related to this ("why throw away a perfectly good word like marriage if it doesn't have religious origins?"). While the fact marriage was likely originally secular, now it's no longer the case really, and there's no sense in trying to reclaim a word when there's other perfectly fine words that can be used.
|
On December 13 2012 03:41 sam!zdat wrote:
Interesting!
At any rate, it doesn't matter. It's not a question of the "intellectual property" of who "owns" marriage based on who seen 'er first. The point is that for the vast majority of people in the world, marriage IS a religious thing. The secularist view is in the minority here.
edit: I don't think simple cohabitation consitutes marriage in the sense we are discussing here, but far be it from me to argue "semantics" (pardon me while I stab myself with a rusty fork)
edit: yeah, it can't be, because the issue is not whether or not gay people should be allowed to cohabitate.
Yeah, now you're just skewing our discussion. It started off with me saying marriage was a concept created separate from religion. I'm actually not sure what you're even arguing anymore, it evolved from marriage is a religious concept into marriage is a religious concept for most people.
|
Yes, fair enough. I'll concede the point and we can leave it to the anthropologists.
edit: oh, well marriage IS a religious concept. I'll stand by that. You were saying marriage isn't a religious concept because it didn't start out as a religious concept. I reject that, regardless of the truth of the second proposition.
|
A very good analysis KwarK, my first thought was also that legalising discrimination in one form yet making another form illegal was totally ridiculous. In my view it would be best to let people do what they want. If a gay couple wish to marry or become partners in a legal sense, that is fine and the procedure should be the same as any hetrosexual couple. If a religious group don't wish to marry homosexuals, again, fine - it is their choice as private citizens to marry who they wish. This requires no contradictory legislation. Enshrining the catholic churches right to discrimination in law is a total joke.
|
On December 13 2012 03:49 Xapti wrote:
I've quite frequently thought that a reasonable approach would be for the government (any government) to not recognize the word "marriage" whatsoever (be it homosexual or heterosexual), and just have people call it what they want (like if they have a formal service at some church that allows their marriage then call it a marriage (or even if there isn't any group that allows it)).
The government would oversee the legal/secular/relevant part, and have all relationships called partnerships or personal unions.
Maybe someone mentioned this already, because I see the discussion above seems somewhat related to this ("why throw away a perfectly good word like marriage if it doesn't have religious origins?"). While the fact marriage was likely originally secular, now it's no longer the case really, and there's no sense in trying to reclaim a word when there's other perfectly fine words that can be used.
Well 16% of the worlds population is non religious. That's a pretty large chunk. So for a minimum of 16% of the earth's population marriage is not a religious ceremony.
edt;wrong numbers
|
Yes, marriage is beginning to become a non-religious idea. But 88 is a bigger number than 12.
|
Why on Earth would a homosexual couple WANT to be married in the church of a religion whose central tenants include opposing homosexuality including (Old Testament style) it being punishable by death? The only reason I can think of is just to piss off Christians/Muslims. I mean there's no reason at all that these are legally different, why the hell is the government trampling over freedom of religious doctrine? It does not infringe at all on the civil liberties of homosexuals who already have a perfectly legal method of obtaining the same thing, all it is doing is enforcing an obligation on religious institutions to go against their own creeds for no reason.
Having a Christian/Muslim official marriage is NOT a right, and is definitely not something that the government should be enforcing. This isn't the same as a political party introducing racial exclusions, this would be closer to enforcing affirmative action policies to get more minorities into a racist party.
|
On December 13 2012 03:57 Trowa127 wrote:
A very good analysis KwarK, my first thought was also that legalising discrimination in one form yet making another form illegal was totally ridiculous. In my view it would be best to let people do what they want. If a gay couple wish to marry or become partners in a legal sense, that is fine and the procedure should be the same as any hetrosexual couple. If a religious group don't wish to marry homosexuals, again, fine - it is their choice as private citizens to marry who they wish. This requires no contradictory legislation. Enshrining the catholic churches right to discrimination in law is a total joke.
That's basically my opinion also. I don't think a church should marry anyone if they don't want to. I'm also ignorant on the issue of gays wanting to be married in a church is that a thing? I think it should be a legal contract between man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman. The church can still do their thing like normal, but the legal aspect should be equal for all orientations. The biggest part of the law that is strange to me is making it illegal to marry gays for the entirety of the group if this groups leaders decide to go ahead with taking the immunity. Why illegal?
On December 13 2012 04:15 deth2munkies wrote:
Why on Earth would a homosexual couple WANT to be married in the church of a religion whose central tenants include opposing homosexuality including (Old Testament style) it being punishable by death? The only reason I can think of is just to piss off Christians/Muslims. I mean there's no reason at all that these are legally different, why the hell is the government trampling over freedom of religious doctrine? It does not infringe at all on the civil liberties of homosexuals who already have a perfectly legal method of obtaining the same thing, all it is doing is enforcing an obligation on religious institutions to go against their own creeds for no reason.
Having a Christian/Muslim official marriage is NOT a right, and is definitely not something that the government should be enforcing. This isn't the same as a political party introducing racial exclusions, this would be closer to enforcing affirmative action policies to get more minorities into a racist party.
Exactly what religious freedoms are being trampled? I've seen a few posters say this and I don't see how this law tramples any religious freedoms besides what seems to be forcing entire groups of religions to be uniform on their gay marriage stance.
|
On December 13 2012 04:17 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 03:57 Trowa127 wrote:
A very good analysis KwarK, my first thought was also that legalising discrimination in one form yet making another form illegal was totally ridiculous. In my view it would be best to let people do what they want. If a gay couple wish to marry or become partners in a legal sense, that is fine and the procedure should be the same as any hetrosexual couple. If a religious group don't wish to marry homosexuals, again, fine - it is their choice as private citizens to marry who they wish. This requires no contradictory legislation. Enshrining the catholic churches right to discrimination in law is a total joke. That's basically my opinion also. I don't think a church should marry anyone if they don't want to. I'm also ignorant on the issue of gays wanting to be married in a church is that a thing? I think it should be a legal contract between man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman. The church can still do their thing like normal, but the legal aspect should be equal for all orientations. The biggest part of the law that is strange to me is making it illegal to marry gays for the entirety of the group if this groups leaders decide to go ahead with taking the immunity. Why illegal?
to avoid pretext. it is either the religion's belief that it is a sin, or it is not. if you allow a religion to say they refuse to do gay marriages because its a sin, but allow the members to pick and choose then you are establishing that it truly isnt a belief of the church. dont forget that this is an exception to the rule (i.e., we are banning "discrimination," but will provide an exception to those religions that it is against their religious tenants). if religions want to be wishy-washy on this issue, they shouldnt be allowed to "discriminate" under an exception to the general rule.
|
The law doesn't give religions the right to discriminate. As they define marriage as being between a man and a woman (this is true for almost all religions almost all of the time), it is not discrimination to deny a marriage to two men. Would it be discrimination for a rabbi not to perform Bar Mitzvah for some random kid who had never read the Torah in his life? No, as he does not meet the criteria for the ceremony. As being a couple of a man and a woman is part of almost all religions criteria for marriage, it is not discrimination for them to deny same-sex marriage.
|
On December 13 2012 05:42 ampson wrote:
The law doesn't give religions the right to discriminate. As they define marriage as being between a man and a woman (this is true for almost all religions almost all of the time), it is not discrimination to deny a marriage to two men. Would it be discrimination for a rabbi not to perform Bar Mitzvah for some random kid who had never read the Torah in his life? No, as he does not meet the criteria for the ceremony. As being a couple of a man and a woman is part of almost all religions criteria for marriage, it is not discrimination for them to deny same-sex marriage.
if i define white people as non-humans, and then say that they don't have any rights because--similar to animals--they are non-human, then i guess i am not discriminating against white people by denying them rights.
|
So what are rules regarding "marriages" between siblings or parents and does it matter whether they are same sex or not?
Can you marry your son so he can inherit your property without paying inheritance tax?
If you cannot why? Traditionally marriage between close relatives was banned largely to prevent inbreeding, but since there is 0 chance of breeding would that matter?
Also, would you need to consummate a marriage or is it none of the government's business how often (if ever) you have sex?
|
On December 13 2012 05:42 ampson wrote:
The law doesn't give religions the right to discriminate. As they define marriage as being between a man and a woman (this is true for almost all religions almost all of the time), it is not discrimination to deny a marriage to two men. Would it be discrimination for a rabbi not to perform Bar Mitzvah for some random kid who had never read the Torah in his life? No, as he does not meet the criteria for the ceremony. As being a couple of a man and a woman is part of almost all religions criteria for marriage, it is not discrimination for them to deny same-sex marriage.
Well your analogy is broken, a kid who didn't read his torah is a preventable situation and is not at all comparable to a homosexual not being able to chose what his orientation is.
On December 13 2012 05:48 meadbert wrote:
So what are rules regarding "marriages" between siblings or parents and does it matter whether they are same sex or not?
Can you marry your son so he can inherit your property without paying inheritance tax?
If you cannot why? Traditionally marriage between close relatives was banned largely to prevent inbreeding, but since there is 0 chance of breeding would that matter?
Also, would you need to consummate a marriage or is it none of the government's business how often (if ever) you have sex?
I'm guessing you're going to do the slippery slope thing and your next post will be about bestiality or some crap because it would literally take you 20 seconds to google those questions.
Incest is illegal in Scotland England and Wales. It is defined as sexual intercourse between a person and their parent (including adoptive parent), grandparent, child, grandchild, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece. It is punishable with up to two years' imprisonment. For familial child sex offenses, the parent and sibling relationship definitions include step-parents and step-siblings
|
I definitely do not agree with that law. That seems like quite an extension of power by the government into how religious bodies govern themselves. I am a strong advocate for gay marriage (I will be attending one as a groomsman this year), but forcing churches to marry homosexuals against their beliefs or face discrimination suits seems wrong to me. Lotss of people have covered this previously, so I won't hammer on that further.
However, I do have a question: It seems pretty stupid that it would now be "illegal" for homosexual marriages to occur in church bodies, according to the law. This is going to be a large problem for churches that have traditionally been decentralized. The side effect of this law is that the government is essentially forcing centralized decision making on church bodies, ignoring their past traditions. In Canada, for example, the United Church of Canada is a very decentralized church, with a lot of decisions made on a local basis. I think a lot of protestant churches operate this way.
The UCC made an executive decision to recognize gay marriages. However, there was a small dissenting minority of "more conservative" churches. These churches were never "forced" to perform gay marriage, the ruling ultimately meant that churches that wanted to do them could. Under this law, it's a "yea" or "nay" for a particular national church. National church governing structures that previously allowed for dissenting opinions and respected decentralized decision making (fantastic things, in my opinion) are being forced to make all churches belonging to a specific denomination "tow the line"
At the least, this erodes the power of individual parishes to govern their own affairs, which sucks, and at the worst it will cause schisms in religious denominations that would otherwise have "agreed to disagree". Trust me when I say this is a make or break issue for many churches, even within a particular denomination.
TLDR: This law, as I understand it from Kwark's post, will impose centralized decision making on church denominations that otherwise allowed for dissenting opinions and decentralization. I think that sucks.
|
On December 13 2012 05:46 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 05:42 ampson wrote:
The law doesn't give religions the right to discriminate. As they define marriage as being between a man and a woman (this is true for almost all religions almost all of the time), it is not discrimination to deny a marriage to two men. Would it be discrimination for a rabbi not to perform Bar Mitzvah for some random kid who had never read the Torah in his life? No, as he does not meet the criteria for the ceremony. As being a couple of a man and a woman is part of almost all religions criteria for marriage, it is not discrimination for them to deny same-sex marriage. if i define white people as non-humans, and then say that they don't have any rights because--similar to animals--they are non-human, then i guess i am not discriminating against white people by denying them rights.
Except it is established that white people, and every other race, are humans. Religious marriage has a long and established definition of being between a man and a woman. In a secular marriage or civil union (AKA a right given to the people by the government) it is a different story. But if someone wants to be married by a church they should have to adhere to that church's conditions. It's not discrimination.
On December 13 2012 06:13 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 05:42 ampson wrote:
The law doesn't give religions the right to discriminate. As they define marriage as being between a man and a woman (this is true for almost all religions almost all of the time), it is not discrimination to deny a marriage to two men. Would it be discrimination for a rabbi not to perform Bar Mitzvah for some random kid who had never read the Torah in his life? No, as he does not meet the criteria for the ceremony. As being a couple of a man and a woman is part of almost all religions criteria for marriage, it is not discrimination for them to deny same-sex marriage. Well your analogy is broken, a kid who didn't read his torah is a preventable situation and is not at all comparable to a homosexual not being able to chose what his orientation is.
The analogy is fine. A kid who didn't read the Torah should not be able to force people to give him a religious designation he is not qualified for. Two men or two women do not meet the qualifications for most religious marriages, so they should not be able to force a church which does not wish to to marry them. Preventable situation or not, it does not matter.
|
On December 12 2012 18:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 16:39 ninini wrote:On December 12 2012 14:15 farvacola wrote:On December 12 2012 14:01 ninini wrote:On December 12 2012 13:49 Jisall wrote:On December 12 2012 13:46 ninini wrote:
This is good. Allow gays to get married, but also preserve the churches right to set their own rules and moral codes.
I don't understand the ppl who are against them having this right. You're telling the churches that they must go against their own moral code, just because your personal moral code is different. That's you discriminating against churches. Just let the churches do what they want. I'm against the law forcing churches to reject marrying gays or face legal troubles. Some churches are more liberal then others. Other then that the law is perfect. The churches can make their own decisions on the matter. Noone is forcing anyone. Well, if one priest disagrees with his churches stance, he will need to switch to another church, but that's a good thing. The churches (especially the Protestant ones) could use some more consistency in their teachings. Give gays the option of marriage, and let each church have a right to turn them down if their moral code doesn't agree with it. This sentiment ignores the very foundation of the Church of England and the manner with which doctrinal change occurs in the Anglican tradition. This sort of legislation would have felt very at home amongst Catholic sympathizers circa 1525. Are you for real? All this hatred towards religion that we see today is disgusting. Hundreds of years ago, we were forced to accept religion in most of the western world, and now, extreme leftists wants to remove all religious rights. You say you want perfect freedom, but you don't want to include the freedom of ppl who views things differently than you. That's not freedom. You have failed to read and to understand his post. Following the foundation of the Church of England there were a series of religious conflicts in which orthodoxy was enforced by the state, men who translated the Bible into English were burned for example. This is comparable to that and it is certainly not religion bashing, it's a point regarding the relationship between church and state
This is not the same. This doesn't mean that the state can enforce the churches morals. What this means is that the state grants the church the right to restrict the constitution of marriage if they wish. Since marriage is alteast partly a religious practice they should have the religious right to define the difference between a legal and illegal marriage.
|
I like how so many of you simply have not read the OP at all. The theme of this topic isn't about a nonexistent law that will force churches to may gay couples. It's about the implementation of a law that would make it illegal for gay marriage to occur under certain religious establishments.
The main problem I have with this is that the secular law can serve as a weapon for whatever internal camp of a religious sect that wields the most political power at the given moment. It's completely inaccurate and seriously asinine to think that any of the Christian sects in the present day UK does not have debates and dissent when it comes to some of the more popular social questions like gay marriage or the ordination of women. The question of gay marriage, women clergy, and gay clergymen have been such a huge point of debate, dissent, and even division within the Anglican Church all throughout the period of Rowan Williams' time as Archbishop of Canterbury (he is retiring at the end of this year). So what this law would do is give pretty much complete power to the conservatives and utterly stifle any dissent that may come from the progressives and the liberals. Not only would their dissent be viewed as contrary opinion that can be opposed through orthodoxy, but also something that can be brought to secular court if they go as far as to marry a gay couple as it would be illegal under the law of the nation - and this is just absurd. Imagine how insane it would be if we go back to when that Catholic bishop ordained a number of women as priests and the aftermath of this heresy wasn't only the prompt excommunication of the bishop and the women, but also prosecution for breaking secular law. It's just insane.
edit: You guys are fucking silly "debating" the same tired polemic, ignorant, dumb "talking points" about religion instead of actually looking and discussing the actual goddamned case that has been presented to us in the OP.
|
On December 13 2012 06:13 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 05:42 ampson wrote:
The law doesn't give religions the right to discriminate. As they define marriage as being between a man and a woman (this is true for almost all religions almost all of the time), it is not discrimination to deny a marriage to two men. Would it be discrimination for a rabbi not to perform Bar Mitzvah for some random kid who had never read the Torah in his life? No, as he does not meet the criteria for the ceremony. As being a couple of a man and a woman is part of almost all religions criteria for marriage, it is not discrimination for them to deny same-sex marriage. Well your analogy is broken, a kid who didn't read his torah is a preventable situation and is not at all comparable to a homosexual not being able to chose what his orientation is. Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 05:48 meadbert wrote:
So what are rules regarding "marriages" between siblings or parents and does it matter whether they are same sex or not?
Can you marry your son so he can inherit your property without paying inheritance tax?
If you cannot why? Traditionally marriage between close relatives was banned largely to prevent inbreeding, but since there is 0 chance of breeding would that matter?
Also, would you need to consummate a marriage or is it none of the government's business how often (if ever) you have sex? I'm guessing you're going to do the slippery slope thing and your next post will be about bestiality or some crap because it would literally take you 20 seconds to google those questions. Show nested quote +Incest is illegal in Scotland England and Wales. It is defined as sexual intercourse between a person and their parent (including adoptive parent), grandparent, child, grandchild, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece. It is punishable with up to two years' imprisonment. For familial child sex offenses, the parent and sibling relationship definitions include step-parents and step-siblings
You misunderstand me. I am not curious about sexual relationships between family members. I want to know if an asexual marriage would be legal. For instance if you have two elderly siblings who have already lost their first spouses, can they marry each other for all of the other advantages it would give them even though there would be no sex involved.
So lets say two sisters both lose their husbands and they are now in their 70s or 80s and live together.
Would they be able to marry each other so that if one dies the other can inherit their property (which might consist of the other half or even the whole house they live in) without paying inheritance tax?
|
On December 13 2012 06:47 ampson wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 05:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 13 2012 05:42 ampson wrote:
The law doesn't give religions the right to discriminate. As they define marriage as being between a man and a woman (this is true for almost all religions almost all of the time), it is not discrimination to deny a marriage to two men. Would it be discrimination for a rabbi not to perform Bar Mitzvah for some random kid who had never read the Torah in his life? No, as he does not meet the criteria for the ceremony. As being a couple of a man and a woman is part of almost all religions criteria for marriage, it is not discrimination for them to deny same-sex marriage. if i define white people as non-humans, and then say that they don't have any rights because--similar to animals--they are non-human, then i guess i am not discriminating against white people by denying them rights. Except it is established that white people, and every other race, are humans. Religious marriage has a long and established definition of being between a man and a woman. In a secular marriage or civil union (AKA a right given to the people by the government) it is a different story. But if someone wants to be married by a church they should have to adhere to that church's conditions. It's not discrimination. Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 06:13 heliusx wrote:On December 13 2012 05:42 ampson wrote:
The law doesn't give religions the right to discriminate. As they define marriage as being between a man and a woman (this is true for almost all religions almost all of the time), it is not discrimination to deny a marriage to two men. Would it be discrimination for a rabbi not to perform Bar Mitzvah for some random kid who had never read the Torah in his life? No, as he does not meet the criteria for the ceremony. As being a couple of a man and a woman is part of almost all religions criteria for marriage, it is not discrimination for them to deny same-sex marriage. Well your analogy is broken, a kid who didn't read his torah is a preventable situation and is not at all comparable to a homosexual not being able to chose what his orientation is. The analogy is fine. A kid who didn't read the Torah should not be able to force people to give him a religious designation he is not qualified for. Two men or two women do not meet the qualifications for most religious marriages, so they should not be able to force a church which does not wish to to marry them. Preventable situation or not, it does not matter.
just because they have been "discriminating" for a millennium or more does not not make it any less "discriminatory." do we really need to get into the "mark of cain," and how slavery was justified?
|
On December 13 2012 06:47 ampson wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 05:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 13 2012 05:42 ampson wrote:
The law doesn't give religions the right to discriminate. As they define marriage as being between a man and a woman (this is true for almost all religions almost all of the time), it is not discrimination to deny a marriage to two men. Would it be discrimination for a rabbi not to perform Bar Mitzvah for some random kid who had never read the Torah in his life? No, as he does not meet the criteria for the ceremony. As being a couple of a man and a woman is part of almost all religions criteria for marriage, it is not discrimination for them to deny same-sex marriage. if i define white people as non-humans, and then say that they don't have any rights because--similar to animals--they are non-human, then i guess i am not discriminating against white people by denying them rights. Except it is established that white people, and every other race, are humans. Religious marriage has a long and established definition of being between a man and a woman. In a secular marriage or civil union (AKA a right given to the people by the government) it is a different story. But if someone wants to be married by a church they should have to adhere to that church's conditions. It's not discrimination. Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 06:13 heliusx wrote:On December 13 2012 05:42 ampson wrote:
The law doesn't give religions the right to discriminate. As they define marriage as being between a man and a woman (this is true for almost all religions almost all of the time), it is not discrimination to deny a marriage to two men. Would it be discrimination for a rabbi not to perform Bar Mitzvah for some random kid who had never read the Torah in his life? No, as he does not meet the criteria for the ceremony. As being a couple of a man and a woman is part of almost all religions criteria for marriage, it is not discrimination for them to deny same-sex marriage. Well your analogy is broken, a kid who didn't read his torah is a preventable situation and is not at all comparable to a homosexual not being able to chose what his orientation is. The analogy is fine. A kid who didn't read the Torah should not be able to force people to give him a religious designation he is not qualified for. Two men or two women do not meet the qualifications for most religious marriages, so they should not be able to force a church which does not wish to to marry them. Preventable situation or not, it does not matter.
Clearly many religions do discriminate between homosexual and heterosexual relationships, since they find one, but not the other, worthy of marriage. This clearly fits the definition of the word discrimination. The whole claim that the church does not discriminate against homesexuals, because they are totally free to marry someone of the opposite sex, is ridiculous.
|
On December 13 2012 07:01 Crushinator wrote:
Clearly many religions do discriminate between homosexual and heterosexual relationships, since they find one, but not the other, worthy of marriage. This clearly fits the definition of the word discrimination. The whole claim that the church does not discriminate against homesexuals, because they are totally free to marry someone of the opposite sex, is ridiculous.
This guy is correct. When you only allow person A to marry from one set of people and you only allow person B to marry from a completely different set then you have discriminated between them and in this case it is by their gender.
|
On December 13 2012 04:17 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 03:57 Trowa127 wrote:
A very good analysis KwarK, my first thought was also that legalising discrimination in one form yet making another form illegal was totally ridiculous. In my view it would be best to let people do what they want. If a gay couple wish to marry or become partners in a legal sense, that is fine and the procedure should be the same as any hetrosexual couple. If a religious group don't wish to marry homosexuals, again, fine - it is their choice as private citizens to marry who they wish. This requires no contradictory legislation. Enshrining the catholic churches right to discrimination in law is a total joke. That's basically my opinion also. I don't think a church should marry anyone if they don't want to. I'm also ignorant on the issue of gays wanting to be married in a church is that a thing? I think it should be a legal contract between man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman. The church can still do their thing like normal, but the legal aspect should be equal for all orientations. The biggest part of the law that is strange to me is making it illegal to marry gays for the entirety of the group if this groups leaders decide to go ahead with taking the immunity. Why illegal? Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 04:15 deth2munkies wrote:
Why on Earth would a homosexual couple WANT to be married in the church of a religion whose central tenants include opposing homosexuality including (Old Testament style) it being punishable by death? The only reason I can think of is just to piss off Christians/Muslims. I mean there's no reason at all that these are legally different, why the hell is the government trampling over freedom of religious doctrine? It does not infringe at all on the civil liberties of homosexuals who already have a perfectly legal method of obtaining the same thing, all it is doing is enforcing an obligation on religious institutions to go against their own creeds for no reason.
Having a Christian/Muslim official marriage is NOT a right, and is definitely not something that the government should be enforcing. This isn't the same as a political party introducing racial exclusions, this would be closer to enforcing affirmative action policies to get more minorities into a racist party. Exactly what religious freedoms are being trampled? I've seen a few posters say this and I don't see how this law tramples any religious freedoms besides what seems to be forcing entire groups of religions to be uniform on their gay marriage stance.
Religions that have prohibitions on certain activities should be respected. There's a reason why the army provides kosher meals, special accomodations for fasting Muslims, etc. This is absolutely no different, it's forcing a religion to violate its own tenants under government decree.
Again, they're totally free to have a legal marriage, there's no reason to force churches to perform religious ceremonies that violate the tenants of their own religion.
|
On December 13 2012 07:28 deth2munkies wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 04:17 heliusx wrote:On December 13 2012 03:57 Trowa127 wrote:
A very good analysis KwarK, my first thought was also that legalising discrimination in one form yet making another form illegal was totally ridiculous. In my view it would be best to let people do what they want. If a gay couple wish to marry or become partners in a legal sense, that is fine and the procedure should be the same as any hetrosexual couple. If a religious group don't wish to marry homosexuals, again, fine - it is their choice as private citizens to marry who they wish. This requires no contradictory legislation. Enshrining the catholic churches right to discrimination in law is a total joke. That's basically my opinion also. I don't think a church should marry anyone if they don't want to. I'm also ignorant on the issue of gays wanting to be married in a church is that a thing? I think it should be a legal contract between man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman. The church can still do their thing like normal, but the legal aspect should be equal for all orientations. The biggest part of the law that is strange to me is making it illegal to marry gays for the entirety of the group if this groups leaders decide to go ahead with taking the immunity. Why illegal? On December 13 2012 04:15 deth2munkies wrote:
Why on Earth would a homosexual couple WANT to be married in the church of a religion whose central tenants include opposing homosexuality including (Old Testament style) it being punishable by death? The only reason I can think of is just to piss off Christians/Muslims. I mean there's no reason at all that these are legally different, why the hell is the government trampling over freedom of religious doctrine? It does not infringe at all on the civil liberties of homosexuals who already have a perfectly legal method of obtaining the same thing, all it is doing is enforcing an obligation on religious institutions to go against their own creeds for no reason.
Having a Christian/Muslim official marriage is NOT a right, and is definitely not something that the government should be enforcing. This isn't the same as a political party introducing racial exclusions, this would be closer to enforcing affirmative action policies to get more minorities into a racist party. Exactly what religious freedoms are being trampled? I've seen a few posters say this and I don't see how this law tramples any religious freedoms besides what seems to be forcing entire groups of religions to be uniform on their gay marriage stance. Religions that have prohibitions on certain activities should be respected. There's a reason why the army provides kosher meals, special accomodations for fasting Muslims, etc. This is absolutely no different, it's forcing a religion to violate its own tenants under government decree. Again, they're totally free to have a legal marriage, there's no reason to force churches to perform religious ceremonies that violate the tenants of their own religion.
The laws discussed in the OP do not force anyone to perform ceremonies of any kind. Which is exactly what the person you quoted was saying.
|
United States42437 Posts
On December 13 2012 07:28 deth2munkies wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 04:17 heliusx wrote:On December 13 2012 03:57 Trowa127 wrote:
A very good analysis KwarK, my first thought was also that legalising discrimination in one form yet making another form illegal was totally ridiculous. In my view it would be best to let people do what they want. If a gay couple wish to marry or become partners in a legal sense, that is fine and the procedure should be the same as any hetrosexual couple. If a religious group don't wish to marry homosexuals, again, fine - it is their choice as private citizens to marry who they wish. This requires no contradictory legislation. Enshrining the catholic churches right to discrimination in law is a total joke. That's basically my opinion also. I don't think a church should marry anyone if they don't want to. I'm also ignorant on the issue of gays wanting to be married in a church is that a thing? I think it should be a legal contract between man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman. The church can still do their thing like normal, but the legal aspect should be equal for all orientations. The biggest part of the law that is strange to me is making it illegal to marry gays for the entirety of the group if this groups leaders decide to go ahead with taking the immunity. Why illegal? On December 13 2012 04:15 deth2munkies wrote:
Why on Earth would a homosexual couple WANT to be married in the church of a religion whose central tenants include opposing homosexuality including (Old Testament style) it being punishable by death? The only reason I can think of is just to piss off Christians/Muslims. I mean there's no reason at all that these are legally different, why the hell is the government trampling over freedom of religious doctrine? It does not infringe at all on the civil liberties of homosexuals who already have a perfectly legal method of obtaining the same thing, all it is doing is enforcing an obligation on religious institutions to go against their own creeds for no reason.
Having a Christian/Muslim official marriage is NOT a right, and is definitely not something that the government should be enforcing. This isn't the same as a political party introducing racial exclusions, this would be closer to enforcing affirmative action policies to get more minorities into a racist party. Exactly what religious freedoms are being trampled? I've seen a few posters say this and I don't see how this law tramples any religious freedoms besides what seems to be forcing entire groups of religions to be uniform on their gay marriage stance. Religions that have prohibitions on certain activities should be respected. There's a reason why the army provides kosher meals, special accomodations for fasting Muslims, etc. This is absolutely no different, it's forcing a religion to violate its own tenants under government decree. Again, they're totally free to have a legal marriage, there's no reason to force churches to perform religious ceremonies that violate the tenants of their own religion.
Violating your tenants doesn't mean what you think it means, it's something landlords do to deep sleepers when they have spare keys to properties.
The army is free to chose to do whatever it likes to accommodate its employees although I suspect that when you say "the army" you mean the American one because of overwhelming ethnocentrism. In the UK the army offers all sorts of food packs ranging from kosher to vegetarian to halal to Gurkha and many more, it's not an exclusively religious thing, they're just trying to be nice to the soldiers.
|
On December 13 2012 06:57 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 06:47 ampson wrote:On December 13 2012 05:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 13 2012 05:42 ampson wrote:
The law doesn't give religions the right to discriminate. As they define marriage as being between a man and a woman (this is true for almost all religions almost all of the time), it is not discrimination to deny a marriage to two men. Would it be discrimination for a rabbi not to perform Bar Mitzvah for some random kid who had never read the Torah in his life? No, as he does not meet the criteria for the ceremony. As being a couple of a man and a woman is part of almost all religions criteria for marriage, it is not discrimination for them to deny same-sex marriage. if i define white people as non-humans, and then say that they don't have any rights because--similar to animals--they are non-human, then i guess i am not discriminating against white people by denying them rights. Except it is established that white people, and every other race, are humans. Religious marriage has a long and established definition of being between a man and a woman. In a secular marriage or civil union (AKA a right given to the people by the government) it is a different story. But if someone wants to be married by a church they should have to adhere to that church's conditions. It's not discrimination. On December 13 2012 06:13 heliusx wrote:On December 13 2012 05:42 ampson wrote:
The law doesn't give religions the right to discriminate. As they define marriage as being between a man and a woman (this is true for almost all religions almost all of the time), it is not discrimination to deny a marriage to two men. Would it be discrimination for a rabbi not to perform Bar Mitzvah for some random kid who had never read the Torah in his life? No, as he does not meet the criteria for the ceremony. As being a couple of a man and a woman is part of almost all religions criteria for marriage, it is not discrimination for them to deny same-sex marriage. Well your analogy is broken, a kid who didn't read his torah is a preventable situation and is not at all comparable to a homosexual not being able to chose what his orientation is. The analogy is fine. A kid who didn't read the Torah should not be able to force people to give him a religious designation he is not qualified for. Two men or two women do not meet the qualifications for most religious marriages, so they should not be able to force a church which does not wish to to marry them. Preventable situation or not, it does not matter. just because they have been "discriminating" for a millennium or more does not not make it any less "discriminatory." do we really need to get into the "mark of cain," and how slavery was justified?
Slavery was not justified as it can be scientifically proven that blacks are in fact human and deserving of every right that other humans enjoy from their government. You can not scientifically prove that homosexuals should be able to marry each other. It is an opinion, and religious marriage is a religious construct. Secular, government issued marriages and civil unions are, as I said, a different story. But one can not force a religion to perform their own service for people who it was not intended for. Religions are not making homosexuals suffer. They are not depriving homosexuals any rights, as rights come from the government.
On December 13 2012 07:05 meadbert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 07:01 Crushinator wrote:
Clearly many religions do discriminate between homosexual and heterosexual relationships, since they find one, but not the other, worthy of marriage. This clearly fits the definition of the word discrimination. The whole claim that the church does not discriminate against homosexuals, because they are totally free to marry someone of the opposite sex, is ridiculous. This guy is correct. When you only allow person A to marry from one set of people and you only allow person B to marry from a completely different set then you have discriminated between them and in this case it is by their gender.
Again, it is not discrimination. Religious marriage can be seen as a private club in this case. To be in a private club, you must fulfill some kind of criteria (member dues, special abilities or qualifications). In this case, that criteria is that to enter this "Club" is you must be a man and a woman. It is a completely private club, and nobody is being forced to enter. There are no unfair advantages for being in this club. The government should in no way be able to force a private institution such as this to change a long and established tradition that belongs to them.
|
On December 13 2012 07:41 ampson wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 06:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 13 2012 06:47 ampson wrote:On December 13 2012 05:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 13 2012 05:42 ampson wrote:
The law doesn't give religions the right to discriminate. As they define marriage as being between a man and a woman (this is true for almost all religions almost all of the time), it is not discrimination to deny a marriage to two men. Would it be discrimination for a rabbi not to perform Bar Mitzvah for some random kid who had never read the Torah in his life? No, as he does not meet the criteria for the ceremony. As being a couple of a man and a woman is part of almost all religions criteria for marriage, it is not discrimination for them to deny same-sex marriage. if i define white people as non-humans, and then say that they don't have any rights because--similar to animals--they are non-human, then i guess i am not discriminating against white people by denying them rights. Except it is established that white people, and every other race, are humans. Religious marriage has a long and established definition of being between a man and a woman. In a secular marriage or civil union (AKA a right given to the people by the government) it is a different story. But if someone wants to be married by a church they should have to adhere to that church's conditions. It's not discrimination. On December 13 2012 06:13 heliusx wrote:On December 13 2012 05:42 ampson wrote:
The law doesn't give religions the right to discriminate. As they define marriage as being between a man and a woman (this is true for almost all religions almost all of the time), it is not discrimination to deny a marriage to two men. Would it be discrimination for a rabbi not to perform Bar Mitzvah for some random kid who had never read the Torah in his life? No, as he does not meet the criteria for the ceremony. As being a couple of a man and a woman is part of almost all religions criteria for marriage, it is not discrimination for them to deny same-sex marriage. Well your analogy is broken, a kid who didn't read his torah is a preventable situation and is not at all comparable to a homosexual not being able to chose what his orientation is. The analogy is fine. A kid who didn't read the Torah should not be able to force people to give him a religious designation he is not qualified for. Two men or two women do not meet the qualifications for most religious marriages, so they should not be able to force a church which does not wish to to marry them. Preventable situation or not, it does not matter. just because they have been "discriminating" for a millennium or more does not not make it any less "discriminatory." do we really need to get into the "mark of cain," and how slavery was justified? Slavery was not justified as it can be scientifically proven that blacks are in fact human and deserving of every right that other humans enjoy from their government. You can not scientifically prove that homosexuals should be able to marry each other. It is an opinion, and religious marriage is a religious construct. Secular, government issued marriages and civil unions are, as I said, a different story. But one can not force a religion to perform their own service for people who it was not intended for. Religions are not making homosexuals suffer. They are not depriving homosexuals any rights, as rights come from the government. Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 07:05 meadbert wrote:On December 13 2012 07:01 Crushinator wrote:
Clearly many religions do discriminate between homosexual and heterosexual relationships, since they find one, but not the other, worthy of marriage. This clearly fits the definition of the word discrimination. The whole claim that the church does not discriminate against homosexuals, because they are totally free to marry someone of the opposite sex, is ridiculous. This guy is correct. When you only allow person A to marry from one set of people and you only allow person B to marry from a completely different set then you have discriminated between them and in this case it is by their gender. Again, it is not discrimination. Religious marriage can be seen as a private club in this case. To be in a private club, you must fulfill some kind of criteria (member dues, special abilities or qualifications). In this case, that criteria is that to enter this "Club" is you must be a man and a woman. It is a completely private club, and nobody is being forced to enter. There are no unfair advantages for being in this club. The government should in no way be able to force a private institution such as this to change a long and established tradition that belongs to them.
Criteria are things we use to discriminate. In this case criteria are used to discriminate agains homosexuals. These are facts.
|
United States42437 Posts
On December 13 2012 07:41 ampson wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 06:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 13 2012 06:47 ampson wrote:On December 13 2012 05:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 13 2012 05:42 ampson wrote:
The law doesn't give religions the right to discriminate. As they define marriage as being between a man and a woman (this is true for almost all religions almost all of the time), it is not discrimination to deny a marriage to two men. Would it be discrimination for a rabbi not to perform Bar Mitzvah for some random kid who had never read the Torah in his life? No, as he does not meet the criteria for the ceremony. As being a couple of a man and a woman is part of almost all religions criteria for marriage, it is not discrimination for them to deny same-sex marriage. if i define white people as non-humans, and then say that they don't have any rights because--similar to animals--they are non-human, then i guess i am not discriminating against white people by denying them rights. Except it is established that white people, and every other race, are humans. Religious marriage has a long and established definition of being between a man and a woman. In a secular marriage or civil union (AKA a right given to the people by the government) it is a different story. But if someone wants to be married by a church they should have to adhere to that church's conditions. It's not discrimination. On December 13 2012 06:13 heliusx wrote:On December 13 2012 05:42 ampson wrote:
The law doesn't give religions the right to discriminate. As they define marriage as being between a man and a woman (this is true for almost all religions almost all of the time), it is not discrimination to deny a marriage to two men. Would it be discrimination for a rabbi not to perform Bar Mitzvah for some random kid who had never read the Torah in his life? No, as he does not meet the criteria for the ceremony. As being a couple of a man and a woman is part of almost all religions criteria for marriage, it is not discrimination for them to deny same-sex marriage. Well your analogy is broken, a kid who didn't read his torah is a preventable situation and is not at all comparable to a homosexual not being able to chose what his orientation is. The analogy is fine. A kid who didn't read the Torah should not be able to force people to give him a religious designation he is not qualified for. Two men or two women do not meet the qualifications for most religious marriages, so they should not be able to force a church which does not wish to to marry them. Preventable situation or not, it does not matter. just because they have been "discriminating" for a millennium or more does not not make it any less "discriminatory." do we really need to get into the "mark of cain," and how slavery was justified? Slavery was not justified as it can be scientifically proven that blacks are in fact human and deserving of every right that other humans enjoy from their government. You can not scientifically prove that homosexuals should be able to marry each other. It is an opinion, and religious marriage is a religious construct. Secular, government issued marriages and civil unions are, as I said, a different story. But one can not force a religion to perform their own service for people who it was not intended for. Religions are not making homosexuals suffer. They are not depriving homosexuals any rights, as rights come from the government. Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 07:05 meadbert wrote:On December 13 2012 07:01 Crushinator wrote:
Clearly many religions do discriminate between homosexual and heterosexual relationships, since they find one, but not the other, worthy of marriage. This clearly fits the definition of the word discrimination. The whole claim that the church does not discriminate against homosexuals, because they are totally free to marry someone of the opposite sex, is ridiculous. This guy is correct. When you only allow person A to marry from one set of people and you only allow person B to marry from a completely different set then you have discriminated between them and in this case it is by their gender. Again, it is not discrimination. Religious marriage can be seen as a private club in this case. To be in a private club, you must fulfill some kind of criteria (member dues, special abilities or qualifications). In this case, that criteria is that to enter this "Club" is you must be a man and a woman. It is a completely private club, and nobody is being forced to enter. There are no unfair advantages for being in this club. The government should in no way be able to force a private institution such as this to change a long and established tradition that belongs to them.
You haven't addressed how this "private clubs can exercise their discretion over their own matters including discriminatory policies" can be reconciled with the UK anti discrimination laws which have previously seen other private clubs forced to act against their fundamental beliefs. Intellectual honesty requires that all discrimination by private groups is permitted or none is permitted, or that religious discrimination can be shown to be permissible in situations where other groups would not be allowed to. Remember, what this law grants them is a special exemption from previous laws which they could fall victim to, it is an unprecedented move and it is offered only to religious groups.
|
On December 13 2012 07:41 ampson wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 06:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 13 2012 06:47 ampson wrote:On December 13 2012 05:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 13 2012 05:42 ampson wrote:
The law doesn't give religions the right to discriminate. As they define marriage as being between a man and a woman (this is true for almost all religions almost all of the time), it is not discrimination to deny a marriage to two men. Would it be discrimination for a rabbi not to perform Bar Mitzvah for some random kid who had never read the Torah in his life? No, as he does not meet the criteria for the ceremony. As being a couple of a man and a woman is part of almost all religions criteria for marriage, it is not discrimination for them to deny same-sex marriage. if i define white people as non-humans, and then say that they don't have any rights because--similar to animals--they are non-human, then i guess i am not discriminating against white people by denying them rights. Except it is established that white people, and every other race, are humans. Religious marriage has a long and established definition of being between a man and a woman. In a secular marriage or civil union (AKA a right given to the people by the government) it is a different story. But if someone wants to be married by a church they should have to adhere to that church's conditions. It's not discrimination. On December 13 2012 06:13 heliusx wrote:On December 13 2012 05:42 ampson wrote:
The law doesn't give religions the right to discriminate. As they define marriage as being between a man and a woman (this is true for almost all religions almost all of the time), it is not discrimination to deny a marriage to two men. Would it be discrimination for a rabbi not to perform Bar Mitzvah for some random kid who had never read the Torah in his life? No, as he does not meet the criteria for the ceremony. As being a couple of a man and a woman is part of almost all religions criteria for marriage, it is not discrimination for them to deny same-sex marriage. Well your analogy is broken, a kid who didn't read his torah is a preventable situation and is not at all comparable to a homosexual not being able to chose what his orientation is. The analogy is fine. A kid who didn't read the Torah should not be able to force people to give him a religious designation he is not qualified for. Two men or two women do not meet the qualifications for most religious marriages, so they should not be able to force a church which does not wish to to marry them. Preventable situation or not, it does not matter. just because they have been "discriminating" for a millennium or more does not not make it any less "discriminatory." do we really need to get into the "mark of cain," and how slavery was justified? Slavery was not justified as it can be scientifically proven that blacks are in fact human and deserving of every right that other humans enjoy from their government. You can not scientifically prove that homosexuals should be able to marry each other. It is an opinion, and religious marriage is a religious construct. Secular, government issued marriages and civil unions are, as I said, a different story. But one can not force a religion to perform their own service for people who it was not intended for. Religions are not making homosexuals suffer. They are not depriving homosexuals any rights, as rights come from the government.
lol. you are so off from the point. just as religions have used their religious scripture to say that blacks dont deserve rights, they have used religious scripture to say that gays dont deserve rights. i am not sure why you are even attempting to debate this.
regardless, my point was that there is no possible way to say that preventing gays from marrying is not discrimination. it is by definition discrimination because you are saying that marriage should be allowed for heterosexuals, but not homosexuals. you seem to think that if you define the term marriage as only applying to heterosexuals then it no longer becomes discrimination, but that is off base because by defining it that way, you are discriminating.
the real question, which is not the point of this thread, is not whether its discrimination, which it is, but whether such discrimination is wrong. a lot of people use the word discrimination likes its a naughty word, it is not. i discriminate all the time. i like chocolate, not vanilla, ice cream. i like mt dew, not sierra mist. discrimination is not inherently wrong. religions discriminate, but whether it is wrong is a different question.
|
On December 13 2012 07:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 07:41 ampson wrote:On December 13 2012 06:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 13 2012 06:47 ampson wrote:On December 13 2012 05:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 13 2012 05:42 ampson wrote:
The law doesn't give religions the right to discriminate. As they define marriage as being between a man and a woman (this is true for almost all religions almost all of the time), it is not discrimination to deny a marriage to two men. Would it be discrimination for a rabbi not to perform Bar Mitzvah for some random kid who had never read the Torah in his life? No, as he does not meet the criteria for the ceremony. As being a couple of a man and a woman is part of almost all religions criteria for marriage, it is not discrimination for them to deny same-sex marriage. if i define white people as non-humans, and then say that they don't have any rights because--similar to animals--they are non-human, then i guess i am not discriminating against white people by denying them rights. Except it is established that white people, and every other race, are humans. Religious marriage has a long and established definition of being between a man and a woman. In a secular marriage or civil union (AKA a right given to the people by the government) it is a different story. But if someone wants to be married by a church they should have to adhere to that church's conditions. It's not discrimination. On December 13 2012 06:13 heliusx wrote:On December 13 2012 05:42 ampson wrote:
The law doesn't give religions the right to discriminate. As they define marriage as being between a man and a woman (this is true for almost all religions almost all of the time), it is not discrimination to deny a marriage to two men. Would it be discrimination for a rabbi not to perform Bar Mitzvah for some random kid who had never read the Torah in his life? No, as he does not meet the criteria for the ceremony. As being a couple of a man and a woman is part of almost all religions criteria for marriage, it is not discrimination for them to deny same-sex marriage. Well your analogy is broken, a kid who didn't read his torah is a preventable situation and is not at all comparable to a homosexual not being able to chose what his orientation is. The analogy is fine. A kid who didn't read the Torah should not be able to force people to give him a religious designation he is not qualified for. Two men or two women do not meet the qualifications for most religious marriages, so they should not be able to force a church which does not wish to to marry them. Preventable situation or not, it does not matter. just because they have been "discriminating" for a millennium or more does not not make it any less "discriminatory." do we really need to get into the "mark of cain," and how slavery was justified? Slavery was not justified as it can be scientifically proven that blacks are in fact human and deserving of every right that other humans enjoy from their government. You can not scientifically prove that homosexuals should be able to marry each other. It is an opinion, and religious marriage is a religious construct. Secular, government issued marriages and civil unions are, as I said, a different story. But one can not force a religion to perform their own service for people who it was not intended for. Religions are not making homosexuals suffer. They are not depriving homosexuals any rights, as rights come from the government. On December 13 2012 07:05 meadbert wrote:On December 13 2012 07:01 Crushinator wrote:
Clearly many religions do discriminate between homosexual and heterosexual relationships, since they find one, but not the other, worthy of marriage. This clearly fits the definition of the word discrimination. The whole claim that the church does not discriminate against homosexuals, because they are totally free to marry someone of the opposite sex, is ridiculous. This guy is correct. When you only allow person A to marry from one set of people and you only allow person B to marry from a completely different set then you have discriminated between them and in this case it is by their gender. Again, it is not discrimination. Religious marriage can be seen as a private club in this case. To be in a private club, you must fulfill some kind of criteria (member dues, special abilities or qualifications). In this case, that criteria is that to enter this "Club" is you must be a man and a woman. It is a completely private club, and nobody is being forced to enter. There are no unfair advantages for being in this club. The government should in no way be able to force a private institution such as this to change a long and established tradition that belongs to them. You haven't addressed how this "private clubs can exercise their discretion over their own matters including discriminatory policies" can be reconciled with the UK anti discrimination laws which have previously seen other private clubs forced to act against their fundamental beliefs.
In the case of the BNP that you talked about, I fundamentally disagree with whatever anti-discrimination legislation forced them to accept black people into their party and hope that this law will be the new precedent. As long as the "discrimination" against people by private clubs does not hurt anyone or deny them of rights that the government gives to all under their jurisdiction, it is absolutely fine, and while it may be "discrimination" it hurts nobody and I am completely for a private groups right to it. It is still not discrimination in the sense that it is bad according to the law. It is discrimination as in choosiness. It does not deserve the negative connotation that is being applied to it by many on this forum.
On December 13 2012 07:44 Crushinator wrote:
Criteria are things we use to discriminate. In this case criteria are used to discriminate agains homosexuals. These are facts.
In the sense that discrimination is simply who can and can not do something, you would be correct. I will say, as I am with other posters, that it is discrimination but it is not negative discrimination in the same vein that the blacks were discriminated against.
On December 13 2012 07:53 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 07:41 ampson wrote:On December 13 2012 06:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 13 2012 06:47 ampson wrote:On December 13 2012 05:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 13 2012 05:42 ampson wrote:
The law doesn't give religions the right to discriminate. As they define marriage as being between a man and a woman (this is true for almost all religions almost all of the time), it is not discrimination to deny a marriage to two men. Would it be discrimination for a rabbi not to perform Bar Mitzvah for some random kid who had never read the Torah in his life? No, as he does not meet the criteria for the ceremony. As being a couple of a man and a woman is part of almost all religions criteria for marriage, it is not discrimination for them to deny same-sex marriage. if i define white people as non-humans, and then say that they don't have any rights because--similar to animals--they are non-human, then i guess i am not discriminating against white people by denying them rights. Except it is established that white people, and every other race, are humans. Religious marriage has a long and established definition of being between a man and a woman. In a secular marriage or civil union (AKA a right given to the people by the government) it is a different story. But if someone wants to be married by a church they should have to adhere to that church's conditions. It's not discrimination. On December 13 2012 06:13 heliusx wrote:On December 13 2012 05:42 ampson wrote:
The law doesn't give religions the right to discriminate. As they define marriage as being between a man and a woman (this is true for almost all religions almost all of the time), it is not discrimination to deny a marriage to two men. Would it be discrimination for a rabbi not to perform Bar Mitzvah for some random kid who had never read the Torah in his life? No, as he does not meet the criteria for the ceremony. As being a couple of a man and a woman is part of almost all religions criteria for marriage, it is not discrimination for them to deny same-sex marriage. Well your analogy is broken, a kid who didn't read his torah is a preventable situation and is not at all comparable to a homosexual not being able to chose what his orientation is. The analogy is fine. A kid who didn't read the Torah should not be able to force people to give him a religious designation he is not qualified for. Two men or two women do not meet the qualifications for most religious marriages, so they should not be able to force a church which does not wish to to marry them. Preventable situation or not, it does not matter. just because they have been "discriminating" for a millennium or more does not not make it any less "discriminatory." do we really need to get into the "mark of cain," and how slavery was justified? Slavery was not justified as it can be scientifically proven that blacks are in fact human and deserving of every right that other humans enjoy from their government. You can not scientifically prove that homosexuals should be able to marry each other. It is an opinion, and religious marriage is a religious construct. Secular, government issued marriages and civil unions are, as I said, a different story. But one can not force a religion to perform their own service for people who it was not intended for. Religions are not making homosexuals suffer. They are not depriving homosexuals any rights, as rights come from the government. lol. you are so off from the point. just as religions have used their religious scripture to say that blacks dont deserve rights, they have used religious scripture to say that gays dont deserve rights. i am not sure why you are even attempting to debate this. regardless, my point was that there is no possible way to say that preventing gays from marrying is not discrimination. it is by definition discrimination because you are saying that marriage should be allowed for heterosexuals, but not homosexuals. you seem to think that if you define the term marriage as only applying to heterosexuals then it no longer becomes discrimination, but that is off base because by defining it that way, you are discriminating. the real question, which is not the point of this thread, is not whether its discrimination, which it is, but whether such discrimination is wrong. a lot of people use the word discrimination likes its a naughty word, it is not. i discriminate all the time. i like chocolate, not vanilla, ice cream. i like mt dew, not sierra mist. discrimination is not inherently wrong. religions discriminate, but whether it is wrong is a different question.
Marriage is not a right. Stop saying that it is. Marriage in the religious sense is a privilege for members of whichever church is in question. In the way that you define discrimination, I agree. Religious marriage does discriminate who can receive it, just as nearly everything on this earth discriminates according to your definition.
|
marriage is not only a right, it is a fundamental right (in the United States).
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
|
On December 13 2012 07:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 07:41 ampson wrote:On December 13 2012 06:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 13 2012 06:47 ampson wrote:On December 13 2012 05:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 13 2012 05:42 ampson wrote:
The law doesn't give religions the right to discriminate. As they define marriage as being between a man and a woman (this is true for almost all religions almost all of the time), it is not discrimination to deny a marriage to two men. Would it be discrimination for a rabbi not to perform Bar Mitzvah for some random kid who had never read the Torah in his life? No, as he does not meet the criteria for the ceremony. As being a couple of a man and a woman is part of almost all religions criteria for marriage, it is not discrimination for them to deny same-sex marriage. if i define white people as non-humans, and then say that they don't have any rights because--similar to animals--they are non-human, then i guess i am not discriminating against white people by denying them rights. Except it is established that white people, and every other race, are humans. Religious marriage has a long and established definition of being between a man and a woman. In a secular marriage or civil union (AKA a right given to the people by the government) it is a different story. But if someone wants to be married by a church they should have to adhere to that church's conditions. It's not discrimination. On December 13 2012 06:13 heliusx wrote:On December 13 2012 05:42 ampson wrote:
The law doesn't give religions the right to discriminate. As they define marriage as being between a man and a woman (this is true for almost all religions almost all of the time), it is not discrimination to deny a marriage to two men. Would it be discrimination for a rabbi not to perform Bar Mitzvah for some random kid who had never read the Torah in his life? No, as he does not meet the criteria for the ceremony. As being a couple of a man and a woman is part of almost all religions criteria for marriage, it is not discrimination for them to deny same-sex marriage. Well your analogy is broken, a kid who didn't read his torah is a preventable situation and is not at all comparable to a homosexual not being able to chose what his orientation is. The analogy is fine. A kid who didn't read the Torah should not be able to force people to give him a religious designation he is not qualified for. Two men or two women do not meet the qualifications for most religious marriages, so they should not be able to force a church which does not wish to to marry them. Preventable situation or not, it does not matter. just because they have been "discriminating" for a millennium or more does not not make it any less "discriminatory." do we really need to get into the "mark of cain," and how slavery was justified? Slavery was not justified as it can be scientifically proven that blacks are in fact human and deserving of every right that other humans enjoy from their government. You can not scientifically prove that homosexuals should be able to marry each other. It is an opinion, and religious marriage is a religious construct. Secular, government issued marriages and civil unions are, as I said, a different story. But one can not force a religion to perform their own service for people who it was not intended for. Religions are not making homosexuals suffer. They are not depriving homosexuals any rights, as rights come from the government. On December 13 2012 07:05 meadbert wrote:On December 13 2012 07:01 Crushinator wrote:
Clearly many religions do discriminate between homosexual and heterosexual relationships, since they find one, but not the other, worthy of marriage. This clearly fits the definition of the word discrimination. The whole claim that the church does not discriminate against homosexuals, because they are totally free to marry someone of the opposite sex, is ridiculous. This guy is correct. When you only allow person A to marry from one set of people and you only allow person B to marry from a completely different set then you have discriminated between them and in this case it is by their gender. Again, it is not discrimination. Religious marriage can be seen as a private club in this case. To be in a private club, you must fulfill some kind of criteria (member dues, special abilities or qualifications). In this case, that criteria is that to enter this "Club" is you must be a man and a woman. It is a completely private club, and nobody is being forced to enter. There are no unfair advantages for being in this club. The government should in no way be able to force a private institution such as this to change a long and established tradition that belongs to them. You haven't addressed how this "private clubs can exercise their discretion over their own matters including discriminatory policies" can be reconciled with the UK anti discrimination laws which have previously seen other private clubs forced to act against their fundamental beliefs. Intellectual honesty requires that all discrimination by private groups is permitted or none is permitted, or that religious discrimination can be shown to be permissible in situations where other groups would not be allowed to. Remember, what this law grants them is a special exemption from previous laws which they could fall victim to, it is an unprecedented move and it is offered only to religious groups.
So then would you be comfortable with the first option you present, that all private discrimination be legalized? Don't know if you're actually presenting them as two realistic possibilities, or are just sarcastic about the first one.
|
On December 13 2012 08:07 dAPhREAk wrote:marriage is not only a right, it is a fundamental right (in the United States). Show nested quote +Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
That decision was about legislation which would limit marriage, not the ability of the church to choose who they would marry. And I do not agree with the United States' current laws regarding gay marriage, as if a government is issuing marriages (As the US government does) they should give them to all. Forcing the church to do it is another matter. Clearly the UK recognizes marriage as a right, and apply it to all, but they should not be able to force religious marriages to follow suit.
|
On December 13 2012 08:14 soon.Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 07:45 KwarK wrote:On December 13 2012 07:41 ampson wrote:On December 13 2012 06:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 13 2012 06:47 ampson wrote:On December 13 2012 05:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 13 2012 05:42 ampson wrote:
The law doesn't give religions the right to discriminate. As they define marriage as being between a man and a woman (this is true for almost all religions almost all of the time), it is not discrimination to deny a marriage to two men. Would it be discrimination for a rabbi not to perform Bar Mitzvah for some random kid who had never read the Torah in his life? No, as he does not meet the criteria for the ceremony. As being a couple of a man and a woman is part of almost all religions criteria for marriage, it is not discrimination for them to deny same-sex marriage. if i define white people as non-humans, and then say that they don't have any rights because--similar to animals--they are non-human, then i guess i am not discriminating against white people by denying them rights. Except it is established that white people, and every other race, are humans. Religious marriage has a long and established definition of being between a man and a woman. In a secular marriage or civil union (AKA a right given to the people by the government) it is a different story. But if someone wants to be married by a church they should have to adhere to that church's conditions. It's not discrimination. On December 13 2012 06:13 heliusx wrote:On December 13 2012 05:42 ampson wrote:
The law doesn't give religions the right to discriminate. As they define marriage as being between a man and a woman (this is true for almost all religions almost all of the time), it is not discrimination to deny a marriage to two men. Would it be discrimination for a rabbi not to perform Bar Mitzvah for some random kid who had never read the Torah in his life? No, as he does not meet the criteria for the ceremony. As being a couple of a man and a woman is part of almost all religions criteria for marriage, it is not discrimination for them to deny same-sex marriage. Well your analogy is broken, a kid who didn't read his torah is a preventable situation and is not at all comparable to a homosexual not being able to chose what his orientation is. The analogy is fine. A kid who didn't read the Torah should not be able to force people to give him a religious designation he is not qualified for. Two men or two women do not meet the qualifications for most religious marriages, so they should not be able to force a church which does not wish to to marry them. Preventable situation or not, it does not matter. just because they have been "discriminating" for a millennium or more does not not make it any less "discriminatory." do we really need to get into the "mark of cain," and how slavery was justified? Slavery was not justified as it can be scientifically proven that blacks are in fact human and deserving of every right that other humans enjoy from their government. You can not scientifically prove that homosexuals should be able to marry each other. It is an opinion, and religious marriage is a religious construct. Secular, government issued marriages and civil unions are, as I said, a different story. But one can not force a religion to perform their own service for people who it was not intended for. Religions are not making homosexuals suffer. They are not depriving homosexuals any rights, as rights come from the government. On December 13 2012 07:05 meadbert wrote:On December 13 2012 07:01 Crushinator wrote:
Clearly many religions do discriminate between homosexual and heterosexual relationships, since they find one, but not the other, worthy of marriage. This clearly fits the definition of the word discrimination. The whole claim that the church does not discriminate against homosexuals, because they are totally free to marry someone of the opposite sex, is ridiculous. This guy is correct. When you only allow person A to marry from one set of people and you only allow person B to marry from a completely different set then you have discriminated between them and in this case it is by their gender. Again, it is not discrimination. Religious marriage can be seen as a private club in this case. To be in a private club, you must fulfill some kind of criteria (member dues, special abilities or qualifications). In this case, that criteria is that to enter this "Club" is you must be a man and a woman. It is a completely private club, and nobody is being forced to enter. There are no unfair advantages for being in this club. The government should in no way be able to force a private institution such as this to change a long and established tradition that belongs to them. You haven't addressed how this "private clubs can exercise their discretion over their own matters including discriminatory policies" can be reconciled with the UK anti discrimination laws which have previously seen other private clubs forced to act against their fundamental beliefs. Intellectual honesty requires that all discrimination by private groups is permitted or none is permitted, or that religious discrimination can be shown to be permissible in situations where other groups would not be allowed to. Remember, what this law grants them is a special exemption from previous laws which they could fall victim to, it is an unprecedented move and it is offered only to religious groups. So then would you be comfortable with the first option you present, that all private discrimination be legalized? Don't know if you're actually presenting them as two realistic possibilities, or are just sarcastic about the first one.
You should probably read the OP. It explains how some racist organizations were forced to let blacks join them and also how this "discrimination lawsuit immunity" will only be available to religious institutions who choose to accept it's regulations.
|
On December 13 2012 08:15 ampson wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 08:07 dAPhREAk wrote:marriage is not only a right, it is a fundamental right (in the United States). Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) That decision was about legislation which would limit marriage, not the ability of the church to choose who they would marry. And I do not agree with the United States' current laws regarding gay marriage, as if a government is issuing marriages (As the US government does) they should give them to all. Forcing the church to do it is another matter. Clearly the UK recognizes marriage as a right, and apply it to all, but they should not be able to force religious marriages to follow suit.
i dont know what you are talking about anymore. you said marriage wasnt a right; it clearly is a right. you are now saying you dont agree with the law (you know, the thing that defines people's rights), which is completely irrelevant to anything i have said. and now you are talking about forcing the church to do something, which is something i never even discussed. i feel like i am playing whack-a-mole.
|
On December 13 2012 08:15 ampson wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 08:07 dAPhREAk wrote:marriage is not only a right, it is a fundamental right (in the United States). Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) That decision was about legislation which would limit marriage, not the ability of the church to choose who they would marry. And I do not agree with the United States' current laws regarding gay marriage, as if a government is issuing marriages (As the US government does) they should give them to all. Forcing the church to do it is another matter. Clearly the UK recognizes marriage as a right, and apply it to all, but they should not be able to force religious marriages to follow suit.
Absolutely no church is being forced to perform religious ceremonies for homosexuals who are married or getting married. I think you are misunderstanding the law.
|
On December 13 2012 08:03 ampson wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 07:44 Crushinator wrote:
Criteria are things we use to discriminate. In this case criteria are used to discriminate agains homosexuals. These are facts. In the sense that discrimination is simply who can and can not do something, you would be correct. I will say, as I am with other posters, that it is discrimination but it is not negative discrimination in the same vein that the blacks were discriminated against.
I am glad to see you concede this semantics point. But I don't understand what '''negative discrimination in the same vein that the blacks were discriminated against'' means.
Are you saying that it isn't negative discrimination? (because it clearly isn't positive discrimination) Or are you saying that the discrimination is justified? Or simply that religious institutions must have the freedom to discriminate in this manner? Or simply that while its bad, it isn't as bad as another bad thing?
|
United States42437 Posts
On December 13 2012 08:14 soon.Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 07:45 KwarK wrote:On December 13 2012 07:41 ampson wrote:On December 13 2012 06:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 13 2012 06:47 ampson wrote:On December 13 2012 05:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 13 2012 05:42 ampson wrote:
The law doesn't give religions the right to discriminate. As they define marriage as being between a man and a woman (this is true for almost all religions almost all of the time), it is not discrimination to deny a marriage to two men. Would it be discrimination for a rabbi not to perform Bar Mitzvah for some random kid who had never read the Torah in his life? No, as he does not meet the criteria for the ceremony. As being a couple of a man and a woman is part of almost all religions criteria for marriage, it is not discrimination for them to deny same-sex marriage. if i define white people as non-humans, and then say that they don't have any rights because--similar to animals--they are non-human, then i guess i am not discriminating against white people by denying them rights. Except it is established that white people, and every other race, are humans. Religious marriage has a long and established definition of being between a man and a woman. In a secular marriage or civil union (AKA a right given to the people by the government) it is a different story. But if someone wants to be married by a church they should have to adhere to that church's conditions. It's not discrimination. On December 13 2012 06:13 heliusx wrote:On December 13 2012 05:42 ampson wrote:
The law doesn't give religions the right to discriminate. As they define marriage as being between a man and a woman (this is true for almost all religions almost all of the time), it is not discrimination to deny a marriage to two men. Would it be discrimination for a rabbi not to perform Bar Mitzvah for some random kid who had never read the Torah in his life? No, as he does not meet the criteria for the ceremony. As being a couple of a man and a woman is part of almost all religions criteria for marriage, it is not discrimination for them to deny same-sex marriage. Well your analogy is broken, a kid who didn't read his torah is a preventable situation and is not at all comparable to a homosexual not being able to chose what his orientation is. The analogy is fine. A kid who didn't read the Torah should not be able to force people to give him a religious designation he is not qualified for. Two men or two women do not meet the qualifications for most religious marriages, so they should not be able to force a church which does not wish to to marry them. Preventable situation or not, it does not matter. just because they have been "discriminating" for a millennium or more does not not make it any less "discriminatory." do we really need to get into the "mark of cain," and how slavery was justified? Slavery was not justified as it can be scientifically proven that blacks are in fact human and deserving of every right that other humans enjoy from their government. You can not scientifically prove that homosexuals should be able to marry each other. It is an opinion, and religious marriage is a religious construct. Secular, government issued marriages and civil unions are, as I said, a different story. But one can not force a religion to perform their own service for people who it was not intended for. Religions are not making homosexuals suffer. They are not depriving homosexuals any rights, as rights come from the government. On December 13 2012 07:05 meadbert wrote:On December 13 2012 07:01 Crushinator wrote:
Clearly many religions do discriminate between homosexual and heterosexual relationships, since they find one, but not the other, worthy of marriage. This clearly fits the definition of the word discrimination. The whole claim that the church does not discriminate against homosexuals, because they are totally free to marry someone of the opposite sex, is ridiculous. This guy is correct. When you only allow person A to marry from one set of people and you only allow person B to marry from a completely different set then you have discriminated between them and in this case it is by their gender. Again, it is not discrimination. Religious marriage can be seen as a private club in this case. To be in a private club, you must fulfill some kind of criteria (member dues, special abilities or qualifications). In this case, that criteria is that to enter this "Club" is you must be a man and a woman. It is a completely private club, and nobody is being forced to enter. There are no unfair advantages for being in this club. The government should in no way be able to force a private institution such as this to change a long and established tradition that belongs to them. You haven't addressed how this "private clubs can exercise their discretion over their own matters including discriminatory policies" can be reconciled with the UK anti discrimination laws which have previously seen other private clubs forced to act against their fundamental beliefs. Intellectual honesty requires that all discrimination by private groups is permitted or none is permitted, or that religious discrimination can be shown to be permissible in situations where other groups would not be allowed to. Remember, what this law grants them is a special exemption from previous laws which they could fall victim to, it is an unprecedented move and it is offered only to religious groups. So then would you be comfortable with the first option you present, that all private discrimination be legalized? Don't know if you're actually presenting them as two realistic possibilities, or are just sarcastic about the first one.
No, I think that if private groups are allowed to discriminate and say "if you don't like it then go to one of our rivals" doesn't work in a system that relies on private enterprise for so much of the foundations of society and that the long term social benefits of integration and worth the lack of freedom. It is distorting society but the shape it is moulding is simply better.
However it is one of the options, you can either accept that they are comparable and then apply the same standard to both, a standard I would disagree with if it legalised discrimination for both, or explain why they are not comparable. It wasn't sarcastic, it was trying to explain that the reason this law is interesting (to me, it's messed up in a bunch of other ways too like the state punishing schism) is precisely because the UK does have laws against private discrimination and that this exemption is unprecedented. Saying that this new law is fine because the old laws are wrong is a coherent stance, although not one I hold.
|
On December 13 2012 08:18 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 08:15 ampson wrote:On December 13 2012 08:07 dAPhREAk wrote:marriage is not only a right, it is a fundamental right (in the United States). Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) That decision was about legislation which would limit marriage, not the ability of the church to choose who they would marry. And I do not agree with the United States' current laws regarding gay marriage, as if a government is issuing marriages (As the US government does) they should give them to all. Forcing the church to do it is another matter. Clearly the UK recognizes marriage as a right, and apply it to all, but they should not be able to force religious marriages to follow suit. i dont know what you are talking about anymore. you said marriage wasnt a right; it clearly is a right. you are now saying you dont agree with the law (you know, the thing that defines people's rights), which is completely irrelevant to anything i have said. and now you are talking about forcing the church to do something, which is something i never even discussed. i feel like i am playing whack-a-mole.
Perhaps I should specify. Religious marriage (what I am mostly talking about) is not a right. Whether or not a government gives out secular marriages depends on the government. If the government gives these marriages, then they are a right. I say that I disagree with the U.S. gov't giving out only heterosexual marriages because the U.S. gov't has defined it as a right, and as such, refusing it to homosexual couples goes against my line of thinking. The part about forcing the churches to enforce these gov't given rights is simply to specify between Religious and Secular (gov't issued) marriage. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
On December 13 2012 08:19 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 08:15 ampson wrote:On December 13 2012 08:07 dAPhREAk wrote:marriage is not only a right, it is a fundamental right (in the United States). Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) That decision was about legislation which would limit marriage, not the ability of the church to choose who they would marry. And I do not agree with the United States' current laws regarding gay marriage, as if a government is issuing marriages (As the US government does) they should give them to all. Forcing the church to do it is another matter. Clearly the UK recognizes marriage as a right, and apply it to all, but they should not be able to force religious marriages to follow suit. Absolutely no church is being forced to perform religious ceremonies for homosexuals who are married or getting married. I think you are misunderstanding the law.
I'm not misunderstanding the law. I'm saying that I agree with it.
|
A lot of folks debating whether marriage is a right or whether allowing churches to not perform certain marriages is discrimination or not... I think it is not the central issue but to attend to it there is only one relevant question:
Is homosexuality an immutable trait? If you can't be in the tennis club because you don't play tennis, the fact that you don't play tennis is not an immutable trait--you can always go learn to play tennis. If you can't join a club because you are homosexual, you can't be told "just don't be homosexual". Sexual orientation, like race and gender and age, are immutable traits (as defined by the US Supreme Court for suspect or quasi-suspect classification) at least to the extent that they are immutable when it comes to matters of discriminitation--i.e. it is unfair for the government to ask you to just switch these things. That being the case, people of different sexual orientation should not be discriminated by public OR private entities. A restaurant cannot refuse service to a black person; a person who performs marriage ceremonies should not be able to refuse the service of marrying someone to a homosexual person. Whether marriage is a right or not is irrelevant--it is a legal procedure/service that is legislated and authorized by the government and the government should and cannot apply it differently to different groups of people without a compelling interest, and there is none in this respect.
Otherwise, I think the central issue here is:
Does requiring an ordained minister to perform a legal marriage inflict on the religious freedom of the church and/or the minister? This is tricky because a legal procedure is entangled with a religious procedure. In the eyes of the government the result of a marriage is no different when it is performed by a secular justice of the peace or a church-affiliated ordained minister; the resulting rights and laws that are applied are the same. Is forcing an ordained minister to perform a wedding ceremony a violation of religious freedom if he/she believes that ceremony violates his/her religious rights? The question then becomes "who's religious freedom" is specifically being violated. Does a pharmacist have to provide abortion-inducing drugs to a customer with a legally-procured prescription from a doctor, when said pharmacist does not believe in abortion? A pharmacists job is to provide prescribed drugs, they aren't supposed to be deciding which ones THEY want to give; should a person who performs a marriage ceremony be obligated to peform it for anyone that wants one? I'm not sure.
|
what is "religious marriage?" i have never heard of that before. as far as i know, if the gov't (U.S.) doesnt approve of the marriage (i.e., marriage certificate, witnesses, etc.), its not a marriage.
|
On December 13 2012 08:22 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 08:14 soon.Cloak wrote:On December 13 2012 07:45 KwarK wrote:On December 13 2012 07:41 ampson wrote:On December 13 2012 06:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 13 2012 06:47 ampson wrote:On December 13 2012 05:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 13 2012 05:42 ampson wrote:
The law doesn't give religions the right to discriminate. As they define marriage as being between a man and a woman (this is true for almost all religions almost all of the time), it is not discrimination to deny a marriage to two men. Would it be discrimination for a rabbi not to perform Bar Mitzvah for some random kid who had never read the Torah in his life? No, as he does not meet the criteria for the ceremony. As being a couple of a man and a woman is part of almost all religions criteria for marriage, it is not discrimination for them to deny same-sex marriage. if i define white people as non-humans, and then say that they don't have any rights because--similar to animals--they are non-human, then i guess i am not discriminating against white people by denying them rights. Except it is established that white people, and every other race, are humans. Religious marriage has a long and established definition of being between a man and a woman. In a secular marriage or civil union (AKA a right given to the people by the government) it is a different story. But if someone wants to be married by a church they should have to adhere to that church's conditions. It's not discrimination. On December 13 2012 06:13 heliusx wrote:On December 13 2012 05:42 ampson wrote:
The law doesn't give religions the right to discriminate. As they define marriage as being between a man and a woman (this is true for almost all religions almost all of the time), it is not discrimination to deny a marriage to two men. Would it be discrimination for a rabbi not to perform Bar Mitzvah for some random kid who had never read the Torah in his life? No, as he does not meet the criteria for the ceremony. As being a couple of a man and a woman is part of almost all religions criteria for marriage, it is not discrimination for them to deny same-sex marriage. Well your analogy is broken, a kid who didn't read his torah is a preventable situation and is not at all comparable to a homosexual not being able to chose what his orientation is. The analogy is fine. A kid who didn't read the Torah should not be able to force people to give him a religious designation he is not qualified for. Two men or two women do not meet the qualifications for most religious marriages, so they should not be able to force a church which does not wish to to marry them. Preventable situation or not, it does not matter. just because they have been "discriminating" for a millennium or more does not not make it any less "discriminatory." do we really need to get into the "mark of cain," and how slavery was justified? Slavery was not justified as it can be scientifically proven that blacks are in fact human and deserving of every right that other humans enjoy from their government. You can not scientifically prove that homosexuals should be able to marry each other. It is an opinion, and religious marriage is a religious construct. Secular, government issued marriages and civil unions are, as I said, a different story. But one can not force a religion to perform their own service for people who it was not intended for. Religions are not making homosexuals suffer. They are not depriving homosexuals any rights, as rights come from the government. On December 13 2012 07:05 meadbert wrote:On December 13 2012 07:01 Crushinator wrote:
Clearly many religions do discriminate between homosexual and heterosexual relationships, since they find one, but not the other, worthy of marriage. This clearly fits the definition of the word discrimination. The whole claim that the church does not discriminate against homosexuals, because they are totally free to marry someone of the opposite sex, is ridiculous. This guy is correct. When you only allow person A to marry from one set of people and you only allow person B to marry from a completely different set then you have discriminated between them and in this case it is by their gender. Again, it is not discrimination. Religious marriage can be seen as a private club in this case. To be in a private club, you must fulfill some kind of criteria (member dues, special abilities or qualifications). In this case, that criteria is that to enter this "Club" is you must be a man and a woman. It is a completely private club, and nobody is being forced to enter. There are no unfair advantages for being in this club. The government should in no way be able to force a private institution such as this to change a long and established tradition that belongs to them. You haven't addressed how this "private clubs can exercise their discretion over their own matters including discriminatory policies" can be reconciled with the UK anti discrimination laws which have previously seen other private clubs forced to act against their fundamental beliefs. Intellectual honesty requires that all discrimination by private groups is permitted or none is permitted, or that religious discrimination can be shown to be permissible in situations where other groups would not be allowed to. Remember, what this law grants them is a special exemption from previous laws which they could fall victim to, it is an unprecedented move and it is offered only to religious groups. So then would you be comfortable with the first option you present, that all private discrimination be legalized? Don't know if you're actually presenting them as two realistic possibilities, or are just sarcastic about the first one. No, I think that if private groups are allowed to discriminate and say "if you don't like it then go to one of our rivals" doesn't work in a system that relies on private enterprise for so much of the foundations of society and that the long term social benefits of integration and worth the lack of freedom. It is distorting society but the shape it is moulding is simply better. However it is one of the options, you can either accept that they are comparable and then apply the same standard to both, a standard I would disagree with if it legalised discrimination for both, or explain why they are not comparable. It wasn't sarcastic, it was trying to explain that the reason this law is interesting (to me, it's messed up in a bunch of other ways too like the state punishing schism) is precisely because the UK does have laws against private discrimination and that this exemption is unprecedented. Saying that this new law is fine because the old laws are wrong is a coherent stance, although not one I hold.
I understand what you are saying, except for one part:
...doesn't work in a system that relies on private enterprise for so much of the foundations of society and that the long term social benefits of integration and worth the lack of freedom.
I don't know if this is true,as a general rule. I agree that in a commercial, economic sense, it must be true. However, is there any benefit of being part of a religious institution? If not, then what are the negative impacts of their discrimination?
I'm not trying to draw a line between religious and secular;I'm trying to draw a line between "Provides a service" and "Doesn't provide a service".
|
On December 13 2012 08:22 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 08:14 soon.Cloak wrote:On December 13 2012 07:45 KwarK wrote:On December 13 2012 07:41 ampson wrote:On December 13 2012 06:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 13 2012 06:47 ampson wrote:On December 13 2012 05:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 13 2012 05:42 ampson wrote:
The law doesn't give religions the right to discriminate. As they define marriage as being between a man and a woman (this is true for almost all religions almost all of the time), it is not discrimination to deny a marriage to two men. Would it be discrimination for a rabbi not to perform Bar Mitzvah for some random kid who had never read the Torah in his life? No, as he does not meet the criteria for the ceremony. As being a couple of a man and a woman is part of almost all religions criteria for marriage, it is not discrimination for them to deny same-sex marriage. if i define white people as non-humans, and then say that they don't have any rights because--similar to animals--they are non-human, then i guess i am not discriminating against white people by denying them rights. Except it is established that white people, and every other race, are humans. Religious marriage has a long and established definition of being between a man and a woman. In a secular marriage or civil union (AKA a right given to the people by the government) it is a different story. But if someone wants to be married by a church they should have to adhere to that church's conditions. It's not discrimination. On December 13 2012 06:13 heliusx wrote:On December 13 2012 05:42 ampson wrote:
The law doesn't give religions the right to discriminate. As they define marriage as being between a man and a woman (this is true for almost all religions almost all of the time), it is not discrimination to deny a marriage to two men. Would it be discrimination for a rabbi not to perform Bar Mitzvah for some random kid who had never read the Torah in his life? No, as he does not meet the criteria for the ceremony. As being a couple of a man and a woman is part of almost all religions criteria for marriage, it is not discrimination for them to deny same-sex marriage. Well your analogy is broken, a kid who didn't read his torah is a preventable situation and is not at all comparable to a homosexual not being able to chose what his orientation is. The analogy is fine. A kid who didn't read the Torah should not be able to force people to give him a religious designation he is not qualified for. Two men or two women do not meet the qualifications for most religious marriages, so they should not be able to force a church which does not wish to to marry them. Preventable situation or not, it does not matter. just because they have been "discriminating" for a millennium or more does not not make it any less "discriminatory." do we really need to get into the "mark of cain," and how slavery was justified? Slavery was not justified as it can be scientifically proven that blacks are in fact human and deserving of every right that other humans enjoy from their government. You can not scientifically prove that homosexuals should be able to marry each other. It is an opinion, and religious marriage is a religious construct. Secular, government issued marriages and civil unions are, as I said, a different story. But one can not force a religion to perform their own service for people who it was not intended for. Religions are not making homosexuals suffer. They are not depriving homosexuals any rights, as rights come from the government. On December 13 2012 07:05 meadbert wrote:On December 13 2012 07:01 Crushinator wrote:
Clearly many religions do discriminate between homosexual and heterosexual relationships, since they find one, but not the other, worthy of marriage. This clearly fits the definition of the word discrimination. The whole claim that the church does not discriminate against homosexuals, because they are totally free to marry someone of the opposite sex, is ridiculous. This guy is correct. When you only allow person A to marry from one set of people and you only allow person B to marry from a completely different set then you have discriminated between them and in this case it is by their gender. Again, it is not discrimination. Religious marriage can be seen as a private club in this case. To be in a private club, you must fulfill some kind of criteria (member dues, special abilities or qualifications). In this case, that criteria is that to enter this "Club" is you must be a man and a woman. It is a completely private club, and nobody is being forced to enter. There are no unfair advantages for being in this club. The government should in no way be able to force a private institution such as this to change a long and established tradition that belongs to them. You haven't addressed how this "private clubs can exercise their discretion over their own matters including discriminatory policies" can be reconciled with the UK anti discrimination laws which have previously seen other private clubs forced to act against their fundamental beliefs. Intellectual honesty requires that all discrimination by private groups is permitted or none is permitted, or that religious discrimination can be shown to be permissible in situations where other groups would not be allowed to. Remember, what this law grants them is a special exemption from previous laws which they could fall victim to, it is an unprecedented move and it is offered only to religious groups. So then would you be comfortable with the first option you present, that all private discrimination be legalized? Don't know if you're actually presenting them as two realistic possibilities, or are just sarcastic about the first one. No, I think that if private groups are allowed to discriminate and say "if you don't like it then go to one of our rivals" doesn't work in a system that relies on private enterprise for so much of the foundations of society and that the long term social benefits of integration and worth the lack of freedom. It is distorting society but the shape it is moulding is simply better. However it is one of the options, you can either accept that they are comparable and then apply the same standard to both, a standard I would disagree with if it legalised discrimination for both, or explain why they are not comparable. It wasn't sarcastic, it was trying to explain that the reason this law is interesting (to me, it's messed up in a bunch of other ways too like the state punishing schism) is precisely because the UK does have laws against private discrimination and that this exemption is unprecedented. Saying that this new law is fine because the old laws are wrong is a coherent stance, although not one I hold.
You are presenting what I think is a false dilemma. There is no objective reason why all different kinds of private enterprises should be held to the same standard. A bakery is different from a church which is different from apolitical party. You could argue that a bakery must be held to a different standard than the other two, because a racist baker can still perform his function of being a baker even if he is forced to allow black people. The same cannot be said of a church that is in the business of advocating homophobia, or a political party that is in the business of advocating racism.
|
On December 13 2012 07:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 07:41 ampson wrote:On December 13 2012 06:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 13 2012 06:47 ampson wrote:On December 13 2012 05:46 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 13 2012 05:42 ampson wrote:
The law doesn't give religions the right to discriminate. As they define marriage as being between a man and a woman (this is true for almost all religions almost all of the time), it is not discrimination to deny a marriage to two men. Would it be discrimination for a rabbi not to perform Bar Mitzvah for some random kid who had never read the Torah in his life? No, as he does not meet the criteria for the ceremony. As being a couple of a man and a woman is part of almost all religions criteria for marriage, it is not discrimination for them to deny same-sex marriage. if i define white people as non-humans, and then say that they don't have any rights because--similar to animals--they are non-human, then i guess i am not discriminating against white people by denying them rights. Except it is established that white people, and every other race, are humans. Religious marriage has a long and established definition of being between a man and a woman. In a secular marriage or civil union (AKA a right given to the people by the government) it is a different story. But if someone wants to be married by a church they should have to adhere to that church's conditions. It's not discrimination. On December 13 2012 06:13 heliusx wrote:On December 13 2012 05:42 ampson wrote:
The law doesn't give religions the right to discriminate. As they define marriage as being between a man and a woman (this is true for almost all religions almost all of the time), it is not discrimination to deny a marriage to two men. Would it be discrimination for a rabbi not to perform Bar Mitzvah for some random kid who had never read the Torah in his life? No, as he does not meet the criteria for the ceremony. As being a couple of a man and a woman is part of almost all religions criteria for marriage, it is not discrimination for them to deny same-sex marriage. Well your analogy is broken, a kid who didn't read his torah is a preventable situation and is not at all comparable to a homosexual not being able to chose what his orientation is. The analogy is fine. A kid who didn't read the Torah should not be able to force people to give him a religious designation he is not qualified for. Two men or two women do not meet the qualifications for most religious marriages, so they should not be able to force a church which does not wish to to marry them. Preventable situation or not, it does not matter. just because they have been "discriminating" for a millennium or more does not not make it any less "discriminatory." do we really need to get into the "mark of cain," and how slavery was justified? Slavery was not justified as it can be scientifically proven that blacks are in fact human and deserving of every right that other humans enjoy from their government. You can not scientifically prove that homosexuals should be able to marry each other. It is an opinion, and religious marriage is a religious construct. Secular, government issued marriages and civil unions are, as I said, a different story. But one can not force a religion to perform their own service for people who it was not intended for. Religions are not making homosexuals suffer. They are not depriving homosexuals any rights, as rights come from the government. On December 13 2012 07:05 meadbert wrote:On December 13 2012 07:01 Crushinator wrote:
Clearly many religions do discriminate between homosexual and heterosexual relationships, since they find one, but not the other, worthy of marriage. This clearly fits the definition of the word discrimination. The whole claim that the church does not discriminate against homosexuals, because they are totally free to marry someone of the opposite sex, is ridiculous. This guy is correct. When you only allow person A to marry from one set of people and you only allow person B to marry from a completely different set then you have discriminated between them and in this case it is by their gender. Again, it is not discrimination. Religious marriage can be seen as a private club in this case. To be in a private club, you must fulfill some kind of criteria (member dues, special abilities or qualifications). In this case, that criteria is that to enter this "Club" is you must be a man and a woman. It is a completely private club, and nobody is being forced to enter. There are no unfair advantages for being in this club. The government should in no way be able to force a private institution such as this to change a long and established tradition that belongs to them. You haven't addressed how this "private clubs can exercise their discretion over their own matters including discriminatory policies" can be reconciled with the UK anti discrimination laws which have previously seen other private clubs forced to act against their fundamental beliefs. Intellectual honesty requires that all discrimination by private groups is permitted or none is permitted, or that religious discrimination can be shown to be permissible in situations where other groups would not be allowed to. Remember, what this law grants them is a special exemption from previous laws which they could fall victim to, it is an unprecedented move and it is offered only to religious groups.
I'll take a stab at explaining why I believe churches deserve special attention with respect to laws, specifically why I believe that they should be excepted from laws that contradict church tenets ("Excepted").
Basically, I believe that the societal benefits created when churches are Excepted outweigh the societal costs. Below I will outline a few of the costs that I am referring to, followed by the benefits.
Costs of Excepting Churches
- Reduces the ability of the state to regulate behavior that it finds harmful to society
- Reduces the access certain groups have to social services provided by churches
- Limits the utility people would otherwise receive if churces were not Excepted, for example if churches were forced to offer same-sex marriage, or to allow members of any faith or creed to attend services
- Excepting churches appears hypocritical when other entities, like private clubs, are not Excepted
- I'm sure there are a lot more, but I am going to move on due to space and time constraints
Benefits of Excepting Churches
- People enjoy participating in faiths that reflect their personal moral views. Mandating that churches adopt positions contrary to their desires would make many people very unhappy.
- I can't think of any service provided by a specific church that can't be provided by the government or another private entity. For example, in the UK I expect that some churches take a more equitable approach to marriage, and even if they don't, the state can provide marriages (actually this is my ethnocentrism talking, I'm not sure whether the UK provides marriage licenses like the US does).
- As a result of the previous point, forcing churches to provide services to certain classes of people only benefits a small number of people, because such services are available from other willing entities.
- A "hands off" approach between the state and churches allows philosopical and theological doctrine to develop freely, without being forced to comform with the rest of society. This creates a check on the potential for "tyranny by the majority."
- The state is not very good at regulating interactions between private entities, and it should not do it except in unusual circumstances
I believe that the benefits I have identified outweigh the costs that I can think of, but I would be interested in hearing whether anyone thinks that I am missing significant costs or benefits, or whether my approach of trying to compare admittedly subjective costs and benefits is stupid in the first place : )
|
On December 13 2012 08:34 dAPhREAk wrote:
what is "religious marriage?" i have never heard of that before. as far as i know, if the gov't (U.S.) doesnt approve of the marriage (i.e., marriage certificate, witnesses, etc.), its not a marriage.
The way I'm using it it is simply a marriage recognized and performed by a church.
|
On December 13 2012 06:50 koreasilver wrote:
I like how so many of you simply have not read the OP at all. The theme of this topic isn't about a nonexistent law that will force churches to may gay couples. It's about the implementation of a law that would make it illegal for gay marriage to occur under certain religious establishments.
The main problem I have with this is that the secular law can serve as a weapon for whatever internal camp of a religious sect that wields the most political power at the given moment. It's completely inaccurate and seriously asinine to think that any of the Christian sects in the present day UK does not have debates and dissent when it comes to some of the more popular social questions like gay marriage or the ordination of women. The question of gay marriage, women clergy, and gay clergymen have been such a huge point of debate, dissent, and even division within the Anglican Church all throughout the period of Rowan William's time as Archbishop of Canterbury (he is retiring at the end of this year). So what this law would do is give pretty much complete power to the conservatives and utterly stifle any dissent that may come from the progressives and the liberals. Not only would their dissent be viewed as contrary opinion that can be opposed through orthodoxy, but also something that can be brought to secular court if they go as far as to marry a gay couple as it would be illegal under the law of the nation - and this is just absurd. Imagine how insane it would be if we go back to when that Catholic bishop ordained a number of women as priests and the aftermath of this heresy wasn't only the prompt excommunication of the bishop and the women, but also prosecution for breaking secular law. It's just insane.
edit: You guys are fucking silly "debating" the same tired polemic, ignorant, dumb "talking points" about religion instead of actually looking and discussing the actual goddamned case that has been presented to us in the OP.
Thank you.
If one more person says something about forcing churches to marry gay people I think my head is going to explode.
|
On December 12 2012 04:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 04:17 dAPhREAk wrote:
you are infringing their right to practice their religion as long as its an actual belief of the church Would you support a church refusing to marry interracial couples on the basis of religious beliefs?
I would, yes. Even speaking as someone who has no particular religious beliefs and a dislike of organized religion, I think it's fine for the church to believe whatever silly stuff they want to, and that it would be wrong to force them to open up their churches for the use of things which are specifically against their religion, such as gay marriage.
I find it interesting that it's really a discussion though. Why would a gay couple even want to get married in a place where they know they're disliked and unwelcome other than to specifically taunt/piss off the church?
|
On December 13 2012 09:02 ampson wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 08:34 dAPhREAk wrote:
what is "religious marriage?" i have never heard of that before. as far as i know, if the gov't (U.S.) doesnt approve of the marriage (i.e., marriage certificate, witnesses, etc.), its not a marriage. The way I'm using it it is simply a marriage recognized and performed by a church.
Which is seperated in a lot of countries. As an example you can marry 10 times here after a divorce but only 1 time in the church.
|
Congrats to UK and its people. Hope my state follows its example.
|
While reading this thread, I caught myself thinking, "Maybe religions should be excluded from having to marry gay people; I mean there are people whose religion is their whole life, and the scriptures are fundamental to them and the way in which they lead their lives..."
But: the more I think about it, the more the bakery example holds true and this causes many problems if you are religious. A bakery refusing to serve black customers and a religion refusing to marry two men are equivalent positions. The only way someone will be able to defend such a position from a religious standpoint is through revelation or something similar.
I feel that the real point here is that in order to be logically and morally consistent one is forced to conclude that there is no place in society for a religion which would have reservations about performing gay marriages.
Should a bakery should be allowed to refuse to serve someone on the basis of their race? I think if you are sane you fall into one of two camps:
1) No
2) Yes, but only because society will flush the toilet on the bakery without the need for the government interference.
Without getting too sidetracked, either answer works because the end result is the same: the racist baker is out of business one way or the other. And we are happy.
Why are religions against homosexuality and gay marriage? It basically boils do to outdated, morally reprehensible and indefensible viewpoints. Just as we do not exclude a person from a religion because they are black, and the same person shouldn't be excluded because they are gay. It is just really unfortunate (for major religions) that they have explicitly stated their barbaric positions on homosexuality in a way that means followers either have to accept that their major teachings are open to interpretation (a can of worms) or are inflexible (a can of worms).
A point that is made over and over again is that religion has a monopoly on marriage and "the definition of marriage". Even if the history of marriage was linked to religion, we place an emphasis on "getting married" through culture and as a result it would still be fair game to claim it for wider society.
All in all, I am happy that our LGBT brothers and sisters are finally able to get married, but would have much rather preferred for there not to be a "quadruple lock" protecting religious freedom; I think that a church should not have the power to reject a gay couple from getting married and issues like gay marriage are the final nails in the coffin for religion.
|
On December 13 2012 06:50 koreasilver wrote:
I like how so many of you simply have not read the OP at all. The theme of this topic isn't about a nonexistent law that will force churches to may gay couples. It's about the implementation of a law that would make it illegal for gay marriage to occur under certain religious establishments.
The main problem I have with this is that the secular law can serve as a weapon for whatever internal camp of a religious sect that wields the most political power at the given moment. It's completely inaccurate and seriously asinine to think that any of the Christian sects in the present day UK does not have debates and dissent when it comes to some of the more popular social questions like gay marriage or the ordination of women. The question of gay marriage, women clergy, and gay clergymen have been such a huge point of debate, dissent, and even division within the Anglican Church all throughout the period of Rowan William's time as Archbishop of Canterbury (he is retiring at the end of this year). So what this law would do is give pretty much complete power to the conservatives and utterly stifle any dissent that may come from the progressives and the liberals. Not only would their dissent be viewed as contrary opinion that can be opposed through orthodoxy, but also something that can be brought to secular court if they go as far as to marry a gay couple as it would be illegal under the law of the nation - and this is just absurd. Imagine how insane it would be if we go back to when that Catholic bishop ordained a number of women as priests and the aftermath of this heresy wasn't only the prompt excommunication of the bishop and the women, but also prosecution for breaking secular law. It's just insane.
edit: You guys are fucking silly "debating" the same tired polemic, ignorant, dumb "talking points" about religion instead of actually looking and discussing the actual goddamned case that has been presented to us in the OP.
People should read this post, or the OP.
This is not an advancement for gay rights in the UK. This does not benefit gay people.
This legislation is designed to protect churches from the courts. Specifically, once this has passed there will be no chance in the future for british churches to face discrimination lawsuits in european courts.
|
On December 13 2012 13:36 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 06:50 koreasilver wrote:
I like how so many of you simply have not read the OP at all. The theme of this topic isn't about a nonexistent law that will force churches to may gay couples. It's about the implementation of a law that would make it illegal for gay marriage to occur under certain religious establishments.
The main problem I have with this is that the secular law can serve as a weapon for whatever internal camp of a religious sect that wields the most political power at the given moment. It's completely inaccurate and seriously asinine to think that any of the Christian sects in the present day UK does not have debates and dissent when it comes to some of the more popular social questions like gay marriage or the ordination of women. The question of gay marriage, women clergy, and gay clergymen have been such a huge point of debate, dissent, and even division within the Anglican Church all throughout the period of Rowan William's time as Archbishop of Canterbury (he is retiring at the end of this year). So what this law would do is give pretty much complete power to the conservatives and utterly stifle any dissent that may come from the progressives and the liberals. Not only would their dissent be viewed as contrary opinion that can be opposed through orthodoxy, but also something that can be brought to secular court if they go as far as to marry a gay couple as it would be illegal under the law of the nation - and this is just absurd. Imagine how insane it would be if we go back to when that Catholic bishop ordained a number of women as priests and the aftermath of this heresy wasn't only the prompt excommunication of the bishop and the women, but also prosecution for breaking secular law. It's just insane.
edit: You guys are fucking silly "debating" the same tired polemic, ignorant, dumb "talking points" about religion instead of actually looking and discussing the actual goddamned case that has been presented to us in the OP. People should read this post, or the OP. This is not an advancement for gay rights in the UK. This does not benefit gay people. This legislation is designed to protect churches from the courts. Specifically, once this has passed there will be no chance in the future for british churches to face discrimination lawsuits in european courts.
While many people are arguing incorrectly about a hypothetical law against churches. I think to say this isn't an advancement for gays in the UK is wrong. They no longer are joined in a civil union, but now in marriage. While their rights as partners don't necessarily change, they are no longer deal with the whole "separate but equal" issue. Its by no means a huge win (assuming the law passes as discussed), but it does benefit the LGBT community in the UK.
|
How is changing 'civil union' to 'marriage' an advancement? its the same thing..
Such a sad sad world we live in when things like abortion an gay marriage are apparently the only things people discus. Wonder how many people are starving to death in Britain or how many foreign wars they are involved in right now, how about peoples rights to not get shot and mugged on the street. What about BBC World being a piece of shit pedaling agendas for and financed by the foreign ministry?
But no, lets go around in circles about gay marriage one more time
EDIT: What I'm trying to say is that Britain has much much bigger problems than 'gay marriage' and that someone obviously has a lot to gain from going around in circles about pointless 'problems' rather than really get down and solve/bring to light to the real problems. This is true not only for Britain but about every country and is a real problem we all face
|
On December 13 2012 12:28 The Irate Turk wrote:
But: the more I think about it, the more the bakery example holds true and this causes many problems if you are religious. A bakery refusing to serve black customers and a religion refusing to marry two men are equivalent positions. The only way someone will be able to defend such a position from a religious standpoint is through revelation or something similar.
I feel that the real point here is that in order to be logically and morally consistent one is forced to conclude that there is no place in society for a religion which would have reservations about performing gay marriages.
Should a bakery should be allowed to refuse to serve someone on the basis of their race? I think if you are sane you fall into one of two camps:
1) No
2) Yes, but only because society will flush the toilet on the bakery without the need for the government interference.
Without getting too sidetracked, either answer works because the end result is the same: the racist baker is out of business one way or the other. And we are happy.
Why are religions against homosexuality and gay marriage? It basically boils do to outdated, morally reprehensible and indefensible viewpoints. Just as we do not exclude a person from a religion because they are black, and the same person shouldn't be excluded because they are gay. It is just really unfortunate (for major religions) that they have explicitly stated their barbaric positions on homosexuality in a way that means followers either have to accept that their major teachings are open to interpretation (a can of worms) or are inflexible (a can of worms).
A point that is made over and over again is that religion has a monopoly on marriage and "the definition of marriage". Even if the history of marriage was linked to religion, we place an emphasis on "getting married" through culture and as a result it would still be fair game to claim it for wider society.
All in all, I am happy that our LGBT brothers and sisters are finally able to get married, but would have much rather preferred for there not to be a "quadruple lock" protecting religious freedom; I think that a church should not have the power to reject a gay couple from getting married and issues like gay marriage are the final nails in the coffin for religion.
The bakery example does not hold true. To sell food is a secular service, which means that you have to follow secular rules of discrimination. Marriage in a church however is a religious service, which means that by our religious freedom, the church should be allowed to decide who to offer their services to.
Anyway. You claim that the church doesn't accept gay marriage, simply because it's outdated, just because you think so. That's your opinion, don't act like it's a fact. Get off your high horses ppl. There's so many faux liberals here. True liberalism is about accepting other ppl's ideas as equal to your own. The church should never be allowed to judge over secular matters like burglary, murder or even secular marriage, but they should have a right to discriminate when it comes to their own services, like religious marriage. Whoever disagrees with me here, clearly doesn't believe in freedom of religion. Don't get me wrong, I don't assume that everybody is willing to accept all concepts of freedom, but that's what I believe in anyway.
Anyway, I don't get some of you guys here. You say that the state never forced the church to accept gay marriage, but at the same time, you very clearly criticize the law because it didn't lead to that, that it didn't lead to the church being forced to accept gay marriage.
Don't let the secular courts judge matters of faith and religion. It doesn't work, and for that reason, religious institutions should have the right to judge matters of faith, but their power should be restricted to inclusion and exclusion. In other words, a church should have the right to exclude members if they don't accept their rules, and they should also be allowed to deny marriage between parties who don't accept their rules.
|
On December 13 2012 13:36 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 06:50 koreasilver wrote:
I like how so many of you simply have not read the OP at all. The theme of this topic isn't about a nonexistent law that will force churches to may gay couples. It's about the implementation of a law that would make it illegal for gay marriage to occur under certain religious establishments.
The main problem I have with this is that the secular law can serve as a weapon for whatever internal camp of a religious sect that wields the most political power at the given moment. It's completely inaccurate and seriously asinine to think that any of the Christian sects in the present day UK does not have debates and dissent when it comes to some of the more popular social questions like gay marriage or the ordination of women. The question of gay marriage, women clergy, and gay clergymen have been such a huge point of debate, dissent, and even division within the Anglican Church all throughout the period of Rowan William's time as Archbishop of Canterbury (he is retiring at the end of this year). So what this law would do is give pretty much complete power to the conservatives and utterly stifle any dissent that may come from the progressives and the liberals. Not only would their dissent be viewed as contrary opinion that can be opposed through orthodoxy, but also something that can be brought to secular court if they go as far as to marry a gay couple as it would be illegal under the law of the nation - and this is just absurd. Imagine how insane it would be if we go back to when that Catholic bishop ordained a number of women as priests and the aftermath of this heresy wasn't only the prompt excommunication of the bishop and the women, but also prosecution for breaking secular law. It's just insane.
edit: You guys are fucking silly "debating" the same tired polemic, ignorant, dumb "talking points" about religion instead of actually looking and discussing the actual goddamned case that has been presented to us in the OP. People should read this post, or the OP. This is not an advancement for gay rights in the UK. This does not benefit gay people. This legislation is designed to protect churches from the courts. Specifically, once this has passed there will be no chance in the future for british churches to face discrimination lawsuits in european courts.
it only applies to the Church of England (church made up by the state) and the law affects England and Wales (it excludes Scotland, (N)Ireland and what else you have there)
|
Treating people as equals - Thats good!
Legalized descrimination - thats bad.
My thoughts:
If the church is treated like a corporation, which is treated legally like a person, then they should have to follow the laws just as the common man, or lose their stupid tax exemptions.
but hey, if the church's only power is pretending to know whats best for gay people, i think we've come a long way. soon enough it will be a silly memory of mysticism people once had.
|
As it is in every society, it's a morality choice. You either believe gay marriage is right or wrong. It's hard to have a middle ground position.
For the US, it has to do with our Tax code and money in the end. There are some nice benefits if you could file Married Jointly and not just single (which currently, gay couples are considered single). So, for the UK, I have not noticed anything like this (or maybe I missed it?).
And it's a fine line of "pushing one's belief on others" when it comes to putting things into Law.
|
Anything that encourages legal rights no matter what is an improvement 
I hope some day everyone will have equal rights no matter their religion, race, sexuality or political interests
|
United States42437 Posts
ninini, the issue I am having is why secular law doesn't apply to religion in a secular society. It's no stranger to say that baking law should apply to bakeries than religious law to apply to religions. If they are to be granted exemptions from laws that apply to every other group, be it a political party, business, private club or anything else then it must be justified beyond different treatment because they're different. A bakery is different to a political party but it's still held to the same law. Furthermore the convictions of people in political parties are just as strongly held and it is much easier to argue why political affiliation should be unrestricted.
|
On December 13 2012 19:42 ninini wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 12:28 The Irate Turk wrote:
But: the more I think about it, the more the bakery example holds true and this causes many problems if you are religious. A bakery refusing to serve black customers and a religion refusing to marry two men are equivalent positions. The only way someone will be able to defend such a position from a religious standpoint is through revelation or something similar.
I feel that the real point here is that in order to be logically and morally consistent one is forced to conclude that there is no place in society for a religion which would have reservations about performing gay marriages.
Should a bakery should be allowed to refuse to serve someone on the basis of their race? I think if you are sane you fall into one of two camps:
1) No
2) Yes, but only because society will flush the toilet on the bakery without the need for the government interference.
Without getting too sidetracked, either answer works because the end result is the same: the racist baker is out of business one way or the other. And we are happy.
Why are religions against homosexuality and gay marriage? It basically boils do to outdated, morally reprehensible and indefensible viewpoints. Just as we do not exclude a person from a religion because they are black, and the same person shouldn't be excluded because they are gay. It is just really unfortunate (for major religions) that they have explicitly stated their barbaric positions on homosexuality in a way that means followers either have to accept that their major teachings are open to interpretation (a can of worms) or are inflexible (a can of worms).
A point that is made over and over again is that religion has a monopoly on marriage and "the definition of marriage". Even if the history of marriage was linked to religion, we place an emphasis on "getting married" through culture and as a result it would still be fair game to claim it for wider society.
All in all, I am happy that our LGBT brothers and sisters are finally able to get married, but would have much rather preferred for there not to be a "quadruple lock" protecting religious freedom; I think that a church should not have the power to reject a gay couple from getting married and issues like gay marriage are the final nails in the coffin for religion.
The bakery example does not hold true. To sell food is a secular service, which means that you have to follow secular rules of discrimination. Marriage in a church however is a religious service, which means that by our religious freedom, the church should be allowed to decide who to offer their services to. Anyway. You claim that the church doesn't accept gay marriage, simply because it's outdated, just because you think so. That's your opinion, don't act like it's a fact. Get off your high horses ppl. There's so many faux liberals here. True liberalism is about accepting other ppl's ideas as equal to your own. The church should never be allowed to judge over secular matters like burglary, murder or even secular marriage, but they should have a right to discriminate when it comes to their own services, like religious marriage. Whoever disagrees with me here, clearly doesn't believe in freedom of religion. Don't get me wrong, I don't assume that everybody is willing to accept all concepts of freedom, but that's what I believe in anyway. Anyway, I don't get some of you guys here. You say that the state never forced the church to accept gay marriage, but at the same time, you very clearly criticize the law because it didn't lead to that, that it didn't lead to the church being forced to accept gay marriage. Don't let the secular courts judge matters of faith and religion. It doesn't work, and for that reason, religious institutions should have the right to judge matters of faith, but their power should be restricted to inclusion and exclusion. In other words, a church should have the right to exclude members if they don't accept their rules, and they should also be allowed to deny marriage between parties who don't accept their rules.
You and posters who have been arguing this line have been arguing that there are one set of rules (you call them secular.. I would rather name them rule of law principles) that apply to religious organisations an another for the rest. What I don't understand is how you have come to this conclusion, it would help me if you could cogently argue what makes religious organisations so 'special' that they should not be set against the same standards that we set the rest of society against (e.g. Discrimination laws).
|
Sweet! Now I can marry my father.
User was warned for this post
|
On December 13 2012 21:41 KwarK wrote:
ninini, the issue I am having is why secular law doesn't apply to religion in a secular society. It's no stranger to say that baking law should apply to bakeries than religious law to apply to religions. If they are to be granted exemptions from laws that apply to every other group, be it a political party, business, private club or anything else then it must be justified beyond different treatment because they're different. A bakery is different to a political party but it's still held to the same law. Furthermore the convictions of people in political parties are just as strongly held and it is much easier to argue why political affiliation should be unrestricted.
You're free to choose the religion you want and to not marry at the Church. Moreover, there's no punition for apostasy in Christianity.
So the core philosophical principle of secularism is totally respected.
From a pure legal point of view, as stated above, it's a non-issue.
There's no law obliging the Church to open the religious marriage, a church institution, to homosexual couple.
Making one would probably be against human rights and the right to freedom of association.
Would that bother you, or are you the kind of guy who only promote human rights when they're used as a vector for your own agenda, and who only cares about churches when immigrants are expelled from them ?
|
United States42437 Posts
On December 13 2012 23:33 SiroKO wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 21:41 KwarK wrote:
ninini, the issue I am having is why secular law doesn't apply to religion in a secular society. It's no stranger to say that baking law should apply to bakeries than religious law to apply to religions. If they are to be granted exemptions from laws that apply to every other group, be it a political party, business, private club or anything else then it must be justified beyond different treatment because they're different. A bakery is different to a political party but it's still held to the same law. Furthermore the convictions of people in political parties are just as strongly held and it is much easier to argue why political affiliation should be unrestricted. You're free to choose the religion you want and to not marry at the Church. Moreover, there's no punition for apostasy in Christianity. So the core philosophical principle of secularism is totally respected. From a pure legal point of view, as stated above, it's a non-issue. There's no law obliging the Church to open the religious marriage, a church institution, to homosexual couple. Making one would probably be against human rights and the right to freedom of association. Would that bother you, or are you the kind of guy who only promote human rights when they're used as a vector for your own agenda, and who only cares about churches when immigrants are expelled from them ?
Yes there is in the UK, that's why they want the exemption. The church doesn't deal in civil partnerships but if it did it couldn't deny one to a couple on the grounds of their sexuality. If gays can get married and the church offers to perform marriages then they won't legally be able to discriminate on the grounds of sexual preference. That's why they want the . In the UK the legalisation of gay marriage will compel churches to perform gay marriage.
I have no idea what you're talking about with human rights and immigrants.
|
If all private organizations in the UK are not allowed to discriminate in their membership does that mean MENSA could be forced to allow lower-IQ people to join? Or a club for lesbians forced to allow male members? These examples may sound absurd but I'm not trolling- I think they do raise the question of where the line is (or should be) drawn with such legislation.
|
On December 14 2012 00:16 tomatriedes wrote:
If all private organizations in the UK are not allowed to discriminate in their membership does that mean MENSA could be forced to allow lower-IQ people to join? Or a club for lesbians forced to allow male members? These examples may sound absurd but I'm not trolling- I think they do raise the question of where the line is (or should be) drawn with such legislation.
Lesbian club would be prosecuted, MENSA would not (unless a person's discrimination was based on a disability, which is very feasible).
To quote the home Office website:
The act covers nine protected characteristics, which cannot be used as a reason to treat people unfairly. Every person has one or more of the protected characteristics, so the act protects everyone against unfair treatment. The protected characteristics are:
age
disability
gender reassignment
marriage and civil partnership
pregnancy and maternity
race
religion or belief
sex
sexual orientation
The Equality Act sets out the different ways in which it is unlawful to treat someone, such as direct and indirect discrimination, harassment, victimisation and failing to make a reasonable adjustment for a disabled person.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/equalities/equality-act/
It is only these characteristics that are protected, which does not include IQ.
EDIT: as a side note, it is feasible that MENSA could be accused of indirect discrimination do due, for example, age (as I recall it being studied that IQ diminishes with age).
|
This is a complete non-issue and a great example of a first world problem.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On December 13 2012 21:41 KwarK wrote:
ninini, the issue I am having is why secular law doesn't apply to religion in a secular society. It's no stranger to say that baking law should apply to bakeries than religious law to apply to religions. If they are to be granted exemptions from laws that apply to every other group, be it a political party, business, private club or anything else then it must be justified beyond different treatment because they're different. A bakery is different to a political party but it's still held to the same law. Furthermore the convictions of people in political parties are just as strongly held and it is much easier to argue why political affiliation should be unrestricted.
We do have freedom of speech, but there are restrictions, like hate speech. We are supposedly free to say whatever we want, but still it's illegal to say some things. There must be exceptions. In Sweden it's illegal to show commercials about alcoholic drinks or drugs like cigarettes. That's discrimination against certain companies and the target audience. It's also illegal here to smoke in bars, in restaurants, etc. That's discrimination against smokers. Sure, they can smoke somewhere else, but you can also say that gay ppl can get married somewhere else.
If you let secular law rule over religion, we can't have freedom of religion, because you would put restrictions on the church's policies, and neither could we have freedom of choice, because you would force priests to do something that they don't agree with. So for that reason it's an exception.
I know it's the norm to persecute religious ppl these days, but it needs to stop.
|
On December 14 2012 00:55 ninini wrote:
It's also illegal here to smoke in bars, in restaurants, etc. That's discrimination against smokers. Sure, they can smoke somewhere else, but you can also say that gay ppl can get married somewhere else.
That is not an example of discrimination. Discrimination means the laws must apply differently to two people.
Neither my sister nor I may smoke in a bar in Sweden. There is no discrimination there.
My sister may marry Justin Bieber, but I may not in the state of North Carolina. That is discrimination.
When the government punishes behavior that would have wanted to engage in that is not discrimination.
It is also not discrimination when the government rewards behavior that you do not want to engage in.
Discrimination is when the laws apply differently to different people.
|
United States42437 Posts
I don't believe in freedom of religion in any sense more than I believe in freedom of bakery. I'd see them no more free to discriminate than anyone else. I agree that it would end freedom of religion but if I challenge the principe of freedom of religion then saying "but freedom of religion" is just describing my view rather than arguing against it. They'll still be as free as the baker. The freedom that people seem to confuse freedom of religion with is freedom of thought and opinion, the freedom that lets you be an anarchist or a racist or a capitalist. They're taking that principle, which is in no way under threat, and extending it to being able to act as they want as well as just thinking but saying that it should apply to religion only. It's a nonsense, you're not allowed to believe what you want because of freedom of religion, you're just allowed to believe what you want. I see no link between the freedom to think what you like, about religious matters or otherwise, and the right to have your actions legally protected.
I also see no reason why holding religion to the same basic set of rules on how you treat others is persecuting them. Refusal to grant special exemptions to pander to their desire to discriminate is hardly persecution.
|
I think that there is social value in the church as an institution which can offer resistance and counterweight to the secular authority. I think this is plenty of reason to treat the church differently. I am not a religious person and I have not attended church in many years. But I think that, unless there is a really good reason otherwise, the state should stay out of the sanctuary.
And I think this law will work against the main social goal, which is to encourage and leave open the door to doctrinal/ideological change towards acceptance of homosexuality.
|
On December 14 2012 01:05 KwarK wrote:
I don't believe in freedom of religion in any sense more than I believe in freedom of bakery. I'd see them no more free to discriminate than anyone else. I agree that it would end freedom of religion but if I challenge the principe of freedom of religion then saying "but freedom of religion" is just describing my view rather than arguing against it. They'll still be as free as the baker.
I also see no reason why holding religion to the same basic set of rules on how you treat others is persecuting them. Refusal to grant special exemptions to pander to their desire to discriminate is hardly persecution.
I see religions as similar to a any other or association.
A boxer in a boxing club who frequently cheats and deals too many low blows would not be prosecuted for assault, but instead kicked out of the club. Should the club be forced to keep him as a member until they can get an assault conviction or at least win a civil suit against him?
Now consider a political association. Can a political party kick out certain members who the party does not consider to be loyal? If Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are holding a high level political strategy meeting, can Joe Biden show up and say he wants in?
In business these sorts of laws already exist, but there is a loophole for politics. Basically if the major energy CEOs want to get together to have a conversation they need to allow others to monitor what is said and record what is said or they could run foul of anti-trust laws. Otherwise there is a risk that they may conspire to run up the price of energy.
If they are fortunate enough to be meeting with an important politician such as Vice President Dick Cheney, then Dick Cheney can claim "executive privilege."
If people are allowed to keep secrets then they must be able to restrict who can join a club. The alternative is that all meetings are open meetings.
Another issue is that minority clubs can be disrupted if they cannot keep out members of the majority.
For instance if a LGTB club forms on campus, would they be forced to allow straight members of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes or Inter Varsity? What if those members join the club and then promptly vote to disband it, or to spend its money on a campaign that promotes a definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman.
Without the ability to keep out members who disagree with it, any minority association runs the risk of being hijacked at any time.
|
One thing I've noticed is that college kids, in their youthful zeal for democratic ideals, have a poor appreciation for the historical importance of religion and traditional moral values. You see, for a very long time, morality wasn't merely "do whatever the hell you want as long as it doesn't physically harm someone else". In fact, it it all developed very naturally over thousands and thousands of years around what was best for the stability of society. This actually extended a lot further than mere physical well-being, which is a very naive way of looking at things. I'll just stop there and you can take a few years to read up on it if you'd like.
|
On December 14 2012 01:48 meadbert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 01:05 KwarK wrote:
I don't believe in freedom of religion in any sense more than I believe in freedom of bakery. I'd see them no more free to discriminate than anyone else. I agree that it would end freedom of religion but if I challenge the principe of freedom of religion then saying "but freedom of religion" is just describing my view rather than arguing against it. They'll still be as free as the baker.
I also see no reason why holding religion to the same basic set of rules on how you treat others is persecuting them. Refusal to grant special exemptions to pander to their desire to discriminate is hardly persecution. I see religions as similar to a any other or association
That's a fair argument. I would accept that if:
Religious organisations were held to the exact same laws that other organisation are, no exceptions.
Religious organisations filed accounts and paid taxes.
Religious organisations could not perform legally binding marriages.
Children under the age of 16 were not allowed to be members of a religious organisation.
The Church of England did not get 28 (I think?) seats in the house of lords.
|
On December 14 2012 01:53 hzflank wrote:
Religious organisations were held to the exact same laws that other organisation are, no exceptions.
Yes.
On December 14 2012 01:53 hzflank wrote:
Religious organisations filed accounts and paid taxes.
Yes, assuming all organizations (including non profits) must do the same.
On December 14 2012 01:53 hzflank wrote:
Religious organisations could not perform legally binding marriages.
Organizations can perform whatever marriages they want. It is up to the state to decide what is legally binding.
In North Carolina you need a marriage license to make a marriage legally binding.
On December 14 2012 01:53 hzflank wrote:
Children under the age of 16 were not allowed to be members of a religious organisation.
Why not? They can join other organizations?
On December 14 2012 01:53 hzflank wrote:
The Church of England did not get 28 (I think?) seats in the house of lords.
As an American I think having a house of lords is hysterical to begin with and setting aside 28 seats for the Church of England is icing on the cake.
|
On December 14 2012 01:49 jdsowa wrote:
One thing I've noticed is that college kids, in their youthful zeal for democratic ideals, have a poor appreciation for the historical importance of religion and traditional moral values. You see, for a very long time, morality wasn't merely "do whatever the hell you want as long as it doesn't physically harm someone else". In fact, it it all developed very naturally over thousands and thousands of years around what was best for the stability of society. This actually extended a lot further than mere physical well-being, which is a very naive way of looking at things. I'll just stop there and you can take a few years to read up on it if you'd like.
Sorry for continuing this off-topic tangent, but do you have some sort of proof that the set of morals developed over thousands and thousands of years was caused directly by religion?
Some of the most immoral acts, by anyone's standards, in recorded history through today, are done by religious people in the name of religion.
I like to think this world would be much better place if people would realize it is possible to have a strong moral code without religious nonsense.
|
On December 14 2012 01:05 KwarK wrote:
I don't believe in freedom of religion in any sense more than I believe in freedom of bakery. I'd see them no more free to discriminate than anyone else. I agree that it would end freedom of religion but if I challenge the principe of freedom of religion then saying "but freedom of religion" is just describing my view rather than arguing against it. They'll still be as free as the baker. The freedom that people seem to confuse freedom of religion with is freedom of thought and opinion, the freedom that lets you be an anarchist or a racist or a capitalist. They're taking that principle, which is in no way under threat, and extending it to being able to act as they want as well as just thinking but saying that it should apply to religion only. It's a nonsense, you're not allowed to believe what you want because of freedom of religion, you're just allowed to believe what you want. I see no link between the freedom to think what you like, about religious matters or otherwise, and the right to have your actions legally protected.
I also see no reason why holding religion to the same basic set of rules on how you treat others is persecuting them. Refusal to grant special exemptions to pander to their desire to discriminate is hardly persecution.
assuming there should be no freedom of religion then there is no basis for giving religions a pass on anti-discrimination laws. if you dont have freedom of religion though, would there be a UK government to even make laws? if the U.S. took away the freedom of religion, the government would fall and then there would be no laws. when the government no longer supports its constituents' beliefs, it no longer functions as a government--the so called "pandering."
|
This discussion comes down to why religious organisations deserve special treatment over non-religious organisations and I haven't seen a single argument that even comes close to justifying that.
"because freedom of religion" is as valid a response to this as "because freedom of speech" is as a defence against a slander or libel lawsuit.
Forums like teamliquid.net aren't the only thing in need of some severe moderation imo.
|
On December 14 2012 04:13 Reason wrote:
This discussion comes down to why religious organisations deserve special treatment over non-religious organisations and I haven't seen a single argument that even comes close to justifying that.
"because freedom of religion" is as valid a response to this as "because freedom of speech" is as a defence against a slander or libel lawsuit.
Forums like teamliquid.net aren't the only thing in need of some severe moderation imo.
there would be no government without freedom of religion. if the constituents dont want something then the government (who represents the constituents) cant do it.
|
On December 14 2012 04:18 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 04:13 Reason wrote:
This discussion comes down to why religious organisations deserve special treatment over non-religious organisations and I haven't seen a single argument that even comes close to justifying that.
"because freedom of religion" is as valid a response to this as "because freedom of speech" is as a defence against a slander or libel lawsuit.
Forums like teamliquid.net aren't the only thing in need of some severe moderation imo. there would be no government without freedom of religion. if the constituents dont want something then the government (who represents the constituents) cant do it.
Well there's a government without freedom of speech if we are to go by your flawed reasoning because despite strong convictions by the overwhelming majority of the population in favour of freedom of speech you can still get into a lot of trouble for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time.
|
On December 14 2012 04:24 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 04:18 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 04:13 Reason wrote:
This discussion comes down to why religious organisations deserve special treatment over non-religious organisations and I haven't seen a single argument that even comes close to justifying that.
"because freedom of religion" is as valid a response to this as "because freedom of speech" is as a defence against a slander or libel lawsuit.
Forums like teamliquid.net aren't the only thing in need of some severe moderation imo. there would be no government without freedom of religion. if the constituents dont want something then the government (who represents the constituents) cant do it. Well there's a government without freedom of speech if we are to go by your flawed reasoning because despite strong convictions by the overwhelming majority of the population in favour of freedom of speech you can still get into a lot of trouble for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time.
my flawed reasoning? obviously the religious group is strong enough to dictate how laws are written in UK. i dont know why you are talking about freedom of speech.
|
On December 14 2012 04:28 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 04:24 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 04:18 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 04:13 Reason wrote:
This discussion comes down to why religious organisations deserve special treatment over non-religious organisations and I haven't seen a single argument that even comes close to justifying that.
"because freedom of religion" is as valid a response to this as "because freedom of speech" is as a defence against a slander or libel lawsuit.
Forums like teamliquid.net aren't the only thing in need of some severe moderation imo. there would be no government without freedom of religion. if the constituents dont want something then the government (who represents the constituents) cant do it. Well there's a government without freedom of speech if we are to go by your flawed reasoning because despite strong convictions by the overwhelming majority of the population in favour of freedom of speech you can still get into a lot of trouble for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. my flawed reasoning? obviously the religious group is strong enough to dictate how laws are written in UK. i dont know why you are talking about freedom of speech.
On December 14 2012 04:13 Reason wrote:
This discussion comes down to why religious organisations deserve special treatment over non-religious organisations and I haven't seen a single argument that even comes close to justifying that.
"because freedom of religion" is as valid a response to this as "because freedom of speech" is as a defence against a slander or libel lawsuit.
Forums like teamliquid.net aren't the only thing in need of some severe moderation imo.
That's why?
We have freedom of speech in this country, but not to the extent where you can just go around saying what you want, when you want and to who you want. There isn't complete anarchy as a result of this heinous infringement on our right to free speech.
Similarly, if religious organisations weren't allowed to discriminate against gay people just like every other non religious organisation your suggestion that the government would collapse is equally as incorrect.
|
On December 14 2012 04:18 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 04:13 Reason wrote:
This discussion comes down to why religious organisations deserve special treatment over non-religious organisations and I haven't seen a single argument that even comes close to justifying that.
"because freedom of religion" is as valid a response to this as "because freedom of speech" is as a defence against a slander or libel lawsuit.
Forums like teamliquid.net aren't the only thing in need of some severe moderation imo. there would be no government without freedom of religion. if the constituents dont want something then the government (who represents the constituents) cant do it.
It's not a case of banning religion or even religious practice, it's a case of banning particular kinds of religious practice. When I used to live in London, I used to hear every now and again about African people doing unspeakable harm to vulnerable people or children under their care due to exorcisms under a spiritualist/religious basis (I think there's a special police ring dedicated to it now). This would never be allowed under 'freedom of religion,' what is being discussed is no different - it is lengthening the boundary over what is not permitted at religious practice.
Your point on the dependance of government on religion is an interesting one. The whole idea of a secular government is that no one religion dominates the political authority (historically of course there is a deep running Christian doctrine to the government of the UK). It's kind of meant to work like a ban on cigarette advertising - since all companies are banned from advertising then no-one is at a disadvantage/misrepresentation of any other, so no-one minds.
In all honesty I can hardly see the British government collapse if it didn't have religious support, in fact no single party won the general election so really they don't have the support of a solid majority and still they get by.
EDIT:
my flawed reasoning? obviously the religious group is strong enough to dictate how laws are written in UK. i dont know why you are talking about freedom of speech.
I wouldn't take it as a case in point that since religious groups are mentioned in this bill that they have a particularly string sway in the the UK.
|
On December 14 2012 04:31 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 04:28 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 04:24 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 04:18 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 04:13 Reason wrote:
This discussion comes down to why religious organisations deserve special treatment over non-religious organisations and I haven't seen a single argument that even comes close to justifying that.
"because freedom of religion" is as valid a response to this as "because freedom of speech" is as a defence against a slander or libel lawsuit.
Forums like teamliquid.net aren't the only thing in need of some severe moderation imo. there would be no government without freedom of religion. if the constituents dont want something then the government (who represents the constituents) cant do it. Well there's a government without freedom of speech if we are to go by your flawed reasoning because despite strong convictions by the overwhelming majority of the population in favour of freedom of speech you can still get into a lot of trouble for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. my flawed reasoning? obviously the religious group is strong enough to dictate how laws are written in UK. i dont know why you are talking about freedom of speech. Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 04:13 Reason wrote:
This discussion comes down to why religious organisations deserve special treatment over non-religious organisations and I haven't seen a single argument that even comes close to justifying that.
"because freedom of religion" is as valid a response to this as "because freedom of speech" is as a defence against a slander or libel lawsuit.
Forums like teamliquid.net aren't the only thing in need of some severe moderation imo. That's why? We have freedom of speech in this country, but not to the extent where you can just go around saying what you want when you want to who you want. There isn't complete anarchy as a result of this heinous infringement on our right to free speech. Similarly, if religious organisations weren't allowed to discriminate against gay people just like every other non religious organisation your suggestion that the government would collapse is equally as incorrect.
there is a difference between taking away the freedom of religion, and infringing on the freedom of religion. and people dont hold the freedom of speech as dearly as they do the freedom of religion. its like comparing apples to oranges. if you take away the freedom of religion then you're going to have a really bad time if you're a government like the U.S. (not sure if its as bad in the U.K.).
but, thats beside the point, the constituents want a freedom of religion, and thus, the government has to follow their wishes. so, why do religions get special treatment over private organizations? because the people want it.
|
On December 14 2012 04:13 Reason wrote:
I haven't seen a single argument that even comes close to justifying that.
Because the complete colonization of the life-world by goal-oriented cognitive-instrumental rationality (i.e. bourgeois secular authority) is a Very Bad Thing. If you want a more elaborate argument, I would recommend reading _The Theory of Communicative Action_ by Jürgen Habermas.
edit: You could also read _The Dialectic of Enlightenment_ by Adorno and Horkheimer though I do not hold as closely to their position in that text.
|
On December 14 2012 04:34 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 04:18 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 04:13 Reason wrote:
This discussion comes down to why religious organisations deserve special treatment over non-religious organisations and I haven't seen a single argument that even comes close to justifying that.
"because freedom of religion" is as valid a response to this as "because freedom of speech" is as a defence against a slander or libel lawsuit.
Forums like teamliquid.net aren't the only thing in need of some severe moderation imo. there would be no government without freedom of religion. if the constituents dont want something then the government (who represents the constituents) cant do it. It's not a case of banning religion or even religious practice, it's a case of banning particular kinds of religious practice. When I used to live in London, I used to hear every now and again about African people doing unspeakable harm to vulnerable people or children under their care due to exorcisms under a spiritualist/religious basis (I think there's a special police ring dedicated to it now). This would never be allowed under 'freedom of religion,' what is being discussed is no different - it is lengthening the boundary over what is not permitted at religious practice. Your point on the dependance of government on religion is an interesting one. The whole idea of a secular government is that no one religion dominates the political authority (historically of course there is a deep running Christian doctrine to the government of the UK). It's kind of meant to work like a ban on cigarette advertising - since all companies are banned from advertising then no-one is at a disadvantage/misrepresentation of any other, so no-one minds. In all honesty I can hardly see the British government collapse if it didn't have religious support, in fact no single party won the general election so really they don't have the support of a solid majority and still they get by. EDIT: Show nested quote +my flawed reasoning? obviously the religious group is strong enough to dictate how laws are written in UK. i dont know why you are talking about freedom of speech. I wouldn't take it as a case in point that since religious groups are mentioned in this bill that they have a particularly string sway in the the UK.
first, taking away freedom of religion and infringing freedom of religion are two separate things.
second, i didnt say the government was dependent on religions per se. they are dependent on their constituents, and when their constituents are religious then they have to "pander" to the religious views. if religions werent a strong lobbying force in the U.K. then its unlikely they would have the swagger to force an exception to the general anti-discrimination rule.
the point though is that the reason there is a freedom of religion is that the constituents want it. and the reason that they are making exceptions for religions, and not private groups, is because the people want it. governments dont work if they dont support the people's beliefs.
|
On December 14 2012 04:37 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 04:31 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 04:28 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 04:24 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 04:18 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 04:13 Reason wrote:
This discussion comes down to why religious organisations deserve special treatment over non-religious organisations and I haven't seen a single argument that even comes close to justifying that.
"because freedom of religion" is as valid a response to this as "because freedom of speech" is as a defence against a slander or libel lawsuit.
Forums like teamliquid.net aren't the only thing in need of some severe moderation imo. there would be no government without freedom of religion. if the constituents dont want something then the government (who represents the constituents) cant do it. Well there's a government without freedom of speech if we are to go by your flawed reasoning because despite strong convictions by the overwhelming majority of the population in favour of freedom of speech you can still get into a lot of trouble for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. my flawed reasoning? obviously the religious group is strong enough to dictate how laws are written in UK. i dont know why you are talking about freedom of speech. On December 14 2012 04:13 Reason wrote:
This discussion comes down to why religious organisations deserve special treatment over non-religious organisations and I haven't seen a single argument that even comes close to justifying that.
"because freedom of religion" is as valid a response to this as "because freedom of speech" is as a defence against a slander or libel lawsuit.
Forums like teamliquid.net aren't the only thing in need of some severe moderation imo. That's why? We have freedom of speech in this country, but not to the extent where you can just go around saying what you want when you want to who you want. There isn't complete anarchy as a result of this heinous infringement on our right to free speech. Similarly, if religious organisations weren't allowed to discriminate against gay people just like every other non religious organisation your suggestion that the government would collapse is equally as incorrect. there is a difference between taking away the freedom of religion, and infringing on the freedom of religion. and people dont hold the freedom of speech as dearly as they do the freedom of religion. its like comparing apples to oranges. if you take away the freedom of religion then you're going to have a really bad time if you're a government like the U.S. (not sure if its as bad in the U.K.). but, thats beside the point, the constituents want a freedom of religion, and thus, the government has to follow their wishes. so, why do religions get special treatment over private organizations? because the people want it.
I think you're interpreting parliamentary democracy far too openly (and naively even) , it's not like we've had a referendum on it or anything.
We basically vote for people to make political decisions for us, to be cynical they usually reneg on the commitments that got them voted in straight away - LibDems on tutition fees anyone? I appreciate you may not be aware of the context, but as a Conservative-led coalition government it is very easy to imagine that the bill may be being pushed through with the religious content due to the wishes of a few powerful Torys.
EDIT: to be clear, to simply say "it's in the bill therefore it is the will of the constituents" is not true.
|
On December 14 2012 04:45 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 04:37 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 04:31 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 04:28 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 04:24 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 04:18 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 04:13 Reason wrote:
This discussion comes down to why religious organisations deserve special treatment over non-religious organisations and I haven't seen a single argument that even comes close to justifying that.
"because freedom of religion" is as valid a response to this as "because freedom of speech" is as a defence against a slander or libel lawsuit.
Forums like teamliquid.net aren't the only thing in need of some severe moderation imo. there would be no government without freedom of religion. if the constituents dont want something then the government (who represents the constituents) cant do it. Well there's a government without freedom of speech if we are to go by your flawed reasoning because despite strong convictions by the overwhelming majority of the population in favour of freedom of speech you can still get into a lot of trouble for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. my flawed reasoning? obviously the religious group is strong enough to dictate how laws are written in UK. i dont know why you are talking about freedom of speech. On December 14 2012 04:13 Reason wrote:
This discussion comes down to why religious organisations deserve special treatment over non-religious organisations and I haven't seen a single argument that even comes close to justifying that.
"because freedom of religion" is as valid a response to this as "because freedom of speech" is as a defence against a slander or libel lawsuit.
Forums like teamliquid.net aren't the only thing in need of some severe moderation imo. That's why? We have freedom of speech in this country, but not to the extent where you can just go around saying what you want when you want to who you want. There isn't complete anarchy as a result of this heinous infringement on our right to free speech. Similarly, if religious organisations weren't allowed to discriminate against gay people just like every other non religious organisation your suggestion that the government would collapse is equally as incorrect. there is a difference between taking away the freedom of religion, and infringing on the freedom of religion. and people dont hold the freedom of speech as dearly as they do the freedom of religion. its like comparing apples to oranges. if you take away the freedom of religion then you're going to have a really bad time if you're a government like the U.S. (not sure if its as bad in the U.K.). but, thats beside the point, the constituents want a freedom of religion, and thus, the government has to follow their wishes. so, why do religions get special treatment over private organizations? because the people want it. I think you're interpreting parliamentary democracy far too openly (and naively even) , it's not like we've had a referendum on it or anything. We basically vote for people to make political decisions for us, to be cynical they usually reneg on the commitments that got them voted in straight away - LibDems on tutition fees anyone? I appreciate you may not be aware of the context, but as a Conservative-led coalition government it is very easy to imagine that the bill may be being pushed through with the religious content due to the wishes of a few powerful Torys.
well, i am assuming the government is working as intended. if people dont like decisions made on religious principles, i would assume they wouldnt vote for people who make decisions made on religious principles.
|
On December 14 2012 04:37 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 04:31 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 04:28 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 04:24 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 04:18 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 04:13 Reason wrote:
This discussion comes down to why religious organisations deserve special treatment over non-religious organisations and I haven't seen a single argument that even comes close to justifying that.
"because freedom of religion" is as valid a response to this as "because freedom of speech" is as a defence against a slander or libel lawsuit.
Forums like teamliquid.net aren't the only thing in need of some severe moderation imo. there would be no government without freedom of religion. if the constituents dont want something then the government (who represents the constituents) cant do it. Well there's a government without freedom of speech if we are to go by your flawed reasoning because despite strong convictions by the overwhelming majority of the population in favour of freedom of speech you can still get into a lot of trouble for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. my flawed reasoning? obviously the religious group is strong enough to dictate how laws are written in UK. i dont know why you are talking about freedom of speech. On December 14 2012 04:13 Reason wrote:
This discussion comes down to why religious organisations deserve special treatment over non-religious organisations and I haven't seen a single argument that even comes close to justifying that.
"because freedom of religion" is as valid a response to this as "because freedom of speech" is as a defence against a slander or libel lawsuit.
Forums like teamliquid.net aren't the only thing in need of some severe moderation imo. That's why? We have freedom of speech in this country, but not to the extent where you can just go around saying what you want when you want to who you want. There isn't complete anarchy as a result of this heinous infringement on our right to free speech. Similarly, if religious organisations weren't allowed to discriminate against gay people just like every other non religious organisation your suggestion that the government would collapse is equally as incorrect. there is a difference between taking away the freedom of religion, and infringing on the freedom of religion. and people dont hold the freedom of speech as dearly as they do the freedom of religion. its like comparing apples to oranges. if you take away the freedom of religion then you're going to have a really bad time if you're a government like the U.S. (not sure if its as bad in the U.K.). but, thats beside the point, the constituents want a freedom of religion, and thus, the government has to follow their wishes. so, why do religions get special treatment over private organizations? because the people want it.
Freedom of religion has limits.
I am not proposing the removal of freedom of religion.
The boundaries of freedom of religion and freedom of speech are both dictated by secular law. If the non-discrimination of homosexuals was one futher limitation on religions "the people" are not going to rise up in anarchy.
Like I said, "freedom of religion" is as valid a counter argument to why religions should be allowed special treatment over non religious organisations as "freedom of speech" is a valid counter argument to a libel lawsuit.
I couldn't care less if the majority of people are religious and believe with absolutely no justification that religious organisations deserve special treatment. I'm asking can you justify it without just repeating "freedom of religion" over and over?
|
On December 14 2012 04:51 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 04:37 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 04:31 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 04:28 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 04:24 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 04:18 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 04:13 Reason wrote:
This discussion comes down to why religious organisations deserve special treatment over non-religious organisations and I haven't seen a single argument that even comes close to justifying that.
"because freedom of religion" is as valid a response to this as "because freedom of speech" is as a defence against a slander or libel lawsuit.
Forums like teamliquid.net aren't the only thing in need of some severe moderation imo. there would be no government without freedom of religion. if the constituents dont want something then the government (who represents the constituents) cant do it. Well there's a government without freedom of speech if we are to go by your flawed reasoning because despite strong convictions by the overwhelming majority of the population in favour of freedom of speech you can still get into a lot of trouble for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. my flawed reasoning? obviously the religious group is strong enough to dictate how laws are written in UK. i dont know why you are talking about freedom of speech. On December 14 2012 04:13 Reason wrote:
This discussion comes down to why religious organisations deserve special treatment over non-religious organisations and I haven't seen a single argument that even comes close to justifying that.
"because freedom of religion" is as valid a response to this as "because freedom of speech" is as a defence against a slander or libel lawsuit.
Forums like teamliquid.net aren't the only thing in need of some severe moderation imo. That's why? We have freedom of speech in this country, but not to the extent where you can just go around saying what you want when you want to who you want. There isn't complete anarchy as a result of this heinous infringement on our right to free speech. Similarly, if religious organisations weren't allowed to discriminate against gay people just like every other non religious organisation your suggestion that the government would collapse is equally as incorrect. there is a difference between taking away the freedom of religion, and infringing on the freedom of religion. and people dont hold the freedom of speech as dearly as they do the freedom of religion. its like comparing apples to oranges. if you take away the freedom of religion then you're going to have a really bad time if you're a government like the U.S. (not sure if its as bad in the U.K.). but, thats beside the point, the constituents want a freedom of religion, and thus, the government has to follow their wishes. so, why do religions get special treatment over private organizations? because the people want it. Freedom of religion has limits. I am not proposing the removal of freedom of religion. The boundaries of freedom of religion and freedom of speech are both dictated by secular law. If the non-discrimination of homosexuals was one futher limitation on religions "the people" are not going to rise up in anarchy. Like I said, "freedom of religion" is as valid a counter argument to why religions should be allowed special treatment over non religious organisations as "freedom of speech" is a valid counter argument to a libel lawsuit. I couldn't care less if the majority of people are religious and believe with absolutely no justification that religious organisations deserve special treatment. I'm asking can you justify it without just repeating "freedom of religion" over and over?
they deserve special treatment because the people want them to deserve special treatment. that has been my whole point all along. governments do what the people want (hopefully).
|
What sort of justification would you accept? I don't feel like you're prepared to listen to much of anything.
Then again from your handle it seems you may have delusions of Robespierre so there's that, I guess.
|
It is right that religious organizations should be held accountable to laws to protect British subjects from discrimination in the same way as any other organization are.
This is a matter of right and wrong, the supposed democratic will of the people (in the unlikely event that it is actually being expressed in this bill - or in any other for that matter) is fairly low on the list of priorities. It is both wrong and illegal to discriminate against those protected under the Equality Act 2010.
If more or less people felt that anyone deserved to be treated with discrimination it would not change whether it was right or wrong.
EDIT: to second guess any counter arguments under human rights and freedom of expression, I take KwarK's line: that you can - nigh must - be intolerant to intolerance.
|
If I could justify this position I wouldn't hold the opposite view, would I?
I guess I can't make you answer my question, because I already know there isn't an answer.
The majority of people are religious and therefore religions get special treatment, but as far as any impartial reasons go for why religions deserve special treatment?
Nothing yet...
The point isn't really even debatable unless you come up with reasons why they deserve special treatment apart from their own members wish it (yeah, no shit) and since no one has I guess we just go in circles =/
|
On December 14 2012 05:14 Reason wrote:
I already know there isn't an answer.
sigh
edit: I've tried to give you my reason but you haven't even acknowledged it, just kept repeating that it doesn't exist.
edit: so I guess your question is purely rhetorical then. nice.
|
On December 14 2012 05:13 Deleuze wrote:
It is right that religious organizations should be held accountable to laws to protect British subjects from discrimination in the same way as any other organization are.
This is a matter of right and wrong, the supposed democratic will of the people (in the unlikely event that it is actually being expressed in this bill - or in any other for that matter) is fairly low on the list of priorities. It is both wrong and illegal to discriminate against those protected under the Equality Act 2010.
If more or less people felt that anyone deserved to be treated with discrimination it would not change whether it was right or wrong.
EDIT: to second guess any counter arguments under human rights and freedom of expression, I take KwarK's line: that you can be intolerant to intolerance.
so, the government should do what it feels is right, not what the people feel is right. got it.
|
On December 14 2012 05:13 Deleuze wrote:
It is right that religious organizations should be held accountable to laws to protect British subjects from discrimination in the same way as any other organization are.
This is a matter of right and wrong, the supposed democratic will of the people (in the unlikely event that it is actually being expressed in this bill - or in any other for that matter) is fairly low on the list of priorities. It is both wrong and illegal to discriminate against those protected under the Equality Act 2010.
If more or less people felt that anyone deserved to be treated with discrimination it would not change whether it was right or wrong.
Additionally, it is wrong for the government to artificially lend its support de facto to church leadership when said leadership is currently embroiled in conflict with its congregations over doctrinal matters. The government has no place in this debate.
|
On December 14 2012 05:15 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 05:14 Reason wrote:
I already know there isn't an answer. sigh
On December 14 2012 04:55 sam!zdat wrote:
I don't feel like you're prepared to listen to much of anything.
Then again from your handle it seems you may have delusions of Robespierre so there's that, I guess.
See when I read that post? I sighed. I also then did you the undeserved courtesy of responding honestly and as best I could.
Thanks for doing the same 
|
That's not the post where I gave you my reason. That's the post after you ignored me trying to give me my reason.
|
has anyone else noticed the irony in the some, but not all, UK view that religion isnt important, and the some, but not all, US view that religion is important?
|
On December 14 2012 05:20 dAPhREAk wrote:
has anyone else noticed the irony in the some, but not all, UK view that religion isnt important, and the some, but not all, US view that religion is important?
I'm not entirely sure I'd call that irony, it seems rather plainly fitting imo
|
What IS ironic is one atheist arguing with another atheist about freedom of conscience.
|
On December 14 2012 05:20 dAPhREAk wrote:
has anyone else noticed the irony in the some, but not all, UK view that religion isnt important, and the some, but not all, US view that religion is important?
I think being lax on a topic allows for better compromise. The more fanatical you are, the more you're going to see the world in black and white. An extremist would rather lose everything and be a victim for his/her cause than to be half right and keep tight lipped.
|
On December 14 2012 05:14 Reason wrote:
If I could justify this position I wouldn't hold the opposite view, would I?
I guess I can't make you answer my question, because I already know there isn't an answer.
The majority of people are religious and therefore religions get special treatment, but as far as any impartial reasons go for why religions deserve special treatment?
Nothing yet...
The point isn't really even debatable unless you come up with reasons why they deserve special treatment apart from their own members wish it (yeah, no shit) and since no one has I guess we just go in circles =/
can you explain why you feel that the reasoning must be impartial?
|
On December 14 2012 05:18 sam!zdat wrote:
That's not the post where I gave you my reason. That's the post after you ignored me trying to give me my reason.
On December 14 2012 04:43 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 04:13 Reason wrote:
I haven't seen a single argument that even comes close to justifying that. Because the complete colonization of the life-world by goal-oriented cognitive-instrumental rationality (i.e. bourgeois secular authority) is a Very Bad Thing. If you want a more elaborate argument, I would recommend reading _The Theory of Communicative Action_ by Jürgen Habermas. edit: You could also read _The Dialectic of Enlightenment_ by Adorno and Horkheimer though I do not hold as closely to their position in that text.
Sorry, I genuinely missed this post.
Would you mind putting it in laymans terms and explaining why it's a bad thing, in your opinon, as simply as possible?
|
On December 14 2012 05:27 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 05:14 Reason wrote:
If I could justify this position I wouldn't hold the opposite view, would I?
I guess I can't make you answer my question, because I already know there isn't an answer.
The majority of people are religious and therefore religions get special treatment, but as far as any impartial reasons go for why religions deserve special treatment?
Nothing yet...
The point isn't really even debatable unless you come up with reasons why they deserve special treatment apart from their own members wish it (yeah, no shit) and since no one has I guess we just go in circles =/ can you explain why you feel that the reasoning must be impartial?
The majority of "the people" once viewed black people as lesser creatures, does that mean they were ever right?
I'd like justification for why black people are lesser creatures other than "the majority of people are unashamedly racist".
That's why.
|
On December 14 2012 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 05:13 Deleuze wrote:
It is right that religious organizations should be held accountable to laws to protect British subjects from discrimination in the same way as any other organization are.
This is a matter of right and wrong, the supposed democratic will of the people (in the unlikely event that it is actually being expressed in this bill - or in any other for that matter) is fairly low on the list of priorities. It is both wrong and illegal to discriminate against those protected under the Equality Act 2010.
If more or less people felt that anyone deserved to be treated with discrimination it would not change whether it was right or wrong.
EDIT: to second guess any counter arguments under human rights and freedom of expression, I take KwarK's line: that you can be intolerant to intolerance.
so, the government should do what it feels is right, not what the people feel is right. got it.
Morality exist independently of the political and democratic sphere. More people wanting something to be right does not make it right.
What you have hit on however is the issue of parliamentary government: how governments identify and exercise the right act. I'm not saying this is easy by any means, indeed that is precisely how governments act, against democratic will.
To go to (that otherwise bastard) Aristotle, the good life is obtained through the good and just state. The good and just state is one free from discrimination and intolerance. This is completely and utterly ideological, but what is important, is it also reasonable? Yes it is.
|
On December 14 2012 05:29 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 05:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 05:14 Reason wrote:
If I could justify this position I wouldn't hold the opposite view, would I?
I guess I can't make you answer my question, because I already know there isn't an answer.
The majority of people are religious and therefore religions get special treatment, but as far as any impartial reasons go for why religions deserve special treatment?
Nothing yet...
The point isn't really even debatable unless you come up with reasons why they deserve special treatment apart from their own members wish it (yeah, no shit) and since no one has I guess we just go in circles =/ can you explain why you feel that the reasoning must be impartial? The majority of "the people" once viewed black people as lesser creatures, does that mean they were ever right? I'd like justification for why black people are lesser creatures other than "the majority of people are unashamedly racist". That's why.
that didnt answer my question. i have given you a reason for why religions should be treated differently, and you dismissed it as not "impartial." why do i need to justify the viewpoint with an impartial reason? last time i checked, thats not how life or governments work.
|
On December 14 2012 05:32 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 05:13 Deleuze wrote:
It is right that religious organizations should be held accountable to laws to protect British subjects from discrimination in the same way as any other organization are.
This is a matter of right and wrong, the supposed democratic will of the people (in the unlikely event that it is actually being expressed in this bill - or in any other for that matter) is fairly low on the list of priorities. It is both wrong and illegal to discriminate against those protected under the Equality Act 2010.
If more or less people felt that anyone deserved to be treated with discrimination it would not change whether it was right or wrong.
EDIT: to second guess any counter arguments under human rights and freedom of expression, I take KwarK's line: that you can be intolerant to intolerance.
so, the government should do what it feels is right, not what the people feel is right. got it. Morality exist independently of the political and democratic sphere. More people wanting something to be right does not make it right. What you have hit on however is the issue of parliamentary government: how governments identify and exercise the right act. I'm not saying this is easy by any means, indeed that is precisely how governments act, against democratic will. To go to (that otherwise bastard) Aristotle, the good life is obtained through the good and just state. The good and just state is one free from discrimination and intolerance. This is completely and utterly ideological, but what is important, is it also reasonable? Yes it is.
i agree with what you are saying. but there is no universal code of morality, so we are forced to allow the people to decide. you guys think that homophobia is wrong, others disagree with you. who is right? there is no final arbiter other than the democractic/parliamentary process.
|
Because I do not think that the secular authority should be able to dictate all matters of life. There must be spaces that are kept away from the greater system and allowed to dissent. You can think about this in Foucauldian terms as the preservation of heterotopia.
I think that it order for a society to be healthy, the state should allow as much freedom as possible for dissenting views on matters of conscience. I agree that there may be lines that must be drawn (that is, I would not permit a religion to practice human sacrifice, sexual abuse, and so on) but I feel that a refusal to perform marriage rites on gay couples does not cross this line that would allow the state to interfere. You simply cannot reconcile performance of the marriage ritual on a gay couple with the belief, for example, that romantic relationships derive their justification from procreation. I don't agree with this view, but I don't think the state can legitimately prevent a religious organization from holding it as part of their tenets.
Additionally, as farvacola has repeatedly stated, this legislation in fact PREVENTS doctrinal progress within these churches towards an acceptance of homosexuality. this is a classic example of liberal ideological fixation on isonomy (formal equality) at the expense of thinking strategically. You do not want a law that makes it illegal for a priest to challenge the doctrine of the church authority by performing a gay marriage against official doctrine. That is entirely counterproductive to the social agenda.
I think whenever you are considering exercising Imperial authority (i.e. the power of the secular sovereign to adjudicate in matters of religion) you should step very lightly. This legislation to me is an egregious overstepping of boundaries, despite my personal feelings about the backwardness of the doctrine in question.
edit: to put this in some context, and hopefully explain why a pro-gay atheist like me would be concerned about this, I'll just say that I am someone who is deeply concerned about keeping the power of the secular authority (for me, this means the bourgeois capitalist order) in check, and who feels that there is a growing tendency to legislate and "rationalize" all aspects of the life-world. So I'm suspicious of any attempt on the part of this order to extend its power to the few areas of the life-world that remain uncolonized.
edit: I feel that there is a strange tendency among secularists to think that religion is somehow "going away," that it is only for silly stupid people who haven't been Enlightened yet with the Power of Science. For the secularist, it is only a matter of time until this old hogwash dies out and we can all worship Degrasse Tyson instead, and so that is an excuse to exercise legislative strongarm tactics to simply speed up the process or something. "Oh, nobody cares, in the future everyone will be just like me and so it will all be okay." I think these people are in for a rude awakening.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On December 14 2012 05:39 sam!zdat wrote:
Because I do not think that the secular authority should be able to dictate all matters of life. There must be spaces that are kept away from the greater system and allowed to dissent. You can think about this in Foucauldian terms as the preservation of heterotopia.
I think that it order for a society to be healthy, the state should allow as much freedom as possible for dissenting views on matters of conscience. I agree that there may be lines that must be drawn (that is, I would not permit a religion to practice human sacrifice, sexual abuse, and so on) but I feel that a refusal to perform marriage rites on gay couples does not cross this line that would allow the state to interfere. You simply cannot reconcile performance of the marriage ritual on a gay couple with the belief, for example, that romantic relationships derive their justification from procreation. I don't agree with this view, but I don't think the state can legitimately prevent a religious organization from holding it as part of their tenets.
Additionally, as farvacola has repeatedly stated, this legislation in fact PREVENTS doctrinal progress within these churches towards an acceptance of homosexuality. this is a classic example of liberal ideological fixation on isonomy (formal equality) at the expense of thinking strategically. You do not want a law that makes it illegal for a priest to challenge the doctrine of the church authority by performing a gay marriage against official doctrine. That is entirely counterproductive to the social agenda.
I think whenever you are considering exercising Imperial authority (i.e. the power of the secular sovereign to adjudicate in matters of religion) you should step very lightly. This legislation to me is an egregious overstepping of boundaries, despite my personal feelings about the backwardness of the doctrine in question.
edit: to put this in some context, and hopefully explain why a pro-gay atheist like me would be concerned about this, I'll just say that I am someone who is deeply concerned about keeping the power of the secular authority (for me, this means the bourgeois capitalist order) in check, and who feels that there is a growing tendency to legislate and "rationalize" all aspects of the life-world. So I'm suspicious of any attempt on the part of this order to extend its power to the few areas of the life-world that remain uncolonized.
I agree entirely. When I read the OP, the one thing that stuck out the most was a law that would enforce discrimination, and make it illegal to not discriminate. I think it's entirely fine for a private organization to decline to offer a service (such as marrying a gay couple), but to make it illegal for them to expand into offering that service in the future just seems really backward and over-controlling.
|
I really don't see why a government should be evolved in Marriage to begin with. I feel it gives undue credibility to the whole thing and is often used as a tool to discriminate against people who don't fit a mould, gay or straight. I kind of feel that any adult should be able to make a contract with any other adult and if in that contract they decide to use the word marriage and define it as how they want.
Like when I hear about people dying alone because a hospital has a policy of only immediate family can be in the room or when parents that abandoned there kids for being gay decades ago have power of attorney over their significant other, it just reinforce to me that the government really doesn't have a place in deciding what relationships should matter or be recognized.
|
On December 14 2012 06:00 Kitai wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 14 2012 05:39 sam!zdat wrote:
Because I do not think that the secular authority should be able to dictate all matters of life. There must be spaces that are kept away from the greater system and allowed to dissent. You can think about this in Foucauldian terms as the preservation of heterotopia.
I think that it order for a society to be healthy, the state should allow as much freedom as possible for dissenting views on matters of conscience. I agree that there may be lines that must be drawn (that is, I would not permit a religion to practice human sacrifice, sexual abuse, and so on) but I feel that a refusal to perform marriage rites on gay couples does not cross this line that would allow the state to interfere. You simply cannot reconcile performance of the marriage ritual on a gay couple with the belief, for example, that romantic relationships derive their justification from procreation. I don't agree with this view, but I don't think the state can legitimately prevent a religious organization from holding it as part of their tenets.
Additionally, as farvacola has repeatedly stated, this legislation in fact PREVENTS doctrinal progress within these churches towards an acceptance of homosexuality. this is a classic example of liberal ideological fixation on isonomy (formal equality) at the expense of thinking strategically. You do not want a law that makes it illegal for a priest to challenge the doctrine of the church authority by performing a gay marriage against official doctrine. That is entirely counterproductive to the social agenda.
I think whenever you are considering exercising Imperial authority (i.e. the power of the secular sovereign to adjudicate in matters of religion) you should step very lightly. This legislation to me is an egregious overstepping of boundaries, despite my personal feelings about the backwardness of the doctrine in question.
edit: to put this in some context, and hopefully explain why a pro-gay atheist like me would be concerned about this, I'll just say that I am someone who is deeply concerned about keeping the power of the secular authority (for me, this means the bourgeois capitalist order) in check, and who feels that there is a growing tendency to legislate and "rationalize" all aspects of the life-world. So I'm suspicious of any attempt on the part of this order to extend its power to the few areas of the life-world that remain uncolonized. I agree entirely. When I read the OP, the one thing that stuck out the most was a law that would enforce discrimination, and make it illegal to not discriminate. I think it's entirely fine for a private organization to decline to offer a service (such as marrying a gay couple), but to make it illegal for them to expand into offering that service in the future just seems really backward and over-controlling.
im pretty sure that they can change their mind in the future. if they couldnt, that would be pretty absurd. its just an all or nothing approach; your church is either against it or its not, you cant have certain members doing it when the church is against it.
|
Sure. I also think that calling it a "service" is begging the question. A "service" is not necessarily a "service", if you get my drift
Besides the secularist/capitalist axiom of universal commensurability (the idea that all things should be able to be exchanged for all other things across a unified medium of exchange), which I don't accept, there's "no good reason" to say that a religious ritual should be a considered a "service" from the point of view of legislation. I don't think religion is a business (some "religions" are businesses, this to me just means they are bad religions).
On December 14 2012 06:05 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 06:00 Kitai wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 14 2012 05:39 sam!zdat wrote:
Because I do not think that the secular authority should be able to dictate all matters of life. There must be spaces that are kept away from the greater system and allowed to dissent. You can think about this in Foucauldian terms as the preservation of heterotopia.
I think that it order for a society to be healthy, the state should allow as much freedom as possible for dissenting views on matters of conscience. I agree that there may be lines that must be drawn (that is, I would not permit a religion to practice human sacrifice, sexual abuse, and so on) but I feel that a refusal to perform marriage rites on gay couples does not cross this line that would allow the state to interfere. You simply cannot reconcile performance of the marriage ritual on a gay couple with the belief, for example, that romantic relationships derive their justification from procreation. I don't agree with this view, but I don't think the state can legitimately prevent a religious organization from holding it as part of their tenets.
Additionally, as farvacola has repeatedly stated, this legislation in fact PREVENTS doctrinal progress within these churches towards an acceptance of homosexuality. this is a classic example of liberal ideological fixation on isonomy (formal equality) at the expense of thinking strategically. You do not want a law that makes it illegal for a priest to challenge the doctrine of the church authority by performing a gay marriage against official doctrine. That is entirely counterproductive to the social agenda.
I think whenever you are considering exercising Imperial authority (i.e. the power of the secular sovereign to adjudicate in matters of religion) you should step very lightly. This legislation to me is an egregious overstepping of boundaries, despite my personal feelings about the backwardness of the doctrine in question.
edit: to put this in some context, and hopefully explain why a pro-gay atheist like me would be concerned about this, I'll just say that I am someone who is deeply concerned about keeping the power of the secular authority (for me, this means the bourgeois capitalist order) in check, and who feels that there is a growing tendency to legislate and "rationalize" all aspects of the life-world. So I'm suspicious of any attempt on the part of this order to extend its power to the few areas of the life-world that remain uncolonized. I agree entirely. When I read the OP, the one thing that stuck out the most was a law that would enforce discrimination, and make it illegal to not discriminate. I think it's entirely fine for a private organization to decline to offer a service (such as marrying a gay couple), but to make it illegal for them to expand into offering that service in the future just seems really backward and over-controlling. im pretty sure that they can change their mind in the future. if they couldnt, that would be pretty absurd. its just an all or nothing approach; your church is either against it or its not, you cant have certain members doing it when the church is against it.
yes, that's what stifles doctrinal progress towards acceptance of homosexuality.
|
On December 14 2012 05:32 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 05:29 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 05:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 05:14 Reason wrote:
If I could justify this position I wouldn't hold the opposite view, would I?
I guess I can't make you answer my question, because I already know there isn't an answer.
The majority of people are religious and therefore religions get special treatment, but as far as any impartial reasons go for why religions deserve special treatment?
Nothing yet...
The point isn't really even debatable unless you come up with reasons why they deserve special treatment apart from their own members wish it (yeah, no shit) and since no one has I guess we just go in circles =/ can you explain why you feel that the reasoning must be impartial? The majority of "the people" once viewed black people as lesser creatures, does that mean they were ever right? I'd like justification for why black people are lesser creatures other than "the majority of people are unashamedly racist". That's why. that didnt answer my question. i have given you a reason for why religions should be treated differently, and you dismissed it as not "impartial." why do i need to justify the viewpoint with an impartial reason? last time i checked, thats not how life or governments work.
The reasoning must be impartial because I said so?
I don't subscribe to the views of the majority, there's no point in explaining to a religious person why religious organisations deserve special treatment because they already agree with your reasoning : the majority of people are religious and that's the way they like it.
Well, suppose I'm not religious? I require some kind of impartial justification other than that's just the way you guys like it, similarly if I was not racist in the times of slavery I'd want a better answer as to why black people are lesser creatures than because we are all racist and that's the way we like it!
I don't see how you didn't understand that the first time round...
|
On December 14 2012 06:09 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 05:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 05:29 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 05:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 05:14 Reason wrote:
If I could justify this position I wouldn't hold the opposite view, would I?
I guess I can't make you answer my question, because I already know there isn't an answer.
The majority of people are religious and therefore religions get special treatment, but as far as any impartial reasons go for why religions deserve special treatment?
Nothing yet...
The point isn't really even debatable unless you come up with reasons why they deserve special treatment apart from their own members wish it (yeah, no shit) and since no one has I guess we just go in circles =/ can you explain why you feel that the reasoning must be impartial? The majority of "the people" once viewed black people as lesser creatures, does that mean they were ever right? I'd like justification for why black people are lesser creatures other than "the majority of people are unashamedly racist". That's why. that didnt answer my question. i have given you a reason for why religions should be treated differently, and you dismissed it as not "impartial." why do i need to justify the viewpoint with an impartial reason? last time i checked, thats not how life or governments work. The reasoning must be impartial because I said so? I don't subscribe to the views of the majority, there's no point in explaining to a religious person why religious organisations deserve special treatment because they already agree with your reasoning : the majority of people are religious and that's the way they like it.Well, suppose I'm not religious? I require some kind of impartial justification other than that's just the way you guys like it, similarly if I was not racist in the times of slavery I'd want a better answer as to why black people are lesser creatures than because we are all racist and that's the way we like it! I don't see how you didn't understand that the first time round...
"Religious people" do not ascribe to that sort of flimsy reasoning in any sort of categorical sense, and I'm fairly certain dAPhREAk doesn't either. In other words, there are a great many religious people who do not lionize the "tyranny of the majority".
|
On December 14 2012 06:13 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 06:09 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 05:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 05:29 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 05:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 05:14 Reason wrote:
If I could justify this position I wouldn't hold the opposite view, would I?
I guess I can't make you answer my question, because I already know there isn't an answer.
The majority of people are religious and therefore religions get special treatment, but as far as any impartial reasons go for why religions deserve special treatment?
Nothing yet...
The point isn't really even debatable unless you come up with reasons why they deserve special treatment apart from their own members wish it (yeah, no shit) and since no one has I guess we just go in circles =/ can you explain why you feel that the reasoning must be impartial? The majority of "the people" once viewed black people as lesser creatures, does that mean they were ever right? I'd like justification for why black people are lesser creatures other than "the majority of people are unashamedly racist". That's why. that didnt answer my question. i have given you a reason for why religions should be treated differently, and you dismissed it as not "impartial." why do i need to justify the viewpoint with an impartial reason? last time i checked, thats not how life or governments work. The reasoning must be impartial because I said so? I don't subscribe to the views of the majority, there's no point in explaining to a religious person why religious organisations deserve special treatment because they already agree with your reasoning : the majority of people are religious and that's the way they like it.Well, suppose I'm not religious? I require some kind of impartial justification other than that's just the way you guys like it, similarly if I was not racist in the times of slavery I'd want a better answer as to why black people are lesser creatures than because we are all racist and that's the way we like it! I don't see how you didn't understand that the first time round... "Religious people" do not ascribe to that sort of flimsy reasoning in any sort of categorical sense, and I'm fairly certain dAPhREAk doesn't either. In other words, there are a great many religious people who do not lionize the "tyranny of the majority".
when he categorized me with "you guys," i realized he wasnt reading my responses anyways.
|
On December 14 2012 06:09 Reason wrote:
The reasoning must be impartial because I said so?
After the revolution, I'm putting this up in stone above the Palace of the Chairman.
|
On December 14 2012 06:17 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 06:13 farvacola wrote:On December 14 2012 06:09 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 05:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 05:29 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 05:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 05:14 Reason wrote:
If I could justify this position I wouldn't hold the opposite view, would I?
I guess I can't make you answer my question, because I already know there isn't an answer.
The majority of people are religious and therefore religions get special treatment, but as far as any impartial reasons go for why religions deserve special treatment?
Nothing yet...
The point isn't really even debatable unless you come up with reasons why they deserve special treatment apart from their own members wish it (yeah, no shit) and since no one has I guess we just go in circles =/ can you explain why you feel that the reasoning must be impartial? The majority of "the people" once viewed black people as lesser creatures, does that mean they were ever right? I'd like justification for why black people are lesser creatures other than "the majority of people are unashamedly racist". That's why. that didnt answer my question. i have given you a reason for why religions should be treated differently, and you dismissed it as not "impartial." why do i need to justify the viewpoint with an impartial reason? last time i checked, thats not how life or governments work. The reasoning must be impartial because I said so? I don't subscribe to the views of the majority, there's no point in explaining to a religious person why religious organisations deserve special treatment because they already agree with your reasoning : the majority of people are religious and that's the way they like it.Well, suppose I'm not religious? I require some kind of impartial justification other than that's just the way you guys like it, similarly if I was not racist in the times of slavery I'd want a better answer as to why black people are lesser creatures than because we are all racist and that's the way we like it! I don't see how you didn't understand that the first time round... "Religious people" do not ascribe to that sort of flimsy reasoning in any sort of categorical sense, and I'm fairly certain dAPhREAk doesn't either. In other words, there are a great many religious people who do not lionize the "tyranny of the majority". when he categorized me with "you guys," i realized he wasnt reading my responses anyways.
Oh my goodness me I did not categorise you with "you guys" it was a turn of phrase?
Do you also think then I'm categorising myself when I say "we are all racist" and that I'm actually a racist? lol
|
On December 14 2012 06:13 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 06:09 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 05:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 05:29 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 05:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 05:14 Reason wrote:
If I could justify this position I wouldn't hold the opposite view, would I?
I guess I can't make you answer my question, because I already know there isn't an answer.
The majority of people are religious and therefore religions get special treatment, but as far as any impartial reasons go for why religions deserve special treatment?
Nothing yet...
The point isn't really even debatable unless you come up with reasons why they deserve special treatment apart from their own members wish it (yeah, no shit) and since no one has I guess we just go in circles =/ can you explain why you feel that the reasoning must be impartial? The majority of "the people" once viewed black people as lesser creatures, does that mean they were ever right? I'd like justification for why black people are lesser creatures other than "the majority of people are unashamedly racist". That's why. that didnt answer my question. i have given you a reason for why religions should be treated differently, and you dismissed it as not "impartial." why do i need to justify the viewpoint with an impartial reason? last time i checked, thats not how life or governments work. The reasoning must be impartial because I said so? I don't subscribe to the views of the majority, there's no point in explaining to a religious person why religious organisations deserve special treatment because they already agree with your reasoning : the majority of people are religious and that's the way they like it.Well, suppose I'm not religious? I require some kind of impartial justification other than that's just the way you guys like it, similarly if I was not racist in the times of slavery I'd want a better answer as to why black people are lesser creatures than because we are all racist and that's the way we like it! I don't see how you didn't understand that the first time round... "Religious people" do not ascribe to that sort of flimsy reasoning in any sort of categorical sense, and I'm fairly certain dAPhREAk doesn't either. In other words, there are a great many religious people who do not lionize the "tyranny of the majority".
Then what kind of robust reasoning do they subscribe to? Please enlighten me. That's all I'm asking for.
sam!zdat:
+ Show Spoiler +On December 14 2012 05:39 sam!zdat wrote:
Because I do not think that the secular authority should be able to dictate all matters of life. There must be spaces that are kept away from the greater system and allowed to dissent. You can think about this in Foucauldian terms as the preservation of heterotopia.
I think that it order for a society to be healthy, the state should allow as much freedom as possible for dissenting views on matters of conscience. I agree that there may be lines that must be drawn (that is, I would not permit a religion to practice human sacrifice, sexual abuse, and so on) but I feel that a refusal to perform marriage rites on gay couples does not cross this line that would allow the state to interfere. You simply cannot reconcile performance of the marriage ritual on a gay couple with the belief, for example, that romantic relationships derive their justification from procreation. I don't agree with this view, but I don't think the state can legitimately prevent a religious organization from holding it as part of their tenets.
Additionally, as farvacola has repeatedly stated, this legislation in fact PREVENTS doctrinal progress within these churches towards an acceptance of homosexuality. this is a classic example of liberal ideological fixation on isonomy (formal equality) at the expense of thinking strategically. You do not want a law that makes it illegal for a priest to challenge the doctrine of the church authority by performing a gay marriage against official doctrine. That is entirely counterproductive to the social agenda.
I think whenever you are considering exercising Imperial authority (i.e. the power of the secular sovereign to adjudicate in matters of religion) you should step very lightly. This legislation to me is an egregious overstepping of boundaries, despite my personal feelings about the backwardness of the doctrine in question.
edit: to put this in some context, and hopefully explain why a pro-gay atheist like me would be concerned about this, I'll just say that I am someone who is deeply concerned about keeping the power of the secular authority (for me, this means the bourgeois capitalist order) in check, and who feels that there is a growing tendency to legislate and "rationalize" all aspects of the life-world. So I'm suspicious of any attempt on the part of this order to extend its power to the few areas of the life-world that remain uncolonized.
edit: I feel that there is a strange tendency among secularists to think that religion is somehow "going away," that it is only for silly stupid people who haven't been Enlightened yet with the Power of Science. For the secularist, it is only a matter of time until this old hogwash dies out and we can all worship Degrasse Tyson instead, and so that is an excuse to exercise legislative strongarm tactics to simply speed up the process or something. "Oh, nobody cares, in the future everyone will be just like me and so it will all be okay." I think these people are in for a rude awakening.
We are talking about two different things here though. This legislation does indeed prevent doctrinal progress towards an acceptable of homosexuality, which is definitely not good. I think most people here are in agreement of that.
The way it does this is to give undeniable rights to the church to be allowed to discriminate in ways that other non religious organisations are not, and it's has been suggested (and I obviously agree) that this different treatment for religious organisations is wrong.
You've said you think we need to allow as much freedom as possible in order for a society to be healthy. I'm not going to agree or disagree with that, but if that's true you then need to weigh the freedom of gay couples to get married just like everyone else against the churches right to discriminate against them.
I think the rights of these people are more important than the infringment upon the current official doctrine of any religious organisation that takes place by allowing them the same treatment as heterosexual couples.
This now does actually bring up the issue of forcing the church to do things they don't want to, and perhaps avoiding this tricky situation is the very reason this half-compromise of a bill is being suggested.
That said, like most others, I don't think it's a good idea.
On December 14 2012 06:24 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 06:09 Reason wrote:
The reasoning must be impartial because I said so? After the revolution, I'm putting this up in stone above the Palace of the Chairman.
As entertaining as you find this piece of comedy, it's just a way of saying it has to be impartial because you are talking to me and that's what I've asked for?
You seem to think I'm going into dictator mode and introducing a new world order, all I'm saying is I'm not happy with "the majority says so so just accept it" as an explanation, and I'd like some impartial justification for why the majority is right?
Is that such a crime?
|
On December 14 2012 06:05 sam!zdat wrote:Sure. I also think that calling it a "service" is begging the question. A "service" is not necessarily a "service", if you get my drift Besides the secularist/capitalist axiom of universal commensurability (the idea that all things should be able to be exchanged for all other things across a unified medium of exchange), which I don't accept, there's "no good reason" to say that a religious ritual should be a considered a "service" from the point of view of legislation. I don't think religion is a business (some "religions" are businesses, this to me just means they are bad religions). Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 06:05 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 06:00 Kitai wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 14 2012 05:39 sam!zdat wrote:
Because I do not think that the secular authority should be able to dictate all matters of life. There must be spaces that are kept away from the greater system and allowed to dissent. You can think about this in Foucauldian terms as the preservation of heterotopia.
I think that it order for a society to be healthy, the state should allow as much freedom as possible for dissenting views on matters of conscience. I agree that there may be lines that must be drawn (that is, I would not permit a religion to practice human sacrifice, sexual abuse, and so on) but I feel that a refusal to perform marriage rites on gay couples does not cross this line that would allow the state to interfere. You simply cannot reconcile performance of the marriage ritual on a gay couple with the belief, for example, that romantic relationships derive their justification from procreation. I don't agree with this view, but I don't think the state can legitimately prevent a religious organization from holding it as part of their tenets.
Additionally, as farvacola has repeatedly stated, this legislation in fact PREVENTS doctrinal progress within these churches towards an acceptance of homosexuality. this is a classic example of liberal ideological fixation on isonomy (formal equality) at the expense of thinking strategically. You do not want a law that makes it illegal for a priest to challenge the doctrine of the church authority by performing a gay marriage against official doctrine. That is entirely counterproductive to the social agenda.
I think whenever you are considering exercising Imperial authority (i.e. the power of the secular sovereign to adjudicate in matters of religion) you should step very lightly. This legislation to me is an egregious overstepping of boundaries, despite my personal feelings about the backwardness of the doctrine in question.
edit: to put this in some context, and hopefully explain why a pro-gay atheist like me would be concerned about this, I'll just say that I am someone who is deeply concerned about keeping the power of the secular authority (for me, this means the bourgeois capitalist order) in check, and who feels that there is a growing tendency to legislate and "rationalize" all aspects of the life-world. So I'm suspicious of any attempt on the part of this order to extend its power to the few areas of the life-world that remain uncolonized. I agree entirely. When I read the OP, the one thing that stuck out the most was a law that would enforce discrimination, and make it illegal to not discriminate. I think it's entirely fine for a private organization to decline to offer a service (such as marrying a gay couple), but to make it illegal for them to expand into offering that service in the future just seems really backward and over-controlling. im pretty sure that they can change their mind in the future. if they couldnt, that would be pretty absurd. its just an all or nothing approach; your church is either against it or its not, you cant have certain members doing it when the church is against it. yes, that's what stifles doctrinal progress towards acceptance of homosexuality.
I'm warming to your approach sam!zdat. Tell me, why do you not the axiom?
|
On December 14 2012 06:27 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 06:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 06:13 farvacola wrote:On December 14 2012 06:09 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 05:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 05:29 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 05:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 05:14 Reason wrote:
If I could justify this position I wouldn't hold the opposite view, would I?
I guess I can't make you answer my question, because I already know there isn't an answer.
The majority of people are religious and therefore religions get special treatment, but as far as any impartial reasons go for why religions deserve special treatment?
Nothing yet...
The point isn't really even debatable unless you come up with reasons why they deserve special treatment apart from their own members wish it (yeah, no shit) and since no one has I guess we just go in circles =/ can you explain why you feel that the reasoning must be impartial? The majority of "the people" once viewed black people as lesser creatures, does that mean they were ever right? I'd like justification for why black people are lesser creatures other than "the majority of people are unashamedly racist". That's why. that didnt answer my question. i have given you a reason for why religions should be treated differently, and you dismissed it as not "impartial." why do i need to justify the viewpoint with an impartial reason? last time i checked, thats not how life or governments work. The reasoning must be impartial because I said so? I don't subscribe to the views of the majority, there's no point in explaining to a religious person why religious organisations deserve special treatment because they already agree with your reasoning : the majority of people are religious and that's the way they like it.Well, suppose I'm not religious? I require some kind of impartial justification other than that's just the way you guys like it, similarly if I was not racist in the times of slavery I'd want a better answer as to why black people are lesser creatures than because we are all racist and that's the way we like it! I don't see how you didn't understand that the first time round... "Religious people" do not ascribe to that sort of flimsy reasoning in any sort of categorical sense, and I'm fairly certain dAPhREAk doesn't either. In other words, there are a great many religious people who do not lionize the "tyranny of the majority". when he categorized me with "you guys," i realized he wasnt reading my responses anyways. Oh my goodness me I did not categorise you with "you guys" it was a turn of phrase? Do you also think then I'm categorising myself when I say "we are all racist" and that I'm actually a racist? lol
regardless, you have not been reading my posts, or understanding them. otherwise you would point out that the first post i made today said that i dont think there is an impartial reason.
|
On December 14 2012 06:29 Reason wrote:
Then what kind of robust reasoning do they subscribe to? Please enlighten me. That's all I'm asking for.
Well, I'm not a fan of the game of pejorative ideological "pin the tail on donkey", meaning I don't really think use of the word "they" as it reflects on religious people as a group worthy of categorical definition makes sense. There sure are some conservative, fundamentalist religious folk who very desperately cling to their majority status, but there are also a ton of people who go to church, consider themselves Christian, question God and the bible, and believe in progressive social policy. The label "religious" does not entail the sort of caricatured, Neil Degrasse Tyson fueled conception many people seem to take as fact.
|
On December 14 2012 06:30 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 06:27 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 06:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 06:13 farvacola wrote:On December 14 2012 06:09 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 05:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 05:29 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 05:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 05:14 Reason wrote:
If I could justify this position I wouldn't hold the opposite view, would I?
I guess I can't make you answer my question, because I already know there isn't an answer.
The majority of people are religious and therefore religions get special treatment, but as far as any impartial reasons go for why religions deserve special treatment?
Nothing yet...
The point isn't really even debatable unless you come up with reasons why they deserve special treatment apart from their own members wish it (yeah, no shit) and since no one has I guess we just go in circles =/ can you explain why you feel that the reasoning must be impartial? The majority of "the people" once viewed black people as lesser creatures, does that mean they were ever right? I'd like justification for why black people are lesser creatures other than "the majority of people are unashamedly racist". That's why. that didnt answer my question. i have given you a reason for why religions should be treated differently, and you dismissed it as not "impartial." why do i need to justify the viewpoint with an impartial reason? last time i checked, thats not how life or governments work. The reasoning must be impartial because I said so? I don't subscribe to the views of the majority, there's no point in explaining to a religious person why religious organisations deserve special treatment because they already agree with your reasoning : the majority of people are religious and that's the way they like it.Well, suppose I'm not religious? I require some kind of impartial justification other than that's just the way you guys like it, similarly if I was not racist in the times of slavery I'd want a better answer as to why black people are lesser creatures than because we are all racist and that's the way we like it! I don't see how you didn't understand that the first time round... "Religious people" do not ascribe to that sort of flimsy reasoning in any sort of categorical sense, and I'm fairly certain dAPhREAk doesn't either. In other words, there are a great many religious people who do not lionize the "tyranny of the majority". when he categorized me with "you guys," i realized he wasnt reading my responses anyways. Oh my goodness me I did not categorise you with "you guys" it was a turn of phrase? Do you also think then I'm categorising myself when I say "we are all racist" and that I'm actually a racist? lol regardless, you have not been reading my posts, or understanding them. otherwise you would point out that the first post i made today said that i dont think there is an impartial reason.
I don't think there is an impartial reason either, as I've already stated. I'm glad we agree.
I've actually read all of your posts in this thread repeatedly and understood them perfectly. I'm sorry I can't communicate with you in a way that you relate to.
Farva:+ Show Spoiler +On December 14 2012 06:13 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 06:09 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 05:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 05:29 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 05:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 05:14 Reason wrote:
If I could justify this position I wouldn't hold the opposite view, would I?
I guess I can't make you answer my question, because I already know there isn't an answer.
The majority of people are religious and therefore religions get special treatment, but as far as any impartial reasons go for why religions deserve special treatment?
Nothing yet...
The point isn't really even debatable unless you come up with reasons why they deserve special treatment apart from their own members wish it (yeah, no shit) and since no one has I guess we just go in circles =/ can you explain why you feel that the reasoning must be impartial? The majority of "the people" once viewed black people as lesser creatures, does that mean they were ever right? I'd like justification for why black people are lesser creatures other than "the majority of people are unashamedly racist". That's why. that didnt answer my question. i have given you a reason for why religions should be treated differently, and you dismissed it as not "impartial." why do i need to justify the viewpoint with an impartial reason? last time i checked, thats not how life or governments work. The reasoning must be impartial because I said so? I don't subscribe to the views of the majority, there's no point in explaining to a religious person why religious organisations deserve special treatment because they already agree with your reasoning : the majority of people are religious and that's the way they like it.Well, suppose I'm not religious? I require some kind of impartial justification other than that's just the way you guys like it, similarly if I was not racist in the times of slavery I'd want a better answer as to why black people are lesser creatures than because we are all racist and that's the way we like it! I don't see how you didn't understand that the first time round... "Religious people" do not ascribe to that sort of flimsy reasoning in any sort of categorical sense, and I'm fairly certain dAPhREAk doesn't either. In other words, there are a great many religious people who do not lionize the "tyranny of the majority". On December 14 2012 06:38 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 06:29 Reason wrote:
Then what kind of robust reasoning do they subscribe to? Please enlighten me. That's all I'm asking for. Well, I'm not a fan of the game of pejorative ideological "pin the tail on donkey", meaning I don't really think use of the word "they" as it reflects on religious people as a group worthy of categorical definition makes sense. There sure are some conservative, fundamentalist religious folk who very desperately cling to their majority status, but there are also a ton of people who go to church, consider themselves Christian, question God and the bible, and believe in progressive social policy. The label "religious" does not entail the sort of caricatured, Neil Degrasse Tyson fueled conception many people seem to take as fact.
On December 14 2012 04:53 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 04:51 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 04:37 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 04:31 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 04:28 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 04:24 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 04:18 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 04:13 Reason wrote:
This discussion comes down to why religious organisations deserve special treatment over non-religious organisations and I haven't seen a single argument that even comes close to justifying that.
"because freedom of religion" is as valid a response to this as "because freedom of speech" is as a defence against a slander or libel lawsuit.
Forums like teamliquid.net aren't the only thing in need of some severe moderation imo. there would be no government without freedom of religion. if the constituents dont want something then the government (who represents the constituents) cant do it. Well there's a government without freedom of speech if we are to go by your flawed reasoning because despite strong convictions by the overwhelming majority of the population in favour of freedom of speech you can still get into a lot of trouble for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. my flawed reasoning? obviously the religious group is strong enough to dictate how laws are written in UK. i dont know why you are talking about freedom of speech. On December 14 2012 04:13 Reason wrote:
This discussion comes down to why religious organisations deserve special treatment over non-religious organisations and I haven't seen a single argument that even comes close to justifying that.
"because freedom of religion" is as valid a response to this as "because freedom of speech" is as a defence against a slander or libel lawsuit.
Forums like teamliquid.net aren't the only thing in need of some severe moderation imo. That's why? We have freedom of speech in this country, but not to the extent where you can just go around saying what you want when you want to who you want. There isn't complete anarchy as a result of this heinous infringement on our right to free speech. Similarly, if religious organisations weren't allowed to discriminate against gay people just like every other non religious organisation your suggestion that the government would collapse is equally as incorrect. there is a difference between taking away the freedom of religion, and infringing on the freedom of religion. and people dont hold the freedom of speech as dearly as they do the freedom of religion. its like comparing apples to oranges. if you take away the freedom of religion then you're going to have a really bad time if you're a government like the U.S. (not sure if its as bad in the U.K.). but, thats beside the point, the constituents want a freedom of religion, and thus, the government has to follow their wishes. so, why do religions get special treatment over private organizations? because the people want it. Freedom of religion has limits. I am not proposing the removal of freedom of religion. The boundaries of freedom of religion and freedom of speech are both dictated by secular law. If the non-discrimination of homosexuals was one futher limitation on religions "the people" are not going to rise up in anarchy. Like I said, "freedom of religion" is as valid a counter argument to why religions should be allowed special treatment over non religious organisations as "freedom of speech" is a valid counter argument to a libel lawsuit. I couldn't care less if the majority of people are religious and believe with absolutely no justification that religious organisations deserve special treatment. I'm asking can you justify it without just repeating "freedom of religion" over and over? they deserve special treatment because the people want them to deserve special treatment. that has been my whole point all along. governments do what the people want (hopefully).
Have I misunderstood here?
That's exactly the flimsy reasoning that I'm arguing against...
He said that's the way it is, I said that's not good enough and now you've claimed that's not how it is.
Well tell me, how is it? Your response so far is basically "I don't know but they are smart too and have good reasons, but I don't know"
|
On December 14 2012 06:29 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 05:39 sam!zdat wrote:
Because I do not think that the secular authority should be able to dictate all matters of life. There must be spaces that are kept away from the greater system and allowed to dissent. You can think about this in Foucauldian terms as the preservation of heterotopia.
I think that it order for a society to be healthy, the state should allow as much freedom as possible for dissenting views on matters of conscience. I agree that there may be lines that must be drawn (that is, I would not permit a religion to practice human sacrifice, sexual abuse, and so on) but I feel that a refusal to perform marriage rites on gay couples does not cross this line that would allow the state to interfere. You simply cannot reconcile performance of the marriage ritual on a gay couple with the belief, for example, that romantic relationships derive their justification from procreation. I don't agree with this view, but I don't think the state can legitimately prevent a religious organization from holding it as part of their tenets.
Additionally, as farvacola has repeatedly stated, this legislation in fact PREVENTS doctrinal progress within these churches towards an acceptance of homosexuality. this is a classic example of liberal ideological fixation on isonomy (formal equality) at the expense of thinking strategically. You do not want a law that makes it illegal for a priest to challenge the doctrine of the church authority by performing a gay marriage against official doctrine. That is entirely counterproductive to the social agenda.
I think whenever you are considering exercising Imperial authority (i.e. the power of the secular sovereign to adjudicate in matters of religion) you should step very lightly. This legislation to me is an egregious overstepping of boundaries, despite my personal feelings about the backwardness of the doctrine in question.
edit: to put this in some context, and hopefully explain why a pro-gay atheist like me would be concerned about this, I'll just say that I am someone who is deeply concerned about keeping the power of the secular authority (for me, this means the bourgeois capitalist order) in check, and who feels that there is a growing tendency to legislate and "rationalize" all aspects of the life-world. So I'm suspicious of any attempt on the part of this order to extend its power to the few areas of the life-world that remain uncolonized.
edit: I feel that there is a strange tendency among secularists to think that religion is somehow "going away," that it is only for silly stupid people who haven't been Enlightened yet with the Power of Science. For the secularist, it is only a matter of time until this old hogwash dies out and we can all worship Degrasse Tyson instead, and so that is an excuse to exercise legislative strongarm tactics to simply speed up the process or something. "Oh, nobody cares, in the future everyone will be just like me and so it will all be okay." I think these people are in for a rude awakening. We are talking about two different things here though. This legislation does indeed prevent doctrinal progress towards an acceptable of homosexuality, which is definitely not good. I think most people here are in agreement of that. The way it does this is to give undeniable rights to the church to be allowed to discriminate in ways that other non religious organisations are not, and it's has been suggested (and I obviously agree) that this different treatment for religious organisations is wrong.
Can you elaborate on why?
You've said you think we need to allow as much freedom as possible in order for a society to be healthy. I'm not going to agree or disagree with that, but if that's true you then need to weigh the freedom of gay couples to get married just like everyone else against the churches right to discriminate against them.
False choice. Gay couples can get married in a different church, and from the point of the view of the state the church ceremony is irrelevant. You think legislating that their church must marry them is going to solve any of their problems?
edit: also I'm not talking about "Freedom" as some vague liberal buzzword. Specifically I'm talking about freedom of conscience. Ability to get married isn't freedom in that sense, so I wouldn't see it as an equivalent thing.
edit: this may really be the sticking point. I don't think "freedom to get married" and "freedom to discriminate" are the same kind of freedom, so I've no problem at all treating them differently.
I think the rights of these people are more important than the infringment upon the current official doctrine of any religious organisation that takes place by allowing them the same treatment as heterosexual couples.
What rights does it infringe upon if they can still get married, just not in that church? Sure, it sucks that your community doesn't accept you, but the government can't fix that with legislation. I don't see the point of a right to get married in any church, not practical or sensical. I don't have the right to get married in a Hindu ceremony, for example, not being a Hindu. I think that's a better analogy. I wouldn't go campaigning for the right to get a Hindu wedding.
This now does actually bring up the issue of forcing the church to do things they don't want to, and perhaps avoiding this tricky situation is the very reason this half-compromise of a bill is being suggested.
Yes, that's what they're trying to do, and it's an abysmal failure.
The only solution is to guarantee full secular equality and leave the religious stuff to the churches.
Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 06:24 sam!zdat wrote:On December 14 2012 06:09 Reason wrote:
The reasoning must be impartial because I said so? After the revolution, I'm putting this up in stone above the Palace of the Chairman. As entertaining as you find this piece of comedy, it's just a way of saying it has to be impartial because you are talking to me and that's what I've asked for? You seem to think I'm going into dictator mode and introducing a new world order, all I'm saying is I'm not happy with "the majority says so so just accept it" as an explanation, and I'd like some impartial justification for why the majority is right? Is that such a crime?
I'm not sure what you mean by impartial. I just thought it was funny because I think all mises en abyme are funny, that being the crisis of our age and all.
|
On December 14 2012 06:40 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 06:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 06:27 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 06:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 06:13 farvacola wrote:On December 14 2012 06:09 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 05:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 05:29 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 05:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 05:14 Reason wrote:
If I could justify this position I wouldn't hold the opposite view, would I?
I guess I can't make you answer my question, because I already know there isn't an answer.
The majority of people are religious and therefore religions get special treatment, but as far as any impartial reasons go for why religions deserve special treatment?
Nothing yet...
The point isn't really even debatable unless you come up with reasons why they deserve special treatment apart from their own members wish it (yeah, no shit) and since no one has I guess we just go in circles =/ can you explain why you feel that the reasoning must be impartial? The majority of "the people" once viewed black people as lesser creatures, does that mean they were ever right? I'd like justification for why black people are lesser creatures other than "the majority of people are unashamedly racist". That's why. that didnt answer my question. i have given you a reason for why religions should be treated differently, and you dismissed it as not "impartial." why do i need to justify the viewpoint with an impartial reason? last time i checked, thats not how life or governments work. The reasoning must be impartial because I said so? I don't subscribe to the views of the majority, there's no point in explaining to a religious person why religious organisations deserve special treatment because they already agree with your reasoning : the majority of people are religious and that's the way they like it.Well, suppose I'm not religious? I require some kind of impartial justification other than that's just the way you guys like it, similarly if I was not racist in the times of slavery I'd want a better answer as to why black people are lesser creatures than because we are all racist and that's the way we like it! I don't see how you didn't understand that the first time round... "Religious people" do not ascribe to that sort of flimsy reasoning in any sort of categorical sense, and I'm fairly certain dAPhREAk doesn't either. In other words, there are a great many religious people who do not lionize the "tyranny of the majority". when he categorized me with "you guys," i realized he wasnt reading my responses anyways. Oh my goodness me I did not categorise you with "you guys" it was a turn of phrase? Do you also think then I'm categorising myself when I say "we are all racist" and that I'm actually a racist? lol regardless, you have not been reading my posts, or understanding them. otherwise you would point out that the first post i made today said that i dont think there is an impartial reason. I don't think there is an impartial reason either, as I've already stated. I'm glad we agree. I've actually read all of your posts in this thread repeatedly and understood them perfectly. I'm sorry I can't communicate with you in a way that you relate to.
my post:
assuming there should be no freedom of religion then there is no basis for giving religions a pass on anti-discrimination laws.
now we can get into the real issue, which is that i think your request for an "impartial" reason on a moral decision is silly. because i think there should be a freedom of religion, i dont object to the church's discrimination.
|
On December 14 2012 06:45 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 06:40 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 06:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 06:27 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 06:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 06:13 farvacola wrote:On December 14 2012 06:09 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 05:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 05:29 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 05:27 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
can you explain why you feel that the reasoning must be impartial? The majority of "the people" once viewed black people as lesser creatures, does that mean they were ever right? I'd like justification for why black people are lesser creatures other than "the majority of people are unashamedly racist". That's why. that didnt answer my question. i have given you a reason for why religions should be treated differently, and you dismissed it as not "impartial." why do i need to justify the viewpoint with an impartial reason? last time i checked, thats not how life or governments work. The reasoning must be impartial because I said so? I don't subscribe to the views of the majority, there's no point in explaining to a religious person why religious organisations deserve special treatment because they already agree with your reasoning : the majority of people are religious and that's the way they like it.Well, suppose I'm not religious? I require some kind of impartial justification other than that's just the way you guys like it, similarly if I was not racist in the times of slavery I'd want a better answer as to why black people are lesser creatures than because we are all racist and that's the way we like it! I don't see how you didn't understand that the first time round... "Religious people" do not ascribe to that sort of flimsy reasoning in any sort of categorical sense, and I'm fairly certain dAPhREAk doesn't either. In other words, there are a great many religious people who do not lionize the "tyranny of the majority". when he categorized me with "you guys," i realized he wasnt reading my responses anyways. Oh my goodness me I did not categorise you with "you guys" it was a turn of phrase? Do you also think then I'm categorising myself when I say "we are all racist" and that I'm actually a racist? lol regardless, you have not been reading my posts, or understanding them. otherwise you would point out that the first post i made today said that i dont think there is an impartial reason. I don't think there is an impartial reason either, as I've already stated. I'm glad we agree. I've actually read all of your posts in this thread repeatedly and understood them perfectly. I'm sorry I can't communicate with you in a way that you relate to. my post: Show nested quote +assuming there should be no freedom of religion then there is no basis for giving religions a pass on anti-discrimination laws. now we can get into the real issue, which is that i think your request for an "impartial" reason on a moral decision is silly. because i think there should be a freedom of religion, i dont object to the church's discrimination.
How do you reconcile the fact that one religious group might want to impinge upon the freedom of religion of an other religious group? How is this not applicable to a religious group impinging upon any other group?
|
On December 14 2012 06:53 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 06:45 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 06:40 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 06:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 06:27 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 06:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 06:13 farvacola wrote:On December 14 2012 06:09 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 05:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 05:29 Reason wrote:
[quote]
The majority of "the people" once viewed black people as lesser creatures, does that mean they were ever right?
I'd like justification for why black people are lesser creatures other than "the majority of people are unashamedly racist".
That's why. that didnt answer my question. i have given you a reason for why religions should be treated differently, and you dismissed it as not "impartial." why do i need to justify the viewpoint with an impartial reason? last time i checked, thats not how life or governments work. The reasoning must be impartial because I said so? I don't subscribe to the views of the majority, there's no point in explaining to a religious person why religious organisations deserve special treatment because they already agree with your reasoning : the majority of people are religious and that's the way they like it.Well, suppose I'm not religious? I require some kind of impartial justification other than that's just the way you guys like it, similarly if I was not racist in the times of slavery I'd want a better answer as to why black people are lesser creatures than because we are all racist and that's the way we like it! I don't see how you didn't understand that the first time round... "Religious people" do not ascribe to that sort of flimsy reasoning in any sort of categorical sense, and I'm fairly certain dAPhREAk doesn't either. In other words, there are a great many religious people who do not lionize the "tyranny of the majority". when he categorized me with "you guys," i realized he wasnt reading my responses anyways. Oh my goodness me I did not categorise you with "you guys" it was a turn of phrase? Do you also think then I'm categorising myself when I say "we are all racist" and that I'm actually a racist? lol regardless, you have not been reading my posts, or understanding them. otherwise you would point out that the first post i made today said that i dont think there is an impartial reason. I don't think there is an impartial reason either, as I've already stated. I'm glad we agree. I've actually read all of your posts in this thread repeatedly and understood them perfectly. I'm sorry I can't communicate with you in a way that you relate to. my post: assuming there should be no freedom of religion then there is no basis for giving religions a pass on anti-discrimination laws. now we can get into the real issue, which is that i think your request for an "impartial" reason on a moral decision is silly. because i think there should be a freedom of religion, i dont object to the church's discrimination. How do you reconcile the fact that one religious group might want to impinge upon the freedom of religion of an other religious group? How is this not applicable to a religious group impinging upon any other group?
can you give an example so we can have a more concrete thought experiment to work with?
|
On December 14 2012 06:53 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 06:45 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 06:40 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 06:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 06:27 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 06:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 06:13 farvacola wrote:On December 14 2012 06:09 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 05:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 05:29 Reason wrote:
[quote]
The majority of "the people" once viewed black people as lesser creatures, does that mean they were ever right?
I'd like justification for why black people are lesser creatures other than "the majority of people are unashamedly racist".
That's why. that didnt answer my question. i have given you a reason for why religions should be treated differently, and you dismissed it as not "impartial." why do i need to justify the viewpoint with an impartial reason? last time i checked, thats not how life or governments work. The reasoning must be impartial because I said so? I don't subscribe to the views of the majority, there's no point in explaining to a religious person why religious organisations deserve special treatment because they already agree with your reasoning : the majority of people are religious and that's the way they like it.Well, suppose I'm not religious? I require some kind of impartial justification other than that's just the way you guys like it, similarly if I was not racist in the times of slavery I'd want a better answer as to why black people are lesser creatures than because we are all racist and that's the way we like it! I don't see how you didn't understand that the first time round... "Religious people" do not ascribe to that sort of flimsy reasoning in any sort of categorical sense, and I'm fairly certain dAPhREAk doesn't either. In other words, there are a great many religious people who do not lionize the "tyranny of the majority". when he categorized me with "you guys," i realized he wasnt reading my responses anyways. Oh my goodness me I did not categorise you with "you guys" it was a turn of phrase? Do you also think then I'm categorising myself when I say "we are all racist" and that I'm actually a racist? lol regardless, you have not been reading my posts, or understanding them. otherwise you would point out that the first post i made today said that i dont think there is an impartial reason. I don't think there is an impartial reason either, as I've already stated. I'm glad we agree. I've actually read all of your posts in this thread repeatedly and understood them perfectly. I'm sorry I can't communicate with you in a way that you relate to. my post: assuming there should be no freedom of religion then there is no basis for giving religions a pass on anti-discrimination laws. now we can get into the real issue, which is that i think your request for an "impartial" reason on a moral decision is silly. because i think there should be a freedom of religion, i dont object to the church's discrimination. How do you reconcile the fact that one religious group might want to impinge upon the freedom of religion of an other religious group? How is this not applicable to a religious group impinging upon any other group?
its freedom from interference by the government, not other religious groups.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On December 14 2012 06:41 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 06:29 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 05:39 sam!zdat wrote:
Because I do not think that the secular authority should be able to dictate all matters of life. There must be spaces that are kept away from the greater system and allowed to dissent. You can think about this in Foucauldian terms as the preservation of heterotopia.
I think that it order for a society to be healthy, the state should allow as much freedom as possible for dissenting views on matters of conscience. I agree that there may be lines that must be drawn (that is, I would not permit a religion to practice human sacrifice, sexual abuse, and so on) but I feel that a refusal to perform marriage rites on gay couples does not cross this line that would allow the state to interfere. You simply cannot reconcile performance of the marriage ritual on a gay couple with the belief, for example, that romantic relationships derive their justification from procreation. I don't agree with this view, but I don't think the state can legitimately prevent a religious organization from holding it as part of their tenets.
Additionally, as farvacola has repeatedly stated, this legislation in fact PREVENTS doctrinal progress within these churches towards an acceptance of homosexuality. this is a classic example of liberal ideological fixation on isonomy (formal equality) at the expense of thinking strategically. You do not want a law that makes it illegal for a priest to challenge the doctrine of the church authority by performing a gay marriage against official doctrine. That is entirely counterproductive to the social agenda.
I think whenever you are considering exercising Imperial authority (i.e. the power of the secular sovereign to adjudicate in matters of religion) you should step very lightly. This legislation to me is an egregious overstepping of boundaries, despite my personal feelings about the backwardness of the doctrine in question.
edit: to put this in some context, and hopefully explain why a pro-gay atheist like me would be concerned about this, I'll just say that I am someone who is deeply concerned about keeping the power of the secular authority (for me, this means the bourgeois capitalist order) in check, and who feels that there is a growing tendency to legislate and "rationalize" all aspects of the life-world. So I'm suspicious of any attempt on the part of this order to extend its power to the few areas of the life-world that remain uncolonized.
edit: I feel that there is a strange tendency among secularists to think that religion is somehow "going away," that it is only for silly stupid people who haven't been Enlightened yet with the Power of Science. For the secularist, it is only a matter of time until this old hogwash dies out and we can all worship Degrasse Tyson instead, and so that is an excuse to exercise legislative strongarm tactics to simply speed up the process or something. "Oh, nobody cares, in the future everyone will be just like me and so it will all be okay." I think these people are in for a rude awakening. We are talking about two different things here though. This legislation does indeed prevent doctrinal progress towards an acceptable of homosexuality, which is definitely not good. I think most people here are in agreement of that. The way it does this is to give undeniable rights to the church to be allowed to discriminate in ways that other non religious organisations are not, and it's has been suggested (and I obviously agree) that this different treatment for religious organisations is wrong. Can you elaborate on why? Show nested quote +
You've said you think we need to allow as much freedom as possible in order for a society to be healthy. I'm not going to agree or disagree with that, but if that's true you then need to weigh the freedom of gay couples to get married just like everyone else against the churches right to discriminate against them.
False choice. Gay couples can get married in a different church, and from the point of the view of the state the church ceremony is irrelevant. You think legislating that their church must marry them is going to solve any of their problems? edit: also I'm not talking about "Freedom" as some vague liberal buzzword. Specifically I'm talking about freedom of conscience. Ability to get married isn't freedom in that sense, so I wouldn't see it as an equivalent thing. Show nested quote +
I think the rights of these people are more important than the infringment upon the current official doctrine of any religious organisation that takes place by allowing them the same treatment as heterosexual couples.
What rights does it infringe upon if they can still get married, just not in that church? Sure, it sucks that your community doesn't accept you, but the government can't fix that with legislation. I don't see the point of a right to get married in any church, not practical or sensical. I don't have the right to get married in a Hindu ceremony, for example, not being a Hindu. I think that's a better analogy. I wouldn't go campaigning for the right to get a Hindu wedding. Show nested quote +
This now does actually bring up the issue of forcing the church to do things they don't want to, and perhaps avoiding this tricky situation is the very reason this half-compromise of a bill is being suggested.
Yes, that's what they're trying to do, and it's an abysmal failure. The only solution is to guarantee full secular equality and leave the religious stuff to the churches. Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 06:24 sam!zdat wrote:On December 14 2012 06:09 Reason wrote:
The reasoning must be impartial because I said so? After the revolution, I'm putting this up in stone above the Palace of the Chairman. As entertaining as you find this piece of comedy, it's just a way of saying it has to be impartial because you are talking to me and that's what I've asked for? You seem to think I'm going into dictator mode and introducing a new world order, all I'm saying is I'm not happy with "the majority says so so just accept it" as an explanation, and I'd like some impartial justification for why the majority is right? Is that such a crime? I'm not sure what you mean by impartial. I just thought it was funny because I think all mises en abyme are funny, that being the crisis of our age and all.
Sorry now that you've very neatly quoted and answered each part of the post, if I try to do that it's going to be very difficult and messy, so I'm just going to respond in the usual fashion. I trust you are aware of your own post enough to know what point I'm responding to at any given time. I'll do it in order of course.
Yes, I think it's wrong to grant them special treatment for the same reasons as have been repeated repeatedly already. Their set of beliefs is no more or less important than the set of beliefs held by any other non religious organisation, thus special treatment and consideration for their beliefs is inappropriate and in itself discrimination.
It's not a false choice.
Homosexual couples are not "free" to marry how they please in the way that heterosexual couples are.
You either keep things like that, and continue to impinge upon this freedom, or you change that, and impinge upon the freedom of the church.
It's not a false choice, it's a very clear, very simple, very real choice.
You are right about how I am defining freedom.
I am free to go to the shops and buy a packet of crisps, because nothing prevents me from doing that.
If you take away my money, buy all the crisps before I get there or you physically stop me from going to the shop you are taking away my freedom to do that.
That's all I'm referring to. If there's nothing in the law preventing me from buying this packet of crisps or permitting somebody to prevent me from buying them I would also consider it my right to go and buy them.
So again, we've all agreed that the legislation is definitely a bad idea. The point of contention is special treatment of religious organisations and whether it is appropriate, this is merely one example. I'm not overly invested in this particular topic, but it has raised a very interesting question. I'd still like to hear more about impartial justification for why religious groups deserve special treatment.
Now, what do I mean by impartial? Well referring back to the discussion with farva and daphreak, he said that's the way it is because that's the way it is. The people want it to be so.
I'd like to ask why, and to receive justification that isn't just simply because this is their view and they are the majority.
I'd like to know why it's right, or why it's wrong. I've explained why I think it's wrong, quite simply that religious beliefs of an organised theistic nature should hold no precedence over any other set of beliefs or convictions otherwise derived.
You said your reasoning for why these beliefs should be held in higher regard and/or treated differently is because of freedom? I think that is discrimination against non organised theistic convictions, wholly inconsistent and not really an explanation at all...
|
Look dude, I'm a frickin communist. I would NEVER, EVER say that something should be some way "because of freedom." That's liberal talk.
I think the kind of freedom you are talking about when you say "Homosexual couples are not "free" to marry how they please in the way that heterosexual couples are" is a chimaera. I don't think "freedom" is about forcing a church to adopt a certain doctrine. I'm not interested in that kind of freedom. I think focusing on things like that at the expense of pragmatic policy is an enormous distraction and a fixation upon an unattainable goal at the expense of an attainable one.
I'm saying that it is a pragmatic social good to have freedom of conscience. This is to ensure the ability of the subject to take controversial moral position in order to promote rational discourse on moral-practical subjects. I don't think the state can go telling people what are the legitimate foundations for a sexual/romantic relationship, and that is what this law amounts to.
edit: simply put, you cannot legislate hearts and minds. You cannot invade them and nation-build them, either, but that's a different topic. And hearts and minds are all that matter.
|
On December 14 2012 06:56 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 06:53 Deleuze wrote:On December 14 2012 06:45 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 06:40 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 06:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 06:27 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 06:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 06:13 farvacola wrote:On December 14 2012 06:09 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 05:32 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
that didnt answer my question. i have given you a reason for why religions should be treated differently, and you dismissed it as not "impartial." why do i need to justify the viewpoint with an impartial reason? last time i checked, thats not how life or governments work. The reasoning must be impartial because I said so? I don't subscribe to the views of the majority, there's no point in explaining to a religious person why religious organisations deserve special treatment because they already agree with your reasoning : the majority of people are religious and that's the way they like it.Well, suppose I'm not religious? I require some kind of impartial justification other than that's just the way you guys like it, similarly if I was not racist in the times of slavery I'd want a better answer as to why black people are lesser creatures than because we are all racist and that's the way we like it! I don't see how you didn't understand that the first time round... "Religious people" do not ascribe to that sort of flimsy reasoning in any sort of categorical sense, and I'm fairly certain dAPhREAk doesn't either. In other words, there are a great many religious people who do not lionize the "tyranny of the majority". when he categorized me with "you guys," i realized he wasnt reading my responses anyways. Oh my goodness me I did not categorise you with "you guys" it was a turn of phrase? Do you also think then I'm categorising myself when I say "we are all racist" and that I'm actually a racist? lol regardless, you have not been reading my posts, or understanding them. otherwise you would point out that the first post i made today said that i dont think there is an impartial reason. I don't think there is an impartial reason either, as I've already stated. I'm glad we agree. I've actually read all of your posts in this thread repeatedly and understood them perfectly. I'm sorry I can't communicate with you in a way that you relate to. my post: assuming there should be no freedom of religion then there is no basis for giving religions a pass on anti-discrimination laws. now we can get into the real issue, which is that i think your request for an "impartial" reason on a moral decision is silly. because i think there should be a freedom of religion, i dont object to the church's discrimination. How do you reconcile the fact that one religious group might want to impinge upon the freedom of religion of an other religious group? How is this not applicable to a religious group impinging upon any other group? can you give an example so we can have a more concrete thought experiment to work with?
Say, a Christian church group lobbying against a Mosque being being in their area.
On December 14 2012 06:57 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 06:53 Deleuze wrote:On December 14 2012 06:45 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 06:40 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 06:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 06:27 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 06:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 06:13 farvacola wrote:On December 14 2012 06:09 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 05:32 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
that didnt answer my question. i have given you a reason for why religions should be treated differently, and you dismissed it as not "impartial." why do i need to justify the viewpoint with an impartial reason? last time i checked, thats not how life or governments work. The reasoning must be impartial because I said so? I don't subscribe to the views of the majority, there's no point in explaining to a religious person why religious organisations deserve special treatment because they already agree with your reasoning : the majority of people are religious and that's the way they like it.Well, suppose I'm not religious? I require some kind of impartial justification other than that's just the way you guys like it, similarly if I was not racist in the times of slavery I'd want a better answer as to why black people are lesser creatures than because we are all racist and that's the way we like it! I don't see how you didn't understand that the first time round... "Religious people" do not ascribe to that sort of flimsy reasoning in any sort of categorical sense, and I'm fairly certain dAPhREAk doesn't either. In other words, there are a great many religious people who do not lionize the "tyranny of the majority". when he categorized me with "you guys," i realized he wasnt reading my responses anyways. Oh my goodness me I did not categorise you with "you guys" it was a turn of phrase? Do you also think then I'm categorising myself when I say "we are all racist" and that I'm actually a racist? lol regardless, you have not been reading my posts, or understanding them. otherwise you would point out that the first post i made today said that i dont think there is an impartial reason. I don't think there is an impartial reason either, as I've already stated. I'm glad we agree. I've actually read all of your posts in this thread repeatedly and understood them perfectly. I'm sorry I can't communicate with you in a way that you relate to. my post: assuming there should be no freedom of religion then there is no basis for giving religions a pass on anti-discrimination laws. now we can get into the real issue, which is that i think your request for an "impartial" reason on a moral decision is silly. because i think there should be a freedom of religion, i dont object to the church's discrimination. How do you reconcile the fact that one religious group might want to impinge upon the freedom of religion of an other religious group? How is this not applicable to a religious group impinging upon any other group? its freedom from interference by the government, not other religious groups.
But surely to be protected from interference from other religions is to be interfered or mediated by governments. A government would need to intervene in order to prevent a religious group from interfering with another religious group.
I am warming to yours and sma!zdat's approaches in theory however how Anarchic are you prepared to be?
On December 14 2012 07:11 sam!zdat wrote:
Look dude, I'm a frickin communist. I would NEVER, EVER say that something should be some way "because of freedom." That's liberal talk.
I think the kind of freedom you are talking about when you say "Homosexual couples are not "free" to marry how they please in the way that heterosexual couples are" is a chimaera. I don't think "freedom" is about forcing a church to adopt a certain doctrine. I'm not interested in that kind of freedom. I think focusing on things like that at the expense of pragmatic policy is an enormous distraction and a fixation upon an unattainable goal at the expense of an attainable one.
I'm saying that it is a pragmatic social good to have freedom of conscience. This is to ensure the ability of the subject to take controversial moral position in order to promote rational discourse on moral-practical subjects. I don't think the state can go telling people what are the legitimate foundations for a sexual/romantic relationship, and that is what this law amounts to.
I'd consider that an Anarchic rather than strictly communist approach. But good on ya, I starting to see your line of thought.
|
daphreak:
+ Show Spoiler +On December 14 2012 06:45 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 06:40 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 06:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 06:27 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 06:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 06:13 farvacola wrote:On December 14 2012 06:09 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 05:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 05:29 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 05:27 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
can you explain why you feel that the reasoning must be impartial? The majority of "the people" once viewed black people as lesser creatures, does that mean they were ever right? I'd like justification for why black people are lesser creatures other than "the majority of people are unashamedly racist". That's why. that didnt answer my question. i have given you a reason for why religions should be treated differently, and you dismissed it as not "impartial." why do i need to justify the viewpoint with an impartial reason? last time i checked, thats not how life or governments work. The reasoning must be impartial because I said so? I don't subscribe to the views of the majority, there's no point in explaining to a religious person why religious organisations deserve special treatment because they already agree with your reasoning : the majority of people are religious and that's the way they like it.Well, suppose I'm not religious? I require some kind of impartial justification other than that's just the way you guys like it, similarly if I was not racist in the times of slavery I'd want a better answer as to why black people are lesser creatures than because we are all racist and that's the way we like it! I don't see how you didn't understand that the first time round... "Religious people" do not ascribe to that sort of flimsy reasoning in any sort of categorical sense, and I'm fairly certain dAPhREAk doesn't either. In other words, there are a great many religious people who do not lionize the "tyranny of the majority". when he categorized me with "you guys," i realized he wasnt reading my responses anyways. Oh my goodness me I did not categorise you with "you guys" it was a turn of phrase? Do you also think then I'm categorising myself when I say "we are all racist" and that I'm actually a racist? lol regardless, you have not been reading my posts, or understanding them. otherwise you would point out that the first post i made today said that i dont think there is an impartial reason. I don't think there is an impartial reason either, as I've already stated. I'm glad we agree. I've actually read all of your posts in this thread repeatedly and understood them perfectly. I'm sorry I can't communicate with you in a way that you relate to. my post: Show nested quote +assuming there should be no freedom of religion then there is no basis for giving religions a pass on anti-discrimination laws. now we can get into the real issue, which is that i think your request for an "impartial" reason on a moral decision is silly. because i think there should be a freedom of religion, i dont object to the church's discrimination. On December 14 2012 06:45 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 06:40 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 06:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 06:27 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 06:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 06:13 farvacola wrote:On December 14 2012 06:09 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 05:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 05:29 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 05:27 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
can you explain why you feel that the reasoning must be impartial? The majority of "the people" once viewed black people as lesser creatures, does that mean they were ever right? I'd like justification for why black people are lesser creatures other than "the majority of people are unashamedly racist". That's why. that didnt answer my question. i have given you a reason for why religions should be treated differently, and you dismissed it as not "impartial." why do i need to justify the viewpoint with an impartial reason? last time i checked, thats not how life or governments work. The reasoning must be impartial because I said so? I don't subscribe to the views of the majority, there's no point in explaining to a religious person why religious organisations deserve special treatment because they already agree with your reasoning : the majority of people are religious and that's the way they like it.Well, suppose I'm not religious? I require some kind of impartial justification other than that's just the way you guys like it, similarly if I was not racist in the times of slavery I'd want a better answer as to why black people are lesser creatures than because we are all racist and that's the way we like it! I don't see how you didn't understand that the first time round... "Religious people" do not ascribe to that sort of flimsy reasoning in any sort of categorical sense, and I'm fairly certain dAPhREAk doesn't either. In other words, there are a great many religious people who do not lionize the "tyranny of the majority". when he categorized me with "you guys," i realized he wasnt reading my responses anyways. Oh my goodness me I did not categorise you with "you guys" it was a turn of phrase? Do you also think then I'm categorising myself when I say "we are all racist" and that I'm actually a racist? lol regardless, you have not been reading my posts, or understanding them. otherwise you would point out that the first post i made today said that i dont think there is an impartial reason. I don't think there is an impartial reason either, as I've already stated. I'm glad we agree. I've actually read all of your posts in this thread repeatedly and understood them perfectly. I'm sorry I can't communicate with you in a way that you relate to. my post: Show nested quote +assuming there should be no freedom of religion then there is no basis for giving religions a pass on anti-discrimination laws. now we can get into the real issue, which is that i think your request for an "impartial" reason on a moral decision is silly. because i think there should be a freedom of religion, i dont object to the church's discrimination.
The real issue is why do you believe not giving religions a pass on anti-discrimination laws constitutues no religious freedom?
The example has been made about sacrificial killings etc, it doesn't matter what their religious beliefs are this freedom of religion doesn't extend to murder, and all this argument supposes is that it shouldn't extend to discrimination either!
I think there should be freedom of religion too, but only to a certain extent. The vast majority of the UK agrees, that's why you can't go murdering people in the name of religion in the UK and get away with it.
I don't see why you think my request for impartial reasoning on this discrimination issue is "silly" and are attempting to equate it with the complete abolishment of freedom of religion.
|
you seem to be misconstruing what i am saying. the reason why religions should receive preference by the government is because the government's job is to do what the constituents want. it has nothing to do with right or wrong, it has everything to do with how the government should function.
|
On December 14 2012 07:11 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 06:56 sam!zdat wrote:On December 14 2012 06:53 Deleuze wrote:On December 14 2012 06:45 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 06:40 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 06:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 06:27 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 06:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 06:13 farvacola wrote:On December 14 2012 06:09 Reason wrote:
[quote]
The reasoning must be impartial because I said so?
I don't subscribe to the views of the majority, there's no point in explaining to a religious person why religious organisations deserve special treatment because they already agree with your reasoning : the majority of people are religious and that's the way they like it.
Well, suppose I'm not religious? I require some kind of impartial justification other than that's just the way you guys like it, similarly if I was not racist in the times of slavery I'd want a better answer as to why black people are lesser creatures than because we are all racist and that's the way we like it!
I don't see how you didn't understand that the first time round... "Religious people" do not ascribe to that sort of flimsy reasoning in any sort of categorical sense, and I'm fairly certain dAPhREAk doesn't either. In other words, there are a great many religious people who do not lionize the "tyranny of the majority". when he categorized me with "you guys," i realized he wasnt reading my responses anyways. Oh my goodness me I did not categorise you with "you guys" it was a turn of phrase? Do you also think then I'm categorising myself when I say "we are all racist" and that I'm actually a racist? lol regardless, you have not been reading my posts, or understanding them. otherwise you would point out that the first post i made today said that i dont think there is an impartial reason. I don't think there is an impartial reason either, as I've already stated. I'm glad we agree. I've actually read all of your posts in this thread repeatedly and understood them perfectly. I'm sorry I can't communicate with you in a way that you relate to. my post: assuming there should be no freedom of religion then there is no basis for giving religions a pass on anti-discrimination laws. now we can get into the real issue, which is that i think your request for an "impartial" reason on a moral decision is silly. because i think there should be a freedom of religion, i dont object to the church's discrimination. How do you reconcile the fact that one religious group might want to impinge upon the freedom of religion of an other religious group? How is this not applicable to a religious group impinging upon any other group? can you give an example so we can have a more concrete thought experiment to work with? Say, a Christian church group lobbying against a Mosque being being in their area. Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 06:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 06:53 Deleuze wrote:On December 14 2012 06:45 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 06:40 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 06:30 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 06:27 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 06:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 06:13 farvacola wrote:On December 14 2012 06:09 Reason wrote:
[quote]
The reasoning must be impartial because I said so?
I don't subscribe to the views of the majority, there's no point in explaining to a religious person why religious organisations deserve special treatment because they already agree with your reasoning : the majority of people are religious and that's the way they like it.
Well, suppose I'm not religious? I require some kind of impartial justification other than that's just the way you guys like it, similarly if I was not racist in the times of slavery I'd want a better answer as to why black people are lesser creatures than because we are all racist and that's the way we like it!
I don't see how you didn't understand that the first time round... "Religious people" do not ascribe to that sort of flimsy reasoning in any sort of categorical sense, and I'm fairly certain dAPhREAk doesn't either. In other words, there are a great many religious people who do not lionize the "tyranny of the majority". when he categorized me with "you guys," i realized he wasnt reading my responses anyways. Oh my goodness me I did not categorise you with "you guys" it was a turn of phrase? Do you also think then I'm categorising myself when I say "we are all racist" and that I'm actually a racist? lol regardless, you have not been reading my posts, or understanding them. otherwise you would point out that the first post i made today said that i dont think there is an impartial reason. I don't think there is an impartial reason either, as I've already stated. I'm glad we agree. I've actually read all of your posts in this thread repeatedly and understood them perfectly. I'm sorry I can't communicate with you in a way that you relate to. my post: assuming there should be no freedom of religion then there is no basis for giving religions a pass on anti-discrimination laws. now we can get into the real issue, which is that i think your request for an "impartial" reason on a moral decision is silly. because i think there should be a freedom of religion, i dont object to the church's discrimination. How do you reconcile the fact that one religious group might want to impinge upon the freedom of religion of an other religious group? How is this not applicable to a religious group impinging upon any other group? its freedom from interference by the government, not other religious groups. But surely to be protected from interference from other religions is to be interfered or mediated by governments. A government would need to intervene in order to prevent a religious group from interfering with another religious group. I am warming to yours and sma!zdat's approaches in theory however how Anarchic are you prepared to be? Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 07:11 sam!zdat wrote:
Look dude, I'm a frickin communist. I would NEVER, EVER say that something should be some way "because of freedom." That's liberal talk.
I think the kind of freedom you are talking about when you say "Homosexual couples are not "free" to marry how they please in the way that heterosexual couples are" is a chimaera. I don't think "freedom" is about forcing a church to adopt a certain doctrine. I'm not interested in that kind of freedom. I think focusing on things like that at the expense of pragmatic policy is an enormous distraction and a fixation upon an unattainable goal at the expense of an attainable one.
I'm saying that it is a pragmatic social good to have freedom of conscience. This is to ensure the ability of the subject to take controversial moral position in order to promote rational discourse on moral-practical subjects. I don't think the state can go telling people what are the legitimate foundations for a sexual/romantic relationship, and that is what this law amounts to. I'd consider that an Anarchic rather than strictly communist approach. But good on ya, I starting to see your line of thought.
if a christian group pickets a muslim group--that is completely fine.
if a christian group advocates to the government that a muslim group should not be allowed to come to a neighborhood--that is completely fine.
if a government refuses to allow a muslim group to come to a neighborhood based on its faith--that is wrong.
if a government refuses to allow a muslim group to come to a neighborhood based on a non-religious issue--that is fine.
none of this is revolutionary by the way. its the way the U.S. Supreme Court already works. and for the most part i think their approach is good.
|
On December 14 2012 07:12 dAPhREAk wrote:
you seem to be misconstruing what i am saying. the reason why religions should receive preference by the government is because the government's job is to do what the constituents want. it has nothing to do with right or wrong, it has everything to do with how the government should function.
I guess my point in that case must be that all I want is for the right thing to be done, whether that is done democratically or not I couldn't careless.
I want to good and just state of affairs to exist.
EDIT: I never said anything about being revolutionary, I know my way around American politics thank you very much  Admirably for the most part I might add.
EDIT 2: I think we ahve a fan:
On December 14 2012 07:19 KwarK wrote:
Fuck all the haters, my general forum topic turned out alright.
|
On December 14 2012 06:05 dAPhREAk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 14 2012 06:00 Kitai wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 14 2012 05:39 sam!zdat wrote:
Because I do not think that the secular authority should be able to dictate all matters of life. There must be spaces that are kept away from the greater system and allowed to dissent. You can think about this in Foucauldian terms as the preservation of heterotopia.
I think that it order for a society to be healthy, the state should allow as much freedom as possible for dissenting views on matters of conscience. I agree that there may be lines that must be drawn (that is, I would not permit a religion to practice human sacrifice, sexual abuse, and so on) but I feel that a refusal to perform marriage rites on gay couples does not cross this line that would allow the state to interfere. You simply cannot reconcile performance of the marriage ritual on a gay couple with the belief, for example, that romantic relationships derive their justification from procreation. I don't agree with this view, but I don't think the state can legitimately prevent a religious organization from holding it as part of their tenets.
Additionally, as farvacola has repeatedly stated, this legislation in fact PREVENTS doctrinal progress within these churches towards an acceptance of homosexuality. this is a classic example of liberal ideological fixation on isonomy (formal equality) at the expense of thinking strategically. You do not want a law that makes it illegal for a priest to challenge the doctrine of the church authority by performing a gay marriage against official doctrine. That is entirely counterproductive to the social agenda.
I think whenever you are considering exercising Imperial authority (i.e. the power of the secular sovereign to adjudicate in matters of religion) you should step very lightly. This legislation to me is an egregious overstepping of boundaries, despite my personal feelings about the backwardness of the doctrine in question.
edit: to put this in some context, and hopefully explain why a pro-gay atheist like me would be concerned about this, I'll just say that I am someone who is deeply concerned about keeping the power of the secular authority (for me, this means the bourgeois capitalist order) in check, and who feels that there is a growing tendency to legislate and "rationalize" all aspects of the life-world. So I'm suspicious of any attempt on the part of this order to extend its power to the few areas of the life-world that remain uncolonized. I agree entirely. When I read the OP, the one thing that stuck out the most was a law that would enforce discrimination, and make it illegal to not discriminate. I think it's entirely fine for a private organization to decline to offer a service (such as marrying a gay couple), but to make it illegal for them to expand into offering that service in the future just seems really backward and over-controlling. im pretty sure that they can change their mind in the future. if they couldnt, that would be pretty absurd. its just an all or nothing approach; your church is either against it or its not, you cant have certain members doing it when the church is against it.
That sounds like a problem the church itself should deal with, not the law. If some members of the church want to marry gay couples, and some don't, then the church should have the power to decide how best to handle the situation within its own organization. Once again, the enforced-discrimination law seems overly-interfering.
|
|
|
On December 14 2012 07:12 dAPhREAk wrote:
you seem to be misconstruing what i am saying. the reason why religions should receive preference by the government is because the government's job is to do what the constituents want. it has nothing to do with right or wrong, it has everything to do with how the government should function.
We've already established that the majority wishes it to be the case, and you are correct for government to be functioning properly it has to respect the views of the majority.
I'm not disagreeing with you..
What I was asking was, is the majority correct?
I was asking for any other kind of reasoning or justification as to why they should really deserve this treatment and we've already both agreed on this too, we don't think there is any.
Sorry for any misunderstanding.
|
On December 14 2012 07:20 Kitai wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 06:05 dAPhREAk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 14 2012 06:00 Kitai wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 14 2012 05:39 sam!zdat wrote:
Because I do not think that the secular authority should be able to dictate all matters of life. There must be spaces that are kept away from the greater system and allowed to dissent. You can think about this in Foucauldian terms as the preservation of heterotopia.
I think that it order for a society to be healthy, the state should allow as much freedom as possible for dissenting views on matters of conscience. I agree that there may be lines that must be drawn (that is, I would not permit a religion to practice human sacrifice, sexual abuse, and so on) but I feel that a refusal to perform marriage rites on gay couples does not cross this line that would allow the state to interfere. You simply cannot reconcile performance of the marriage ritual on a gay couple with the belief, for example, that romantic relationships derive their justification from procreation. I don't agree with this view, but I don't think the state can legitimately prevent a religious organization from holding it as part of their tenets.
Additionally, as farvacola has repeatedly stated, this legislation in fact PREVENTS doctrinal progress within these churches towards an acceptance of homosexuality. this is a classic example of liberal ideological fixation on isonomy (formal equality) at the expense of thinking strategically. You do not want a law that makes it illegal for a priest to challenge the doctrine of the church authority by performing a gay marriage against official doctrine. That is entirely counterproductive to the social agenda.
I think whenever you are considering exercising Imperial authority (i.e. the power of the secular sovereign to adjudicate in matters of religion) you should step very lightly. This legislation to me is an egregious overstepping of boundaries, despite my personal feelings about the backwardness of the doctrine in question.
edit: to put this in some context, and hopefully explain why a pro-gay atheist like me would be concerned about this, I'll just say that I am someone who is deeply concerned about keeping the power of the secular authority (for me, this means the bourgeois capitalist order) in check, and who feels that there is a growing tendency to legislate and "rationalize" all aspects of the life-world. So I'm suspicious of any attempt on the part of this order to extend its power to the few areas of the life-world that remain uncolonized. I agree entirely. When I read the OP, the one thing that stuck out the most was a law that would enforce discrimination, and make it illegal to not discriminate. I think it's entirely fine for a private organization to decline to offer a service (such as marrying a gay couple), but to make it illegal for them to expand into offering that service in the future just seems really backward and over-controlling. im pretty sure that they can change their mind in the future. if they couldnt, that would be pretty absurd. its just an all or nothing approach; your church is either against it or its not, you cant have certain members doing it when the church is against it. That sounds like a problem the church itself should deal with, not the law. If some members of the church want to marry gay couples, and some don't, then the church should have the power to decide how best to handle the situation within its own organization. Once again, the enforced-discrimination law seems overly-interfering.
i've said this before, but i'll repeat. i have no problem with the law forcing the church to be consistent. if its a religious tenant that homosexuality is wrong and that gay marriage should not be allowed then the church should have to enforce that tenant consistently. a church shouldnt be allowed to say "we are exempt from anti-discrimination laws" and then pick and choose whether it discriminates.
i understand that people think subgroups should be allowed to "break off" from the church as they become more progressive and the law shouldnt make their actions illegal. i agree, but i think the proper process is for them to disassociate themselves from the church, and as a result no longer be exempt from the anti-discrimination laws.
take this for an example, church A claims exemption. congregation B decides it wants to do gay marriages despite being part of church a, and then do them. however, congregation B changes it mind and decides gays should burn in hell, and starts discriminating again. because they are part of church A there is no consequence to them changing their mind on principle tenants of the church. i am opposed to this picking and choosing. if its a legitimate belief, it shouldn't waiver. if its an illegitimate belief, it shouldnt be exempt from anti-discrimination laws.
|
On December 14 2012 07:29 dAPhREAk wrote:
if its a legitimate belief, it shouldn't waver.
Why?
I feel it is the illegitimate beliefs that do not waver.
edit: you should not have to declare full legal schism in order to subvert doctrine.
|
On December 14 2012 07:29 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 07:20 Kitai wrote:On December 14 2012 06:05 dAPhREAk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 14 2012 06:00 Kitai wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 14 2012 05:39 sam!zdat wrote:
Because I do not think that the secular authority should be able to dictate all matters of life. There must be spaces that are kept away from the greater system and allowed to dissent. You can think about this in Foucauldian terms as the preservation of heterotopia.
I think that it order for a society to be healthy, the state should allow as much freedom as possible for dissenting views on matters of conscience. I agree that there may be lines that must be drawn (that is, I would not permit a religion to practice human sacrifice, sexual abuse, and so on) but I feel that a refusal to perform marriage rites on gay couples does not cross this line that would allow the state to interfere. You simply cannot reconcile performance of the marriage ritual on a gay couple with the belief, for example, that romantic relationships derive their justification from procreation. I don't agree with this view, but I don't think the state can legitimately prevent a religious organization from holding it as part of their tenets.
Additionally, as farvacola has repeatedly stated, this legislation in fact PREVENTS doctrinal progress within these churches towards an acceptance of homosexuality. this is a classic example of liberal ideological fixation on isonomy (formal equality) at the expense of thinking strategically. You do not want a law that makes it illegal for a priest to challenge the doctrine of the church authority by performing a gay marriage against official doctrine. That is entirely counterproductive to the social agenda.
I think whenever you are considering exercising Imperial authority (i.e. the power of the secular sovereign to adjudicate in matters of religion) you should step very lightly. This legislation to me is an egregious overstepping of boundaries, despite my personal feelings about the backwardness of the doctrine in question.
edit: to put this in some context, and hopefully explain why a pro-gay atheist like me would be concerned about this, I'll just say that I am someone who is deeply concerned about keeping the power of the secular authority (for me, this means the bourgeois capitalist order) in check, and who feels that there is a growing tendency to legislate and "rationalize" all aspects of the life-world. So I'm suspicious of any attempt on the part of this order to extend its power to the few areas of the life-world that remain uncolonized. I agree entirely. When I read the OP, the one thing that stuck out the most was a law that would enforce discrimination, and make it illegal to not discriminate. I think it's entirely fine for a private organization to decline to offer a service (such as marrying a gay couple), but to make it illegal for them to expand into offering that service in the future just seems really backward and over-controlling. im pretty sure that they can change their mind in the future. if they couldnt, that would be pretty absurd. its just an all or nothing approach; your church is either against it or its not, you cant have certain members doing it when the church is against it. That sounds like a problem the church itself should deal with, not the law. If some members of the church want to marry gay couples, and some don't, then the church should have the power to decide how best to handle the situation within its own organization. Once again, the enforced-discrimination law seems overly-interfering. i've said this before, but i'll repeat. i have no problem with the law forcing the church to be consistent. if its a religious tenant that homosexuality is wrong and that gay marriage should not be allowed then the church should have to enforce that tenant consistently. a church shouldnt be allowed to say "we are exempt from anti-discrimination laws" and then pick and choose whether it discriminates. i understand that people think subgroups should be allowed to "break off" from the church as they become more progressive and the law shouldnt make their actions illegal. i agree, but i think the proper process is for them to disassociate themselves from the church, and as a result no longer be exempt from the anti-discrimination laws. take this for an example, church A claims exemption. congregation B decides it wants to do gay marriages despite being part of church a, and then do them. however, congregation B changes it mind and decides gays should burn in hell, and starts discriminating again. because they are part of church A there is no consequence to them changing their mind on principle tenants of the church. i am opposed to this picking and choosing. if its a legitimate belief, it shouldn't waiver. if its an illegitimate belief, it shouldnt be exempt from anti-discrimination laws.
What?! So basically it's OK for the government to enforce consistency in religious organizations?
Religious history is all about congregations breaking off and forming their own churches. Now that really is something I cannot allow government to circumvent - surely we want religious bigotry to cure itself and for everyone to be nice to each other!
EDIT: essentially you're saying that religious groups need government approval - the total opposite of your underlying message surely???
|
On December 14 2012 07:33 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 07:29 dAPhREAk wrote:
if its a legitimate belief, it shouldn't waver. Why? I feel it is the illegitimate beliefs that do not waver.
if you want to claim an exemption from the law based on religion, you better have a legitimate belief. (not legitimate in the sense of its a correct belief, but legitimate in that you actually believe it.) if you are going to pick and choose as you see fit then your "religion" is no more legitimate than a random forum nerd named freak on tl.net posting bullshit nobody cares about.
|
On December 14 2012 07:35 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 07:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 07:20 Kitai wrote:On December 14 2012 06:05 dAPhREAk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 14 2012 06:00 Kitai wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 14 2012 05:39 sam!zdat wrote:
Because I do not think that the secular authority should be able to dictate all matters of life. There must be spaces that are kept away from the greater system and allowed to dissent. You can think about this in Foucauldian terms as the preservation of heterotopia.
I think that it order for a society to be healthy, the state should allow as much freedom as possible for dissenting views on matters of conscience. I agree that there may be lines that must be drawn (that is, I would not permit a religion to practice human sacrifice, sexual abuse, and so on) but I feel that a refusal to perform marriage rites on gay couples does not cross this line that would allow the state to interfere. You simply cannot reconcile performance of the marriage ritual on a gay couple with the belief, for example, that romantic relationships derive their justification from procreation. I don't agree with this view, but I don't think the state can legitimately prevent a religious organization from holding it as part of their tenets.
Additionally, as farvacola has repeatedly stated, this legislation in fact PREVENTS doctrinal progress within these churches towards an acceptance of homosexuality. this is a classic example of liberal ideological fixation on isonomy (formal equality) at the expense of thinking strategically. You do not want a law that makes it illegal for a priest to challenge the doctrine of the church authority by performing a gay marriage against official doctrine. That is entirely counterproductive to the social agenda.
I think whenever you are considering exercising Imperial authority (i.e. the power of the secular sovereign to adjudicate in matters of religion) you should step very lightly. This legislation to me is an egregious overstepping of boundaries, despite my personal feelings about the backwardness of the doctrine in question.
edit: to put this in some context, and hopefully explain why a pro-gay atheist like me would be concerned about this, I'll just say that I am someone who is deeply concerned about keeping the power of the secular authority (for me, this means the bourgeois capitalist order) in check, and who feels that there is a growing tendency to legislate and "rationalize" all aspects of the life-world. So I'm suspicious of any attempt on the part of this order to extend its power to the few areas of the life-world that remain uncolonized. I agree entirely. When I read the OP, the one thing that stuck out the most was a law that would enforce discrimination, and make it illegal to not discriminate. I think it's entirely fine for a private organization to decline to offer a service (such as marrying a gay couple), but to make it illegal for them to expand into offering that service in the future just seems really backward and over-controlling. im pretty sure that they can change their mind in the future. if they couldnt, that would be pretty absurd. its just an all or nothing approach; your church is either against it or its not, you cant have certain members doing it when the church is against it. That sounds like a problem the church itself should deal with, not the law. If some members of the church want to marry gay couples, and some don't, then the church should have the power to decide how best to handle the situation within its own organization. Once again, the enforced-discrimination law seems overly-interfering. i've said this before, but i'll repeat. i have no problem with the law forcing the church to be consistent. if its a religious tenant that homosexuality is wrong and that gay marriage should not be allowed then the church should have to enforce that tenant consistently. a church shouldnt be allowed to say "we are exempt from anti-discrimination laws" and then pick and choose whether it discriminates. i understand that people think subgroups should be allowed to "break off" from the church as they become more progressive and the law shouldnt make their actions illegal. i agree, but i think the proper process is for them to disassociate themselves from the church, and as a result no longer be exempt from the anti-discrimination laws. take this for an example, church A claims exemption. congregation B decides it wants to do gay marriages despite being part of church a, and then do them. however, congregation B changes it mind and decides gays should burn in hell, and starts discriminating again. because they are part of church A there is no consequence to them changing their mind on principle tenants of the church. i am opposed to this picking and choosing. if its a legitimate belief, it shouldn't waiver. if its an illegitimate belief, it shouldnt be exempt from anti-discrimination laws. What?! So basically it's OK for the government to enforce consistency in religious organizations? Religious history is all about congregations breaking off and forming their own churches. Now that really is something I cannot allow government to circumvent - surely we want religious bigotry to cure itself and for everyone to be nice to each other! EDIT: essentially you're saying that religious groups need government approval - the total opposite of your underlying message surely???
i dont see it as them enforcing any religious tenants, just the law. if a religion claims an exemption, but then doesnt follow through with the requirements of the exemption, the exemption should be revoked. if congregations break off and form their own churches, they should re-register as non-exempt. no issue there. if they dont break off and the chuch allows it to continue, then the exemption should be revoked because the basis for the exemption doesnt exist.
the government is enforcing the anti-discrimination laws; its not enforcing church policies.
|
ah. for this type of "legitimate" can we use the word "sincere," instead?
I don't know how one would evaluate that. A sincerity court?
edit: the idea of a government enforcing doctrinal consistency on churches makes me wanna go donate to the NRA.
|
On December 14 2012 07:43 sam!zdat wrote:
ah. for this type of "legitimate" can we use the word "sincere," instead?
I don't know how one would evaluate that. A sincerity court?
edit: the idea of a government enforcing doctrinal consistency on churches makes me wanna go donate to the NRA.
thats actually a much better word, and what the US Supreme Court uses. "sincere and meaningful" belief.
|
On December 14 2012 07:42 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 07:35 Deleuze wrote:On December 14 2012 07:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 07:20 Kitai wrote:On December 14 2012 06:05 dAPhREAk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 14 2012 06:00 Kitai wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 14 2012 05:39 sam!zdat wrote:
Because I do not think that the secular authority should be able to dictate all matters of life. There must be spaces that are kept away from the greater system and allowed to dissent. You can think about this in Foucauldian terms as the preservation of heterotopia.
I think that it order for a society to be healthy, the state should allow as much freedom as possible for dissenting views on matters of conscience. I agree that there may be lines that must be drawn (that is, I would not permit a religion to practice human sacrifice, sexual abuse, and so on) but I feel that a refusal to perform marriage rites on gay couples does not cross this line that would allow the state to interfere. You simply cannot reconcile performance of the marriage ritual on a gay couple with the belief, for example, that romantic relationships derive their justification from procreation. I don't agree with this view, but I don't think the state can legitimately prevent a religious organization from holding it as part of their tenets.
Additionally, as farvacola has repeatedly stated, this legislation in fact PREVENTS doctrinal progress within these churches towards an acceptance of homosexuality. this is a classic example of liberal ideological fixation on isonomy (formal equality) at the expense of thinking strategically. You do not want a law that makes it illegal for a priest to challenge the doctrine of the church authority by performing a gay marriage against official doctrine. That is entirely counterproductive to the social agenda.
I think whenever you are considering exercising Imperial authority (i.e. the power of the secular sovereign to adjudicate in matters of religion) you should step very lightly. This legislation to me is an egregious overstepping of boundaries, despite my personal feelings about the backwardness of the doctrine in question.
edit: to put this in some context, and hopefully explain why a pro-gay atheist like me would be concerned about this, I'll just say that I am someone who is deeply concerned about keeping the power of the secular authority (for me, this means the bourgeois capitalist order) in check, and who feels that there is a growing tendency to legislate and "rationalize" all aspects of the life-world. So I'm suspicious of any attempt on the part of this order to extend its power to the few areas of the life-world that remain uncolonized. I agree entirely. When I read the OP, the one thing that stuck out the most was a law that would enforce discrimination, and make it illegal to not discriminate. I think it's entirely fine for a private organization to decline to offer a service (such as marrying a gay couple), but to make it illegal for them to expand into offering that service in the future just seems really backward and over-controlling. im pretty sure that they can change their mind in the future. if they couldnt, that would be pretty absurd. its just an all or nothing approach; your church is either against it or its not, you cant have certain members doing it when the church is against it. That sounds like a problem the church itself should deal with, not the law. If some members of the church want to marry gay couples, and some don't, then the church should have the power to decide how best to handle the situation within its own organization. Once again, the enforced-discrimination law seems overly-interfering. i've said this before, but i'll repeat. i have no problem with the law forcing the church to be consistent. if its a religious tenant that homosexuality is wrong and that gay marriage should not be allowed then the church should have to enforce that tenant consistently. a church shouldnt be allowed to say "we are exempt from anti-discrimination laws" and then pick and choose whether it discriminates. i understand that people think subgroups should be allowed to "break off" from the church as they become more progressive and the law shouldnt make their actions illegal. i agree, but i think the proper process is for them to disassociate themselves from the church, and as a result no longer be exempt from the anti-discrimination laws. take this for an example, church A claims exemption. congregation B decides it wants to do gay marriages despite being part of church a, and then do them. however, congregation B changes it mind and decides gays should burn in hell, and starts discriminating again. because they are part of church A there is no consequence to them changing their mind on principle tenants of the church. i am opposed to this picking and choosing. if its a legitimate belief, it shouldn't waiver. if its an illegitimate belief, it shouldnt be exempt from anti-discrimination laws. What?! So basically it's OK for the government to enforce consistency in religious organizations? Religious history is all about congregations breaking off and forming their own churches. Now that really is something I cannot allow government to circumvent - surely we want religious bigotry to cure itself and for everyone to be nice to each other! EDIT: essentially you're saying that religious groups need government approval - the total opposite of your underlying message surely??? i dont see it as them enforcing any religious tenants, just the law. if a religion claims an exemption, but then doesnt follow through with the requirements of the exemption, the exemption should be revoked. if congregations break off and form their own churches, they should re-register as non-exempt. no issue there. if they dont break off and the chuch allows it to continue, then the exemption should be revoked because the basis for the exemption doesnt exist. the government is enforcing the anti-discrimination laws; its not enforcing church policies.
So you're saying if a religious group, having broken away from another group the discriminated against gay people, declared that it would not discriminate against gay people but then suddenly decided that yes it actually would discriminate then it would be prosecuted by the law?
But surely this is as much, if not more, governmental interference: you are asking a gov to become involved in how a religious group operates, moreover you are treating religious organizations as far more homogenized than they actually are.
Your asking for a government ratified contract issued by a Church to its congregation, correct?
How is a government asserting then that the terms of this contract are non-discriminatory?
|
On December 14 2012 07:43 sam!zdat wrote:
ah. for this type of "legitimate" can we use the word "sincere," instead?
I don't know how one would evaluate that. A sincerity court?
edit: the idea of a government enforcing doctrinal consistency on churches makes me wanna go donate to the NRA.
The proof is in the pudding.
If they state the doctrine and don't waver it was sincere, if they waver it wasn't sincere.
I think giving them the benefit of the doubt would be a reasonable course of action when granting exemptions.
The first instance is basically "we believe this because we believe this" you can't really tell them "no you don't", also if they are permitted exemptions you can't really judge the validity of each one when the only justification is religious anyway...
|
United States42437 Posts
On December 14 2012 07:49 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 07:43 sam!zdat wrote:
ah. for this type of "legitimate" can we use the word "sincere," instead?
I don't know how one would evaluate that. A sincerity court?
edit: the idea of a government enforcing doctrinal consistency on churches makes me wanna go donate to the NRA. thats actually a much better word, and what the US Supreme Court uses. "sincere and meaningful" belief.
You'd have to clarify that it only works in the case of religion as a lot of groups have sincere and meaningful beliefs which society would not want to exempt from discrimination laws. If you have a sincere and meaningful belief that race mixing is wrong and bring up comparative crime rates, incarceration rates, average income, educational level and so forth then it doesn't count. That is part of the issue in my opinion, that the meaningfulness of religious beliefs is ultimately subjective because the arguments for them don't really translate into secular society, if anything they're less meaningful because arguments based in faith are harder to prove as objective necessities.
|
"when the only justification is religious anyway"
"the sky father"
You guys would do well to try to take other people's beliefs more seriously. Try to understand why they might think in that way, not just say "I'm Modern and Rational and they're Morons." That kind of thinking gets you nowhere, and is not really intellectual honest anyway.
|
United States42437 Posts
Apologies, I'll edit that to be more respectful.
|
On December 14 2012 07:55 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 07:42 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 07:35 Deleuze wrote:On December 14 2012 07:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 07:20 Kitai wrote:On December 14 2012 06:05 dAPhREAk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 14 2012 06:00 Kitai wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 14 2012 05:39 sam!zdat wrote:
Because I do not think that the secular authority should be able to dictate all matters of life. There must be spaces that are kept away from the greater system and allowed to dissent. You can think about this in Foucauldian terms as the preservation of heterotopia.
I think that it order for a society to be healthy, the state should allow as much freedom as possible for dissenting views on matters of conscience. I agree that there may be lines that must be drawn (that is, I would not permit a religion to practice human sacrifice, sexual abuse, and so on) but I feel that a refusal to perform marriage rites on gay couples does not cross this line that would allow the state to interfere. You simply cannot reconcile performance of the marriage ritual on a gay couple with the belief, for example, that romantic relationships derive their justification from procreation. I don't agree with this view, but I don't think the state can legitimately prevent a religious organization from holding it as part of their tenets.
Additionally, as farvacola has repeatedly stated, this legislation in fact PREVENTS doctrinal progress within these churches towards an acceptance of homosexuality. this is a classic example of liberal ideological fixation on isonomy (formal equality) at the expense of thinking strategically. You do not want a law that makes it illegal for a priest to challenge the doctrine of the church authority by performing a gay marriage against official doctrine. That is entirely counterproductive to the social agenda.
I think whenever you are considering exercising Imperial authority (i.e. the power of the secular sovereign to adjudicate in matters of religion) you should step very lightly. This legislation to me is an egregious overstepping of boundaries, despite my personal feelings about the backwardness of the doctrine in question.
edit: to put this in some context, and hopefully explain why a pro-gay atheist like me would be concerned about this, I'll just say that I am someone who is deeply concerned about keeping the power of the secular authority (for me, this means the bourgeois capitalist order) in check, and who feels that there is a growing tendency to legislate and "rationalize" all aspects of the life-world. So I'm suspicious of any attempt on the part of this order to extend its power to the few areas of the life-world that remain uncolonized. I agree entirely. When I read the OP, the one thing that stuck out the most was a law that would enforce discrimination, and make it illegal to not discriminate. I think it's entirely fine for a private organization to decline to offer a service (such as marrying a gay couple), but to make it illegal for them to expand into offering that service in the future just seems really backward and over-controlling. im pretty sure that they can change their mind in the future. if they couldnt, that would be pretty absurd. its just an all or nothing approach; your church is either against it or its not, you cant have certain members doing it when the church is against it. That sounds like a problem the church itself should deal with, not the law. If some members of the church want to marry gay couples, and some don't, then the church should have the power to decide how best to handle the situation within its own organization. Once again, the enforced-discrimination law seems overly-interfering. i've said this before, but i'll repeat. i have no problem with the law forcing the church to be consistent. if its a religious tenant that homosexuality is wrong and that gay marriage should not be allowed then the church should have to enforce that tenant consistently. a church shouldnt be allowed to say "we are exempt from anti-discrimination laws" and then pick and choose whether it discriminates. i understand that people think subgroups should be allowed to "break off" from the church as they become more progressive and the law shouldnt make their actions illegal. i agree, but i think the proper process is for them to disassociate themselves from the church, and as a result no longer be exempt from the anti-discrimination laws. take this for an example, church A claims exemption. congregation B decides it wants to do gay marriages despite being part of church a, and then do them. however, congregation B changes it mind and decides gays should burn in hell, and starts discriminating again. because they are part of church A there is no consequence to them changing their mind on principle tenants of the church. i am opposed to this picking and choosing. if its a legitimate belief, it shouldn't waiver. if its an illegitimate belief, it shouldnt be exempt from anti-discrimination laws. What?! So basically it's OK for the government to enforce consistency in religious organizations? Religious history is all about congregations breaking off and forming their own churches. Now that really is something I cannot allow government to circumvent - surely we want religious bigotry to cure itself and for everyone to be nice to each other! EDIT: essentially you're saying that religious groups need government approval - the total opposite of your underlying message surely??? i dont see it as them enforcing any religious tenants, just the law. if a religion claims an exemption, but then doesnt follow through with the requirements of the exemption, the exemption should be revoked. if congregations break off and form their own churches, they should re-register as non-exempt. no issue there. if they dont break off and the chuch allows it to continue, then the exemption should be revoked because the basis for the exemption doesnt exist. the government is enforcing the anti-discrimination laws; its not enforcing church policies. So you're saying if a religious group, having broken away from another group the discriminated against gay people, declared that it would not discriminate against gay people but then suddenly decided that yes it actually would discriminate then it would be prosecuted by the law? But surely this is as much, if not more, governmental interference: you are asking a gov to become involved in how a religious group operates, moreover you are treating religious organizations as far more homogenized than they actually are. Your asking for a government ratified contract issued by a Church to its congregation, correct? How is a government asserting then that the terms of this contract are non-discriminatory?
i think the law should be applied equally to all people.
i think a limited exception should be allowed where an individual or group can show that they have a sincere ;-) belief that gays shouldnt marry because it is against their religious principles.
if it turns out that the "sincere" belief was bullshit, then the exemption shouldn't apply and they should go back to being regulated like everyone else. i dont see this as an infringement because the belief apparently wasnt so sincere in the first place.
in the context of a break away congregation, they are either part of the church or they are not. there is either a religious tenant of homophobia, or there is not. in the circumstance of an exemption to anti-discrimination laws, i am willing to force a black-white line on this issue and refuse to consider gray areas.
i dont know about the whole contract thing. if you dont meet the exemption, you are subject to the law. exemptions should always be strictly scrutinized to make sure they arent abused.
also, to be clear, i dont think that break away congrgation should be prosecuted. i think that the church should be given an opportunity to disassociate themselves from the congregation, or face having the exemption revoked. you cant have your cake, and eat it too.
|
On December 14 2012 07:56 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 07:43 sam!zdat wrote:
ah. for this type of "legitimate" can we use the word "sincere," instead?
I don't know how one would evaluate that. A sincerity court?
edit: the idea of a government enforcing doctrinal consistency on churches makes me wanna go donate to the NRA. The proof is in the pudding. If they state the doctrine and don't waver it was sincere, if they waver it wasn't sincere. I think giving them the benefit of the doubt would be a reasonable course of action when granting exemptions. The first instance is basically "we believe this because we believe this" you can't really tell them "no you don't", also if they are permitted exemptions you can't really judge the validity of each one when the only justification is religious anyway...
Church congregations are not nearly that homogenized in their beliefs. In my experience, its sometimes literally a room full of people that believe in the same deity with nothing else in common.
I don't understand, it's like everyone has flipped around in what they are saying. Are you honestly suggesting that a religious group needs a constitution that its congregation subscribes to in order for it to be legitimate in the eyes of the law.
I am asking that it be enshrined in the law of the land that whosoever walks through a set of doors is entitled to be treated free from prejudice and discrimination.
However a religious group wishes to amend its belief, so long as it does not contravene the above, is none of my business.
|
On December 14 2012 08:01 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 07:49 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 14 2012 07:43 sam!zdat wrote:
ah. for this type of "legitimate" can we use the word "sincere," instead?
I don't know how one would evaluate that. A sincerity court?
edit: the idea of a government enforcing doctrinal consistency on churches makes me wanna go donate to the NRA. thats actually a much better word, and what the US Supreme Court uses. "sincere and meaningful" belief. You'd have to clarify that it only works in the case of religion. If you have a sincere and meaningful belief that race mixing is wrong and bring up comparative crime rates, incarceration rates, average income, educational level and so forth then it doesn't count, you only want your meaningful belief to be protected if it is based upon the sky father telling you so.
personally, no.
also, the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't make such a limitation as well:
"To determine whether an action of the federal or state government infringes upon a person's right to freedom of religion, the court must decide what qualifies as religion or religious activities for purposes of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has interpreted religion to mean a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons. The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being to be within the scope of the First Amendment."
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Religion
|
On December 14 2012 08:01 KwarK wrote:
That is part of the issue in my opinion, that the meaningfulness of religious beliefs is ultimately subjective because the arguments for them don't really translate into secular society, if anything they're less meaningful because arguments based in faith are harder to prove as objective necessities.
I would argue that the objective necessity of secular society is an illusion. Our secular society is in fact based on faith in a number of things (democracy, the market, Progress), and basic assumptions about morality and the meaning of life which have no more solid philosophical foundation than do religious views. What is the good life?
At some point, any society must ask itself what the point is, and religious discourse is a fundamental part of this process. Our modern secular society is no different. The only difference is that we cannot ask that question within our worldview and so we answer it, assume the answer as given, and then forget that the question existed in the first place.
|
On December 14 2012 08:05 sam!zdat wrote:
"when the only justification is religious anyway"
"the sky father"
You guys would do well to try to take other people's beliefs more seriously. Try to understand why they might think in that way, not just say "I'm Modern and Rational and they're Morons." That kind of thinking gets you nowhere, and is not really intellectual honest anyway.
You would do well to pay attention to the context.
The point is that their beliefs are not independently verifiable, and if they were they wouldn't be allowed to discriminate period.
So if they say we want exemption from certain anti-discrimination laws it's not the place of the government to judge whether their beliefs are acceptable, nor whether they are "sincere" or not, you have to wait and see if they stick to them as their only justification for exemption from these laws and holding these beliefs in the first place is religious anyway.
I stand by what I said there and it's not the slightest bit disrespectful.
As for sky father, though it brought a smile to my face I can't say the same thing 
|
We were writing at the same time. see my post above. There's nothing "independently verifiable" about the secular worldview, either.
edit: I'm walking out the door so I won't be replying immediately
|
On December 14 2012 08:07 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 07:56 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 07:43 sam!zdat wrote:
ah. for this type of "legitimate" can we use the word "sincere," instead?
I don't know how one would evaluate that. A sincerity court?
edit: the idea of a government enforcing doctrinal consistency on churches makes me wanna go donate to the NRA. The proof is in the pudding. If they state the doctrine and don't waver it was sincere, if they waver it wasn't sincere. I think giving them the benefit of the doubt would be a reasonable course of action when granting exemptions. The first instance is basically "we believe this because we believe this" you can't really tell them "no you don't", also if they are permitted exemptions you can't really judge the validity of each one when the only justification is religious anyway... Church congregations are not nearly that homogenized in their beliefs. In my experience, its sometimes literally a room full of people that believe in the same deity with nothing else in common. I don't understand, it's like everyone has flipped around in what they are saying. Are you honestly suggesting that a religious group needs a constitution that its congregation subscribes to in order for it to be legitimate in the eyes of the law. I am asking that it be enshrined in the law of the land that whosoever walks through a set of doors is entitled to be treated free from prejudice and discrimination. However a religious group wishes to amend its belief, so long as it does not contravene the above, is none of my business.
The very topic of this thread is contrary to your wishes I'm afraid to say. If they are indeed going to have to choose their position in order to be free secular law then it makes sense they are held to it.
What are you proposing exactly?
On December 14 2012 08:16 sam!zdat wrote:
We were writing at the same time. see my post above. There's nothing "independently verifiable" about the secular worldview, either.
edit: I'm walking out the door so I won't be replying immediately
I don't know what you are saying there but you quoted me completely out of context and inferred some kind of negative meaning to what I wrote that simply doesn't exist, as I've explained thoroughly.
|
On December 14 2012 08:14 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 08:01 KwarK wrote:
That is part of the issue in my opinion, that the meaningfulness of religious beliefs is ultimately subjective because the arguments for them don't really translate into secular society, if anything they're less meaningful because arguments based in faith are harder to prove as objective necessities. I would argue that the objective necessity of secular society is an illusion. Our secular society is in fact based on faith in a number of things (democracy, the market, Progress), and basic assumptions about morality and the meaning of life which have no more solid philosophical foundation than do religious views. What is the good life? At some point, any society must ask itself what the point is, and religious discourse is a fundamental part of this process. Our modern secular society is no different. The only difference is that we cannot ask that question within our worldview and so we answer it, assume the answer as given, and then forget that the question existed in the first place.
This I agree with. But I want to go back to why you don't hold religious organizations up to the same laws and other organizations?
EDIT:
On December 14 2012 08:19 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 08:07 Deleuze wrote:On December 14 2012 07:56 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 07:43 sam!zdat wrote:
ah. for this type of "legitimate" can we use the word "sincere," instead?
I don't know how one would evaluate that. A sincerity court?
edit: the idea of a government enforcing doctrinal consistency on churches makes me wanna go donate to the NRA. The proof is in the pudding. If they state the doctrine and don't waver it was sincere, if they waver it wasn't sincere. I think giving them the benefit of the doubt would be a reasonable course of action when granting exemptions. The first instance is basically "we believe this because we believe this" you can't really tell them "no you don't", also if they are permitted exemptions you can't really judge the validity of each one when the only justification is religious anyway... Church congregations are not nearly that homogenized in their beliefs. In my experience, its sometimes literally a room full of people that believe in the same deity with nothing else in common. I don't understand, it's like everyone has flipped around in what they are saying. Are you honestly suggesting that a religious group needs a constitution that its congregation subscribes to in order for it to be legitimate in the eyes of the law. I am asking that it be enshrined in the law of the land that whosoever walks through a set of doors is entitled to be treated free from prejudice and discrimination. However a religious group wishes to amend its belief, so long as it does not contravene the above, is none of my business. The very topic of this thread is contrary to your wishes I'm afraid to say. If they are indeed going to have to choose their position in order to be free secular law then it makes sense they are held to it. What are you proposing exactly?
I'm not asking that they choose anything, I'm asking that they be subject to the law of the land in the asme way as any other organization.
|
United States42437 Posts
On December 14 2012 08:16 sam!zdat wrote:
We were writing at the same time. see my post above. There's nothing "independently verifiable" about the secular worldview, either.
The secular world view is the one that says "actually we've done research on it and it turns out that children raised in a stable loving family with two mums or two dads do just fine, whatever it is you think you know based upon praying on the matter". The secular state is the child of the enlightenment in which traditional assumptions met the challenge of reasoned inquiry and the scientific method.
|
On December 14 2012 08:21 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 08:14 sam!zdat wrote:On December 14 2012 08:01 KwarK wrote:
That is part of the issue in my opinion, that the meaningfulness of religious beliefs is ultimately subjective because the arguments for them don't really translate into secular society, if anything they're less meaningful because arguments based in faith are harder to prove as objective necessities. I would argue that the objective necessity of secular society is an illusion. Our secular society is in fact based on faith in a number of things (democracy, the market, Progress), and basic assumptions about morality and the meaning of life which have no more solid philosophical foundation than do religious views. What is the good life? At some point, any society must ask itself what the point is, and religious discourse is a fundamental part of this process. Our modern secular society is no different. The only difference is that we cannot ask that question within our worldview and so we answer it, assume the answer as given, and then forget that the question existed in the first place. This I agree with. But I want to go back to why you don't hold religious organizations up to the same laws and other organizations? EDIT: Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 08:19 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 08:07 Deleuze wrote:On December 14 2012 07:56 Reason wrote:On December 14 2012 07:43 sam!zdat wrote:
ah. for this type of "legitimate" can we use the word "sincere," instead?
I don't know how one would evaluate that. A sincerity court?
edit: the idea of a government enforcing doctrinal consistency on churches makes me wanna go donate to the NRA. The proof is in the pudding. If they state the doctrine and don't waver it was sincere, if they waver it wasn't sincere. I think giving them the benefit of the doubt would be a reasonable course of action when granting exemptions. The first instance is basically "we believe this because we believe this" you can't really tell them "no you don't", also if they are permitted exemptions you can't really judge the validity of each one when the only justification is religious anyway... Church congregations are not nearly that homogenized in their beliefs. In my experience, its sometimes literally a room full of people that believe in the same deity with nothing else in common. I don't understand, it's like everyone has flipped around in what they are saying. Are you honestly suggesting that a religious group needs a constitution that its congregation subscribes to in order for it to be legitimate in the eyes of the law. I am asking that it be enshrined in the law of the land that whosoever walks through a set of doors is entitled to be treated free from prejudice and discrimination. However a religious group wishes to amend its belief, so long as it does not contravene the above, is none of my business. The very topic of this thread is contrary to your wishes I'm afraid to say. If they are indeed going to have to choose their position in order to be free secular law then it makes sense they are held to it. What are you proposing exactly? I'm not asking that they choose anything, I'm asking that they be subject to the law of the land in the asme way as any other organization.
We won't hold them up to the same laws as other organisations because the majority of people are religious and do not wish it to be so, and because apparently it would be infringing upon their religious freedom more than we have a right to. The two are obviously deeply connected.
Goodnight! Bed time
|
On December 14 2012 08:21 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 08:16 sam!zdat wrote:
We were writing at the same time. see my post above. There's nothing "independently verifiable" about the secular worldview, either. The secular world view is the one that says "actually we've done research on it and it turns out that children raised in a stable loving family with two mums or two dads do just fine, whatever it is you think you know based upon praying on the matter". The secular state is the child of the enlightenment in which traditional assumptions met the challenge of reasoned inquiry and the scientific method.
I'd call that ideological positivism.
Yes, scientific reasoning is fundamental to guiding how a society makes choices, but this is an ideological battle we are engaged in.
It's not bad to be in an ideological battle.
EDIT: good night all, the Sandman calleth.
|
I often wonder if we don't have real issues. Like fear of losing the job, the partner. Or the worries of getting ill or getting cancer. The climate change which will cost a lot of money and cause substantial suffering. The suffering of child soldiers, or of the victims natural catastrophes. Unreasonable peer pressures in society. The really bad TV programs which spread fear and false information.
I would say, if two people want to marry, why shouldn't they? Let them do it and concentrate on real issues.
|
On December 14 2012 08:21 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 08:14 sam!zdat wrote:On December 14 2012 08:01 KwarK wrote:
That is part of the issue in my opinion, that the meaningfulness of religious beliefs is ultimately subjective because the arguments for them don't really translate into secular society, if anything they're less meaningful because arguments based in faith are harder to prove as objective necessities. I would argue that the objective necessity of secular society is an illusion. Our secular society is in fact based on faith in a number of things (democracy, the market, Progress), and basic assumptions about morality and the meaning of life which have no more solid philosophical foundation than do religious views. What is the good life? At some point, any society must ask itself what the point is, and religious discourse is a fundamental part of this process. Our modern secular society is no different. The only difference is that we cannot ask that question within our worldview and so we answer it, assume the answer as given, and then forget that the question existed in the first place. This I agree with. But I want to go back to why you don't hold religious organizations up to the same laws and other organizations?
I'll jump in here and inject a bit of my own personal "ivory tower" reasoning, and although I am coming at this from a primarily US perspective, I think a fair bit of it applies to the UK in a corollary sense; I think that institutions and ideas that are religious in nature deserve a fundamentally different consideration than those of non-governmental, secular affiliation, and my reasoning revolves around a quasi-historicist emphasis on the "genealogy" of the form of progress. I say quasi-historicist because while I do not think we are necessarily beholden in entirety to the shape and expression of historical reference, when it comes to political and civic matters on a grand scale there exists a requisite space for acknowledgement of that which came before (in fact, one could argue that virtually every constitutional government turns on a literary historicist impulse, but that's a discussion for another time).
Ultimately, I think religion ought to be handled differently due to what I guess you could call its "stickiness"; the fact of the matter is that Western societal consciousness as a whole is still coming to terms with the disillusionment of what seems like a falling away of abject, traditional faith as a commonplace of society (while the Islamic world is beginning to seize upon the ideological fertility of a society in which faith informs all, which again, is a topic for another time). Unfortunately, far too many people make the mistake of relegating that faith to the realm of the religious in exclusivity, when in fact the underpinnings of "faith" inform far more than that, as Sam pointed out. I drop this name far too frequently on this forum it seems, but Michael Polanyi gave a series of lectures at Aberdeen in the very early 1950's that have been collected into a volume entitled Personal Knowledge; within he discusses how positivism and an idealized sense of logical objectivity obfuscates the inherently commitment-based nature of scientific progress, or even more generally the progress of knowledge.
Think of it this way. When you read the results of an interesting study in, say, particle physics, the idea that one necessarily conjures up in their head pertaining to the authoritative validity of the scientists at the head of said study is actually just as nebulous and unverifiable as a faith in some illusory being. Sure, there are more easily accessible standards with which one can assess and distribute scientific trust via an appropriate evaluation of the application of the scientific method, but ultimately we are beholden to the limitations of the words on a page or the spoken assurances of another if we are to make sense of any piece of data. Even the scientific method itself is married with the language with which it is expressed, and though its implementation surely "works" in an observable fashion, it ultimately does so through an inherent requirement that one evaluate its use through a lens constructed of the same material as the method itself.
Ok, so I've been yammering on about the ubiquity of "faith-based" interactions, but this is somewhat tangential to the point at hand (the feelings of the misunderstood scientist and the caricatured believer are not so unalike), that religious institutions deserve different governmental regard. Going back to the notion that religion is historically "sticky", especially in the sense that a majority of people still declare themselves religious, I think it makes pragmatic sense to allow progress to take hold in an organic fashion amongst religious groups, if for no other reason that sincerity in moving forward with cost to benefit ratio in mind. The roots of the less savory aspects of more fundamentalist religious ideology (the ones most non-religious dislike the greatest and are most likely to misapply) are quite deep, and heavily intermingled with sentiments of angry rebellion, intolerance, and hatred for "the other". Accordingly, these ideas will not be so easily defeated by mere government regulation, as historical precedent shows us, merely stoked and grown fatter (this isn't like the issue of gun control, where the answer is simply make them harder to get ). My evidence in favor of this approach exists across the United States, amongst Episcopal, Presbyterian, and even Catholic church congregations. My hardcore pro-life, Catholic step-mother and her entire super Catholic family voted for Obama, because they considered his economic and social platform altogether more appealing than Romney's. Gay and female ministers are becoming more and more prevalent amongst Protestant denominations, and the leaderships of the more conservative ones are feeling the world around them changing. Let us not be so emboldened by the tremendous steps of our forefathers on the fronts of tolerance and egalitarianism that we make the mistake of leaning too far forward and falling over.
Keep in mind I believe the converse to hold true, that religious ideas are not to enter into government arbitrarily either, especially in the face of good science. This holds for issues like the teaching of evolution, climate change denial, young earth creationism, and gay marriage. But I cannot stress enough how minor these ideas figure into the larger picture of Christianity. I apologize in advance for the breadth and incoherency of the above
|
I only want to complain about only one thing. Polticians. They just force some fake tolerance towards somebody (homosexuals in this case), but they don't fucking ask people. How about a referendum? If 55% or more answer with "Yes", then it is fine.
Edit: Oh yes, I forgot that Obama has double standards. He declares himself as christian, yet he supports gays. Since when did christianity start supporting them?
|
I think it's entirely pointless. Just as no one black is going to want to join the BNP, no homosexual is going to want to get married by a church/priest who is begrudgingly doing it cause the law says he has to. What matters is that equal rights to get married are available to the homosexual community. Racism is socially shunned to the backwaters of society and so it is much easier to force them to do what we want. Faithheads aren't outcasted enough for being homophobic. It's their church, let them do what they want. the more we separate them and put them aside the more irrelevant they get.
|
On December 14 2012 08:21 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 08:16 sam!zdat wrote:
We were writing at the same time. see my post above. There's nothing "independently verifiable" about the secular worldview, either. The secular world view is the one that says "actually we've done research on it and it turns out that children raised in a stable loving family with two mums or two dads do just fine, whatever it is you think you know based upon praying on the matter". The secular state is the child of the enlightenment in which traditional assumptions met the challenge of reasoned inquiry and the scientific method.
Where's the scientific experiment that tells you whether or not you should care about whether or not a child "does fine", and which tells you what "does just fine" means? Is that a rigorously defined and operationalized concept? Can it be?
The Enlightenment has its limits. Defending the Enlightenment is not exactly a comfortable position right now in the academy (I know because I do defend the Enlightenment to a rather unfashionable degree).
My point is not that you're wrong. I agree with you about all of this gay people stuff. My point is just that if you start dismissing things because they "aren't scientific," you're going to find that line of reasoning coming back to bite you in the ass, I promise. Kant avec Sade, and so on.
|
On December 14 2012 13:23 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 08:21 KwarK wrote:On December 14 2012 08:16 sam!zdat wrote:
We were writing at the same time. see my post above. There's nothing "independently verifiable" about the secular worldview, either. The secular world view is the one that says "actually we've done research on it and it turns out that children raised in a stable loving family with two mums or two dads do just fine, whatever it is you think you know based upon praying on the matter". The secular state is the child of the enlightenment in which traditional assumptions met the challenge of reasoned inquiry and the scientific method. Where's the scientific experiment that tells you whether or not you should care about whether or not a child "does fine", and which tells you what "does just fine" means? Is that a rigorously defined and operationalized concept? Can it be? The Enlightenment has its limits. Defending the Enlightenment is not exactly a comfortable position right now in the academy (I know because I do defend the Enlightenment to a rather unfashionable degree). My point is not that you're wrong. I agree with you about all of this gay people stuff. My point is just that if you start dismissing things because they "aren't scientific," you're going to find that line of reasoning coming back to bite you in the ass, I promise. Kant avec Sade, and so on.
If they aren't scientitific, what are they? In a broader sense, anything which is testable and falsifiable is scientific.
|
On December 14 2012 18:08 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 13:23 sam!zdat wrote:On December 14 2012 08:21 KwarK wrote:On December 14 2012 08:16 sam!zdat wrote:
We were writing at the same time. see my post above. There's nothing "independently verifiable" about the secular worldview, either. The secular world view is the one that says "actually we've done research on it and it turns out that children raised in a stable loving family with two mums or two dads do just fine, whatever it is you think you know based upon praying on the matter". The secular state is the child of the enlightenment in which traditional assumptions met the challenge of reasoned inquiry and the scientific method. Where's the scientific experiment that tells you whether or not you should care about whether or not a child "does fine", and which tells you what "does just fine" means? Is that a rigorously defined and operationalized concept? Can it be? The Enlightenment has its limits. Defending the Enlightenment is not exactly a comfortable position right now in the academy (I know because I do defend the Enlightenment to a rather unfashionable degree). My point is not that you're wrong. I agree with you about all of this gay people stuff. My point is just that if you start dismissing things because they "aren't scientific," you're going to find that line of reasoning coming back to bite you in the ass, I promise. Kant avec Sade, and so on. If they aren't scientitific, what are they? In a broader sense, anything which is testable and falsifiable is scientific.
Social sciences aren't falsifiable, but always historically linked to a certain context - hence why the term "law" hasn't the same sense in economy (it's more tendancies than laws) than in physics.
sm!zdat is right when he says that there is no "out of context" or "anhistorical" definition for childs that "do fine". The history of familly or filial love is interesting in this regard.
|
On December 14 2012 21:36 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 18:08 [F_]aths wrote:On December 14 2012 13:23 sam!zdat wrote:On December 14 2012 08:21 KwarK wrote:On December 14 2012 08:16 sam!zdat wrote:
We were writing at the same time. see my post above. There's nothing "independently verifiable" about the secular worldview, either. The secular world view is the one that says "actually we've done research on it and it turns out that children raised in a stable loving family with two mums or two dads do just fine, whatever it is you think you know based upon praying on the matter". The secular state is the child of the enlightenment in which traditional assumptions met the challenge of reasoned inquiry and the scientific method. Where's the scientific experiment that tells you whether or not you should care about whether or not a child "does fine", and which tells you what "does just fine" means? Is that a rigorously defined and operationalized concept? Can it be? The Enlightenment has its limits. Defending the Enlightenment is not exactly a comfortable position right now in the academy (I know because I do defend the Enlightenment to a rather unfashionable degree). My point is not that you're wrong. I agree with you about all of this gay people stuff. My point is just that if you start dismissing things because they "aren't scientific," you're going to find that line of reasoning coming back to bite you in the ass, I promise. Kant avec Sade, and so on. If they aren't scientitific, what are they? In a broader sense, anything which is testable and falsifiable is scientific. Social sciences aren't falsifiable, but always historically linked to a certain context - hence why the term "law" hasn't the same sense in economy (it's more tendancies than laws) than in physics. sm!zdat is right when he says that there is no "out of context" or "anhistorical" definition for childs that "do fine". The history of familly or filial love is interesting in this regard.
We can measure the child's well-being at least roughly. We can have a rough look if the child is exposed to unnecessary suffering. We do have some rough options to decide if a particular environment to raise a child leads to good or bad results.
Is corporal punishment good or bad for the child? Science can say something about it. Can a child be raised by same-sex parents as good as by a traditional couple? This seems to be way more difficult, but I see no reason which prevents a scientificly conducted experiment to find out. We can look at the child's level of happyness (at least roughly), we can see the average level of education and income, of healthiness and so on. I admit that those are just some and only quite rough indicators. But it is better than nothing.
Is being gay an illness or a mental disorder? Science seems the best tool we have to investigate. I am now making the bold statement that if we have good scientific reason to plead one way or another, we view it as an objective and not bound by a cultural context. If a culture has another view, either the culture is wrong or the scientific consensus is wrong. But to determine that, we resort to even better science.
|
On December 14 2012 22:21 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 21:36 WhiteDog wrote:On December 14 2012 18:08 [F_]aths wrote:On December 14 2012 13:23 sam!zdat wrote:On December 14 2012 08:21 KwarK wrote:On December 14 2012 08:16 sam!zdat wrote:
We were writing at the same time. see my post above. There's nothing "independently verifiable" about the secular worldview, either. The secular world view is the one that says "actually we've done research on it and it turns out that children raised in a stable loving family with two mums or two dads do just fine, whatever it is you think you know based upon praying on the matter". The secular state is the child of the enlightenment in which traditional assumptions met the challenge of reasoned inquiry and the scientific method. Where's the scientific experiment that tells you whether or not you should care about whether or not a child "does fine", and which tells you what "does just fine" means? Is that a rigorously defined and operationalized concept? Can it be? The Enlightenment has its limits. Defending the Enlightenment is not exactly a comfortable position right now in the academy (I know because I do defend the Enlightenment to a rather unfashionable degree). My point is not that you're wrong. I agree with you about all of this gay people stuff. My point is just that if you start dismissing things because they "aren't scientific," you're going to find that line of reasoning coming back to bite you in the ass, I promise. Kant avec Sade, and so on. If they aren't scientitific, what are they? In a broader sense, anything which is testable and falsifiable is scientific. Social sciences aren't falsifiable, but always historically linked to a certain context - hence why the term "law" hasn't the same sense in economy (it's more tendancies than laws) than in physics. sm!zdat is right when he says that there is no "out of context" or "anhistorical" definition for childs that "do fine". The history of familly or filial love is interesting in this regard. We can measure the child's well-being at least roughly. We can have a rough look if the child is exposed to unnecessary suffering. We do have some rough options to decide if a particular environment to raise a child leads to good or bad results. Is corporal punishment good or bad for the child? Science can say something about it. Can a child be raised by same-sex parents as good as a traditional couple can? This seems to be way more difficult, but I see no reason which prevents a scientificly conducted experimet to find out. We can look at the child's level of happyness (at least roughly), we can see the average level of education and income, of healthiness and so on. I admit that those are just some and only quite rough indicators. But it is better than nothing. Is being gay an illness or a mental disorder? Science seems the best tool we have to determine.
You are missing the point. Science can't say what is a "good or bad result" regarding child, because science can't define it scientifically.
As for corporal punishment, well "science" can show correlation between corporal punishment and specific objectiv facts - such as number of friends, social behavior, or academic result. That's it. There is no way for sociology or any social science to clearly state that corporal punishment are bad for famillies because it's a moral judgement, that is based on the idea that kids should not get hurt by adults. Stop thinking science can teach us what is or what is not a "good" familly, because it can't. Happyness is defined socially, it's not the same at every layers of the social ladder and it's not a scientific concept that you can "measure".
As for gay being a mental disorder or an illness (you don't let a lot of choice, how about gay is a sexual preferance and nothing else ?), "science" showed how it could not judge for that. What is normal and pathological is not objectively defined but linked to a rule, a social norm. For exemple, you can read G. Canguilhem, The normal and the pathological :
The Normal and the Pathological is one of the crucial contributions to the history of science in the last half century. It takes as its starting point the sudden appearance of biology as a science in the 19th-century and examines the conditions determining its particular makeup.Canguilhem analyzes the radically new way in which health and disease were defined in the early 19th-century, showing that the emerging categories of the normal and the pathological were far from being objective scientific concepts. He demonstrates how the epistemological foundations of modern biology and medicine were intertwined with political, economic, and technological imperatives.
|
US gay here!
I'm very happy that slowly cultures are growing less and less opposed to the idea that some people are heterosexual and some people are homosexual. Groups that argue that homosexuality in marriage will ruin the sanctity of marriage are complete bullshit as marriage has been defined and redefined numerous times even in our history. Then there are the people that argue slippery slope saying that "well if men can marry other men what's to stop the government from acknowledging my marriage with my dog" to which I respond that slippery slope has almost never come to fruition and that it's just a means of showing the worst case scenario that even I don't think they believe could become true.
To me, I don't really need the government to say that my love for my partner is okay. I don't even want to adopt children so tax break laws for families with kids wouldn't apply to me. It's just so damn frustrating to see people so upset about something that won't directly, or even indirectly, affect their day to day lives. I'm still going to be gay whether or not gay marriage laws pass. I'm still going to love my partner. Just because you stick your nose up and scoff at my lifestyle doesn't mean it will evaporate the second you irrationally and mentally dispose of us.
|
On December 14 2012 22:59 Butterednuts wrote:
US gay here!
I'm very happy that slowly cultures are growing less and less opposed to the idea that some people are heterosexual and some people are homosexual. Groups that argue that homosexuality in marriage will ruin the sanctity of marriage are complete bullshit as marriage has been defined and redefined numerous times even in our history. Then there are the people that argue slippery slope saying that "well if men can marry other men what's to stop the government from acknowledging my marriage with my dog" to which I respond that slippery slope has almost never come to fruition and that it's just a means of showing the worst case scenario that even I don't think they believe could become true.
To me, I don't really need the government to say that my love for my partner is okay. I don't even want to adopt children so tax break laws for families with kids wouldn't apply to me. It's just so damn frustrating to see people so upset about something that won't directly, or even indirectly, affect their day to day lives. I'm still going to be gay whether or not gay marriage laws pass. I'm still going to love my partner. Just because you stick your nose up and scoff at my lifestyle doesn't mean it will evaporate the second you irrationally and mentally dispose of us.
So as a gay person are you happy with the law that this thread is discussing? If so, did you read more than the thread title?
|
On December 14 2012 22:48 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 22:21 [F_]aths wrote:On December 14 2012 21:36 WhiteDog wrote:On December 14 2012 18:08 [F_]aths wrote:On December 14 2012 13:23 sam!zdat wrote:On December 14 2012 08:21 KwarK wrote:On December 14 2012 08:16 sam!zdat wrote:
We were writing at the same time. see my post above. There's nothing "independently verifiable" about the secular worldview, either. The secular world view is the one that says "actually we've done research on it and it turns out that children raised in a stable loving family with two mums or two dads do just fine, whatever it is you think you know based upon praying on the matter". The secular state is the child of the enlightenment in which traditional assumptions met the challenge of reasoned inquiry and the scientific method. Where's the scientific experiment that tells you whether or not you should care about whether or not a child "does fine", and which tells you what "does just fine" means? Is that a rigorously defined and operationalized concept? Can it be? The Enlightenment has its limits. Defending the Enlightenment is not exactly a comfortable position right now in the academy (I know because I do defend the Enlightenment to a rather unfashionable degree). My point is not that you're wrong. I agree with you about all of this gay people stuff. My point is just that if you start dismissing things because they "aren't scientific," you're going to find that line of reasoning coming back to bite you in the ass, I promise. Kant avec Sade, and so on. If they aren't scientitific, what are they? In a broader sense, anything which is testable and falsifiable is scientific. Social sciences aren't falsifiable, but always historically linked to a certain context - hence why the term "law" hasn't the same sense in economy (it's more tendancies than laws) than in physics. sm!zdat is right when he says that there is no "out of context" or "anhistorical" definition for childs that "do fine". The history of familly or filial love is interesting in this regard. We can measure the child's well-being at least roughly. We can have a rough look if the child is exposed to unnecessary suffering. We do have some rough options to decide if a particular environment to raise a child leads to good or bad results. Is corporal punishment good or bad for the child? Science can say something about it. Can a child be raised by same-sex parents as good as a traditional couple can? This seems to be way more difficult, but I see no reason which prevents a scientificly conducted experimet to find out. We can look at the child's level of happyness (at least roughly), we can see the average level of education and income, of healthiness and so on. I admit that those are just some and only quite rough indicators. But it is better than nothing. Is being gay an illness or a mental disorder? Science seems the best tool we have to determine. You are missing the point. Science can't say what is a "good or bad result" regarding child, because science can't define it scientifically. As for corporal punishment, well "science" can show correlation between corporal punishment and specific objectiv facts - such as number of friends, social behavior, or academic result. That's it. There is no way for sociology or any social science to clearly state that corporal punishment are bad for famillies because it's a moral judgement, that is based on the idea that kids should not get hurt by adults. Stop thinking science can teach us what is or what is not a "good" familly, because it can't. Happyness is defined socially, it's not the same at every layers of the social ladder and it's not a scientific concept that you can "measure". As for gay being a mental disorder or an illness (you don't let a lot of choice, how about gay is a sexual preferance and nothing else ?), "science" showed how it could not judge for that. What is normal and pathological is not objectively defined but linked to a rule, a social norm. For exemple, you can read G. Canguilhem, The normal and the pathological : Show nested quote +The Normal and the Pathological is one of the crucial contributions to the history of science in the last half century. It takes as its starting point the sudden appearance of biology as a science in the 19th-century and examines the conditions determining its particular makeup.Canguilhem analyzes the radically new way in which health and disease were defined in the early 19th-century, showing that the emerging categories of the normal and the pathological were far from being objective scientific concepts. He demonstrates how the epistemological foundations of modern biology and medicine were intertwined with political, economic, and technological imperatives.
While it is true that our concept of health depends on the cultural tradition and political will, we still can learn some objective facts through science.
To not beat a child is now widely viewed as a moral in the western culture. Other cultures or our own culture just some umpteen years earlier, found it a moral imperative to beat the child to educate and raise it. Rather depending on a moral zeitgeist, I would like to investigate this issue with the scientific method.
"Good" and "bad" or "evil" are traditionally referred to a higher morality or absolute morality. I don't believe in such things. In my world view, good, bad (or evil) must relate to the real world and therefore is subject to science. That does not mean science will get definitive answers. But if science cannot, can anything else?
|
Good or bad is question of value. It's a choice, made by society, and diffused through education and social interactions.
Max Weber, when he shows how rationality is becoming the first and foremost value in occidental society shows how it is not because it is better related to "real world" than any other value. In some way, the attachment to rationality is irrational - accumulation for accumulation. In the end, our attachment to rationality create is described as puting a "leaden weight" over our head : it does not relate to the real world, it is the action of men on the world, on the way we perceive it and apprehand it.
Science study fact, it is not supposed to give you moral, it can at best study the historical evolution of moral, or shows how your actions are influence by it, or how morals are socially / culturally / geographically defined even if you think you are "rational" or "scientific". If moral "relate" to reality, it doesn't mean it's real. Reality is perceived differently, through representations, culture or social position. Even objectivs facts such as diseases or illness are defined differently by people : for exemple, there are certain type of disease of the abdomen in Japan that you cannot find anywhere else, because the Japanese culture gives a certain symbolic weight to this part of the body. In the end, chosing for a value or another is the "war of gods": it's a choice.
|
On December 14 2012 23:35 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 22:48 WhiteDog wrote:On December 14 2012 22:21 [F_]aths wrote:On December 14 2012 21:36 WhiteDog wrote:On December 14 2012 18:08 [F_]aths wrote:On December 14 2012 13:23 sam!zdat wrote:On December 14 2012 08:21 KwarK wrote:On December 14 2012 08:16 sam!zdat wrote:
We were writing at the same time. see my post above. There's nothing "independently verifiable" about the secular worldview, either. The secular world view is the one that says "actually we've done research on it and it turns out that children raised in a stable loving family with two mums or two dads do just fine, whatever it is you think you know based upon praying on the matter". The secular state is the child of the enlightenment in which traditional assumptions met the challenge of reasoned inquiry and the scientific method. Where's the scientific experiment that tells you whether or not you should care about whether or not a child "does fine", and which tells you what "does just fine" means? Is that a rigorously defined and operationalized concept? Can it be? The Enlightenment has its limits. Defending the Enlightenment is not exactly a comfortable position right now in the academy (I know because I do defend the Enlightenment to a rather unfashionable degree). My point is not that you're wrong. I agree with you about all of this gay people stuff. My point is just that if you start dismissing things because they "aren't scientific," you're going to find that line of reasoning coming back to bite you in the ass, I promise. Kant avec Sade, and so on. If they aren't scientitific, what are they? In a broader sense, anything which is testable and falsifiable is scientific. Social sciences aren't falsifiable, but always historically linked to a certain context - hence why the term "law" hasn't the same sense in economy (it's more tendancies than laws) than in physics. sm!zdat is right when he says that there is no "out of context" or "anhistorical" definition for childs that "do fine". The history of familly or filial love is interesting in this regard. We can measure the child's well-being at least roughly. We can have a rough look if the child is exposed to unnecessary suffering. We do have some rough options to decide if a particular environment to raise a child leads to good or bad results. Is corporal punishment good or bad for the child? Science can say something about it. Can a child be raised by same-sex parents as good as a traditional couple can? This seems to be way more difficult, but I see no reason which prevents a scientificly conducted experimet to find out. We can look at the child's level of happyness (at least roughly), we can see the average level of education and income, of healthiness and so on. I admit that those are just some and only quite rough indicators. But it is better than nothing. Is being gay an illness or a mental disorder? Science seems the best tool we have to determine. You are missing the point. Science can't say what is a "good or bad result" regarding child, because science can't define it scientifically. As for corporal punishment, well "science" can show correlation between corporal punishment and specific objectiv facts - such as number of friends, social behavior, or academic result. That's it. There is no way for sociology or any social science to clearly state that corporal punishment are bad for famillies because it's a moral judgement, that is based on the idea that kids should not get hurt by adults. Stop thinking science can teach us what is or what is not a "good" familly, because it can't. Happyness is defined socially, it's not the same at every layers of the social ladder and it's not a scientific concept that you can "measure". As for gay being a mental disorder or an illness (you don't let a lot of choice, how about gay is a sexual preferance and nothing else ?), "science" showed how it could not judge for that. What is normal and pathological is not objectively defined but linked to a rule, a social norm. For exemple, you can read G. Canguilhem, The normal and the pathological : The Normal and the Pathological is one of the crucial contributions to the history of science in the last half century. It takes as its starting point the sudden appearance of biology as a science in the 19th-century and examines the conditions determining its particular makeup.Canguilhem analyzes the radically new way in which health and disease were defined in the early 19th-century, showing that the emerging categories of the normal and the pathological were far from being objective scientific concepts. He demonstrates how the epistemological foundations of modern biology and medicine were intertwined with political, economic, and technological imperatives. While it is true that our concept of health depends on the cultural tradition and political will, we still can learn some objective facts through science. To not beat a child is now widely viewed as a moral in the western culture. Other cultures or our own culture just some umpteen years earlier, found it a moral imperative to beat the child to educate and raise it. Rather depending on a moral zeitgeist, I would like to investigate this issue with the scientific method. "Good" and "bad" or "evil" are traditionally referred to a higher morality or absolute morality. I don't believe in such things. In my world view, good, bad (or evil) must relate to the real world and therefore is subject to science. That does not mean science will get definitive answers. But if science cannot, can anything else?
Science is mute on the question "Is it moral to beat a child?" Science has nothing to say about such values, and you are, by necessity, dependent upon a "moral zeitgeist" to answer that question for yourself.
Now if you already assume that the outcomes you're testing for in a scientific study (indices of child's self-esteem, for instance, or the absence of violence in his or her interpersonal relationships) are good or bad, then science may provide some insight on how one style of raising a child is tentatively better or worse—i.e. which style tends to result in the most net "good" outcomes. But you did not derive those original assumptions about good or bad from science. Nor are they "subject to science" in any sense at all. They are actually ideological presuppositions that are already in play.
And it's always the assumptions that you don't realize you're making that are the most problematic.
|
Right in the religion. So much for religious freedom.
So freedom to worship except where illegal?
So British society has taken upon itself to dictate what persons can do in their private religious practice.
And there, I'm the bigot?
wow.
Just wow.
|
On December 15 2012 01:36 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:
Right in the religion. So much for religious freedom.
So freedom to worship except where illegal?
So British society has taken upon itself to dictate what persons can do in their private religious practice.
And there, I'm the bigot?
wow.
Just wow.
What the ...!
Is it me? Am I completely misunderstanding this legislation? Because so many people keep posting as if they have read the complete opposite of what I have.
|
On December 15 2012 01:41 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 01:36 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:
Right in the religion. So much for religious freedom.
So freedom to worship except where illegal?
So British society has taken upon itself to dictate what persons can do in their private religious practice.
And there, I'm the bigot?
wow.
Just wow. What the ...! Is it me? Am I completely misunderstanding this legislation? Because so many people keep posting as if they have read the complete opposite of what I have.
There is a reason, the other known name for marriage is HOLY MATRIMONY.
Meaning, there was a deity present.
I'm sorry but only the representative of the deity and its parish have that right to declare a marriage, HOLY.
Regardless if it's Buddha, YHWH, Selene, Set or Thor.
No one, not me, not you and certainly not some bureaucrat in a capital gets to declare what is holy and what is not.
The blatant disrespect and arrogance in the OP, makes me physically ill, no lie.
|
On December 15 2012 01:49 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 01:41 hzflank wrote:On December 15 2012 01:36 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:
Right in the religion. So much for religious freedom.
So freedom to worship except where illegal?
So British society has taken upon itself to dictate what persons can do in their private religious practice.
And there, I'm the bigot?
wow.
Just wow. What the ...! Is it me? Am I completely misunderstanding this legislation? Because so many people keep posting as if they have read the complete opposite of what I have. There is a reason, the other known name for marriage is HOLY MATRIMONY. Meaning, there was a deity present. I'm sorry but only the representative of the deity and its parish have that right to declare a marriage, HOLY. Regardless if it's Buddha, YHWH, Selene, Set or Thor. No one, not me, not you and certainly not some bureaucrat in a capital gets to declare what is holy and what is not. The blatant disrespect and arrogance in the OP, makes me physically ill, no lie.
Do you realise that in the UK (and many other countries) marriage has been performed in non religious ceremonies (without the presence of a priest) for decades now? A man and women can be married by the government, and this is been the way for a long time.
|
On December 15 2012 01:51 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 01:49 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On December 15 2012 01:41 hzflank wrote:On December 15 2012 01:36 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:
Right in the religion. So much for religious freedom.
So freedom to worship except where illegal?
So British society has taken upon itself to dictate what persons can do in their private religious practice.
And there, I'm the bigot?
wow.
Just wow. What the ...! Is it me? Am I completely misunderstanding this legislation? Because so many people keep posting as if they have read the complete opposite of what I have. There is a reason, the other known name for marriage is HOLY MATRIMONY. Meaning, there was a deity present. I'm sorry but only the representative of the deity and its parish have that right to declare a marriage, HOLY. Regardless if it's Buddha, YHWH, Selene, Set or Thor. No one, not me, not you and certainly not some bureaucrat in a capital gets to declare what is holy and what is not. The blatant disrespect and arrogance in the OP, makes me physically ill, no lie. Do you realise that in the UK (and many other countries) marriage has been performed in non religious ceremonies (without the presence of a priest) for decades now? A man and women can be married by the government, and this is been the way for a long time.
In my country that's sacrilegious, one can certainly REGISTER a marriage with a government official solemnizing the marriage by the power of the state but ≠ holy matrimony that distinction is made very clear even by the registrar.
But yes, this slippery slope is slippery. So Disappointed.
|
On December 15 2012 01:51 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 01:49 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On December 15 2012 01:41 hzflank wrote:On December 15 2012 01:36 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:
Right in the religion. So much for religious freedom.
So freedom to worship except where illegal?
So British society has taken upon itself to dictate what persons can do in their private religious practice.
And there, I'm the bigot?
wow.
Just wow. What the ...! Is it me? Am I completely misunderstanding this legislation? Because so many people keep posting as if they have read the complete opposite of what I have. There is a reason, the other known name for marriage is HOLY MATRIMONY. Meaning, there was a deity present. I'm sorry but only the representative of the deity and its parish have that right to declare a marriage, HOLY. Regardless if it's Buddha, YHWH, Selene, Set or Thor. No one, not me, not you and certainly not some bureaucrat in a capital gets to declare what is holy and what is not. The blatant disrespect and arrogance in the OP, makes me physically ill, no lie. Do you realise that in the UK (and many other countries) marriage has been performed in non religious ceremonies (without the presence of a priest) for decades now? A man and women can be married by the government, and this is been the way for a long time.
What other countries? I am curious. Because this law is recognizing gay marriage in the eyes of government. However, it's also concluding that gay marriage isn't a religious union.
And therefore giving Religious institutions the right to discriminate homosexuals that want a religious union. Which is fine in my opinion because it forces priests that might do this to respect their doctrines...since they do get paid to uphold those religious values.
|
On December 15 2012 02:07 KingAce wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 01:51 hzflank wrote:On December 15 2012 01:49 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On December 15 2012 01:41 hzflank wrote:On December 15 2012 01:36 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:
Right in the religion. So much for religious freedom.
So freedom to worship except where illegal?
So British society has taken upon itself to dictate what persons can do in their private religious practice.
And there, I'm the bigot?
wow.
Just wow. What the ...! Is it me? Am I completely misunderstanding this legislation? Because so many people keep posting as if they have read the complete opposite of what I have. There is a reason, the other known name for marriage is HOLY MATRIMONY. Meaning, there was a deity present. I'm sorry but only the representative of the deity and its parish have that right to declare a marriage, HOLY. Regardless if it's Buddha, YHWH, Selene, Set or Thor. No one, not me, not you and certainly not some bureaucrat in a capital gets to declare what is holy and what is not. The blatant disrespect and arrogance in the OP, makes me physically ill, no lie. Do you realise that in the UK (and many other countries) marriage has been performed in non religious ceremonies (without the presence of a priest) for decades now? A man and women can be married by the government, and this is been the way for a long time. What other countries? I am curious. Because this law is recognizing gay marriage in the eyes of government. However, it's also concluding that gay marriage isn't a religious union. And therefore giving Religious institutions the right to discriminate homosexuals that want a religious union. Which is fine in my opinion because it forces priests that might do this to respect their doctrines...since they do get paid to uphold those religious values.
As far as I am aware, every state in the US offers marriage without a priest (there may be one or two states that dont, I have not checked them all).
|
On December 15 2012 01:02 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 23:35 [F_]aths wrote:On December 14 2012 22:48 WhiteDog wrote:On December 14 2012 22:21 [F_]aths wrote:On December 14 2012 21:36 WhiteDog wrote:On December 14 2012 18:08 [F_]aths wrote:On December 14 2012 13:23 sam!zdat wrote:On December 14 2012 08:21 KwarK wrote:On December 14 2012 08:16 sam!zdat wrote:
We were writing at the same time. see my post above. There's nothing "independently verifiable" about the secular worldview, either. The secular world view is the one that says "actually we've done research on it and it turns out that children raised in a stable loving family with two mums or two dads do just fine, whatever it is you think you know based upon praying on the matter". The secular state is the child of the enlightenment in which traditional assumptions met the challenge of reasoned inquiry and the scientific method. Where's the scientific experiment that tells you whether or not you should care about whether or not a child "does fine", and which tells you what "does just fine" means? Is that a rigorously defined and operationalized concept? Can it be? The Enlightenment has its limits. Defending the Enlightenment is not exactly a comfortable position right now in the academy (I know because I do defend the Enlightenment to a rather unfashionable degree). My point is not that you're wrong. I agree with you about all of this gay people stuff. My point is just that if you start dismissing things because they "aren't scientific," you're going to find that line of reasoning coming back to bite you in the ass, I promise. Kant avec Sade, and so on. If they aren't scientitific, what are they? In a broader sense, anything which is testable and falsifiable is scientific. Social sciences aren't falsifiable, but always historically linked to a certain context - hence why the term "law" hasn't the same sense in economy (it's more tendancies than laws) than in physics. sm!zdat is right when he says that there is no "out of context" or "anhistorical" definition for childs that "do fine". The history of familly or filial love is interesting in this regard. We can measure the child's well-being at least roughly. We can have a rough look if the child is exposed to unnecessary suffering. We do have some rough options to decide if a particular environment to raise a child leads to good or bad results. Is corporal punishment good or bad for the child? Science can say something about it. Can a child be raised by same-sex parents as good as a traditional couple can? This seems to be way more difficult, but I see no reason which prevents a scientificly conducted experimet to find out. We can look at the child's level of happyness (at least roughly), we can see the average level of education and income, of healthiness and so on. I admit that those are just some and only quite rough indicators. But it is better than nothing. Is being gay an illness or a mental disorder? Science seems the best tool we have to determine. You are missing the point. Science can't say what is a "good or bad result" regarding child, because science can't define it scientifically. As for corporal punishment, well "science" can show correlation between corporal punishment and specific objectiv facts - such as number of friends, social behavior, or academic result. That's it. There is no way for sociology or any social science to clearly state that corporal punishment are bad for famillies because it's a moral judgement, that is based on the idea that kids should not get hurt by adults. Stop thinking science can teach us what is or what is not a "good" familly, because it can't. Happyness is defined socially, it's not the same at every layers of the social ladder and it's not a scientific concept that you can "measure". As for gay being a mental disorder or an illness (you don't let a lot of choice, how about gay is a sexual preferance and nothing else ?), "science" showed how it could not judge for that. What is normal and pathological is not objectively defined but linked to a rule, a social norm. For exemple, you can read G. Canguilhem, The normal and the pathological : The Normal and the Pathological is one of the crucial contributions to the history of science in the last half century. It takes as its starting point the sudden appearance of biology as a science in the 19th-century and examines the conditions determining its particular makeup.Canguilhem analyzes the radically new way in which health and disease were defined in the early 19th-century, showing that the emerging categories of the normal and the pathological were far from being objective scientific concepts. He demonstrates how the epistemological foundations of modern biology and medicine were intertwined with political, economic, and technological imperatives. While it is true that our concept of health depends on the cultural tradition and political will, we still can learn some objective facts through science. To not beat a child is now widely viewed as a moral in the western culture. Other cultures or our own culture just some umpteen years earlier, found it a moral imperative to beat the child to educate and raise it. Rather depending on a moral zeitgeist, I would like to investigate this issue with the scientific method. "Good" and "bad" or "evil" are traditionally referred to a higher morality or absolute morality. I don't believe in such things. In my world view, good, bad (or evil) must relate to the real world and therefore is subject to science. That does not mean science will get definitive answers. But if science cannot, can anything else? Science is mute on the question "Is it moral to beat a child?" Science has nothing to say about such values, and you are, by necessity, dependent upon a "moral zeitgeist" to answer that question for yourself.
This is true if you consider morals a matter of opinion and/or construct of society.
But "morals" is a word and we, who use it, must define a meaning for it. As I understand the rough concept of morals, morals who are moral must relate at some point to suffering. Now science comes in because suffering is the cause of events which can be in the end reduced to events in the world.
On December 15 2012 01:02 HULKAMANIA wrote:Now if you already assume that the outcomes you're testing for in a scientific study (indices of child's self-esteem, for instance, or the absence of violence in his or her interpersonal relationships) are good or bad, then science may provide some insight on how one style of raising a child is tentatively better or worse—i.e. which style tends to result in the most net "good" outcomes. But you did not derive those original assumptions about good or bad from science. Nor are they "subject to science" in any sense at all. They are actually ideological presuppositions that are already in play.
And it's always the assumptions that you don't realize you're making that are the most problematic.
You are right, I assume some things. But without it, we have no definition. If everyone means a different thing when talking about morality, it doesn't make much sense to talk about it at all. I consider any 'morality' which does not intend to reduce unnecessary suffering to be not moral at all. This is an assumption I make. Having values for the sake of having values doesn't really make sense to me.
Does gay marriage leads to unnecessary suffering? If we want to know this, we could just discuss, or we could try to plan out a scientific endeavor to determine the answer.
|
On December 14 2012 23:14 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 22:59 Butterednuts wrote:
US gay here!
I'm very happy that slowly cultures are growing less and less opposed to the idea that some people are heterosexual and some people are homosexual. Groups that argue that homosexuality in marriage will ruin the sanctity of marriage are complete bullshit as marriage has been defined and redefined numerous times even in our history. Then there are the people that argue slippery slope saying that "well if men can marry other men what's to stop the government from acknowledging my marriage with my dog" to which I respond that slippery slope has almost never come to fruition and that it's just a means of showing the worst case scenario that even I don't think they believe could become true.
To me, I don't really need the government to say that my love for my partner is okay. I don't even want to adopt children so tax break laws for families with kids wouldn't apply to me. It's just so damn frustrating to see people so upset about something that won't directly, or even indirectly, affect their day to day lives. I'm still going to be gay whether or not gay marriage laws pass. I'm still going to love my partner. Just because you stick your nose up and scoff at my lifestyle doesn't mean it will evaporate the second you irrationally and mentally dispose of us. So as a gay person are you happy with the law that this thread is discussing? If so, did you read more than the thread title?
Being atheist, I don't care about the rights of Church to administer what is and what is not a marriage. So it doesn't affect me :/. Being without any major religious background I don't think I can really speak on the rights of those who hold religion close to them.
|
Animal urges: Final vote on bestiality ban to be held in Germany
Germany is to decide whether to ban bestiality, which has been considered lawful in the country since being legalized in 1969. The final vote on the matter is set to take place in the Bundesrat, the upper house of parliament, on Friday.
+ Show Spoiler +The government of Angela Merkel introduced the new law against the practice, saying animals should not be used "for personal sexual activities or made available to third parties for sexual activities … thereby forcing them to behave in ways that are inappropriate to their species."
Late Thursday the Bundestag, the parliament's lower house, passed the tough new law against bestiality, which includes a hefty fine of 25,000 euros.
The lawmakers’ intention is not teaching zoophiles a morality lesson, as one of them told RT.
“We are not policing morality but we are improving animal protection law, where we would like to specify that it is forbidden to cause suffering through a sexual relationship. But the line is when you cause suffering to an animal for your personal sexual gratification,” Hans-Michael Goldmann, MP Chairman of the parliamentary agricultural committee, said.
Animal rights groups have also been campaigning against zoophilia for some time, battling for bestiality to be recognized as rape and defilement inflicted on an animal.
“Dogs are loyal even when they are abused – they are still going to look as if they are happy, especially when it gets enough to eat. Dogs will be happy whatever you dictate. But that is not a sign that the dog is enjoying it,” Stephanie Eschen, animal rights campaigner for Berlin Shelter for Animals told RT.
Campaigners even reportedly posted 800 addresses of zoophiles on their Facebook page, saying they would fight to take the animals away from those who practice bestiality.
German media outlets followed suit to protest against the practice, first with the Berlin tabloid BZ featuring the issue on its front page in October. The picture showed a man holding his dog with the headline reading "we call it sodomy, he calls it love." Bild magazine then joined the cause.
In July, over 93,000 Germans voted to ban the bestiality in an online poll, revoking the 1969 law which legalized zoophilia, except in cases where the animal was deemed to suffer "significant harm."
Zoophiles, however, say that they never treat animals cruelly or force them to do anything against their will.
“I need an animal to be happy. If I did not have it, there would be something missing. There are several levels of relationship with an animal. You can fall in love with your animal… then, the sexual relationship is not out of the question,” David Zimmerman from the German Zoophile Engagement for Tolerance and Information told RT.
And there’s a growing concern that those who are against the practice could walk the talk.
“They fantasize about castrating me or taking my animals away. Our friend has found a razor blade in his post with a note “Do it yourself so we don’t have to”. Letters don’t arrive too often but it they arrive every now and again. In the subway someone was yelling at me, calling me names – I am concerned that attacks could become physical.”
While bestiality is deemed illegal in most European countries, it is allowed in Belgium, Denmark and Sweden, apart from Germany. Stockholm, however, is considering a change in the legislation.
http://rt.com/news/bestiality-zoophilia-ban-germany-029/
What is up with these evil lawmakers in Germany that want to ban love between two species! I say equality for all, they should be able to marry these animals too, equal rights my ass!
EDIT: and the evil church is against bestiality too! evil evil
|
On December 15 2012 04:12 ahappystar wrote:Animal urges: Final vote on bestiality ban to be held in GermanyGermany is to decide whether to ban bestiality, which has been considered lawful in the country since being legalized in 1969. The final vote on the matter is set to take place in the Bundesrat, the upper house of parliament, on Friday. + Show Spoiler +The government of Angela Merkel introduced the new law against the practice, saying animals should not be used "for personal sexual activities or made available to third parties for sexual activities … thereby forcing them to behave in ways that are inappropriate to their species."
Late Thursday the Bundestag, the parliament's lower house, passed the tough new law against bestiality, which includes a hefty fine of 25,000 euros.
The lawmakers’ intention is not teaching zoophiles a morality lesson, as one of them told RT.
“We are not policing morality but we are improving animal protection law, where we would like to specify that it is forbidden to cause suffering through a sexual relationship. But the line is when you cause suffering to an animal for your personal sexual gratification,” Hans-Michael Goldmann, MP Chairman of the parliamentary agricultural committee, said.
Animal rights groups have also been campaigning against zoophilia for some time, battling for bestiality to be recognized as rape and defilement inflicted on an animal.
“Dogs are loyal even when they are abused – they are still going to look as if they are happy, especially when it gets enough to eat. Dogs will be happy whatever you dictate. But that is not a sign that the dog is enjoying it,” Stephanie Eschen, animal rights campaigner for Berlin Shelter for Animals told RT.
Campaigners even reportedly posted 800 addresses of zoophiles on their Facebook page, saying they would fight to take the animals away from those who practice bestiality.
German media outlets followed suit to protest against the practice, first with the Berlin tabloid BZ featuring the issue on its front page in October. The picture showed a man holding his dog with the headline reading "we call it sodomy, he calls it love." Bild magazine then joined the cause.
In July, over 93,000 Germans voted to ban the bestiality in an online poll, revoking the 1969 law which legalized zoophilia, except in cases where the animal was deemed to suffer "significant harm."
Zoophiles, however, say that they never treat animals cruelly or force them to do anything against their will.
“I need an animal to be happy. If I did not have it, there would be something missing. There are several levels of relationship with an animal. You can fall in love with your animal… then, the sexual relationship is not out of the question,” David Zimmerman from the German Zoophile Engagement for Tolerance and Information told RT.
And there’s a growing concern that those who are against the practice could walk the talk.
“They fantasize about castrating me or taking my animals away. Our friend has found a razor blade in his post with a note “Do it yourself so we don’t have to”. Letters don’t arrive too often but it they arrive every now and again. In the subway someone was yelling at me, calling me names – I am concerned that attacks could become physical.”
While bestiality is deemed illegal in most European countries, it is allowed in Belgium, Denmark and Sweden, apart from Germany. Stockholm, however, is considering a change in the legislation. What is up with these evil lawmakers in Germany that want to ban love between two species! I say equality for all, they should be able to marry these animals too, equal rights my ass! EDIT: and the evil church is against bestiality too! evil evil
and there it is, the reference to bestiality in a homosexuality thread....was waiting for it....
|
On December 15 2012 04:12 ahappystar wrote:Animal urges: Final vote on bestiality ban to be held in GermanyGermany is to decide whether to ban bestiality, which has been considered lawful in the country since being legalized in 1969. The final vote on the matter is set to take place in the Bundesrat, the upper house of parliament, on Friday. + Show Spoiler +The government of Angela Merkel introduced the new law against the practice, saying animals should not be used "for personal sexual activities or made available to third parties for sexual activities … thereby forcing them to behave in ways that are inappropriate to their species."
Late Thursday the Bundestag, the parliament's lower house, passed the tough new law against bestiality, which includes a hefty fine of 25,000 euros.
The lawmakers’ intention is not teaching zoophiles a morality lesson, as one of them told RT.
“We are not policing morality but we are improving animal protection law, where we would like to specify that it is forbidden to cause suffering through a sexual relationship. But the line is when you cause suffering to an animal for your personal sexual gratification,” Hans-Michael Goldmann, MP Chairman of the parliamentary agricultural committee, said.
Animal rights groups have also been campaigning against zoophilia for some time, battling for bestiality to be recognized as rape and defilement inflicted on an animal.
“Dogs are loyal even when they are abused – they are still going to look as if they are happy, especially when it gets enough to eat. Dogs will be happy whatever you dictate. But that is not a sign that the dog is enjoying it,” Stephanie Eschen, animal rights campaigner for Berlin Shelter for Animals told RT.
Campaigners even reportedly posted 800 addresses of zoophiles on their Facebook page, saying they would fight to take the animals away from those who practice bestiality.
German media outlets followed suit to protest against the practice, first with the Berlin tabloid BZ featuring the issue on its front page in October. The picture showed a man holding his dog with the headline reading "we call it sodomy, he calls it love." Bild magazine then joined the cause.
In July, over 93,000 Germans voted to ban the bestiality in an online poll, revoking the 1969 law which legalized zoophilia, except in cases where the animal was deemed to suffer "significant harm."
Zoophiles, however, say that they never treat animals cruelly or force them to do anything against their will.
“I need an animal to be happy. If I did not have it, there would be something missing. There are several levels of relationship with an animal. You can fall in love with your animal… then, the sexual relationship is not out of the question,” David Zimmerman from the German Zoophile Engagement for Tolerance and Information told RT.
And there’s a growing concern that those who are against the practice could walk the talk.
“They fantasize about castrating me or taking my animals away. Our friend has found a razor blade in his post with a note “Do it yourself so we don’t have to”. Letters don’t arrive too often but it they arrive every now and again. In the subway someone was yelling at me, calling me names – I am concerned that attacks could become physical.”
While bestiality is deemed illegal in most European countries, it is allowed in Belgium, Denmark and Sweden, apart from Germany. Stockholm, however, is considering a change in the legislation. What is up with these evil lawmakers in Germany that want to ban love between two species! I say equality for all, they should be able to marry these animals too, equal rights my ass! EDIT: and the evil church is against bestiality too! evil evil
You have a serious problem if you think comparing bestiality and homosexuality is a valid argument.
|
On December 15 2012 04:22 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 04:12 ahappystar wrote:Animal urges: Final vote on bestiality ban to be held in GermanyGermany is to decide whether to ban bestiality, which has been considered lawful in the country since being legalized in 1969. The final vote on the matter is set to take place in the Bundesrat, the upper house of parliament, on Friday. + Show Spoiler +The government of Angela Merkel introduced the new law against the practice, saying animals should not be used "for personal sexual activities or made available to third parties for sexual activities … thereby forcing them to behave in ways that are inappropriate to their species."
Late Thursday the Bundestag, the parliament's lower house, passed the tough new law against bestiality, which includes a hefty fine of 25,000 euros.
The lawmakers’ intention is not teaching zoophiles a morality lesson, as one of them told RT.
“We are not policing morality but we are improving animal protection law, where we would like to specify that it is forbidden to cause suffering through a sexual relationship. But the line is when you cause suffering to an animal for your personal sexual gratification,” Hans-Michael Goldmann, MP Chairman of the parliamentary agricultural committee, said.
Animal rights groups have also been campaigning against zoophilia for some time, battling for bestiality to be recognized as rape and defilement inflicted on an animal.
“Dogs are loyal even when they are abused – they are still going to look as if they are happy, especially when it gets enough to eat. Dogs will be happy whatever you dictate. But that is not a sign that the dog is enjoying it,” Stephanie Eschen, animal rights campaigner for Berlin Shelter for Animals told RT.
Campaigners even reportedly posted 800 addresses of zoophiles on their Facebook page, saying they would fight to take the animals away from those who practice bestiality.
German media outlets followed suit to protest against the practice, first with the Berlin tabloid BZ featuring the issue on its front page in October. The picture showed a man holding his dog with the headline reading "we call it sodomy, he calls it love." Bild magazine then joined the cause.
In July, over 93,000 Germans voted to ban the bestiality in an online poll, revoking the 1969 law which legalized zoophilia, except in cases where the animal was deemed to suffer "significant harm."
Zoophiles, however, say that they never treat animals cruelly or force them to do anything against their will.
“I need an animal to be happy. If I did not have it, there would be something missing. There are several levels of relationship with an animal. You can fall in love with your animal… then, the sexual relationship is not out of the question,” David Zimmerman from the German Zoophile Engagement for Tolerance and Information told RT.
And there’s a growing concern that those who are against the practice could walk the talk.
“They fantasize about castrating me or taking my animals away. Our friend has found a razor blade in his post with a note “Do it yourself so we don’t have to”. Letters don’t arrive too often but it they arrive every now and again. In the subway someone was yelling at me, calling me names – I am concerned that attacks could become physical.”
While bestiality is deemed illegal in most European countries, it is allowed in Belgium, Denmark and Sweden, apart from Germany. Stockholm, however, is considering a change in the legislation. What is up with these evil lawmakers in Germany that want to ban love between two species! I say equality for all, they should be able to marry these animals too, equal rights my ass! EDIT: and the evil church is against bestiality too! evil evil You have a serious problem if you think comparing bestiality and homosexuality is a valid argument.
Not comparing bestiality to homosexuality, I was kinda being sarcastic... homosexuality was illegal and considered a mental illness until the early 90's, just like bestiality/necrophilia/pedophilia is considered now, maybe in 20 years you will be considered a conservative bible fanatic because you think incest is wrong and that mother-son marriages don't deserve the same rights as the rest of us...
Maybe I'm going off topic, but its kinda on topic... sorry guys
|
On December 15 2012 04:42 ahappystar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 04:22 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 04:12 ahappystar wrote:Animal urges: Final vote on bestiality ban to be held in GermanyGermany is to decide whether to ban bestiality, which has been considered lawful in the country since being legalized in 1969. The final vote on the matter is set to take place in the Bundesrat, the upper house of parliament, on Friday. + Show Spoiler +The government of Angela Merkel introduced the new law against the practice, saying animals should not be used "for personal sexual activities or made available to third parties for sexual activities … thereby forcing them to behave in ways that are inappropriate to their species."
Late Thursday the Bundestag, the parliament's lower house, passed the tough new law against bestiality, which includes a hefty fine of 25,000 euros.
The lawmakers’ intention is not teaching zoophiles a morality lesson, as one of them told RT.
“We are not policing morality but we are improving animal protection law, where we would like to specify that it is forbidden to cause suffering through a sexual relationship. But the line is when you cause suffering to an animal for your personal sexual gratification,” Hans-Michael Goldmann, MP Chairman of the parliamentary agricultural committee, said.
Animal rights groups have also been campaigning against zoophilia for some time, battling for bestiality to be recognized as rape and defilement inflicted on an animal.
“Dogs are loyal even when they are abused – they are still going to look as if they are happy, especially when it gets enough to eat. Dogs will be happy whatever you dictate. But that is not a sign that the dog is enjoying it,” Stephanie Eschen, animal rights campaigner for Berlin Shelter for Animals told RT.
Campaigners even reportedly posted 800 addresses of zoophiles on their Facebook page, saying they would fight to take the animals away from those who practice bestiality.
German media outlets followed suit to protest against the practice, first with the Berlin tabloid BZ featuring the issue on its front page in October. The picture showed a man holding his dog with the headline reading "we call it sodomy, he calls it love." Bild magazine then joined the cause.
In July, over 93,000 Germans voted to ban the bestiality in an online poll, revoking the 1969 law which legalized zoophilia, except in cases where the animal was deemed to suffer "significant harm."
Zoophiles, however, say that they never treat animals cruelly or force them to do anything against their will.
“I need an animal to be happy. If I did not have it, there would be something missing. There are several levels of relationship with an animal. You can fall in love with your animal… then, the sexual relationship is not out of the question,” David Zimmerman from the German Zoophile Engagement for Tolerance and Information told RT.
And there’s a growing concern that those who are against the practice could walk the talk.
“They fantasize about castrating me or taking my animals away. Our friend has found a razor blade in his post with a note “Do it yourself so we don’t have to”. Letters don’t arrive too often but it they arrive every now and again. In the subway someone was yelling at me, calling me names – I am concerned that attacks could become physical.”
While bestiality is deemed illegal in most European countries, it is allowed in Belgium, Denmark and Sweden, apart from Germany. Stockholm, however, is considering a change in the legislation. What is up with these evil lawmakers in Germany that want to ban love between two species! I say equality for all, they should be able to marry these animals too, equal rights my ass! EDIT: and the evil church is against bestiality too! evil evil You have a serious problem if you think comparing bestiality and homosexuality is a valid argument. Not comparing bestiality to homosexuality, I was kinda being sarcastic... homosexuality was illegal and considered a mental illness until the early 90's, just like bestiality/necrophilia/pedophilia is considered now, maybe in 20 years you will be considered a conservative bible fanatic because you think incest is wrong and that mother-son marriages don't deserve the same rights as the rest of us... Maybe I'm going off topic, but its kinda on topic... sorry guys
For those who have no access to a King James Holy Bible, from the book of Leviticus, chapter 18 verse 4 until 30, defines, incest, same-gender sexual intercourse and inter-species sexual intercourse ALL as an abomination.
Hence it is the same category in that context.
|
I do like the interesting philosophical discussion about science and morality, personally I don't think the majority gets to decide what is moral and what isn't, but better people than I have tried and failed to axiomatise morality. I just try to go by what causes the least amount of suffering (but then defining suffering is tricky).
I do not agree with religious groups being able to discriminate. I think freedom of religion should not get priority over other human rights. I don't like the precedent set by this law; what about adoption charities organised by religious groups? Should they also be allowed to discriminate against gay couples? I know there was an issue with a catholic adoption agency in the UK who wouldn't consider gay couples (Link). But it could now be possible to refuse gay couples by only accepting "married" couples.
I think this gay parents topic is what started the discussion about defining what is "good" :p
I'm already feeling tired and have been trying to catch up on a long thread, so I'm sorry that my thoughts are not so well-formulated as they could be. I'm sure I'll be able to do a better job when I feel more awake
|
On December 15 2012 03:05 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 01:02 HULKAMANIA wrote:On December 14 2012 23:35 [F_]aths wrote:On December 14 2012 22:48 WhiteDog wrote:On December 14 2012 22:21 [F_]aths wrote:On December 14 2012 21:36 WhiteDog wrote:On December 14 2012 18:08 [F_]aths wrote:On December 14 2012 13:23 sam!zdat wrote:On December 14 2012 08:21 KwarK wrote:On December 14 2012 08:16 sam!zdat wrote:
We were writing at the same time. see my post above. There's nothing "independently verifiable" about the secular worldview, either. The secular world view is the one that says "actually we've done research on it and it turns out that children raised in a stable loving family with two mums or two dads do just fine, whatever it is you think you know based upon praying on the matter". The secular state is the child of the enlightenment in which traditional assumptions met the challenge of reasoned inquiry and the scientific method. Where's the scientific experiment that tells you whether or not you should care about whether or not a child "does fine", and which tells you what "does just fine" means? Is that a rigorously defined and operationalized concept? Can it be? The Enlightenment has its limits. Defending the Enlightenment is not exactly a comfortable position right now in the academy (I know because I do defend the Enlightenment to a rather unfashionable degree). My point is not that you're wrong. I agree with you about all of this gay people stuff. My point is just that if you start dismissing things because they "aren't scientific," you're going to find that line of reasoning coming back to bite you in the ass, I promise. Kant avec Sade, and so on. If they aren't scientitific, what are they? In a broader sense, anything which is testable and falsifiable is scientific. Social sciences aren't falsifiable, but always historically linked to a certain context - hence why the term "law" hasn't the same sense in economy (it's more tendancies than laws) than in physics. sm!zdat is right when he says that there is no "out of context" or "anhistorical" definition for childs that "do fine". The history of familly or filial love is interesting in this regard. We can measure the child's well-being at least roughly. We can have a rough look if the child is exposed to unnecessary suffering. We do have some rough options to decide if a particular environment to raise a child leads to good or bad results. Is corporal punishment good or bad for the child? Science can say something about it. Can a child be raised by same-sex parents as good as a traditional couple can? This seems to be way more difficult, but I see no reason which prevents a scientificly conducted experimet to find out. We can look at the child's level of happyness (at least roughly), we can see the average level of education and income, of healthiness and so on. I admit that those are just some and only quite rough indicators. But it is better than nothing. Is being gay an illness or a mental disorder? Science seems the best tool we have to determine. You are missing the point. Science can't say what is a "good or bad result" regarding child, because science can't define it scientifically. As for corporal punishment, well "science" can show correlation between corporal punishment and specific objectiv facts - such as number of friends, social behavior, or academic result. That's it. There is no way for sociology or any social science to clearly state that corporal punishment are bad for famillies because it's a moral judgement, that is based on the idea that kids should not get hurt by adults. Stop thinking science can teach us what is or what is not a "good" familly, because it can't. Happyness is defined socially, it's not the same at every layers of the social ladder and it's not a scientific concept that you can "measure". As for gay being a mental disorder or an illness (you don't let a lot of choice, how about gay is a sexual preferance and nothing else ?), "science" showed how it could not judge for that. What is normal and pathological is not objectively defined but linked to a rule, a social norm. For exemple, you can read G. Canguilhem, The normal and the pathological : The Normal and the Pathological is one of the crucial contributions to the history of science in the last half century. It takes as its starting point the sudden appearance of biology as a science in the 19th-century and examines the conditions determining its particular makeup.Canguilhem analyzes the radically new way in which health and disease were defined in the early 19th-century, showing that the emerging categories of the normal and the pathological were far from being objective scientific concepts. He demonstrates how the epistemological foundations of modern biology and medicine were intertwined with political, economic, and technological imperatives. While it is true that our concept of health depends on the cultural tradition and political will, we still can learn some objective facts through science. To not beat a child is now widely viewed as a moral in the western culture. Other cultures or our own culture just some umpteen years earlier, found it a moral imperative to beat the child to educate and raise it. Rather depending on a moral zeitgeist, I would like to investigate this issue with the scientific method. "Good" and "bad" or "evil" are traditionally referred to a higher morality or absolute morality. I don't believe in such things. In my world view, good, bad (or evil) must relate to the real world and therefore is subject to science. That does not mean science will get definitive answers. But if science cannot, can anything else? Science is mute on the question "Is it moral to beat a child?" Science has nothing to say about such values, and you are, by necessity, dependent upon a "moral zeitgeist" to answer that question for yourself. This is true if you consider morals a matter of opinion and/or construct of society. But "morals" is a word and we, who use it, must define a meaning for it. As I understand the rough concept of morals, morals who are moral must relate at some point to suffering. Now science comes in because suffering is the cause of events which can be in the end reduced to events in the world.
No. Suffering is a phenomenological event and cannot be reduced to a description of physical states in the world. How would you do this? Why would one configuration of the atoms that make up consciousness be more or less "objectively" moral than another?
It is far from an obvious axiom that morality is concerned with the alleviation of suffering.
On December 15 2012 03:05 [F_]aths wrote:
I consider any 'morality' which does not intend to reduce unnecessary suffering to be not moral at all. This is an assumption I make. Having values for the sake of having values doesn't really make sense to me.
These two statements are directly contradictory.
|
On December 15 2012 05:43 Melliflue wrote:
personally I don't think the majority gets to decide what is moral and what isn't.
From google's definition:
mores plural of mo·res
Noun
The essential or characteristic customs and conventions of a community: "an offense against social mores".
Synonyms
manners - morals - manner
So originally morals were defined as what the majority believes. It did not mean right or wrong, just how the community did things.
|
-20 points for using a google definition to make a philosophical point
|
On December 15 2012 04:16 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 04:12 ahappystar wrote:Animal urges: Final vote on bestiality ban to be held in GermanyGermany is to decide whether to ban bestiality, which has been considered lawful in the country since being legalized in 1969. The final vote on the matter is set to take place in the Bundesrat, the upper house of parliament, on Friday. + Show Spoiler +The government of Angela Merkel introduced the new law against the practice, saying animals should not be used "for personal sexual activities or made available to third parties for sexual activities … thereby forcing them to behave in ways that are inappropriate to their species."
Late Thursday the Bundestag, the parliament's lower house, passed the tough new law against bestiality, which includes a hefty fine of 25,000 euros.
The lawmakers’ intention is not teaching zoophiles a morality lesson, as one of them told RT.
“We are not policing morality but we are improving animal protection law, where we would like to specify that it is forbidden to cause suffering through a sexual relationship. But the line is when you cause suffering to an animal for your personal sexual gratification,” Hans-Michael Goldmann, MP Chairman of the parliamentary agricultural committee, said.
Animal rights groups have also been campaigning against zoophilia for some time, battling for bestiality to be recognized as rape and defilement inflicted on an animal.
“Dogs are loyal even when they are abused – they are still going to look as if they are happy, especially when it gets enough to eat. Dogs will be happy whatever you dictate. But that is not a sign that the dog is enjoying it,” Stephanie Eschen, animal rights campaigner for Berlin Shelter for Animals told RT.
Campaigners even reportedly posted 800 addresses of zoophiles on their Facebook page, saying they would fight to take the animals away from those who practice bestiality.
German media outlets followed suit to protest against the practice, first with the Berlin tabloid BZ featuring the issue on its front page in October. The picture showed a man holding his dog with the headline reading "we call it sodomy, he calls it love." Bild magazine then joined the cause.
In July, over 93,000 Germans voted to ban the bestiality in an online poll, revoking the 1969 law which legalized zoophilia, except in cases where the animal was deemed to suffer "significant harm."
Zoophiles, however, say that they never treat animals cruelly or force them to do anything against their will.
“I need an animal to be happy. If I did not have it, there would be something missing. There are several levels of relationship with an animal. You can fall in love with your animal… then, the sexual relationship is not out of the question,” David Zimmerman from the German Zoophile Engagement for Tolerance and Information told RT.
And there’s a growing concern that those who are against the practice could walk the talk.
“They fantasize about castrating me or taking my animals away. Our friend has found a razor blade in his post with a note “Do it yourself so we don’t have to”. Letters don’t arrive too often but it they arrive every now and again. In the subway someone was yelling at me, calling me names – I am concerned that attacks could become physical.”
While bestiality is deemed illegal in most European countries, it is allowed in Belgium, Denmark and Sweden, apart from Germany. Stockholm, however, is considering a change in the legislation. What is up with these evil lawmakers in Germany that want to ban love between two species! I say equality for all, they should be able to marry these animals too, equal rights my ass! EDIT: and the evil church is against bestiality too! evil evil and there it is, the reference to bestiality in a homosexuality thread....was waiting for it....
We did well though. We had a civilized debate about religion and homosexuality on the internet for a good few pages, I got a lot to think about there.
|
On December 15 2012 03:05 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 01:02 HULKAMANIA wrote:On December 14 2012 23:35 [F_]aths wrote:On December 14 2012 22:48 WhiteDog wrote:On December 14 2012 22:21 [F_]aths wrote:On December 14 2012 21:36 WhiteDog wrote:On December 14 2012 18:08 [F_]aths wrote:On December 14 2012 13:23 sam!zdat wrote:On December 14 2012 08:21 KwarK wrote:On December 14 2012 08:16 sam!zdat wrote:
We were writing at the same time. see my post above. There's nothing "independently verifiable" about the secular worldview, either. The secular world view is the one that says "actually we've done research on it and it turns out that children raised in a stable loving family with two mums or two dads do just fine, whatever it is you think you know based upon praying on the matter". The secular state is the child of the enlightenment in which traditional assumptions met the challenge of reasoned inquiry and the scientific method. Where's the scientific experiment that tells you whether or not you should care about whether or not a child "does fine", and which tells you what "does just fine" means? Is that a rigorously defined and operationalized concept? Can it be? The Enlightenment has its limits. Defending the Enlightenment is not exactly a comfortable position right now in the academy (I know because I do defend the Enlightenment to a rather unfashionable degree). My point is not that you're wrong. I agree with you about all of this gay people stuff. My point is just that if you start dismissing things because they "aren't scientific," you're going to find that line of reasoning coming back to bite you in the ass, I promise. Kant avec Sade, and so on. If they aren't scientitific, what are they? In a broader sense, anything which is testable and falsifiable is scientific. Social sciences aren't falsifiable, but always historically linked to a certain context - hence why the term "law" hasn't the same sense in economy (it's more tendancies than laws) than in physics. sm!zdat is right when he says that there is no "out of context" or "anhistorical" definition for childs that "do fine". The history of familly or filial love is interesting in this regard. We can measure the child's well-being at least roughly. We can have a rough look if the child is exposed to unnecessary suffering. We do have some rough options to decide if a particular environment to raise a child leads to good or bad results. Is corporal punishment good or bad for the child? Science can say something about it. Can a child be raised by same-sex parents as good as a traditional couple can? This seems to be way more difficult, but I see no reason which prevents a scientificly conducted experimet to find out. We can look at the child's level of happyness (at least roughly), we can see the average level of education and income, of healthiness and so on. I admit that those are just some and only quite rough indicators. But it is better than nothing. Is being gay an illness or a mental disorder? Science seems the best tool we have to determine. You are missing the point. Science can't say what is a "good or bad result" regarding child, because science can't define it scientifically. As for corporal punishment, well "science" can show correlation between corporal punishment and specific objectiv facts - such as number of friends, social behavior, or academic result. That's it. There is no way for sociology or any social science to clearly state that corporal punishment are bad for famillies because it's a moral judgement, that is based on the idea that kids should not get hurt by adults. Stop thinking science can teach us what is or what is not a "good" familly, because it can't. Happyness is defined socially, it's not the same at every layers of the social ladder and it's not a scientific concept that you can "measure". As for gay being a mental disorder or an illness (you don't let a lot of choice, how about gay is a sexual preferance and nothing else ?), "science" showed how it could not judge for that. What is normal and pathological is not objectively defined but linked to a rule, a social norm. For exemple, you can read G. Canguilhem, The normal and the pathological : The Normal and the Pathological is one of the crucial contributions to the history of science in the last half century. It takes as its starting point the sudden appearance of biology as a science in the 19th-century and examines the conditions determining its particular makeup.Canguilhem analyzes the radically new way in which health and disease were defined in the early 19th-century, showing that the emerging categories of the normal and the pathological were far from being objective scientific concepts. He demonstrates how the epistemological foundations of modern biology and medicine were intertwined with political, economic, and technological imperatives. While it is true that our concept of health depends on the cultural tradition and political will, we still can learn some objective facts through science. To not beat a child is now widely viewed as a moral in the western culture. Other cultures or our own culture just some umpteen years earlier, found it a moral imperative to beat the child to educate and raise it. Rather depending on a moral zeitgeist, I would like to investigate this issue with the scientific method. "Good" and "bad" or "evil" are traditionally referred to a higher morality or absolute morality. I don't believe in such things. In my world view, good, bad (or evil) must relate to the real world and therefore is subject to science. That does not mean science will get definitive answers. But if science cannot, can anything else? Science is mute on the question "Is it moral to beat a child?" Science has nothing to say about such values, and you are, by necessity, dependent upon a "moral zeitgeist" to answer that question for yourself. This is true if you consider morals a matter of opinion and/or construct of society. But "morals" is a word and we, who use it, must define a meaning for it. As I understand the rough concept of morals, morals who are moral must relate at some point to suffering. Now science comes in because suffering is the cause of events which can be in the end reduced to events in the world. Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 01:02 HULKAMANIA wrote:Now if you already assume that the outcomes you're testing for in a scientific study (indices of child's self-esteem, for instance, or the absence of violence in his or her interpersonal relationships) are good or bad, then science may provide some insight on how one style of raising a child is tentatively better or worse—i.e. which style tends to result in the most net "good" outcomes. But you did not derive those original assumptions about good or bad from science. Nor are they "subject to science" in any sense at all. They are actually ideological presuppositions that are already in play.
And it's always the assumptions that you don't realize you're making that are the most problematic. You are right, I assume some things. But without it, we have no definition. If everyone means a different thing when talking about morality, it doesn't make much sense to talk about it at all. I consider any 'morality' which does not intend to reduce unnecessary suffering to be not moral at all. This is an assumption I make. Having values for the sake of having values doesn't really make sense to me. Does gay marriage leads to unnecessary suffering? If we want to know this, we could just discuss, or we could try to plan out a scientific endeavor to determine the answer.
The thing is you're essentially conceding our main point.
You have a belief about what constitutes moral vs. immoral behavior. And I hope that I'm not being unfair when I summarize that belief (roughly) as follows: "Moral behavior avoids causing unnecessary suffering. Immoral behavior causes unnecessary suffering." On a personal level, I find that belief to be rather admirable, and I think that, by and large, the world would be a far happier place if people attempted to keep space for such sentiments in their day to day lives.
But the fact of the matter is, as you have admitted, your belief about morality did not originate in scientific research and experimentation, nor is it corroborated by scientific research and experimentation. No amount of scientific activity can generate the principle "Moral behavior avoids causing unnecessary suffering," nor can any amount of scientific activity help one evaluate whether such a statement is true, accurate, or good.
As I understand the rough concept of morals, morals who are moral must relate at some point to suffering. Now science comes in because suffering is the cause of events which can be in the end reduced to events in the world.
It is only by previously accepting that statement as true that science can weigh in on the matter at all, which is something that you've just admitted yourself. In other words, if one agrees to the first part of the above argument, then the second part follows. But there is no scientific, purely rational, or strictly logical reason at all to agree to the first part of your argument. It is simply an assertion of belief.
Now in a free and pluralistic nation, I believe that it behooves us to be respectful one another's sincerely held moral convictions and to allow one another to act on those convictions to the greatest extent compatible with a peaceful and stable society. Conceiving of our own moral convictions as bearing the authority of science and rationality, however, and conceiving of other people's moral convictions as deriving from irrationality or backwardness is a real obstacle to such freedoms. Because, besides being demonstrably incorrect, such assurance that other people can only disagree with one's obviously superior morals because those other people are uneducated, stupid, disingenuous, scheming, or [insert disparaging adjective here] is a sure path to groupthink and persecution. Civil disagreements like the one were having right now show the fruits of protecting freedom of belief, freedom of religion, and freedom of conscience. They keep such disagreements civil.
I mean if the state were to try to forcibly assimilate me into their system of Approved Beliefs, my only recourse would be another Crusade!
|
On December 15 2012 06:26 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 03:05 [F_]aths wrote:On December 15 2012 01:02 HULKAMANIA wrote:On December 14 2012 23:35 [F_]aths wrote:On December 14 2012 22:48 WhiteDog wrote:On December 14 2012 22:21 [F_]aths wrote:On December 14 2012 21:36 WhiteDog wrote:On December 14 2012 18:08 [F_]aths wrote:On December 14 2012 13:23 sam!zdat wrote:On December 14 2012 08:21 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
The secular world view is the one that says "actually we've done research on it and it turns out that children raised in a stable loving family with two mums or two dads do just fine, whatever it is you think you know based upon praying on the matter". The secular state is the child of the enlightenment in which traditional assumptions met the challenge of reasoned inquiry and the scientific method. Where's the scientific experiment that tells you whether or not you should care about whether or not a child "does fine", and which tells you what "does just fine" means? Is that a rigorously defined and operationalized concept? Can it be? The Enlightenment has its limits. Defending the Enlightenment is not exactly a comfortable position right now in the academy (I know because I do defend the Enlightenment to a rather unfashionable degree). My point is not that you're wrong. I agree with you about all of this gay people stuff. My point is just that if you start dismissing things because they "aren't scientific," you're going to find that line of reasoning coming back to bite you in the ass, I promise. Kant avec Sade, and so on. If they aren't scientitific, what are they? In a broader sense, anything which is testable and falsifiable is scientific. Social sciences aren't falsifiable, but always historically linked to a certain context - hence why the term "law" hasn't the same sense in economy (it's more tendancies than laws) than in physics. sm!zdat is right when he says that there is no "out of context" or "anhistorical" definition for childs that "do fine". The history of familly or filial love is interesting in this regard. We can measure the child's well-being at least roughly. We can have a rough look if the child is exposed to unnecessary suffering. We do have some rough options to decide if a particular environment to raise a child leads to good or bad results. Is corporal punishment good or bad for the child? Science can say something about it. Can a child be raised by same-sex parents as good as a traditional couple can? This seems to be way more difficult, but I see no reason which prevents a scientificly conducted experimet to find out. We can look at the child's level of happyness (at least roughly), we can see the average level of education and income, of healthiness and so on. I admit that those are just some and only quite rough indicators. But it is better than nothing. Is being gay an illness or a mental disorder? Science seems the best tool we have to determine. You are missing the point. Science can't say what is a "good or bad result" regarding child, because science can't define it scientifically. As for corporal punishment, well "science" can show correlation between corporal punishment and specific objectiv facts - such as number of friends, social behavior, or academic result. That's it. There is no way for sociology or any social science to clearly state that corporal punishment are bad for famillies because it's a moral judgement, that is based on the idea that kids should not get hurt by adults. Stop thinking science can teach us what is or what is not a "good" familly, because it can't. Happyness is defined socially, it's not the same at every layers of the social ladder and it's not a scientific concept that you can "measure". As for gay being a mental disorder or an illness (you don't let a lot of choice, how about gay is a sexual preferance and nothing else ?), "science" showed how it could not judge for that. What is normal and pathological is not objectively defined but linked to a rule, a social norm. For exemple, you can read G. Canguilhem, The normal and the pathological : The Normal and the Pathological is one of the crucial contributions to the history of science in the last half century. It takes as its starting point the sudden appearance of biology as a science in the 19th-century and examines the conditions determining its particular makeup.Canguilhem analyzes the radically new way in which health and disease were defined in the early 19th-century, showing that the emerging categories of the normal and the pathological were far from being objective scientific concepts. He demonstrates how the epistemological foundations of modern biology and medicine were intertwined with political, economic, and technological imperatives. While it is true that our concept of health depends on the cultural tradition and political will, we still can learn some objective facts through science. To not beat a child is now widely viewed as a moral in the western culture. Other cultures or our own culture just some umpteen years earlier, found it a moral imperative to beat the child to educate and raise it. Rather depending on a moral zeitgeist, I would like to investigate this issue with the scientific method. "Good" and "bad" or "evil" are traditionally referred to a higher morality or absolute morality. I don't believe in such things. In my world view, good, bad (or evil) must relate to the real world and therefore is subject to science. That does not mean science will get definitive answers. But if science cannot, can anything else? Science is mute on the question "Is it moral to beat a child?" Science has nothing to say about such values, and you are, by necessity, dependent upon a "moral zeitgeist" to answer that question for yourself. This is true if you consider morals a matter of opinion and/or construct of society. But "morals" is a word and we, who use it, must define a meaning for it. As I understand the rough concept of morals, morals who are moral must relate at some point to suffering. Now science comes in because suffering is the cause of events which can be in the end reduced to events in the world. No. Suffering is a phenomenological event and cannot be reduced to a description of physical states in the world. How would you do this? Why would one configuration of the atoms that make up consciousness be more or less "objectively" moral than another? It is far from an obvious axiom that morality is concerned with the alleviation of suffering. We have to reason it out. A single consciousness can be expected (with our experience) to be selfish. We cannot take just an opinion seriously if there is no good reason given. In my opinion, even a good reason is not enough unless it is backed up by testable data.
I am still not sure if we should use the variation of the golden rule (don't treat others in a way you don't like to be treated) as axiomatic because it seems intuitively right or if we shall reduce even this one to physical events.
I think, if one tries hard enough and goes a way long enough, suffering can be reduced to physical states. Pain itself doesn't exist as an object, it seems to be created by neurons for our conscious perception. As far as we know, neurons follow the chemical / physical laws all the time. We still don't know yet how exactly this can create the perception of pain, but there seems to be no reason to deny a physical cause.
On December 15 2012 06:26 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 03:05 [F_]aths wrote:
I consider any 'morality' which does not intend to reduce unnecessary suffering to be not moral at all. This is an assumption I make. Having values for the sake of having values doesn't really make sense to me.
These two statements are directly contradictory.
If you see the meaning of the moral concept (reduce harm, avoid unnecessary suffering) as value, it is contradictory. We still can try to reduce that to facts: Suffering is experienced as real even though it is only a state of mind. But we experience everything through our brain anyway. In this sense, suffering is as real as the real world. Then we have the fact that most of us don't like suffering. This makes sense in an evolutionary sense: Pain is a mechanism to get the priorities right when our nerve center (the brain) makes a decision between different options. Unnecessary suffering is pain (in a broader sense, also other forms of pain like the feeling of getting betrayed and other emotions) with no sufficient reason.
I am aware that my approach is kind of a reductionist one. Still I think this approach is better than to use the inner sense of disgust (like "gay men sex is disgusting, this cant't be right.")
|
On December 15 2012 08:17 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 03:05 [F_]aths wrote:On December 15 2012 01:02 HULKAMANIA wrote:On December 14 2012 23:35 [F_]aths wrote:On December 14 2012 22:48 WhiteDog wrote:On December 14 2012 22:21 [F_]aths wrote:On December 14 2012 21:36 WhiteDog wrote:On December 14 2012 18:08 [F_]aths wrote:On December 14 2012 13:23 sam!zdat wrote:On December 14 2012 08:21 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
The secular world view is the one that says "actually we've done research on it and it turns out that children raised in a stable loving family with two mums or two dads do just fine, whatever it is you think you know based upon praying on the matter". The secular state is the child of the enlightenment in which traditional assumptions met the challenge of reasoned inquiry and the scientific method. Where's the scientific experiment that tells you whether or not you should care about whether or not a child "does fine", and which tells you what "does just fine" means? Is that a rigorously defined and operationalized concept? Can it be? The Enlightenment has its limits. Defending the Enlightenment is not exactly a comfortable position right now in the academy (I know because I do defend the Enlightenment to a rather unfashionable degree). My point is not that you're wrong. I agree with you about all of this gay people stuff. My point is just that if you start dismissing things because they "aren't scientific," you're going to find that line of reasoning coming back to bite you in the ass, I promise. Kant avec Sade, and so on. If they aren't scientitific, what are they? In a broader sense, anything which is testable and falsifiable is scientific. Social sciences aren't falsifiable, but always historically linked to a certain context - hence why the term "law" hasn't the same sense in economy (it's more tendancies than laws) than in physics. sm!zdat is right when he says that there is no "out of context" or "anhistorical" definition for childs that "do fine". The history of familly or filial love is interesting in this regard. We can measure the child's well-being at least roughly. We can have a rough look if the child is exposed to unnecessary suffering. We do have some rough options to decide if a particular environment to raise a child leads to good or bad results. Is corporal punishment good or bad for the child? Science can say something about it. Can a child be raised by same-sex parents as good as a traditional couple can? This seems to be way more difficult, but I see no reason which prevents a scientificly conducted experimet to find out. We can look at the child's level of happyness (at least roughly), we can see the average level of education and income, of healthiness and so on. I admit that those are just some and only quite rough indicators. But it is better than nothing. Is being gay an illness or a mental disorder? Science seems the best tool we have to determine. You are missing the point. Science can't say what is a "good or bad result" regarding child, because science can't define it scientifically. As for corporal punishment, well "science" can show correlation between corporal punishment and specific objectiv facts - such as number of friends, social behavior, or academic result. That's it. There is no way for sociology or any social science to clearly state that corporal punishment are bad for famillies because it's a moral judgement, that is based on the idea that kids should not get hurt by adults. Stop thinking science can teach us what is or what is not a "good" familly, because it can't. Happyness is defined socially, it's not the same at every layers of the social ladder and it's not a scientific concept that you can "measure". As for gay being a mental disorder or an illness (you don't let a lot of choice, how about gay is a sexual preferance and nothing else ?), "science" showed how it could not judge for that. What is normal and pathological is not objectively defined but linked to a rule, a social norm. For exemple, you can read G. Canguilhem, The normal and the pathological : The Normal and the Pathological is one of the crucial contributions to the history of science in the last half century. It takes as its starting point the sudden appearance of biology as a science in the 19th-century and examines the conditions determining its particular makeup.Canguilhem analyzes the radically new way in which health and disease were defined in the early 19th-century, showing that the emerging categories of the normal and the pathological were far from being objective scientific concepts. He demonstrates how the epistemological foundations of modern biology and medicine were intertwined with political, economic, and technological imperatives. While it is true that our concept of health depends on the cultural tradition and political will, we still can learn some objective facts through science. To not beat a child is now widely viewed as a moral in the western culture. Other cultures or our own culture just some umpteen years earlier, found it a moral imperative to beat the child to educate and raise it. Rather depending on a moral zeitgeist, I would like to investigate this issue with the scientific method. "Good" and "bad" or "evil" are traditionally referred to a higher morality or absolute morality. I don't believe in such things. In my world view, good, bad (or evil) must relate to the real world and therefore is subject to science. That does not mean science will get definitive answers. But if science cannot, can anything else? Science is mute on the question "Is it moral to beat a child?" Science has nothing to say about such values, and you are, by necessity, dependent upon a "moral zeitgeist" to answer that question for yourself. This is true if you consider morals a matter of opinion and/or construct of society. But "morals" is a word and we, who use it, must define a meaning for it. As I understand the rough concept of morals, morals who are moral must relate at some point to suffering. Now science comes in because suffering is the cause of events which can be in the end reduced to events in the world. On December 15 2012 01:02 HULKAMANIA wrote:Now if you already assume that the outcomes you're testing for in a scientific study (indices of child's self-esteem, for instance, or the absence of violence in his or her interpersonal relationships) are good or bad, then science may provide some insight on how one style of raising a child is tentatively better or worse—i.e. which style tends to result in the most net "good" outcomes. But you did not derive those original assumptions about good or bad from science. Nor are they "subject to science" in any sense at all. They are actually ideological presuppositions that are already in play.
And it's always the assumptions that you don't realize you're making that are the most problematic. You are right, I assume some things. But without it, we have no definition. If everyone means a different thing when talking about morality, it doesn't make much sense to talk about it at all. I consider any 'morality' which does not intend to reduce unnecessary suffering to be not moral at all. This is an assumption I make. Having values for the sake of having values doesn't really make sense to me. Does gay marriage leads to unnecessary suffering? If we want to know this, we could just discuss, or we could try to plan out a scientific endeavor to determine the answer. The thing is you're essentially conceding our main point. You have a belief about what constitutes moral vs. immoral behavior. And I hope that I'm not being unfair when I summarize that belief (roughly) as follows: "Moral behavior avoids causing unnecessary suffering. Immoral behavior causes unnecessary suffering." On a personal level, I find that belief to be rather admirable, and I think that, by and large, the world would be a far happier place if people attempted to keep space for such sentiments in their day to day lives. But the fact of the matter is, as you have admitted, your belief about morality did not originate in scientific research and experimentation, nor is it corroborated by scientific research and experimentation. No amount of scientific activity can generate the principle "Moral behavior avoids causing unnecessary suffering," nor can any amount of scientific activity help one evaluate whether such a statement is true, accurate, or good.
Science is somewhat in the moral business as one shall not lie about the experiment and make up data.
But in a moral discussion I would invoke science this way: "If we agree about the meaning of the word 'morality', we should use science to get results." Science itself favors reasoning over emotional reactions. In this sense, one could try to use the concept of science even as a reason to establish a morality: With reason we can argue why we should try to avoid unnecessary suffering. (Of course, in many cases it is good to show emotions because we feel better and give valuable information about our feeling to other persons. In this sense, it is not the scientific optimum to keep calm all the time.) If we do something because we should while we don't have to, we can create the concept of values.
Another argument would be that many of us search the true, the good, the beautiful. Why do we do this? Maybe as side product of our evolutionary line, but even if we don't know why, we do know that we seek it. I would count this as a fact, which could be reduced to physical states of the world even though we cannot do it now because the brain and the culture is so complex. We maybe never can. And it sounds useless to create a science for the beautiful. How scientific could aesthetics ever be? I still think that science can at least say some things. If we determine why we never fully agree on what it beautiful, we can do this in a scientific way.
I don't want a body of authority to determine what is true, what is beautiful or what is good. I want discussion, reason and experiments to the day we cease to exist.
On December 15 2012 08:17 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +As I understand the rough concept of morals, morals who are moral must relate at some point to suffering. Now science comes in because suffering is the cause of events which can be in the end reduced to events in the world. It is only by previously accepting that statement as true that science can weigh in on the matter at all, which is something that you've just admitted yourself. In other words, if one agrees to the first part of the above argument, then the second part follows. But there is no scientific, purely rational, or strictly logical reason at all to agree to the first part of your argument. It is simply an assertion of belief. Now in a free and pluralistic nation, I believe that it behooves us to be respectful one another's sincerely held moral convictions and to allow one another to act on those convictions to the greatest extent compatible with a peaceful and stable society. Conceiving of our own moral convictions as bearing the authority of science and rationality, however, and conceiving of other people's moral convictions as deriving from irrationality or backwardness is a real obstacle to such freedoms. Because, besides being demonstrably incorrect, such assurance that other people can only disagree with one's obviously superior morals because those other people are uneducated, stupid, disingenuous, scheming, or [insert disparaging adjective here] is a sure path to groupthink and persecution. Civil disagreements like the one were having right now show the fruits of protecting freedom of belief, freedom of religion, and freedom of conscience. They keep such disagreements civil. I mean if the state were to try to forcibly assimilate me into their system of Approved Beliefs, my only recourse would be another Crusade!
This is in a sense my point. We are aware that we developed morals during our evolution as a social being while we still are selfish and egoistic. We also see that some have more power than others and we are afraid that their opinion trumps ours, even in moral questions. So we want to have the safety of a moral code everyone must agree on, to avoid exploitation. We also are afraid of being the victim of unmoral persons who don't even have a bad conscience when they are done harming us. We like to have eternal rules.
The greatest fear I have in a moral debate however is dogma. Immoral things like gay sex or even incest could be viewed as not immoral at all at some point in the future. "Moral" in practice is a construct of society. Now I have an issue with different morals in different societies. If one agrees on to ban gay marriage because of moral issues while another society doesn't really have any beef with gay marriage, I question the concept of morality as universal even thought I often find it described as such.
I want to find out what really is moral, what actually is immoral. The best tool I can imagine is science.
|
On December 12 2012 04:29 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 04:24 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 04:20 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 04:17 dAPhREAk wrote:
you are infringing their right to practice their religion as long as its an actual belief of the church Would you support a church refusing to marry interracial couples on the basis of religious beliefs? no, i would not "support" them. however, if its an actual belief of the church (not pretext) then i would not object to them doing it. the interracial couple can be married elsewhere. if a gay couple wants to get married, why would they want or even need to be married (for example) at a catholic church, or by a catholic priest? they have absolutely no reason to do so. so, it seems, that you (metaphorically) are concerned about a non-issue. Do you feel there is a potential issue in whether or not discrimination can actually be dealt with if private groups are allowed to discriminate? Do you feel religious convictions are any more important than any other strongly held conviction? A man could genuinely believe that gay marriage would destroy society by eroding the morals enshrined by traditional marriage without involving God and feel the same passion regarding the issue.
You are overstepping the line by attempting to enforce sinful behavior encouragement. You are categorizing 'Religious Convictions' as nothing important, and this is where your opinion is wrong. When considering 'God' there is no doubt that the church's convictions are far more important than vast majority of strongly held convictions. 'Convictions' and 'Truth' are two completely different areas. The church is considered to be a meeting place with God, conducting a ritual which is not supported via the beliefs is wrong on multiple levels.
I can have a 'very strong conviction' that the government enforced tax shouldn't discriminate against people in different pay brackets, and thats fantastic. However to live your life in service to God who just may be the sole truth in life and be forced to encourage as i mentioned 'sinful behavior' is to enforce your belief onto others. Kwark, your argument is that everyone's beliefs are equal, and the truth is that there is only a single truth. People's beliefs are not equal and people do not deserve the same amount of regard in terms of the belief. If when we all die we come back as an animal, this would indicate that all but 'those who believe' are really living a falsehood, you can respect someone's belief, but it doesn't make it equal or correct.
|
Homosexuality is completely natural.
Other Species like ours have a lot of by or gay animals. Besides, this has always been about people' s private lives, and people should be able to do in there private life (as long as its consentual) whatever the fuck they please. Yes getting married is a private affair, its not like there obligating you to go to there wedding. I not only agree with to give gay people the right to marry, but i also believe they should have the right to adopt, and ever other civil right (and obligation). Furthermore i think people should be allowed to display there emotions in public like every other couple (Obviously kissing and holding hands are accepted by society)
If any of you have lived in Berlin, these things (public display of emotion) are happening and you would realise that its completely natural and normal.
|
On December 15 2012 04:22 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 04:12 ahappystar wrote:Animal urges: Final vote on bestiality ban to be held in GermanyGermany is to decide whether to ban bestiality, which has been considered lawful in the country since being legalized in 1969. The final vote on the matter is set to take place in the Bundesrat, the upper house of parliament, on Friday. + Show Spoiler +The government of Angela Merkel introduced the new law against the practice, saying animals should not be used "for personal sexual activities or made available to third parties for sexual activities … thereby forcing them to behave in ways that are inappropriate to their species."
Late Thursday the Bundestag, the parliament's lower house, passed the tough new law against bestiality, which includes a hefty fine of 25,000 euros.
The lawmakers’ intention is not teaching zoophiles a morality lesson, as one of them told RT.
“We are not policing morality but we are improving animal protection law, where we would like to specify that it is forbidden to cause suffering through a sexual relationship. But the line is when you cause suffering to an animal for your personal sexual gratification,” Hans-Michael Goldmann, MP Chairman of the parliamentary agricultural committee, said.
Animal rights groups have also been campaigning against zoophilia for some time, battling for bestiality to be recognized as rape and defilement inflicted on an animal.
“Dogs are loyal even when they are abused – they are still going to look as if they are happy, especially when it gets enough to eat. Dogs will be happy whatever you dictate. But that is not a sign that the dog is enjoying it,” Stephanie Eschen, animal rights campaigner for Berlin Shelter for Animals told RT.
Campaigners even reportedly posted 800 addresses of zoophiles on their Facebook page, saying they would fight to take the animals away from those who practice bestiality.
German media outlets followed suit to protest against the practice, first with the Berlin tabloid BZ featuring the issue on its front page in October. The picture showed a man holding his dog with the headline reading "we call it sodomy, he calls it love." Bild magazine then joined the cause.
In July, over 93,000 Germans voted to ban the bestiality in an online poll, revoking the 1969 law which legalized zoophilia, except in cases where the animal was deemed to suffer "significant harm."
Zoophiles, however, say that they never treat animals cruelly or force them to do anything against their will.
“I need an animal to be happy. If I did not have it, there would be something missing. There are several levels of relationship with an animal. You can fall in love with your animal… then, the sexual relationship is not out of the question,” David Zimmerman from the German Zoophile Engagement for Tolerance and Information told RT.
And there’s a growing concern that those who are against the practice could walk the talk.
“They fantasize about castrating me or taking my animals away. Our friend has found a razor blade in his post with a note “Do it yourself so we don’t have to”. Letters don’t arrive too often but it they arrive every now and again. In the subway someone was yelling at me, calling me names – I am concerned that attacks could become physical.”
While bestiality is deemed illegal in most European countries, it is allowed in Belgium, Denmark and Sweden, apart from Germany. Stockholm, however, is considering a change in the legislation. What is up with these evil lawmakers in Germany that want to ban love between two species! I say equality for all, they should be able to marry these animals too, equal rights my ass! EDIT: and the evil church is against bestiality too! evil evil You have a serious problem if you think comparing bestiality and homosexuality is a valid argument.
While I don't think comparing them is a valid argument, nor do I agree with it, some smart people have argued it might be. In Lawrence v. Texas, the dissent implied that bestiality could be a next step with future cases. While it's most commonly known as the anti-sodomy case which legalizes homosexuality, it's more about privacy and that's where the idea of bestiality came into play. Granted the way Scalia posed it was a pretty large slippery slope but still. Anyways on topic: good for the UK I hope this passes. Religion is the opiate of the masses!
ITT: People defining "moral" in a emotionalist way as something that makes them feel "yucky" or "yummy"
|
United States42437 Posts
On December 15 2012 19:59 Azz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 04:29 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 04:24 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 04:20 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 04:17 dAPhREAk wrote:
you are infringing their right to practice their religion as long as its an actual belief of the church Would you support a church refusing to marry interracial couples on the basis of religious beliefs? no, i would not "support" them. however, if its an actual belief of the church (not pretext) then i would not object to them doing it. the interracial couple can be married elsewhere. if a gay couple wants to get married, why would they want or even need to be married (for example) at a catholic church, or by a catholic priest? they have absolutely no reason to do so. so, it seems, that you (metaphorically) are concerned about a non-issue. Do you feel there is a potential issue in whether or not discrimination can actually be dealt with if private groups are allowed to discriminate? Do you feel religious convictions are any more important than any other strongly held conviction? A man could genuinely believe that gay marriage would destroy society by eroding the morals enshrined by traditional marriage without involving God and feel the same passion regarding the issue. You are overstepping the line by attempting to enforce sinful behavior encouragement. You are categorizing 'Religious Convictions' as nothing important, and this is where your opinion is wrong. When considering 'God' there is no doubt that the church's convictions are far more important than vast majority of strongly held convictions. 'Convictions' and 'Truth' are two completely different areas. The church is considered to be a meeting place with God, conducting a ritual which is not supported via the beliefs is wrong on multiple levels. I can have a 'very strong conviction' that the government enforced tax shouldn't discriminate against people in different pay brackets, and thats fantastic. However to live your life in service to God who just may be the sole truth in life and be forced to encourage as i mentioned 'sinful behavior' is to enforce your belief onto others. Kwark, your argument is that everyone's beliefs are equal, and the truth is that there is only a single truth. People's beliefs are not equal and people do not deserve the same amount of regard in terms of the belief. If when we all die we come back as an animal, this would indicate that all but 'those who believe' are really living a falsehood, you can respect someone's belief, but it doesn't make it equal or correct.
This can be summed up as "there are many strong convictions but only only religion is true because it's true because I believe it to be true because religion because God". Not one of those "because"s amounts to a strong argument for how it's any different. You have stated "don't ignore unsubstantiated beliefs, they should be given respect, I cannot substantiate this", if the opposing position is already ignoring unsubstantiated beliefs then you have yet to bring anything useful to the field. It's like you're fighting a ghost type pokemon with a normal type pokemon, it doesn't matter which move you use or how much you evolve it, you have to switch it out for another.
|
On December 15 2012 20:39 bjwithbraces wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 04:22 heliusx wrote:On December 15 2012 04:12 ahappystar wrote:Animal urges: Final vote on bestiality ban to be held in GermanyGermany is to decide whether to ban bestiality, which has been considered lawful in the country since being legalized in 1969. The final vote on the matter is set to take place in the Bundesrat, the upper house of parliament, on Friday. + Show Spoiler +The government of Angela Merkel introduced the new law against the practice, saying animals should not be used "for personal sexual activities or made available to third parties for sexual activities … thereby forcing them to behave in ways that are inappropriate to their species."
Late Thursday the Bundestag, the parliament's lower house, passed the tough new law against bestiality, which includes a hefty fine of 25,000 euros.
The lawmakers’ intention is not teaching zoophiles a morality lesson, as one of them told RT.
“We are not policing morality but we are improving animal protection law, where we would like to specify that it is forbidden to cause suffering through a sexual relationship. But the line is when you cause suffering to an animal for your personal sexual gratification,” Hans-Michael Goldmann, MP Chairman of the parliamentary agricultural committee, said.
Animal rights groups have also been campaigning against zoophilia for some time, battling for bestiality to be recognized as rape and defilement inflicted on an animal.
“Dogs are loyal even when they are abused – they are still going to look as if they are happy, especially when it gets enough to eat. Dogs will be happy whatever you dictate. But that is not a sign that the dog is enjoying it,” Stephanie Eschen, animal rights campaigner for Berlin Shelter for Animals told RT.
Campaigners even reportedly posted 800 addresses of zoophiles on their Facebook page, saying they would fight to take the animals away from those who practice bestiality.
German media outlets followed suit to protest against the practice, first with the Berlin tabloid BZ featuring the issue on its front page in October. The picture showed a man holding his dog with the headline reading "we call it sodomy, he calls it love." Bild magazine then joined the cause.
In July, over 93,000 Germans voted to ban the bestiality in an online poll, revoking the 1969 law which legalized zoophilia, except in cases where the animal was deemed to suffer "significant harm."
Zoophiles, however, say that they never treat animals cruelly or force them to do anything against their will.
“I need an animal to be happy. If I did not have it, there would be something missing. There are several levels of relationship with an animal. You can fall in love with your animal… then, the sexual relationship is not out of the question,” David Zimmerman from the German Zoophile Engagement for Tolerance and Information told RT.
And there’s a growing concern that those who are against the practice could walk the talk.
“They fantasize about castrating me or taking my animals away. Our friend has found a razor blade in his post with a note “Do it yourself so we don’t have to”. Letters don’t arrive too often but it they arrive every now and again. In the subway someone was yelling at me, calling me names – I am concerned that attacks could become physical.”
While bestiality is deemed illegal in most European countries, it is allowed in Belgium, Denmark and Sweden, apart from Germany. Stockholm, however, is considering a change in the legislation. What is up with these evil lawmakers in Germany that want to ban love between two species! I say equality for all, they should be able to marry these animals too, equal rights my ass! EDIT: and the evil church is against bestiality too! evil evil You have a serious problem if you think comparing bestiality and homosexuality is a valid argument. While I don't think comparing them is a valid argument, nor do I agree with it, some smart people have argued it might be. In Lawrence v. Texas, the dissent implied that bestiality could be a next step with future cases. While it's most commonly known as the anti-sodomy case which legalizes homosexuality, it's more about privacy and that's where the idea of bestiality came into play. Granted the way Scalia posed it was a pretty large slippery slope but still. Anyways on topic: good for the UK I hope this passes. Religion is the opiate of the masses! ITT: People defining "moral" in a emotionalist way as something that makes them feel "yucky" or "yummy"
Sorry, why is this good??
|
On December 15 2012 21:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 19:59 Azz wrote:On December 12 2012 04:29 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 04:24 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 12 2012 04:20 KwarK wrote:On December 12 2012 04:17 dAPhREAk wrote:
you are infringing their right to practice their religion as long as its an actual belief of the church Would you support a church refusing to marry interracial couples on the basis of religious beliefs? no, i would not "support" them. however, if its an actual belief of the church (not pretext) then i would not object to them doing it. the interracial couple can be married elsewhere. if a gay couple wants to get married, why would they want or even need to be married (for example) at a catholic church, or by a catholic priest? they have absolutely no reason to do so. so, it seems, that you (metaphorically) are concerned about a non-issue. Do you feel there is a potential issue in whether or not discrimination can actually be dealt with if private groups are allowed to discriminate? Do you feel religious convictions are any more important than any other strongly held conviction? A man could genuinely believe that gay marriage would destroy society by eroding the morals enshrined by traditional marriage without involving God and feel the same passion regarding the issue. You are overstepping the line by attempting to enforce sinful behavior encouragement. You are categorizing 'Religious Convictions' as nothing important, and this is where your opinion is wrong. When considering 'God' there is no doubt that the church's convictions are far more important than vast majority of strongly held convictions. 'Convictions' and 'Truth' are two completely different areas. The church is considered to be a meeting place with God, conducting a ritual which is not supported via the beliefs is wrong on multiple levels. I can have a 'very strong conviction' that the government enforced tax shouldn't discriminate against people in different pay brackets, and thats fantastic. However to live your life in service to God who just may be the sole truth in life and be forced to encourage as i mentioned 'sinful behavior' is to enforce your belief onto others. Kwark, your argument is that everyone's beliefs are equal, and the truth is that there is only a single truth. People's beliefs are not equal and people do not deserve the same amount of regard in terms of the belief. If when we all die we come back as an animal, this would indicate that all but 'those who believe' are really living a falsehood, you can respect someone's belief, but it doesn't make it equal or correct. This can be summed up as "there are many strong convictions but only only religion is true because it's true because I believe it to be true because religion because God". Not one of those "because"s amounts to a strong argument for how it's any different. You have stated "don't ignore unsubstantiated beliefs, they should be given respect, I cannot substantiate this", if the opposing position is already ignoring unsubstantiated beliefs then you have yet to bring anything useful to the field. It's like you're fighting a ghost type pokemon with a normal type pokemon, it doesn't matter which move you use or how much you evolve it, you have to switch it out for another.
I wish you'd of addressed points such as:
- Forcing your beliefs onto others
- Correctness in people's belief and equality
- Majority rule ----> relativism (seems to be your thing)
Oh and your post can be summed up as "everyone is equal because they are but only only because I decided my conviction is important because people in groups discriminate against my conviction but i know im right cus I am and 1900+ years worth of people and history are wrong cus I am enlightened". Maybe I should talk about pokemon or how your previous post brought nothing new to the table because I had to edit my post a few times. At the end of the day 'private' is meant to be 'private' for a reason. Based on your reasoning 'Affirmative Action' is far worse than what is happening right now.
|
On December 15 2012 21:57 KwarK wrote:
This can be summed up as "there are many strong convictions but only only religion is true because it's true because I believe it to be true because religion because God". Not one of those "because"s amounts to a strong argument for how it's any different. You have stated "don't ignore unsubstantiated beliefs, they should be given respect, I cannot substantiate this", if the opposing position is already ignoring unsubstantiated beliefs then you have yet to bring anything useful to the field. It's like you're fighting a ghost type pokemon with a normal type pokemon, it doesn't matter which move you use or how much you evolve it, you have to switch it out for another.
If we knew for a fact that God, or the word of God, existed, we wouldn't call it belief, we would call it science.
The whole argument of religion rests on the assumption that something nobody can know is true. You cannot bring science into such a debate because science can only prove what "is" not all the things that "aren't".
On the other hand, a religious person will have to accept that there are many different ways of filling that void we can never gaze into. There are many religions that does this, as well as less structured folklore and superstition. You cannot accept them all because they are mutually exclusive. In a sense, that means you either make an instinctive guess on which explanation is the correct one and stand sceptic to the rest or you are sceptic towards all of them.
People oftentimes speak of humility beore the things we don't know, but that really is not the point here. Humility in this case would mean the acceptance that nobody knows and arguing that this makes things true is not logical. It is the religious people that needs humility in claiming things, not atheists for chosing not to believe them.
On those grounds I feel like the churches of the world should be happy that their irrational believes are even accepted in society despite their terrible track record. They should also be content with that and only that. Thinking for a moment that you can infringe on the rights of others is arrogant and selfish. Just in the same way as atheists must allow for the individuals right to believe in what they want, whether it is God, string theory or telekinesis.
That said, how can gay marriage in church even be an issue? How can you have one organisation with two groups of people who interpret the "rules" for the organisation differently. Even to a point where one half belives homosexuality is essentially a crime punishable by death and the other does not? To me that is a bizarre situation.
|
On December 15 2012 18:50 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 06:26 sam!zdat wrote:On December 15 2012 03:05 [F_]aths wrote:On December 15 2012 01:02 HULKAMANIA wrote:On December 14 2012 23:35 [F_]aths wrote:On December 14 2012 22:48 WhiteDog wrote:On December 14 2012 22:21 [F_]aths wrote:On December 14 2012 21:36 WhiteDog wrote:On December 14 2012 18:08 [F_]aths wrote:On December 14 2012 13:23 sam!zdat wrote:
[quote]
Where's the scientific experiment that tells you whether or not you should care about whether or not a child "does fine", and which tells you what "does just fine" means? Is that a rigorously defined and operationalized concept? Can it be?
The Enlightenment has its limits. Defending the Enlightenment is not exactly a comfortable position right now in the academy (I know because I do defend the Enlightenment to a rather unfashionable degree).
My point is not that you're wrong. I agree with you about all of this gay people stuff. My point is just that if you start dismissing things because they "aren't scientific," you're going to find that line of reasoning coming back to bite you in the ass, I promise. Kant avec Sade, and so on. If they aren't scientitific, what are they? In a broader sense, anything which is testable and falsifiable is scientific. Social sciences aren't falsifiable, but always historically linked to a certain context - hence why the term "law" hasn't the same sense in economy (it's more tendancies than laws) than in physics. sm!zdat is right when he says that there is no "out of context" or "anhistorical" definition for childs that "do fine". The history of familly or filial love is interesting in this regard. We can measure the child's well-being at least roughly. We can have a rough look if the child is exposed to unnecessary suffering. We do have some rough options to decide if a particular environment to raise a child leads to good or bad results. Is corporal punishment good or bad for the child? Science can say something about it. Can a child be raised by same-sex parents as good as a traditional couple can? This seems to be way more difficult, but I see no reason which prevents a scientificly conducted experimet to find out. We can look at the child's level of happyness (at least roughly), we can see the average level of education and income, of healthiness and so on. I admit that those are just some and only quite rough indicators. But it is better than nothing. Is being gay an illness or a mental disorder? Science seems the best tool we have to determine. You are missing the point. Science can't say what is a "good or bad result" regarding child, because science can't define it scientifically. As for corporal punishment, well "science" can show correlation between corporal punishment and specific objectiv facts - such as number of friends, social behavior, or academic result. That's it. There is no way for sociology or any social science to clearly state that corporal punishment are bad for famillies because it's a moral judgement, that is based on the idea that kids should not get hurt by adults. Stop thinking science can teach us what is or what is not a "good" familly, because it can't. Happyness is defined socially, it's not the same at every layers of the social ladder and it's not a scientific concept that you can "measure". As for gay being a mental disorder or an illness (you don't let a lot of choice, how about gay is a sexual preferance and nothing else ?), "science" showed how it could not judge for that. What is normal and pathological is not objectively defined but linked to a rule, a social norm. For exemple, you can read G. Canguilhem, The normal and the pathological : The Normal and the Pathological is one of the crucial contributions to the history of science in the last half century. It takes as its starting point the sudden appearance of biology as a science in the 19th-century and examines the conditions determining its particular makeup.Canguilhem analyzes the radically new way in which health and disease were defined in the early 19th-century, showing that the emerging categories of the normal and the pathological were far from being objective scientific concepts. He demonstrates how the epistemological foundations of modern biology and medicine were intertwined with political, economic, and technological imperatives. While it is true that our concept of health depends on the cultural tradition and political will, we still can learn some objective facts through science. To not beat a child is now widely viewed as a moral in the western culture. Other cultures or our own culture just some umpteen years earlier, found it a moral imperative to beat the child to educate and raise it. Rather depending on a moral zeitgeist, I would like to investigate this issue with the scientific method. "Good" and "bad" or "evil" are traditionally referred to a higher morality or absolute morality. I don't believe in such things. In my world view, good, bad (or evil) must relate to the real world and therefore is subject to science. That does not mean science will get definitive answers. But if science cannot, can anything else? Science is mute on the question "Is it moral to beat a child?" Science has nothing to say about such values, and you are, by necessity, dependent upon a "moral zeitgeist" to answer that question for yourself. This is true if you consider morals a matter of opinion and/or construct of society. But "morals" is a word and we, who use it, must define a meaning for it. As I understand the rough concept of morals, morals who are moral must relate at some point to suffering. Now science comes in because suffering is the cause of events which can be in the end reduced to events in the world. No. Suffering is a phenomenological event and cannot be reduced to a description of physical states in the world. How would you do this? Why would one configuration of the atoms that make up consciousness be more or less "objectively" moral than another? It is far from an obvious axiom that morality is concerned with the alleviation of suffering. We have to reason it out. A single consciousness can be expected (with our experience) to be selfish.
No, I don't accept this premise. At any rate, even if true, this is an observation. You would need an extra step to establish that this was a morally justified way to behave. that question remains open.
We cannot take just an opinion seriously if there is no good reason given. In my opinion, even a good reason is not enough unless it is backed up by testable data.
So when you want to make friends with someone, and you have a reason to do so, do you wait until there's data? What kind of data would it be? Do you believe in the existence of any useful concepts which are non quantitative?
I am still not sure if we should use the variation of the golden rule (don't treat others in a way you don't like to be treated) as axiomatic because it seems intuitively right or if we shall reduce even this one to physical events.
Ah, now you're on the right track. Go ponder that question for a while.
I think, if one tries hard enough and goes a way long enough, suffering can be reduced to physical states. Pain itself doesn't exist as an object, it seems to be created by neurons for our conscious perception. As far as we know, neurons follow the chemical / physical laws all the time. We still don't know yet how exactly this can create the perception of pain, but there seems to be no reason to deny a physical cause.
Before we continue on, how familiar are you in general with the mind-body problem, philosophy of consciousness, and so on? What you're saying is an acceptable enough position but I'm just curious if you're familiar with the shape of the debate.
My position is that a phenomenological state is ontologically but not epistemologically or conceptually reducible to physical states. It is an emergent property of a physical system. One is right in some sense in saying "it's nothing but cells", but this is not completely true and it's certainly not useful for ethical theorizing.
(edit: which is to say, the fact of its ontological reducibility is by far the least interesting thing one could ever say about it)
Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 06:26 sam!zdat wrote:On December 15 2012 03:05 [F_]aths wrote:
I consider any 'morality' which does not intend to reduce unnecessary suffering to be not moral at all. This is an assumption I make. Having values for the sake of having values doesn't really make sense to me.
These two statements are directly contradictory. If you see the meaning of the moral concept (reduce harm, avoid unnecessary suffering) as value, it is contradictory.
Yes, that is a value, and don't you dare tell me it isn't.
We still can try to reduce that to facts: Suffering is experienced as real even though it is only a state of mind. But we experience everything through our brain anyway. In this sense, suffering is as real as the real world. Then we have the fact that most of us don't like suffering. This makes sense in an evolutionary sense: Pain is a mechanism to get the priorities right when our nerve center (the brain) makes a decision between different options. Unnecessary suffering is pain (in a broader sense, also other forms of pain like the feeling of getting betrayed and other emotions) with no sufficient reason.
So? I don't see why any of this tells me I shouldn't punch you in the face. Why shouldn't I do stuff you don't like?
You are on exactly the right track when you say a thing like "suffering is as real as the real world." But you have not followed that through to its conclusion.
I am aware that my approach is kind of a reductionist one. Still I think this approach is better than to use the inner sense of disgust (like "gay men sex is disgusting, this cant't be right.")
If those were the only two possibilities, I would be very sad.
|
On December 15 2012 19:17 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:17 HULKAMANIA wrote:On December 15 2012 03:05 [F_]aths wrote:On December 15 2012 01:02 HULKAMANIA wrote:On December 14 2012 23:35 [F_]aths wrote:On December 14 2012 22:48 WhiteDog wrote:On December 14 2012 22:21 [F_]aths wrote:On December 14 2012 21:36 WhiteDog wrote:On December 14 2012 18:08 [F_]aths wrote:On December 14 2012 13:23 sam!zdat wrote:
[quote]
Where's the scientific experiment that tells you whether or not you should care about whether or not a child "does fine", and which tells you what "does just fine" means? Is that a rigorously defined and operationalized concept? Can it be?
The Enlightenment has its limits. Defending the Enlightenment is not exactly a comfortable position right now in the academy (I know because I do defend the Enlightenment to a rather unfashionable degree).
My point is not that you're wrong. I agree with you about all of this gay people stuff. My point is just that if you start dismissing things because they "aren't scientific," you're going to find that line of reasoning coming back to bite you in the ass, I promise. Kant avec Sade, and so on. If they aren't scientitific, what are they? In a broader sense, anything which is testable and falsifiable is scientific. Social sciences aren't falsifiable, but always historically linked to a certain context - hence why the term "law" hasn't the same sense in economy (it's more tendancies than laws) than in physics. sm!zdat is right when he says that there is no "out of context" or "anhistorical" definition for childs that "do fine". The history of familly or filial love is interesting in this regard. We can measure the child's well-being at least roughly. We can have a rough look if the child is exposed to unnecessary suffering. We do have some rough options to decide if a particular environment to raise a child leads to good or bad results. Is corporal punishment good or bad for the child? Science can say something about it. Can a child be raised by same-sex parents as good as a traditional couple can? This seems to be way more difficult, but I see no reason which prevents a scientificly conducted experimet to find out. We can look at the child's level of happyness (at least roughly), we can see the average level of education and income, of healthiness and so on. I admit that those are just some and only quite rough indicators. But it is better than nothing. Is being gay an illness or a mental disorder? Science seems the best tool we have to determine. You are missing the point. Science can't say what is a "good or bad result" regarding child, because science can't define it scientifically. As for corporal punishment, well "science" can show correlation between corporal punishment and specific objectiv facts - such as number of friends, social behavior, or academic result. That's it. There is no way for sociology or any social science to clearly state that corporal punishment are bad for famillies because it's a moral judgement, that is based on the idea that kids should not get hurt by adults. Stop thinking science can teach us what is or what is not a "good" familly, because it can't. Happyness is defined socially, it's not the same at every layers of the social ladder and it's not a scientific concept that you can "measure". As for gay being a mental disorder or an illness (you don't let a lot of choice, how about gay is a sexual preferance and nothing else ?), "science" showed how it could not judge for that. What is normal and pathological is not objectively defined but linked to a rule, a social norm. For exemple, you can read G. Canguilhem, The normal and the pathological : The Normal and the Pathological is one of the crucial contributions to the history of science in the last half century. It takes as its starting point the sudden appearance of biology as a science in the 19th-century and examines the conditions determining its particular makeup.Canguilhem analyzes the radically new way in which health and disease were defined in the early 19th-century, showing that the emerging categories of the normal and the pathological were far from being objective scientific concepts. He demonstrates how the epistemological foundations of modern biology and medicine were intertwined with political, economic, and technological imperatives. While it is true that our concept of health depends on the cultural tradition and political will, we still can learn some objective facts through science. To not beat a child is now widely viewed as a moral in the western culture. Other cultures or our own culture just some umpteen years earlier, found it a moral imperative to beat the child to educate and raise it. Rather depending on a moral zeitgeist, I would like to investigate this issue with the scientific method. "Good" and "bad" or "evil" are traditionally referred to a higher morality or absolute morality. I don't believe in such things. In my world view, good, bad (or evil) must relate to the real world and therefore is subject to science. That does not mean science will get definitive answers. But if science cannot, can anything else? Science is mute on the question "Is it moral to beat a child?" Science has nothing to say about such values, and you are, by necessity, dependent upon a "moral zeitgeist" to answer that question for yourself. This is true if you consider morals a matter of opinion and/or construct of society. But "morals" is a word and we, who use it, must define a meaning for it. As I understand the rough concept of morals, morals who are moral must relate at some point to suffering. Now science comes in because suffering is the cause of events which can be in the end reduced to events in the world. On December 15 2012 01:02 HULKAMANIA wrote:Now if you already assume that the outcomes you're testing for in a scientific study (indices of child's self-esteem, for instance, or the absence of violence in his or her interpersonal relationships) are good or bad, then science may provide some insight on how one style of raising a child is tentatively better or worse—i.e. which style tends to result in the most net "good" outcomes. But you did not derive those original assumptions about good or bad from science. Nor are they "subject to science" in any sense at all. They are actually ideological presuppositions that are already in play.
And it's always the assumptions that you don't realize you're making that are the most problematic. You are right, I assume some things. But without it, we have no definition. If everyone means a different thing when talking about morality, it doesn't make much sense to talk about it at all. I consider any 'morality' which does not intend to reduce unnecessary suffering to be not moral at all. This is an assumption I make. Having values for the sake of having values doesn't really make sense to me. Does gay marriage leads to unnecessary suffering? If we want to know this, we could just discuss, or we could try to plan out a scientific endeavor to determine the answer. The thing is you're essentially conceding our main point. You have a belief about what constitutes moral vs. immoral behavior. And I hope that I'm not being unfair when I summarize that belief (roughly) as follows: "Moral behavior avoids causing unnecessary suffering. Immoral behavior causes unnecessary suffering." On a personal level, I find that belief to be rather admirable, and I think that, by and large, the world would be a far happier place if people attempted to keep space for such sentiments in their day to day lives. But the fact of the matter is, as you have admitted, your belief about morality did not originate in scientific research and experimentation, nor is it corroborated by scientific research and experimentation. No amount of scientific activity can generate the principle "Moral behavior avoids causing unnecessary suffering," nor can any amount of scientific activity help one evaluate whether such a statement is true, accurate, or good. Science is somewhat in the moral business as one shall not lie about the experiment and make up data.
No. this just means there are ethical questions involved in the concrete practice of scientific methodology in the life-world. This has nothing to do with science in a way that would be relevant to your thesis.
But in a moral discussion I would invoke science this way: "If we agree about the meaning of the word 'morality', we should use science to get results."
You're begging the entire question... that's a big "if" and that's what we're arguing about. So you agree that science comes after...?
Science itself favors reasoning over emotional reactions.
Let's try not to personify "SCIENCE" as some sort of deity or total weltanschauung. Science is a rather good strategy for producing a certain type of truth-claim. Let's not blow things out of proportion.
In this sense, one could try to use the concept of science even as a reason to establish a morality: With reason we can argue why we should try to avoid unnecessary suffering. (Of course, in many cases it is good to show emotions because we feel better and give valuable information about our feeling to other persons. In this sense, it is not the scientific optimum to keep calm all the time.) If we do something because we should while we don't have to, we can create the concept of values.
I don't understand where the science came in.
Another argument would be that many of us search the true, the good, the beautiful. Why do we do this? Maybe as side product of our evolutionary line, but even if we don't know why, we do know that we seek it. I would count this as a fact, which could be reduced to physical states of the world even though we cannot do it now because the brain and the culture is so complex. We maybe never can. And it sounds useless to create a science for the beautiful. How scientific could aesthetics ever be? I still think that science can at least say some things. If we determine why we never fully agree on what it beautiful, we can do this in a scientific way.
Well, let's not get into aesthetics. That is another question.
Also, whenever you explain something you can't understand "because of evolution," warning bells should be going off in your head. c.f. Gould and Lewontin "The Spandrels of San Marcos"
I don't want a body of authority to determine what is true, what is beautiful or what is good. I want discussion, reason and experiments to the day we cease to exist.
Sure, fine, but I think you may be fetishizing the role of "experiment" and you may have a slightly out of date idea of what "reason" is.
Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:17 HULKAMANIA wrote:As I understand the rough concept of morals, morals who are moral must relate at some point to suffering. Now science comes in because suffering is the cause of events which can be in the end reduced to events in the world. It is only by previously accepting that statement as true that science can weigh in on the matter at all, which is something that you've just admitted yourself. In other words, if one agrees to the first part of the above argument, then the second part follows. But there is no scientific, purely rational, or strictly logical reason at all to agree to the first part of your argument. It is simply an assertion of belief. Now in a free and pluralistic nation, I believe that it behooves us to be respectful one another's sincerely held moral convictions and to allow one another to act on those convictions to the greatest extent compatible with a peaceful and stable society. Conceiving of our own moral convictions as bearing the authority of science and rationality, however, and conceiving of other people's moral convictions as deriving from irrationality or backwardness is a real obstacle to such freedoms. Because, besides being demonstrably incorrect, such assurance that other people can only disagree with one's obviously superior morals because those other people are uneducated, stupid, disingenuous, scheming, or [insert disparaging adjective here] is a sure path to groupthink and persecution. Civil disagreements like the one were having right now show the fruits of protecting freedom of belief, freedom of religion, and freedom of conscience. They keep such disagreements civil. I mean if the state were to try to forcibly assimilate me into their system of Approved Beliefs, my only recourse would be another Crusade! This is in a sense my point. We are aware that we developed morals during our evolution as a social being while we still are selfish and egoistic. We also see that some have more power than others and we are afraid that their opinion trumps ours, even in moral questions. So we want to have the safety of a moral code everyone must agree on, to avoid exploitation. We also are afraid of being the victim of unmoral persons who don't even have a bad conscience when they are done harming us. We like to have eternal rules. The greatest fear I have in a moral debate however is dogma. Immoral things like gay sex or even incest could be viewed as not immoral at all at some point in the future. "Moral" in practice is a construct of society. Now I have an issue with different morals in different societies. If one agrees on to ban gay marriage because of moral issues while another society doesn't really have any beef with gay marriage, I question the concept of morality as universal even thought I often find it described as such. I want to find out what really is moral, what actually is immoral. The best tool I can imagine is science.
LOL what? You are concerned because people are imposing universal morality on what is in fact a social construct, and then you want to "find out what really is moral" with science?? And this right after you say you are worried about dogma and eternal rules?
Tell me, sir, what is the first experiment you will perform?
|
I thought this might be interesting to everyone:
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2012/12/12/tory-voters-split-gay-marriage/
55% of public support gay marriage
Meanwhile, 53% say they support giving churches the choice of whether or not to offer same-sex marriages, while 37% oppose this and 10% don’t know.
This is from a YouGov poll. YouGov are a market research company, and are usually the source of a lot of the stats you read in you paper.
|
Only up to page 4 on this but I don't see why there's so much confusion on this matter. The (Protestant) church is based on the Bible, which regards the act of homosexuality as an abomination. I believe in the old testament the penalty for it was stoning to death, and according to the Bible Sodom and Gomorrah were nuked by God for this particular sin. Even in the new testament the Bible is entirely against the practice of homosexuality, the only difference is the theme is now mercy and the chance to repent (before death anyway) rather than immediate judgement.
Since the Bible is utterly against the practice of homosexuality, how on earth could a legitimate bible-based church be expected to marry homosexuals? Of course there are many "secular" pastors who only seek to please people and don't care about the Bible who will marry gays, but that proves nothing because they clearly aren't faithful to their own religion.
I'm all for freedom including freedom from discrimination, but trying to force bible-based churches to marry gays is nonsensical and I believe is trespassing on the rights of the people who want to peacefully follow their own religion. It is discrimination by practicing homosexuals against heterosexuals and homosexuals who want to follow the Bible.
|
On December 16 2012 03:56 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 18:50 [F_]aths wrote:On December 15 2012 06:26 sam!zdat wrote:On December 15 2012 03:05 [F_]aths wrote:On December 15 2012 01:02 HULKAMANIA wrote:On December 14 2012 23:35 [F_]aths wrote:On December 14 2012 22:48 WhiteDog wrote:On December 14 2012 22:21 [F_]aths wrote:On December 14 2012 21:36 WhiteDog wrote:On December 14 2012 18:08 [F_]aths wrote:
[quote]
If they aren't scientitific, what are they? In a broader sense, anything which is testable and falsifiable is scientific. Social sciences aren't falsifiable, but always historically linked to a certain context - hence why the term "law" hasn't the same sense in economy (it's more tendancies than laws) than in physics. sm!zdat is right when he says that there is no "out of context" or "anhistorical" definition for childs that "do fine". The history of familly or filial love is interesting in this regard. We can measure the child's well-being at least roughly. We can have a rough look if the child is exposed to unnecessary suffering. We do have some rough options to decide if a particular environment to raise a child leads to good or bad results. Is corporal punishment good or bad for the child? Science can say something about it. Can a child be raised by same-sex parents as good as a traditional couple can? This seems to be way more difficult, but I see no reason which prevents a scientificly conducted experimet to find out. We can look at the child's level of happyness (at least roughly), we can see the average level of education and income, of healthiness and so on. I admit that those are just some and only quite rough indicators. But it is better than nothing. Is being gay an illness or a mental disorder? Science seems the best tool we have to determine. You are missing the point. Science can't say what is a "good or bad result" regarding child, because science can't define it scientifically. As for corporal punishment, well "science" can show correlation between corporal punishment and specific objectiv facts - such as number of friends, social behavior, or academic result. That's it. There is no way for sociology or any social science to clearly state that corporal punishment are bad for famillies because it's a moral judgement, that is based on the idea that kids should not get hurt by adults. Stop thinking science can teach us what is or what is not a "good" familly, because it can't. Happyness is defined socially, it's not the same at every layers of the social ladder and it's not a scientific concept that you can "measure". As for gay being a mental disorder or an illness (you don't let a lot of choice, how about gay is a sexual preferance and nothing else ?), "science" showed how it could not judge for that. What is normal and pathological is not objectively defined but linked to a rule, a social norm. For exemple, you can read G. Canguilhem, The normal and the pathological : The Normal and the Pathological is one of the crucial contributions to the history of science in the last half century. It takes as its starting point the sudden appearance of biology as a science in the 19th-century and examines the conditions determining its particular makeup.Canguilhem analyzes the radically new way in which health and disease were defined in the early 19th-century, showing that the emerging categories of the normal and the pathological were far from being objective scientific concepts. He demonstrates how the epistemological foundations of modern biology and medicine were intertwined with political, economic, and technological imperatives. While it is true that our concept of health depends on the cultural tradition and political will, we still can learn some objective facts through science. To not beat a child is now widely viewed as a moral in the western culture. Other cultures or our own culture just some umpteen years earlier, found it a moral imperative to beat the child to educate and raise it. Rather depending on a moral zeitgeist, I would like to investigate this issue with the scientific method. "Good" and "bad" or "evil" are traditionally referred to a higher morality or absolute morality. I don't believe in such things. In my world view, good, bad (or evil) must relate to the real world and therefore is subject to science. That does not mean science will get definitive answers. But if science cannot, can anything else? Science is mute on the question "Is it moral to beat a child?" Science has nothing to say about such values, and you are, by necessity, dependent upon a "moral zeitgeist" to answer that question for yourself. This is true if you consider morals a matter of opinion and/or construct of society. But "morals" is a word and we, who use it, must define a meaning for it. As I understand the rough concept of morals, morals who are moral must relate at some point to suffering. Now science comes in because suffering is the cause of events which can be in the end reduced to events in the world. No. Suffering is a phenomenological event and cannot be reduced to a description of physical states in the world. How would you do this? Why would one configuration of the atoms that make up consciousness be more or less "objectively" moral than another? It is far from an obvious axiom that morality is concerned with the alleviation of suffering. We have to reason it out. A single consciousness can be expected (with our experience) to be selfish. No, I don't accept this premise. At any rate, even if true, this is an observation. You would need an extra step to establish that this was a morally justified way to behave. that question remains open. Show nested quote +
We cannot take just an opinion seriously if there is no good reason given. In my opinion, even a good reason is not enough unless it is backed up by testable data.
So when you want to make friends with someone, and you have a reason to do so, do you wait until there's data? What kind of data would it be? Do you believe in the existence of any useful concepts which are non quantitative?
Friendship itself is backed up by data: The observation of cooperation beyond the level a stranger would do. There are other things in the behaviour which reinforces our feel of mutual trust. Of course, in everyday life I don't try to reduce behaviour to physical states of my mind. For example last time I seriously fell in love, I knew about hormons, optical hints of fertility, about my economic position (a fulltime-job and in principle able to provide for a family) and other signs. It did not reduce my experience, nor did it lessen the heartsickness as I got rejected. I also knew of love as an evolutionary mechanism to increase my willingness to make sacrifices to ensure that possible offsprings are raised. I knew that chemicals in my body are influencing my brain. Still I had the full range of experience, still I wrote a silly love-letter.
In order to define any morals, we do need premises. Since you don't accept my premise, what would you accept?
On December 16 2012 03:56 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +
I am still not sure if we should use the variation of the golden rule (don't treat others in a way you don't like to be treated) as axiomatic because it seems intuitively right or if we shall reduce even this one to physical events.
Ah, now you're on the right track. Go ponder that question for a while.
In the end, even the golden rule should be reducable to physics. The question is imo, if that would be useful. At some point, we have to use presumptions or axioms. For example I believe that the universe exists and that I am not the only sentient and conscious being. I cannot prove the truth of this belief in an absolute sense. If (almost) all of us agree on the golden rule, we still have to discuss it.
Ontopic: 'If you like to have the option of marriage, don't deny it to gays because they might like it, too.' This only works in a moral discussion if the golden rule has been determined being a good moral rule.
On December 16 2012 03:56 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +
I think, if one tries hard enough and goes a way long enough, suffering can be reduced to physical states. Pain itself doesn't exist as an object, it seems to be created by neurons for our conscious perception. As far as we know, neurons follow the chemical / physical laws all the time. We still don't know yet how exactly this can create the perception of pain, but there seems to be no reason to deny a physical cause.
Before we continue on, how familiar are you in general with the mind-body problem, philosophy of consciousness, and so on? What you're saying is an acceptable enough position but I'm just curious if you're familiar with the shape of the debate. My position is that a phenomenological state is ontologically but not epistemologically or conceptually reducible to physical states. It is an emergent property of a physical system. One is right in some sense in saying "it's nothing but cells", but this is not completely true and it's certainly not useful for ethical theorizing. (edit: which is to say, the fact of its ontological reducibility is by far the least interesting thing one could ever say about it)
I don't really see a mind-body-problem. Neuronal cells can influence other cells including other neurons. I see mind as a property emerging out a complex enough information process. Do apes have a mind? Other animals? How can matter create a mind? We don't know yet, but according to our knowledge nothing but matter (in the right configuration) is required. What we can do is to show how a particular wiring can interpret certain patterns as information and make decisions. That doesn't qualify as mind, but with order of magnitudes greater complexity, it could be a mind. Even able to see the world instead just of using image filters and number crunching on optical input data.
I don't know much philosophy of consciousness and think, that neuronal imaging is a good approach to learn more about consciousness. (Surely not the only one, but I guess any usable approach needs to be backed up by testable things.) Of course I have personal experience, too. I noticed that I think in concepts, where a concept is a list of common properties. I use concepts which are built on other concepts, which in turn still use other concepts. Since a concept is (rather often) a simplificatin, I try to be careful when I go into philosophy.
On December 16 2012 03:56 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 06:26 sam!zdat wrote:On December 15 2012 03:05 [F_]aths wrote:
I consider any 'morality' which does not intend to reduce unnecessary suffering to be not moral at all. This is an assumption I make. Having values for the sake of having values doesn't really make sense to me.
These two statements are directly contradictory. If you see the meaning of the moral concept (reduce harm, avoid unnecessary suffering) as value, it is contradictory. Yes, that is a value, and don't you dare tell me it isn't. Show nested quote +
We still can try to reduce that to facts: Suffering is experienced as real even though it is only a state of mind. But we experience everything through our brain anyway. In this sense, suffering is as real as the real world. Then we have the fact that most of us don't like suffering. This makes sense in an evolutionary sense: Pain is a mechanism to get the priorities right when our nerve center (the brain) makes a decision between different options. Unnecessary suffering is pain (in a broader sense, also other forms of pain like the feeling of getting betrayed and other emotions) with no sufficient reason.
So? I don't see why any of this tells me I shouldn't punch you in the face. Why shouldn't I do stuff you don't like? You are on exactly the right track when you say a thing like "suffering is as real as the real world." But you have not followed that through to its conclusion.
I wonder if we play semantic games when it comes to "value". While a value can be a useful concept, I think it can be reduced to facts in the sense of physical states in the world.
Before you consider to punch me in the face, you know that you probably reduce the willingness of me and others to cooperate with you while you are dependent on cooperation by others. But that's not the only reason. You also know that a world in which it is acceptable to punch some TL nerd (or other guys) in the face, is a worse world than we have today. You are able to reflect on "if anyone would to it, how would the world be like?" This insight enables one to be moral.
On December 16 2012 03:56 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +
I am aware that my approach is kind of a reductionist one. Still I think this approach is better than to use the inner sense of disgust (like "gay men sex is disgusting, this cant't be right.")
If those were the only two possibilities, I would be very sad.
What's your approach?
|
On December 16 2012 04:16 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 19:17 [F_]aths wrote:On December 15 2012 08:17 HULKAMANIA wrote:On December 15 2012 03:05 [F_]aths wrote:On December 15 2012 01:02 HULKAMANIA wrote:On December 14 2012 23:35 [F_]aths wrote:On December 14 2012 22:48 WhiteDog wrote:On December 14 2012 22:21 [F_]aths wrote:On December 14 2012 21:36 WhiteDog wrote:On December 14 2012 18:08 [F_]aths wrote:
[quote]
If they aren't scientitific, what are they? In a broader sense, anything which is testable and falsifiable is scientific. Social sciences aren't falsifiable, but always historically linked to a certain context - hence why the term "law" hasn't the same sense in economy (it's more tendancies than laws) than in physics. sm!zdat is right when he says that there is no "out of context" or "anhistorical" definition for childs that "do fine". The history of familly or filial love is interesting in this regard. We can measure the child's well-being at least roughly. We can have a rough look if the child is exposed to unnecessary suffering. We do have some rough options to decide if a particular environment to raise a child leads to good or bad results. Is corporal punishment good or bad for the child? Science can say something about it. Can a child be raised by same-sex parents as good as a traditional couple can? This seems to be way more difficult, but I see no reason which prevents a scientificly conducted experimet to find out. We can look at the child's level of happyness (at least roughly), we can see the average level of education and income, of healthiness and so on. I admit that those are just some and only quite rough indicators. But it is better than nothing. Is being gay an illness or a mental disorder? Science seems the best tool we have to determine. You are missing the point. Science can't say what is a "good or bad result" regarding child, because science can't define it scientifically. As for corporal punishment, well "science" can show correlation between corporal punishment and specific objectiv facts - such as number of friends, social behavior, or academic result. That's it. There is no way for sociology or any social science to clearly state that corporal punishment are bad for famillies because it's a moral judgement, that is based on the idea that kids should not get hurt by adults. Stop thinking science can teach us what is or what is not a "good" familly, because it can't. Happyness is defined socially, it's not the same at every layers of the social ladder and it's not a scientific concept that you can "measure". As for gay being a mental disorder or an illness (you don't let a lot of choice, how about gay is a sexual preferance and nothing else ?), "science" showed how it could not judge for that. What is normal and pathological is not objectively defined but linked to a rule, a social norm. For exemple, you can read G. Canguilhem, The normal and the pathological : The Normal and the Pathological is one of the crucial contributions to the history of science in the last half century. It takes as its starting point the sudden appearance of biology as a science in the 19th-century and examines the conditions determining its particular makeup.Canguilhem analyzes the radically new way in which health and disease were defined in the early 19th-century, showing that the emerging categories of the normal and the pathological were far from being objective scientific concepts. He demonstrates how the epistemological foundations of modern biology and medicine were intertwined with political, economic, and technological imperatives. While it is true that our concept of health depends on the cultural tradition and political will, we still can learn some objective facts through science. To not beat a child is now widely viewed as a moral in the western culture. Other cultures or our own culture just some umpteen years earlier, found it a moral imperative to beat the child to educate and raise it. Rather depending on a moral zeitgeist, I would like to investigate this issue with the scientific method. "Good" and "bad" or "evil" are traditionally referred to a higher morality or absolute morality. I don't believe in such things. In my world view, good, bad (or evil) must relate to the real world and therefore is subject to science. That does not mean science will get definitive answers. But if science cannot, can anything else? Science is mute on the question "Is it moral to beat a child?" Science has nothing to say about such values, and you are, by necessity, dependent upon a "moral zeitgeist" to answer that question for yourself. This is true if you consider morals a matter of opinion and/or construct of society. But "morals" is a word and we, who use it, must define a meaning for it. As I understand the rough concept of morals, morals who are moral must relate at some point to suffering. Now science comes in because suffering is the cause of events which can be in the end reduced to events in the world. On December 15 2012 01:02 HULKAMANIA wrote:Now if you already assume that the outcomes you're testing for in a scientific study (indices of child's self-esteem, for instance, or the absence of violence in his or her interpersonal relationships) are good or bad, then science may provide some insight on how one style of raising a child is tentatively better or worse—i.e. which style tends to result in the most net "good" outcomes. But you did not derive those original assumptions about good or bad from science. Nor are they "subject to science" in any sense at all. They are actually ideological presuppositions that are already in play.
And it's always the assumptions that you don't realize you're making that are the most problematic. You are right, I assume some things. But without it, we have no definition. If everyone means a different thing when talking about morality, it doesn't make much sense to talk about it at all. I consider any 'morality' which does not intend to reduce unnecessary suffering to be not moral at all. This is an assumption I make. Having values for the sake of having values doesn't really make sense to me. Does gay marriage leads to unnecessary suffering? If we want to know this, we could just discuss, or we could try to plan out a scientific endeavor to determine the answer. The thing is you're essentially conceding our main point. You have a belief about what constitutes moral vs. immoral behavior. And I hope that I'm not being unfair when I summarize that belief (roughly) as follows: "Moral behavior avoids causing unnecessary suffering. Immoral behavior causes unnecessary suffering." On a personal level, I find that belief to be rather admirable, and I think that, by and large, the world would be a far happier place if people attempted to keep space for such sentiments in their day to day lives. But the fact of the matter is, as you have admitted, your belief about morality did not originate in scientific research and experimentation, nor is it corroborated by scientific research and experimentation. No amount of scientific activity can generate the principle "Moral behavior avoids causing unnecessary suffering," nor can any amount of scientific activity help one evaluate whether such a statement is true, accurate, or good. Science is somewhat in the moral business as one shall not lie about the experiment and make up data. No. this just means there are ethical questions involved in the concrete practice of scientific methodology in the life-world. This has nothing to do with science in a way that would be relevant to your thesis. Show nested quote +
But in a moral discussion I would invoke science this way: "If we agree about the meaning of the word 'morality', we should use science to get results."
You're begging the entire question... that's a big "if" and that's what we're arguing about. So you agree that science comes after...? Let's try not to personify "SCIENCE" as some sort of deity or total weltanschauung. Science is a rather good strategy for producing a certain type of truth-claim. Let's not blow things out of proportion. Show nested quote +
In this sense, one could try to use the concept of science even as a reason to establish a morality: With reason we can argue why we should try to avoid unnecessary suffering. (Of course, in many cases it is good to show emotions because we feel better and give valuable information about our feeling to other persons. In this sense, it is not the scientific optimum to keep calm all the time.) If we do something because we should while we don't have to, we can create the concept of values.
I don't understand where the science came in.
In retroperspective, me neither.
However, I see science – in a broader sense! – the only viable strategy to produce truth-claims. Truth in the sense of models which allow predictions and which are falsifiable. I don't see any kind of truth which is worth the word which cannot be in principle be explored by science.
On December 16 2012 04:16 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +
Another argument would be that many of us search the true, the good, the beautiful. Why do we do this? Maybe as side product of our evolutionary line, but even if we don't know why, we do know that we seek it. I would count this as a fact, which could be reduced to physical states of the world even though we cannot do it now because the brain and the culture is so complex. We maybe never can. And it sounds useless to create a science for the beautiful. How scientific could aesthetics ever be? I still think that science can at least say some things. If we determine why we never fully agree on what it beautiful, we can do this in a scientific way.
Well, let's not get into aesthetics. That is another question. Also, whenever you explain something you can't understand "because of evolution," warning bells should be going off in your head. c.f. Gould and Lewontin "The Spandrels of San Marcos"
Please summarize the argument of that essay.
On December 16 2012 04:16 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +
I don't want a body of authority to determine what is true, what is beautiful or what is good. I want discussion, reason and experiments to the day we cease to exist.
Sure, fine, but I think you may be fetishizing the role of "experiment" and you may have a slightly out of date idea of what "reason" is. Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:17 HULKAMANIA wrote:As I understand the rough concept of morals, morals who are moral must relate at some point to suffering. Now science comes in because suffering is the cause of events which can be in the end reduced to events in the world. It is only by previously accepting that statement as true that science can weigh in on the matter at all, which is something that you've just admitted yourself. In other words, if one agrees to the first part of the above argument, then the second part follows. But there is no scientific, purely rational, or strictly logical reason at all to agree to the first part of your argument. It is simply an assertion of belief. Now in a free and pluralistic nation, I believe that it behooves us to be respectful one another's sincerely held moral convictions and to allow one another to act on those convictions to the greatest extent compatible with a peaceful and stable society. Conceiving of our own moral convictions as bearing the authority of science and rationality, however, and conceiving of other people's moral convictions as deriving from irrationality or backwardness is a real obstacle to such freedoms. Because, besides being demonstrably incorrect, such assurance that other people can only disagree with one's obviously superior morals because those other people are uneducated, stupid, disingenuous, scheming, or [insert disparaging adjective here] is a sure path to groupthink and persecution. Civil disagreements like the one were having right now show the fruits of protecting freedom of belief, freedom of religion, and freedom of conscience. They keep such disagreements civil. I mean if the state were to try to forcibly assimilate me into their system of Approved Beliefs, my only recourse would be another Crusade! This is in a sense my point. We are aware that we developed morals during our evolution as a social being while we still are selfish and egoistic. We also see that some have more power than others and we are afraid that their opinion trumps ours, even in moral questions. So we want to have the safety of a moral code everyone must agree on, to avoid exploitation. We also are afraid of being the victim of unmoral persons who don't even have a bad conscience when they are done harming us. We like to have eternal rules. The greatest fear I have in a moral debate however is dogma. Immoral things like gay sex or even incest could be viewed as not immoral at all at some point in the future. "Moral" in practice is a construct of society. Now I have an issue with different morals in different societies. If one agrees on to ban gay marriage because of moral issues while another society doesn't really have any beef with gay marriage, I question the concept of morality as universal even thought I often find it described as such. I want to find out what really is moral, what actually is immoral. The best tool I can imagine is science. LOL what? You are concerned because people are imposing universal morality on what is in fact a social construct, and then you want to "find out what really is moral" with science?? And this right after you say you are worried about dogma and eternal rules? Tell me, sir, what is the first experiment you will perform?
Science progresses. With new discoveries, new morals could be developed.
I put reason together with experiments because the approach to understand the world through philosophical discussion failed on many fields. Philosophy didn't detect quantum behavior. Of course, the construction of a particle collider could be still easier than a good social experiment, if it is alone for moral implications (can we deny chances for some just to find out how they develop?)
|
United States42437 Posts
On December 16 2012 17:31 Gendi2545 wrote:
Only up to page 4 on this but I don't see why there's so much confusion on this matter. The (Protestant) church is based on the Bible, which regards the act of homosexuality as an abomination. I believe in the old testament the penalty for it was stoning to death, and according to the Bible Sodom and Gomorrah were nuked by God for this particular sin. Even in the new testament the Bible is entirely against the practice of homosexuality, the only difference is the theme is now mercy and the chance to repent (before death anyway) rather than immediate judgement.
Since the Bible is utterly against the practice of homosexuality, how on earth could a legitimate bible-based church be expected to marry homosexuals? Of course there are many "secular" pastors who only seek to please people and don't care about the Bible who will marry gays, but that proves nothing because they clearly aren't faithful to their own religion.
I'm all for freedom including freedom from discrimination, but trying to force bible-based churches to marry gays is nonsensical and I believe is trespassing on the rights of the people who want to peacefully follow their own religion. It is discrimination by practicing homosexuals against heterosexuals and homosexuals who want to follow the Bible.
There are multiple issues here but one of them is whether freedom of religion exists in terms of actions or if it is only for opinions in which case it is simply freedom of expression, the same right that protects political affiliations. It matters because that freedom does not make your actions, such as denying a service available to the public, free to discriminate in a legal sense. The BNP are allowed to believe Britain should be racially pure but they are not allowed to go further to the action of discriminatory policies. Here the issue is that if religious freedom is just a type of free expression then why should they be able to deny a service in a discriminatory way based on their convictions and if it is it's own special type of freedom, what is it and why does it exist in a secular society.
|
I just want you to tell me what experiment you will perform if you want to falsify the truth claim "to cause suffering is wrong." Be careful that your experiment does not falsify the claim "when a brain looks like this it is suffering" or "most people think that it is wrong to cause suffering" or anything that is not precisely the claim "to cause suffering is wrong."
(the "Spandrels of San Marcos" paper is a rebuttal to a pan-adaptationist paradigm in evolutionary biology, i.e. that all observable traits of organisms are the product of adaptation. I don't think anyone is a pan-adaptationist anymore).
Science without a doubt is not the only way to produce truth-claims. That is the worst of reductionisms, and I think if you just walk around the world and think about it you will see that it is not true. When you are saying "the golden rule reduces to physics" you are trying to be a Kantian, essentially, who wants to make morality objective by resorting to ideas of categorical imperative and so on. I find this absurd but I actually have just finished a lengthy argument about this elsewhere so I'm not sure I want to take it up again right as this moment. (edit: sorry I know it's a copout but literally I just exchanged 120 facebook messages with a phd candidate in phil debating this precise topic and I simply can't talk about it any more!)
All I need to do to refute your claim is simply ask you to design an experiment. (edit: how would you support the truth-claim that "science is the only valid method to produce truth-claims"? Could you prove it in an experiment? How would that work? I don't even know where you would start.)
But let me pose a question, which was posed to me way back on the first day of my first real philosophy class. If you had a book of the world, which told you the location and velocity of every particle in the universe, where would be the part that was "you"?
edit: to answer your final question, my view is that morality is an intersubjective question arising from the fact that there are other people in the world. Morality is the question "how should I behave in my relationships with others?"
|
sam!zdat, are you a deist or theist? I am neither (which qualifies me an an atheist) and I also come from a quite lenghty debate – with a theist, though.
I see science as the only viable method because I consider everything which is testable and falsifiably in principle to be science. I regard an untestable claim worthless in the quest for truth. Which other ways do you accept to produce truth-claims? (Science does not really produce truth-claims, it provides models which should be true within the limits of the model.)
My claim is that models which can be tested are more useful than models which cannot. Untestable models are maybe an intellectual challenge and can fill our need for irrational thoughts. (So they can have some use.) But I don't want to be right by accident, I need to see if my world view does reflect the real universe.
I do want objective morality, but I see the concept of objective morality not in an absolute sense. We only can get so close to a more or less objective model, and since we develop further, even an "objective" morality will change over time. I am also not on Kant's side in the sense that an objective morally despicable action is despicable in any case. (Is lying wrong? Yes. Is it always wrong? I think, almost yes, not always yes.) Is it wrong to break the law? Generally, yes. But what if the law is wrong? I do think that is is possible that a law is wrong even if it was installed by a vote.
I think the book question cannot work because the book must be bigger than the universe itself. I cannot fit its own universe. I, the reader, also must be bigger than the universe to be able to read and understand the entire book. But since a table of particle movements is not the actual particles, moving, I am still I and the book is not me. If I would be copied, particle for particle, we had two [F_]aths, probably each considering himself the original one and developing different personalities from then on because each one will have different experiences.
"Me" is a concept I think which is useful for information processing. Roughly, everything which is neuronally connected to me and does allow direct experience is covered by the concept of "Me" in opposite to "not me". This concept makes it easier to navigate in the world.
My claim about suffering is, that it is bad. If the actor who causes suffering has insight and if he causes unnecessary suffering regardless, the action is wrong. That is how I use the words for moral discussions. I am aware that there are other definitions. I don't need an experiment to prove that causing unnecessary suffering is wrong. Why then it is true? I am not even claiming that it is true in an absolute sense. With our limited mind we cannot determine absolute truth. I am not claiming that it is engraved in the universe by another being, a somehow immaterial morality which we need to discover. I do claim that concepts of good or bad are real in our mind – in the sense that suffering is real in our mind too, and the word "bad" (normally) means suffering in some sense.
|
I'm a pantheist (that's neither a theist, deist, or atheist), but it's not relevant. I could be an atheist and make the same point.
It sounds like you just want to take "suffering = wrong" as an axiom and not present any kind of moral theory. I mean, ok, fine. But that's not very interesting, now is it? You seem to be aware that you cannot design an experiment which would falsify this claim, and so this claim, if true, is not scientific. You seem to then proceed to claim that it's not "true", because all "truth" is scientific truth, but that it is the "true" morality nonetheless simply because you say so. I find this profoundly unphilosophical. You just say "because that is how I use words." Ok. Well what happens if I say "let's use words differently, here's why." All you can do is just get stubborn.
I don't feel like you really have quite grasped the problem here but I don't know how to explain it better. What you're saying doesn't really respond to my point.
Basically you are someone who wants to make a moral claim who is simply (edit: and rather self-righteously) uninterested in defending that claim, and you are someone who is convinced that science is the only way to produce truth claims, again without any interest in defending it - you simply take it as self evident and repeat that claim whenever it is challenged. You must be aware that you cannot prove the claim that science is the only way to produce truth claims with science. I said that before but you ignored it.
It's not that "we cannot get an absolutely objective model of morality," it's that an "objective" model of morality simply doesn't make any sense. It's like saying we're going to find an "objective" model about art. It's a category error. What does ethics taste like? What is the volume of 1 happiness at room temperature?
Yes, when you realize that the book must be bigger than the universe, you realize why being a reductionist is stupid. Ponder that please.
If you're just going to say "suffering is wrong and that's that" please don't engage in discussions about morality on the internet.
edit: when you say "I do claim that good and bad are real in our mind," can you test that with science? What would THAT experiment look like? Same with "suffering is real in our mind." Can you test THAT with an experiment?
edit: btw, the Kant thing has NOTHING to do with the problem of conflict between morality and unjust secular law.
edit: "My claim is that models which can be tested are more useful than models which cannot." You realize that this is an entirely different claim than "only those truth-claims which are produced by science are legitimate." Which is it? Are you making a strong epistemological claim, or a trivial pragmatic observation?
edit: anyway, what is your "model" of morality? "suffering is wrong"? That's not a model at all! Where are the falsifiable and quantifiable predictions?! You don't even have one of these "useful models" and you're going around saying these "useful models" are the only ways to think about anything at all! lol. Even if you were going to reduce all morality to the movement of electrical impulses, the problem would be computationally intractable and would certainly not be "useful."
edit: look, if you want to falsify the claim "it would be wrong if I punched you in the face," you would have to have an operationalized definition of "wrong." Then you would punch me in the face, and see if "wrong" existed after that. What would that be? How would you measure it? You've just been ignoring this question. Earlier, when you tried to explain why it would be wrong for me to punch you in the face, you'll notice that your reasoning had nothing at all to do with science.
edit: at any rate, you seem to have accepted that your claim "suffering is wrong" is not scientific and is merely an arbitrary pronouncement, which proves what I set out to prove, that one cannot ground moral theory in science. ok.
edit:
On December 18 2012 18:24 [F_]aths wrote:
I do think that is is possible that a law is wrong even if it was installed by a vote.
if it were, how would you know?!? science??
edit: hey I'm sorry I'm not trying to yell at you, you stepped on one of my pet peeves and I wrote this before I drank my coffee. I'm not trying to be mean but I really think you are quite wrong. sorry
|
Fear ye, hapless soul of science, ye who rouses the Sam!zdat from his communist slumber.
|
On December 17 2012 23:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 17:31 Gendi2545 wrote:
Only up to page 4 on this but I don't see why there's so much confusion on this matter. The (Protestant) church is based on the Bible, which regards the act of homosexuality as an abomination. I believe in the old testament the penalty for it was stoning to death, and according to the Bible Sodom and Gomorrah were nuked by God for this particular sin. Even in the new testament the Bible is entirely against the practice of homosexuality, the only difference is the theme is now mercy and the chance to repent (before death anyway) rather than immediate judgement.
Since the Bible is utterly against the practice of homosexuality, how on earth could a legitimate bible-based church be expected to marry homosexuals? Of course there are many "secular" pastors who only seek to please people and don't care about the Bible who will marry gays, but that proves nothing because they clearly aren't faithful to their own religion.
I'm all for freedom including freedom from discrimination, but trying to force bible-based churches to marry gays is nonsensical and I believe is trespassing on the rights of the people who want to peacefully follow their own religion. It is discrimination by practicing homosexuals against heterosexuals and homosexuals who want to follow the Bible.
There are multiple issues here but one of them is whether freedom of religion exists in terms of actions or if it is only for opinions in which case it is simply freedom of expression, the same right that protects political affiliations. It matters because that freedom does not make your actions, such as denying a service available to the public, free to discriminate in a legal sense. The BNP are allowed to believe Britain should be racially pure but they are not allowed to go further to the action of discriminatory policies. Here the issue is that if religious freedom is just a type of free expression then why should they be able to deny a service in a discriminatory way based on their convictions and if it is it's own special type of freedom, what is it and why does it exist in a secular society.
Discrimination is required for the church to remain faithful to its beliefs. You would have to eradicate the (biblical) church to remove the discrimination. How is this fair to Christians? It's not like they're burning homosexuals at the stake.
Also, church expenses are paid for by church members. They are tax-exempt, but they are not for-profit organizations (although some pastors are clearly out to fleece the flock). They should be allowed to decide their own policies.
If a certain pastor refuses to marry homosexuals, they can go to a church which will marry homosexuals, or make their own religion. There’s no problem, unless people are so sensitive their lives will be ruined if they’re excluded from a group they don’t want to join.
I would say that one group forcing its views onto another is far more unjust than one group excluding another from one of its traditional ceremonies.
Just out of interest do you think mensa should be forced to accept people with low IQs? Should war veterans clubs be forced to allow anyone to join? And so on.
|
United States42437 Posts
On December 19 2012 03:03 Gendi2545 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 23:43 KwarK wrote:On December 16 2012 17:31 Gendi2545 wrote:
Only up to page 4 on this but I don't see why there's so much confusion on this matter. The (Protestant) church is based on the Bible, which regards the act of homosexuality as an abomination. I believe in the old testament the penalty for it was stoning to death, and according to the Bible Sodom and Gomorrah were nuked by God for this particular sin. Even in the new testament the Bible is entirely against the practice of homosexuality, the only difference is the theme is now mercy and the chance to repent (before death anyway) rather than immediate judgement.
Since the Bible is utterly against the practice of homosexuality, how on earth could a legitimate bible-based church be expected to marry homosexuals? Of course there are many "secular" pastors who only seek to please people and don't care about the Bible who will marry gays, but that proves nothing because they clearly aren't faithful to their own religion.
I'm all for freedom including freedom from discrimination, but trying to force bible-based churches to marry gays is nonsensical and I believe is trespassing on the rights of the people who want to peacefully follow their own religion. It is discrimination by practicing homosexuals against heterosexuals and homosexuals who want to follow the Bible.
There are multiple issues here but one of them is whether freedom of religion exists in terms of actions or if it is only for opinions in which case it is simply freedom of expression, the same right that protects political affiliations. It matters because that freedom does not make your actions, such as denying a service available to the public, free to discriminate in a legal sense. The BNP are allowed to believe Britain should be racially pure but they are not allowed to go further to the action of discriminatory policies. Here the issue is that if religious freedom is just a type of free expression then why should they be able to deny a service in a discriminatory way based on their convictions and if it is it's own special type of freedom, what is it and why does it exist in a secular society. Discrimination is required for the church to remain faithful to its beliefs. You would have to eradicate the (biblical) church to remove the discrimination. How is this fair to Christians? It's not like they're burning homosexuals at the stake. Also, church expenses are paid for by church members. They are tax-exempt, but they are not for-profit organizations (although some pastors are clearly out to fleece the flock). They should be allowed to decide their own policies. If a certain pastor refuses to marry homosexuals, they can go to a church which will marry homosexuals, or make their own religion. There’s no problem, unless people are so sensitive their lives will be ruined if they’re excluded from a group they don’t want to join. I would say that one group forcing its views onto another is far more unjust than one group excluding another from one of its traditional ceremonies. Just out of interest do you think mensa should be forced to accept people with low IQs? Should war veterans clubs be forced to allow anyone to join? And so on.
As a society we come up with legitimate grounds to discriminate upon and illegitimate ones. Age, race, religion, gender (exemptions can apply here), sexuality (I think that's all of them) are the legally protected things which you can't discriminate upon. War veteran clubs can exclude a gay man for not being a war veteran but not for being gay, it's not that you're not allowed to discriminate, it's that you can't discriminate for one of the legally protected reasons.
Churches charge to perform marriages, it's a commercial service available to the general public and should be treated as such. The current fee for a CofE church wedding is £322.
Discrimination on the grounds of race is required for racists to remain faithful to their racist beliefs too. We dealt with that by saying they could still believe racist things but they could not act in a racist way, why can the church not do that regarding gays. I've still not seen a convincing argument for why religious beliefs should be treated any differently to other strongly held beliefs, there are animal rights activists who are far more zealous about that than most Christians, the only argument I see people use is "religion is different because it's religion (which is different)".
Mensa is not legally required to accept them yet (I think) as IQ is not a protected characteristic and therefore they can discriminate based upon it. I can conceive of circumstances under which it would need to be protected but those are theoretical, in practice there is no present case for requiring mensa not discriminate on the grounds of IQ.
|
On December 19 2012 03:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 03:03 Gendi2545 wrote:On December 17 2012 23:43 KwarK wrote:On December 16 2012 17:31 Gendi2545 wrote:
Only up to page 4 on this but I don't see why there's so much confusion on this matter. The (Protestant) church is based on the Bible, which regards the act of homosexuality as an abomination. I believe in the old testament the penalty for it was stoning to death, and according to the Bible Sodom and Gomorrah were nuked by God for this particular sin. Even in the new testament the Bible is entirely against the practice of homosexuality, the only difference is the theme is now mercy and the chance to repent (before death anyway) rather than immediate judgement.
Since the Bible is utterly against the practice of homosexuality, how on earth could a legitimate bible-based church be expected to marry homosexuals? Of course there are many "secular" pastors who only seek to please people and don't care about the Bible who will marry gays, but that proves nothing because they clearly aren't faithful to their own religion.
I'm all for freedom including freedom from discrimination, but trying to force bible-based churches to marry gays is nonsensical and I believe is trespassing on the rights of the people who want to peacefully follow their own religion. It is discrimination by practicing homosexuals against heterosexuals and homosexuals who want to follow the Bible.
There are multiple issues here but one of them is whether freedom of religion exists in terms of actions or if it is only for opinions in which case it is simply freedom of expression, the same right that protects political affiliations. It matters because that freedom does not make your actions, such as denying a service available to the public, free to discriminate in a legal sense. The BNP are allowed to believe Britain should be racially pure but they are not allowed to go further to the action of discriminatory policies. Here the issue is that if religious freedom is just a type of free expression then why should they be able to deny a service in a discriminatory way based on their convictions and if it is it's own special type of freedom, what is it and why does it exist in a secular society. Discrimination is required for the church to remain faithful to its beliefs. You would have to eradicate the (biblical) church to remove the discrimination. How is this fair to Christians? It's not like they're burning homosexuals at the stake. Also, church expenses are paid for by church members. They are tax-exempt, but they are not for-profit organizations (although some pastors are clearly out to fleece the flock). They should be allowed to decide their own policies. If a certain pastor refuses to marry homosexuals, they can go to a church which will marry homosexuals, or make their own religion. There’s no problem, unless people are so sensitive their lives will be ruined if they’re excluded from a group they don’t want to join. I would say that one group forcing its views onto another is far more unjust than one group excluding another from one of its traditional ceremonies. Just out of interest do you think mensa should be forced to accept people with low IQs? Should war veterans clubs be forced to allow anyone to join? And so on. As a society we come up with legitimate grounds to discriminate upon and illegitimate ones. Age, race, religion, gender (exemptions can apply here), sexuality (I think that's all of them) are the legally protected things which you can't discriminate upon. War veteran clubs can exclude a gay man for not being a war veteran but not for being gay, it's not that you're not allowed to discriminate, it's that you can't discriminate for one of the legally protected reasons. Churches charge to perform marriages, it's a commercial service available to the general public and should be treated as such. The current fee for a CofE church wedding is £322. Discrimination on the grounds of race is required for racists to remain faithful to their racist beliefs too. We dealt with that by saying they could still believe racist things but they could not act in a racist way, why can the church not do that regarding gays. I've still not seen a convincing argument for why religious beliefs should be treated any differently to other strongly held beliefs, there are animal rights activists who are far more zealous about that than most Christians, the only argument I see people use is "religion is different because it's religion (which is different)". Mensa is not legally required to accept them yet (I think) as IQ is not a protected characteristic and therefore they can discriminate based upon it. I can conceive of circumstances under which it would need to be protected but those are theoretical, in practice there is no present case for requiring mensa not discriminate on the grounds of IQ.
I'm not so sure the church is actually discriminating against homosexuals. They are welcome to attend church services and activities, and to become Christians themselves. Marriage however, according to the church, is between a man and a woman, not a man and a brick or a man and a man.
A man might legally get married to another man, but then it's not any marriage the Bible would recognize. Gays effectively gain nothing by these laws, while millions of Christians lose the right to legally practice their religion.
As a society we come up with legitimate grounds to discriminate upon and illegitimate ones.
Those laws look good at first glance, but now we've run into this issue. Basically these laws are being used to destroy the church, using government, so the occasional gay couple can get married. This despite the fact they can already get married, just not at every single church.
Given that laws are made to serve humans and not vice-versa, and given that a large proportion of people have religious beliefs they would like protected, perhaps the courts should take a closer look at these laws and modify them if necessary.
It could for example be argued that an employer discriminating against a homosexual causes actual harm, since jobs are scarce and money is needed to survive. A church refusing to marry a gay couple is no big deal, they can simply go to another church that does marry gay couples.
If these laws are strictly enforced without thought they are going to result in a large number of people being oppressed so a few members of a smaller group won't potentially have their feelings hurt.
Also just because laws are passed doesn't mean society as a whole agreed to them. They might have been pushed through by vocal special interest groups, I'm not sure if that is the case here.
|
On December 20 2012 02:30 Gendi2545 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2012 03:14 KwarK wrote:On December 19 2012 03:03 Gendi2545 wrote:On December 17 2012 23:43 KwarK wrote:On December 16 2012 17:31 Gendi2545 wrote:
Only up to page 4 on this but I don't see why there's so much confusion on this matter. The (Protestant) church is based on the Bible, which regards the act of homosexuality as an abomination. I believe in the old testament the penalty for it was stoning to death, and according to the Bible Sodom and Gomorrah were nuked by God for this particular sin. Even in the new testament the Bible is entirely against the practice of homosexuality, the only difference is the theme is now mercy and the chance to repent (before death anyway) rather than immediate judgement.
Since the Bible is utterly against the practice of homosexuality, how on earth could a legitimate bible-based church be expected to marry homosexuals? Of course there are many "secular" pastors who only seek to please people and don't care about the Bible who will marry gays, but that proves nothing because they clearly aren't faithful to their own religion.
I'm all for freedom including freedom from discrimination, but trying to force bible-based churches to marry gays is nonsensical and I believe is trespassing on the rights of the people who want to peacefully follow their own religion. It is discrimination by practicing homosexuals against heterosexuals and homosexuals who want to follow the Bible.
There are multiple issues here but one of them is whether freedom of religion exists in terms of actions or if it is only for opinions in which case it is simply freedom of expression, the same right that protects political affiliations. It matters because that freedom does not make your actions, such as denying a service available to the public, free to discriminate in a legal sense. The BNP are allowed to believe Britain should be racially pure but they are not allowed to go further to the action of discriminatory policies. Here the issue is that if religious freedom is just a type of free expression then why should they be able to deny a service in a discriminatory way based on their convictions and if it is it's own special type of freedom, what is it and why does it exist in a secular society. Discrimination is required for the church to remain faithful to its beliefs. You would have to eradicate the (biblical) church to remove the discrimination. How is this fair to Christians? It's not like they're burning homosexuals at the stake. Also, church expenses are paid for by church members. They are tax-exempt, but they are not for-profit organizations (although some pastors are clearly out to fleece the flock). They should be allowed to decide their own policies. If a certain pastor refuses to marry homosexuals, they can go to a church which will marry homosexuals, or make their own religion. There’s no problem, unless people are so sensitive their lives will be ruined if they’re excluded from a group they don’t want to join. I would say that one group forcing its views onto another is far more unjust than one group excluding another from one of its traditional ceremonies. Just out of interest do you think mensa should be forced to accept people with low IQs? Should war veterans clubs be forced to allow anyone to join? And so on. As a society we come up with legitimate grounds to discriminate upon and illegitimate ones. Age, race, religion, gender (exemptions can apply here), sexuality (I think that's all of them) are the legally protected things which you can't discriminate upon. War veteran clubs can exclude a gay man for not being a war veteran but not for being gay, it's not that you're not allowed to discriminate, it's that you can't discriminate for one of the legally protected reasons. Churches charge to perform marriages, it's a commercial service available to the general public and should be treated as such. The current fee for a CofE church wedding is £322. Discrimination on the grounds of race is required for racists to remain faithful to their racist beliefs too. We dealt with that by saying they could still believe racist things but they could not act in a racist way, why can the church not do that regarding gays. I've still not seen a convincing argument for why religious beliefs should be treated any differently to other strongly held beliefs, there are animal rights activists who are far more zealous about that than most Christians, the only argument I see people use is "religion is different because it's religion (which is different)". Mensa is not legally required to accept them yet (I think) as IQ is not a protected characteristic and therefore they can discriminate based upon it. I can conceive of circumstances under which it would need to be protected but those are theoretical, in practice there is no present case for requiring mensa not discriminate on the grounds of IQ. I'm not so sure the church is actually discriminating against homosexuals. They are welcome to attend church services and activities, and to become Christians themselves. Marriage however, according to the church, is between a man and a woman, not a man and a brick or a man and a man. A man might legally get married to another man, but then it's not any marriage the Bible would recognize. Gays effectively gain nothing by these laws, while millions of Christians lose the right to legally practice their religion. Show nested quote +As a society we come up with legitimate grounds to discriminate upon and illegitimate ones. Those laws look good at first glance, but now we've run into this issue. Basically these laws are being used to destroy the church, using government, so the occasional gay couple can get married. This despite the fact they can already get married, just not at every single church. Given that laws are made to serve humans and not vice-versa, and given that a large proportion of people have religious beliefs they would like protected, perhaps the courts should take a closer look at these laws and modify them if necessary. It could for example be argued that an employer discriminating against a homosexual causes actual harm, since jobs are scarce and money is needed to survive. A church refusing to marry a gay couple is no big deal, they can simply go to another church that does marry gay couples. If these laws are strictly enforced without thought they are going to result in a large number of people being oppressed so a few members of a smaller group won't potentially have their feelings hurt. Also just because laws are passed doesn't mean society as a whole agreed to them. They might have been pushed through by vocal special interest groups, I'm not sure if that is the case here.
If you replaced "gay" with "interracial" throughout your post I feel like you'd have a hard time defending what you're saying. And yes, there was a time when the church thought interracial marriage was a sin as well so it's an appropriate substitution.
|
On December 20 2012 02:36 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 02:30 Gendi2545 wrote:On December 19 2012 03:14 KwarK wrote:On December 19 2012 03:03 Gendi2545 wrote:On December 17 2012 23:43 KwarK wrote:On December 16 2012 17:31 Gendi2545 wrote:
Only up to page 4 on this but I don't see why there's so much confusion on this matter. The (Protestant) church is based on the Bible, which regards the act of homosexuality as an abomination. I believe in the old testament the penalty for it was stoning to death, and according to the Bible Sodom and Gomorrah were nuked by God for this particular sin. Even in the new testament the Bible is entirely against the practice of homosexuality, the only difference is the theme is now mercy and the chance to repent (before death anyway) rather than immediate judgement.
Since the Bible is utterly against the practice of homosexuality, how on earth could a legitimate bible-based church be expected to marry homosexuals? Of course there are many "secular" pastors who only seek to please people and don't care about the Bible who will marry gays, but that proves nothing because they clearly aren't faithful to their own religion.
I'm all for freedom including freedom from discrimination, but trying to force bible-based churches to marry gays is nonsensical and I believe is trespassing on the rights of the people who want to peacefully follow their own religion. It is discrimination by practicing homosexuals against heterosexuals and homosexuals who want to follow the Bible.
There are multiple issues here but one of them is whether freedom of religion exists in terms of actions or if it is only for opinions in which case it is simply freedom of expression, the same right that protects political affiliations. It matters because that freedom does not make your actions, such as denying a service available to the public, free to discriminate in a legal sense. The BNP are allowed to believe Britain should be racially pure but they are not allowed to go further to the action of discriminatory policies. Here the issue is that if religious freedom is just a type of free expression then why should they be able to deny a service in a discriminatory way based on their convictions and if it is it's own special type of freedom, what is it and why does it exist in a secular society. Discrimination is required for the church to remain faithful to its beliefs. You would have to eradicate the (biblical) church to remove the discrimination. How is this fair to Christians? It's not like they're burning homosexuals at the stake. Also, church expenses are paid for by church members. They are tax-exempt, but they are not for-profit organizations (although some pastors are clearly out to fleece the flock). They should be allowed to decide their own policies. If a certain pastor refuses to marry homosexuals, they can go to a church which will marry homosexuals, or make their own religion. There’s no problem, unless people are so sensitive their lives will be ruined if they’re excluded from a group they don’t want to join. I would say that one group forcing its views onto another is far more unjust than one group excluding another from one of its traditional ceremonies. Just out of interest do you think mensa should be forced to accept people with low IQs? Should war veterans clubs be forced to allow anyone to join? And so on. As a society we come up with legitimate grounds to discriminate upon and illegitimate ones. Age, race, religion, gender (exemptions can apply here), sexuality (I think that's all of them) are the legally protected things which you can't discriminate upon. War veteran clubs can exclude a gay man for not being a war veteran but not for being gay, it's not that you're not allowed to discriminate, it's that you can't discriminate for one of the legally protected reasons. Churches charge to perform marriages, it's a commercial service available to the general public and should be treated as such. The current fee for a CofE church wedding is £322. Discrimination on the grounds of race is required for racists to remain faithful to their racist beliefs too. We dealt with that by saying they could still believe racist things but they could not act in a racist way, why can the church not do that regarding gays. I've still not seen a convincing argument for why religious beliefs should be treated any differently to other strongly held beliefs, there are animal rights activists who are far more zealous about that than most Christians, the only argument I see people use is "religion is different because it's religion (which is different)". Mensa is not legally required to accept them yet (I think) as IQ is not a protected characteristic and therefore they can discriminate based upon it. I can conceive of circumstances under which it would need to be protected but those are theoretical, in practice there is no present case for requiring mensa not discriminate on the grounds of IQ. I'm not so sure the church is actually discriminating against homosexuals. They are welcome to attend church services and activities, and to become Christians themselves. Marriage however, according to the church, is between a man and a woman, not a man and a brick or a man and a man. A man might legally get married to another man, but then it's not any marriage the Bible would recognize. Gays effectively gain nothing by these laws, while millions of Christians lose the right to legally practice their religion. As a society we come up with legitimate grounds to discriminate upon and illegitimate ones. Those laws look good at first glance, but now we've run into this issue. Basically these laws are being used to destroy the church, using government, so the occasional gay couple can get married. This despite the fact they can already get married, just not at every single church. Given that laws are made to serve humans and not vice-versa, and given that a large proportion of people have religious beliefs they would like protected, perhaps the courts should take a closer look at these laws and modify them if necessary. It could for example be argued that an employer discriminating against a homosexual causes actual harm, since jobs are scarce and money is needed to survive. A church refusing to marry a gay couple is no big deal, they can simply go to another church that does marry gay couples. If these laws are strictly enforced without thought they are going to result in a large number of people being oppressed so a few members of a smaller group won't potentially have their feelings hurt. Also just because laws are passed doesn't mean society as a whole agreed to them. They might have been pushed through by vocal special interest groups, I'm not sure if that is the case here. If you replaced "gay" with "interracial" throughout your post I feel like you'd have a hard time defending what you're saying. And yes, there was a time when the church thought interracial marriage was a sin as well so it's an appropriate substitution.
That's not a valid point at all.
Firstly, there are many churches with completely different views. For example the Catholic Church, Protestant Church and Jehovah's Witnesses are completely different, to the point that they consider each other heretical and damned to hell. I'm trying to represent the views of the mainstream Calvinist and Arminian Protestant Churches, which base their views solely on the Bible (in contrast to the other churches mentioned).
Secondly, the Bible doesn't specifically forbid interracial marriage, and quite a few verses imply it is acceptable, so there's no reason for churches to oppose it. Homosexuality, on the other hand, the Bible has very harsh words for.
Bible-based churches in more racist times might wrongly have condemned interracial marriage (not sure how many did), but there are no gray areas in gay marriage.
|
On December 20 2012 04:08 Gendi2545 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 02:36 Klondikebar wrote:On December 20 2012 02:30 Gendi2545 wrote:On December 19 2012 03:14 KwarK wrote:On December 19 2012 03:03 Gendi2545 wrote:On December 17 2012 23:43 KwarK wrote:On December 16 2012 17:31 Gendi2545 wrote:
Only up to page 4 on this but I don't see why there's so much confusion on this matter. The (Protestant) church is based on the Bible, which regards the act of homosexuality as an abomination. I believe in the old testament the penalty for it was stoning to death, and according to the Bible Sodom and Gomorrah were nuked by God for this particular sin. Even in the new testament the Bible is entirely against the practice of homosexuality, the only difference is the theme is now mercy and the chance to repent (before death anyway) rather than immediate judgement.
Since the Bible is utterly against the practice of homosexuality, how on earth could a legitimate bible-based church be expected to marry homosexuals? Of course there are many "secular" pastors who only seek to please people and don't care about the Bible who will marry gays, but that proves nothing because they clearly aren't faithful to their own religion.
I'm all for freedom including freedom from discrimination, but trying to force bible-based churches to marry gays is nonsensical and I believe is trespassing on the rights of the people who want to peacefully follow their own religion. It is discrimination by practicing homosexuals against heterosexuals and homosexuals who want to follow the Bible.
There are multiple issues here but one of them is whether freedom of religion exists in terms of actions or if it is only for opinions in which case it is simply freedom of expression, the same right that protects political affiliations. It matters because that freedom does not make your actions, such as denying a service available to the public, free to discriminate in a legal sense. The BNP are allowed to believe Britain should be racially pure but they are not allowed to go further to the action of discriminatory policies. Here the issue is that if religious freedom is just a type of free expression then why should they be able to deny a service in a discriminatory way based on their convictions and if it is it's own special type of freedom, what is it and why does it exist in a secular society. Discrimination is required for the church to remain faithful to its beliefs. You would have to eradicate the (biblical) church to remove the discrimination. How is this fair to Christians? It's not like they're burning homosexuals at the stake. Also, church expenses are paid for by church members. They are tax-exempt, but they are not for-profit organizations (although some pastors are clearly out to fleece the flock). They should be allowed to decide their own policies. If a certain pastor refuses to marry homosexuals, they can go to a church which will marry homosexuals, or make their own religion. There’s no problem, unless people are so sensitive their lives will be ruined if they’re excluded from a group they don’t want to join. I would say that one group forcing its views onto another is far more unjust than one group excluding another from one of its traditional ceremonies. Just out of interest do you think mensa should be forced to accept people with low IQs? Should war veterans clubs be forced to allow anyone to join? And so on. As a society we come up with legitimate grounds to discriminate upon and illegitimate ones. Age, race, religion, gender (exemptions can apply here), sexuality (I think that's all of them) are the legally protected things which you can't discriminate upon. War veteran clubs can exclude a gay man for not being a war veteran but not for being gay, it's not that you're not allowed to discriminate, it's that you can't discriminate for one of the legally protected reasons. Churches charge to perform marriages, it's a commercial service available to the general public and should be treated as such. The current fee for a CofE church wedding is £322. Discrimination on the grounds of race is required for racists to remain faithful to their racist beliefs too. We dealt with that by saying they could still believe racist things but they could not act in a racist way, why can the church not do that regarding gays. I've still not seen a convincing argument for why religious beliefs should be treated any differently to other strongly held beliefs, there are animal rights activists who are far more zealous about that than most Christians, the only argument I see people use is "religion is different because it's religion (which is different)". Mensa is not legally required to accept them yet (I think) as IQ is not a protected characteristic and therefore they can discriminate based upon it. I can conceive of circumstances under which it would need to be protected but those are theoretical, in practice there is no present case for requiring mensa not discriminate on the grounds of IQ. I'm not so sure the church is actually discriminating against homosexuals. They are welcome to attend church services and activities, and to become Christians themselves. Marriage however, according to the church, is between a man and a woman, not a man and a brick or a man and a man. A man might legally get married to another man, but then it's not any marriage the Bible would recognize. Gays effectively gain nothing by these laws, while millions of Christians lose the right to legally practice their religion. As a society we come up with legitimate grounds to discriminate upon and illegitimate ones. Those laws look good at first glance, but now we've run into this issue. Basically these laws are being used to destroy the church, using government, so the occasional gay couple can get married. This despite the fact they can already get married, just not at every single church. Given that laws are made to serve humans and not vice-versa, and given that a large proportion of people have religious beliefs they would like protected, perhaps the courts should take a closer look at these laws and modify them if necessary. It could for example be argued that an employer discriminating against a homosexual causes actual harm, since jobs are scarce and money is needed to survive. A church refusing to marry a gay couple is no big deal, they can simply go to another church that does marry gay couples. If these laws are strictly enforced without thought they are going to result in a large number of people being oppressed so a few members of a smaller group won't potentially have their feelings hurt. Also just because laws are passed doesn't mean society as a whole agreed to them. They might have been pushed through by vocal special interest groups, I'm not sure if that is the case here. If you replaced "gay" with "interracial" throughout your post I feel like you'd have a hard time defending what you're saying. And yes, there was a time when the church thought interracial marriage was a sin as well so it's an appropriate substitution. That's not a valid point at all. Firstly, there are many churches with completely different views. For example the Catholic Church, Protestant Church and Jehovah's Witnesses are completely different, to the point that they consider each other heretical and damned to hell. I'm trying to represent the views of the mainstream Calvinist and Arminian Protestant Churches, which base their views solely on the Bible (in contrast to the other churches mentioned). Secondly, the Bible doesn't specifically forbid interracial marriage, and quite a few verses imply it is acceptable, so there's no reason for churches to oppose it. Homosexuality, on the other hand, the Bible has very harsh words for. Bible-based churches in more racist times might wrongly have condemned interracial marriage (not sure how many did), but there are no gray areas in gay marriage.
There are plenty of verses that people believe are about interracial marriage:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/marracbib.htm
Thank god I found a website debunking them as a source because it would be awful to give a hate sight traffic.
And I don't know why you go on about different churches. I don't care that churches believe different things. We're talking about churches that believe gay marriage is wrong. And you're doing a fine job of representing their views. I'm just pointing out that the logic of their views is horribly flawed and very arguably bigoted. We don't offer racism any sort of legal protection, I find it odd that people think homophobia deserves legal protection.
|
On December 20 2012 04:08 Gendi2545 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 02:36 Klondikebar wrote:On December 20 2012 02:30 Gendi2545 wrote:On December 19 2012 03:14 KwarK wrote:On December 19 2012 03:03 Gendi2545 wrote:On December 17 2012 23:43 KwarK wrote:On December 16 2012 17:31 Gendi2545 wrote:
Only up to page 4 on this but I don't see why there's so much confusion on this matter. The (Protestant) church is based on the Bible, which regards the act of homosexuality as an abomination. I believe in the old testament the penalty for it was stoning to death, and according to the Bible Sodom and Gomorrah were nuked by God for this particular sin. Even in the new testament the Bible is entirely against the practice of homosexuality, the only difference is the theme is now mercy and the chance to repent (before death anyway) rather than immediate judgement.
Since the Bible is utterly against the practice of homosexuality, how on earth could a legitimate bible-based church be expected to marry homosexuals? Of course there are many "secular" pastors who only seek to please people and don't care about the Bible who will marry gays, but that proves nothing because they clearly aren't faithful to their own religion.
I'm all for freedom including freedom from discrimination, but trying to force bible-based churches to marry gays is nonsensical and I believe is trespassing on the rights of the people who want to peacefully follow their own religion. It is discrimination by practicing homosexuals against heterosexuals and homosexuals who want to follow the Bible.
There are multiple issues here but one of them is whether freedom of religion exists in terms of actions or if it is only for opinions in which case it is simply freedom of expression, the same right that protects political affiliations. It matters because that freedom does not make your actions, such as denying a service available to the public, free to discriminate in a legal sense. The BNP are allowed to believe Britain should be racially pure but they are not allowed to go further to the action of discriminatory policies. Here the issue is that if religious freedom is just a type of free expression then why should they be able to deny a service in a discriminatory way based on their convictions and if it is it's own special type of freedom, what is it and why does it exist in a secular society. Discrimination is required for the church to remain faithful to its beliefs. You would have to eradicate the (biblical) church to remove the discrimination. How is this fair to Christians? It's not like they're burning homosexuals at the stake. Also, church expenses are paid for by church members. They are tax-exempt, but they are not for-profit organizations (although some pastors are clearly out to fleece the flock). They should be allowed to decide their own policies. If a certain pastor refuses to marry homosexuals, they can go to a church which will marry homosexuals, or make their own religion. There’s no problem, unless people are so sensitive their lives will be ruined if they’re excluded from a group they don’t want to join. I would say that one group forcing its views onto another is far more unjust than one group excluding another from one of its traditional ceremonies. Just out of interest do you think mensa should be forced to accept people with low IQs? Should war veterans clubs be forced to allow anyone to join? And so on. As a society we come up with legitimate grounds to discriminate upon and illegitimate ones. Age, race, religion, gender (exemptions can apply here), sexuality (I think that's all of them) are the legally protected things which you can't discriminate upon. War veteran clubs can exclude a gay man for not being a war veteran but not for being gay, it's not that you're not allowed to discriminate, it's that you can't discriminate for one of the legally protected reasons. Churches charge to perform marriages, it's a commercial service available to the general public and should be treated as such. The current fee for a CofE church wedding is £322. Discrimination on the grounds of race is required for racists to remain faithful to their racist beliefs too. We dealt with that by saying they could still believe racist things but they could not act in a racist way, why can the church not do that regarding gays. I've still not seen a convincing argument for why religious beliefs should be treated any differently to other strongly held beliefs, there are animal rights activists who are far more zealous about that than most Christians, the only argument I see people use is "religion is different because it's religion (which is different)". Mensa is not legally required to accept them yet (I think) as IQ is not a protected characteristic and therefore they can discriminate based upon it. I can conceive of circumstances under which it would need to be protected but those are theoretical, in practice there is no present case for requiring mensa not discriminate on the grounds of IQ. I'm not so sure the church is actually discriminating against homosexuals. They are welcome to attend church services and activities, and to become Christians themselves. Marriage however, according to the church, is between a man and a woman, not a man and a brick or a man and a man. A man might legally get married to another man, but then it's not any marriage the Bible would recognize. Gays effectively gain nothing by these laws, while millions of Christians lose the right to legally practice their religion. As a society we come up with legitimate grounds to discriminate upon and illegitimate ones. Those laws look good at first glance, but now we've run into this issue. Basically these laws are being used to destroy the church, using government, so the occasional gay couple can get married. This despite the fact they can already get married, just not at every single church. Given that laws are made to serve humans and not vice-versa, and given that a large proportion of people have religious beliefs they would like protected, perhaps the courts should take a closer look at these laws and modify them if necessary. It could for example be argued that an employer discriminating against a homosexual causes actual harm, since jobs are scarce and money is needed to survive. A church refusing to marry a gay couple is no big deal, they can simply go to another church that does marry gay couples. If these laws are strictly enforced without thought they are going to result in a large number of people being oppressed so a few members of a smaller group won't potentially have their feelings hurt. Also just because laws are passed doesn't mean society as a whole agreed to them. They might have been pushed through by vocal special interest groups, I'm not sure if that is the case here. If you replaced "gay" with "interracial" throughout your post I feel like you'd have a hard time defending what you're saying. And yes, there was a time when the church thought interracial marriage was a sin as well so it's an appropriate substitution. That's not a valid point at all. Firstly, there are many churches with completely different views. For example the Catholic Church, Protestant Church and Jehovah's Witnesses are completely different, to the point that they consider each other heretical and damned to hell. I'm trying to represent the views of the mainstream Calvinist and Arminian Protestant Churches, which base their views solely on the Bible (in contrast to the other churches mentioned). Secondly, the Bible doesn't specifically forbid interracial marriage, and quite a few verses imply it is acceptable, so there's no reason for churches to oppose it. Homosexuality, on the other hand, the Bible has very harsh words for. Bible-based churches in more racist times might wrongly have condemned interracial marriage (not sure how many did), but there are no gray areas in gay marriage.
Just to clarify, sola scriptura does not equate with literalist exegesis, meaning that while all Protestant denominations do indeed consider the Bible the final word on God's message, they all bring with them differing brands of interpretation. Using "bible-based" as a descriptor is misleading, in that there are many "bible-based" churches that preach individual, subjective biblical interpretation/exegesis. I find it odd you decided to name drop Calvinism and Arminianism, when neither has anything explicitly to do with biblical interpretation.
Edit: And the condemnation of other denominations is a fundamentalist idea that is losing ground amongst mainstream Protestant denominations.
Edit: Additionally, to suggest that there is no grey area when it comes to old testament exegesis suggests to me that you have relatively little actual contact with mainstream, non-fundamentalist Christianity.
|
On December 20 2012 04:20 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 04:08 Gendi2545 wrote:On December 20 2012 02:36 Klondikebar wrote:On December 20 2012 02:30 Gendi2545 wrote:On December 19 2012 03:14 KwarK wrote:On December 19 2012 03:03 Gendi2545 wrote:On December 17 2012 23:43 KwarK wrote:On December 16 2012 17:31 Gendi2545 wrote:
Only up to page 4 on this but I don't see why there's so much confusion on this matter. The (Protestant) church is based on the Bible, which regards the act of homosexuality as an abomination. I believe in the old testament the penalty for it was stoning to death, and according to the Bible Sodom and Gomorrah were nuked by God for this particular sin. Even in the new testament the Bible is entirely against the practice of homosexuality, the only difference is the theme is now mercy and the chance to repent (before death anyway) rather than immediate judgement.
Since the Bible is utterly against the practice of homosexuality, how on earth could a legitimate bible-based church be expected to marry homosexuals? Of course there are many "secular" pastors who only seek to please people and don't care about the Bible who will marry gays, but that proves nothing because they clearly aren't faithful to their own religion.
I'm all for freedom including freedom from discrimination, but trying to force bible-based churches to marry gays is nonsensical and I believe is trespassing on the rights of the people who want to peacefully follow their own religion. It is discrimination by practicing homosexuals against heterosexuals and homosexuals who want to follow the Bible.
There are multiple issues here but one of them is whether freedom of religion exists in terms of actions or if it is only for opinions in which case it is simply freedom of expression, the same right that protects political affiliations. It matters because that freedom does not make your actions, such as denying a service available to the public, free to discriminate in a legal sense. The BNP are allowed to believe Britain should be racially pure but they are not allowed to go further to the action of discriminatory policies. Here the issue is that if religious freedom is just a type of free expression then why should they be able to deny a service in a discriminatory way based on their convictions and if it is it's own special type of freedom, what is it and why does it exist in a secular society. Discrimination is required for the church to remain faithful to its beliefs. You would have to eradicate the (biblical) church to remove the discrimination. How is this fair to Christians? It's not like they're burning homosexuals at the stake. Also, church expenses are paid for by church members. They are tax-exempt, but they are not for-profit organizations (although some pastors are clearly out to fleece the flock). They should be allowed to decide their own policies. If a certain pastor refuses to marry homosexuals, they can go to a church which will marry homosexuals, or make their own religion. There’s no problem, unless people are so sensitive their lives will be ruined if they’re excluded from a group they don’t want to join. I would say that one group forcing its views onto another is far more unjust than one group excluding another from one of its traditional ceremonies. Just out of interest do you think mensa should be forced to accept people with low IQs? Should war veterans clubs be forced to allow anyone to join? And so on. As a society we come up with legitimate grounds to discriminate upon and illegitimate ones. Age, race, religion, gender (exemptions can apply here), sexuality (I think that's all of them) are the legally protected things which you can't discriminate upon. War veteran clubs can exclude a gay man for not being a war veteran but not for being gay, it's not that you're not allowed to discriminate, it's that you can't discriminate for one of the legally protected reasons. Churches charge to perform marriages, it's a commercial service available to the general public and should be treated as such. The current fee for a CofE church wedding is £322. Discrimination on the grounds of race is required for racists to remain faithful to their racist beliefs too. We dealt with that by saying they could still believe racist things but they could not act in a racist way, why can the church not do that regarding gays. I've still not seen a convincing argument for why religious beliefs should be treated any differently to other strongly held beliefs, there are animal rights activists who are far more zealous about that than most Christians, the only argument I see people use is "religion is different because it's religion (which is different)". Mensa is not legally required to accept them yet (I think) as IQ is not a protected characteristic and therefore they can discriminate based upon it. I can conceive of circumstances under which it would need to be protected but those are theoretical, in practice there is no present case for requiring mensa not discriminate on the grounds of IQ. I'm not so sure the church is actually discriminating against homosexuals. They are welcome to attend church services and activities, and to become Christians themselves. Marriage however, according to the church, is between a man and a woman, not a man and a brick or a man and a man. A man might legally get married to another man, but then it's not any marriage the Bible would recognize. Gays effectively gain nothing by these laws, while millions of Christians lose the right to legally practice their religion. As a society we come up with legitimate grounds to discriminate upon and illegitimate ones. Those laws look good at first glance, but now we've run into this issue. Basically these laws are being used to destroy the church, using government, so the occasional gay couple can get married. This despite the fact they can already get married, just not at every single church. Given that laws are made to serve humans and not vice-versa, and given that a large proportion of people have religious beliefs they would like protected, perhaps the courts should take a closer look at these laws and modify them if necessary. It could for example be argued that an employer discriminating against a homosexual causes actual harm, since jobs are scarce and money is needed to survive. A church refusing to marry a gay couple is no big deal, they can simply go to another church that does marry gay couples. If these laws are strictly enforced without thought they are going to result in a large number of people being oppressed so a few members of a smaller group won't potentially have their feelings hurt. Also just because laws are passed doesn't mean society as a whole agreed to them. They might have been pushed through by vocal special interest groups, I'm not sure if that is the case here. If you replaced "gay" with "interracial" throughout your post I feel like you'd have a hard time defending what you're saying. And yes, there was a time when the church thought interracial marriage was a sin as well so it's an appropriate substitution. That's not a valid point at all. Firstly, there are many churches with completely different views. For example the Catholic Church, Protestant Church and Jehovah's Witnesses are completely different, to the point that they consider each other heretical and damned to hell. I'm trying to represent the views of the mainstream Calvinist and Arminian Protestant Churches, which base their views solely on the Bible (in contrast to the other churches mentioned). Secondly, the Bible doesn't specifically forbid interracial marriage, and quite a few verses imply it is acceptable, so there's no reason for churches to oppose it. Homosexuality, on the other hand, the Bible has very harsh words for. Bible-based churches in more racist times might wrongly have condemned interracial marriage (not sure how many did), but there are no gray areas in gay marriage. There are plenty of verses that people believe are about interracial marriage: http://www.religioustolerance.org/marracbib.htmThank god I found a website debunking them as a source because it would be awful to give a hate sight traffic.
There are arguments for and against. People are always misrepresenting verses to support their biases, if someone is interested in what the Bible really says it's best to look at both sides of the argument, compare what they say to what the Bible says and cross out the biased party. It's not all that relevant.
And I don't know why you go on about different churches. I don't care that churches believe different things. I don't care that churches believe different things. We're talking about churches that believe gay marriage is wrong. And you're doing a fine job of representing their views. I'm just pointing out that the logic of their views is horribly flawed and very arguably bigoted. We don't offer racism any sort of legal protection, I find it odd that people think homophobia deserves legal protection.
I'm arguing this because I believe in the God of the Bible and religious debate interests me, not necessarily because I like God or not.
When a church refuses to marry a gay couple it's not because they hate gays, like racists hate people of different colour. They love gays if they truly follow the Bible. They refuse the marriage solely because they genuinely believe it is wrong and are only following their deep beliefs. They do no physical or verbal harm to the gay couple, and wish them no harm. They can go to another church to get married.
The real bigotry is when homosexuals force their own views onto the church.
|
On December 20 2012 05:07 Gendi2545 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 04:20 Klondikebar wrote:On December 20 2012 04:08 Gendi2545 wrote:On December 20 2012 02:36 Klondikebar wrote:On December 20 2012 02:30 Gendi2545 wrote:On December 19 2012 03:14 KwarK wrote:On December 19 2012 03:03 Gendi2545 wrote:On December 17 2012 23:43 KwarK wrote:On December 16 2012 17:31 Gendi2545 wrote:
Only up to page 4 on this but I don't see why there's so much confusion on this matter. The (Protestant) church is based on the Bible, which regards the act of homosexuality as an abomination. I believe in the old testament the penalty for it was stoning to death, and according to the Bible Sodom and Gomorrah were nuked by God for this particular sin. Even in the new testament the Bible is entirely against the practice of homosexuality, the only difference is the theme is now mercy and the chance to repent (before death anyway) rather than immediate judgement.
Since the Bible is utterly against the practice of homosexuality, how on earth could a legitimate bible-based church be expected to marry homosexuals? Of course there are many "secular" pastors who only seek to please people and don't care about the Bible who will marry gays, but that proves nothing because they clearly aren't faithful to their own religion.
I'm all for freedom including freedom from discrimination, but trying to force bible-based churches to marry gays is nonsensical and I believe is trespassing on the rights of the people who want to peacefully follow their own religion. It is discrimination by practicing homosexuals against heterosexuals and homosexuals who want to follow the Bible.
There are multiple issues here but one of them is whether freedom of religion exists in terms of actions or if it is only for opinions in which case it is simply freedom of expression, the same right that protects political affiliations. It matters because that freedom does not make your actions, such as denying a service available to the public, free to discriminate in a legal sense. The BNP are allowed to believe Britain should be racially pure but they are not allowed to go further to the action of discriminatory policies. Here the issue is that if religious freedom is just a type of free expression then why should they be able to deny a service in a discriminatory way based on their convictions and if it is it's own special type of freedom, what is it and why does it exist in a secular society. Discrimination is required for the church to remain faithful to its beliefs. You would have to eradicate the (biblical) church to remove the discrimination. How is this fair to Christians? It's not like they're burning homosexuals at the stake. Also, church expenses are paid for by church members. They are tax-exempt, but they are not for-profit organizations (although some pastors are clearly out to fleece the flock). They should be allowed to decide their own policies. If a certain pastor refuses to marry homosexuals, they can go to a church which will marry homosexuals, or make their own religion. There’s no problem, unless people are so sensitive their lives will be ruined if they’re excluded from a group they don’t want to join. I would say that one group forcing its views onto another is far more unjust than one group excluding another from one of its traditional ceremonies. Just out of interest do you think mensa should be forced to accept people with low IQs? Should war veterans clubs be forced to allow anyone to join? And so on. As a society we come up with legitimate grounds to discriminate upon and illegitimate ones. Age, race, religion, gender (exemptions can apply here), sexuality (I think that's all of them) are the legally protected things which you can't discriminate upon. War veteran clubs can exclude a gay man for not being a war veteran but not for being gay, it's not that you're not allowed to discriminate, it's that you can't discriminate for one of the legally protected reasons. Churches charge to perform marriages, it's a commercial service available to the general public and should be treated as such. The current fee for a CofE church wedding is £322. Discrimination on the grounds of race is required for racists to remain faithful to their racist beliefs too. We dealt with that by saying they could still believe racist things but they could not act in a racist way, why can the church not do that regarding gays. I've still not seen a convincing argument for why religious beliefs should be treated any differently to other strongly held beliefs, there are animal rights activists who are far more zealous about that than most Christians, the only argument I see people use is "religion is different because it's religion (which is different)". Mensa is not legally required to accept them yet (I think) as IQ is not a protected characteristic and therefore they can discriminate based upon it. I can conceive of circumstances under which it would need to be protected but those are theoretical, in practice there is no present case for requiring mensa not discriminate on the grounds of IQ. I'm not so sure the church is actually discriminating against homosexuals. They are welcome to attend church services and activities, and to become Christians themselves. Marriage however, according to the church, is between a man and a woman, not a man and a brick or a man and a man. A man might legally get married to another man, but then it's not any marriage the Bible would recognize. Gays effectively gain nothing by these laws, while millions of Christians lose the right to legally practice their religion. As a society we come up with legitimate grounds to discriminate upon and illegitimate ones. Those laws look good at first glance, but now we've run into this issue. Basically these laws are being used to destroy the church, using government, so the occasional gay couple can get married. This despite the fact they can already get married, just not at every single church. Given that laws are made to serve humans and not vice-versa, and given that a large proportion of people have religious beliefs they would like protected, perhaps the courts should take a closer look at these laws and modify them if necessary. It could for example be argued that an employer discriminating against a homosexual causes actual harm, since jobs are scarce and money is needed to survive. A church refusing to marry a gay couple is no big deal, they can simply go to another church that does marry gay couples. If these laws are strictly enforced without thought they are going to result in a large number of people being oppressed so a few members of a smaller group won't potentially have their feelings hurt. Also just because laws are passed doesn't mean society as a whole agreed to them. They might have been pushed through by vocal special interest groups, I'm not sure if that is the case here. If you replaced "gay" with "interracial" throughout your post I feel like you'd have a hard time defending what you're saying. And yes, there was a time when the church thought interracial marriage was a sin as well so it's an appropriate substitution. That's not a valid point at all. Firstly, there are many churches with completely different views. For example the Catholic Church, Protestant Church and Jehovah's Witnesses are completely different, to the point that they consider each other heretical and damned to hell. I'm trying to represent the views of the mainstream Calvinist and Arminian Protestant Churches, which base their views solely on the Bible (in contrast to the other churches mentioned). Secondly, the Bible doesn't specifically forbid interracial marriage, and quite a few verses imply it is acceptable, so there's no reason for churches to oppose it. Homosexuality, on the other hand, the Bible has very harsh words for. Bible-based churches in more racist times might wrongly have condemned interracial marriage (not sure how many did), but there are no gray areas in gay marriage. There are plenty of verses that people believe are about interracial marriage: http://www.religioustolerance.org/marracbib.htmThank god I found a website debunking them as a source because it would be awful to give a hate sight traffic. There are arguments for and against. People are always misrepresenting verses to support their biases, if someone is interested in what the Bible really says it's best to look at both sides of the argument, compare what they say to what the Bible says and cross out the biased party. It's not all that relevant. Show nested quote +
And I don't know why you go on about different churches. I don't care that churches believe different things. I don't care that churches believe different things. We're talking about churches that believe gay marriage is wrong. And you're doing a fine job of representing their views. I'm just pointing out that the logic of their views is horribly flawed and very arguably bigoted. We don't offer racism any sort of legal protection, I find it odd that people think homophobia deserves legal protection.
I'm arguing this because I believe in the God of the Bible and religious debate interests me, not necessarily because I like God or not. When a church refuses to marry a gay couple it's not because they hate gays, like racists hate people of different colour. They love gays if they truly follow the Bible. They refuse the marriage solely because they genuinely believe it is wrong and are only following their deep beliefs. They do no physical or verbal harm to the gay couple, and wish them no harm. They can go to another church to get married. The real bigotry is when homosexuals force their own views onto the church.
Let's try this:
When a church refuses to marry an interracial couple it's not because they hate blacks, like racists hate people of different colour. They love blacks if they truly follow the Bible. They refuse the marriage solely because they genuinely believe it is wrong and are only following their deep beliefs. They do no physical or verbal harm to the interracial couple, and wish them no harm. They can go to another church to get married.
Now I suspect that the reason most people think that racism and homophobia are different is because they still believe sexual orientation is a choice. It's the only way you can rationalize a difference between the two. Arguing whether or not sexual orientation is a choice just isn't an argument I'm going to have anymore. It's patently silly to think it's a choice and it's certainly not a credible position worthy of any real consideration.
|
On December 20 2012 02:36 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 02:30 Gendi2545 wrote:On December 19 2012 03:14 KwarK wrote:On December 19 2012 03:03 Gendi2545 wrote:On December 17 2012 23:43 KwarK wrote:On December 16 2012 17:31 Gendi2545 wrote:
Only up to page 4 on this but I don't see why there's so much confusion on this matter. The (Protestant) church is based on the Bible, which regards the act of homosexuality as an abomination. I believe in the old testament the penalty for it was stoning to death, and according to the Bible Sodom and Gomorrah were nuked by God for this particular sin. Even in the new testament the Bible is entirely against the practice of homosexuality, the only difference is the theme is now mercy and the chance to repent (before death anyway) rather than immediate judgement.
Since the Bible is utterly against the practice of homosexuality, how on earth could a legitimate bible-based church be expected to marry homosexuals? Of course there are many "secular" pastors who only seek to please people and don't care about the Bible who will marry gays, but that proves nothing because they clearly aren't faithful to their own religion.
I'm all for freedom including freedom from discrimination, but trying to force bible-based churches to marry gays is nonsensical and I believe is trespassing on the rights of the people who want to peacefully follow their own religion. It is discrimination by practicing homosexuals against heterosexuals and homosexuals who want to follow the Bible.
There are multiple issues here but one of them is whether freedom of religion exists in terms of actions or if it is only for opinions in which case it is simply freedom of expression, the same right that protects political affiliations. It matters because that freedom does not make your actions, such as denying a service available to the public, free to discriminate in a legal sense. The BNP are allowed to believe Britain should be racially pure but they are not allowed to go further to the action of discriminatory policies. Here the issue is that if religious freedom is just a type of free expression then why should they be able to deny a service in a discriminatory way based on their convictions and if it is it's own special type of freedom, what is it and why does it exist in a secular society. Discrimination is required for the church to remain faithful to its beliefs. You would have to eradicate the (biblical) church to remove the discrimination. How is this fair to Christians? It's not like they're burning homosexuals at the stake. Also, church expenses are paid for by church members. They are tax-exempt, but they are not for-profit organizations (although some pastors are clearly out to fleece the flock). They should be allowed to decide their own policies. If a certain pastor refuses to marry homosexuals, they can go to a church which will marry homosexuals, or make their own religion. There’s no problem, unless people are so sensitive their lives will be ruined if they’re excluded from a group they don’t want to join. I would say that one group forcing its views onto another is far more unjust than one group excluding another from one of its traditional ceremonies. Just out of interest do you think mensa should be forced to accept people with low IQs? Should war veterans clubs be forced to allow anyone to join? And so on. As a society we come up with legitimate grounds to discriminate upon and illegitimate ones. Age, race, religion, gender (exemptions can apply here), sexuality (I think that's all of them) are the legally protected things which you can't discriminate upon. War veteran clubs can exclude a gay man for not being a war veteran but not for being gay, it's not that you're not allowed to discriminate, it's that you can't discriminate for one of the legally protected reasons. Churches charge to perform marriages, it's a commercial service available to the general public and should be treated as such. The current fee for a CofE church wedding is £322. Discrimination on the grounds of race is required for racists to remain faithful to their racist beliefs too. We dealt with that by saying they could still believe racist things but they could not act in a racist way, why can the church not do that regarding gays. I've still not seen a convincing argument for why religious beliefs should be treated any differently to other strongly held beliefs, there are animal rights activists who are far more zealous about that than most Christians, the only argument I see people use is "religion is different because it's religion (which is different)". Mensa is not legally required to accept them yet (I think) as IQ is not a protected characteristic and therefore they can discriminate based upon it. I can conceive of circumstances under which it would need to be protected but those are theoretical, in practice there is no present case for requiring mensa not discriminate on the grounds of IQ. I'm not so sure the church is actually discriminating against homosexuals. They are welcome to attend church services and activities, and to become Christians themselves. Marriage however, according to the church, is between a man and a woman, not a man and a brick or a man and a man. A man might legally get married to another man, but then it's not any marriage the Bible would recognize. Gays effectively gain nothing by these laws, while millions of Christians lose the right to legally practice their religion. As a society we come up with legitimate grounds to discriminate upon and illegitimate ones. Those laws look good at first glance, but now we've run into this issue. Basically these laws are being used to destroy the church, using government, so the occasional gay couple can get married. This despite the fact they can already get married, just not at every single church. Given that laws are made to serve humans and not vice-versa, and given that a large proportion of people have religious beliefs they would like protected, perhaps the courts should take a closer look at these laws and modify them if necessary. It could for example be argued that an employer discriminating against a homosexual causes actual harm, since jobs are scarce and money is needed to survive. A church refusing to marry a gay couple is no big deal, they can simply go to another church that does marry gay couples. If these laws are strictly enforced without thought they are going to result in a large number of people being oppressed so a few members of a smaller group won't potentially have their feelings hurt. Also just because laws are passed doesn't mean society as a whole agreed to them. They might have been pushed through by vocal special interest groups, I'm not sure if that is the case here. If you replaced "gay" with "interracial" throughout your post I feel like you'd have a hard time defending what you're saying. And yes, there was a time when the church thought interracial marriage was a sin as well so it's an appropriate substitution.
One can't "come out" from their race.
No more than someone disowning their parents makes them an orphan. Or qualify for orphan benefits.
|
United States42437 Posts
It's not that they hate gays, they love gays, they just don't want them to have the same things straight people take for granted. It's not at all like racists who never believe they have justifications for their racist actions in their racist beliefs, racists act purely out of hate. What total nonsense.
|
United States42437 Posts
Hattori, I think you're confused about what coming out is. It's not when you make up your mind and decide to be gay, it's when you decide to inform your social group that their default assumption about your sexuality is wrong. A mixed race man whose friends thought he was just tanned could absolutely come out about his race. All coming out is is sharing information about yourself to your peers so they can make their assumptions more accurate. I live in England, have an English accent and made this topic, you could assume I have four English grandparents. If I then said my grandfather spoke Welsh you would change your assumption to me being a quarter Welsh. That would be coming out about my cultural heritage. The only difference is that I'd rather be gay than a quarter Welsh.
|
Singapore147 Posts
Would you be satisfied if they changed the Church of England's ability to conduct legal weddings? i.e. Marriage as a religious ceremony, but that still requires a certificate of marriage from an external source in order for the marriage to be legal. Would you then be okay with them excluding homosexuals from these weddings?
|
On December 20 2012 21:49 pigscanfly wrote:
Would you be satisfied if they changed the Church of England's ability to conduct legal weddings? i.e. Marriage as a religious ceremony, but that still requires a certificate of marriage from an external source in order for the marriage to be legal. Would you then be okay with them excluding homosexuals from these weddings?
I'd be no more OK with it than if it was legal for a restaurant to deny service to black people.
|
Is it discrimination if I go into the doctor and ask for FtM sex change surgery, and they tell me no, sorry, only females can get that?
What if I ask for a funeral and they say, no, sorry, only dead people can get that? Is it discrimination?
|
United States42437 Posts
On December 21 2012 12:40 sam!zdat wrote:
Is it discrimination if I go into the doctor and ask for FtM sex change surgery, and they tell me no, sorry, only females can get that?
What if I ask for a funeral and they say, no, sorry, only dead people can get that? Is it discrimination?
Clearly you haven't read or understood the OP. No, it's not discrimination to be denied something that doesn't exist, that's pretty much the entire point to this topic. The church can currently refuse to perform them because they don't exist, if gay marriage is introduced then they won't legally be able to discriminate. That's what the topic is about, that's the point.
|
I don't think there exists a christian rite to marry homosexual partners and there won't exist one no matter how you change the law. You cannot legalize a spiritual rite into being. You could force them to perform a non-existent rite after newly made up rules, in an in your face kind of way, I guess. I'm unsure if that would be all that beneficial.
|
|
|
On December 21 2012 22:13 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 12:40 sam!zdat wrote:
Is it discrimination if I go into the doctor and ask for FtM sex change surgery, and they tell me no, sorry, only females can get that?
What if I ask for a funeral and they say, no, sorry, only dead people can get that? Is it discrimination? Clearly you haven't read or understood the OP.
Nah, you just don't catch my point.
No, it's not discrimination to be denied something that doesn't exist, that's pretty much the entire point to this topic. The church can currently refuse to perform them because they don't exist, if gay marriage is introduced then they won't legally be able to discriminate. That's what the topic is about, that's the point.
Yes but will you outlaw the belief that gay marriage doesn't exist?
edit: at any rate, I've already adequately expounded my views on this topic, I feel. I just wanted to poke some fun at the inanity of "because it's discrimination!!" as that is an overused line of argument in our culture.
edit: you realize that you want to outlaw the belief that "marriage is for procreation." Like, you want to make it ILLEGAL for people to hold that as a sincere religious belief. What an absurdity that you promote this in the name of "freedom." It's the worst of hypocrisy
|
On December 22 2012 01:17 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 22:13 KwarK wrote:On December 21 2012 12:40 sam!zdat wrote:
Is it discrimination if I go into the doctor and ask for FtM sex change surgery, and they tell me no, sorry, only females can get that?
What if I ask for a funeral and they say, no, sorry, only dead people can get that? Is it discrimination? Clearly you haven't read or understood the OP. Nah, you just don't catch my point. Show nested quote +
No, it's not discrimination to be denied something that doesn't exist, that's pretty much the entire point to this topic. The church can currently refuse to perform them because they don't exist, if gay marriage is introduced then they won't legally be able to discriminate. That's what the topic is about, that's the point.
Yes but will you outlaw the belief that gay marriage doesn't exist? edit: at any rate, I've already adequately expounded my views on this topic, I feel. I just wanted to poke some fun at the inanity of "because it's discrimination!!" as that is an overused line of argument in our culture. edit: you realize that you want to outlaw the belief that "marriage is for procreation." Like, you want to make it ILLEGAL for people to hold that as a sincere religious belief. What an absurdity that you promote this in the name of "freedom." It's the worst of hypocrisy
Gay marriage clearly exists. Believing that it doesn't is akin to believing that math doesn't exist. And you're more than welcome to believe that marriage exists only for procreation. If you do then you yourself would only get married when you wanted kids. You are, however, not allowed to tell other people that they may not get married. And, until you can tell us how homosexuality is different than being black and how a wedding service is different than service at a restaurant, it should be illegal to discriminate on those grounds.
You are misunderstanding what it means for a belief to be personal.
|
On December 22 2012 01:40 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 01:17 sam!zdat wrote:On December 21 2012 22:13 KwarK wrote:On December 21 2012 12:40 sam!zdat wrote:
Is it discrimination if I go into the doctor and ask for FtM sex change surgery, and they tell me no, sorry, only females can get that?
What if I ask for a funeral and they say, no, sorry, only dead people can get that? Is it discrimination? Clearly you haven't read or understood the OP. Nah, you just don't catch my point.
No, it's not discrimination to be denied something that doesn't exist, that's pretty much the entire point to this topic. The church can currently refuse to perform them because they don't exist, if gay marriage is introduced then they won't legally be able to discriminate. That's what the topic is about, that's the point.
Yes but will you outlaw the belief that gay marriage doesn't exist? edit: at any rate, I've already adequately expounded my views on this topic, I feel. I just wanted to poke some fun at the inanity of "because it's discrimination!!" as that is an overused line of argument in our culture. edit: you realize that you want to outlaw the belief that "marriage is for procreation." Like, you want to make it ILLEGAL for people to hold that as a sincere religious belief. What an absurdity that you promote this in the name of "freedom." It's the worst of hypocrisy And you're more than welcome to believe that marriage exists only for procreation.
But not welcome to belong to a church that believes that (unless under the even more terrible "opting out" scheme).
edit: one should assume that all things are different from all other things until demonstrated otherwise.
edit: I spilled quite a bit of ink a few pages ago explaining why it was different than a restaurant, although I know you don't want to listen. You prefer just to insist on the impossibility of the task.
edit: please, please, let's not put gay marriage on the level of a priori concept (mathematics) that is an egregious error and surely you must know this
edit: and when you legislate that the church must marry you, will you also legislate against them hating your guts for it?
edit: and don't disguise the issue. It's not "telling gay people they can't get married" it's "telling gay people they can't get married in this church, because it is contradictory to our theological conviction"
edit: is it discrimination if you can't get your way EVERYWHERE?
|
United States42437 Posts
On December 22 2012 01:17 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 22:13 KwarK wrote:On December 21 2012 12:40 sam!zdat wrote:
Is it discrimination if I go into the doctor and ask for FtM sex change surgery, and they tell me no, sorry, only females can get that?
What if I ask for a funeral and they say, no, sorry, only dead people can get that? Is it discrimination? Clearly you haven't read or understood the OP. Nah, you just don't catch my point. Show nested quote +
No, it's not discrimination to be denied something that doesn't exist, that's pretty much the entire point to this topic. The church can currently refuse to perform them because they don't exist, if gay marriage is introduced then they won't legally be able to discriminate. That's what the topic is about, that's the point.
Yes but will you outlaw the belief that gay marriage doesn't exist? edit: at any rate, I've already adequately expounded my views on this topic, I feel. I just wanted to poke some fun at the inanity of "because it's discrimination!!" as that is an overused line of argument in our culture. edit: you realize that you want to outlaw the belief that "marriage is for procreation." Like, you want to make it ILLEGAL for people to hold that as a sincere religious belief. What an absurdity that you promote this in the name of "freedom." It's the worst of hypocrisy
Nope, you can believe whatever you like. What you can't do is do whatever you like. You can believe that you should sacrifice kids to the sun god but what you can't do is murder some kids. You can believe that Britain should be a purely Anglo-Saxon nation but you can't refuse access to your club to black people because they're black. If this law passes you'll still be able to believe that a marriage between two men isn't a real marriage but you won't be able to refuse them one.
The idea that limiting what you can do is new is absurd., Every law ever has limited what you can do. This is no different.
|
United States42437 Posts
On December 22 2012 01:42 sam!zdat wrote:
edit: is it discrimination if you can't get your way EVERYWHERE?
When getting your way is used to mean "being treated like a normal human being" then yes, it is discrimination. This isn't especially complicated.
Is it really discrimination if you only have to sit at the back of some of the buses?
|
On December 21 2012 22:47 stormtemplar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 22:20 silynxer wrote:
I don't think there exists a christian rite to marry homosexual partners and there won't exist one no matter how you change the law. You cannot legalize a spiritual rite into being. You could force them to perform a non-existent rite after newly made up rules, in an in your face kind of way, I guess. I'm unsure if that would be all that beneficial. Umm except there is. The Episcopal church in the USA blesses homosexual unions, and I think there are homosexual priests.
That's awesome and they'll be able to marry homosexual couples in the UK then but what I wanted to say was not so much about something all common christian churches share but that many churches right now (like Catholics or Muslims etc.) do not have a rite to marry gay couples. They are quite explicit about the gender roles in their rites (for example women cannot become priests in a lot of churches etc.).
|
On December 22 2012 03:44 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 22:47 stormtemplar wrote:On December 21 2012 22:20 silynxer wrote:
I don't think there exists a christian rite to marry homosexual partners and there won't exist one no matter how you change the law. You cannot legalize a spiritual rite into being. You could force them to perform a non-existent rite after newly made up rules, in an in your face kind of way, I guess. I'm unsure if that would be all that beneficial. Umm except there is. The Episcopal church in the USA blesses homosexual unions, and I think there are homosexual priests. That's awesome and they'll be able to marry homosexual couples in the UK then but what I wanted to say was not so much about something all common christian churches share but that many churches right now (like Catholics or Muslims etc.) do not have a rite to marry gay couples. They are quite explicit about the gender roles in their rites (for example women cannot become priests in a lot of churches etc.).
Yes they do...it's called a marriage ceremony. I'm pretty sure it would be trivial to change "bride" to "groom" or vice-versa. I just got back from a wedding actually. There's nothing inherently gendered about the ceremony except maybe one or two lines in the vows.
|
Uhm, the whole believe system around what a specific marriage rite is about is heavily gendered in a lot of churches, for example it can be centered around procreation and the subsequent foundation of a family (note that it's not about the ability to adopt). That may be bigoted but that's not the point. So no they cannot just change some words to adjust the rite.
[EDIT]: You want to establish what any marriage rite ever is about, that's quite invasive.
|
On December 22 2012 04:08 silynxer wrote:
Uhm, the whole believe system around what a specific marriage rite is about is heavily gendered in a lot of churches, for example it can be centered around procreation and the subsequent foundation of a family (note that it's not about the ability to adopt). That may be bigoted but that's not the point. So no they cannot just change some words to adjust the rite.
You weren't talking about belief. You said that churches didn't a rite. But "gay" marriage isn't any different than any other marriage. It's just marriage. If all you want is a script for it (and a rite is really just a script), that already exists.
|
On December 22 2012 04:11 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 04:08 silynxer wrote:
Uhm, the whole believe system around what a specific marriage rite is about is heavily gendered in a lot of churches, for example it can be centered around procreation and the subsequent foundation of a family (note that it's not about the ability to adopt). That may be bigoted but that's not the point. So no they cannot just change some words to adjust the rite. You weren't talking about belief. You said that churches didn't a rite. But "gay" marriage isn't any different than any other marriage. It's just marriage. If all you want is a script for it (and a rite is really just a script), that already exists.
Lol? How does a church separate rites from believes? I'm a bit dumbfounded how you could suggest such a thing. Well, perhaps that happens if you see marriage just as an transaction and deny any spirituality to be of importance.
|
On December 22 2012 04:15 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 04:11 Klondikebar wrote:On December 22 2012 04:08 silynxer wrote:
Uhm, the whole believe system around what a specific marriage rite is about is heavily gendered in a lot of churches, for example it can be centered around procreation and the subsequent foundation of a family (note that it's not about the ability to adopt). That may be bigoted but that's not the point. So no they cannot just change some words to adjust the rite. You weren't talking about belief. You said that churches didn't a rite. But "gay" marriage isn't any different than any other marriage. It's just marriage. If all you want is a script for it (and a rite is really just a script), that already exists. Lol? How does a church separate rites from believes? I'm a bit dumbfounded how you could suggest such a thing. Well, perhaps that happens if you see marriage just as an transaction and deny any spirituality to be of importance.
I...wait...this...confused. You really can't differentiate between a belief and the ritualistic expression of said belief?
|
I'm not sure if you are going down the semantic road here but ritualistic expression is a bit more than what the word expression implies for many religious rites. That's why the rite itself is seen as holy, why it is important. The more you think of believing as some abstract thing the less you can understand that you can also "live a believe" but look for example at dervishes for a rather obvious case.
|
Bible and Gay Marriage or Partnerships
There is no mention of same-sex marriages or partnerships in the Bible, either for or against. The omission is probably because these issues were not even considered in Biblical times. As so, no religious institution who has its faith founded in the bible can proclaim they wish to deny or not preform same sex marriages do to their religion (bible)
There are twelve mentions of homosexual acts in the Bible:
+ Show Spoiler + 2 refer to rape (Genesis 19:5, Judges 19:22) 5 refer to cult prostitution (Deuteronomy 23:17-18, 1 Kings 14:23-24, 15:12-13, 22:46, 2 Kings 23:6-8) 1 refers to prostitution and pederasty (1 Corinthians 6 -10) 4 are nonspecific (Leviticus 18:21-22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Timothy 1:8-10)
Old Testament
The first mention in the Bible is in Genesis 19:1-13. + Show Spoiler +The wicked men of Sodom attempted a homosexual rape of two messengers from God who had come to visit Lot. As a result of this and other widespread wickedness, God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah in a storm of fire and brimstone.
The next two mentions are in Leviticus:
+ Show Spoiler + You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. (NKJ, Leviticus 18:22)
If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. (NKJ, Leviticus 20:13)
Life was harsh in early Old Testament times. The wanderings and struggle for survival of the Israelites did not permit prisons or rehabilitation. Anyone who deviated seriously from the norm was either stoned to death or exiled. The Old Testament prescribed the death penalty for the crimes of murder, attacking or cursing a parent, kidnapping, failure to confine a dangerous animal resulting in death, witchcraft and sorcery, sex with an animal, doing work on the Sabbath, incest, adultery, homosexual acts, prostitution by a priest's daughter, blasphemy, false prophecy, perjury in capital cases and false claim of a woman's virginity at the time of marriage.
It must be emphasized that, according to the New Testament, we are no longer under the harsh Old Testament Law (John 1:16-17, Romans 8:1-3, 1 Corinthians 9:20-21). The concern with punishment is now secondary to Jesus' message of repentance and redemption. Both reward and punishment are seen as properly taking place in eternity, rather than in this life.
In Old Testament times, homosexual activity was strongly associated with idolatrous cult prostitution as in 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12. (There was also cult prostitution by females.) In fact, the word "abomination," used in both mentions of homosexual acts in Leviticus, is a translation of the Hebrew word tow' ebah which, according to Strong's Greek/Hebrew Dictionary, means something morally disgusting, but it also has a strong implication of idolatry. Thus, many Bible scholars believe the condemnations in Leviticus are more a condemnation of the idolatry than of the homosexual acts themselves. However, that interpretation is not certain.
New Testament
Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, but He did condemn all forms of sexual immorality: However, he never explained. sexual immorality + Show Spoiler +What comes out of you is what defiles you. For from within, out of your hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile you. (TNIV, Mark 7:20-23)
The apostle Paul, in one of his letters to the Corinthians, wrote the verses most often quoted on this subject:
+ Show Spoiler + Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (NIV, 1st Corinthians 6 -11)
This verse has been translated in as many different ways as there are different versions of the Bible, so we have to look at the original Greek to see what Paul was really saying. According to Thayer's Greek Lexicon, the word translated here as "male prostitute" is the Greek word malakos which literally means "soft to the touch." However, it was used metaphorically in a negative way to refer to a catamite (a boy kept for sexual relations with a man) or to a male prostitute in general. The word translated here as "homosexual offender" is the Greek word arsenokoites which means a sodomite, a person who engages in any kind of unnatural sex, but especially homosexual intercourse. Some believe this use of arsenokoites referred specifically to the men who kept catamites, but that is not certain.
There are two other New Testament mentions of homosexual acts, in Romans 1:25-27 and 1 Timothy 1:8-10. In this passage from Romans, again in the context of idolatry, Paul mentions women who "exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones," which might apply to lesbian acts:
+ Show Spoiler + They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-- who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (NIV, Romans 1:25-27)
Paul was writing this after encountering a cult. The cult practiced sexual orgies in the worship if an Idle. It is unclear weather Paul is condemning the sexual worship practice or consensual sex between 2 men.
Issues and Questions
As with many Bible topics, there are uncertainties and different opinions about how the Biblical evidence should be interpreted. The challenge of accurate interpretation is to determine what message was originally intended and how it was understood by people of that time. That involves a lot of specialized knowledge of the original Biblical languages as well as the culture and issues of the time. The Bible often speaks of sexual matters in euphemistic and vague terms, and there is a lack of understanding of how the people of several thousand years ago used and understood those terms.
The traditional interpretation of Bible teachings has took up the option that homosexual acts of all kinds are serious sins. But in recent years, a number of questions and issues have been raised which challenge the traditional opinionated interpretation:
Are consensual homosexual acts prohibited by the Bible, or were the Bible passages intended to apply only to homosexual acts of rape, prostitution, pederasty and idolatry?
Even if consensual homosexual acts are not specifically addressed, would they be prohibited under the more general prohibition against "fornication" or "sexual immorality?" (Matthew 15:18-20, Mark 7:20-23, Galatians 5:19-21) The Bible never gives a list of exactly what acts are considered immoral, so there is no definite answer to this question.
Is the husband-wife model desirable for everyone (Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:4-5, Mark 10:6-8), or not (Matthew 19:10-12, 1 Corinthians 7: 7-9)?
Is the New Testament prohibition against homosexual acts an important spiritual law for all times? Or was it more just a warning against creating a scandal by violating the cultural norms of that time in history, as in the case of slavery (1 Corinthians 7: 21-22, Ephesians 6:5-6), the role of women (1 Corinthians 14:33-35), dress (1 Corinthians 11:4-7), etc.?
Our answers to these questions tend to be strongly influenced by our personal feelings about homosexuality. But, if we are sincere about using the Bible for guidance, we must not assume that the Bible passages on homosexuality support our own conservative or liberal viewpoints. Instead, we must put aside our own ideas, feelings and fears and prayerfully seek the truth.
Avoiding Self-righteousness
Ironically, homosexuality also poses a challenge for heterosexual Christians. We may let feelings of contempt or fear lead us into the sin of self-righteousness. But Jesus and other New Testament leaders taught by word and example not to be self-righteous or discriminate against those we consider to be "sinners" (Matthew 9:10-13, Luke 7:36-48, 18: 9-14)
Further, Jesus told us to eliminate the sins in our own lives rather than passing judgment or looking down on others. For if we judge other people harshly, we will, in turn, be judged harshly:
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. (NIV, Matthew 7:1-2)
Christians have a responsibility to correct matters of wrongdoing among themselves (Matthew 18:15-17) but this should always be done fairly and with compassion. We are never to take upon ourselves the task of judgment that belongs to God alone (Hebrews 10:30, Romans 14:10-13, 1 Corinthians 4:5.)
James makes it clear that we must treat others with mercy, not with judgment or partiality (prejudice)
You do well if you really fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." But if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For the one who said, "You shall not commit adultery," also said, "You shall not murder." Now if you do not commit adultery but if you murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. For judgment will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment. (NRSV, James 2:8-13)
As Christians, we must remember that all of us are sinners in our own ways (Romans 3:21-24, 5:12). Despite that, God loves all His children (Genesis 1:31, Psalms 145: 9, Matthew 5:43-45, John 3:16, Romans 5:8). We cannot afford to let our feelings or fears about homosexuality blind us to Jesus' commandment to "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:36-39). As Christians we have no moral or religious standing to deny the rights or happiness of theirs. To stand against same sex marriage would be to commit sin of self-righteousness.
|
On December 22 2012 04:20 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 04:15 silynxer wrote:On December 22 2012 04:11 Klondikebar wrote:On December 22 2012 04:08 silynxer wrote:
Uhm, the whole believe system around what a specific marriage rite is about is heavily gendered in a lot of churches, for example it can be centered around procreation and the subsequent foundation of a family (note that it's not about the ability to adopt). That may be bigoted but that's not the point. So no they cannot just change some words to adjust the rite. You weren't talking about belief. You said that churches didn't a rite. But "gay" marriage isn't any different than any other marriage. It's just marriage. If all you want is a script for it (and a rite is really just a script), that already exists. Lol? How does a church separate rites from believes? I'm a bit dumbfounded how you could suggest such a thing. Well, perhaps that happens if you see marriage just as an transaction and deny any spirituality to be of importance. I...wait...this...confused. You really can't differentiate between a belief and the ritualistic expression of said belief?
of course not...
On December 22 2012 02:22 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 01:42 sam!zdat wrote:
edit: is it discrimination if you can't get your way EVERYWHERE? When getting your way is used to mean "being treated like a normal human being" then yes, it is discrimination. This isn't especially complicated. Is it really discrimination if you only have to sit at the back of some of the buses?
I think part of being treated like a normal human being is having freedom of religion.
Anyway, my point is just that going about this with legal means is a category error and a stupid strategic mistake on the part of gay people. But this ideology of foolish formal 'equality' is pretty deeply entrenched and maybe no more blows against it will be struck here.
edit: look, the only way someone can countenance this law is by thinking that religion is stupid and that all religious people are stupid. I know that you guys think this, and I know that you feel very self-righteous in this belief. So you should stop pretending and just demand that we outlaw religion. My comrades the bolsheviks would be proud.
On December 22 2012 02:20 KwarK wrote:
If this law passes you'll still be able to believe that a marriage between two men isn't a real marriage but you won't be able to refuse them one.
So where do I gain the ability to object to the demands of secular authority and refuse to participate in something I disagree with? Does that ever apply? If so, when, and under what circumstances?
You think that you are promoting a just cause, and you are, but you have not fully considered the philosophical implications of the way you want to go about pursuing it.
edit: if the state wants to impose this view on the Church of England, on the other hand, that would in my view be totally acceptable, since it's the state's church in the first place.
|
Its all about taxes.
Men marrying other men is $$$.
Even if your all about women its totally in your interest to marry a man for more money through the way household incomes work. Its quite a bit of cash too!
|
United States42437 Posts
On December 22 2012 04:57 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 04:20 Klondikebar wrote:On December 22 2012 04:15 silynxer wrote:On December 22 2012 04:11 Klondikebar wrote:On December 22 2012 04:08 silynxer wrote:
Uhm, the whole believe system around what a specific marriage rite is about is heavily gendered in a lot of churches, for example it can be centered around procreation and the subsequent foundation of a family (note that it's not about the ability to adopt). That may be bigoted but that's not the point. So no they cannot just change some words to adjust the rite. You weren't talking about belief. You said that churches didn't a rite. But "gay" marriage isn't any different than any other marriage. It's just marriage. If all you want is a script for it (and a rite is really just a script), that already exists. Lol? How does a church separate rites from believes? I'm a bit dumbfounded how you could suggest such a thing. Well, perhaps that happens if you see marriage just as an transaction and deny any spirituality to be of importance. I...wait...this...confused. You really can't differentiate between a belief and the ritualistic expression of said belief? of course not... Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 02:22 KwarK wrote:On December 22 2012 01:42 sam!zdat wrote:
edit: is it discrimination if you can't get your way EVERYWHERE? When getting your way is used to mean "being treated like a normal human being" then yes, it is discrimination. This isn't especially complicated. Is it really discrimination if you only have to sit at the back of some of the buses? I think part of being treated like a normal human being is having freedom of religion. Anyway, my point is just that going about this with legal means is a category error and a stupid strategic mistake on the part of gay people. But this ideology of foolish formal 'equality' is pretty deeply entrenched and maybe no more blows against it will be struck here. edit: look, the only way someone can countenance this law is by thinking that religion is stupid and that all religious people are stupid. I know that you guys think this, and I know that you feel very self-righteous in this belief. So you should stop pretending and just demand that we outlaw religion. My comrades the bolsheviks would be proud. Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 02:20 KwarK wrote:
If this law passes you'll still be able to believe that a marriage between two men isn't a real marriage but you won't be able to refuse them one. So where do I gain the ability to object to the demands of secular authority and refuse to participate in something I disagree with? Does that ever apply? If so, when, and under what circumstances?
Of course you can object to the demands of secular authority. You can protest and you can make petitions and write to your representatives and form lobbying groups or even engage in civil disobedience. Your protests may not be listened to and you may end up in court for your civil disobedience but you have every option available to everyone else in a democratic society.
I have no interest in outlawing religion because religion is just a personal belief/conviction and those should have no bearing upon what people do. I wish to see the actions of a person regulated.
Freedom of religion does not mean, nor has ever meant, the freedom to do whatever the fuck you like to another person. That's why you can't kill Arabs and not be punished, even though the Pope (not the current one) said that doing so would guarantee your passage to heaven. The belief may be religious but the action associated with it is secular and falls under secular law. This has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of religion and your continued assertion that it is a new and threatening thing for the law to tell you you can't do anything you like as long as it is justified by religious belief is absurd.
|
On December 22 2012 05:18 KwarK wrote:
religion is just a personal belief/conviction and those should have no bearing upon what people do.
I think this is a staggeringly foolish statement. What else would have a bearing on what one does?
edit: you're confusing the issue. it's not about the right to "do something" to somebody else. It's about the right to "not do something" to someone, namely direct at them the speech act "I now pronounce you married"
edit: the action is not secular. The secular action is how the government treats their marriage. Marrying somebody in a church is not a secular action.
|
United States42437 Posts
On December 22 2012 05:19 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 05:18 KwarK wrote:
religion is just a personal belief/conviction and those should have no bearing upon what people do. I think this is a staggeringly foolish statement. What else would have a bearing on what one does?
Sorry, I'll clarify. On the legality of what people do. Something doesn't become more acceptable simply because the individual doing it has the conviction that it should be acceptable.
|
So what does make something acceptable?
edit: this conversation has made the victorians make much, much more sense to me, by the way, so thanks for that
edit: I edited this in earlier but I want to make sure you catch the point, that I believe the state can and should impose a doctrine of marriage equality on the church of england
|
United States42437 Posts
On December 22 2012 05:19 sam!zdat wrote:
edit: the action is not secular. The secular action is how the government treats their marriage. Marrying somebody in a church is not a secular action.
This is probably the crux of the issue. I believe that it is. I believe that it is a service that is available to the general public for a price, as evidenced by the fact that any two members of the general public of opposite sexes can book a church and a priest to hold the ceremony as long as they pay his fee. As such it falls under discrimination law (and the law in the UK agrees with me on this, that's why they would need the exemption) so they could not legally refuse an interracial couple for example. While I understand that in the subjective minds of the religious there is additional meaning to a marriage in the secular eyes of the law it is simply a ceremony, a service for sale.
|
So if you believe it's a service that should be offered for a price, open it up to the market and let competition solve the problem. That's y'all liberals' solution to everything, right?
edit: but what you say here makes me dig in my heels, of course, being adamantly opposed to any further colonization of the life-world by the logic of the market with its "services" and "commodities"
|
United States42437 Posts
On December 22 2012 05:22 sam!zdat wrote:
So what does make something acceptable?
Oddly enough what I believe makes things acceptable is largely influenced by a bearded hippie from two thousand years ago. Namely treating others as you would want to be treated, being generally fair to others regardless of their background, not judging people and not harming other people unnecessarily. I believe that the church has somewhat lost their way on that one as it is an extremely conservative institution and generally derives its ethics from its members, predominantly old people who tend to be more racist, homophobic and sexist due to their upbringing.
|
Oh, we could not agree more on this.
edit: I agree that it's stupid, backwards, and immoral to deny gay people getting married in your church. I'm proud to be a resident of a state in which gay people can get married, I think it's the absolute shit and I've been totally geeking out over pictures of adorable old gay people getting married over the last month or so. This is totally separate from what I'm concerned about.
|
United States42437 Posts
On December 22 2012 05:28 sam!zdat wrote:So if you believe it's a service that should be offered for a price, open it up to the market and let competition solve the problem. That's y'all liberals' solution to everything, right? edit: but what you say here makes me dig in my heels, of course, being adamantly opposed to any further colonization of the life-world by the logic of the market with its "services" and "commodities"
Er, I'm not the one selling it, the church is. If it wasn't a publicly available commercial service they wouldn't be in this mess. The law can't force me to marry two gays because I'm not in the business of marrying two anythings.
|
Yes, but the church sees itself as being in the business of marrying a man and a woman. That is their service. When you say "you should marry a man and a man" that is nonsensical to them. I don't feel it's (a) philosophically sound or (b) strategically wise to go about solving the problem in this particular way.
|
|
|
United States42437 Posts
On December 22 2012 05:32 sam!zdat wrote:
Yes, but the church sees itself as being in the business of marrying a man and a woman. That is their service. When you say "you should marry a man and a man" that is nonsensical to them. I don't feel it's (a) philosophically sound or (b) strategically wise to go about solving the problem in this particular way.
And I'm sure white only restaurants see themselves as being in the business of providing an environment where whites can enjoy a good meal without having to hear those loud coloured families ruining everyone's evening but they still fall under anti discrimination law.
At this point you're opposing the application of anti discrimination law itself in circumstances when it contradicts the beliefs of the discriminators rather than this specific scenario I think?
|
On December 22 2012 05:32 sam!zdat wrote:
Yes, but the church sees itself as being in the business of marrying a man and a woman. That is their service. When you say "you should marry a man and a man" that is nonsensical to them. I don't feel it's (a) philosophically sound or (b) strategically wise to go about solving the problem in this particular way.
It's not nonsensical to them. It makes perfect sense to them. They just don't want to do it. You can't define bigotry into your terms of service and expect a secular law to take you seriously.
|
I don't think that the belief "Black people are an inferior race" is a valid religious belief, I do feel that the belief "marriage is about procreation" is a valid religious belief, even if I disagree with it. I don't think the situations are analogous. I would dispute the claim that refusing to marry a gay couple is analogous to denying blacks service at your restaurant. Of course drawing lines between things is always difficult, but I feel confident that the line exists somewhere in between these two things.
On December 22 2012 05:36 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 05:32 sam!zdat wrote:
Yes, but the church sees itself as being in the business of marrying a man and a woman. That is their service. When you say "you should marry a man and a man" that is nonsensical to them. I don't feel it's (a) philosophically sound or (b) strategically wise to go about solving the problem in this particular way. It's not nonsensical to them. It makes perfect sense to them. They just don't want to do it. You can't define bigotry into your terms of service and expect a secular law to take you seriously.
I know you mean well, but you should try to be a more thoughtful person. They don't want to do it because it doesn't make sense to them.
edit: at any rate, I'm about to walk out the door and leave town so I might not reply for a bit, if at all. cheers
|
On December 22 2012 05:36 sam!zdat wrote:I don't think that the belief "Black people are an inferior race" is a valid religious belief, I do feel that the belief "marriage is about procreation" is a valid religious belief, even if I disagree with it. I don't think the situations are analogous. I would dispute the claim that refusing to marry a gay couple is analogous to denying blacks service at your restaurant. Of course drawing lines between things is always difficult, but I feel confident that the line exists somewhere in between these two things. Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 05:36 Klondikebar wrote:On December 22 2012 05:32 sam!zdat wrote:
Yes, but the church sees itself as being in the business of marrying a man and a woman. That is their service. When you say "you should marry a man and a man" that is nonsensical to them. I don't feel it's (a) philosophically sound or (b) strategically wise to go about solving the problem in this particular way. It's not nonsensical to them. It makes perfect sense to them. They just don't want to do it. You can't define bigotry into your terms of service and expect a secular law to take you seriously. I know you mean well, but you should try to be a more thoughtful person. They don't want to do it because it doesn't make sense to them.
How am I the thoughtless one? You're treating them like confused children who can't understand even understand a complete sentence.
I think they're rational adults and subject to the laws just the same as everyone else.
|
I think you both are confused children.
|
On another note should same-sex couples be allowed in Mixed Badminton tournaments?
I am neither religious nor against same-sex marriage, but I just don't see how one can have a right to be married by a certain religious organization. Religious marriages should just be irrelevant from the perspective of the state. Of course the Anglican church is a special and very different case.
If we want to force state-independent churches to allow same-sex marriages we should do so by public pressure and not by creating laws in my opinion.
|
On December 22 2012 01:17 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 22:13 KwarK wrote:On December 21 2012 12:40 sam!zdat wrote:
Is it discrimination if I go into the doctor and ask for FtM sex change surgery, and they tell me no, sorry, only females can get that?
What if I ask for a funeral and they say, no, sorry, only dead people can get that? Is it discrimination? Clearly you haven't read or understood the OP. Nah, you just don't catch my point. Show nested quote +
No, it's not discrimination to be denied something that doesn't exist, that's pretty much the entire point to this topic. The church can currently refuse to perform them because they don't exist, if gay marriage is introduced then they won't legally be able to discriminate. That's what the topic is about, that's the point.
Yes but will you outlaw the belief that gay marriage doesn't exist? edit: at any rate, I've already adequately expounded my views on this topic, I feel. I just wanted to poke some fun at the inanity of "because it's discrimination!!" as that is an overused line of argument in our culture. edit: you realize that you want to outlaw the belief that "marriage is for procreation." Like, you want to make it ILLEGAL for people to hold that as a sincere religious belief. What an absurdity that you promote this in the name of "freedom." It's the worst of hypocrisy
I could agree to / understand your first lines, but your edits make no sense.
Are you talking about people who believe women above 45 shouldn't get married, or sterile people shouldn't get married? You lost me.
Marriage is a legal matter and a religious one. State should not be able to discriminate by marriage, but you could argue that church CAN, because their ceremony is or should be without benefit and so can't be discriminatory in itself. Say, being the only one who doesn't receive tax benefits cause you are sexually different is discriminating. But not having a priest declare you married could be seen as not discriminating, as this has no benefit, and is perhaps a personal matter of faith. As long as it's a personal matter of no "legal" or real consequence to others, it's fine. Anything else isn't.
But saying marriage is this or that, and THEN exclude others and everything that legally goes with it is very wrong and very discriminating, and in your case plain false.
|
Wow I seriously thought that the UK already had all this legislation in place already. Considering all their gay stars like Freddy Mercury, Elton John and Ian McKellan
|
On December 22 2012 05:36 sam!zdat wrote:
I don't think that the belief "Black people are an inferior race" is a valid religious belief
Lol?
You think you can dictate what is and is not a valid religious belief?
All religious beliefs are valid, or none of them are.
On December 22 2012 07:07 Maenander wrote:
On another note should same-sex couples be allowed in Mixed Badminton tournaments?
I am neither religious nor against same-sex marriage, but I just don't see how one can have a right to be married by a certain religious organization. Religious marriages should just be irrelevant from the perspective of the state. Of course the Anglican church is a special and very different case.
If we want to force state-independent churches to allow same-sex marriages we should do so by public pressure and not by creating laws in my opinion.
Your comment brings up two points which have already been thoroughly discussed, so please address them directly.
First of all, the definition of marriage.
A mixed badminton tournament is, by definition, one male and one female.
Are you trying to say you think marriage is also so defined?
Secondly, are you are saying religious organisations shouldn't be subject to the same anti-discrimination laws as non-religious organisations and if so, why?
|
On December 20 2012 04:33 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 04:08 Gendi2545 wrote:On December 20 2012 02:36 Klondikebar wrote:On December 20 2012 02:30 Gendi2545 wrote:On December 19 2012 03:14 KwarK wrote:On December 19 2012 03:03 Gendi2545 wrote:On December 17 2012 23:43 KwarK wrote:On December 16 2012 17:31 Gendi2545 wrote:
Only up to page 4 on this but I don't see why there's so much confusion on this matter. The (Protestant) church is based on the Bible, which regards the act of homosexuality as an abomination. I believe in the old testament the penalty for it was stoning to death, and according to the Bible Sodom and Gomorrah were nuked by God for this particular sin. Even in the new testament the Bible is entirely against the practice of homosexuality, the only difference is the theme is now mercy and the chance to repent (before death anyway) rather than immediate judgement.
Since the Bible is utterly against the practice of homosexuality, how on earth could a legitimate bible-based church be expected to marry homosexuals? Of course there are many "secular" pastors who only seek to please people and don't care about the Bible who will marry gays, but that proves nothing because they clearly aren't faithful to their own religion.
I'm all for freedom including freedom from discrimination, but trying to force bible-based churches to marry gays is nonsensical and I believe is trespassing on the rights of the people who want to peacefully follow their own religion. It is discrimination by practicing homosexuals against heterosexuals and homosexuals who want to follow the Bible.
There are multiple issues here but one of them is whether freedom of religion exists in terms of actions or if it is only for opinions in which case it is simply freedom of expression, the same right that protects political affiliations. It matters because that freedom does not make your actions, such as denying a service available to the public, free to discriminate in a legal sense. The BNP are allowed to believe Britain should be racially pure but they are not allowed to go further to the action of discriminatory policies. Here the issue is that if religious freedom is just a type of free expression then why should they be able to deny a service in a discriminatory way based on their convictions and if it is it's own special type of freedom, what is it and why does it exist in a secular society. Discrimination is required for the church to remain faithful to its beliefs. You would have to eradicate the (biblical) church to remove the discrimination. How is this fair to Christians? It's not like they're burning homosexuals at the stake. Also, church expenses are paid for by church members. They are tax-exempt, but they are not for-profit organizations (although some pastors are clearly out to fleece the flock). They should be allowed to decide their own policies. If a certain pastor refuses to marry homosexuals, they can go to a church which will marry homosexuals, or make their own religion. There’s no problem, unless people are so sensitive their lives will be ruined if they’re excluded from a group they don’t want to join. I would say that one group forcing its views onto another is far more unjust than one group excluding another from one of its traditional ceremonies. Just out of interest do you think mensa should be forced to accept people with low IQs? Should war veterans clubs be forced to allow anyone to join? And so on. As a society we come up with legitimate grounds to discriminate upon and illegitimate ones. Age, race, religion, gender (exemptions can apply here), sexuality (I think that's all of them) are the legally protected things which you can't discriminate upon. War veteran clubs can exclude a gay man for not being a war veteran but not for being gay, it's not that you're not allowed to discriminate, it's that you can't discriminate for one of the legally protected reasons. Churches charge to perform marriages, it's a commercial service available to the general public and should be treated as such. The current fee for a CofE church wedding is £322. Discrimination on the grounds of race is required for racists to remain faithful to their racist beliefs too. We dealt with that by saying they could still believe racist things but they could not act in a racist way, why can the church not do that regarding gays. I've still not seen a convincing argument for why religious beliefs should be treated any differently to other strongly held beliefs, there are animal rights activists who are far more zealous about that than most Christians, the only argument I see people use is "religion is different because it's religion (which is different)". Mensa is not legally required to accept them yet (I think) as IQ is not a protected characteristic and therefore they can discriminate based upon it. I can conceive of circumstances under which it would need to be protected but those are theoretical, in practice there is no present case for requiring mensa not discriminate on the grounds of IQ. I'm not so sure the church is actually discriminating against homosexuals. They are welcome to attend church services and activities, and to become Christians themselves. Marriage however, according to the church, is between a man and a woman, not a man and a brick or a man and a man. A man might legally get married to another man, but then it's not any marriage the Bible would recognize. Gays effectively gain nothing by these laws, while millions of Christians lose the right to legally practice their religion. As a society we come up with legitimate grounds to discriminate upon and illegitimate ones. Those laws look good at first glance, but now we've run into this issue. Basically these laws are being used to destroy the church, using government, so the occasional gay couple can get married. This despite the fact they can already get married, just not at every single church. Given that laws are made to serve humans and not vice-versa, and given that a large proportion of people have religious beliefs they would like protected, perhaps the courts should take a closer look at these laws and modify them if necessary. It could for example be argued that an employer discriminating against a homosexual causes actual harm, since jobs are scarce and money is needed to survive. A church refusing to marry a gay couple is no big deal, they can simply go to another church that does marry gay couples. If these laws are strictly enforced without thought they are going to result in a large number of people being oppressed so a few members of a smaller group won't potentially have their feelings hurt. Also just because laws are passed doesn't mean society as a whole agreed to them. They might have been pushed through by vocal special interest groups, I'm not sure if that is the case here. If you replaced "gay" with "interracial" throughout your post I feel like you'd have a hard time defending what you're saying. And yes, there was a time when the church thought interracial marriage was a sin as well so it's an appropriate substitution. That's not a valid point at all. Firstly, there are many churches with completely different views. For example the Catholic Church, Protestant Church and Jehovah's Witnesses are completely different, to the point that they consider each other heretical and damned to hell. I'm trying to represent the views of the mainstream Calvinist and Arminian Protestant Churches, which base their views solely on the Bible (in contrast to the other churches mentioned). Secondly, the Bible doesn't specifically forbid interracial marriage, and quite a few verses imply it is acceptable, so there's no reason for churches to oppose it. Homosexuality, on the other hand, the Bible has very harsh words for. Bible-based churches in more racist times might wrongly have condemned interracial marriage (not sure how many did), but there are no gray areas in gay marriage. Just to clarify, sola scriptura does not equate with literalist exegesis, meaning that while all Protestant denominations do indeed consider the Bible the final word on God's message, they all bring with them differing brands of interpretation. Using "bible-based" as a descriptor is misleading, in that there are many "bible-based" churches that preach individual, subjective biblical interpretation/exegesis. I find it odd you decided to name drop Calvinism and Arminianism, when neither has anything explicitly to do with biblical interpretation.
Thats true, and I was using Calvin/Arminian in the wrong context. I assumed most churches following those doctrines followed the traditional values of the Protestant Church. But I was specifically looking at the Bible's stance on homosexuality, which is very clear.
Edit: And the condemnation of other denominations is a fundamentalist idea that is losing ground amongst mainstream Protestant denominations.
Yes, because they're all turning apostate and don't mind a little heresy.
As for the Catholic Church it maintains that it has the right to put to death anyone who refuses to become a Catholic, the only reason it doesn't is because it doesn't currently have the power to do so.
It hasn't changed since the Reformation, where it killed over 8 million Protestants, it has only lost some of its power. And if you doubt the CC's commitment, just look at how Protestants are persecuted by the CC in Spain where it is dominant.
Edit: Additionally, to suggest that there is no grey area when it comes to old testament exegesis suggests to me that you have relatively little actual contact with mainstream, non-fundamentalist Christianity.
Again I was talking specifically about the Bible's view on homosexuality. As usual some people will argue the Bible tolerates homosexuality but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a gray area given the Bible's very clear condemnation of it.
Also I'm not a fundamentalist, I had a Methodist upbringing.
|
United States42437 Posts
On December 22 2012 07:07 Maenander wrote:
On another note should same-sex couples be allowed in Mixed Badminton tournaments?
I am neither religious nor against same-sex marriage, but I just don't see how one can have a right to be married by a certain religious organization. Religious marriages should just be irrelevant from the perspective of the state. Of course the Anglican church is a special and very different case.
If we want to force state-independent churches to allow same-sex marriages we should do so by public pressure and not by creating laws in my opinion.
Of course not. Gay men aren't women, they just like dick as much as straight women. Entry to badminton tournaments isn't based upon how much you like dick.
|
Whoa, first transgenders aren't considered mentally disordered anymore and now UK legalizes gay marriage!! The future is starting to look good for you bro!
|
On December 22 2012 17:16 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 07:07 Maenander wrote:
On another note should same-sex couples be allowed in Mixed Badminton tournaments?
I am neither religious nor against same-sex marriage, but I just don't see how one can have a right to be married by a certain religious organization. Religious marriages should just be irrelevant from the perspective of the state. Of course the Anglican church is a special and very different case.
If we want to force state-independent churches to allow same-sex marriages we should do so by public pressure and not by creating laws in my opinion. Of course not. Gay men aren't women, they just like dick as much as straight women. Entry to badminton tournaments isn't based upon how much you like dick.
I would at this point like to mention that women are allowed to compete in the mens singles here in the States whilst the other is not allowed - obviously your chromosomes does not dictate it either, so what exactly DOES really dictate anything? People and society do. I would really urge everyone to stop looking for silly parallels, because they are still a social construct.
|
United States42437 Posts
On December 22 2012 17:34 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 17:16 KwarK wrote:On December 22 2012 07:07 Maenander wrote:
On another note should same-sex couples be allowed in Mixed Badminton tournaments?
I am neither religious nor against same-sex marriage, but I just don't see how one can have a right to be married by a certain religious organization. Religious marriages should just be irrelevant from the perspective of the state. Of course the Anglican church is a special and very different case.
If we want to force state-independent churches to allow same-sex marriages we should do so by public pressure and not by creating laws in my opinion. Of course not. Gay men aren't women, they just like dick as much as straight women. Entry to badminton tournaments isn't based upon how much you like dick. I would at this point like to mention that women are allowed to compete in the mens singles here in the States whilst the other is not allowed - obviously your chromosomes does not dictate it either, so what exactly DOES really dictate anything? People and society do. I would really urge everyone to stop looking for silly parallels, because they are still a social construct.
Take that up with them?
|
On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:
First of all, the definition of marriage.
A mixed badminton tournament is, by definition, one male and one female.
Are you trying to say you think marriage is also so defined?
In my opinion there is no general definition of marriage, every religious sect should define marriage however it pleases. They can marry themselves to ants for all I care. It is the definition of marriages that are legally binding that we should worry about.
On December 22 2012 17:16 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 07:07 Maenander wrote:
On another note should same-sex couples be allowed in Mixed Badminton tournaments?
I am neither religious nor against same-sex marriage, but I just don't see how one can have a right to be married by a certain religious organization. Religious marriages should just be irrelevant from the perspective of the state. Of course the Anglican church is a special and very different case.
If we want to force state-independent churches to allow same-sex marriages we should do so by public pressure and not by creating laws in my opinion. Of course not. Gay men aren't women, they just like dick as much as straight women. Entry to badminton tournaments isn't based upon how much you like dick.
But it is based upon gender. Leave the "sexual"(a linguistic mess) aspect out of it and call it same-sex doubles and it is still a valid point.
On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:
Secondly, are you are saying religious organisations shouldn't be subject to the same anti-discrimination laws as non-religious organisations and if so, why?
I think there should be a limit to how much the state interferes in private matters. Religion should be a private matter. As Kwark already pointed out the problems in the UK stem from the lack of separation of religion and state. If the state endorses a religion it also takes responsibility for its contents.
|
On December 22 2012 17:49 Maenander wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:
First of all, the definition of marriage.
A mixed badminton tournament is, by definition, one male and one female.
Are you trying to say you think marriage is also so defined?
In my opinion there is no general definition of marriage, every religious sect should define marriage however it pleases. They can marry themselves to ants for all I care. It is the definition of marriages that are legally binding that we should worry about. Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 17:16 KwarK wrote:On December 22 2012 07:07 Maenander wrote:
On another note should same-sex couples be allowed in Mixed Badminton tournaments?
I am neither religious nor against same-sex marriage, but I just don't see how one can have a right to be married by a certain religious organization. Religious marriages should just be irrelevant from the perspective of the state. Of course the Anglican church is a special and very different case.
If we want to force state-independent churches to allow same-sex marriages we should do so by public pressure and not by creating laws in my opinion. Of course not. Gay men aren't women, they just like dick as much as straight women. Entry to badminton tournaments isn't based upon how much you like dick. But it is based upon gender. Leave the "sexual"(a linguistic mess) aspect out of it and call it same-sex doubles and it is still a valid point. Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:
Secondly, are you are saying religious organisations shouldn't be subject to the same anti-discrimination laws as non-religious organisations and if so, why?
I think there should be a limit to how much the state interferes in private matters. Religion should be a private matter. As Kwark already pointed out the problems in the UK stem from the lack of separation of religion and state. If the state endorses a religion it also takes responsibility for its contents.
So why did you bring up mixed badminton doubles then? It makes no sense.
The church is offering a public service and charging for it, once they did that it no longer became a private matter. No one is telling the church what to believe or to teach to their followers.
You don't need to be a member of the church to get married there, nor even part of their religion. This is very far from a private matter.
|
On December 22 2012 22:34 Reason wrote:
You don't need to be a member of the church to get married there, nor even part of their religion. This is very far from a private matter.
I see we are talking about different things. The catholic church doesn't even marry a couple, if one of the 2 persons is not baptized, at least not without special authorization.
Civil marriages and religious marriages are strictly separated in Germany, in fact churches were not allowed by law to marry a couple that was not married by a civil authority first until a few years ago.
|
On December 22 2012 22:34 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 17:49 Maenander wrote:On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:
First of all, the definition of marriage.
A mixed badminton tournament is, by definition, one male and one female.
Are you trying to say you think marriage is also so defined?
In my opinion there is no general definition of marriage, every religious sect should define marriage however it pleases. They can marry themselves to ants for all I care. It is the definition of marriages that are legally binding that we should worry about. On December 22 2012 17:16 KwarK wrote:On December 22 2012 07:07 Maenander wrote:
On another note should same-sex couples be allowed in Mixed Badminton tournaments?
I am neither religious nor against same-sex marriage, but I just don't see how one can have a right to be married by a certain religious organization. Religious marriages should just be irrelevant from the perspective of the state. Of course the Anglican church is a special and very different case.
If we want to force state-independent churches to allow same-sex marriages we should do so by public pressure and not by creating laws in my opinion. Of course not. Gay men aren't women, they just like dick as much as straight women. Entry to badminton tournaments isn't based upon how much you like dick. But it is based upon gender. Leave the "sexual"(a linguistic mess) aspect out of it and call it same-sex doubles and it is still a valid point. On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:
Secondly, are you are saying religious organisations shouldn't be subject to the same anti-discrimination laws as non-religious organisations and if so, why?
I think there should be a limit to how much the state interferes in private matters. Religion should be a private matter. As Kwark already pointed out the problems in the UK stem from the lack of separation of religion and state. If the state endorses a religion it also takes responsibility for its contents. So why did you bring up mixed badminton doubles then? It makes no sense. The church is offering a public service and charging for it, once they did that it no longer became a private matter. No one is telling the church what to believe or to teach to their followers. You don't need to be a member of the church to get married there, nor even part of their religion. This is very far from a private matter.
I do not know much about the Anglican Church but from what I read you would want to force all churches to perform marriage rites for same sex couples. So concerning for example the Catholic Church the above is plain wrong. One person must be Catholic for a Catholic marriage to take place. Furthermore, if the partner is not Catholic you need to get a special permission to be married and it's basically up to the priest to decide. In this day and age this could be a formality, I don't know, but the priest could decline to marry you.
This makes sense because for the priest it's more than a service, it's a holy rite and he probably loads sin on himself if he doesn't adhere to his beliefs. Protestants are not that strict but something similar is in place for them as well, if i recall correctly. Does anyone know about Muslim marriages?
Btw Wikipedia says you cannot be married in a Catholic church if you are permanently impotent, they really believe this stuff about procreation and traditional family etc.
|
I don't want any individual or group of individuals being forced into doing something they don't want to do, no matter how popular it may seem at the time. As such I don't want churches being forced by the barrel of a gun into doing ceremonies of gay couples that goes against their religious and moral beliefs.
The road to hell is after all paved with good intentions.
|
On December 22 2012 23:06 Zergofobic wrote:
I don't want any individual or group of individuals being forced into doing something they don't want to do, no matter how popular it may seem at the time. As such I don't want churches being forced by the barrel of a gun into doing ceremonies of gay couples that goes against their religious and moral beliefs.
The road to hell is after all paved with good intentions.
As is the road to freedom, friend.
Catholic churches don't even marry straight people who aren't catholic, so I think that this law is fine. The church of england is another matter however, I am not sure how that will work.
|
On December 22 2012 22:57 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 22:34 Reason wrote:On December 22 2012 17:49 Maenander wrote:On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:
First of all, the definition of marriage.
A mixed badminton tournament is, by definition, one male and one female.
Are you trying to say you think marriage is also so defined?
In my opinion there is no general definition of marriage, every religious sect should define marriage however it pleases. They can marry themselves to ants for all I care. It is the definition of marriages that are legally binding that we should worry about. On December 22 2012 17:16 KwarK wrote:On December 22 2012 07:07 Maenander wrote:
On another note should same-sex couples be allowed in Mixed Badminton tournaments?
I am neither religious nor against same-sex marriage, but I just don't see how one can have a right to be married by a certain religious organization. Religious marriages should just be irrelevant from the perspective of the state. Of course the Anglican church is a special and very different case.
If we want to force state-independent churches to allow same-sex marriages we should do so by public pressure and not by creating laws in my opinion. Of course not. Gay men aren't women, they just like dick as much as straight women. Entry to badminton tournaments isn't based upon how much you like dick. But it is based upon gender. Leave the "sexual"(a linguistic mess) aspect out of it and call it same-sex doubles and it is still a valid point. On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:
Secondly, are you are saying religious organisations shouldn't be subject to the same anti-discrimination laws as non-religious organisations and if so, why?
I think there should be a limit to how much the state interferes in private matters. Religion should be a private matter. As Kwark already pointed out the problems in the UK stem from the lack of separation of religion and state. If the state endorses a religion it also takes responsibility for its contents. So why did you bring up mixed badminton doubles then? It makes no sense. The church is offering a public service and charging for it, once they did that it no longer became a private matter. No one is telling the church what to believe or to teach to their followers. You don't need to be a member of the church to get married there, nor even part of their religion. This is very far from a private matter. I do not know much about the Anglican Church but from what I read you would want to force all churches to perform marriage rites for same sex couples. So concerning for example the Catholic Church the above is plain wrong. One person must be Catholic for a Catholic marriage to take place. Furthermore, if the partner is not Catholic you need to get a special permission to be married and it's basically up to the priest to decide. In this day and age this could be a formality, I don't know, but the priest could decline to marry you. This makes sense because for the priest it's more than a service, it's a holy rite and he probably loads sin on himself if he doesn't adhere to his beliefs. Protestants are not that strict but something similar is in place for them as well, if i recall correctly. Does anyone know about Muslim marriages? Btw Wikipedia says you cannot be married in a Catholic church if you are permanently impotent, they really believe this stuff about procreation and traditional family etc.
On December 22 2012 22:57 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 22:34 Reason wrote:On December 22 2012 17:49 Maenander wrote:On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:
First of all, the definition of marriage.
A mixed badminton tournament is, by definition, one male and one female.
Are you trying to say you think marriage is also so defined?
In my opinion there is no general definition of marriage, every religious sect should define marriage however it pleases. They can marry themselves to ants for all I care. It is the definition of marriages that are legally binding that we should worry about. On December 22 2012 17:16 KwarK wrote:On December 22 2012 07:07 Maenander wrote:
On another note should same-sex couples be allowed in Mixed Badminton tournaments?
I am neither religious nor against same-sex marriage, but I just don't see how one can have a right to be married by a certain religious organization. Religious marriages should just be irrelevant from the perspective of the state. Of course the Anglican church is a special and very different case.
If we want to force state-independent churches to allow same-sex marriages we should do so by public pressure and not by creating laws in my opinion. Of course not. Gay men aren't women, they just like dick as much as straight women. Entry to badminton tournaments isn't based upon how much you like dick. But it is based upon gender. Leave the "sexual"(a linguistic mess) aspect out of it and call it same-sex doubles and it is still a valid point. On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:
Secondly, are you are saying religious organisations shouldn't be subject to the same anti-discrimination laws as non-religious organisations and if so, why?
I think there should be a limit to how much the state interferes in private matters. Religion should be a private matter. As Kwark already pointed out the problems in the UK stem from the lack of separation of religion and state. If the state endorses a religion it also takes responsibility for its contents. So why did you bring up mixed badminton doubles then? It makes no sense. The church is offering a public service and charging for it, once they did that it no longer became a private matter. No one is telling the church what to believe or to teach to their followers. You don't need to be a member of the church to get married there, nor even part of their religion. This is very far from a private matter. I do not know much about the Anglican Church but from what I read you would want to force all churches to perform marriage rites for same sex couples. So concerning for example the Catholic Church the above is plain wrong. One person must be Catholic for a Catholic marriage to take place. Furthermore, if the partner is not Catholic you need to get a special permission to be married and it's basically up to the priest to decide. In this day and age this could be a formality, I don't know, but the priest could decline to marry you. This makes sense because for the priest it's more than a service, it's a holy rite and he probably loads sin on himself if he doesn't adhere to his beliefs. Protestants are not that strict but something similar is in place for them as well, if i recall correctly. Does anyone know about Muslim marriages? Btw Wikipedia says you cannot be married in a Catholic church if you are permanently impotent, they really believe this stuff about procreation and traditional family etc.
It seems like things are very different in the UK when it comes to the separation of state and church, including marriage. It's quite mind-boggling actually. Now I understand why the mindset behind the British posts in here seem so alien to me.
|
On December 22 2012 23:11 Maenander wrote:
It seems like things are very different in the UK when it comes to the separation of state and church, including marriage. It's quite mind-boggling actually. Now I understand why the mindset behind the British posts in here seem so alien to me.
But there are more churches than the Anglican Church in Britain, so if you make sweeping legislation you should take this into account. Taking on the separation of church and state issue is something I wholeheartedly agree with on the other hand.
|
On December 22 2012 22:57 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 22:34 Reason wrote:On December 22 2012 17:49 Maenander wrote:On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:
First of all, the definition of marriage.
A mixed badminton tournament is, by definition, one male and one female.
Are you trying to say you think marriage is also so defined?
In my opinion there is no general definition of marriage, every religious sect should define marriage however it pleases. They can marry themselves to ants for all I care. It is the definition of marriages that are legally binding that we should worry about. On December 22 2012 17:16 KwarK wrote:On December 22 2012 07:07 Maenander wrote:
On another note should same-sex couples be allowed in Mixed Badminton tournaments?
I am neither religious nor against same-sex marriage, but I just don't see how one can have a right to be married by a certain religious organization. Religious marriages should just be irrelevant from the perspective of the state. Of course the Anglican church is a special and very different case.
If we want to force state-independent churches to allow same-sex marriages we should do so by public pressure and not by creating laws in my opinion. Of course not. Gay men aren't women, they just like dick as much as straight women. Entry to badminton tournaments isn't based upon how much you like dick. But it is based upon gender. Leave the "sexual"(a linguistic mess) aspect out of it and call it same-sex doubles and it is still a valid point. On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:
Secondly, are you are saying religious organisations shouldn't be subject to the same anti-discrimination laws as non-religious organisations and if so, why?
I think there should be a limit to how much the state interferes in private matters. Religion should be a private matter. As Kwark already pointed out the problems in the UK stem from the lack of separation of religion and state. If the state endorses a religion it also takes responsibility for its contents. So why did you bring up mixed badminton doubles then? It makes no sense. The church is offering a public service and charging for it, once they did that it no longer became a private matter. No one is telling the church what to believe or to teach to their followers. You don't need to be a member of the church to get married there, nor even part of their religion. This is very far from a private matter. I do not know much about the Anglican Church but from what I read you would want to force all churches to perform marriage rites for same sex couples. So concerning for example the Catholic Church the above is plain wrong. One person must be Catholic for a Catholic marriage to take place. Furthermore, if the partner is not Catholic you need to get a special permission to be married and it's basically up to the priest to decide. In this day and age this could be a formality, I don't know, but the priest could decline to marry you. This makes sense because for the priest it's more than a service, it's a holy rite and he probably loads sin on himself if he doesn't adhere to his beliefs. Protestants are not that strict but something similar is in place for them as well, if i recall correctly. Does anyone know about Muslim marriages? Btw Wikipedia says you cannot be married in a Catholic church if you are permanently impotent, they really believe this stuff about procreation and traditional family etc.
..and there's the difference.
'Church of England' is just something people tick on a box when they fill out forms, but don't think about, or really believe in ... until they want to get married in the traditional manner i.e. in a church.
|
On December 22 2012 23:47 teapot wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 22:57 silynxer wrote:On December 22 2012 22:34 Reason wrote:On December 22 2012 17:49 Maenander wrote:On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:
First of all, the definition of marriage.
A mixed badminton tournament is, by definition, one male and one female.
Are you trying to say you think marriage is also so defined?
In my opinion there is no general definition of marriage, every religious sect should define marriage however it pleases. They can marry themselves to ants for all I care. It is the definition of marriages that are legally binding that we should worry about. On December 22 2012 17:16 KwarK wrote:On December 22 2012 07:07 Maenander wrote:
On another note should same-sex couples be allowed in Mixed Badminton tournaments?
I am neither religious nor against same-sex marriage, but I just don't see how one can have a right to be married by a certain religious organization. Religious marriages should just be irrelevant from the perspective of the state. Of course the Anglican church is a special and very different case.
If we want to force state-independent churches to allow same-sex marriages we should do so by public pressure and not by creating laws in my opinion. Of course not. Gay men aren't women, they just like dick as much as straight women. Entry to badminton tournaments isn't based upon how much you like dick. But it is based upon gender. Leave the "sexual"(a linguistic mess) aspect out of it and call it same-sex doubles and it is still a valid point. On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:
Secondly, are you are saying religious organisations shouldn't be subject to the same anti-discrimination laws as non-religious organisations and if so, why?
I think there should be a limit to how much the state interferes in private matters. Religion should be a private matter. As Kwark already pointed out the problems in the UK stem from the lack of separation of religion and state. If the state endorses a religion it also takes responsibility for its contents. So why did you bring up mixed badminton doubles then? It makes no sense. The church is offering a public service and charging for it, once they did that it no longer became a private matter. No one is telling the church what to believe or to teach to their followers. You don't need to be a member of the church to get married there, nor even part of their religion. This is very far from a private matter. I do not know much about the Anglican Church but from what I read you would want to force all churches to perform marriage rites for same sex couples. So concerning for example the Catholic Church the above is plain wrong. One person must be Catholic for a Catholic marriage to take place. Furthermore, if the partner is not Catholic you need to get a special permission to be married and it's basically up to the priest to decide. In this day and age this could be a formality, I don't know, but the priest could decline to marry you. This makes sense because for the priest it's more than a service, it's a holy rite and he probably loads sin on himself if he doesn't adhere to his beliefs. Protestants are not that strict but something similar is in place for them as well, if i recall correctly. Does anyone know about Muslim marriages? Btw Wikipedia says you cannot be married in a Catholic church if you are permanently impotent, they really believe this stuff about procreation and traditional family etc. ..and there's the difference. 'Church of England' is just something people tick on a box when they fill out forms, but don't think about, or really believe in ... until they want to get married in the traditional manner i.e. in a church.
Read what I wrote in the post directly above yours. Can you guys (Kwark, Reason, etc.) clarify if you want to force all churches to marry homosexual couples or only the Church of England? Sorry if you already did, but the thread is quite long and from your posts I genuinely think you argued for the former.
|
On December 23 2012 00:19 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 23:47 teapot wrote:On December 22 2012 22:57 silynxer wrote:On December 22 2012 22:34 Reason wrote:On December 22 2012 17:49 Maenander wrote:On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:
First of all, the definition of marriage.
A mixed badminton tournament is, by definition, one male and one female.
Are you trying to say you think marriage is also so defined?
In my opinion there is no general definition of marriage, every religious sect should define marriage however it pleases. They can marry themselves to ants for all I care. It is the definition of marriages that are legally binding that we should worry about. On December 22 2012 17:16 KwarK wrote:On December 22 2012 07:07 Maenander wrote:
On another note should same-sex couples be allowed in Mixed Badminton tournaments?
I am neither religious nor against same-sex marriage, but I just don't see how one can have a right to be married by a certain religious organization. Religious marriages should just be irrelevant from the perspective of the state. Of course the Anglican church is a special and very different case.
If we want to force state-independent churches to allow same-sex marriages we should do so by public pressure and not by creating laws in my opinion. Of course not. Gay men aren't women, they just like dick as much as straight women. Entry to badminton tournaments isn't based upon how much you like dick. But it is based upon gender. Leave the "sexual"(a linguistic mess) aspect out of it and call it same-sex doubles and it is still a valid point. On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:
Secondly, are you are saying religious organisations shouldn't be subject to the same anti-discrimination laws as non-religious organisations and if so, why?
I think there should be a limit to how much the state interferes in private matters. Religion should be a private matter. As Kwark already pointed out the problems in the UK stem from the lack of separation of religion and state. If the state endorses a religion it also takes responsibility for its contents. So why did you bring up mixed badminton doubles then? It makes no sense. The church is offering a public service and charging for it, once they did that it no longer became a private matter. No one is telling the church what to believe or to teach to their followers. You don't need to be a member of the church to get married there, nor even part of their religion. This is very far from a private matter. I do not know much about the Anglican Church but from what I read you would want to force all churches to perform marriage rites for same sex couples. So concerning for example the Catholic Church the above is plain wrong. One person must be Catholic for a Catholic marriage to take place. Furthermore, if the partner is not Catholic you need to get a special permission to be married and it's basically up to the priest to decide. In this day and age this could be a formality, I don't know, but the priest could decline to marry you. This makes sense because for the priest it's more than a service, it's a holy rite and he probably loads sin on himself if he doesn't adhere to his beliefs. Protestants are not that strict but something similar is in place for them as well, if i recall correctly. Does anyone know about Muslim marriages? Btw Wikipedia says you cannot be married in a Catholic church if you are permanently impotent, they really believe this stuff about procreation and traditional family etc. ..and there's the difference. 'Church of England' is just something people tick on a box when they fill out forms, but don't think about, or really believe in ... until they want to get married in the traditional manner i.e. in a church. Read what I wrote in the post directly above yours. Can you guys (Kwark, Reason, etc.) clarify if you want to force all churches to marry homosexual couples or only the Church of England? Sorry if you already did, but the thread is quite long and from your posts I genuinely think you argued for the former.
I don't think it is forcing any particular church to provide same-sex marriage, just legalizing it for those that are willing.
|
United States42437 Posts
On December 23 2012 00:19 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 23:47 teapot wrote:On December 22 2012 22:57 silynxer wrote:On December 22 2012 22:34 Reason wrote:On December 22 2012 17:49 Maenander wrote:On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:
First of all, the definition of marriage.
A mixed badminton tournament is, by definition, one male and one female.
Are you trying to say you think marriage is also so defined?
In my opinion there is no general definition of marriage, every religious sect should define marriage however it pleases. They can marry themselves to ants for all I care. It is the definition of marriages that are legally binding that we should worry about. On December 22 2012 17:16 KwarK wrote:On December 22 2012 07:07 Maenander wrote:
On another note should same-sex couples be allowed in Mixed Badminton tournaments?
I am neither religious nor against same-sex marriage, but I just don't see how one can have a right to be married by a certain religious organization. Religious marriages should just be irrelevant from the perspective of the state. Of course the Anglican church is a special and very different case.
If we want to force state-independent churches to allow same-sex marriages we should do so by public pressure and not by creating laws in my opinion. Of course not. Gay men aren't women, they just like dick as much as straight women. Entry to badminton tournaments isn't based upon how much you like dick. But it is based upon gender. Leave the "sexual"(a linguistic mess) aspect out of it and call it same-sex doubles and it is still a valid point. On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:
Secondly, are you are saying religious organisations shouldn't be subject to the same anti-discrimination laws as non-religious organisations and if so, why?
I think there should be a limit to how much the state interferes in private matters. Religion should be a private matter. As Kwark already pointed out the problems in the UK stem from the lack of separation of religion and state. If the state endorses a religion it also takes responsibility for its contents. So why did you bring up mixed badminton doubles then? It makes no sense. The church is offering a public service and charging for it, once they did that it no longer became a private matter. No one is telling the church what to believe or to teach to their followers. You don't need to be a member of the church to get married there, nor even part of their religion. This is very far from a private matter. I do not know much about the Anglican Church but from what I read you would want to force all churches to perform marriage rites for same sex couples. So concerning for example the Catholic Church the above is plain wrong. One person must be Catholic for a Catholic marriage to take place. Furthermore, if the partner is not Catholic you need to get a special permission to be married and it's basically up to the priest to decide. In this day and age this could be a formality, I don't know, but the priest could decline to marry you. This makes sense because for the priest it's more than a service, it's a holy rite and he probably loads sin on himself if he doesn't adhere to his beliefs. Protestants are not that strict but something similar is in place for them as well, if i recall correctly. Does anyone know about Muslim marriages? Btw Wikipedia says you cannot be married in a Catholic church if you are permanently impotent, they really believe this stuff about procreation and traditional family etc. ..and there's the difference. 'Church of England' is just something people tick on a box when they fill out forms, but don't think about, or really believe in ... until they want to get married in the traditional manner i.e. in a church. Read what I wrote in the post directly above yours. Can you guys (Kwark, Reason, etc.) clarify if you want to force all churches to marry homosexual couples or only the Church of England? Sorry if you already did, but the thread is quite long and from your posts I genuinely think you argued for the former.
I want to force all churches to, if they offer a service to the public (such as marriage), offer it in a non discriminatory way. With the CoE I'd ideally like a host of other reforms pushed through too such as women bishops and the like because it's absurd that what is essentially a branch of our executive is allowed to operate an openly sexist policy.
If the church were to cease to provide marriages to any heterosexual couple who wanted them for a fee then the issue would also be solved, the problem is that it is a publicly available service being made available in a discriminatory way.
|
United States42437 Posts
On December 23 2012 01:04 teapot wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 00:19 silynxer wrote:On December 22 2012 23:47 teapot wrote:On December 22 2012 22:57 silynxer wrote:On December 22 2012 22:34 Reason wrote:On December 22 2012 17:49 Maenander wrote:On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:
First of all, the definition of marriage.
A mixed badminton tournament is, by definition, one male and one female.
Are you trying to say you think marriage is also so defined?
In my opinion there is no general definition of marriage, every religious sect should define marriage however it pleases. They can marry themselves to ants for all I care. It is the definition of marriages that are legally binding that we should worry about. On December 22 2012 17:16 KwarK wrote:On December 22 2012 07:07 Maenander wrote:
On another note should same-sex couples be allowed in Mixed Badminton tournaments?
I am neither religious nor against same-sex marriage, but I just don't see how one can have a right to be married by a certain religious organization. Religious marriages should just be irrelevant from the perspective of the state. Of course the Anglican church is a special and very different case.
If we want to force state-independent churches to allow same-sex marriages we should do so by public pressure and not by creating laws in my opinion. Of course not. Gay men aren't women, they just like dick as much as straight women. Entry to badminton tournaments isn't based upon how much you like dick. But it is based upon gender. Leave the "sexual"(a linguistic mess) aspect out of it and call it same-sex doubles and it is still a valid point. On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:
Secondly, are you are saying religious organisations shouldn't be subject to the same anti-discrimination laws as non-religious organisations and if so, why?
I think there should be a limit to how much the state interferes in private matters. Religion should be a private matter. As Kwark already pointed out the problems in the UK stem from the lack of separation of religion and state. If the state endorses a religion it also takes responsibility for its contents. So why did you bring up mixed badminton doubles then? It makes no sense. The church is offering a public service and charging for it, once they did that it no longer became a private matter. No one is telling the church what to believe or to teach to their followers. You don't need to be a member of the church to get married there, nor even part of their religion. This is very far from a private matter. I do not know much about the Anglican Church but from what I read you would want to force all churches to perform marriage rites for same sex couples. So concerning for example the Catholic Church the above is plain wrong. One person must be Catholic for a Catholic marriage to take place. Furthermore, if the partner is not Catholic you need to get a special permission to be married and it's basically up to the priest to decide. In this day and age this could be a formality, I don't know, but the priest could decline to marry you. This makes sense because for the priest it's more than a service, it's a holy rite and he probably loads sin on himself if he doesn't adhere to his beliefs. Protestants are not that strict but something similar is in place for them as well, if i recall correctly. Does anyone know about Muslim marriages? Btw Wikipedia says you cannot be married in a Catholic church if you are permanently impotent, they really believe this stuff about procreation and traditional family etc. ..and there's the difference. 'Church of England' is just something people tick on a box when they fill out forms, but don't think about, or really believe in ... until they want to get married in the traditional manner i.e. in a church. Read what I wrote in the post directly above yours. Can you guys (Kwark, Reason, etc.) clarify if you want to force all churches to marry homosexual couples or only the Church of England? Sorry if you already did, but the thread is quite long and from your posts I genuinely think you argued for the former. I don't think it is forcing any particular church to provide same-sex marriage, just legalizing it for those that are willing.
What I want would be forcing, that's what I've been arguing for. What this bill would do is several things. It would legalise it for the churches that are willing, it would provide unprecedented exemptions from antidiscrimination laws for those that aren't, it would act as a precedent that religious convictions should not be held to the same common standards as secular convictions in society and it would involve secular law heavily in the church including laying out a legally approved doctrine and making apostasy and schism illegal.
This bill satisfies nobody. It's a complete clusterfuck.
|
On December 23 2012 05:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 00:19 silynxer wrote:On December 22 2012 23:47 teapot wrote:On December 22 2012 22:57 silynxer wrote:On December 22 2012 22:34 Reason wrote:On December 22 2012 17:49 Maenander wrote:On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:
First of all, the definition of marriage.
A mixed badminton tournament is, by definition, one male and one female.
Are you trying to say you think marriage is also so defined?
In my opinion there is no general definition of marriage, every religious sect should define marriage however it pleases. They can marry themselves to ants for all I care. It is the definition of marriages that are legally binding that we should worry about. On December 22 2012 17:16 KwarK wrote:On December 22 2012 07:07 Maenander wrote:
On another note should same-sex couples be allowed in Mixed Badminton tournaments?
I am neither religious nor against same-sex marriage, but I just don't see how one can have a right to be married by a certain religious organization. Religious marriages should just be irrelevant from the perspective of the state. Of course the Anglican church is a special and very different case.
If we want to force state-independent churches to allow same-sex marriages we should do so by public pressure and not by creating laws in my opinion. Of course not. Gay men aren't women, they just like dick as much as straight women. Entry to badminton tournaments isn't based upon how much you like dick. But it is based upon gender. Leave the "sexual"(a linguistic mess) aspect out of it and call it same-sex doubles and it is still a valid point. On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:
Secondly, are you are saying religious organisations shouldn't be subject to the same anti-discrimination laws as non-religious organisations and if so, why?
I think there should be a limit to how much the state interferes in private matters. Religion should be a private matter. As Kwark already pointed out the problems in the UK stem from the lack of separation of religion and state. If the state endorses a religion it also takes responsibility for its contents. So why did you bring up mixed badminton doubles then? It makes no sense. The church is offering a public service and charging for it, once they did that it no longer became a private matter. No one is telling the church what to believe or to teach to their followers. You don't need to be a member of the church to get married there, nor even part of their religion. This is very far from a private matter. I do not know much about the Anglican Church but from what I read you would want to force all churches to perform marriage rites for same sex couples. So concerning for example the Catholic Church the above is plain wrong. One person must be Catholic for a Catholic marriage to take place. Furthermore, if the partner is not Catholic you need to get a special permission to be married and it's basically up to the priest to decide. In this day and age this could be a formality, I don't know, but the priest could decline to marry you. This makes sense because for the priest it's more than a service, it's a holy rite and he probably loads sin on himself if he doesn't adhere to his beliefs. Protestants are not that strict but something similar is in place for them as well, if i recall correctly. Does anyone know about Muslim marriages? Btw Wikipedia says you cannot be married in a Catholic church if you are permanently impotent, they really believe this stuff about procreation and traditional family etc. ..and there's the difference. 'Church of England' is just something people tick on a box when they fill out forms, but don't think about, or really believe in ... until they want to get married in the traditional manner i.e. in a church. Read what I wrote in the post directly above yours. Can you guys (Kwark, Reason, etc.) clarify if you want to force all churches to marry homosexual couples or only the Church of England? Sorry if you already did, but the thread is quite long and from your posts I genuinely think you argued for the former. I want to force all churches to, if they offer a service to the public (such as marriage), offer it in a non discriminatory way. With the CoE I'd ideally like a host of other reforms pushed through too such as women bishops and the like because it's absurd that what is essentially a branch of our executive is allowed to operate an openly sexist policy. If the church were to cease to provide marriages to any heterosexual couple who wanted them for a fee then the issue would also be solved, the problem is that it is a publicly available service being made available in a discriminatory way.
So in the situation of Catholic marriages, where heterosexual couples can be denied marriage for a number of reasons (not being Catholic, partner not being Catholic, permanent impotence, etc.) you would actually be fine with it (sorry it's hard for me to interpret the "any")?
If not I don't think there is more to be said. Me and others simply disagree with the notion that the state may define the meaning of a ritual for all religious institutions (and like written again and again the meaning is explicit procreation and a traditional family in the Catholic case, for example). I'd also disagree that marriage is a simple service for any religious person (it's a holy act, changing it's nature desecrates it) if it is taken serious like in the Catholic case but I suppose this was argued to death as well.
[EDIT]: Remember I'm talking about Catholics here. They cannot have a last supper ritual together with Protestants because they don't agree whether you are eating Jesus' body figuratively or literally. Hilarious for non-believers but they take this shit serious.
|
United States42437 Posts
On December 23 2012 06:06 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 05:46 KwarK wrote:On December 23 2012 00:19 silynxer wrote:On December 22 2012 23:47 teapot wrote:On December 22 2012 22:57 silynxer wrote:On December 22 2012 22:34 Reason wrote:On December 22 2012 17:49 Maenander wrote:On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:
First of all, the definition of marriage.
A mixed badminton tournament is, by definition, one male and one female.
Are you trying to say you think marriage is also so defined?
In my opinion there is no general definition of marriage, every religious sect should define marriage however it pleases. They can marry themselves to ants for all I care. It is the definition of marriages that are legally binding that we should worry about. On December 22 2012 17:16 KwarK wrote:On December 22 2012 07:07 Maenander wrote:
On another note should same-sex couples be allowed in Mixed Badminton tournaments?
I am neither religious nor against same-sex marriage, but I just don't see how one can have a right to be married by a certain religious organization. Religious marriages should just be irrelevant from the perspective of the state. Of course the Anglican church is a special and very different case.
If we want to force state-independent churches to allow same-sex marriages we should do so by public pressure and not by creating laws in my opinion. Of course not. Gay men aren't women, they just like dick as much as straight women. Entry to badminton tournaments isn't based upon how much you like dick. But it is based upon gender. Leave the "sexual"(a linguistic mess) aspect out of it and call it same-sex doubles and it is still a valid point. On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:
Secondly, are you are saying religious organisations shouldn't be subject to the same anti-discrimination laws as non-religious organisations and if so, why?
I think there should be a limit to how much the state interferes in private matters. Religion should be a private matter. As Kwark already pointed out the problems in the UK stem from the lack of separation of religion and state. If the state endorses a religion it also takes responsibility for its contents. So why did you bring up mixed badminton doubles then? It makes no sense. The church is offering a public service and charging for it, once they did that it no longer became a private matter. No one is telling the church what to believe or to teach to their followers. You don't need to be a member of the church to get married there, nor even part of their religion. This is very far from a private matter. I do not know much about the Anglican Church but from what I read you would want to force all churches to perform marriage rites for same sex couples. So concerning for example the Catholic Church the above is plain wrong. One person must be Catholic for a Catholic marriage to take place. Furthermore, if the partner is not Catholic you need to get a special permission to be married and it's basically up to the priest to decide. In this day and age this could be a formality, I don't know, but the priest could decline to marry you. This makes sense because for the priest it's more than a service, it's a holy rite and he probably loads sin on himself if he doesn't adhere to his beliefs. Protestants are not that strict but something similar is in place for them as well, if i recall correctly. Does anyone know about Muslim marriages? Btw Wikipedia says you cannot be married in a Catholic church if you are permanently impotent, they really believe this stuff about procreation and traditional family etc. ..and there's the difference. 'Church of England' is just something people tick on a box when they fill out forms, but don't think about, or really believe in ... until they want to get married in the traditional manner i.e. in a church. Read what I wrote in the post directly above yours. Can you guys (Kwark, Reason, etc.) clarify if you want to force all churches to marry homosexual couples or only the Church of England? Sorry if you already did, but the thread is quite long and from your posts I genuinely think you argued for the former. I want to force all churches to, if they offer a service to the public (such as marriage), offer it in a non discriminatory way. With the CoE I'd ideally like a host of other reforms pushed through too such as women bishops and the like because it's absurd that what is essentially a branch of our executive is allowed to operate an openly sexist policy. If the church were to cease to provide marriages to any heterosexual couple who wanted them for a fee then the issue would also be solved, the problem is that it is a publicly available service being made available in a discriminatory way. So in the situation of Catholic marriages, where heterosexual couples can be denied marriage for a number of reasons (not being Catholic, partner not being Catholic, permanent impotence, etc.) you would actually be fine with it (sorry it's hard for me to interpret the "any")? If not I don't think there is more to be said. Me and others simply disagree with the notion that the state may define the meaning of a ritual for all religious institutions (and like written again and again the meaning is explicit procreation and a traditional family in the Catholic case, for example). I'd also disagree that marriage is a simple service for any religious person (it's a holy act, changing it's nature desecrates it) if it is taken serious like in the Catholic case but I suppose this was argued to death as well.
Yes, for the same reason as you're allowed to deny a gay man alcohol at a bar if he's already had too much. As long as the grounds for denial of service isn't race, gender, sexuality etc then you can choose. You're just not allowed to offer the service to everyone but gays.
|
Uhm your answer was actually a no then, my question was a bit convoluted (marriage is not available for any heterosexual couple who pays a fee, there are a lot of strings attached as it is more than a service). I would have never thought a moment could come where I side with the Catholic Church in a discussion.
|
Let them marry I say, in the end we are all going to die and no one will give a shit about this.
|
United States42437 Posts
On December 23 2012 06:27 silynxer wrote:
Uhm your answer was actually a no then, my question was a bit convoluted (marriage is not available for any heterosexual couple who pays a fee, there are a lot of strings attached as it is more than a service). I would have never thought a moment could come where I side with the Catholic Church in a discussion.
That would become one for the lawyers I think. If they would refuse a marriage to two heterosexual non Catholics then they could deny it legally to two homosexual non Catholics on the grounds that they weren't Catholic, but not on the grounds that they were homosexuals. If, however, the homosexual couple wished to become Catholic then they couldn't be denied entry to Catholicism on the basis of their homosexuality, they would have to be accepted or rejected for some other reason. If they were accepted and then wished to get married, a service available to heterosexual Catholic couples, they could not be refused it on the grounds of their sexuality. It's messy but basically an extension of the "the BNP must accept blacks, no matter how strongly held their racist convictions are" principle.
|
The question is rather if there may be any rite by any church that has a component based on any of the components from your anti-discrimination law (which is rather arbitrary I might add). Note that all rites of passage are inherently ageist (sure they also don't make any sense for older people but the same is true for marriage of homosexuals from the viewpoint of the Catholic Church).
But like I said this all was inconclusively discussed before and if you feel we are not making any progress I'm at ease to drop the discussion here.
|
|
|
On December 23 2012 05:49 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 01:04 teapot wrote:On December 23 2012 00:19 silynxer wrote:On December 22 2012 23:47 teapot wrote:On December 22 2012 22:57 silynxer wrote:On December 22 2012 22:34 Reason wrote:On December 22 2012 17:49 Maenander wrote:On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:
First of all, the definition of marriage.
A mixed badminton tournament is, by definition, one male and one female.
Are you trying to say you think marriage is also so defined?
In my opinion there is no general definition of marriage, every religious sect should define marriage however it pleases. They can marry themselves to ants for all I care. It is the definition of marriages that are legally binding that we should worry about. On December 22 2012 17:16 KwarK wrote:On December 22 2012 07:07 Maenander wrote:
On another note should same-sex couples be allowed in Mixed Badminton tournaments?
I am neither religious nor against same-sex marriage, but I just don't see how one can have a right to be married by a certain religious organization. Religious marriages should just be irrelevant from the perspective of the state. Of course the Anglican church is a special and very different case.
If we want to force state-independent churches to allow same-sex marriages we should do so by public pressure and not by creating laws in my opinion. Of course not. Gay men aren't women, they just like dick as much as straight women. Entry to badminton tournaments isn't based upon how much you like dick. But it is based upon gender. Leave the "sexual"(a linguistic mess) aspect out of it and call it same-sex doubles and it is still a valid point. On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:
Secondly, are you are saying religious organisations shouldn't be subject to the same anti-discrimination laws as non-religious organisations and if so, why?
I think there should be a limit to how much the state interferes in private matters. Religion should be a private matter. As Kwark already pointed out the problems in the UK stem from the lack of separation of religion and state. If the state endorses a religion it also takes responsibility for its contents. So why did you bring up mixed badminton doubles then? It makes no sense. The church is offering a public service and charging for it, once they did that it no longer became a private matter. No one is telling the church what to believe or to teach to their followers. You don't need to be a member of the church to get married there, nor even part of their religion. This is very far from a private matter. I do not know much about the Anglican Church but from what I read you would want to force all churches to perform marriage rites for same sex couples. So concerning for example the Catholic Church the above is plain wrong. One person must be Catholic for a Catholic marriage to take place. Furthermore, if the partner is not Catholic you need to get a special permission to be married and it's basically up to the priest to decide. In this day and age this could be a formality, I don't know, but the priest could decline to marry you. This makes sense because for the priest it's more than a service, it's a holy rite and he probably loads sin on himself if he doesn't adhere to his beliefs. Protestants are not that strict but something similar is in place for them as well, if i recall correctly. Does anyone know about Muslim marriages? Btw Wikipedia says you cannot be married in a Catholic church if you are permanently impotent, they really believe this stuff about procreation and traditional family etc. ..and there's the difference. 'Church of England' is just something people tick on a box when they fill out forms, but don't think about, or really believe in ... until they want to get married in the traditional manner i.e. in a church. Read what I wrote in the post directly above yours. Can you guys (Kwark, Reason, etc.) clarify if you want to force all churches to marry homosexual couples or only the Church of England? Sorry if you already did, but the thread is quite long and from your posts I genuinely think you argued for the former. I don't think it is forcing any particular church to provide same-sex marriage, just legalizing it for those that are willing. What I want would be forcing, that's what I've been arguing for. What this bill would do is several things. It would legalise it for the churches that are willing, it would provide unprecedented exemptions from antidiscrimination laws for those that aren't, it would act as a precedent that religious convictions should not be held to the same common standards as secular convictions in society and it would involve secular law heavily in the church including laying out a legally approved doctrine and making apostasy and schism illegal. This bill satisfies nobody. It's a complete clusterfuck.
You would be discriminating against those people by forcing them to do something against their will by the threat of violence.
You would be literally serving evil, because the road to hell is paved with good intentions and your aren't even good to begin with.
|
Bill that gives gays the right to marry and be considered equal in committed partnership, in word and legailty. As well as giving every "church//group" the right to not be forced to perform the ceremony on an individual basis if they so choose would be right imo.
|
United States42437 Posts
On December 23 2012 08:36 Zergofobic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 05:49 KwarK wrote:On December 23 2012 01:04 teapot wrote:On December 23 2012 00:19 silynxer wrote:On December 22 2012 23:47 teapot wrote:On December 22 2012 22:57 silynxer wrote:On December 22 2012 22:34 Reason wrote:On December 22 2012 17:49 Maenander wrote:On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:
First of all, the definition of marriage.
A mixed badminton tournament is, by definition, one male and one female.
Are you trying to say you think marriage is also so defined?
In my opinion there is no general definition of marriage, every religious sect should define marriage however it pleases. They can marry themselves to ants for all I care. It is the definition of marriages that are legally binding that we should worry about. On December 22 2012 17:16 KwarK wrote:On December 22 2012 07:07 Maenander wrote:
On another note should same-sex couples be allowed in Mixed Badminton tournaments?
I am neither religious nor against same-sex marriage, but I just don't see how one can have a right to be married by a certain religious organization. Religious marriages should just be irrelevant from the perspective of the state. Of course the Anglican church is a special and very different case.
If we want to force state-independent churches to allow same-sex marriages we should do so by public pressure and not by creating laws in my opinion. Of course not. Gay men aren't women, they just like dick as much as straight women. Entry to badminton tournaments isn't based upon how much you like dick. But it is based upon gender. Leave the "sexual"(a linguistic mess) aspect out of it and call it same-sex doubles and it is still a valid point. On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:
Secondly, are you are saying religious organisations shouldn't be subject to the same anti-discrimination laws as non-religious organisations and if so, why?
I think there should be a limit to how much the state interferes in private matters. Religion should be a private matter. As Kwark already pointed out the problems in the UK stem from the lack of separation of religion and state. If the state endorses a religion it also takes responsibility for its contents. So why did you bring up mixed badminton doubles then? It makes no sense. The church is offering a public service and charging for it, once they did that it no longer became a private matter. No one is telling the church what to believe or to teach to their followers. You don't need to be a member of the church to get married there, nor even part of their religion. This is very far from a private matter. I do not know much about the Anglican Church but from what I read you would want to force all churches to perform marriage rites for same sex couples. So concerning for example the Catholic Church the above is plain wrong. One person must be Catholic for a Catholic marriage to take place. Furthermore, if the partner is not Catholic you need to get a special permission to be married and it's basically up to the priest to decide. In this day and age this could be a formality, I don't know, but the priest could decline to marry you. This makes sense because for the priest it's more than a service, it's a holy rite and he probably loads sin on himself if he doesn't adhere to his beliefs. Protestants are not that strict but something similar is in place for them as well, if i recall correctly. Does anyone know about Muslim marriages? Btw Wikipedia says you cannot be married in a Catholic church if you are permanently impotent, they really believe this stuff about procreation and traditional family etc. ..and there's the difference. 'Church of England' is just something people tick on a box when they fill out forms, but don't think about, or really believe in ... until they want to get married in the traditional manner i.e. in a church. Read what I wrote in the post directly above yours. Can you guys (Kwark, Reason, etc.) clarify if you want to force all churches to marry homosexual couples or only the Church of England? Sorry if you already did, but the thread is quite long and from your posts I genuinely think you argued for the former. I don't think it is forcing any particular church to provide same-sex marriage, just legalizing it for those that are willing. What I want would be forcing, that's what I've been arguing for. What this bill would do is several things. It would legalise it for the churches that are willing, it would provide unprecedented exemptions from antidiscrimination laws for those that aren't, it would act as a precedent that religious convictions should not be held to the same common standards as secular convictions in society and it would involve secular law heavily in the church including laying out a legally approved doctrine and making apostasy and schism illegal. This bill satisfies nobody. It's a complete clusterfuck. You would be discriminating against those people by forcing them to do something against their will by the threat of violence. You would be literally serving evil, because the road to hell is paved with good intentions and your aren't even good to begin with.
Every single law ever forces people to do something against their will by the threat of violence. That's not the definition of discrimination. You need to look these words up before you use them.
|
There is a very intresting factor here , why nobody complains about muslim marriage ? don't they have the same rights ? what about the areas where you can't get married in church if you can't procreate ? isn't that a little discriminating ?
There are a lot more things that you can't do as a couple with your gay partner. You must remember that the Catholic Church allows a lot of things and it's very understanding and bends the rules too much sometimes. If you search you can find a lot of "bad things" in every religion and a lot of good things. Religion is something you belive or not , it's not something you can manipulate on others.
Sorry for my bad english.
|
On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 05:36 sam!zdat wrote:
I don't think that the belief "Black people are an inferior race" is a valid religious belief Lol? You think you can dictate what is and is not a valid religious belief? All religious beliefs are valid, or none of them are.
Yes, of course I can offer a judgment about the validity of some religious belief. Your position is the worst sort of vulgar relativism. There is no way to go about doing anything without making judgments of this sort. In fact, your position is self-contradictory - can you see how?
edit: you do this too, all the time, you just deny that you do because your ideology tells you that you are "rational" and "objective" and that religion is "all made up." But making judgments of this sort presents no problem at all for me, because I take religion seriously as philosophical discourse and therefore hold that it is open to critique.
|
On December 23 2012 06:42 number01 wrote:
Let them marry I say, in the end we are all going to die and no one will give a shit about this.
Although very poorly written and lazy post, this is my favorite view so far and I agree
|
On December 23 2012 12:08 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:On December 22 2012 05:36 sam!zdat wrote:
I don't think that the belief "Black people are an inferior race" is a valid religious belief Lol? You think you can dictate what is and is not a valid religious belief? All religious beliefs are valid, or none of them are. Yes, of course I can offer a judgment about the validity of some religious belief. Your position is the worst sort of vulgar relativism. There is no way to go about doing anything without making judgments of this sort. In fact, your position is self-contradictory - can you see how?
How could you deny one belief and then accept another? Where do you draw the line on what is acceptable? We're not dealing with hard measurable facts after all.
|
On December 23 2012 12:15 snam wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 12:08 sam!zdat wrote:On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:On December 22 2012 05:36 sam!zdat wrote:
I don't think that the belief "Black people are an inferior race" is a valid religious belief Lol? You think you can dictate what is and is not a valid religious belief? All religious beliefs are valid, or none of them are. Yes, of course I can offer a judgment about the validity of some religious belief. Your position is the worst sort of vulgar relativism. There is no way to go about doing anything without making judgments of this sort. In fact, your position is self-contradictory - can you see how? How could you deny one belief and then accept another? Where do you draw the line on what is acceptable? We're not dealing with hard measurable facts after all.
You think honestly and seriously about it, read things about it, and talk to other people who have read things about it and thought honestly and seriously about it, especially when they think differently than you. Same as anything else.
|
This seems interesting because it provides gays the chance to be married and still provides enough freedom such that religious groups have the option of still banning it privately. I don't know how it works in Canada as it's not a topic talked about much here, it just happens and we let it slide.
Is making it specifically illegal for a group to marry gay couples as well as protecting them from discrimination laws too far?
Insofar as this it's interesting that all Catholics (brought up in the OP) will NOT allow this form of marriage to occur which may or may not infringe upon a specific Catholic priest's right to marry a gay couple and their specific views on the topic.
|
I'm a bit confused, could somebody clarify something for me? Are you claiming that you believe that Catholic churches and other religious institutions should be forced to recognize gay marriage and perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples? I don't know if that's what you're implying, but frankly that's ridiculous and would never happen, as that would be infringing upon the right to practice religion. While I understand the problems with not offering the same legal benefits to gay couples in terms of civil marriage, the way I practice religious marriage is my choice. What I call "marriage" is up to me, I can say I'm married to three women, a man, my brother, a horse, or whatever else I choose, but I will only get the legal benefits if I practice the form of civil marriage that is accepted by the state. Declaring that there is one interpretation for religious marriage is ridiculous. Frankly, as a practicing Catholic, I understand the desire for civil unions and such, but gay couples are never going to be able to get married in a Catholic church because that's not what marriage is, at least as far as religious marriage is defined by the Catholic church. Just as I don't need to recognize other people's religions, I do not need to recognize the religious marriages that others celebrate.
|
On December 23 2012 12:50 The Final Boss wrote:
I'm a bit confused, could somebody clarify something for me? Are you claiming that you believe that Catholic churches and other religious institutions should be forced to recognize gay marriage and perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples? I don't know if that's what you're implying, but frankly that's ridiculous and would never happen, as that would be infringing upon the right to practice religion. While I understand the problems with not offering the same legal benefits to gay couples in terms of civil marriage, the way I practice religious marriage is my choice. What I call "marriage" is up to me, I can say I'm married to three women, a man, my brother, a horse, or whatever else I choose, but I will only get the legal benefits if I practice the form of civil marriage that is accepted by the state. Declaring that there is one interpretation for religious marriage is ridiculous. Frankly, as a practicing Catholic, I understand the desire for civil unions and such, but gay couples are never going to be able to get married in a Catholic church because that's not what marriage is, at least as far as religious marriage is defined by the Catholic church. Just as I don't need to recognize other people's religions, I do not need to recognize the religious marriages that others celebrate.
No they have the choice (before the law is passed) to choose whether or not they'll allow their institutions to host gay marriage. Catholics I think (I think it was mentioned in the OP) already said that they would not be alright with it.
edit: and thus the law would mean that Catholic churches would not be allowed to host gay marriage.
|
On December 23 2012 12:53 IntoTheheart wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 12:50 The Final Boss wrote:
I'm a bit confused, could somebody clarify something for me? Are you claiming that you believe that Catholic churches and other religious institutions should be forced to recognize gay marriage and perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples? I don't know if that's what you're implying, but frankly that's ridiculous and would never happen, as that would be infringing upon the right to practice religion. While I understand the problems with not offering the same legal benefits to gay couples in terms of civil marriage, the way I practice religious marriage is my choice. What I call "marriage" is up to me, I can say I'm married to three women, a man, my brother, a horse, or whatever else I choose, but I will only get the legal benefits if I practice the form of civil marriage that is accepted by the state. Declaring that there is one interpretation for religious marriage is ridiculous. Frankly, as a practicing Catholic, I understand the desire for civil unions and such, but gay couples are never going to be able to get married in a Catholic church because that's not what marriage is, at least as far as religious marriage is defined by the Catholic church. Just as I don't need to recognize other people's religions, I do not need to recognize the religious marriages that others celebrate. No they have the choice (before the law is passed) to choose whether or not they'll allow their institutions to host gay marriage. Catholics I think (I think it was mentioned in the OP) already said that they would not be alright with it. edit: and thus the law would mean that Catholic churches would not be allowed to host gay marriage.
On December 23 2012 08:56 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 08:36 Zergofobic wrote:On December 23 2012 05:49 KwarK wrote:On December 23 2012 01:04 teapot wrote:On December 23 2012 00:19 silynxer wrote:On December 22 2012 23:47 teapot wrote:On December 22 2012 22:57 silynxer wrote:On December 22 2012 22:34 Reason wrote:On December 22 2012 17:49 Maenander wrote:On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:
First of all, the definition of marriage.
A mixed badminton tournament is, by definition, one male and one female.
Are you trying to say you think marriage is also so defined?
In my opinion there is no general definition of marriage, every religious sect should define marriage however it pleases. They can marry themselves to ants for all I care. It is the definition of marriages that are legally binding that we should worry about. On December 22 2012 17:16 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Of course not. Gay men aren't women, they just like dick as much as straight women. Entry to badminton tournaments isn't based upon how much you like dick. But it is based upon gender. Leave the "sexual"(a linguistic mess) aspect out of it and call it same-sex doubles and it is still a valid point. On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:
Secondly, are you are saying religious organisations shouldn't be subject to the same anti-discrimination laws as non-religious organisations and if so, why?
I think there should be a limit to how much the state interferes in private matters. Religion should be a private matter. As Kwark already pointed out the problems in the UK stem from the lack of separation of religion and state. If the state endorses a religion it also takes responsibility for its contents. So why did you bring up mixed badminton doubles then? It makes no sense. The church is offering a public service and charging for it, once they did that it no longer became a private matter. No one is telling the church what to believe or to teach to their followers. You don't need to be a member of the church to get married there, nor even part of their religion. This is very far from a private matter. I do not know much about the Anglican Church but from what I read you would want to force all churches to perform marriage rites for same sex couples. So concerning for example the Catholic Church the above is plain wrong. One person must be Catholic for a Catholic marriage to take place. Furthermore, if the partner is not Catholic you need to get a special permission to be married and it's basically up to the priest to decide. In this day and age this could be a formality, I don't know, but the priest could decline to marry you. This makes sense because for the priest it's more than a service, it's a holy rite and he probably loads sin on himself if he doesn't adhere to his beliefs. Protestants are not that strict but something similar is in place for them as well, if i recall correctly. Does anyone know about Muslim marriages? Btw Wikipedia says you cannot be married in a Catholic church if you are permanently impotent, they really believe this stuff about procreation and traditional family etc. ..and there's the difference. 'Church of England' is just something people tick on a box when they fill out forms, but don't think about, or really believe in ... until they want to get married in the traditional manner i.e. in a church. Read what I wrote in the post directly above yours. Can you guys (Kwark, Reason, etc.) clarify if you want to force all churches to marry homosexual couples or only the Church of England? Sorry if you already did, but the thread is quite long and from your posts I genuinely think you argued for the former. I don't think it is forcing any particular church to provide same-sex marriage, just legalizing it for those that are willing. What I want would be forcing, that's what I've been arguing for. What this bill would do is several things. It would legalise it for the churches that are willing, it would provide unprecedented exemptions from antidiscrimination laws for those that aren't, it would act as a precedent that religious convictions should not be held to the same common standards as secular convictions in society and it would involve secular law heavily in the church including laying out a legally approved doctrine and making apostasy and schism illegal. This bill satisfies nobody. It's a complete clusterfuck. You would be discriminating against those people by forcing them to do something against their will by the threat of violence. You would be literally serving evil, because the road to hell is paved with good intentions and your aren't even good to begin with. Every single law ever forces people to do something against their will by the threat of violence. That's not the definition of discrimination. You need to look these words up before you use them.
According to some of the stuff KwarK is saying, I think he's saying that he thinks that Catholic churches and other religious bodies should be forced to marry gay people. Frankly, that is a gross abuse of government power over the individual's freedom. It goes against freedom of religion, the freedom of religious marriage, and--this is the best part--will never happen, primarily because its batshit crazy. Protecting the "rights" of gays by taking away the right to practice religion is not promoting universal civil rights, but rather is just a disgusting suggestion that infringes upon the rights of everyone who practices a religion.
Frankly, I find it funny that KwarK labels others as fascists, but doesn't see a problem with stomping all over freedom of religion. A truly "secular state"--like he claims he is for--should not be viewed as a state with atheistic views and values, but rather a state with no views. What you are espousing is not equal rights, but rather spitting in the face of anyone with different religious views and different values than you yourself hold. As an actual Libertarian, I view your suggested "solution" as simply being an Atheist promoted fascism hiding behind the visage of equality. The best part, though, is that the Catholic Church and other religious institutions will never have to marry gay couples, because while the majority may not always support my Libertarian views, the proposed plan that you have would NEVER be viewed as anything other than it is, a fascist attempt to inhibit the right to practice religion.
|
Nm, doesn't really contribute.
|
Totally agree with what the final boss is saying.
Also, we seem to be forgetting that in the religious context, it's not discriminating against homosexuality, it's just the biblical institution of marriage (and oh boy are there many other forms) is between a man and a woman, it has nothing to do with what they proclaim their sexual orientation to be. A self proclaimed "gay" man can still marry a "gay" woman or whatever, as nowhere in any religious text is sexual preference taken into account in regards to marriage, merely biological gender.
What's next, the bar mitzvah is legally required to be available to boys and girls because it's "discriminatory" to have a ceremony for a male person? That's precisely where this [kwark's] logic is headed.
+ Show Spoiler [Disclaimer] +
A marriage isn't so much a profitable service where I come from (at churches anyway), it's more of a service out of kindness, with few fees entailed from the church specifically, occasionally none at all, which may be why I interpret this differently.
|
On December 20 2012 17:07 KwarK wrote:
Hattori, I think you're confused about what coming out is. It's not when you make up your mind and decide to be gay, it's when you decide to inform your social group that their default assumption about your sexuality is wrong. A mixed race man whose friends thought he was just tanned could absolutely come out about his race. All coming out is is sharing information about yourself to your peers so they can make their assumptions more accurate. I live in England, have an English accent and made this topic, you could assume I have four English grandparents. If I then said my grandfather spoke Welsh you would change your assumption to me being a quarter Welsh. That would be coming out about my cultural heritage. The only difference is that I'd rather be gay than a quarter Welsh.
You have serious self-esteem issues. It shows as you believe in dictating as an atheist to how and what actions the religious and their institutions may perform. How is that different when Jews were forced to leave their companies and their work places because "it is the law".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Jewish_legislation_in_prewar_Nazi_Germany
By what power do you do these things?
We are right because we say so?
User was temp banned for this post.
|
You don't have to be religious in order to get married. I think religious institutions think they own the marriage concept somehow so they feel involved in it. They also refuse new idea that would go against their belief system simple as that.
|
On December 23 2012 18:54 iFU.pauline wrote:
You don't have to be religious in order to get married. I think religious institutions think they own the marriage concept somehow so they feel involved in it. They also refuse new idea that would go against their belief system simple as that.
If the institution is private property, run by a private organisations, funded by private individuals, don't you think they have that right?
Over-ride the laws that define a republic, which protects the rights of individuals, both the gay couple, their friends AND that includes the priest and their parish, and make it law that said priest and parish must marry regardless of their personal and corporate beliefs on penalty of law, you have officially entered non-republic (feudal/communist/etc) land.
So no, I do not consider Canada a republic after passing pro-gay legislature.
|
On December 23 2012 12:08 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:On December 22 2012 05:36 sam!zdat wrote:
I don't think that the belief "Black people are an inferior race" is a valid religious belief Lol? You think you can dictate what is and is not a valid religious belief? All religious beliefs are valid, or none of them are. Yes, of course I can offer a judgment about the validity of some religious belief. Your position is the worst sort of vulgar relativism. There is no way to go about doing anything without making judgments of this sort. In fact, your position is self-contradictory - can you see how? edit: you do this too, all the time, you just deny that you do because your ideology tells you that you are "rational" and "objective" and that religion is "all made up." But making judgments of this sort presents no problem at all for me, because I take religion seriously as philosophical discourse and therefore hold that it is open to critique.
As far as I'm concerned no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another, until you are prepared to offer a reason as to why this might be don't bother talking to me about philosophical discourse.
|
On December 23 2012 18:42 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 17:07 KwarK wrote:
Hattori, I think you're confused about what coming out is. It's not when you make up your mind and decide to be gay, it's when you decide to inform your social group that their default assumption about your sexuality is wrong. A mixed race man whose friends thought he was just tanned could absolutely come out about his race. All coming out is is sharing information about yourself to your peers so they can make their assumptions more accurate. I live in England, have an English accent and made this topic, you could assume I have four English grandparents. If I then said my grandfather spoke Welsh you would change your assumption to me being a quarter Welsh. That would be coming out about my cultural heritage. The only difference is that I'd rather be gay than a quarter Welsh. You have serious self-esteem issues. It shows as you believe in dictating as an atheist to how and what actions the religious and their institutions may perform. How is that different when Jews were forced to leave their companies and their work places because "it is the law". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Jewish_legislation_in_prewar_Nazi_GermanyBy what power do you do these things? We are right because we say so?
edit: my bad didn't quite read what was going on.
|
On December 23 2012 21:48 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 12:08 sam!zdat wrote:On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:On December 22 2012 05:36 sam!zdat wrote:
I don't think that the belief "Black people are an inferior race" is a valid religious belief Lol? You think you can dictate what is and is not a valid religious belief? All religious beliefs are valid, or none of them are. Yes, of course I can offer a judgment about the validity of some religious belief. Your position is the worst sort of vulgar relativism. There is no way to go about doing anything without making judgments of this sort. In fact, your position is self-contradictory - can you see how? edit: you do this too, all the time, you just deny that you do because your ideology tells you that you are "rational" and "objective" and that religion is "all made up." But making judgments of this sort presents no problem at all for me, because I take religion seriously as philosophical discourse and therefore hold that it is open to critique. As far as I'm concerned no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another, until you are prepared to offer a reason as to why this might be don't bother talking to me about philosophical discourse.
If religion is nothing but fairy tales then why do more enlightened people take it so seriously? Let Christians practice their harmless rituals without interfering. If someone wants to join in, then it seems reasonable that they become a Christian themselves and follow the rules of the church.
|
On December 23 2012 21:48 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 12:08 sam!zdat wrote:On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:On December 22 2012 05:36 sam!zdat wrote:
I don't think that the belief "Black people are an inferior race" is a valid religious belief Lol? You think you can dictate what is and is not a valid religious belief? All religious beliefs are valid, or none of them are. Yes, of course I can offer a judgment about the validity of some religious belief. Your position is the worst sort of vulgar relativism. There is no way to go about doing anything without making judgments of this sort. In fact, your position is self-contradictory - can you see how? edit: you do this too, all the time, you just deny that you do because your ideology tells you that you are "rational" and "objective" and that religion is "all made up." But making judgments of this sort presents no problem at all for me, because I take religion seriously as philosophical discourse and therefore hold that it is open to critique. As far as I'm concerned no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another, until you are prepared to offer a reason as to why this might be don't bother talking to me about philosophical discourse.
Last I checked, private property rights are made up?
You contradict yourself.
|
I do not get why private groups can not determine the membership criterium in whatever way they see fit.
I do not see why the private groups can not determine their rituals the way they see fit.
I can not understand why private organisations can not refuse to provide individuals with services based on whatever reason the private group has.
It is the public institution that should not discriminate anyone.
Trying to regulate religious organisations to work like goverment, makes them part of goverment, which they should not be.
If gays or any other kind of "disciminated" induviduals want to be part of religious group, start one, and you can copy&paste any wievs&belifs you want, avoiding ones that you do not like.
|
United States42437 Posts
On December 23 2012 13:22 The Final Boss wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 12:53 IntoTheheart wrote:On December 23 2012 12:50 The Final Boss wrote:
I'm a bit confused, could somebody clarify something for me? Are you claiming that you believe that Catholic churches and other religious institutions should be forced to recognize gay marriage and perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples? I don't know if that's what you're implying, but frankly that's ridiculous and would never happen, as that would be infringing upon the right to practice religion. While I understand the problems with not offering the same legal benefits to gay couples in terms of civil marriage, the way I practice religious marriage is my choice. What I call "marriage" is up to me, I can say I'm married to three women, a man, my brother, a horse, or whatever else I choose, but I will only get the legal benefits if I practice the form of civil marriage that is accepted by the state. Declaring that there is one interpretation for religious marriage is ridiculous. Frankly, as a practicing Catholic, I understand the desire for civil unions and such, but gay couples are never going to be able to get married in a Catholic church because that's not what marriage is, at least as far as religious marriage is defined by the Catholic church. Just as I don't need to recognize other people's religions, I do not need to recognize the religious marriages that others celebrate. No they have the choice (before the law is passed) to choose whether or not they'll allow their institutions to host gay marriage. Catholics I think (I think it was mentioned in the OP) already said that they would not be alright with it. edit: and thus the law would mean that Catholic churches would not be allowed to host gay marriage. Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 08:56 KwarK wrote:On December 23 2012 08:36 Zergofobic wrote:On December 23 2012 05:49 KwarK wrote:On December 23 2012 01:04 teapot wrote:On December 23 2012 00:19 silynxer wrote:On December 22 2012 23:47 teapot wrote:On December 22 2012 22:57 silynxer wrote:On December 22 2012 22:34 Reason wrote:On December 22 2012 17:49 Maenander wrote:
[quote]
In my opinion there is no general definition of marriage, every religious sect should define marriage however it pleases. They can marry themselves to ants for all I care. It is the definition of marriages that are legally binding that we should worry about.
[quote]
But it is based upon gender. Leave the "sexual"(a linguistic mess) aspect out of it and call it same-sex doubles and it is still a valid point.
[quote]
I think there should be a limit to how much the state interferes in private matters. Religion should be a private matter. As Kwark already pointed out the problems in the UK stem from the lack of separation of religion and state. If the state endorses a religion it also takes responsibility for its contents. So why did you bring up mixed badminton doubles then? It makes no sense. The church is offering a public service and charging for it, once they did that it no longer became a private matter. No one is telling the church what to believe or to teach to their followers. You don't need to be a member of the church to get married there, nor even part of their religion. This is very far from a private matter. I do not know much about the Anglican Church but from what I read you would want to force all churches to perform marriage rites for same sex couples. So concerning for example the Catholic Church the above is plain wrong. One person must be Catholic for a Catholic marriage to take place. Furthermore, if the partner is not Catholic you need to get a special permission to be married and it's basically up to the priest to decide. In this day and age this could be a formality, I don't know, but the priest could decline to marry you. This makes sense because for the priest it's more than a service, it's a holy rite and he probably loads sin on himself if he doesn't adhere to his beliefs. Protestants are not that strict but something similar is in place for them as well, if i recall correctly. Does anyone know about Muslim marriages? Btw Wikipedia says you cannot be married in a Catholic church if you are permanently impotent, they really believe this stuff about procreation and traditional family etc. ..and there's the difference. 'Church of England' is just something people tick on a box when they fill out forms, but don't think about, or really believe in ... until they want to get married in the traditional manner i.e. in a church. Read what I wrote in the post directly above yours. Can you guys (Kwark, Reason, etc.) clarify if you want to force all churches to marry homosexual couples or only the Church of England? Sorry if you already did, but the thread is quite long and from your posts I genuinely think you argued for the former. I don't think it is forcing any particular church to provide same-sex marriage, just legalizing it for those that are willing. What I want would be forcing, that's what I've been arguing for. What this bill would do is several things. It would legalise it for the churches that are willing, it would provide unprecedented exemptions from antidiscrimination laws for those that aren't, it would act as a precedent that religious convictions should not be held to the same common standards as secular convictions in society and it would involve secular law heavily in the church including laying out a legally approved doctrine and making apostasy and schism illegal. This bill satisfies nobody. It's a complete clusterfuck. You would be discriminating against those people by forcing them to do something against their will by the threat of violence. You would be literally serving evil, because the road to hell is paved with good intentions and your aren't even good to begin with. Every single law ever forces people to do something against their will by the threat of violence. That's not the definition of discrimination. You need to look these words up before you use them. According to some of the stuff KwarK is saying, I think he's saying that he thinks that Catholic churches and other religious bodies should be forced to marry gay people. Frankly, that is a gross abuse of government power over the individual's freedom. It goes against freedom of religion, the freedom of religious marriage, and--this is the best part--will never happen, primarily because its batshit crazy. Protecting the "rights" of gays by taking away the right to practice religion is not promoting universal civil rights, but rather is just a disgusting suggestion that infringes upon the rights of everyone who practices a religion. Frankly, I find it funny that KwarK labels others as fascists, but doesn't see a problem with stomping all over freedom of religion. A truly "secular state"--like he claims he is for--should not be viewed as a state with atheistic views and values, but rather a state with no views. What you are espousing is not equal rights, but rather spitting in the face of anyone with different religious views and different values than you yourself hold. As an actual Libertarian, I view your suggested "solution" as simply being an Atheist promoted fascism hiding behind the visage of equality. The best part, though, is that the Catholic Church and other religious institutions will never have to marry gay couples, because while the majority may not always support my Libertarian views, the proposed plan that you have would NEVER be viewed as anything other than it is, a fascist attempt to inhibit the right to practice religion.
Okay, firstly, I've not called anyone but the BNP fascists in this topic and the BNP are an openly fascist party so I'm not sure where you're going with that one.
Secondly, "stomping over freedom of religion" is not actually making a point, it's simply describing an action. To make a point you need to go further and explain why stomping over freedom of religion is bad. It's like the whole "it's socialism!!!" thing where you describe a policy rather than actually explaining the bits you disagree with. In this case what it comes down to is your unconditional support for the legal freedom to do whatever actions you feel are endorsed, as long as they're the ones endorsed by your particular brand of religion. It's an utterly shameless hypocritical nonsense and flies in the face of rationality and equality.
Thirdly, this is in the UK, not the US, so I don't know why you're involving "the majority" and their support for your libertarian views or invoking your rights. Your constitution has no power here, this land still belongs to King George.
|
United States42437 Posts
On December 23 2012 19:29 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 18:54 iFU.pauline wrote:
You don't have to be religious in order to get married. I think religious institutions think they own the marriage concept somehow so they feel involved in it. They also refuse new idea that would go against their belief system simple as that. If the institution is private property, run by a private organisations, funded by private individuals, don't you think they have that right?
The British government doesn't think they have that right. READ THE OP
|
United States42437 Posts
On December 23 2012 18:42 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 17:07 KwarK wrote:
Hattori, I think you're confused about what coming out is. It's not when you make up your mind and decide to be gay, it's when you decide to inform your social group that their default assumption about your sexuality is wrong. A mixed race man whose friends thought he was just tanned could absolutely come out about his race. All coming out is is sharing information about yourself to your peers so they can make their assumptions more accurate. I live in England, have an English accent and made this topic, you could assume I have four English grandparents. If I then said my grandfather spoke Welsh you would change your assumption to me being a quarter Welsh. That would be coming out about my cultural heritage. The only difference is that I'd rather be gay than a quarter Welsh. You have serious self-esteem issues. It shows as you believe in dictating as an atheist to how and what actions the religious and their institutions may perform. How is that different when Jews were forced to leave their companies and their work places because "it is the law". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Jewish_legislation_in_prewar_Nazi_GermanyBy what power do you do these things? We are right because we say so? User was temp banned for this post.
Are you seriously asking how a law that forces private companies, associations and organisations to treat everybody the same, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, religion and race is different from the Nazi persecution of the Jews?
Well, one of them forced the Jews to leave their workplaces on the basis of their race, the other one protected the Jews from ever being forced to leave their workplaces on the basis of their race. Also night is the one when it's dark and day is the one with the sun, that's how you can tell them apart.
|
On December 24 2012 00:23 Gendi2545 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 21:48 Reason wrote:On December 23 2012 12:08 sam!zdat wrote:On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:On December 22 2012 05:36 sam!zdat wrote:
I don't think that the belief "Black people are an inferior race" is a valid religious belief Lol? You think you can dictate what is and is not a valid religious belief? All religious beliefs are valid, or none of them are. Yes, of course I can offer a judgment about the validity of some religious belief. Your position is the worst sort of vulgar relativism. There is no way to go about doing anything without making judgments of this sort. In fact, your position is self-contradictory - can you see how? edit: you do this too, all the time, you just deny that you do because your ideology tells you that you are "rational" and "objective" and that religion is "all made up." But making judgments of this sort presents no problem at all for me, because I take religion seriously as philosophical discourse and therefore hold that it is open to critique. As far as I'm concerned no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another, until you are prepared to offer a reason as to why this might be don't bother talking to me about philosophical discourse. If religion is nothing but fairy tales then why do more enlightened people take it so seriously? Let Christians practice their harmless rituals without interfering. If someone wants to join in, then it seems reasonable that they become a Christian themselves and follow the rules of the church.
I can give you a number of reasons to answer your question about "enlightened people" but that would be going wildly off topic.
You've chosen to take what I've written out of context as if it's an attack on religion.
It was merely a statement of fact, all religious beliefs are based on unprovable and untestable assumptions.
My opinion is that you therefore can't claim one individual or group of religious beliefs is more valid than the other.
On December 24 2012 00:24 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 21:48 Reason wrote:On December 23 2012 12:08 sam!zdat wrote:On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:On December 22 2012 05:36 sam!zdat wrote:
I don't think that the belief "Black people are an inferior race" is a valid religious belief Lol? You think you can dictate what is and is not a valid religious belief? All religious beliefs are valid, or none of them are. Yes, of course I can offer a judgment about the validity of some religious belief. Your position is the worst sort of vulgar relativism. There is no way to go about doing anything without making judgments of this sort. In fact, your position is self-contradictory - can you see how? edit: you do this too, all the time, you just deny that you do because your ideology tells you that you are "rational" and "objective" and that religion is "all made up." But making judgments of this sort presents no problem at all for me, because I take religion seriously as philosophical discourse and therefore hold that it is open to critique. As far as I'm concerned no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another, until you are prepared to offer a reason as to why this might be don't bother talking to me about philosophical discourse. Last I checked, private property rights are made up? You contradict yourself.
I have not contradicted myself in the slightest, despite now two claims to the contrary.
If anyone wishes to claim I am "contradicting" myself you will need to find two contradictory statements written by me and quote them, otherwise please abstain from doing so.
If you are trying to say that all belief systems are equally unfounded then I fear you are rather confused about the difference between them.
|
On December 23 2012 08:56 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 08:36 Zergofobic wrote:On December 23 2012 05:49 KwarK wrote:On December 23 2012 01:04 teapot wrote:On December 23 2012 00:19 silynxer wrote:On December 22 2012 23:47 teapot wrote:On December 22 2012 22:57 silynxer wrote:On December 22 2012 22:34 Reason wrote:On December 22 2012 17:49 Maenander wrote:On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:
First of all, the definition of marriage.
A mixed badminton tournament is, by definition, one male and one female.
Are you trying to say you think marriage is also so defined?
In my opinion there is no general definition of marriage, every religious sect should define marriage however it pleases. They can marry themselves to ants for all I care. It is the definition of marriages that are legally binding that we should worry about. On December 22 2012 17:16 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Of course not. Gay men aren't women, they just like dick as much as straight women. Entry to badminton tournaments isn't based upon how much you like dick. But it is based upon gender. Leave the "sexual"(a linguistic mess) aspect out of it and call it same-sex doubles and it is still a valid point. On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:
Secondly, are you are saying religious organisations shouldn't be subject to the same anti-discrimination laws as non-religious organisations and if so, why?
I think there should be a limit to how much the state interferes in private matters. Religion should be a private matter. As Kwark already pointed out the problems in the UK stem from the lack of separation of religion and state. If the state endorses a religion it also takes responsibility for its contents. So why did you bring up mixed badminton doubles then? It makes no sense. The church is offering a public service and charging for it, once they did that it no longer became a private matter. No one is telling the church what to believe or to teach to their followers. You don't need to be a member of the church to get married there, nor even part of their religion. This is very far from a private matter. I do not know much about the Anglican Church but from what I read you would want to force all churches to perform marriage rites for same sex couples. So concerning for example the Catholic Church the above is plain wrong. One person must be Catholic for a Catholic marriage to take place. Furthermore, if the partner is not Catholic you need to get a special permission to be married and it's basically up to the priest to decide. In this day and age this could be a formality, I don't know, but the priest could decline to marry you. This makes sense because for the priest it's more than a service, it's a holy rite and he probably loads sin on himself if he doesn't adhere to his beliefs. Protestants are not that strict but something similar is in place for them as well, if i recall correctly. Does anyone know about Muslim marriages? Btw Wikipedia says you cannot be married in a Catholic church if you are permanently impotent, they really believe this stuff about procreation and traditional family etc. ..and there's the difference. 'Church of England' is just something people tick on a box when they fill out forms, but don't think about, or really believe in ... until they want to get married in the traditional manner i.e. in a church. Read what I wrote in the post directly above yours. Can you guys (Kwark, Reason, etc.) clarify if you want to force all churches to marry homosexual couples or only the Church of England? Sorry if you already did, but the thread is quite long and from your posts I genuinely think you argued for the former. I don't think it is forcing any particular church to provide same-sex marriage, just legalizing it for those that are willing. What I want would be forcing, that's what I've been arguing for. What this bill would do is several things. It would legalise it for the churches that are willing, it would provide unprecedented exemptions from antidiscrimination laws for those that aren't, it would act as a precedent that religious convictions should not be held to the same common standards as secular convictions in society and it would involve secular law heavily in the church including laying out a legally approved doctrine and making apostasy and schism illegal. This bill satisfies nobody. It's a complete clusterfuck. You would be discriminating against those people by forcing them to do something against their will by the threat of violence. You would be literally serving evil, because the road to hell is paved with good intentions and your aren't even good to begin with. Every single law ever forces people to do something against their will by the threat of violence. That's not the definition of discrimination. You need to look these words up before you use them.
No. If I make a law that says: The people right to free speech shall not be abridged by any law. That is a law that guarantees the free speech of the people and protects it from law.
If I create a law that says: Person who commits a violent crime against another person shall be persecuted in a court of law. I just created a law that punishes violent crime, yet protects the persons right to trial.
So no, not all laws force people to so something, nor should they. Laws should be there to protect rights and expand liberties, not the opposite.
|
On December 12 2012 04:41 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 04:40 Lonyo wrote:On December 12 2012 04:37 QuanticHawk wrote:
I think that this is pretty awesome and fair. Pro marriage, but I don't think that the state should be able to force religious institutions to marry people.
However, if a church wants to place itself on that list, I think the state should start charging religious institutions tax on their properties... thought that should probably happen either way though.
I still don't think that it is the place of the state to intervene on religious matters like this. There will also be churches that will happily marry gays. The main issue is that you won't be legally allowed to marry gays if you are a member of a group which does not allow it. It's not allowing refusal, it's making acceptance illegal on an individual basis if you are part of a group that does not accept it. Yes, this is the part that troubles me most greatly, the government has effectively quashed inner-denominational social policy debate as it pertains to the treatment of homosexuality, and that seems utterly wrong to me.
Except the whole basis as to why you are a part of the denomination to begin with is because you agree with their views on big issues such as Abortion, Gay Marriage, End of Life Decisions, et cetera. If you disagree on a fundamentally held view within your religious denomination, then it is time to seriously consider no longer being part of that denomination.
|
On December 24 2012 07:19 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 13:22 The Final Boss wrote:On December 23 2012 12:53 IntoTheheart wrote:On December 23 2012 12:50 The Final Boss wrote:
I'm a bit confused, could somebody clarify something for me? Are you claiming that you believe that Catholic churches and other religious institutions should be forced to recognize gay marriage and perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples? I don't know if that's what you're implying, but frankly that's ridiculous and would never happen, as that would be infringing upon the right to practice religion. While I understand the problems with not offering the same legal benefits to gay couples in terms of civil marriage, the way I practice religious marriage is my choice. What I call "marriage" is up to me, I can say I'm married to three women, a man, my brother, a horse, or whatever else I choose, but I will only get the legal benefits if I practice the form of civil marriage that is accepted by the state. Declaring that there is one interpretation for religious marriage is ridiculous. Frankly, as a practicing Catholic, I understand the desire for civil unions and such, but gay couples are never going to be able to get married in a Catholic church because that's not what marriage is, at least as far as religious marriage is defined by the Catholic church. Just as I don't need to recognize other people's religions, I do not need to recognize the religious marriages that others celebrate. No they have the choice (before the law is passed) to choose whether or not they'll allow their institutions to host gay marriage. Catholics I think (I think it was mentioned in the OP) already said that they would not be alright with it. edit: and thus the law would mean that Catholic churches would not be allowed to host gay marriage. On December 23 2012 08:56 KwarK wrote:On December 23 2012 08:36 Zergofobic wrote:On December 23 2012 05:49 KwarK wrote:On December 23 2012 01:04 teapot wrote:On December 23 2012 00:19 silynxer wrote:On December 22 2012 23:47 teapot wrote:On December 22 2012 22:57 silynxer wrote:On December 22 2012 22:34 Reason wrote:
[quote]
So why did you bring up mixed badminton doubles then? It makes no sense.
The church is offering a public service and charging for it, once they did that it no longer became a private matter. No one is telling the church what to believe or to teach to their followers.
You don't need to be a member of the church to get married there, nor even part of their religion. This is very far from a private matter. I do not know much about the Anglican Church but from what I read you would want to force all churches to perform marriage rites for same sex couples. So concerning for example the Catholic Church the above is plain wrong. One person must be Catholic for a Catholic marriage to take place. Furthermore, if the partner is not Catholic you need to get a special permission to be married and it's basically up to the priest to decide. In this day and age this could be a formality, I don't know, but the priest could decline to marry you. This makes sense because for the priest it's more than a service, it's a holy rite and he probably loads sin on himself if he doesn't adhere to his beliefs. Protestants are not that strict but something similar is in place for them as well, if i recall correctly. Does anyone know about Muslim marriages? Btw Wikipedia says you cannot be married in a Catholic church if you are permanently impotent, they really believe this stuff about procreation and traditional family etc. ..and there's the difference. 'Church of England' is just something people tick on a box when they fill out forms, but don't think about, or really believe in ... until they want to get married in the traditional manner i.e. in a church. Read what I wrote in the post directly above yours. Can you guys (Kwark, Reason, etc.) clarify if you want to force all churches to marry homosexual couples or only the Church of England? Sorry if you already did, but the thread is quite long and from your posts I genuinely think you argued for the former. I don't think it is forcing any particular church to provide same-sex marriage, just legalizing it for those that are willing. What I want would be forcing, that's what I've been arguing for. What this bill would do is several things. It would legalise it for the churches that are willing, it would provide unprecedented exemptions from antidiscrimination laws for those that aren't, it would act as a precedent that religious convictions should not be held to the same common standards as secular convictions in society and it would involve secular law heavily in the church including laying out a legally approved doctrine and making apostasy and schism illegal. This bill satisfies nobody. It's a complete clusterfuck. You would be discriminating against those people by forcing them to do something against their will by the threat of violence. You would be literally serving evil, because the road to hell is paved with good intentions and your aren't even good to begin with. Every single law ever forces people to do something against their will by the threat of violence. That's not the definition of discrimination. You need to look these words up before you use them. According to some of the stuff KwarK is saying, I think he's saying that he thinks that Catholic churches and other religious bodies should be forced to marry gay people. Frankly, that is a gross abuse of government power over the individual's freedom. It goes against freedom of religion, the freedom of religious marriage, and--this is the best part--will never happen, primarily because its batshit crazy. Protecting the "rights" of gays by taking away the right to practice religion is not promoting universal civil rights, but rather is just a disgusting suggestion that infringes upon the rights of everyone who practices a religion. Frankly, I find it funny that KwarK labels others as fascists, but doesn't see a problem with stomping all over freedom of religion. A truly "secular state"--like he claims he is for--should not be viewed as a state with atheistic views and values, but rather a state with no views. What you are espousing is not equal rights, but rather spitting in the face of anyone with different religious views and different values than you yourself hold. As an actual Libertarian, I view your suggested "solution" as simply being an Atheist promoted fascism hiding behind the visage of equality. The best part, though, is that the Catholic Church and other religious institutions will never have to marry gay couples, because while the majority may not always support my Libertarian views, the proposed plan that you have would NEVER be viewed as anything other than it is, a fascist attempt to inhibit the right to practice religion. Okay, firstly, I've not called anyone but the BNP fascists in this topic and the BNP are an openly fascist party so I'm not sure where you're going with that one. Secondly, "stomping over freedom of religion" is not actually making a point, it's simply describing an action. To make a point you need to go further and explain why stomping over freedom of religion is bad. It's like the whole "it's socialism!!!" thing where you describe a policy rather than actually explaining the bits you disagree with. In this case what it comes down to is your unconditional support for the legal freedom to do whatever actions you feel are endorsed, as long as they're the ones endorsed by your particular brand of religion. It's an utterly shameless hypocritical nonsense and flies in the face of rationality and equality. Thirdly, this is in the UK, not the US, so I don't know why you're involving "the majority" and their support for your libertarian views or invoking your rights. Your constitution has no power here, this land still belongs to King George.
Not to skip over your first statement, but I'm a little confused. You want me to explain why I think stomping all over freedom of religion is bad, or to put it in another perspective, why I think freedom of religion is a quintessential right to promoting liberty and equality? There are arguments against freedom of religion and even arguments against freedom of speech + Show Spoiler [tangent] +for instance, despite hearing mostly about Liu Xiaobo and Mo Yan when freedom of speech in China is discussed, there is a large portion of the population that is still okay with the government's censorship and policies which we in the West would label as oppressive.
Before I continue, i think it is very important to make a distinction. There is religious marriage, and then there is civil marriage. If you don't know, civil marriage is the state run institution that offers legal benefits to those who are married. Religious marriage is each individual's--or institution's--interpretation of marriage. What I am talking about is not civil marriage, as the legal benefits are there for straight and gay couples, but rather religious marriage, which is a part of each individual's religious beliefs. Limiting religious marriage is limiting a facet of religious freedom, which--as I said before--you can make an argument for, but do not think that you are promoting equality and don't try to deceive others into thinking that you are.
If it is discriminatory for the Catholic Church to not offer marriage to gay couples--those who interpret marriage differently than the Catholic Church do--does this also mean that it is discriminatory for the Catholic Church to not marry a polygamist and three women or a man and a horse? If a person has a truly outlandish interpretation of marriage, should we be forced to marry them in any institution and provide them with economic benefits. Frankly, when people talk about legalizing gay marriage in American politics, they have stated to use the phrase "marriage equality," which is a bit of a misnomer because it is actually just another interpretation of marriage which we then use to define civil marriage (for instance polygamy is still illegal).
But if you really want me to explain why freedom of religion is important, it is because faith is an important part of some people's identity. While you may not feel that way, there are people who feel strongly about their faith, just as others feel that their heritage, race, gender, or sexual orientation is an important part of their identity. I am of the opinion that limiting freedom of speech or religion is destructive to a free society. What you want is not a secular state, but rather an atheist state. A secular state would have no opinion, but you have a clearly biased view, and while you can call your views whatever you'd like, calling yourself a "secularist" is a frankly not true.
But back to the first statement you made about fascism, from your posts I got the sense that you are addressing the BNP as being the main enemies against your suggested idea, which simply is not true. They surely are against it because it's a terrible idea that is offensive and oppressive against everyone who has different religious views than you, but there are a lot more people than those fascists who disagree with that idea. Also, I don't know as much about British politics as I do about American ones, but I don't think that all of the BNP identifies themselves as fascists, and since that term has a very negative connotation going along with it, I think a better way of viewing them is a socially highly conservative party. For the premises of this thread--particularly because not everybody in this thread is well versed in British politics--I think it would be best to change "fascist" to "socially conservative" at least in the OP, so as to remain impartial.
And finally, I understand that you are in the UK and I am in the United States of America. However, just as I am critical of oppressive policies in China, France, and the United States of America, I will voice my opinions on the UK's policies. We have a different political system, but my convictions about human rights, freedom of religion, and equality do not adhere to where you live, but rather simply the fact that we all are human beings.
|
United States42437 Posts
On December 24 2012 08:35 The Final Boss wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2012 07:19 KwarK wrote:On December 23 2012 13:22 The Final Boss wrote:On December 23 2012 12:53 IntoTheheart wrote:On December 23 2012 12:50 The Final Boss wrote:
I'm a bit confused, could somebody clarify something for me? Are you claiming that you believe that Catholic churches and other religious institutions should be forced to recognize gay marriage and perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples? I don't know if that's what you're implying, but frankly that's ridiculous and would never happen, as that would be infringing upon the right to practice religion. While I understand the problems with not offering the same legal benefits to gay couples in terms of civil marriage, the way I practice religious marriage is my choice. What I call "marriage" is up to me, I can say I'm married to three women, a man, my brother, a horse, or whatever else I choose, but I will only get the legal benefits if I practice the form of civil marriage that is accepted by the state. Declaring that there is one interpretation for religious marriage is ridiculous. Frankly, as a practicing Catholic, I understand the desire for civil unions and such, but gay couples are never going to be able to get married in a Catholic church because that's not what marriage is, at least as far as religious marriage is defined by the Catholic church. Just as I don't need to recognize other people's religions, I do not need to recognize the religious marriages that others celebrate. No they have the choice (before the law is passed) to choose whether or not they'll allow their institutions to host gay marriage. Catholics I think (I think it was mentioned in the OP) already said that they would not be alright with it. edit: and thus the law would mean that Catholic churches would not be allowed to host gay marriage. On December 23 2012 08:56 KwarK wrote:On December 23 2012 08:36 Zergofobic wrote:On December 23 2012 05:49 KwarK wrote:On December 23 2012 01:04 teapot wrote:On December 23 2012 00:19 silynxer wrote:On December 22 2012 23:47 teapot wrote:On December 22 2012 22:57 silynxer wrote:
[quote]
I do not know much about the Anglican Church but from what I read you would want to force all churches to perform marriage rites for same sex couples. So concerning for example the Catholic Church the above is plain wrong. One person must be Catholic for a Catholic marriage to take place. Furthermore, if the partner is not Catholic you need to get a special permission to be married and it's basically up to the priest to decide. In this day and age this could be a formality, I don't know, but the priest could decline to marry you.
This makes sense because for the priest it's more than a service, it's a holy rite and he probably loads sin on himself if he doesn't adhere to his beliefs. Protestants are not that strict but something similar is in place for them as well, if i recall correctly. Does anyone know about Muslim marriages?
Btw Wikipedia says you cannot be married in a Catholic church if you are permanently impotent, they really believe this stuff about procreation and traditional family etc. ..and there's the difference. 'Church of England' is just something people tick on a box when they fill out forms, but don't think about, or really believe in ... until they want to get married in the traditional manner i.e. in a church. Read what I wrote in the post directly above yours. Can you guys (Kwark, Reason, etc.) clarify if you want to force all churches to marry homosexual couples or only the Church of England? Sorry if you already did, but the thread is quite long and from your posts I genuinely think you argued for the former. I don't think it is forcing any particular church to provide same-sex marriage, just legalizing it for those that are willing. What I want would be forcing, that's what I've been arguing for. What this bill would do is several things. It would legalise it for the churches that are willing, it would provide unprecedented exemptions from antidiscrimination laws for those that aren't, it would act as a precedent that religious convictions should not be held to the same common standards as secular convictions in society and it would involve secular law heavily in the church including laying out a legally approved doctrine and making apostasy and schism illegal. This bill satisfies nobody. It's a complete clusterfuck. You would be discriminating against those people by forcing them to do something against their will by the threat of violence. You would be literally serving evil, because the road to hell is paved with good intentions and your aren't even good to begin with. Every single law ever forces people to do something against their will by the threat of violence. That's not the definition of discrimination. You need to look these words up before you use them. According to some of the stuff KwarK is saying, I think he's saying that he thinks that Catholic churches and other religious bodies should be forced to marry gay people. Frankly, that is a gross abuse of government power over the individual's freedom. It goes against freedom of religion, the freedom of religious marriage, and--this is the best part--will never happen, primarily because its batshit crazy. Protecting the "rights" of gays by taking away the right to practice religion is not promoting universal civil rights, but rather is just a disgusting suggestion that infringes upon the rights of everyone who practices a religion. Frankly, I find it funny that KwarK labels others as fascists, but doesn't see a problem with stomping all over freedom of religion. A truly "secular state"--like he claims he is for--should not be viewed as a state with atheistic views and values, but rather a state with no views. What you are espousing is not equal rights, but rather spitting in the face of anyone with different religious views and different values than you yourself hold. As an actual Libertarian, I view your suggested "solution" as simply being an Atheist promoted fascism hiding behind the visage of equality. The best part, though, is that the Catholic Church and other religious institutions will never have to marry gay couples, because while the majority may not always support my Libertarian views, the proposed plan that you have would NEVER be viewed as anything other than it is, a fascist attempt to inhibit the right to practice religion. Okay, firstly, I've not called anyone but the BNP fascists in this topic and the BNP are an openly fascist party so I'm not sure where you're going with that one. Secondly, "stomping over freedom of religion" is not actually making a point, it's simply describing an action. To make a point you need to go further and explain why stomping over freedom of religion is bad. It's like the whole "it's socialism!!!" thing where you describe a policy rather than actually explaining the bits you disagree with. In this case what it comes down to is your unconditional support for the legal freedom to do whatever actions you feel are endorsed, as long as they're the ones endorsed by your particular brand of religion. It's an utterly shameless hypocritical nonsense and flies in the face of rationality and equality. Thirdly, this is in the UK, not the US, so I don't know why you're involving "the majority" and their support for your libertarian views or invoking your rights. Your constitution has no power here, this land still belongs to King George. Not to skip over your first statement, but I'm a little confused. You want me to explain why I think stomping all over freedom of religion is bad, or to put it in another perspective, why I think freedom of religion is a quintessential right to promoting liberty and equality? There are arguments against freedom of religion and even arguments against freedom of speech + Show Spoiler [tangent] +for instance, despite hearing mostly about Liu Xiaobo and Mo Yan when freedom of speech in China is discussed, there is a large portion of the population that is still okay with the government's censorship and policies which we in the West would label as oppressive. and frankly if you hold those views there is nothing wrong with that. However, you should not try to hide behind the banner of equality if that is not what you are actually standing for. Before I continue, i think it is very important to make a distinction. There is religious marriage, and then there is civil marriage. If you don't know, civil marriage is the state run institution that offers legal benefits to those who are married. Religious marriage is each individual's--or institution's--interpretation of marriage. What I am talking about is not civil marriage, as the legal benefits are there for straight and gay couples, but rather religious marriage, which is a part of each individual's religious beliefs. Limiting religious marriage is limiting a facet of religious freedom, which--as I said before--you can make an argument for, but do not think that you are promoting equality and don't try to deceive others into thinking that you are. If it is discriminatory for the Catholic Church to not offer marriage to gay couples--those who interpret marriage differently than the Catholic Church do--does this also mean that it is discriminatory for the Catholic Church to not marry a polygamist and three women or a man and a horse? If a person has a truly outlandish interpretation of marriage, should we be forced to marry them in any institution and provide them with economic benefits. Frankly, when people talk about legalizing gay marriage in American politics, they have stated to use the phrase "marriage equality," which is a bit of a misnomer because it is actually just another interpretation of marriage which we then use to define civil marriage (for instance polygamy is still illegal). But if you really want me to explain why freedom of religion is important, it is because faith is an important part of some people's identity. While you may not feel that way, there are people who feel strongly about their faith, just as others feel that their heritage, race, gender, or sexual orientation is an important part of their identity. I am of the opinion that limiting freedom of speech or religion is destructive to a free society. What you want is not a secular state, but rather an atheist state. A secular state would have no opinion, but you have a clearly biased view, and while you can call your views whatever you'd like, calling yourself a "secularist" is a frankly not true. But back to the first statement you made about fascism, from your posts I got the sense that you are addressing the BNP as being the main enemies against your suggested idea, which simply is not true. They surely are against it because it's a terrible idea that is offensive and oppressive against everyone who has different religious views than you, but there are a lot more people than those fascists who disagree with that idea. Also, I don't know as much about British politics as I do about American ones, but I don't think that all of the BNP identifies themselves as fascists, and since that term has a very negative connotation going along with it, I think a better way of viewing them is a socially highly conservative party. For the premises of this thread--particularly because not everybody in this thread is well versed in British politics--I think it would be best to change "fascist" to "socially conservative" at least in the OP, so as to remain impartial. And finally, I understand that you are in the UK and I am in the United States of America. However, just as I am critical of oppressive policies in China, France, and the United States of America, I will voice my opinions on the UK's policies. We have a different political system, but my convictions about human rights, freedom of religion, and equality do not adhere to where you live, but rather simply the fact that we all are human beings.
Regarding not marrying a horse being discrimination. This is either confusion on your part or a bad attempt to make an argument out of word games. I shall clarify. Discrimination means, in it's simplest sense, identifying a difference and choosing one. That isn't illegal in general. Identifying that a horse isn't a person isn't illegal. What we use discrimination to mean in this discussion is the sense in which it is relevant, grounds upon which discrimination is illegal. Sexual orientation is one of those. So, not marrying a horse because it's a horse is technically discrimination but as a horse is not a protected group it would not be illegal discrimination. Refusing to marry a homosexual couple however would be.
You have again tied things which are unrelated together. You start with the premise that a church can choose to treat homosexuals and heterosexuals differently, an action that exists in the secular world. You then say that them making that choice is freedom of religion. You then go further to say that it is the same as freedom of speech. This is an unproven syllogism and one that I challenge. Therefore your conclusion that I oppose freedom of speech is completely without basis, I oppose freedom of religious action when it contradicts the limits that we put upon the rest of actions we have in society, and, making this even more hypocritical, so do you for every religion but your own.
Take the putting of apostates to the sword. If a Muslim man murdered another who had converted from Islam to Christianity then you would want him prosecuted for murder (I assume). However the religious legitimacy of his action cannot be contested, it comes straight from the Koran, nor can the sincerity of the religion as it is a major world religion. What you have is a man acting in accordance with his religious beliefs and if the society was built on religious rules then there would be no issue with it. The reason you take issue with it is because you apply secular principles on what a moral society looks like to his action and conclude that what he has done is wrong, despite the religious convictions that lay behind it. Although it is based in religious belief it is an action by which he physically expresses his religious belief and therefore it has real consequences in the secular world and falls under secular law. If however the same man were to believe with his whole heart that the apostate deserved to be put to death but not murder him then he would be believing what his religion believed but would be in line with secular law. His belief, as an opinion, would be protected by the exact same freedom of opinions that protects every other opinion and speech we have.
The exact same system applies here. The idea that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry is protected under freedom of speech, as are all such ideas. However the action of discriminating against them is not protected because it falls under secular law.
I pose you the following questions.
Firstly, if religious expression is granted protection from secular law on the basis of religious freedom then is there any limit? Is it merely the religious beliefs you approve of that get protection or is it all of them?
Secondly, how does religious belief in the personal sense (what you think, what it means to you) differ from any other strongly held conviction, for example those held by animal rights activists? Do you think there people within vegan communities who are more passionate and derive more meaning from their beliefs than some of the less zealous within a religion?
Thirdly, how do you reconcile this entire issue with Jesus' recommendation that his followers "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's", Christianity was from it's outset submissive to the secular authority, it existed against a background in which the Jewish people were next to wiped out for resistance to the overwhelming power of the Roman state. The Middle Ages happened and it no longer suited the clergy to submit to kings because the power of the kings was a shadow of that which the Roman Emperor commanded but the words are still right there in Jesus' mouth.
|
United States42437 Posts
On December 24 2012 07:54 Zergofobic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 08:56 KwarK wrote:On December 23 2012 08:36 Zergofobic wrote:On December 23 2012 05:49 KwarK wrote:On December 23 2012 01:04 teapot wrote:On December 23 2012 00:19 silynxer wrote:On December 22 2012 23:47 teapot wrote:On December 22 2012 22:57 silynxer wrote:On December 22 2012 22:34 Reason wrote:On December 22 2012 17:49 Maenander wrote:
[quote]
In my opinion there is no general definition of marriage, every religious sect should define marriage however it pleases. They can marry themselves to ants for all I care. It is the definition of marriages that are legally binding that we should worry about.
[quote]
But it is based upon gender. Leave the "sexual"(a linguistic mess) aspect out of it and call it same-sex doubles and it is still a valid point.
[quote]
I think there should be a limit to how much the state interferes in private matters. Religion should be a private matter. As Kwark already pointed out the problems in the UK stem from the lack of separation of religion and state. If the state endorses a religion it also takes responsibility for its contents. So why did you bring up mixed badminton doubles then? It makes no sense. The church is offering a public service and charging for it, once they did that it no longer became a private matter. No one is telling the church what to believe or to teach to their followers. You don't need to be a member of the church to get married there, nor even part of their religion. This is very far from a private matter. I do not know much about the Anglican Church but from what I read you would want to force all churches to perform marriage rites for same sex couples. So concerning for example the Catholic Church the above is plain wrong. One person must be Catholic for a Catholic marriage to take place. Furthermore, if the partner is not Catholic you need to get a special permission to be married and it's basically up to the priest to decide. In this day and age this could be a formality, I don't know, but the priest could decline to marry you. This makes sense because for the priest it's more than a service, it's a holy rite and he probably loads sin on himself if he doesn't adhere to his beliefs. Protestants are not that strict but something similar is in place for them as well, if i recall correctly. Does anyone know about Muslim marriages? Btw Wikipedia says you cannot be married in a Catholic church if you are permanently impotent, they really believe this stuff about procreation and traditional family etc. ..and there's the difference. 'Church of England' is just something people tick on a box when they fill out forms, but don't think about, or really believe in ... until they want to get married in the traditional manner i.e. in a church. Read what I wrote in the post directly above yours. Can you guys (Kwark, Reason, etc.) clarify if you want to force all churches to marry homosexual couples or only the Church of England? Sorry if you already did, but the thread is quite long and from your posts I genuinely think you argued for the former. I don't think it is forcing any particular church to provide same-sex marriage, just legalizing it for those that are willing. What I want would be forcing, that's what I've been arguing for. What this bill would do is several things. It would legalise it for the churches that are willing, it would provide unprecedented exemptions from antidiscrimination laws for those that aren't, it would act as a precedent that religious convictions should not be held to the same common standards as secular convictions in society and it would involve secular law heavily in the church including laying out a legally approved doctrine and making apostasy and schism illegal. This bill satisfies nobody. It's a complete clusterfuck. You would be discriminating against those people by forcing them to do something against their will by the threat of violence. You would be literally serving evil, because the road to hell is paved with good intentions and your aren't even good to begin with. Every single law ever forces people to do something against their will by the threat of violence. That's not the definition of discrimination. You need to look these words up before you use them. No. If I make a law that says: The people right to free speech shall not be abridged by any law. That is a law that guarantees the free speech of the people and protects it from law. If I create a law that says: Person who commits a violent crime against another person shall be persecuted in a court of law. I just created a law that punishes violent crime, yet protects the persons right to trial. So no, not all laws force people to so something, nor should they. Laws should be there to protect rights and expand liberties, not the opposite.
And if you made a law that said the right to free speech shall not be abridged by any law and then I, as an aspiring tyrant, tried to limit free speech then you'd rise up against me for breaking the law. Law is coercion, it has to be for it to have any meaning.
|
On December 24 2012 07:56 NEOtheONE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 04:41 farvacola wrote:On December 12 2012 04:40 Lonyo wrote:On December 12 2012 04:37 QuanticHawk wrote:
I think that this is pretty awesome and fair. Pro marriage, but I don't think that the state should be able to force religious institutions to marry people.
However, if a church wants to place itself on that list, I think the state should start charging religious institutions tax on their properties... thought that should probably happen either way though.
I still don't think that it is the place of the state to intervene on religious matters like this. There will also be churches that will happily marry gays. The main issue is that you won't be legally allowed to marry gays if you are a member of a group which does not allow it. It's not allowing refusal, it's making acceptance illegal on an individual basis if you are part of a group that does not accept it. Yes, this is the part that troubles me most greatly, the government has effectively quashed inner-denominational social policy debate as it pertains to the treatment of homosexuality, and that seems utterly wrong to me. Except the whole basis as to why you are a part of the denomination to begin with is because you agree with their views on big issues such as Abortion, Gay Marriage, End of Life Decisions, et cetera. If you disagree on a fundamentally held view within your religious denomination, then it is time to seriously consider no longer being part of that denomination.
Yes but in this case it means that social progress will only be made once everyone leaves the church and it dies out because adaptation is illegal. That kinda stinks. I'm no fan of religion but they do make pretty songs and churches.
|
On December 24 2012 09:22 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2012 08:35 The Final Boss wrote:On December 24 2012 07:19 KwarK wrote:On December 23 2012 13:22 The Final Boss wrote:On December 23 2012 12:53 IntoTheheart wrote:On December 23 2012 12:50 The Final Boss wrote:
I'm a bit confused, could somebody clarify something for me? Are you claiming that you believe that Catholic churches and other religious institutions should be forced to recognize gay marriage and perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples? I don't know if that's what you're implying, but frankly that's ridiculous and would never happen, as that would be infringing upon the right to practice religion. While I understand the problems with not offering the same legal benefits to gay couples in terms of civil marriage, the way I practice religious marriage is my choice. What I call "marriage" is up to me, I can say I'm married to three women, a man, my brother, a horse, or whatever else I choose, but I will only get the legal benefits if I practice the form of civil marriage that is accepted by the state. Declaring that there is one interpretation for religious marriage is ridiculous. Frankly, as a practicing Catholic, I understand the desire for civil unions and such, but gay couples are never going to be able to get married in a Catholic church because that's not what marriage is, at least as far as religious marriage is defined by the Catholic church. Just as I don't need to recognize other people's religions, I do not need to recognize the religious marriages that others celebrate. No they have the choice (before the law is passed) to choose whether or not they'll allow their institutions to host gay marriage. Catholics I think (I think it was mentioned in the OP) already said that they would not be alright with it. edit: and thus the law would mean that Catholic churches would not be allowed to host gay marriage. On December 23 2012 08:56 KwarK wrote:On December 23 2012 08:36 Zergofobic wrote:On December 23 2012 05:49 KwarK wrote:On December 23 2012 01:04 teapot wrote:On December 23 2012 00:19 silynxer wrote:On December 22 2012 23:47 teapot wrote:
[quote]
..and there's the difference.
'Church of England' is just something people tick on a box when they fill out forms, but don't think about, or really believe in ... until they want to get married in the traditional manner i.e. in a church.
Read what I wrote in the post directly above yours. Can you guys (Kwark, Reason, etc.) clarify if you want to force all churches to marry homosexual couples or only the Church of England? Sorry if you already did, but the thread is quite long and from your posts I genuinely think you argued for the former. I don't think it is forcing any particular church to provide same-sex marriage, just legalizing it for those that are willing. What I want would be forcing, that's what I've been arguing for. What this bill would do is several things. It would legalise it for the churches that are willing, it would provide unprecedented exemptions from antidiscrimination laws for those that aren't, it would act as a precedent that religious convictions should not be held to the same common standards as secular convictions in society and it would involve secular law heavily in the church including laying out a legally approved doctrine and making apostasy and schism illegal. This bill satisfies nobody. It's a complete clusterfuck. You would be discriminating against those people by forcing them to do something against their will by the threat of violence. You would be literally serving evil, because the road to hell is paved with good intentions and your aren't even good to begin with. Every single law ever forces people to do something against their will by the threat of violence. That's not the definition of discrimination. You need to look these words up before you use them. According to some of the stuff KwarK is saying, I think he's saying that he thinks that Catholic churches and other religious bodies should be forced to marry gay people. Frankly, that is a gross abuse of government power over the individual's freedom. It goes against freedom of religion, the freedom of religious marriage, and--this is the best part--will never happen, primarily because its batshit crazy. Protecting the "rights" of gays by taking away the right to practice religion is not promoting universal civil rights, but rather is just a disgusting suggestion that infringes upon the rights of everyone who practices a religion. Frankly, I find it funny that KwarK labels others as fascists, but doesn't see a problem with stomping all over freedom of religion. A truly "secular state"--like he claims he is for--should not be viewed as a state with atheistic views and values, but rather a state with no views. What you are espousing is not equal rights, but rather spitting in the face of anyone with different religious views and different values than you yourself hold. As an actual Libertarian, I view your suggested "solution" as simply being an Atheist promoted fascism hiding behind the visage of equality. The best part, though, is that the Catholic Church and other religious institutions will never have to marry gay couples, because while the majority may not always support my Libertarian views, the proposed plan that you have would NEVER be viewed as anything other than it is, a fascist attempt to inhibit the right to practice religion. Okay, firstly, I've not called anyone but the BNP fascists in this topic and the BNP are an openly fascist party so I'm not sure where you're going with that one. Secondly, "stomping over freedom of religion" is not actually making a point, it's simply describing an action. To make a point you need to go further and explain why stomping over freedom of religion is bad. It's like the whole "it's socialism!!!" thing where you describe a policy rather than actually explaining the bits you disagree with. In this case what it comes down to is your unconditional support for the legal freedom to do whatever actions you feel are endorsed, as long as they're the ones endorsed by your particular brand of religion. It's an utterly shameless hypocritical nonsense and flies in the face of rationality and equality. Thirdly, this is in the UK, not the US, so I don't know why you're involving "the majority" and their support for your libertarian views or invoking your rights. Your constitution has no power here, this land still belongs to King George. Not to skip over your first statement, but I'm a little confused. You want me to explain why I think stomping all over freedom of religion is bad, or to put it in another perspective, why I think freedom of religion is a quintessential right to promoting liberty and equality? There are arguments against freedom of religion and even arguments against freedom of speech + Show Spoiler [tangent] +for instance, despite hearing mostly about Liu Xiaobo and Mo Yan when freedom of speech in China is discussed, there is a large portion of the population that is still okay with the government's censorship and policies which we in the West would label as oppressive. and frankly if you hold those views there is nothing wrong with that. However, you should not try to hide behind the banner of equality if that is not what you are actually standing for. Before I continue, i think it is very important to make a distinction. There is religious marriage, and then there is civil marriage. If you don't know, civil marriage is the state run institution that offers legal benefits to those who are married. Religious marriage is each individual's--or institution's--interpretation of marriage. What I am talking about is not civil marriage, as the legal benefits are there for straight and gay couples, but rather religious marriage, which is a part of each individual's religious beliefs. Limiting religious marriage is limiting a facet of religious freedom, which--as I said before--you can make an argument for, but do not think that you are promoting equality and don't try to deceive others into thinking that you are. If it is discriminatory for the Catholic Church to not offer marriage to gay couples--those who interpret marriage differently than the Catholic Church do--does this also mean that it is discriminatory for the Catholic Church to not marry a polygamist and three women or a man and a horse? If a person has a truly outlandish interpretation of marriage, should we be forced to marry them in any institution and provide them with economic benefits. Frankly, when people talk about legalizing gay marriage in American politics, they have stated to use the phrase "marriage equality," which is a bit of a misnomer because it is actually just another interpretation of marriage which we then use to define civil marriage (for instance polygamy is still illegal). But if you really want me to explain why freedom of religion is important, it is because faith is an important part of some people's identity. While you may not feel that way, there are people who feel strongly about their faith, just as others feel that their heritage, race, gender, or sexual orientation is an important part of their identity. I am of the opinion that limiting freedom of speech or religion is destructive to a free society. What you want is not a secular state, but rather an atheist state. A secular state would have no opinion, but you have a clearly biased view, and while you can call your views whatever you'd like, calling yourself a "secularist" is a frankly not true. But back to the first statement you made about fascism, from your posts I got the sense that you are addressing the BNP as being the main enemies against your suggested idea, which simply is not true. They surely are against it because it's a terrible idea that is offensive and oppressive against everyone who has different religious views than you, but there are a lot more people than those fascists who disagree with that idea. Also, I don't know as much about British politics as I do about American ones, but I don't think that all of the BNP identifies themselves as fascists, and since that term has a very negative connotation going along with it, I think a better way of viewing them is a socially highly conservative party. For the premises of this thread--particularly because not everybody in this thread is well versed in British politics--I think it would be best to change "fascist" to "socially conservative" at least in the OP, so as to remain impartial. And finally, I understand that you are in the UK and I am in the United States of America. However, just as I am critical of oppressive policies in China, France, and the United States of America, I will voice my opinions on the UK's policies. We have a different political system, but my convictions about human rights, freedom of religion, and equality do not adhere to where you live, but rather simply the fact that we all are human beings. Regarding not marrying a horse being discrimination. This is either confusion on your part or a bad attempt to make an argument out of word games. I shall clarify. Discrimination means, in it's simplest sense, identifying a difference and choosing one. That isn't illegal in general. Identifying that a horse isn't a person isn't illegal. What we use discrimination to mean in this discussion is the sense in which it is relevant, grounds upon which discrimination is illegal. Sexual orientation is one of those. So, not marrying a horse because it's a horse is technically discrimination but as a horse is not a protected group it would not be illegal discrimination. Refusing to marry a homosexual couple however would be. You have again tied things which are unrelated together. You start with the premise that a church can choose to treat homosexuals and heterosexuals differently, an action that exists in the secular world. You then say that them making that choice is freedom of religion. You then go further to say that it is the same as freedom of speech. This is an unproven syllogism and one that I challenge. Therefore your conclusion that I oppose freedom of speech is completely without basis, I oppose freedom of religious action when it contradicts the limits that we put upon the rest of actions we have in society, and, making this even more hypocritical, so do you for every religion but your own. Take the putting of apostates to the sword. If a Muslim man murdered another who had converted from Islam to Christianity then you would want him prosecuted for murder (I assume). However the religious legitimacy of his action cannot be contested, it comes straight from the Koran, nor can the sincerity of the religion as it is a major world religion. What you have is a man acting in accordance with his religious beliefs and if the society was built on religious rules then there would be no issue with it. The reason you take issue with it is because you apply secular principles on what a moral society looks like to his action and conclude that what he has done is wrong, despite the religious convictions that lay behind it. Although it is based in religious belief it is an action by which he physically expresses his religious belief and therefore it has real consequences in the secular world and falls under secular law. If however the same man were to believe with his whole heart that the apostate deserved to be put to death but not murder him then he would be believing what his religion believed but would be in line with secular law. His belief, as an opinion, would be protected by the exact same freedom of opinions that protects every other opinion and speech we have. The exact same system applies here. The idea that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry is protected under freedom of speech, as are all such ideas. However the action of discriminating against them is not protected because it falls under secular law. I pose you the following questions. Firstly, if religious expression is granted protection from secular law on the basis of religious freedom then is there any limit? Is it merely the religious beliefs you approve of that get protection or is it all of them? Secondly, how does religious belief in the personal sense (what you think, what it means to you) differ from any other strongly held conviction, for example those held by animal rights activists? Do you think there people within vegan communities who are more passionate and derive more meaning from their beliefs than some of the less zealous within a religion? Thirdly, how do you reconcile this entire issue with Jesus' recommendation that his followers "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's", Christianity was from it's outset submissive to the secular authority, it existed against a background in which the Jewish people were next to wiped out for resistance to the overwhelming power of the Roman state. The Middle Ages happened and it no longer suited the clergy to submit to kings because the power of the kings was a shadow of that which the Roman Emperor commanded but the words are still right there in Jesus' mouth.
What you said contradicts both freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Your suggested idea would involve the government forcing the religious population to conform to what the government believes is correct. This is both a completely nonsecular stance for the government to hold and forces those with different views to conform to what you believe. What you are suggesting is just as outlandish and authoritarian as a government who makes only marriage between a man and a woman legal, and bans gay marriage.
And forget the man marrying a horse suggestion, what are your views on polygamy? + Show Spoiler +just to be clear, the same logic can be applied to the situation of a horse and a man getting "married," but the polygamy case is more compelling and harder for you to twist into something that is getting away from the main point.
I could go on, but the fact of the matter is that you are hiding behind what you claim is equality, and quite simply it is not. It's also really of no use to debate because your views are so ridiculous and crazy that they would never actually be acted upon. You shouldn't call yourself a secularist if you stand for something that completely contradicts that, and if you want to . Simply put, your idea is stupid, unjust, and goes against the ideas of freedom of religion and freedom of speech. I really hope that you'll realize how terribly incorrect you sound, and you can realize that your current idea is just as radical and fascist as the far right BNP that you so vehemently detest.
|
United States42437 Posts
You have failed to address any of the challenges I put forward, nor to understand any of my arguments. Please reread the above post and try again.
In your first paragraph you bring up that I am contradicting freedom of religion. Given that my point is that I am in fact contradicting freedom of religion then it is your job to explain why, when what I am doing is limiting freedom of actions, that is a bad thing. I used the example of murdering apostates to explain why it was necessary, you did not respond.
In your second paragraph you fail to understand the difference between discrimination and illegal discrimination. I thought I explained this pretty clearly. Any choice is technically discrimination by the literal meaning of the word. You discriminate against horses by riding them because they're big enough to bear a human's weight. Polygamists are not a legally protected group, nor should they be. They disagree about the size of the basic family unit but that is not comparable to sexual orientation. Gays are protected because discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is wrong. Polygamists are not because it's not wrong.
You keep saying that what I'm arguing for is crazy when all it is is the application of rules that already exist in society in a more comprehensive way. Religion action is, and always has been, limited by secular law, you just don't want that applying to your religion. It's total hypocrisy and you have failed to in any way address any of it.
|
Singapore147 Posts
On December 24 2012 17:58 KwarK wrote:
Polygamists are not a legally protected group, nor should they be.
Why so discriminatory? Why should polygamists not have the same rights and freedoms as other people? Despite your claim to want equality you are denying these people the right to practice what they want in a way that affects no one except themselves. If marriage is personal and secular, they should be allowed to marry as they wish. Marriage as being between two people only is a concept that derives solely from western judo-Christian values. Plenty of other societies practice polygamy. Thus I posit to you that not only should churches be forced to marry gays but they should also be forced to marry polygamists. Laws should be changed to make this legal as well of course as we need to end this sort of discriminatory policy immediately. Thus, the UK government should legalise polygamy as well.
Edit:Further more, I would like to challenge your notions for gender. In the same way that you view marriage between a man and a woman as gender discriminatory (I'm addressing it on the grounds of gender as opposed to sexual orientation. The church could very easily just argue that they refuse to do it because it's between two people of the same gender instead of their sexual orientation.) I believe that all gender separation in society is discriminatory. An example is the mixed badminton example someone brought up earlier and that you addressed. I think that all sporting bodies competitions etc. should not be allowed to have legislation that prevents people from joining based on gender. The logic for this is the same behind that of allowing Female Bishops in the CoE and allowing them to run for office. Continuing to perpetuate these differences is unbecoming of our liberal, secular society. The belief that men are superior to women in sport perpetuates gender stereotypes and I think both sexes should compete together based on merit. I'm sure there are plenty of women who would do well in Men's competitions and vice versa. Any body or organisation that limits entry based on gender should, like the church be forced to accept both men and women into any and all positions - sports teams, women's book clubs, and single-sex schools included.
(I believe bathrooms should be excluded because women take so damn long to pee and I'd hate having to have long bathroom queues)
/end sarcarsm
|
Australia8532 Posts
On December 24 2012 19:06 pigscanfly wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2012 17:58 KwarK wrote:
Polygamists are not a legally protected group, nor should they be. Why so discriminatory? Why should polygamists not have the same rights and freedoms as other people? Despite your claim to want equality you are denying these people the right to practice what they want in a way that affects no one except themselves. If marriage is personal and secular, they should be allowed to marry as they wish. Marriage as being between two people only is a concept that derives soley from western judeo-christian values. Plenty of other societies practice polygamy. Thus i posit to you that not only should churches be forced to marry gays but they should also be forced to marry polygamists. Laws should be changed to make this legal as well of course, we need to end this sort of discriminatory policy immediatly.
I don't see why people are getting caught up on the polygamy aspect of Kwark's argument; it is peripheral at best. Operate on the assumption that polygamists are not a protected group (as they are not at the moment). The argument for the validity of that position is a separate debate. The discriminatory actions of organised religion in relation to homosexuals is the topic of this thread.
|
Singapore147 Posts
I'm agreeing with him. I also think that other sorts of legislation need to be changed in order to bring all the laws in line with this. You can't just look at the one law in isolation. If it's wrong (which kwark thinks it is) it should be changed, but so should other similarly discriminatory laws.
Edit: It's not peripheral because it's another aspect of marriage. You can't just go "it's irrelevant" and leave it at that. Give me a good reason why it shouldn't be within the ambit of this discussion - which is about definitions of marriage and how it should be available to anyone without discrimination from all institutions (including the church).
Edit: quoted from the moderators note:
"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."
Religious groups also hold sway over views with regard to polygamy and thus it is relevant.
|
Singapore147 Posts
Oh and Kwark I just wanted to say that I mostly agree with you when you quoted "render Caesar what is Caesar's" - I think Church and state should be completely separated, which is at the heart of this marriage debate issue in general. The COE should not be the state Church of the UK. I do however take issue with the idea that that means the Church should listen to exactly what the state says, which seems to be what you're implying. I believe the quote's exact context is about paying tax to the Roman state.
|
On December 24 2012 19:19 pigscanfly wrote:
I'm agreeing with him. I also think that other sorts of legislation need to be changed in order to bring all the laws in line with this. You can't just look at the one law in isolation. If it's wrong (which kwark thinks it is) it should be changed, but so should other similarly discriminatory laws.
Edit: It's not peripheral because it's another aspect of marriage. You can't just go "it's irrelevant" and leave it at that. Give me a good reason why it shouldn't be within the ambit of this discussion - which is about definitions of marriage and how it should be available to anyone without discrimination from all institutions (including the church).
Edit: quoted from the moderators note:
"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."
Religious groups also hold sway over views with regard to polygamy and thus it is relevant.
Please allow me to quote you the moderators note.
"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."
Bkrow already explained this to you extremely well.
Homosexuals are protected by law in the UK but currently, whether they should or shouldn't be, polygamists and horse lovers are not.
That's why it's peripheral.
I do agree with you at first glance but it's not important to this discussion and doesn't answer any of the questions Kwark has posed.
Also, there are good reasons for having seperate sporting events, toilet facilities and various other gender specific activities and zones. . . to suggest these are discriminatory gives me the impression you haven't really thought this through.
|
Just as an aside, I remember reading an article a while back that explained when churches register for tax exemption, they open themselves up to some degree of govt control. They unwittingly give away their rights to free speech through the documents they sign. If at some time govt wants to step in and force the churches to change what they teach, they are then legally allowed to do so. Maybe that's part of what's happening here.
Did a quick search for the article but don't know where it is...
|
United States42437 Posts
That's not relevant in the UK because of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament wields the powers of the monarch which amount to total and absolute power. It can make any law and unmake any law and cannot be bound by any previous Parliament. What this means in practice is that there are no rights and nothing is beyond their power. Now in the UK we have things we commonly understand to be rights under law but the law itself cannot bind Parliament which can, at it's discretion, dissolve the entire system. The Church doesn't need to be tricked out of its rights any more than Henry VIII needed the consent of the monasteries to loot them and steal their land, their rights are just things they are allowed to consider to be rights by the sovereign. In practice there is a limitation to how abusive they could before a revolution but I doubt anyone will rise up over freedom of religious action.
|
On December 19 2012 01:16 sam!zdat wrote:
I'm a pantheist (that's neither a theist, deist, or atheist), but it's not relevant. I could be an atheist and make the same point.
It sounds like you just want to take "suffering = wrong" as an axiom and not present any kind of moral theory. I mean, ok, fine. But that's not very interesting, now is it? You seem to be aware that you cannot design an experiment which would falsify this claim, and so this claim, if true, is not scientific. You seem to then proceed to claim that it's not "true", because all "truth" is scientific truth, but that it is the "true" morality nonetheless simply because you say so. I find this profoundly unphilosophical. You just say "because that is how I use words." Ok. Well what happens if I say "let's use words differently, here's why." All you can do is just get stubborn.
I don't feel like you really have quite grasped the problem here but I don't know how to explain it better. What you're saying doesn't really respond to my point.
Basically you are someone who wants to make a moral claim who is simply (edit: and rather self-righteously) uninterested in defending that claim, and you are someone who is convinced that science is the only way to produce truth claims, again without any interest in defending it - you simply take it as self evident and repeat that claim whenever it is challenged. You must be aware that you cannot prove the claim that science is the only way to produce truth claims with science. I said that before but you ignored it.
If I remember correctly, I asked you about other ways to produce truth claims, but got no response to that question.
On December 19 2012 01:16 sam!zdat wrote:It's not that "we cannot get an absolutely objective model of morality," it's that an "objective" model of morality simply doesn't make any sense. It's like saying we're going to find an "objective" model about art. It's a category error. What does ethics taste like? What is the volume of 1 happiness at room temperature? Yes, when you realize that the book must be bigger than the universe, you realize why being a reductionist is stupid. Ponder that please. If you're just going to say "suffering is wrong and that's that" please don't engage in discussions about morality on the internet. edit: when you say "I do claim that good and bad are real in our mind," can you test that with science? What would THAT experiment look like? Same with "suffering is real in our mind." Can you test THAT with an experiment? edit: btw, the Kant thing has NOTHING to do with the problem of conflict between morality and unjust secular law. edit: "My claim is that models which can be tested are more useful than models which cannot." You realize that this is an entirely different claim than "only those truth-claims which are produced by science are legitimate." Which is it? Are you making a strong epistemological claim, or a trivial pragmatic observation? edit: anyway, what is your "model" of morality? "suffering is wrong"? That's not a model at all! Where are the falsifiable and quantifiable predictions?! You don't even have one of these "useful models" and you're going around saying these "useful models" are the only ways to think about anything at all! lol. Even if you were going to reduce all morality to the movement of electrical impulses, the problem would be computationally intractable and would certainly not be "useful." edit: look, if you want to falsify the claim "it would be wrong if I punched you in the face," you would have to have an operationalized definition of "wrong." Then you would punch me in the face, and see if "wrong" existed after that. What would that be? How would you measure it? You've just been ignoring this question. Earlier, when you tried to explain why it would be wrong for me to punch you in the face, you'll notice that your reasoning had nothing at all to do with science. edit: at any rate, you seem to have accepted that your claim "suffering is wrong" is not scientific and is merely an arbitrary pronouncement, which proves what I set out to prove, that one cannot ground moral theory in science. ok. edit: Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 18:24 [F_]aths wrote:
I do think that is is possible that a law is wrong even if it was installed by a vote. if it were, how would you know?!? science?? edit: hey I'm sorry I'm not trying to yell at you, you stepped on one of my pet peeves and I wrote this before I drank my coffee. I'm not trying to be mean but I really think you are quite wrong. sorry
There are many edits and many topics. I don't know where to begin. You also continue to argue against things I never did (intend to) say. While you are very verbatim on attacking my view, little do I know about your view. Maybe we get a more fruitful discussion if you can outline (very shortly, if possible) your approach to morality.
I don't say that I am not making mistakes in my arguments, but the discussion gets a bit boring when I am the one defending a view and you are just pointing out some things which would require very long postings to clarify. I am afraid that you would continue to point to another thing, requiring me to reply with a very long posting again.
To begin with the outlining of the view on morality, here is mine:
Even though I have a naturalistic world view – I see no sufficient evidence for a dualistic world view – I don't see the validity of the question why we should reduce unnecessary suffering. While utilitarian replies are possible, they are not required imo, because unnecessary suffering is bad. This is how we use the word bad (implying an existing concept of good and bad in our mind. Of course I think that a mind can be – in principle – reduced to states of the physical world.)
We can approach the question of what action leads to good or bad outcome scientifically. We do can answer the questions "Should women be allowed to vote", "should young boys be circumcised when they parents wish to", "should gays have the same rights as straight persons, including the right to marry someone."
With science progressing, 'scientifically found' answers to these questions could change and/or get more refined.
|
It pisses me off that I can start this http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383750¤tpage=30 and get spammed out by a host of people who feel that another country's minority abuse has nothing to do with the rest of the world (to the point I was getting PMs telling me stop interfering), and yet this one is relatively civil (no pun intended) etc.
Anyways, clearly it's OK to hold forth righteously on the first world, just don't touch 'em poor folks.
Personally I have never understood why any gay person wants anything to do with marriage, other than the civil kind for legal purposes. Read the bible FFS, they killed gay people.
EDIT: I see it's XMAS time in Merica, so merry xmas ya'll!
|
United States42437 Posts
On December 25 2012 03:40 EvilLiBraRian wrote:It pisses me off that I can start this http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383750¤tpage=30 and get spammed out by a host of people who feel that another country's minority abuse has nothing to do with the rest of the world (to the point I was getting PMs telling me stop interfering), and yet this one is relatively civil (no pun intended) etc. Anyways, clearly it's OK to hold forth righteously on the first world, just don't touch 'em poor folks. Personally I have never understood why any gay person wants anything to do with marriage, other than the civil kind for legal purposes. Read the bible FFS, they killed gay people. EDIT: I see it's XMAS time in Merica, so merry xmas ya'll!
South Africa is East of America...
|
My Liquiclock was not set whoops ^_^
|
Singapore147 Posts
On December 24 2012 22:47 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2012 19:19 pigscanfly wrote:
I'm agreeing with him. I also think that other sorts of legislation need to be changed in order to bring all the laws in line with this. You can't just look at the one law in isolation. If it's wrong (which kwark thinks it is) it should be changed, but so should other similarly discriminatory laws.
Edit: It's not peripheral because it's another aspect of marriage. You can't just go "it's irrelevant" and leave it at that. Give me a good reason why it shouldn't be within the ambit of this discussion - which is about definitions of marriage and how it should be available to anyone without discrimination from all institutions (including the church).
Edit: quoted from the moderators note:
"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."
Religious groups also hold sway over views with regard to polygamy and thus it is relevant. Please allow me to quote you the moderators note. "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."Bkrow already explained this to you extremely well. Homosexuals are protected by law in the UK but currently, whether they should or shouldn't be, polygamists and horse lovers are not. That's why it's peripheral. I do agree with you at first glance but it's not important to this discussion and doesn't answer any of the questions Kwark has posed. Also, there are good reasons for having seperate sporting events, toilet facilities and various other gender specific activities and zones. . . to suggest these are discriminatory gives me the impression you haven't really thought this through.
I still think it's a false dichotomy but I would drop it anyway, except for the deeply disturbing statement that Kwark himself made: "Polygamists are not a legally protected group, nor should they be."
As much as you like to think that your secular perspective is completely rational and objective and oh so superior, morals (which are a bit fluffy unfortunately) do come into the picture. Thus, if you harp on about homosexual rights, yet make a statement like "Polygamists are not a legally protected group, nor should they be. They disagree about the size of the basic family unit but that is not comparable to sexual orientation" I feel you lose the moral justification for your argument that people should be free to practice what they want and should not be denied services as long as what they do does not harm others. Heck in my opinion it undermines the rational basis behind your arguments as well.
If I replaced the word polygamists with homosexuals in that statement I'd get flamed to high heaven. Is disagreeing with the basic composition of the family unit (male/female vs male/male or female/female) any different from disagreeing about it's size?
I was being (partially) sarcastic with regards to the separate sporting events etc., but you have to admit, the way so much "equality" legislation works nowadays, you can't rule out legislation like that being possible in the future. You can't just say there are "good reasons" for this seperation without stating what they are- there are actually many serious issues surrounding gender. For example, should transgendered men be allowed to participate in female athletic competitions? Or use a male restroom? Given that some countries segregate these toilets for reasons of modesty, should homosexuals be allowed to use the same bathroom as the gender they're interested in? These issues affect the rights of homosexuals and people of various genders.
|
On December 25 2012 06:23 pigscanfly wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2012 22:47 Reason wrote:On December 24 2012 19:19 pigscanfly wrote:
I'm agreeing with him. I also think that other sorts of legislation need to be changed in order to bring all the laws in line with this. You can't just look at the one law in isolation. If it's wrong (which kwark thinks it is) it should be changed, but so should other similarly discriminatory laws.
Edit: It's not peripheral because it's another aspect of marriage. You can't just go "it's irrelevant" and leave it at that. Give me a good reason why it shouldn't be within the ambit of this discussion - which is about definitions of marriage and how it should be available to anyone without discrimination from all institutions (including the church).
Edit: quoted from the moderators note:
"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."
Religious groups also hold sway over views with regard to polygamy and thus it is relevant. Please allow me to quote you the moderators note. "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."Bkrow already explained this to you extremely well. Homosexuals are protected by law in the UK but currently, whether they should or shouldn't be, polygamists and horse lovers are not. That's why it's peripheral. I do agree with you at first glance but it's not important to this discussion and doesn't answer any of the questions Kwark has posed. Also, there are good reasons for having seperate sporting events, toilet facilities and various other gender specific activities and zones. . . to suggest these are discriminatory gives me the impression you haven't really thought this through. I still think it's a false dichotomy but I would drop it anyway, except for the deeply disturbing statement that Kwark himself made: "Polygamists are not a legally protected group, nor should they be." As much as you like to think that your secular perspective is completely rational and objective and oh so superior, morals (which are a bit fluffy unfortunately) do come into the picture. Thus, if you harp on about homosexual rights, yet make a statement like "Polygamists are not a legally protected group, nor should they be. They disagree about the size of the basic family unit but that is not comparable to sexual orientation" I feel you lose the moral justification for your argument that people should be free to practice what they want and should not be denied services as long as what they do does not harm others. Heck in my opinion it undermines the rational basis behind your arguments as well. If I replaced the word polygamists with homosexuals in that statement I'd get flamed to high heaven. Is disagreeing with the basic composition of the family unit (male/female vs male/male or female/female) any different from disagreeing about it's size? I was being (partially) sarcastic with regards to the separate sporting events etc., but you have to admit, the way so much "equality" legislation works nowadays, you can't rule out legislation like that being possible in the future. You can't just say there are "good reasons" for this seperation without stating what they are- there are actually many serious issues surrounding gender. For example, should transgendered men be allowed to participate in female athletic competitions? Or use a male restroom? Given that some countries segregate these toilets for reasons of modesty, should homosexuals be allowed to use the same bathroom as the gender they're interested in? These issues affect the rights of homosexuals and people of various genders.
1. Polygamy is a choice. Choices are open to criticism that non-choices are not.
2. Historically polygamy has been used to abuse children and women. Even in the modern world many polygamist marriages are in communities where women have no choice in the matter and are not allowed to leave. If polygamy could be disassociated from these issues we might be able to have a discussion (in a different thread).
Your last paragraph is a cesspool of fallacies and complete ignorance of gender and orientation. I'm honestly not sure if you're just trolling with it.
|
On December 25 2012 09:07 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 06:23 pigscanfly wrote:On December 24 2012 22:47 Reason wrote:On December 24 2012 19:19 pigscanfly wrote:
I'm agreeing with him. I also think that other sorts of legislation need to be changed in order to bring all the laws in line with this. You can't just look at the one law in isolation. If it's wrong (which kwark thinks it is) it should be changed, but so should other similarly discriminatory laws.
Edit: It's not peripheral because it's another aspect of marriage. You can't just go "it's irrelevant" and leave it at that. Give me a good reason why it shouldn't be within the ambit of this discussion - which is about definitions of marriage and how it should be available to anyone without discrimination from all institutions (including the church).
Edit: quoted from the moderators note:
"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."
Religious groups also hold sway over views with regard to polygamy and thus it is relevant. Please allow me to quote you the moderators note. "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."Bkrow already explained this to you extremely well. Homosexuals are protected by law in the UK but currently, whether they should or shouldn't be, polygamists and horse lovers are not. That's why it's peripheral. I do agree with you at first glance but it's not important to this discussion and doesn't answer any of the questions Kwark has posed. Also, there are good reasons for having seperate sporting events, toilet facilities and various other gender specific activities and zones. . . to suggest these are discriminatory gives me the impression you haven't really thought this through. I still think it's a false dichotomy but I would drop it anyway, except for the deeply disturbing statement that Kwark himself made: "Polygamists are not a legally protected group, nor should they be." As much as you like to think that your secular perspective is completely rational and objective and oh so superior, morals (which are a bit fluffy unfortunately) do come into the picture. Thus, if you harp on about homosexual rights, yet make a statement like "Polygamists are not a legally protected group, nor should they be. They disagree about the size of the basic family unit but that is not comparable to sexual orientation" I feel you lose the moral justification for your argument that people should be free to practice what they want and should not be denied services as long as what they do does not harm others. Heck in my opinion it undermines the rational basis behind your arguments as well. If I replaced the word polygamists with homosexuals in that statement I'd get flamed to high heaven. Is disagreeing with the basic composition of the family unit (male/female vs male/male or female/female) any different from disagreeing about it's size? I was being (partially) sarcastic with regards to the separate sporting events etc., but you have to admit, the way so much "equality" legislation works nowadays, you can't rule out legislation like that being possible in the future. You can't just say there are "good reasons" for this seperation without stating what they are- there are actually many serious issues surrounding gender. For example, should transgendered men be allowed to participate in female athletic competitions? Or use a male restroom? Given that some countries segregate these toilets for reasons of modesty, should homosexuals be allowed to use the same bathroom as the gender they're interested in? These issues affect the rights of homosexuals and people of various genders. 1. Polygamy is a choice. Choices are open to criticism that non-choices are not. 2. Historically polygamy has been used to abuse children and women. Even in the modern world many polygamist marriages are in communities where women have no choice in the matter and are not allowed to leave. If polygamy could be disassociated from these issues we might be able to have a discussion (in a different thread). Your last paragraph is a cesspool of fallacies and complete ignorance of gender and orientation. I'm honestly not sure if you're just trolling with it.
Do you have evidence that people are not genetically predisposed toward polygamy?
|
Every one has seemed to looked over one very important point. All bible text on gay marriage dose not exists. There is not bilabial bases for denying gay marriage.
Here is a full right up.
+ Show Spoiler +Bible and Gay Marriage or PartnershipsThere is no mention of same-sex marriages or partnerships in the Bible, either for or against. The omission is probably because these issues were not even considered in Biblical times. As so, no religious institution who has its faith founded in the bible can proclaim they wish to deny or not preform same sex marriages do to their religion (bible). As there is not bases in the bible fore that. There are twelve mentions of homosexual acts in the Bible: (note: all old testament laws are no longer upheld. all new testament text are vague and subject to interpretation and error in translation) 2 refer to rape (Genesis 19:5, Judges 19:22) 5 refer to cult prostitution (Deuteronomy 23:17-18, 1 Kings 14:23-24, 15:12-13, 22:46, 2 Kings 23:6-8) 1 refers to prostitution and pederasty (1 Corinthians 6 -10) 4 are nonspecific (Leviticus 18:21-22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Timothy 1:8-10)
Old TestamentThe first mention in the Bible is in Genesis 19:1-13. + Show Spoiler +The wicked men of Sodom attempted a homosexual rape of two messengers from God who had come to visit Lot. As a result of this and other widespread wickedness, God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah in a storm of fire and brimstone.
The next two mentions are in Leviticus: + Show Spoiler + You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. (NKJ, Leviticus 18:22)
If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. (NKJ, Leviticus 20:13) Life was harsh in early Old Testament times. The wanderings and struggle for survival of the Israelites did not permit prisons or rehabilitation. Anyone who deviated seriously from the norm was either stoned to death or exiled. The Old Testament prescribed the death penalty for the crimes of murder, attacking or cursing a parent, kidnapping, failure to confine a dangerous animal resulting in death, witchcraft and sorcery, sex with an animal, doing work on the Sabbath, incest, adultery, homosexual acts, prostitution by a priest's daughter, blasphemy, false prophecy, perjury in capital cases and false claim of a woman's virginity at the time of marriage. It must be emphasized that, according to the New Testament, we are no longer under the harsh Old Testament Law (John 1:16-17, Romans 8:1-3, 1 Corinthians 9:20-21). The concern with punishment is now secondary to Jesus' message of repentance and redemption. Both reward and punishment are seen as properly taking place in eternity, rather than in this life. In Old Testament times, homosexual activity was strongly associated with idolatrous cult prostitution as in 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12. (There was also cult prostitution by females.) In fact, the word "abomination," used in both mentions of homosexual acts in Leviticus, is a translation of the Hebrew word tow' ebah which, according to Strong's Greek/Hebrew Dictionary, means something morally disgusting, but it also has a strong implication of idolatry. Thus, many Bible scholars believe the condemnations in Leviticus are more a condemnation of the idolatry than of the homosexual acts themselves. However, that interpretation is not certain.
New TestamentJesus never mentioned homosexuality, but He did condemn all forms of sexual immorality: However, he never explained. sexual immorality + Show Spoiler +What comes out of you is what defiles you. For from within, out of your hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile you. (TNIV, Mark 7:20-23) The apostle Paul, in one of his letters to the Corinthians, wrote the verses most often quoted on this subject: + Show Spoiler + Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (NIV, 1st Corinthians 6 -11) This verse has been translated in as many different ways as there are different versions of the Bible, so we have to look at the original Greek to see what Paul was really saying. According to Thayer's Greek Lexicon, the word translated here as "male prostitute" is the Greek word malakos which literally means "soft to the touch." However, it was used metaphorically in a negative way to refer to a catamite (a boy kept for sexual relations with a man) or to a male prostitute in general. The word translated here as "homosexual offender" is the Greek word arsenokoites which means a sodomite, a person who engages in any kind of unnatural sex, but especially homosexual intercourse. Some believe this use of arsenokoites referred specifically to the men who kept catamites, but that is not certain. There are two other New Testament mentions of homosexual acts, in Romans 1:25-27 and 1 Timothy 1:8-10. In this passage from Romans, again in the context of idolatry, Paul mentions women who "exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones," which might apply to lesbian acts: + Show Spoiler + They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-- who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (NIV, Romans 1:25-27)
Paul was writing this after encountering a cult. The cult practiced sexual orgies in the worship if an Idle. It is unclear weather Paul is condemning the sexual worship practice or consensual sex between 2 men. Issues and QuestionsAs with many Bible topics, there are uncertainties and different opinions about how the Biblical evidence should be interpreted. The challenge of accurate interpretation is to determine what message was originally intended and how it was understood by people of that time. That involves a lot of specialized knowledge of the original Biblical languages as well as the culture and issues of the time. The Bible often speaks of sexual matters in euphemistic and vague terms, and there is a lack of understanding of how the people of several thousand years ago used and understood those terms. The traditional interpretation of Bible teachings has took up the option that homosexual acts of all kinds are serious sins. But in recent years, a number of questions and issues have been raised which challenge the traditional opinionated interpretation: Are consensual homosexual acts prohibited by the Bible, or were the Bible passages intended to apply only to homosexual acts of rape, prostitution, pederasty and idolatry? Even if consensual homosexual acts are not specifically addressed, would they be prohibited under the more general prohibition against "fornication" or "sexual immorality?" (Matthew 15:18-20, Mark 7:20-23, Galatians 5:19-21) The Bible never gives a list of exactly what acts are considered immoral, so there is no definite answer to this question. Is the husband-wife model desirable for everyone (Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:4-5, Mark 10:6-8), or not (Matthew 19:10-12, 1 Corinthians 7: 7-9)? Is the New Testament prohibition against homosexual acts an important spiritual law for all times? Or was it more just a warning against creating a scandal by violating the cultural norms of that time in history, as in the case of slavery (1 Corinthians 7: 21-22, Ephesians 6:5-6), the role of women (1 Corinthians 14:33-35), dress (1 Corinthians 11:4-7), etc.? Our answers to these questions tend to be strongly influenced by our personal feelings about homosexuality. But, if we are sincere about using the Bible for guidance, we must not assume that the Bible passages on homosexuality support our own conservative or liberal viewpoints. Instead, we must put aside our own ideas, feelings and fears and prayerfully seek the truth. Avoiding Self-righteousnessIronically, homosexuality also poses a challenge for heterosexual Christians. We may let feelings of contempt or fear lead us into the sin of self-righteousness. But Jesus and other New Testament leaders taught by word and example not to be self-righteous or discriminate against those we consider to be "sinners" (Matthew 9:10-13, Luke 7:36-48, 18: 9-14) Further, Jesus told us to eliminate the sins in our own lives rather than passing judgment or looking down on others. For if we judge other people harshly, we will, in turn, be judged harshly: "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. (NIV, Matthew 7:1-2) Christians have a responsibility to correct matters of wrongdoing among themselves (Matthew 18:15-17) but this should always be done fairly and with compassion. We are never to take upon ourselves the task of judgment that belongs to God alone (Hebrews 10:30, Romans 14:10-13, 1 Corinthians 4:5.) James makes it clear that we must treat others with mercy, not with judgment or partiality (prejudice) You do well if you really fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." But if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For the one who said, "You shall not commit adultery," also said, "You shall not murder." Now if you do not commit adultery but if you murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. For judgment will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment. (NRSV, James 2:8-13) As Christians, we must remember that all of us are sinners in our own ways (Romans 3:21-24, 5:12). We can not say with convection that homosexuality is sinful. Despite that, God loves all His children (Genesis 1:31, Psalms 145: 9, Matthew 5:43-45, John 3:16, Romans 5:8). We cannot afford to let our feelings or fears about homosexuality blind us to Jesus' commandment to "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:36-39). As Christians we have no moral or religious standing to deny the rights or happiness of theirs. To stand against same sex marriage would be to commit sin of self-righteousness.
|
On December 26 2012 03:47 WarpTV wrote:Every one has seemed to looked over one very important point. All bible text on gay marriage dose not exists. There is not bilabial bases for denying gay marriage. Here is a full right up. + Show Spoiler +Bible and Gay Marriage or PartnershipsThere is no mention of same-sex marriages or partnerships in the Bible, either for or against. The omission is probably because these issues were not even considered in Biblical times. As so, no religious institution who has its faith founded in the bible can proclaim they wish to deny or not preform same sex marriages do to their religion (bible). As there is not bases in the bible fore that. There are twelve mentions of homosexual acts in the Bible: (note: all old testament laws are no longer upheld. all new testament text are vague and subject to interpretation and error in translation) 2 refer to rape (Genesis 19:5, Judges 19:22) 5 refer to cult prostitution (Deuteronomy 23:17-18, 1 Kings 14:23-24, 15:12-13, 22:46, 2 Kings 23:6-8) 1 refers to prostitution and pederasty (1 Corinthians 6 -10) 4 are nonspecific (Leviticus 18:21-22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Timothy 1:8-10)
Old TestamentThe first mention in the Bible is in Genesis 19:1-13. + Show Spoiler +The wicked men of Sodom attempted a homosexual rape of two messengers from God who had come to visit Lot. As a result of this and other widespread wickedness, God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah in a storm of fire and brimstone.
The next two mentions are in Leviticus: + Show Spoiler + You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. (NKJ, Leviticus 18:22)
If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. (NKJ, Leviticus 20:13) Life was harsh in early Old Testament times. The wanderings and struggle for survival of the Israelites did not permit prisons or rehabilitation. Anyone who deviated seriously from the norm was either stoned to death or exiled. The Old Testament prescribed the death penalty for the crimes of murder, attacking or cursing a parent, kidnapping, failure to confine a dangerous animal resulting in death, witchcraft and sorcery, sex with an animal, doing work on the Sabbath, incest, adultery, homosexual acts, prostitution by a priest's daughter, blasphemy, false prophecy, perjury in capital cases and false claim of a woman's virginity at the time of marriage. It must be emphasized that, according to the New Testament, we are no longer under the harsh Old Testament Law (John 1:16-17, Romans 8:1-3, 1 Corinthians 9:20-21). The concern with punishment is now secondary to Jesus' message of repentance and redemption. Both reward and punishment are seen as properly taking place in eternity, rather than in this life. In Old Testament times, homosexual activity was strongly associated with idolatrous cult prostitution as in 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12. (There was also cult prostitution by females.) In fact, the word "abomination," used in both mentions of homosexual acts in Leviticus, is a translation of the Hebrew word tow' ebah which, according to Strong's Greek/Hebrew Dictionary, means something morally disgusting, but it also has a strong implication of idolatry. Thus, many Bible scholars believe the condemnations in Leviticus are more a condemnation of the idolatry than of the homosexual acts themselves. However, that interpretation is not certain.
New TestamentJesus never mentioned homosexuality, but He did condemn all forms of sexual immorality: However, he never explained. sexual immorality + Show Spoiler +What comes out of you is what defiles you. For from within, out of your hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile you. (TNIV, Mark 7:20-23) The apostle Paul, in one of his letters to the Corinthians, wrote the verses most often quoted on this subject: + Show Spoiler + Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (NIV, 1st Corinthians 6 -11) This verse has been translated in as many different ways as there are different versions of the Bible, so we have to look at the original Greek to see what Paul was really saying. According to Thayer's Greek Lexicon, the word translated here as "male prostitute" is the Greek word malakos which literally means "soft to the touch." However, it was used metaphorically in a negative way to refer to a catamite (a boy kept for sexual relations with a man) or to a male prostitute in general. The word translated here as "homosexual offender" is the Greek word arsenokoites which means a sodomite, a person who engages in any kind of unnatural sex, but especially homosexual intercourse. Some believe this use of arsenokoites referred specifically to the men who kept catamites, but that is not certain. There are two other New Testament mentions of homosexual acts, in Romans 1:25-27 and 1 Timothy 1:8-10. In this passage from Romans, again in the context of idolatry, Paul mentions women who "exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones," which might apply to lesbian acts: + Show Spoiler + They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-- who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (NIV, Romans 1:25-27)
Paul was writing this after encountering a cult. The cult practiced sexual orgies in the worship if an Idle. It is unclear weather Paul is condemning the sexual worship practice or consensual sex between 2 men. Issues and QuestionsAs with many Bible topics, there are uncertainties and different opinions about how the Biblical evidence should be interpreted. The challenge of accurate interpretation is to determine what message was originally intended and how it was understood by people of that time. That involves a lot of specialized knowledge of the original Biblical languages as well as the culture and issues of the time. The Bible often speaks of sexual matters in euphemistic and vague terms, and there is a lack of understanding of how the people of several thousand years ago used and understood those terms. The traditional interpretation of Bible teachings has took up the option that homosexual acts of all kinds are serious sins. But in recent years, a number of questions and issues have been raised which challenge the traditional opinionated interpretation: Are consensual homosexual acts prohibited by the Bible, or were the Bible passages intended to apply only to homosexual acts of rape, prostitution, pederasty and idolatry? Even if consensual homosexual acts are not specifically addressed, would they be prohibited under the more general prohibition against "fornication" or "sexual immorality?" (Matthew 15:18-20, Mark 7:20-23, Galatians 5:19-21) The Bible never gives a list of exactly what acts are considered immoral, so there is no definite answer to this question. Is the husband-wife model desirable for everyone (Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:4-5, Mark 10:6-8), or not (Matthew 19:10-12, 1 Corinthians 7: 7-9)? Is the New Testament prohibition against homosexual acts an important spiritual law for all times? Or was it more just a warning against creating a scandal by violating the cultural norms of that time in history, as in the case of slavery (1 Corinthians 7: 21-22, Ephesians 6:5-6), the role of women (1 Corinthians 14:33-35), dress (1 Corinthians 11:4-7), etc.? Our answers to these questions tend to be strongly influenced by our personal feelings about homosexuality. But, if we are sincere about using the Bible for guidance, we must not assume that the Bible passages on homosexuality support our own conservative or liberal viewpoints. Instead, we must put aside our own ideas, feelings and fears and prayerfully seek the truth. Avoiding Self-righteousnessIronically, homosexuality also poses a challenge for heterosexual Christians. We may let feelings of contempt or fear lead us into the sin of self-righteousness. But Jesus and other New Testament leaders taught by word and example not to be self-righteous or discriminate against those we consider to be "sinners" (Matthew 9:10-13, Luke 7:36-48, 18: 9-14) Further, Jesus told us to eliminate the sins in our own lives rather than passing judgment or looking down on others. For if we judge other people harshly, we will, in turn, be judged harshly: "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. (NIV, Matthew 7:1-2) Christians have a responsibility to correct matters of wrongdoing among themselves (Matthew 18:15-17) but this should always be done fairly and with compassion. We are never to take upon ourselves the task of judgment that belongs to God alone (Hebrews 10:30, Romans 14:10-13, 1 Corinthians 4:5.) James makes it clear that we must treat others with mercy, not with judgment or partiality (prejudice) You do well if you really fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." But if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For the one who said, "You shall not commit adultery," also said, "You shall not murder." Now if you do not commit adultery but if you murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. For judgment will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment. (NRSV, James 2:8-13) As Christians, we must remember that all of us are sinners in our own ways (Romans 3:21-24, 5:12). We can not say with convection that homosexuality is sinful. Despite that, God loves all His children (Genesis 1:31, Psalms 145: 9, Matthew 5:43-45, John 3:16, Romans 5:8). We cannot afford to let our feelings or fears about homosexuality blind us to Jesus' commandment to "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:36-39). As Christians we have no moral or religious standing to deny the rights or happiness of theirs. To stand against same sex marriage would be to commit sin of self-righteousness.
Tell that to the Church of England?
The fact this topic exists shows they disagree with you.
If it's as black and white as you make out, that the Old Testament is now void and the New Testament clearly states this, and also that the New Testament does not say anything against homosexual marriage then one wonders why the church would give themselves such a hard time over this in the first place? 
Can you give examples of any other act that was considered an "abomination" that is now accepted by the majority or all of Christian faiths?
|
On December 26 2012 08:40 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 03:47 WarpTV wrote:Every one has seemed to looked over one very important point. All bible text on gay marriage dose not exists. There is not bilabial bases for denying gay marriage. Here is a full right up. + Show Spoiler +Bible and Gay Marriage or PartnershipsThere is no mention of same-sex marriages or partnerships in the Bible, either for or against. The omission is probably because these issues were not even considered in Biblical times. As so, no religious institution who has its faith founded in the bible can proclaim they wish to deny or not preform same sex marriages do to their religion (bible). As there is not bases in the bible fore that. There are twelve mentions of homosexual acts in the Bible: (note: all old testament laws are no longer upheld. all new testament text are vague and subject to interpretation and error in translation) 2 refer to rape (Genesis 19:5, Judges 19:22) 5 refer to cult prostitution (Deuteronomy 23:17-18, 1 Kings 14:23-24, 15:12-13, 22:46, 2 Kings 23:6-8) 1 refers to prostitution and pederasty (1 Corinthians 6 -10) 4 are nonspecific (Leviticus 18:21-22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Timothy 1:8-10)
Old TestamentThe first mention in the Bible is in Genesis 19:1-13. + Show Spoiler +The wicked men of Sodom attempted a homosexual rape of two messengers from God who had come to visit Lot. As a result of this and other widespread wickedness, God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah in a storm of fire and brimstone.
The next two mentions are in Leviticus: + Show Spoiler + You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. (NKJ, Leviticus 18:22)
If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. (NKJ, Leviticus 20:13) Life was harsh in early Old Testament times. The wanderings and struggle for survival of the Israelites did not permit prisons or rehabilitation. Anyone who deviated seriously from the norm was either stoned to death or exiled. The Old Testament prescribed the death penalty for the crimes of murder, attacking or cursing a parent, kidnapping, failure to confine a dangerous animal resulting in death, witchcraft and sorcery, sex with an animal, doing work on the Sabbath, incest, adultery, homosexual acts, prostitution by a priest's daughter, blasphemy, false prophecy, perjury in capital cases and false claim of a woman's virginity at the time of marriage. It must be emphasized that, according to the New Testament, we are no longer under the harsh Old Testament Law (John 1:16-17, Romans 8:1-3, 1 Corinthians 9:20-21). The concern with punishment is now secondary to Jesus' message of repentance and redemption. Both reward and punishment are seen as properly taking place in eternity, rather than in this life. In Old Testament times, homosexual activity was strongly associated with idolatrous cult prostitution as in 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12. (There was also cult prostitution by females.) In fact, the word "abomination," used in both mentions of homosexual acts in Leviticus, is a translation of the Hebrew word tow' ebah which, according to Strong's Greek/Hebrew Dictionary, means something morally disgusting, but it also has a strong implication of idolatry. Thus, many Bible scholars believe the condemnations in Leviticus are more a condemnation of the idolatry than of the homosexual acts themselves. However, that interpretation is not certain.
New TestamentJesus never mentioned homosexuality, but He did condemn all forms of sexual immorality: However, he never explained. sexual immorality + Show Spoiler +What comes out of you is what defiles you. For from within, out of your hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile you. (TNIV, Mark 7:20-23) The apostle Paul, in one of his letters to the Corinthians, wrote the verses most often quoted on this subject: + Show Spoiler + Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (NIV, 1st Corinthians 6 -11) This verse has been translated in as many different ways as there are different versions of the Bible, so we have to look at the original Greek to see what Paul was really saying. According to Thayer's Greek Lexicon, the word translated here as "male prostitute" is the Greek word malakos which literally means "soft to the touch." However, it was used metaphorically in a negative way to refer to a catamite (a boy kept for sexual relations with a man) or to a male prostitute in general. The word translated here as "homosexual offender" is the Greek word arsenokoites which means a sodomite, a person who engages in any kind of unnatural sex, but especially homosexual intercourse. Some believe this use of arsenokoites referred specifically to the men who kept catamites, but that is not certain. There are two other New Testament mentions of homosexual acts, in Romans 1:25-27 and 1 Timothy 1:8-10. In this passage from Romans, again in the context of idolatry, Paul mentions women who "exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones," which might apply to lesbian acts: + Show Spoiler + They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-- who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (NIV, Romans 1:25-27)
Paul was writing this after encountering a cult. The cult practiced sexual orgies in the worship if an Idle. It is unclear weather Paul is condemning the sexual worship practice or consensual sex between 2 men. Issues and QuestionsAs with many Bible topics, there are uncertainties and different opinions about how the Biblical evidence should be interpreted. The challenge of accurate interpretation is to determine what message was originally intended and how it was understood by people of that time. That involves a lot of specialized knowledge of the original Biblical languages as well as the culture and issues of the time. The Bible often speaks of sexual matters in euphemistic and vague terms, and there is a lack of understanding of how the people of several thousand years ago used and understood those terms. The traditional interpretation of Bible teachings has took up the option that homosexual acts of all kinds are serious sins. But in recent years, a number of questions and issues have been raised which challenge the traditional opinionated interpretation: Are consensual homosexual acts prohibited by the Bible, or were the Bible passages intended to apply only to homosexual acts of rape, prostitution, pederasty and idolatry? Even if consensual homosexual acts are not specifically addressed, would they be prohibited under the more general prohibition against "fornication" or "sexual immorality?" (Matthew 15:18-20, Mark 7:20-23, Galatians 5:19-21) The Bible never gives a list of exactly what acts are considered immoral, so there is no definite answer to this question. Is the husband-wife model desirable for everyone (Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:4-5, Mark 10:6-8), or not (Matthew 19:10-12, 1 Corinthians 7: 7-9)? Is the New Testament prohibition against homosexual acts an important spiritual law for all times? Or was it more just a warning against creating a scandal by violating the cultural norms of that time in history, as in the case of slavery (1 Corinthians 7: 21-22, Ephesians 6:5-6), the role of women (1 Corinthians 14:33-35), dress (1 Corinthians 11:4-7), etc.? Our answers to these questions tend to be strongly influenced by our personal feelings about homosexuality. But, if we are sincere about using the Bible for guidance, we must not assume that the Bible passages on homosexuality support our own conservative or liberal viewpoints. Instead, we must put aside our own ideas, feelings and fears and prayerfully seek the truth. Avoiding Self-righteousnessIronically, homosexuality also poses a challenge for heterosexual Christians. We may let feelings of contempt or fear lead us into the sin of self-righteousness. But Jesus and other New Testament leaders taught by word and example not to be self-righteous or discriminate against those we consider to be "sinners" (Matthew 9:10-13, Luke 7:36-48, 18: 9-14) Further, Jesus told us to eliminate the sins in our own lives rather than passing judgment or looking down on others. For if we judge other people harshly, we will, in turn, be judged harshly: "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. (NIV, Matthew 7:1-2) Christians have a responsibility to correct matters of wrongdoing among themselves (Matthew 18:15-17) but this should always be done fairly and with compassion. We are never to take upon ourselves the task of judgment that belongs to God alone (Hebrews 10:30, Romans 14:10-13, 1 Corinthians 4:5.) James makes it clear that we must treat others with mercy, not with judgment or partiality (prejudice) You do well if you really fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." But if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For the one who said, "You shall not commit adultery," also said, "You shall not murder." Now if you do not commit adultery but if you murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. For judgment will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment. (NRSV, James 2:8-13) As Christians, we must remember that all of us are sinners in our own ways (Romans 3:21-24, 5:12). We can not say with convection that homosexuality is sinful. Despite that, God loves all His children (Genesis 1:31, Psalms 145: 9, Matthew 5:43-45, John 3:16, Romans 5:8). We cannot afford to let our feelings or fears about homosexuality blind us to Jesus' commandment to "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:36-39). As Christians we have no moral or religious standing to deny the rights or happiness of theirs. To stand against same sex marriage would be to commit sin of self-righteousness. Tell that to the Church of England? The fact this topic exists shows they disagree with you. If it's as black and white as you make out, that the Old Testament is now void and the New Testament clearly states this, and also that the New Testament does not say anything against homosexual marriage then one wonders why the church would give themselves such a hard time over this in the first place? Can you give examples of any other act that was considered an "abomination" that is now accepted by the majority or all of Christian faiths?
Contraceptive, Interracial marriage, women in mens clothing, women preachers, eating of pork,
Also slavery and the rights of children or women.
Current churches hold faith through prodigious. They then allow their feelings to determine the meaning of very vague religious text.
"As Christians, we must remember that all of us are sinners in our own ways (Romans 3:21-24, 5:12). We can not say with convection that homosexuality is sinful. Despite that, God loves all His children (Genesis 1:31, Psalms 145: 9, Matthew 5:43-45, John 3:16, Romans 5:8). We cannot afford to let our feelings or fears about homosexuality blind us to Jesus' commandment to "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:36-39). As Christians we have no moral or religious standing to deny the rights or happiness of theirs. To stand against same sex marriage would be to commit sin of self-righteousness."
Self righteousness is very dangerous. We are flawed. As so, it is improper for us to reach in to the unknown and deem a set of people to be sinner. If they are in fact so, it is still not our place to cast a stone. Striping away rights of marriage is a heavy stone to cast indeed.
|
On December 26 2012 08:40 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 03:47 WarpTV wrote:Every one has seemed to looked over one very important point. All bible text on gay marriage dose not exists. There is not bilabial bases for denying gay marriage. Here is a full right up. + Show Spoiler +Bible and Gay Marriage or PartnershipsThere is no mention of same-sex marriages or partnerships in the Bible, either for or against. The omission is probably because these issues were not even considered in Biblical times. As so, no religious institution who has its faith founded in the bible can proclaim they wish to deny or not preform same sex marriages do to their religion (bible). As there is not bases in the bible fore that. There are twelve mentions of homosexual acts in the Bible: (note: all old testament laws are no longer upheld. all new testament text are vague and subject to interpretation and error in translation) 2 refer to rape (Genesis 19:5, Judges 19:22) 5 refer to cult prostitution (Deuteronomy 23:17-18, 1 Kings 14:23-24, 15:12-13, 22:46, 2 Kings 23:6-8) 1 refers to prostitution and pederasty (1 Corinthians 6 -10) 4 are nonspecific (Leviticus 18:21-22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Timothy 1:8-10)
Old TestamentThe first mention in the Bible is in Genesis 19:1-13. + Show Spoiler +The wicked men of Sodom attempted a homosexual rape of two messengers from God who had come to visit Lot. As a result of this and other widespread wickedness, God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah in a storm of fire and brimstone.
The next two mentions are in Leviticus: + Show Spoiler + You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. (NKJ, Leviticus 18:22)
If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. (NKJ, Leviticus 20:13) Life was harsh in early Old Testament times. The wanderings and struggle for survival of the Israelites did not permit prisons or rehabilitation. Anyone who deviated seriously from the norm was either stoned to death or exiled. The Old Testament prescribed the death penalty for the crimes of murder, attacking or cursing a parent, kidnapping, failure to confine a dangerous animal resulting in death, witchcraft and sorcery, sex with an animal, doing work on the Sabbath, incest, adultery, homosexual acts, prostitution by a priest's daughter, blasphemy, false prophecy, perjury in capital cases and false claim of a woman's virginity at the time of marriage. It must be emphasized that, according to the New Testament, we are no longer under the harsh Old Testament Law (John 1:16-17, Romans 8:1-3, 1 Corinthians 9:20-21). The concern with punishment is now secondary to Jesus' message of repentance and redemption. Both reward and punishment are seen as properly taking place in eternity, rather than in this life. In Old Testament times, homosexual activity was strongly associated with idolatrous cult prostitution as in 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12. (There was also cult prostitution by females.) In fact, the word "abomination," used in both mentions of homosexual acts in Leviticus, is a translation of the Hebrew word tow' ebah which, according to Strong's Greek/Hebrew Dictionary, means something morally disgusting, but it also has a strong implication of idolatry. Thus, many Bible scholars believe the condemnations in Leviticus are more a condemnation of the idolatry than of the homosexual acts themselves. However, that interpretation is not certain.
New TestamentJesus never mentioned homosexuality, but He did condemn all forms of sexual immorality: However, he never explained. sexual immorality + Show Spoiler +What comes out of you is what defiles you. For from within, out of your hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile you. (TNIV, Mark 7:20-23) The apostle Paul, in one of his letters to the Corinthians, wrote the verses most often quoted on this subject: + Show Spoiler + Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (NIV, 1st Corinthians 6 -11) This verse has been translated in as many different ways as there are different versions of the Bible, so we have to look at the original Greek to see what Paul was really saying. According to Thayer's Greek Lexicon, the word translated here as "male prostitute" is the Greek word malakos which literally means "soft to the touch." However, it was used metaphorically in a negative way to refer to a catamite (a boy kept for sexual relations with a man) or to a male prostitute in general. The word translated here as "homosexual offender" is the Greek word arsenokoites which means a sodomite, a person who engages in any kind of unnatural sex, but especially homosexual intercourse. Some believe this use of arsenokoites referred specifically to the men who kept catamites, but that is not certain. There are two other New Testament mentions of homosexual acts, in Romans 1:25-27 and 1 Timothy 1:8-10. In this passage from Romans, again in the context of idolatry, Paul mentions women who "exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones," which might apply to lesbian acts: + Show Spoiler + They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-- who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (NIV, Romans 1:25-27)
Paul was writing this after encountering a cult. The cult practiced sexual orgies in the worship if an Idle. It is unclear weather Paul is condemning the sexual worship practice or consensual sex between 2 men. Issues and QuestionsAs with many Bible topics, there are uncertainties and different opinions about how the Biblical evidence should be interpreted. The challenge of accurate interpretation is to determine what message was originally intended and how it was understood by people of that time. That involves a lot of specialized knowledge of the original Biblical languages as well as the culture and issues of the time. The Bible often speaks of sexual matters in euphemistic and vague terms, and there is a lack of understanding of how the people of several thousand years ago used and understood those terms. The traditional interpretation of Bible teachings has took up the option that homosexual acts of all kinds are serious sins. But in recent years, a number of questions and issues have been raised which challenge the traditional opinionated interpretation: Are consensual homosexual acts prohibited by the Bible, or were the Bible passages intended to apply only to homosexual acts of rape, prostitution, pederasty and idolatry? Even if consensual homosexual acts are not specifically addressed, would they be prohibited under the more general prohibition against "fornication" or "sexual immorality?" (Matthew 15:18-20, Mark 7:20-23, Galatians 5:19-21) The Bible never gives a list of exactly what acts are considered immoral, so there is no definite answer to this question. Is the husband-wife model desirable for everyone (Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:4-5, Mark 10:6-8), or not (Matthew 19:10-12, 1 Corinthians 7: 7-9)? Is the New Testament prohibition against homosexual acts an important spiritual law for all times? Or was it more just a warning against creating a scandal by violating the cultural norms of that time in history, as in the case of slavery (1 Corinthians 7: 21-22, Ephesians 6:5-6), the role of women (1 Corinthians 14:33-35), dress (1 Corinthians 11:4-7), etc.? Our answers to these questions tend to be strongly influenced by our personal feelings about homosexuality. But, if we are sincere about using the Bible for guidance, we must not assume that the Bible passages on homosexuality support our own conservative or liberal viewpoints. Instead, we must put aside our own ideas, feelings and fears and prayerfully seek the truth. Avoiding Self-righteousnessIronically, homosexuality also poses a challenge for heterosexual Christians. We may let feelings of contempt or fear lead us into the sin of self-righteousness. But Jesus and other New Testament leaders taught by word and example not to be self-righteous or discriminate against those we consider to be "sinners" (Matthew 9:10-13, Luke 7:36-48, 18: 9-14) Further, Jesus told us to eliminate the sins in our own lives rather than passing judgment or looking down on others. For if we judge other people harshly, we will, in turn, be judged harshly: "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. (NIV, Matthew 7:1-2) Christians have a responsibility to correct matters of wrongdoing among themselves (Matthew 18:15-17) but this should always be done fairly and with compassion. We are never to take upon ourselves the task of judgment that belongs to God alone (Hebrews 10:30, Romans 14:10-13, 1 Corinthians 4:5.) James makes it clear that we must treat others with mercy, not with judgment or partiality (prejudice) You do well if you really fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." But if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For the one who said, "You shall not commit adultery," also said, "You shall not murder." Now if you do not commit adultery but if you murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. For judgment will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment. (NRSV, James 2:8-13) As Christians, we must remember that all of us are sinners in our own ways (Romans 3:21-24, 5:12). We can not say with convection that homosexuality is sinful. Despite that, God loves all His children (Genesis 1:31, Psalms 145: 9, Matthew 5:43-45, John 3:16, Romans 5:8). We cannot afford to let our feelings or fears about homosexuality blind us to Jesus' commandment to "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:36-39). As Christians we have no moral or religious standing to deny the rights or happiness of theirs. To stand against same sex marriage would be to commit sin of self-righteousness. Tell that to the Church of England? The fact this topic exists shows they disagree with you. If it's as black and white as you make out, that the Old Testament is now void and the New Testament clearly states this, and also that the New Testament does not say anything against homosexual marriage then one wonders why the church would give themselves such a hard time over this in the first place? Can you give examples of any other act that was considered an "abomination" that is now accepted by the majority or all of Christian faiths?
Interracial marriage?
Using a condom (my understanding is the Catholic church is lightening up on this significantly)?
Consuming alcohol outside of a sacrament?
Divorce?
|
Please quote me the passages from the Old Testament that prohibit the use of condoms and call them an abomination.
I suppose you're referring to only having sex with the end aim of producing a child?
I'd like the same for interracial marriage, consuming alcohol outside of a sacrament and divorce and in that order, though I'm 99% sure you're right about those as that sounds very Old Testament no-no to me.
The point is, my lack of Biblical familiarity side, this now begs the question... why?
Why is gay marriage not being removed from taboo also?
Does it go more fundamentally against their beliefs, as taught by the Bible, than these other "abominations" ?
I've just been told no?
So then why?
edit: WarpTV I find your attitude heartwarming and wish others would be as open minded, accepting and forgiving as you appear to be. I agree with what you're saying so don't misinterpret my questions.
|
On December 26 2012 10:02 Reason wrote:
Please quote me the passages from the Old Testament that prohibit the use of condoms and call them an abomination.
I suppose you're referring to only having sex with the end aim of producing a child?
I'd like the same for interracial marriage, consuming alcohol outside of a sacrament and divorce and in that order, though I'm 99% sure you're right about those as that sounds very Old Testament no-no to me.
The point is, my lack of Biblical familiarity side, this now begs the question... why?
Why is gay marriage not being removed from taboo also?
Does it go more fundamentally against their beliefs, as taught by the Bible, than these other "abominations" ?
I've just been told no?
So then why?
edit: WarpTV I find your attitude heartwarming and wish others would be as open minded, accepting and forgiving as you appear to be. I agree with what you're saying so don't misinterpret my questions.
There is nothing for me to forgive, I do not know if they are sinning, It is not my place to grant any forgiveness for any thing.
Here is a passage about donating sperm. it is was used in the past to say contraceptive is a sin.
"Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.” 9 But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death also."
Today we know that it was about donating sperm.
|
Sorry what?
That interpretation makes zero sense.
This sounds more like the reverse of a surrogate mother.. sleep with your impotent brother's wife and give them a child together... but instead of doing this he just had sex with her without impregnating her, which to be fair is a pretty dick move and I agree with the Lord's judgement on this one.
I don't doubt there are examples in the Bible that make it clear if you are going to have sex it should be to make offspring and not purely for "pleasure" ....
I'm a lot more interested in why gay marriage hasn't been accepted if there's nothing against it in the New Testament and the Bible explicitly states the Old Testament is now null and void *and* there is precedent for previous "abominations" now being widely accepted.
|
On December 26 2012 10:02 Reason wrote:
Please quote me the passages from the Old Testament that prohibit the use of condoms and call them an abomination.
I suppose you're referring to only having sex with the end aim of producing a child?
I'd like the same for interracial marriage, consuming alcohol outside of a sacrament and divorce and in that order, though I'm 99% sure you're right about those as that sounds very Old Testament no-no to me.
The point is, my lack of Biblical familiarity side, this now begs the question... why?
Why is gay marriage not being removed from taboo also?
Does it go more fundamentally against their beliefs, as taught by the Bible, than these other "abominations" ?
I've just been told no?
So then why?
edit: WarpTV I find your attitude heartwarming and wish others would be as open minded, accepting and forgiving as you appear to be. I agree with what you're saying so don't misinterpret my questions.
Probably because gay marriage is easy to condemn. You tell people that they're never allowed to divorce and you're telling a huge number of people that they should feel bad about themselves. If you tell people they can't eat pork, they can't cut their hair, and that they're allowed to buy their wives after they rape them they'll call you a lunatic, not join your religion (and give donations to your church).
Homosexuals make up ~5% of the population. You can say that's a sin without pissing anyone off. You get to feel like you're defending righteousness and battling a sinful world without actually doing anything meaningful OR driving ~95% of the population away from your religion.
|
On December 26 2012 10:32 Reason wrote:
Sorry what?
That interpretation makes zero sense.
This sounds more like the reverse of a surrogate mother.. sleep with your impotent brother's wife and give them a child together... but instead of doing this he just had sex with her without impregnating her, which to be fair is a pretty dick move and I agree with the Lord's judgement on this one.
I don't doubt there are examples in the Bible that make it clear if you are going to have sex it should be to make offspring and not purely for "pleasure" ....
I'm a lot more interested in why gay marriage hasn't been accepted if there's nothing against it in the New Testament and the Bible explicitly states the Old Testament is now null and void *and* there is precedent for previous "abominations" now being widely accepted.
No no. It's widely believed that he was supposed to sire a son with his sister-in law. God punished him for wasting his semen. That passage has been used as an argument against contraception, masturbation, and non-procreative sex in general.
|
On December 26 2012 10:37 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 10:02 Reason wrote:
Please quote me the passages from the Old Testament that prohibit the use of condoms and call them an abomination.
I suppose you're referring to only having sex with the end aim of producing a child?
I'd like the same for interracial marriage, consuming alcohol outside of a sacrament and divorce and in that order, though I'm 99% sure you're right about those as that sounds very Old Testament no-no to me.
The point is, my lack of Biblical familiarity side, this now begs the question... why?
Why is gay marriage not being removed from taboo also?
Does it go more fundamentally against their beliefs, as taught by the Bible, than these other "abominations" ?
I've just been told no?
So then why?
edit: WarpTV I find your attitude heartwarming and wish others would be as open minded, accepting and forgiving as you appear to be. I agree with what you're saying so don't misinterpret my questions. Probably because gay marriage is easy to condemn. You tell people that they're never allowed to divorce and you're telling a huge number of people that they should feel bad about themselves. If you tell people they can't eat pork, they can't cut their hair, and that they're allowed to buy their wives after they rape them they'll call you a lunatic, not join your religion (and give donations to your church). Homosexuals make up ~5% of the population. You can say that's a sin without pissing anyone off. You get to feel like you're defending righteousness and battling a sinful world without actually doing anything meaningful OR driving ~95% of the population away from your religion.
Lol you might be right about that but that kind of makes it look like they are actively looking for stuff to condemn and are only willing to stick to their beliefs if it doesn't cost them too much in terms of popularity which would them pretty morally reprehensible hypocrites among other things...
On December 26 2012 10:39 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 10:32 Reason wrote:
Sorry what?
That interpretation makes zero sense.
This sounds more like the reverse of a surrogate mother.. sleep with your impotent brother's wife and give them a child together... but instead of doing this he just had sex with her without impregnating her, which to be fair is a pretty dick move and I agree with the Lord's judgement on this one.
I don't doubt there are examples in the Bible that make it clear if you are going to have sex it should be to make offspring and not purely for "pleasure" ....
I'm a lot more interested in why gay marriage hasn't been accepted if there's nothing against it in the New Testament and the Bible explicitly states the Old Testament is now null and void *and* there is precedent for previous "abominations" now being widely accepted. No no. It's widely believed that he was supposed to sire a son with his sister-in law. God punished him for wasting his semen. That passage has been used as an argument against contraception, masturbation, and non-procreative sex in general.
You'll need to educate me on the context then because why would he be instructed to produce offspring with his brother's wife then?
I am curious but I'd like to draw attention to the fact that we're now straying from the political/societal/cultural end of the discussion with this tangent.
I think my interpretation is sound and regardless from that it could be construed that the punishment was for wasting his semen anyway, so it doesn't really matter.
|
On December 26 2012 10:43 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 10:37 Klondikebar wrote:On December 26 2012 10:02 Reason wrote:
Please quote me the passages from the Old Testament that prohibit the use of condoms and call them an abomination.
I suppose you're referring to only having sex with the end aim of producing a child?
I'd like the same for interracial marriage, consuming alcohol outside of a sacrament and divorce and in that order, though I'm 99% sure you're right about those as that sounds very Old Testament no-no to me.
The point is, my lack of Biblical familiarity side, this now begs the question... why?
Why is gay marriage not being removed from taboo also?
Does it go more fundamentally against their beliefs, as taught by the Bible, than these other "abominations" ?
I've just been told no?
So then why?
edit: WarpTV I find your attitude heartwarming and wish others would be as open minded, accepting and forgiving as you appear to be. I agree with what you're saying so don't misinterpret my questions. Probably because gay marriage is easy to condemn. You tell people that they're never allowed to divorce and you're telling a huge number of people that they should feel bad about themselves. If you tell people they can't eat pork, they can't cut their hair, and that they're allowed to buy their wives after they rape them they'll call you a lunatic, not join your religion (and give donations to your church). Homosexuals make up ~5% of the population. You can say that's a sin without pissing anyone off. You get to feel like you're defending righteousness and battling a sinful world without actually doing anything meaningful OR driving ~95% of the population away from your religion. Lol you might be right about that but that kind of makes it look like they are actively looking for stuff to condemn and are only willing to stick to their beliefs if it doesn't cost them too much in terms of popularity which would them pretty morally reprehensible hypocrites among other things...
And you just described why I am so leery and mistrustful of organized religion.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/12/21/us-pope-family-idUKBRE8BK0M020121221
The pope has called for an inter-religion alliance against gay marriage. Not an alliance against hunger, poverty, or crime. An alliance against gay marriage.
This is why I think secular laws should trump religious expression. Religious expression can't justify itself anymore than I could justify blatant racism.
Edit: About the tangent, it's been a long time since I've read the story but it has something to do with God's chosen bloodline going through that wife. Her husband died but God still needed her to have a son to continue the bloodline he wanted for King David and Jesus so he told her brother in law to make a baby with her. He didn't particularly care for her and definitely didn't want a kid with her so he just masturbated and God did not like that.
|
"Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.” 9 But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother.
I mean it specifically says the reason was that he knew the child wouldn't be his, and it also specifically mentions when he was having sex with her, not that he found her repulsive and so just masturbated instead.
I still don't agree... but okay 
Nevermind lol it's not relevant to the topic, thanks for explaining though.
|
On December 26 2012 11:00 Reason wrote:"Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.” 9 But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother.I mean it specifically says the reason was that he knew the child wouldn't be his, and it also specifically mentions when he was having sex with her, not that he found her repulsive and so just masturbated instead. I still don't agree... but okay Nevermind.
There's this weird lineage tracing in ancient jewish culture. Once a woman has been married, you're technically never divorced so any children they have will bear the name of her first husband. And like I said, it's been a while since I've read the story so I didn't remember some of the details. I just remember hearing it a lot as a kid as a reason I shouldn't masturbate.
|
|
|
On December 26 2012 10:22 WarpTV wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 10:02 Reason wrote:
Please quote me the passages from the Old Testament that prohibit the use of condoms and call them an abomination.
I suppose you're referring to only having sex with the end aim of producing a child?
I'd like the same for interracial marriage, consuming alcohol outside of a sacrament and divorce and in that order, though I'm 99% sure you're right about those as that sounds very Old Testament no-no to me.
The point is, my lack of Biblical familiarity side, this now begs the question... why?
Why is gay marriage not being removed from taboo also?
Does it go more fundamentally against their beliefs, as taught by the Bible, than these other "abominations" ?
I've just been told no?
So then why?
edit: WarpTV I find your attitude heartwarming and wish others would be as open minded, accepting and forgiving as you appear to be. I agree with what you're saying so don't misinterpret my questions. There is nothing for me to forgive, I do not know if they are sinning, It is not my place to grant any forgiveness for any thing. Here is a passage about donating sperm. it is was used in the past to say contraceptive is a sin. "Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.” 9 But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death also." Today we know that it was about donating sperm.
Actually most/many scholars interpret the passage as Onan intentionally disobeying God for unknown reasons, or just taking the opportunity to screw his brother's wife for longer. Nowhere else does the bible imply/say that sex without the intention of procreation is wrong/immoral. The catholic church is the main denomination that has an alternate interpretation.
EDIT: There is also no mention of masturbation either.
|
On December 25 2012 03:27 [F_]aths wrote:
...because unnecessary suffering is bad.
This is a tautology and no religious organization would disagree. What they disagree about and what you are dancing around is the question what constitutes unnecessary. So how do you scientifically proof that the subversion of what is called the traditional family does not cause harm (it certainly does for some people) or that this harm is necessary?
I'm sympathetic to the believe that morals should arise from real issues and not abstract considerations but I'm also quite sure that any moral based on a few simplistic axioms will be horribly inadequate at producing a "good" society. Just because you don't see how complex your own morals are, doesn't make them based purely on rational thought.
As to the people who argue bible stuff: These arguments have almost no relevance to the issue at hand. The bible is an incoherent mess and to extract livable guidelines from it (and other similarly incoherent source material) is one of the defining functions of the different Christian churches. It doesn't really make sense to tell them they are wrong in their interpretation because they can define what is true in their believe.
Everything still hinges on what marriage should be about. For almost all of us it's about love and all that jazz but historically this is simply wrong (marriage was mainly about monetary and hereditary concerns) and for some denominations this still holds true. Again for example in the Catholic Church marriage has very clearly a procreational component, they could deny gay couples marriage because they cannot have children with each other and not because they are gay, which is what they do to impotent people and thus pretty coherent.
[EDIT]: I would appreciate if anyone could offer an argument why inherently ageist rites of passage should be allowed if every gender based rite is a nono. Also why should the arbitrary legally protected groups be the only ones that matter? For example there is obvious and widespread discrimination against ugly people, is this alright because there is no law against it?
|
On December 28 2012 19:16 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 03:27 [F_]aths wrote:
...because unnecessary suffering is bad. This is a tautology and no religious organization would disagree. What they disagree about and what you are dancing around is the question what constitutes unnecessary. So how do you scientifically proof that the subversion of what is called the traditional family does not cause harm (it certainly does for some people) or that this harm is necessary? I'm sympathetic to the believe that morals should arise from real issues and not abstract considerations but I'm also quite sure that any moral based on a few simplistic axioms will be horribly inadequate at producing a "good" society. Just because you don't see how complex your own morals are, doesn't make them based purely on rational thought.
Simple axioms can lead to very complex things. (Take the natural numbers and the concept of prime numbers. Prime numbers form a set of numbers with strange properties.)
Simple axioms doesn't necessarily lead to simplistic morals. Lets take the infamous example of pulling a lever to change the track of a train so it kills one man, but avoids killing five men on the other track. Is is moral to pull the lever? What about pushing a fat man on the track to stop a train, again avoid killing five others? Apparantly, morals doesn't reduce to simple arithmetic. Morality is more than comparing the body count.
We have to ask moral questions even if we knew that the god of the bible existd and that he forbad gay marriage. "Sacrifice your son" for example is immoral even if God commands it. Why is it immoral? Because the son gets killed, this is a denial of decades of experience, and the father gets sad not of losing his own son, but also nightmares and regret of being a murderer, a child murderer even. We also have to ask if gay marriage is immoral with or without god's law.
We can use science – in a broad sense – to show that many religious care about the wrong things. The willingness to deny couples the joy of marriage only because they are both the same gender (while both are still human beings) shows a serious moral distortion. Gay marriage causes much less suffering (some folks feel disgust, which is a form of suffering) while other issues in the world lead to much greater suffering: The death of innocent people, curable diseases which afflict much pain but which are not treated because of the wrong money distribution (tax cuts for the rich) and so forth. Even though I admit that morality does not reduce to simple body counts or simple arithmetic, we can at least roughly demonstrate the effect of different policies and we can get at least a notion of the suffering we cause or alleviate. Taking gay marriage for an important moral issue in the current state of the world shows a great disconnect to the reality of actual suffering, of the real moral imperatives at hand.
|
You should drop using "science" because what you describe is not scientific, not even in a broad sense. You pretty much go with your gut feeling to decide what is unnecessary suffering, which is fine but you cannot call it scientific.
What does denial of experience even mean? Why is it immoral? Why is triggering sadness or regret inherently immoral? Is it immoral to suicide because your family will be sad? Is it immoral to make a sad movie? I'm not interested in your opinion on these questions but in how you design a scientific (in the broadest sense you want) experiment to solve them.
If you only have some simple axioms to decide moral questions the complexities will be hidden in the reductions to said axioms (as in your case in the meaning of unnecessary). This is based on the belief (or call it axiom) that the world is actually complex with which you hopefully agree. You can then make up new axioms to alleviate the complexities from the reductions (making the moral system more complex) or ignore the problem so that your decision was not based on these axioms after all but rather on the very subjective reductions.
As to your last paragraph, I support gay marriage and in this thread I only argued against forcing the church to marry gay couples and I don't disagree too much with your line of arguing. I do disagree however, that this is an objective/scientific/rational approach. We cannot demonstrate how much people suffer by being denied marriage and we cannot foresee what long term grand-scale effects these decisions have.
|
"Science" in the sense of a connection to the real and therefore measurable world. We cannot yet determine the amount of suffering on a fine-grained scale. But we already can determine that the suffering caused by certain issues is greater than the suffering caused by other issues. We don't have a scientific moral approach yet, but the real world can be in principle described by science.
Again, simple axioms do not necessarily lead to simple things. Anything which exists today is the result of hydrogen (and a bit helium and lithium), some forces of nature, some space dimensions and a lot of time. Stars can form heavier elements from hydrogen, heavier elements can form amino acids, those things can be form proteins which interact with the environment, certain molecules can use base triplets to store digital information of which how amino acids are arranged to form a particular protein and have the capability to duplicate themself.
The axiom that morality should be the effort to reduce unnecessary suffering could be labelled "a result of reason". Still, if the mind can in principle be reduced to neurons which are interacting, even the reason of a mind is in the end reducible to physical states of the world, and subject to science.
Not being able to 100% predict the outcome of a decision does not render the approach unscientific. We use approximations all the time. The right of gay marriage could be revoked if it turns out that it leads to greater issues compared to the solved issues.
The potential to experience seems to be very important for our moral compass. We don't regret stepping on a bug as much as we regret an overrun rabbit. The question of suicide can be answered, I think. Of course, making the family sad is bad. But the personal right should trump that because forcing someone to live even though he does not want to, causes great suffering for the person. But it also causes suffering for many folks who do not want to die – yet. I think most of us can imagine a situation where death is preferable. Not being able to kill oneself could be horrifying. Of course, a death wish should not be granted easily, because we all know that one could make a dumb decision to suicide too soon. But can we forbid any (assisted, if necessary) suicide just to prevent a single suicide which would be too soon? Or do we have to find the sweet spot even if that means, some assistance is denied and some suicides are performed too soon, but still minimizing the overall amount of suffering?
Considering that someone tired of life will probably find a way to die, we should allow assistance to minimize suffering in the process of dying while at the same time we must prevent abuse as much as possible. The possibility of abuse (hidden murder) is dreadful and causes fear, a form of suffering even when no-one was actually murdered.
|
On December 28 2012 19:16 silynxer wrote:
As to the people who argue bible stuff: These arguments have almost no relevance to the issue at hand.
Your discussion about the scientific nature of morality on the other hand is completely on topic?
I apologise, good sir.
|
In response to OP.
I think the idea that no group is allowed to discriminate is an overgeneralization. Surely being a dumb racist is wrong but discriminating as to whom to allow into your friend list and as a result into your parties is a discrimination too. (ok maybe the example is poor but you get the idea: there are acceptable forms of discrimination). So like in numerous other debates, the question here is where do we draw the line?
|
On December 28 2012 23:24 [F_]aths wrote:
"Science" in the sense of a connection to the real and therefore measurable world. We cannot yet determine the amount of suffering on a fine-grained scale. But we already can determine that the suffering caused by certain issues is greater than the suffering caused by other issues. We don't have a scientific moral approach yet, but the real world can be in principle described by science.
Then you should really drop "science" because it means more than having some connection to reality (everything has a connection to reality, even the belief in god). Perhaps we can at one point determine accurately all different kinds of suffering and perhaps even compare them (I doubt that) but even then we do not get a scientific moral because locally minimizing the suffering of people may create a whole lot of inadvertent suffering in the long run.
Again, simple axioms do not necessarily lead to simple things. Anything which exists today is the result of hydrogen (and a bit helium and lithium), some forces of nature, some space dimensions and a lot of time. Stars can form heavier elements from hydrogen, heavier elements can form amino acids, those things can be form proteins which interact with the environment, certain molecules can use base triplets to store digital information of which how amino acids are arranged to form a particular protein and have the capability to duplicate themself.
The axiom that morality should be the effort to reduce unnecessary suffering could be labelled "a result of reason". Still, if the mind can in principle be reduced to neurons which are interacting, even the reason of a mind is in the end reducible to physical states of the world, and subject to science.
I'm not sure I made myself understood. Your axiom of avoiding unnecessary suffering is a tautology in all relevant moral systems. Thus it doesn't teach you much at all about how to act. That something can be in principle subject to scientific research does not offer an answer to that question either.
Not being able to 100% predict the outcome of a decision does not render the approach unscientific. We use approximations all the time. The right of gay marriage could be revoked if it turns out that it leads to greater issues compared to the solved issues.
Up till now you have not offered any scientific approach at all, although you have been repeatedly asked, I judge your approach by that.
The potential to experience seems to be very important for our moral compass. We don't regret stepping on a bug as much as we regret an overrun rabbit.
How is that approach to morality scientific? Because of the reality that to most people it is part of their moral compass? Did the same hold when a majority connected morality to god?
The question of suicide can be answered, I think. Of course, making the family sad is bad. But the personal right should trump that because forcing someone to live even though he does not want to, causes great suffering for the person. But it also causes suffering for many folks who do not want to die – yet. I think most of us can imagine a situation where death is preferable. Not being able to kill oneself could be horrifying. Of course, a death wish should not be granted easily, because we all know that one could make a dumb decision to suicide too soon. But can we forbid any (assisted, if necessary) suicide just to prevent a single suicide which would be too soon? Or do we have to find the sweet spot even if that means, some assistance is denied and some suicides are performed too soon, but still minimizing the overall amount of suffering?
That certainly is not an answer and not an approach how to answer that question, but raising more questions
Considering that someone tired of life will probably find a way to die, we should allow assistance to minimize suffering in the process of dying while at the same time we must prevent abuse as much as possible. The possibility of abuse (hidden murder) is dreadful and causes fear, a form of suffering even when no-one was actually murdered.
Since every person has to suffer at some point and has to die, all suffering is unnecessary and we best kill them after birth with little suffering? Probably there is some axiom we are missing here, something like life is good or so (which opens a new can of worms).
To Reason: Sure argue all you want about that stuff (like me, I'm the king of pointless arguments). But if you are asking yourself why the church is acting like it is although there is some bible reference to the contrary, I hope I could enlighten you (and WarpTV who thought this was utmost importance).
|
I don't see why Gays should be denied the right of being miserable just like straight folks.
I heard Roseanne say something on TV not long ago that went along the lines of: "Think gay sex is gross? Then let them marry! That'll stop the sex pretty fast."
Troof.
|
On December 29 2012 00:01 Cheerio wrote:
In response to OP.
I think the idea that no group is allowed to discriminate is an overgeneralization. Surely being a dumb racist is wrong but discriminating as to whom to allow into your friend list and as a result into your parties is a discrimination too. (ok maybe the example is poor but you get the idea: there are acceptable forms of discrimination). So like in numerous other debates, the question here is where do we draw the line?
Surely being a dumb homophobe is wrong?
Sounds like a good place to start drawing lines if that's your logic.
To silynxer:
We weren't arguing about anything, we were having a discussion. I'm more inclined to agree with Klondike that they pick and choose their interpretation based on outside factors that have nothing to do with their actual "interpretation" of what the Bible says, and I believe we have already established a few. (The was the purpose of the discussion to draw attention to this issue and attempt to explore/discuss it but you haven't said anything on that subject yet because you're too busy arguing about science and morality...)
I am also very curious about impotent people not being allowed to marry... this is very interesting. They are essentially condemned to a life of solitude and celibacy then or must be sinners in the eyes of God?
It would appear this is only with certain churches, as is the anti gay-marriage sentiment?
I'd be interested to see how this correlates..
|
Oh I think while some stuff the Church does is clearly opportunistic many members are true believers as well and act like that. I wouldn't know enough about that to determine which is more prevalent. The trouble is that all kinds of historic decisions will become new sources of how to interpret the Bible, the process is self-referential (there is the stuff with the Pope being infallible, making statements of all Popes a bit troublesome).
About impotence, I think in this strict form this only appears in the Catholic church. I also wouldn't use this as any argument for or against gay marriage but rather to make an obvious example how marriage can be about more than (romantic) love for someone.
We can hope that the Protestant Church will at some point allow gay marriage (look how they treat women), the Catholic Church not so much.
|
I guess over time people will simply graduate towards the less extreme of these faith since they are all essentially the same but one seems to be imposing a much higher degree of discrimination than others.
On December 29 2012 01:02 silynxer wrote:
I also wouldn't use this as any argument for or against gay marriage but rather to make an obvious example how marriage can be about more than (romantic) love for someone.
From the churches prospective I absolutely would though, which is what I'm pointing out. If a man and a women can't get married if they can't procreate then absolutely two people of the same gender could not get married for the same reason.
|
On December 29 2012 00:31 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2012 23:24 [F_]aths wrote:
"Science" in the sense of a connection to the real and therefore measurable world. We cannot yet determine the amount of suffering on a fine-grained scale. But we already can determine that the suffering caused by certain issues is greater than the suffering caused by other issues. We don't have a scientific moral approach yet, but the real world can be in principle described by science. Then you should really drop "science" because it means more than having some connection to reality (everything has a connection to reality, even the belief in god). Perhaps we can at one point determine accurately all different kinds of suffering and perhaps even compare them (I doubt that) but even then we do not get a scientific moral because locally minimizing the suffering of people may create a whole lot of inadvertent suffering in the long run. Show nested quote +
Again, simple axioms do not necessarily lead to simple things. Anything which exists today is the result of hydrogen (and a bit helium and lithium), some forces of nature, some space dimensions and a lot of time. Stars can form heavier elements from hydrogen, heavier elements can form amino acids, those things can be form proteins which interact with the environment, certain molecules can use base triplets to store digital information of which how amino acids are arranged to form a particular protein and have the capability to duplicate themself.
The axiom that morality should be the effort to reduce unnecessary suffering could be labelled "a result of reason". Still, if the mind can in principle be reduced to neurons which are interacting, even the reason of a mind is in the end reducible to physical states of the world, and subject to science.
I'm not sure I made myself understood. Your axiom of avoiding unnecessary suffering is a tautology in all relevant moral systems. Thus it doesn't teach you much at all about how to act. That something can be in principle subject to scientific research does not offer an answer to that question either. Show nested quote +
Not being able to 100% predict the outcome of a decision does not render the approach unscientific. We use approximations all the time. The right of gay marriage could be revoked if it turns out that it leads to greater issues compared to the solved issues.
Up till now you have not offered any scientific approach at all, although you have been repeatedly asked, I judge your approach by that. Show nested quote +
The potential to experience seems to be very important for our moral compass. We don't regret stepping on a bug as much as we regret an overrun rabbit.
How is that approach to morality scientific? Because of the reality that to most people it is part of their moral compass? Did the same hold when a majority connected morality to god? Show nested quote +
The question of suicide can be answered, I think. Of course, making the family sad is bad. But the personal right should trump that because forcing someone to live even though he does not want to, causes great suffering for the person. But it also causes suffering for many folks who do not want to die – yet. I think most of us can imagine a situation where death is preferable. Not being able to kill oneself could be horrifying. Of course, a death wish should not be granted easily, because we all know that one could make a dumb decision to suicide too soon. But can we forbid any (assisted, if necessary) suicide just to prevent a single suicide which would be too soon? Or do we have to find the sweet spot even if that means, some assistance is denied and some suicides are performed too soon, but still minimizing the overall amount of suffering?
That certainly is not an answer and not an approach how to answer that question, but raising more questions Show nested quote +
Considering that someone tired of life will probably find a way to die, we should allow assistance to minimize suffering in the process of dying while at the same time we must prevent abuse as much as possible. The possibility of abuse (hidden murder) is dreadful and causes fear, a form of suffering even when no-one was actually murdered.
Since every person has to suffer at some point and has to die, all suffering is unnecessary and we best kill them after birth with little suffering? Probably there is some axiom we are missing here, something like life is good or so (which opens a new can of worms).
In a world without life, "good" and "bad" has no meaning. Killing every sentient creature is of course not a good thing even though it avoids suffering. Morality should aim to avoid unnecessary suffering, not to kill all creatures. I really don't know if a discussion about morality is worthwhile when I have to point such things out. Is everyone trying to misunderstand and misinterpret me as much as possible?
The approach to use the level of possible experience as a factor for moral reasoning is scientific insofar as we can do experiments to (roughly) determine the level of possible experience. We don't care if we break a piece of wood because to our knowledge, no pain has been inflicted. But is it moral to use very young human embryos for stem-cell research? Science, not with gut feeling tells us about the level of possible pain and suffering the embryo can experience.
Science doesn't tell us why we do physics or biology or chemistry. It is not unscientific to have a science for morality either. When we agree that morals should avoid unnecessary suffering and that the experience of suffering is caused by states of the physical world and how neurons interact, we already have some established science we can use. Plus we can develop it further.
Of course I cannot offer a worked-out, proven body of morality-science right now. I argue for the use of the scientific method.
|
On December 30 2012 08:15 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2012 00:31 silynxer wrote:On December 28 2012 23:24 [F_]aths wrote:
"Science" in the sense of a connection to the real and therefore measurable world. We cannot yet determine the amount of suffering on a fine-grained scale. But we already can determine that the suffering caused by certain issues is greater than the suffering caused by other issues. We don't have a scientific moral approach yet, but the real world can be in principle described by science. Then you should really drop "science" because it means more than having some connection to reality (everything has a connection to reality, even the belief in god). Perhaps we can at one point determine accurately all different kinds of suffering and perhaps even compare them (I doubt that) but even then we do not get a scientific moral because locally minimizing the suffering of people may create a whole lot of inadvertent suffering in the long run.
Again, simple axioms do not necessarily lead to simple things. Anything which exists today is the result of hydrogen (and a bit helium and lithium), some forces of nature, some space dimensions and a lot of time. Stars can form heavier elements from hydrogen, heavier elements can form amino acids, those things can be form proteins which interact with the environment, certain molecules can use base triplets to store digital information of which how amino acids are arranged to form a particular protein and have the capability to duplicate themself.
The axiom that morality should be the effort to reduce unnecessary suffering could be labelled "a result of reason". Still, if the mind can in principle be reduced to neurons which are interacting, even the reason of a mind is in the end reducible to physical states of the world, and subject to science.
I'm not sure I made myself understood. Your axiom of avoiding unnecessary suffering is a tautology in all relevant moral systems. Thus it doesn't teach you much at all about how to act. That something can be in principle subject to scientific research does not offer an answer to that question either.
Not being able to 100% predict the outcome of a decision does not render the approach unscientific. We use approximations all the time. The right of gay marriage could be revoked if it turns out that it leads to greater issues compared to the solved issues.
Up till now you have not offered any scientific approach at all, although you have been repeatedly asked, I judge your approach by that.
The potential to experience seems to be very important for our moral compass. We don't regret stepping on a bug as much as we regret an overrun rabbit.
How is that approach to morality scientific? Because of the reality that to most people it is part of their moral compass? Did the same hold when a majority connected morality to god?
The question of suicide can be answered, I think. Of course, making the family sad is bad. But the personal right should trump that because forcing someone to live even though he does not want to, causes great suffering for the person. But it also causes suffering for many folks who do not want to die – yet. I think most of us can imagine a situation where death is preferable. Not being able to kill oneself could be horrifying. Of course, a death wish should not be granted easily, because we all know that one could make a dumb decision to suicide too soon. But can we forbid any (assisted, if necessary) suicide just to prevent a single suicide which would be too soon? Or do we have to find the sweet spot even if that means, some assistance is denied and some suicides are performed too soon, but still minimizing the overall amount of suffering?
That certainly is not an answer and not an approach how to answer that question, but raising more questions
Considering that someone tired of life will probably find a way to die, we should allow assistance to minimize suffering in the process of dying while at the same time we must prevent abuse as much as possible. The possibility of abuse (hidden murder) is dreadful and causes fear, a form of suffering even when no-one was actually murdered.
Since every person has to suffer at some point and has to die, all suffering is unnecessary and we best kill them after birth with little suffering? Probably there is some axiom we are missing here, something like life is good or so (which opens a new can of worms). In a world without life, "good" and "bad" has no meaning. Killing every sentient creature is of course not a good thing even though it avoids suffering. Morality should aim to avoid unnecessary suffering, not to kill all creatures. I really don't know if a discussion about morality is worthwhile when I have to point such things out. Is everyone trying to misunderstand and misinterpret me as much as possible? The approach to use the level of possible experience as a factor for moral reasoning is scientific insofar as we can do experiments to (roughly) determine the level of possible experience. We don't care if we break a piece of wood because to our knowledge, no pain has been inflicted. But is it moral to use very young human embryos for stem-cell research? Science, not with gut feeling tells us about the level of possible pain and suffering the embryo can experience. Science doesn't tell us why we do physics or biology or chemistry. It is not unscientific to have a science for morality either. When we agree that morals should avoid unnecessary suffering and that the experience of suffering is caused by states of the physical world and how neurons interact, we already have some established science we can use. Plus we can develop it further. Of course I cannot offer a worked-out, proven body of morality-science right now. I argue for the use of the scientific method.
It’s not that he’s misinterpreting your position. He’s simply exploring some implications of your position that you take to be misinterpretative (because you seem to be unaware of the ethical corners that your “avoid unnecessary suffering” axiom can paint you into).
He’s also right that you ought to drop the claim that a “science” of morality is possible.
Because in fact what you’ve been describing all along is not a way that science can discover what is moral. What you’ve been describing is a way that scientific methods can be used (in certain very specific circumstances) to evaluate certain very specific moral claims* provided that everyone already agrees on the definition of morality, which for you is the pyrite rule: avoid unnecessary suffering.*
You see science cannot generate, prove, or disprove such a statement. And that’s not something that should come as a shock to anyone who is familiar with how science works.
So what you’re saying is, “Provided that our model of morality is correct, scientific methods can be used to determine whether certain actions are moral or immoral.” Fine. You’ve described a severely limited and purely hypothetical role for science in moral questions.
But the model of morality that you’ve provided is neither scientific, nor logical, nor universally accepted, nor commonsense. The model itself needs to be argued. And you need to be able to go beyond such tenuous statements like “unnecessary suffering is bad because that’s how we use the word bad” if you want those arguments to be taken seriously.
Welcome to philosophy 101. For the time being, there is no lab component to this class.
*For the sake of argument, I am going to ignore the (I think intractable) difficulties of coming up with an operational definition of “suffering,” as well as the essential impossibility of determining what is “unnecessary” and what is “necessary,” a delineation that inheres at least as much ideological complexity as determining what is “good” and what is “bad.”
|
Psshhhh, I demand a HULKAMANIA philosophy lab!
|
On December 29 2012 00:31 silynxer wrote:
[…] (everything has a connection to reality, even the belief in god) […]
Math doesn't. Well, at least not necessarily. Obviously you can apply parts of it to reality (and may count that as a connection), but it is not dependent on anything real.
On topic: This seems like a strong violation of non-discrimination laws. I am fairly certain that, were a law like this put into effect in Germany, it would be attacked before the Bundesverfassungsgericht, our supreme court (or literal: "federal constitutional court").
Legalising discrimination should be a no-go for the government/legislature of any country supporting the concept of human rights. What is the status on this in the UK? Do you suppose that there may be legal action against this?
|
On December 30 2012 10:48 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2012 08:15 [F_]aths wrote:On December 29 2012 00:31 silynxer wrote:On December 28 2012 23:24 [F_]aths wrote:
"Science" in the sense of a connection to the real and therefore measurable world. We cannot yet determine the amount of suffering on a fine-grained scale. But we already can determine that the suffering caused by certain issues is greater than the suffering caused by other issues. We don't have a scientific moral approach yet, but the real world can be in principle described by science. Then you should really drop "science" because it means more than having some connection to reality (everything has a connection to reality, even the belief in god). Perhaps we can at one point determine accurately all different kinds of suffering and perhaps even compare them (I doubt that) but even then we do not get a scientific moral because locally minimizing the suffering of people may create a whole lot of inadvertent suffering in the long run.
Again, simple axioms do not necessarily lead to simple things. Anything which exists today is the result of hydrogen (and a bit helium and lithium), some forces of nature, some space dimensions and a lot of time. Stars can form heavier elements from hydrogen, heavier elements can form amino acids, those things can be form proteins which interact with the environment, certain molecules can use base triplets to store digital information of which how amino acids are arranged to form a particular protein and have the capability to duplicate themself.
The axiom that morality should be the effort to reduce unnecessary suffering could be labelled "a result of reason". Still, if the mind can in principle be reduced to neurons which are interacting, even the reason of a mind is in the end reducible to physical states of the world, and subject to science.
I'm not sure I made myself understood. Your axiom of avoiding unnecessary suffering is a tautology in all relevant moral systems. Thus it doesn't teach you much at all about how to act. That something can be in principle subject to scientific research does not offer an answer to that question either.
Not being able to 100% predict the outcome of a decision does not render the approach unscientific. We use approximations all the time. The right of gay marriage could be revoked if it turns out that it leads to greater issues compared to the solved issues.
Up till now you have not offered any scientific approach at all, although you have been repeatedly asked, I judge your approach by that.
The potential to experience seems to be very important for our moral compass. We don't regret stepping on a bug as much as we regret an overrun rabbit.
How is that approach to morality scientific? Because of the reality that to most people it is part of their moral compass? Did the same hold when a majority connected morality to god?
The question of suicide can be answered, I think. Of course, making the family sad is bad. But the personal right should trump that because forcing someone to live even though he does not want to, causes great suffering for the person. But it also causes suffering for many folks who do not want to die – yet. I think most of us can imagine a situation where death is preferable. Not being able to kill oneself could be horrifying. Of course, a death wish should not be granted easily, because we all know that one could make a dumb decision to suicide too soon. But can we forbid any (assisted, if necessary) suicide just to prevent a single suicide which would be too soon? Or do we have to find the sweet spot even if that means, some assistance is denied and some suicides are performed too soon, but still minimizing the overall amount of suffering?
That certainly is not an answer and not an approach how to answer that question, but raising more questions
Considering that someone tired of life will probably find a way to die, we should allow assistance to minimize suffering in the process of dying while at the same time we must prevent abuse as much as possible. The possibility of abuse (hidden murder) is dreadful and causes fear, a form of suffering even when no-one was actually murdered.
Since every person has to suffer at some point and has to die, all suffering is unnecessary and we best kill them after birth with little suffering? Probably there is some axiom we are missing here, something like life is good or so (which opens a new can of worms). In a world without life, "good" and "bad" has no meaning. Killing every sentient creature is of course not a good thing even though it avoids suffering. Morality should aim to avoid unnecessary suffering, not to kill all creatures. I really don't know if a discussion about morality is worthwhile when I have to point such things out. Is everyone trying to misunderstand and misinterpret me as much as possible? The approach to use the level of possible experience as a factor for moral reasoning is scientific insofar as we can do experiments to (roughly) determine the level of possible experience. We don't care if we break a piece of wood because to our knowledge, no pain has been inflicted. But is it moral to use very young human embryos for stem-cell research? Science, not with gut feeling tells us about the level of possible pain and suffering the embryo can experience. Science doesn't tell us why we do physics or biology or chemistry. It is not unscientific to have a science for morality either. When we agree that morals should avoid unnecessary suffering and that the experience of suffering is caused by states of the physical world and how neurons interact, we already have some established science we can use. Plus we can develop it further. Of course I cannot offer a worked-out, proven body of morality-science right now. I argue for the use of the scientific method. It’s not that he’s misinterpreting your position. He’s simply exploring some implications of your position that you take to be misinterpretative (because you seem to be unaware of the ethical corners that your “avoid unnecessary suffering” axiom can paint you into). He’s also right that you ought to drop the claim that a “science” of morality is possible. Because in fact what you’ve been describing all along is not a way that science can discover what is moral. What you’ve been describing is a way that scientific methods can be used (in certain very specific circumstances) to evaluate certain very specific moral claims* provided that everyone already agrees on the definition of morality, which for you is the pyrite rule: avoid unnecessary suffering.* You see science cannot generate, prove, or disprove such a statement. And that’s not something that should come as a shock to anyone who is familiar with how science works. So what you’re saying is, “Provided that our model of morality is correct, scientific methods can be used to determine whether certain actions are moral or immoral.” Fine. You’ve described a severely limited and purely hypothetical role for science in moral questions. But the model of morality that you’ve provided is neither scientific, nor logical, nor universally accepted, nor commonsense. The model itself needs to be argued. And you need to be able to go beyond such tenuous statements like “unnecessary suffering is bad because that’s how we use the word bad” if you want those arguments to be taken seriously. Welcome to philosophy 101. For the time being, there is no lab component to this class. *For the sake of argument, I am going to ignore the (I think intractable) difficulties of coming up with an operational definition of “suffering,” as well as the essential impossibility of determining what is “unnecessary” and what is “necessary,” a delineation that inheres at least as much ideological complexity as determining what is “good” and what is “bad.”
While science as of yet has not been able to prove that morals should aim to avoid unnecessary suffering, I don't see a reason why science in principle cannot ever give a reason why – in the sense of how – we should have morals. But we don't need that to begin to develop a science of morality. Again, Physics doesn't answer the question why we do Physics. Biology does it neither.
(The concept of "why" in the sense "who had the intent to do so" is useful in everyday life, but not in science. There are meanings of "why" which cannot be answered by science, but that doesn't mean that we cannot explain the world. It is possible to ask questions which have no answer.)
The concept of suffering is of course a complicated one. Which better way do we have to get into it than science? Science revealed that the emotion of being outcast is neurological similar to physical pain. We know that neurology and neurophysiology is very young and many discoveries will probably be overthrown by new ones, or get much more refined, so we cannot use our current understanding of how the brain works to give a complete picture of suffering. Of course, even if we ever have a complete understanding of how the brain works and therefore the knowledge why we create a concept of morality in the first place, a good morality will probably still leave some questions unanswered. But that is no argument versus morality as a science. We do Physics even though each discovery raises new questions.
If we have a certain amount of money to spend and if we want to maximize the good we can do, we cannot afford very large science studies because they cost money, too. But in principle, scientifically approached studies can inform our actions. I see a moral implication there, that we ought to aim to spend our donations wisely.
A philosophy class can discuss some topics, but not explore the world while sitting in an armchair. We need to go out and measure the world. Even for morality, I guess.
|
On December 30 2012 20:09 Naeth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2012 00:31 silynxer wrote:
[…] (everything has a connection to reality, even the belief in god) […] Math doesn't. Well, at least not necessarily. Obviously you can apply parts of it to reality (and may count that as a connection), but it is not dependent on anything real.
I am not convinced by this. The concept of math rules exist in our brain as concepts. Those things are represented by certain states of neurons. There is a connection to the physical world. Does logic or math exist without a reality? I have seen no proof for this. The concept of math exists in our brain and therefore in the real world, but math itself? Does it exist?
Similar, I don't view morality as beyond or above or independent of the real world.
|
On December 23 2012 21:48 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 12:08 sam!zdat wrote:On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:On December 22 2012 05:36 sam!zdat wrote:
I don't think that the belief "Black people are an inferior race" is a valid religious belief Lol? You think you can dictate what is and is not a valid religious belief? All religious beliefs are valid, or none of them are. Yes, of course I can offer a judgment about the validity of some religious belief. Your position is the worst sort of vulgar relativism. There is no way to go about doing anything without making judgments of this sort. In fact, your position is self-contradictory - can you see how? edit: you do this too, all the time, you just deny that you do because your ideology tells you that you are "rational" and "objective" and that religion is "all made up." But making judgments of this sort presents no problem at all for me, because I take religion seriously as philosophical discourse and therefore hold that it is open to critique. As far as I'm concerned no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another, until you are prepared to offer a reason as to why this might be don't bother talking to me about philosophical discourse.
Go read your wittgenstein and get back to me
|
I feel like all of these arguments about how science can't determine our moral values are a bit absurd. Its true we can't quantify exactly what suffering is (changes based on the person), and at the moment it is difficult to ascertain what is necessary and unnecessary following from whatever definition (of suffering) we choose.
But at some point you will have some axiomatic truth - such as no one wants to experience negative emotion (defined a bit later on) for the sake of experiencing it, or that everyone is drawn to positive feelings and their associated events. We can infer from this basic rule that the only reason people feel negative emotions on purpose is because they feel they will have more positive emotions to outweigh that later on. I feel like this is general enough, and basic enough, that everyone can agree on it, for obvious reasons that everyone is intimately aware of through their personal experiences.
Here we don't need to examine precisely what suffering entails as part of some universal definition that applies to everyone...all we need to know is that there is general range of negative emotions that people want to avoid feeling (we can even list a few basic ones: fear, pain (emotional and physical), depression, anxiety, etc.). The degree to which people feel these emotions, and under what circumstances they arise, will vary based on the person.
Now science does the rest of the work. What brain states are associated with what negative emotions? Within people's general lives, what events cause those brain states to arise? What events cause those brain states to disappear, and cause positive brain states to take their place (i.e. brain states pertaining to a sense of awe, satisfaction, laughter, or relaxation, etc.).
Now we have a means for maximizing the brain state we're looking for. Of course it can be more detailed. Say a person is experiencing a negative brain state because they want long-term satisfaction and but are only experiencing temporary, positive brain states from buying various products. Over time, by measuring the effect certain stimuli have on the brain, a solution will be devised that will eliminate this brain state (pertaining to long-term dissatisfaction). This solution may take the form of a mate, or some personal accomplishment, etc.. And of course this will all vary from person to person. So if people determine what their brain structure is, they can determine what they should look for to stimulate those positive emotions.
Within the details of this examination lies your system of "morality", which can be discovered retrospectively.
It may be overwhelmingly complicated, but that's irrelevant. Only science can give meaningful, detailed answers. We don't need any reasoning or evaluation on why we should have a particular system of morals. All that matters is that we experience as much positive emotion as possible; this is the only meaningful end goal of all philosophical speculation on a system of ethics anyway. It also doesn't have to be a general system of what *all* people should do to be happy - it can be as particular or as general as is required based on what scientific investigation finds to be the case. Maybe we all experience positive emotion through very similar if not identical means...so be it. If not then we will know that too.
If the question is "why should we try to feel positive emotions?", I have nothing to say. But it is such an absurd, dumbfounding question that I wouldn't worry about not having an answer. At some point you can't, or shouldn't need to, question things any further. You just have to accept basic, axiomatic truths, just like in mathematics where concepts are simply defined to be what they are in order to progress (e.g. defining a field).
The only meaningful criticism of this position is that it is unrealistic at this time, which is true. That is why we have had philosophers who have been trying to argue through reason rather than through scientific determinism what the ideal system should be. But the future undeniably belongs to science...it might sound bleak and robotic, but at least we'll be happy. Unless we find that mystery is part of what creates happiness. In any case, it will still be worth it.
Anyway please be gentle if I made some serious errors .
|
On January 02 2013 08:28 radscorpion9 wrote:
We don't need any reasoning or evaluation on why we should have a particular system of morals. All that matters is that we experience as much positive emotion as possible; this is the only meaningful end goal of all philosophical speculation on a system of ethics anyway.
begging the question
edit:
"quid faceret eruditio since dilectione? inflaret. quid, abseque eruditione dilectio? erraret." st bernard
"what would learning do without love? it would puff up. and love without learning? it would go astray"
|
On January 02 2013 05:43 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 21:48 Reason wrote:On December 23 2012 12:08 sam!zdat wrote:On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:On December 22 2012 05:36 sam!zdat wrote:
I don't think that the belief "Black people are an inferior race" is a valid religious belief Lol? You think you can dictate what is and is not a valid religious belief? All religious beliefs are valid, or none of them are. Yes, of course I can offer a judgment about the validity of some religious belief. Your position is the worst sort of vulgar relativism. There is no way to go about doing anything without making judgments of this sort. In fact, your position is self-contradictory - can you see how? edit: you do this too, all the time, you just deny that you do because your ideology tells you that you are "rational" and "objective" and that religion is "all made up." But making judgments of this sort presents no problem at all for me, because I take religion seriously as philosophical discourse and therefore hold that it is open to critique. As far as I'm concerned no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another, until you are prepared to offer a reason as to why this might be don't bother talking to me about philosophical discourse. Go read your wittgenstein and get back to me
No thanks? If you aren't capable of expressing your views then be silent.. don't just direct me to some book as if that's an appropriate response.
|
On January 03 2013 03:00 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2013 05:43 sam!zdat wrote:On December 23 2012 21:48 Reason wrote:On December 23 2012 12:08 sam!zdat wrote:On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:On December 22 2012 05:36 sam!zdat wrote:
I don't think that the belief "Black people are an inferior race" is a valid religious belief Lol? You think you can dictate what is and is not a valid religious belief? All religious beliefs are valid, or none of them are. Yes, of course I can offer a judgment about the validity of some religious belief. Your position is the worst sort of vulgar relativism. There is no way to go about doing anything without making judgments of this sort. In fact, your position is self-contradictory - can you see how? edit: you do this too, all the time, you just deny that you do because your ideology tells you that you are "rational" and "objective" and that religion is "all made up." But making judgments of this sort presents no problem at all for me, because I take religion seriously as philosophical discourse and therefore hold that it is open to critique. As far as I'm concerned no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another, until you are prepared to offer a reason as to why this might be don't bother talking to me about philosophical discourse. Go read your wittgenstein and get back to me If you aren't capable of expressing your views then be silent..
haha you have no idea the irony...
edit: "whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must pass over in silence" - wittgenstein
edit: the point is that wittgenstein is a big part of the reason why pretty much no philosopher would agree with your claims about science, and yes you really should just go read him
|
On January 03 2013 03:01 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 03:00 Reason wrote:On January 02 2013 05:43 sam!zdat wrote:On December 23 2012 21:48 Reason wrote:On December 23 2012 12:08 sam!zdat wrote:On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:On December 22 2012 05:36 sam!zdat wrote:
I don't think that the belief "Black people are an inferior race" is a valid religious belief Lol? You think you can dictate what is and is not a valid religious belief? All religious beliefs are valid, or none of them are. Yes, of course I can offer a judgment about the validity of some religious belief. Your position is the worst sort of vulgar relativism. There is no way to go about doing anything without making judgments of this sort. In fact, your position is self-contradictory - can you see how? edit: you do this too, all the time, you just deny that you do because your ideology tells you that you are "rational" and "objective" and that religion is "all made up." But making judgments of this sort presents no problem at all for me, because I take religion seriously as philosophical discourse and therefore hold that it is open to critique. As far as I'm concerned no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another, until you are prepared to offer a reason as to why this might be don't bother talking to me about philosophical discourse. Go read your wittgenstein and get back to me If you aren't capable of expressing your views then be silent.. haha you have no idea the irony...
I'm not really interested in supposed the irony. You've now responded twice, once with a reference to some book and another just some stupid remark that's supposed to achieve I-don't-know-what.
I've expressed my view very clearly, and I'll do so again.
"As far as I'm concerned no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid
than another"
A fairly simple, logical statement. You seem to disagree with it? I'd be interested in hearing why...
Is that really too difficult for you? 
|
I'm really not interested in getting involved in this retarded "discourse" that you people have driven this thread to, completely unrelated and utterly off-topic to what this thread is supposed to be about, but as to this:
"As far as I'm concerned no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another"
This is pretty much a reiteration of the logical positivist tenant that was later shown to be internally problematic. To give a very condensed form of the problem:
1. Only that which can be empirically observed and proven is meaningful.
2. The tenant, "only that which can be empirically observed and proven is meaningful", cannot be empirically tested, observed, and proven.
3. The tenant, "only that which can be empirically observed and proven is meaningful", is not meaningful.
w/e this thread is irreparable.
I hate you people. All of you.
edit: TENENT. You're all still to be held in utter contempt, mockery, and should be shunned for turning this thread that was about the nature of the fucking secular law into another shitty "religion and pseudo-philosophy" thread.
|
oh, we hate you koreasilver. we hate you too <3
also, I'm a very compassionate landlord and all my tenants are meaningful
yeah, Reason, nobody with an education in philosophy these days believes that claim, and they haven't for oh about 60 years (in the beginning of the 20th century it was a very fashionable thing to think). The short version is that any formal system ultimately must rest on assumptions which are not able to be formalized within that system. c.f. second incompleteness theorem.
the point is that your claim here is quite literally a statement of faith, with which you purport to forever denounce all statements of faith.
|
On January 03 2013 03:18 koreasilver wrote:I'm really not interested in getting involved in this retarded "discourse" that you people have driven this thread to, completely unrelated and utterly off-topic to what this thread is supposed to be about, but as to this: Show nested quote +"As far as I'm concerned no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another" This is pretty much a reiteration of the logical positivist tenant that was later shown to be internally problematic. To give a very condensed form of the problem: 1. Only that which can be empirically observed and proven is meaningful. 2. The tenant, "only that which can be empirically observed and proven is meaningful", cannot be empirically tested, observed, and proven. 3. The tenant, "only that which can be empirically observed and proven is meaningful", is not meaningful. w/e this thread is irreparable. I hate you people. All of you. edit: TENENT. You're all still to be held in utter contempt, mockery, and should be shunned for turning this thread that was about the nature of the fucking secular law into another shitty "religion and pseudo-philosophy" thread.
Tenet? lol If you'd like to quote some people you feel in particular are guilty of such heinous crimes feel free to do so, also if you have some particular idea about what the current topic of discussion should be then feel free to direct us in the right direction... I'd be happy to hear well expressed and on topic opinions as opposed to mindless ranting...
It's a ridiculous stretch imo because it says X is "meaningful" and since you can't test for "meaningful" as meaning is attributed by a group of people or an individual then yeah of course you can't empirically prove and test that statement. No shit. That doesn't make it any more or less true... the fact that it's "internally problematic" means..... nothing.
Suffering is bad.
BUT WHAT IS BAD AND WHAT IS SUFFERING LOLOLOLOL
Oh shit, you're right. Maybe suffering is good. I'll be quiet now because you've 100% just disproved what I was saying.
Try harder next time.
|
So it's just a formality, but that's nice I guess.
|
Not that i'm gonna join this trainwreck of a thread, but
On January 02 2013 05:43 sam!zdat wrote:
Go read your wittgenstein and get back to me
On January 03 2013 03:00 Reason wrote:
If you aren't capable of expressing your views then be silent..
Thank you, both of you <3
|
On December 29 2012 00:01 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2012 19:16 silynxer wrote:
As to the people who argue bible stuff: These arguments have almost no relevance to the issue at hand. Your discussion about the scientific nature of morality on the other hand is completely on topic? I apologise, good sir.
I would say it is very much on topic actually...
|
On January 03 2013 08:50 SmoKim wrote:Not that i'm gonna join this trainwreck of a thread, but Show nested quote +On January 02 2013 05:43 sam!zdat wrote:
Go read your wittgenstein and get back to me Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 03:00 Reason wrote:
If you aren't capable of expressing your views then be silent.. Thank you, both of you <3
No one wants to join a trainwreck, but many people enjoy watching it from a distance. I am one of those people.
|
On January 03 2013 09:28 KosQ wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2012 00:01 Reason wrote:On December 28 2012 19:16 silynxer wrote:
As to the people who argue bible stuff: These arguments have almost no relevance to the issue at hand. Your discussion about the scientific nature of morality on the other hand is completely on topic? I apologise, good sir. I would say it is very much on topic actually...
Tell it to the guy who wrote this:
On January 03 2013 03:18 koreasilver wrote:You're all still to be held in utter contempt, mockery, and should be shunned for turning this thread that was about the nature of the fucking secular law into another shitty "religion and pseudo-philosophy" thread.
To the people (^ and others) who like to come in and comment about the current state of a thread - if you have something better to say *on-topic* then let's hear it, otherwise derailing the thread further with spam can hardly be called contributing and you are actually worse than the two guys arguing about science and morality.
Do you have anything to say? 
On January 03 2013 08:50 SmoKim wrote:
Not that i'm gonna join this trainwreck of a thread, but
You just did I'm afraid and in the most condemnable fashion possible.
|
On January 03 2013 07:59 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 03:18 koreasilver wrote:I'm really not interested in getting involved in this retarded "discourse" that you people have driven this thread to, completely unrelated and utterly off-topic to what this thread is supposed to be about, but as to this: "As far as I'm concerned no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another" This is pretty much a reiteration of the logical positivist tenant that was later shown to be internally problematic. To give a very condensed form of the problem: 1. Only that which can be empirically observed and proven is meaningful. 2. The tenant, "only that which can be empirically observed and proven is meaningful", cannot be empirically tested, observed, and proven. 3. The tenant, "only that which can be empirically observed and proven is meaningful", is not meaningful. w/e this thread is irreparable. I hate you people. All of you. edit: TENENT. You're all still to be held in utter contempt, mockery, and should be shunned for turning this thread that was about the nature of the fucking secular law into another shitty "religion and pseudo-philosophy" thread. Tenet? lol If you'd like to quote some people you feel in particular are guilty of such heinous crimes feel free to do so, also if you have some particular idea about what the current topic of discussion should be then feel free to direct us in the right direction... I'd be happy to hear well expressed and on topic opinions as opposed to mindless ranting... It's a ridiculous stretch imo because it says X is "meaningful" and since you can't test for "meaningful" as meaning is attributed by a group of people or an individual then yeah of course you can't empirically prove and test that statement. No shit. That doesn't make it any more or less true... the fact that it's "internally problematic" means..... nothing. Suffering is bad. BUT WHAT IS BAD AND WHAT IS SUFFERING LOLOLOLOL Oh shit, you're right. Maybe suffering is good. I'll be quiet now because you've 100% just disproved what I was saying. Try harder next time.
Your username might be the most ironic thing in the totality of this forum. Logical positivism in itself was abandoned by the Anglo-analytic philosophers because of this problem. You can't just use the "only that can be empirically proven is meaningful/has value" as if it is self evident and utterly a priori in such a way that it would ground all kind of thinking when it isn't. Without an awareness and honest display of the limits of grounding thought in a purely empirical way, this kind of positivism just becomes another kind of dogma, with an implicit metaphysic that underlines it even when it strives so hard to escape all metaphysical and transcendent appeals in thinking. This is also where the limits of phenomenology become apparent, but that's for a completely different topic. This kind of scientific thinking is noble and respectable but the scientific method is ruptured if it isn't aware of its own limits. At that point it just becomes a disingenuous and rather vulgar form of populist scientism that is incapable of being self-critical of its methods.
So is a method of inquiry that grounds itself only upon the empirical wrong? Of course it isn't. Scientific inquiry must be empirical, and its precisely this limiting of scope only to what is immanently approachable that gives science its rigor, and this methodology allows us to accumulate data that can be passed on as a history of knowledge that can be reviewed, interpreted, and continued on ad infinitum as long as human intelligence exists. What has to be stressed is that the greatest value of the sciences lies in their methodology that purposefully narrows and concentrates how they inquire and review their subjects. Science can't be approached as some kind of panacea of the totality of thought and knowledge. If we do, then we're just returning to some implicit theological ground that fucks up everything.
|
On January 03 2013 10:51 koreasilver wrote:
"You can't just use the "only that can be empirically proven is meaningful/has value" as if it is self evident and utterly a priori in such a way that it would ground all kind of thinking when it isn't."
What I said was essentially "all that can't be empirically proven is of equal value"
That's a very different statement. In context, I was saying you can't claim that one unprovable belief has more or less value than another, originally stated because samdzat said X was not a valid religious belief. My point was religious beliefs by their very nature don't require or are incapable of validation, therefore that's a stupid thing to say.
I asked of samdzat to explain to me his basis for belief that one unprovable untestable claim could have more or less value than another and he has so far refused to or is incapable of doing so.
On January 03 2013 10:51 koreasilver wrote:
So is a method of inquiry that grounds itself only upon the empirical wrong? Of course it isn't. Scientific inquiry must be empirical, and its precisely this limiting of scope only to what is immanently approachable that gives science its rigor, and this methodology allows us to accumulate data that can be passed on as a history of knowledge that can be reviewed, interpreted, and continued on ad infinitum as long as human intelligence exists. What has to be stressed is that the greatest value of the sciences lies in their methodology that purposefully narrows and concentrates how they inquire and review their subjects. Science can't be approached as some kind of panacea of the totality of thought and knowledge. If we do, then we're just returning to some implicit theological ground that fucks up everything. "
If you can rephrase that bolded part into the simplest English possible that would help a lot.
I interpret it as "science is really good, but it can't answer theological questions."
If that's what it says, fine, that still doesn't answer me as to how you judge one theological belief to be more or less "valid" than another when you've already completely ruled out empirical study as a possiblity. That's where this entire tangent came from, so please, inform me.
|
On January 03 2013 11:04 Reason wrote:
I asked of samdzat to explain to me his basis for belief that one unprovable untestable claim could have more or less value than another and he has so far refused to or is incapable of doing so.
Because it is impossible to function in the world unless one makes the assumption. The opposite can be nothing other than a self-deception, as it is impossible to establish a discursive position without value-rational assumptions.
edit: question is on topic as my interlocutor desires to use the claim that "claim x is legitimate iff scientific" to justify belief that all religious claims are illegitimate, and that therefore do not deserve to be seen deserving of respect in questions concerning the scope of secular authority.
|
On January 03 2013 11:44 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 11:04 Reason wrote:
I asked of samdzat to explain to me his basis for belief that one unprovable untestable claim could have more or less value than another and he has so far refused to or is incapable of doing so.
Because it is impossible to function in the world unless one makes the assumption. The opposite can be nothing other than a self-deception, as it is impossible to establish a discursive position without value-rational assumptions.
Okay... thanks for responding.
I personally am quite content making the "assumption" that everything empirically provable has more value than that which is not, and that which is not is all equally valuable because it can't be verified or validated.
So... can you give me a few examples to help me understand please?
|
On January 03 2013 11:04 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 10:51 koreasilver wrote:
"You can't just use the "only that can be empirically proven is meaningful/has value" as if it is self evident and utterly a priori in such a way that it would ground all kind of thinking when it isn't."
What I said was essentially "all that can't be empirically proven is of equal value" That's a very different statement. In context, I was saying you can't claim that one unprovable belief has more or less value than another, originally stated because samdzat said X was not a valid religious belief. My point was religious beliefs by their very nature don't require or are incapable of validation, therefore that's a stupid thing to say. I asked of samdzat to explain to me his basis for belief that one unprovable untestable claim could have more or less value than another and he has so far refused to or is incapable of doing so.
I don't know, man. Why don't you explain to the class the basis for your belief that one unprovable, untestable claim can have more or less value than another. You can save sam!zdat the effort.
After all, you seem to be peddling the claim that "all that can't be empirically proven is of equal value," when that claim itself can in no way be empirically proven... Or do you simply want to disallow everyone else from advancing unprovable claims while reserving your own right to do so?
(i.e. your rephrasing does not save your position from its inherent self-contradiction.)
|
what the fuck is happening in this thread? There's nothing, literally nothing regarding the OP on this, the 34th page.
Get over yourselves.
|
On January 03 2013 11:51 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 11:44 sam!zdat wrote:On January 03 2013 11:04 Reason wrote:
I asked of samdzat to explain to me his basis for belief that one unprovable untestable claim could have more or less value than another and he has so far refused to or is incapable of doing so.
Because it is impossible to function in the world unless one makes the assumption. The opposite can be nothing other than a self-deception, as it is impossible to establish a discursive position without value-rational assumptions. I personally am quite content making the "assumption" that everything empirically provable has more value than that which is not, and that which is not is all equally valuable because it can't be verified or validated.
Are you familiar with the Cretan Liar's paradox?
|
On January 03 2013 11:56 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 11:51 Reason wrote:On January 03 2013 11:44 sam!zdat wrote:On January 03 2013 11:04 Reason wrote:
I asked of samdzat to explain to me his basis for belief that one unprovable untestable claim could have more or less value than another and he has so far refused to or is incapable of doing so.
Because it is impossible to function in the world unless one makes the assumption. The opposite can be nothing other than a self-deception, as it is impossible to establish a discursive position without value-rational assumptions. I personally am quite content making the "assumption" that everything empirically provable has more value than that which is not, and that which is not is all equally valuable because it can't be verified or validated. Are you familiar with the Cretan Liar's paradox?
Yes.
|
Why do you use the word "data"?
|
|
|
On January 03 2013 11:59 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 11:51 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 03 2013 11:04 Reason wrote:On January 03 2013 10:51 koreasilver wrote:
"You can't just use the "only that can be empirically proven is meaningful/has value" as if it is self evident and utterly a priori in such a way that it would ground all kind of thinking when it isn't."
What I said was essentially "all that can't be empirically proven is of equal value" That's a very different statement. In context, I was saying you can't claim that one unprovable belief has more or less value than another, originally stated because samdzat said X was not a valid religious belief. My point was religious beliefs by their very nature don't require or are incapable of validation, therefore that's a stupid thing to say. I asked of samdzat to explain to me his basis for belief that one unprovable untestable claim could have more or less value than another and he has so far refused to or is incapable of doing so. I don't know, man. Why don't you explain to the class the basis for your belief that one unprovable, untestable claim can have more or less value than another. You can save sam!zdat the effort. After all, you seem to be peddling the claim that "all that can't be empirically proven is of equal value," when that claim itself can in no way be empirically proven... Or do you simply want to disallow everyone else from advancing unprovable claims while reserving your own right to do so? (i.e. your rephrasing does not save your position from its inherent self-contradiction.) You don't know, well that's fine, I don't expect everyone to know everything, I was specifically addressing the people who had made pretty strong claims to the contrary and was just asking for an explanation. So... you want me to explain why I think the way I do... okay. I think data can be seperated into two groups, one group is empirically testable and provable, and the other is not. I think the former group has more value simply because the contents can be tested and proven right or wrong, then this group can be divided further into two sub-groups : true and false. I would obviously discount everything in the "false" group, and belief which is capable of being tested and proven right or wrong which has in fact been proven wrong I would argue would be worth even less than a belief which could not be tested, simply because these untested beliefs may be true. So if you want a complete breakdown of my value system for beliefs, here it is: Beliefs empirically tested and provable, and proven right. Beliefs not empirically testable or provable. Beliefs empirically tested and provable, and proven wrong. That's my value system, it's simple, logical, uncompromising. What samzdat seems to have suggested is that the untestable group of data can be further subdivided also, and I wish to hear his (or your) explanation as to how one does this or why one believes this is possible in the first instance.
Your belief that "beliefs that are empirically tested, provable, and proven right are more 'valuable' than beliefs that are not empirically testable or provable" is itself a belief that is not empirically testable or provable.
And yet it is the central tenet of your belief system.
Oh, you religious types.
|
On January 03 2013 12:02 Reason wrote:it's not important data/information/belief just put whatever you want there to make it easy reading for you...
of course the words are important. we're using words to talk about it. I think about data as being beliefs of the type "after x happened, y happened"
|
I think beliefs can be seperated into two groups, one group of beliefs is empirically testable and provable, and the other is not.
I think the former group of beliefs, that which can be tested and proven, has more value simply because the contents can be tested and proven right or wrong, so then this group of beliefs can be divided further into two sub-groups : true and false.
I would obviously discount everything in the "false" group, beliefs which are capable of being tested and proven right or wrong which have in fact been proven wrong I would argue would be worth even less than beliefs which could not be tested, simply because these untested beliefs may be true.
So if you want a complete breakdown of my value system for beliefs, here it is:
Beliefs empirically tested and provable, and proven right.
Beliefs not empirically testable or provable.
Beliefs empirically tested and provable, and proven wrong.
That's my value system, it's simple, logical, uncompromising.
What samzdat seems to have suggested is that the untestable group of beliefs can also be further subdivided into portions with different "value", and I wish to hear his (or yours, or anybodies) explanation as to how one does this or why one believes this is possible in the first instance.
|
On January 03 2013 12:07 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 11:59 Reason wrote:On January 03 2013 11:51 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 03 2013 11:04 Reason wrote:On January 03 2013 10:51 koreasilver wrote:
"You can't just use the "only that can be empirically proven is meaningful/has value" as if it is self evident and utterly a priori in such a way that it would ground all kind of thinking when it isn't."
What I said was essentially "all that can't be empirically proven is of equal value" That's a very different statement. In context, I was saying you can't claim that one unprovable belief has more or less value than another, originally stated because samdzat said X was not a valid religious belief. My point was religious beliefs by their very nature don't require or are incapable of validation, therefore that's a stupid thing to say. I asked of samdzat to explain to me his basis for belief that one unprovable untestable claim could have more or less value than another and he has so far refused to or is incapable of doing so. I don't know, man. Why don't you explain to the class the basis for your belief that one unprovable, untestable claim can have more or less value than another. You can save sam!zdat the effort. After all, you seem to be peddling the claim that "all that can't be empirically proven is of equal value," when that claim itself can in no way be empirically proven... Or do you simply want to disallow everyone else from advancing unprovable claims while reserving your own right to do so? (i.e. your rephrasing does not save your position from its inherent self-contradiction.) You don't know, well that's fine, I don't expect everyone to know everything, I was specifically addressing the people who had made pretty strong claims to the contrary and was just asking for an explanation. So... you want me to explain why I think the way I do... okay. I think data can be seperated into two groups, one group is empirically testable and provable, and the other is not. I think the former group has more value simply because the contents can be tested and proven right or wrong, then this group can be divided further into two sub-groups : true and false. I would obviously discount everything in the "false" group, and belief which is capable of being tested and proven right or wrong which has in fact been proven wrong I would argue would be worth even less than a belief which could not be tested, simply because these untested beliefs may be true. So if you want a complete breakdown of my value system for beliefs, here it is: Beliefs empirically tested and provable, and proven right. Beliefs not empirically testable or provable. Beliefs empirically tested and provable, and proven wrong. That's my value system, it's simple, logical, uncompromising. What samzdat seems to have suggested is that the untestable group of data can be further subdivided also, and I wish to hear his (or your) explanation as to how one does this or why one believes this is possible in the first instance. Your belief that "beliefs that are empirically tested, provable, and proven right are more 'valuable' than beliefs that are not empirically testable or provable" is itself a belief that is not empirically testable or provable. And yet it is the central tenet of your belief system. Oh, you religious types.
Give me a practical situation with your definition of valuable within that situation and then demonstrate how a load of unprovable and untestable beliefs or assumptions prove more valuable than a load of stuff that's been tested and proven right then???
I'm waiting.
|
it's really hard and you have to read a lot and think about it.
you don't prove it with a formal system. really mostly you can lead by example, or tell stories. also important is to understand why other people think other things and try to think about all these different ways of thinking together and compare them critically. It is a process of iterative challenging and refining of moral intuitions. you start with the assumption that nobody is smart enough to be wrong about everything and you go from there.
but your claim is self-contradictory, so that proves it already by reductio ad absurdum so you don't even have to be able to say how you would do it to know that it is something which can be done.
edit: look. claim X is your belief. there's also a claim not-X. how do you decide which of these claims has more value? claim X claims that claim X is meaningless.
|
Sounds like bullshit to me.
What you're claiming as a result of your reduction method is that all beliefs are of equal value, which is obviously wrong.
|
On January 03 2013 12:27 Reason wrote:
Sounds like bullshit to me.
What you're claiming as a result of your reduction method is that all beliefs are of equal value, which is obviously wrong.
of course I am not claiming this. That is tautologically false.
edit: I'm claiming that a claim that claims that it is itself meaningless is a Godel sentence, which it is.
|
On January 03 2013 12:29 sam!zdat wrote:
I'm claiming that a claim that claims that it is itself meaningless is a Godel sentence, which it is.
is this also a Godel sentence?
|
On January 03 2013 12:20 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 12:07 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 03 2013 11:59 Reason wrote:On January 03 2013 11:51 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 03 2013 11:04 Reason wrote:On January 03 2013 10:51 koreasilver wrote:
"You can't just use the "only that can be empirically proven is meaningful/has value" as if it is self evident and utterly a priori in such a way that it would ground all kind of thinking when it isn't."
What I said was essentially "all that can't be empirically proven is of equal value" That's a very different statement. In context, I was saying you can't claim that one unprovable belief has more or less value than another, originally stated because samdzat said X was not a valid religious belief. My point was religious beliefs by their very nature don't require or are incapable of validation, therefore that's a stupid thing to say. I asked of samdzat to explain to me his basis for belief that one unprovable untestable claim could have more or less value than another and he has so far refused to or is incapable of doing so. I don't know, man. Why don't you explain to the class the basis for your belief that one unprovable, untestable claim can have more or less value than another. You can save sam!zdat the effort. After all, you seem to be peddling the claim that "all that can't be empirically proven is of equal value," when that claim itself can in no way be empirically proven... Or do you simply want to disallow everyone else from advancing unprovable claims while reserving your own right to do so? (i.e. your rephrasing does not save your position from its inherent self-contradiction.) You don't know, well that's fine, I don't expect everyone to know everything, I was specifically addressing the people who had made pretty strong claims to the contrary and was just asking for an explanation. So... you want me to explain why I think the way I do... okay. I think data can be seperated into two groups, one group is empirically testable and provable, and the other is not. I think the former group has more value simply because the contents can be tested and proven right or wrong, then this group can be divided further into two sub-groups : true and false. I would obviously discount everything in the "false" group, and belief which is capable of being tested and proven right or wrong which has in fact been proven wrong I would argue would be worth even less than a belief which could not be tested, simply because these untested beliefs may be true. So if you want a complete breakdown of my value system for beliefs, here it is: Beliefs empirically tested and provable, and proven right. Beliefs not empirically testable or provable. Beliefs empirically tested and provable, and proven wrong. That's my value system, it's simple, logical, uncompromising. What samzdat seems to have suggested is that the untestable group of data can be further subdivided also, and I wish to hear his (or your) explanation as to how one does this or why one believes this is possible in the first instance. Your belief that "beliefs that are empirically tested, provable, and proven right are more 'valuable' than beliefs that are not empirically testable or provable" is itself a belief that is not empirically testable or provable. And yet it is the central tenet of your belief system. Oh, you religious types. Give me a practical situation with your definition of valuable within that situation and then demonstrate how a load of unprovable and untestable beliefs or assumptions prove more valuable than a load of stuff that's been tested and proven right then??? I'm waiting.
What's all this? You're defending contradictions within your own belief system by asking me to state my belief system? And here I was thinking Reason was simple, logical, and uncompromising...
I think I'll decline. I'm not the one laboring under the illusion that my beliefs are scientifically and logically demonstrable.
|
On January 03 2013 12:32 nunez wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 12:29 sam!zdat wrote:
I'm claiming that a claim that claims that it is itself meaningless is a Godel sentence, which it is. is this also a Godel sentence?
hmm, is it?
I don't think so.
edit: no definitely not. Otherwise the proof wouldn't work.
|
On January 03 2013 12:36 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 12:20 Reason wrote:On January 03 2013 12:07 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 03 2013 11:59 Reason wrote:On January 03 2013 11:51 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 03 2013 11:04 Reason wrote:On January 03 2013 10:51 koreasilver wrote:
"You can't just use the "only that can be empirically proven is meaningful/has value" as if it is self evident and utterly a priori in such a way that it would ground all kind of thinking when it isn't."
What I said was essentially "all that can't be empirically proven is of equal value" That's a very different statement. In context, I was saying you can't claim that one unprovable belief has more or less value than another, originally stated because samdzat said X was not a valid religious belief. My point was religious beliefs by their very nature don't require or are incapable of validation, therefore that's a stupid thing to say. I asked of samdzat to explain to me his basis for belief that one unprovable untestable claim could have more or less value than another and he has so far refused to or is incapable of doing so. I don't know, man. Why don't you explain to the class the basis for your belief that one unprovable, untestable claim can have more or less value than another. You can save sam!zdat the effort. After all, you seem to be peddling the claim that "all that can't be empirically proven is of equal value," when that claim itself can in no way be empirically proven... Or do you simply want to disallow everyone else from advancing unprovable claims while reserving your own right to do so? (i.e. your rephrasing does not save your position from its inherent self-contradiction.) You don't know, well that's fine, I don't expect everyone to know everything, I was specifically addressing the people who had made pretty strong claims to the contrary and was just asking for an explanation. So... you want me to explain why I think the way I do... okay. I think data can be seperated into two groups, one group is empirically testable and provable, and the other is not. I think the former group has more value simply because the contents can be tested and proven right or wrong, then this group can be divided further into two sub-groups : true and false. I would obviously discount everything in the "false" group, and belief which is capable of being tested and proven right or wrong which has in fact been proven wrong I would argue would be worth even less than a belief which could not be tested, simply because these untested beliefs may be true. So if you want a complete breakdown of my value system for beliefs, here it is: Beliefs empirically tested and provable, and proven right. Beliefs not empirically testable or provable. Beliefs empirically tested and provable, and proven wrong. That's my value system, it's simple, logical, uncompromising. What samzdat seems to have suggested is that the untestable group of data can be further subdivided also, and I wish to hear his (or your) explanation as to how one does this or why one believes this is possible in the first instance. Your belief that "beliefs that are empirically tested, provable, and proven right are more 'valuable' than beliefs that are not empirically testable or provable" is itself a belief that is not empirically testable or provable. And yet it is the central tenet of your belief system. Oh, you religious types. Give me a practical situation with your definition of valuable within that situation and then demonstrate how a load of unprovable and untestable beliefs or assumptions prove more valuable than a load of stuff that's been tested and proven right then??? I'm waiting. What's all this? You're defending contradictions within your own belief system by asking me to state my belief system? And here I was thinking Reason was simple, logical, and uncompromising... I think I'll decline. I'm not the one laboring under the illusion that my beliefs are scientifically and logically demonstrable.
I never said they were. I gave my opinions and my reasons for them, you don't have to agree with them but at least provide reasoning behind your own beliefs before you criticize mine, repeatedly.
|
On January 03 2013 12:29 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 12:27 Reason wrote:
Sounds like bullshit to me.
What you're claiming as a result of your reduction method is that all beliefs are of equal value, which is obviously wrong. of course I am not claiming this. That is tautologically false. edit: I'm claiming that a claim that claims that it is itself meaningless is a Godel sentence, which it is.
You're happy to use these methods and theorems to disprove what I'm saying but you refuse to acknowlege the implications that follow from your own line of reasoning.
If the statement "empirically provable and testable beliefs are worth more than those which aren't provable and testable"
is wrong
then
"empirically provable and testable beliefs are worth the same as those which aren't provable and testable"
or
"empirically provable and testable beliefs are worth more or less than those which aren't provable and testable based on a set of criteria I am incapable of defining other than that they're independent from whether they are emprically provable and testable or not"
and so
"all beliefs are equally valuable"
or
"all beliefs have a seperate value, meaning and truthfulness which cannot be proven, tested or judged apart from by each individual"
which again leads to
"all beliefs are equally valuable"
|
On January 03 2013 12:40 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 12:29 sam!zdat wrote:On January 03 2013 12:27 Reason wrote:
Sounds like bullshit to me.
What you're claiming as a result of your reduction method is that all beliefs are of equal value, which is obviously wrong. of course I am not claiming this. That is tautologically false. edit: I'm claiming that a claim that claims that it is itself meaningless is a Godel sentence, which it is. You're happy to use your methods and theorems to disprove what I'm saying but you refuse to acknowlege the implications. If the statement "empirically provable and testable beliefs are worth more than those which aren't provable and testable" is wrong then "empirically provable and testable beliefs are worth the same as those which aren't provable and testable"
this does not follow
also, your argument was not of form "worth more." your argument was that "for all belief x, belief x is meaningful iff scientific"
edit: if you want to say "worth more" that is going to require some more technical explanation as to what you mean
edit:
this
On January 03 2013 12:40 Reason wrote:
"all beliefs have a seperate value,
does not imply this
meaning and truthfulness which cannot be proven, tested or judged apart from by each individual"
the point of contention is that I hold that a belief can be judged without being proven, and you deny this.
|
On January 03 2013 12:43 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 12:40 Reason wrote:On January 03 2013 12:29 sam!zdat wrote:On January 03 2013 12:27 Reason wrote:
Sounds like bullshit to me.
What you're claiming as a result of your reduction method is that all beliefs are of equal value, which is obviously wrong. of course I am not claiming this. That is tautologically false. edit: I'm claiming that a claim that claims that it is itself meaningless is a Godel sentence, which it is. You're happy to use your methods and theorems to disprove what I'm saying but you refuse to acknowlege the implications. If the statement "empirically provable and testable beliefs are worth more than those which aren't provable and testable" is wrong then "empirically provable and testable beliefs are worth the same as those which aren't provable and testable" this does not follow also, your argument was not of form "worth more." your argument was that "for all belief x, belief x is meaningful iff scientific" edit: if you want to say "worth more" that is going to require some more technical explanation as to what you mean
Then what does follow? You tell me. I gave an OR....
Also allow me to quote you, AGAIN, my "argument" so there's no more confusion here.
|
On January 03 2013 12:39 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 12:36 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 03 2013 12:20 Reason wrote:On January 03 2013 12:07 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 03 2013 11:59 Reason wrote:On January 03 2013 11:51 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 03 2013 11:04 Reason wrote:On January 03 2013 10:51 koreasilver wrote:
"You can't just use the "only that can be empirically proven is meaningful/has value" as if it is self evident and utterly a priori in such a way that it would ground all kind of thinking when it isn't."
What I said was essentially "all that can't be empirically proven is of equal value" That's a very different statement. In context, I was saying you can't claim that one unprovable belief has more or less value than another, originally stated because samdzat said X was not a valid religious belief. My point was religious beliefs by their very nature don't require or are incapable of validation, therefore that's a stupid thing to say. I asked of samdzat to explain to me his basis for belief that one unprovable untestable claim could have more or less value than another and he has so far refused to or is incapable of doing so. I don't know, man. Why don't you explain to the class the basis for your belief that one unprovable, untestable claim can have more or less value than another. You can save sam!zdat the effort. After all, you seem to be peddling the claim that "all that can't be empirically proven is of equal value," when that claim itself can in no way be empirically proven... Or do you simply want to disallow everyone else from advancing unprovable claims while reserving your own right to do so? (i.e. your rephrasing does not save your position from its inherent self-contradiction.) You don't know, well that's fine, I don't expect everyone to know everything, I was specifically addressing the people who had made pretty strong claims to the contrary and was just asking for an explanation. So... you want me to explain why I think the way I do... okay. I think data can be seperated into two groups, one group is empirically testable and provable, and the other is not. I think the former group has more value simply because the contents can be tested and proven right or wrong, then this group can be divided further into two sub-groups : true and false. I would obviously discount everything in the "false" group, and belief which is capable of being tested and proven right or wrong which has in fact been proven wrong I would argue would be worth even less than a belief which could not be tested, simply because these untested beliefs may be true. So if you want a complete breakdown of my value system for beliefs, here it is: Beliefs empirically tested and provable, and proven right. Beliefs not empirically testable or provable. Beliefs empirically tested and provable, and proven wrong. That's my value system, it's simple, logical, uncompromising. What samzdat seems to have suggested is that the untestable group of data can be further subdivided also, and I wish to hear his (or your) explanation as to how one does this or why one believes this is possible in the first instance. Your belief that "beliefs that are empirically tested, provable, and proven right are more 'valuable' than beliefs that are not empirically testable or provable" is itself a belief that is not empirically testable or provable. And yet it is the central tenet of your belief system. Oh, you religious types. Give me a practical situation with your definition of valuable within that situation and then demonstrate how a load of unprovable and untestable beliefs or assumptions prove more valuable than a load of stuff that's been tested and proven right then??? I'm waiting. What's all this? You're defending contradictions within your own belief system by asking me to state my belief system? And here I was thinking Reason was simple, logical, and uncompromising... I think I'll decline. I'm not the one laboring under the illusion that my beliefs are scientifically and logically demonstrable. I never said they were. I gave my opinions and my reasons for them, you don't have to agree with them but at least provide reasoning behind your own beliefs before you criticize mine, repeatedly.
No thank you.
I just checked my Argument 101 handbook, and there's no rule in there about that. It says I don't have to explain my own beliefs in order to point out where someone else's beliefs fail the test of their own logic.
Especially considering it is part of my argument here that the assumptions upon which we base our belief systems are not subject to proof or disproof in the traditional logical or scientific senses.
|
On January 03 2013 12:45 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 12:39 Reason wrote:On January 03 2013 12:36 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 03 2013 12:20 Reason wrote:On January 03 2013 12:07 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 03 2013 11:59 Reason wrote:On January 03 2013 11:51 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 03 2013 11:04 Reason wrote:On January 03 2013 10:51 koreasilver wrote:
"You can't just use the "only that can be empirically proven is meaningful/has value" as if it is self evident and utterly a priori in such a way that it would ground all kind of thinking when it isn't."
What I said was essentially "all that can't be empirically proven is of equal value" That's a very different statement. In context, I was saying you can't claim that one unprovable belief has more or less value than another, originally stated because samdzat said X was not a valid religious belief. My point was religious beliefs by their very nature don't require or are incapable of validation, therefore that's a stupid thing to say. I asked of samdzat to explain to me his basis for belief that one unprovable untestable claim could have more or less value than another and he has so far refused to or is incapable of doing so. I don't know, man. Why don't you explain to the class the basis for your belief that one unprovable, untestable claim can have more or less value than another. You can save sam!zdat the effort. After all, you seem to be peddling the claim that "all that can't be empirically proven is of equal value," when that claim itself can in no way be empirically proven... Or do you simply want to disallow everyone else from advancing unprovable claims while reserving your own right to do so? (i.e. your rephrasing does not save your position from its inherent self-contradiction.) You don't know, well that's fine, I don't expect everyone to know everything, I was specifically addressing the people who had made pretty strong claims to the contrary and was just asking for an explanation. So... you want me to explain why I think the way I do... okay. I think data can be seperated into two groups, one group is empirically testable and provable, and the other is not. I think the former group has more value simply because the contents can be tested and proven right or wrong, then this group can be divided further into two sub-groups : true and false. I would obviously discount everything in the "false" group, and belief which is capable of being tested and proven right or wrong which has in fact been proven wrong I would argue would be worth even less than a belief which could not be tested, simply because these untested beliefs may be true. So if you want a complete breakdown of my value system for beliefs, here it is: Beliefs empirically tested and provable, and proven right. Beliefs not empirically testable or provable. Beliefs empirically tested and provable, and proven wrong. That's my value system, it's simple, logical, uncompromising. What samzdat seems to have suggested is that the untestable group of data can be further subdivided also, and I wish to hear his (or your) explanation as to how one does this or why one believes this is possible in the first instance. Your belief that "beliefs that are empirically tested, provable, and proven right are more 'valuable' than beliefs that are not empirically testable or provable" is itself a belief that is not empirically testable or provable. And yet it is the central tenet of your belief system. Oh, you religious types. Give me a practical situation with your definition of valuable within that situation and then demonstrate how a load of unprovable and untestable beliefs or assumptions prove more valuable than a load of stuff that's been tested and proven right then??? I'm waiting. What's all this? You're defending contradictions within your own belief system by asking me to state my belief system? And here I was thinking Reason was simple, logical, and uncompromising... I think I'll decline. I'm not the one laboring under the illusion that my beliefs are scientifically and logically demonstrable. I never said they were. I gave my opinions and my reasons for them, you don't have to agree with them but at least provide reasoning behind your own beliefs before you criticize mine, repeatedly. No thank you. I just checked my Argument 101 handbook, and there's no rule in there about that. It says I don't have to explain my own beliefs in order to point out where someone else's beliefs fail the test of their own logic. Especially considering it is part of my argument here that the assumptions upon which we base our belief systems are not subject to proof or disproof in the traditional logical or scientific senses.
I just read making good use of my time 101 handbook and it says talking to you isn't such a good idea.
On December 23 2012 21:48 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 12:08 sam!zdat wrote:On December 22 2012 10:39 Reason wrote:On December 22 2012 05:36 sam!zdat wrote:
I don't think that the belief "Black people are an inferior race" is a valid religious belief Lol? You think you can dictate what is and is not a valid religious belief? All religious beliefs are valid, or none of them are. Yes, of course I can offer a judgment about the validity of some religious belief. Your position is the worst sort of vulgar relativism. There is no way to go about doing anything without making judgments of this sort. In fact, your position is self-contradictory - can you see how? edit: you do this too, all the time, you just deny that you do because your ideology tells you that you are "rational" and "objective" and that religion is "all made up." But making judgments of this sort presents no problem at all for me, because I take religion seriously as philosophical discourse and therefore hold that it is open to critique. As far as I'm concerned no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another, until you are prepared to offer a reason as to why this might be don't bother talking to me about philosophical discourse.
That was my original statement before you try to reword it again.
"the point of contention is that I hold that a belief can be judged without being proven, and you deny this."
What criteria do you judge it by then?
|
the second option is fine, I'll accept that, it doesn't claim much unless you want to make a deal of "more or less" not including "equal to"
edit:
how do you pick between these beliefs:
a) no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another
b) it is not the case that no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another
is one of these more or less valid than the other?
if so, why?
|
On January 03 2013 12:48 sam!zdat wrote:
the second option is fine, I'll accept that, it doesn't claim much unless you want to make a deal of "more or less" not including "equal to"
edit:
how do you pick between these beliefs:
a) no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another
b) it is not the case that no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another
is one of these more or less valid than the other?
if so, why?
Since I'm claiming what you've said amounts to :
"all beliefs are equally valuable"
and you're denying this, I didn't want to upset you by putting "equal to" in there.
On January 03 2013 12:48 sam!zdat wrote:
the second option is fine, I'll accept that, it doesn't claim much unless you want to make a deal of "more or less" not including "equal to"
edit:
how do you pick between these beliefs:
a) no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another
b) it is not the case that no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another
is one of these more or less valid than the other?
if so, why?
Very interesting. Demonstrate to me first how your method of reduction and my following proposed conclusions do not lead you to claim that "all beliefs are equal".
|
On January 03 2013 12:51 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 12:48 sam!zdat wrote:
the second option is fine, I'll accept that, it doesn't claim much unless you want to make a deal of "more or less" not including "equal to"
edit:
how do you pick between these beliefs:
a) no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another
b) it is not the case that no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another
is one of these more or less valid than the other?
if so, why? Since I'm claiming what you've said amounts to : "all beliefs are equally valuable"
no, that's subject to the same reductio ad absurdum:
1) "all beliefs are equally valuable"
2) assume "it is not the case that all beliefs are equally valuable"
3) if 1 is true, then 2 is true
4) if 1 is true, then 2 is false
5) universe explode
edit: you only think I'm saying that because you already believe that "if a belief is not scientifically valuable, it is not valuable, therefore if you show that not all beliefs that are valuable are scientific then all beliefs are equally valuable" which doesn't even make sense on its own terms.
|
On January 03 2013 12:53 sam!zdat wrote:
edit: you only think I'm saying that because you already believe that "if a belief is not scientifically valuable, it is not valuable, therefore if you show that not all beliefs that are valuable are scientific then all beliefs are equally valuable" which doesn't even make sense on its own terms.
No, I very clearly outlined the process of reaching the conclusion that that's what you're claiming.
|
why would your (1) possibly imply your (2)?
|
Because
On January 03 2013 12:40 Reason wrote:
"empirically provable and testable beliefs are worth more or less than those which aren't provable and testable based on a set of criteria I am incapable of defining other than that they're independent from whether they are emprically provable and testable or not"
does not imply
"all beliefs have a seperate value, meaning and truthfulness which cannot be proven, tested or judged apart from by each individual"
Refutation of positivism does not imply relativism
edit: (it only does if you refute positivism and then assume positivism in assessing the implications of the refutation of positivism, which is what I said in the edit above)
edit: it's only if you assume that it has to be scientific in order to to be not-relative that (a) implies (b), but that's what I'm refuting
|
On January 03 2013 13:01 sam!zdat wrote:Because Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 12:40 Reason wrote:
"empirically provable and testable beliefs are worth more or less than those which aren't provable and testable based on a set of criteria I am incapable of defining other than that they're independent from whether they are emprically provable and testable or not"
does not imply Show nested quote +
"all beliefs have a seperate value, meaning and truthfulness which cannot be proven, tested or judged apart from by each individual"
Refutation of positivism does not imply relativism edit: (it only does if you refute positivism and then assume positivism in assessing the implications of the refutation of positivism, which is what I said in the edit above)
So what does it imply?
You've said there's no framework, so upon what basis do you make these judgments?
|
On January 03 2013 12:47 Reason wrote:As far as I'm concerned no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another, until you are prepared to offer a reason as to why this might be don't bother talking to me about philosophical discourse.
This position is self-contradictory, as has been pointed out several times in the past few pages.
The belief that "no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another" is a belief that is based on untestable and unprovable assumptions. By its own decree, therefore, it is no more or less valid than a belief that President Obama is a clone sent from the future by vindictive Kenyan Muslims.
By continuing this conversation, then, you're hoisted by your own don't-bother-talking-to-me-about-philosophical-discourse petard.
|
On January 03 2013 13:02 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 13:01 sam!zdat wrote:Because On January 03 2013 12:40 Reason wrote:
"empirically provable and testable beliefs are worth more or less than those which aren't provable and testable based on a set of criteria I am incapable of defining other than that they're independent from whether they are emprically provable and testable or not"
does not imply
"all beliefs have a seperate value, meaning and truthfulness which cannot be proven, tested or judged apart from by each individual"
Refutation of positivism does not imply relativism edit: (it only does if you refute positivism and then assume positivism in assessing the implications of the refutation of positivism, which is what I said in the edit above) So what does it imply?
it implies that positivism is false.
|
On January 03 2013 13:03 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 12:47 Reason wrote:As far as I'm concerned no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another, until you are prepared to offer a reason as to why this might be don't bother talking to me about philosophical discourse. This position is self-contradictory, as has been pointed out several times in the past few pages. The belief that "no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another" is a belief that is based on untestable and unprovable assumptions. By its own decree, therefore, it is no more or less valid than a belief that President Obama is a clone sent from the future by vindictive Kenyan Muslims. By continuing this conversation, then, you're hoisted by your own don't-bother-talking-to-me-about-philosophical-discourse petard.
LOL are you paying any attention?
On January 03 2013 13:03 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 13:02 Reason wrote:On January 03 2013 13:01 sam!zdat wrote:Because On January 03 2013 12:40 Reason wrote:
"empirically provable and testable beliefs are worth more or less than those which aren't provable and testable based on a set of criteria I am incapable of defining other than that they're independent from whether they are emprically provable and testable or not"
does not imply
"all beliefs have a seperate value, meaning and truthfulness which cannot be proven, tested or judged apart from by each individual"
Refutation of positivism does not imply relativism edit: (it only does if you refute positivism and then assume positivism in assessing the implications of the refutation of positivism, which is what I said in the edit above) So what does it imply? it implies that positivism is false.
If positivism is false, what is true? What is the opposite of positivism?
How is the opposite of positivism NOT claiming that all beliefs are equal or that "all beliefs have a seperate value, meaning and truthfulness which cannot be proven, tested or judged apart from by each individual".
If you can't tell me what this basis for judgement is then I have to conclude it's simply what I've stated there.
|
Wait, wait, wait. Making Reason argue with two people at once is unfair. I will bow out until sam!zdat exhausts himself. Which could be years from now.
|
On January 03 2013 13:06 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 13:03 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 03 2013 12:47 Reason wrote:As far as I'm concerned no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another, until you are prepared to offer a reason as to why this might be don't bother talking to me about philosophical discourse. This position is self-contradictory, as has been pointed out several times in the past few pages. The belief that "no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another" is a belief that is based on untestable and unprovable assumptions. By its own decree, therefore, it is no more or less valid than a belief that President Obama is a clone sent from the future by vindictive Kenyan Muslims. By continuing this conversation, then, you're hoisted by your own don't-bother-talking-to-me-about-philosophical-discourse petard. LOL are you paying any attention?
But I will answer this last question: Yes.
|
On January 03 2013 13:06 HULKAMANIA wrote:
I will bow out until sam!zdat exhausts himself. Which could be years from now.
That's why they call me The Indefatigable Sophist
|
On January 03 2013 13:06 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 13:06 Reason wrote:On January 03 2013 13:03 HULKAMANIA wrote:On January 03 2013 12:47 Reason wrote:As far as I'm concerned no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another, until you are prepared to offer a reason as to why this might be don't bother talking to me about philosophical discourse. This position is self-contradictory, as has been pointed out several times in the past few pages. The belief that "no belief based on untestable and unprovable assumptions can or will ever be more or less valid than another" is a belief that is based on untestable and unprovable assumptions. By its own decree, therefore, it is no more or less valid than a belief that President Obama is a clone sent from the future by vindictive Kenyan Muslims. By continuing this conversation, then, you're hoisted by your own don't-bother-talking-to-me-about-philosophical-discourse petard. LOL are you paying any attention? But I will answer this last question: Yes.
I'm not here to argue with anyone, the difference is that samdzat is making a real effort to explain his beliefs and explain his disagreement with mine and I'm actually learning and understanding more about his viewpoint as time goes on.
You were merely interested in trying to essentially make fun of me without expressing your own views so I'm not interested in continuing that line of discussion, does that suprise you?
SO!
On January 03 2013 13:03 sam!zdat wrote:
it implies that positivism is false.
If positivism is false, what is true? What is the opposite of positivism?
How is the opposite of positivism NOT claiming that all beliefs are equal or that "all beliefs have a seperate value, meaning and truthfulness which cannot be proven, tested or judged apart from by each individual".
If you can't tell me what this basis for judgement is then I have to conclude it's simply what I've stated there.
|
I tried to follow the conversation, but as a Bayesian I'm totally confused.
Beliefs should be expressed as probabilities of certainty. There aren't "beliefs that can be tested" and "beliefs that cannot be tested." There are just beliefs. And we have evidence, whether anecdotal, logical, scientific, authority-based or whatever that influences how much we believe something.
And this is for everything. Whether you think the sun will rise tomorrow, whether there's cereal in the pantry, whether that girl likes me or not, or whether I should bring an umbrella in case it rains.
There is no such thing as absolute certainty, as it is impossible to attain with Bayes' Theorem. Absolute certainty doesn't exist, and even if it did, it would be completely useless. What absolute certainty actually says is that no matter the evidence presented to me, even if I died and went to Valhalla, I would still believe in Jesus.
|
On January 03 2013 13:06 Reason wrote:
How is the opposite of positivism NOT claiming that all beliefs are equal or that "all beliefs have a seperate value, meaning and truthfulness which cannot be proven, tested or judged apart from by each individual".
This is actually a question I'm quite interested in and nobody has a totally secure position about this as far as I'm concerned. But this is more of a question of active research, whereas the simple refutation of positivism is by this point pretty noncontroversial. So this question is a real problem.
But you can't conclude from that, that this:
If you can't tell me what this basis for judgement is then I have to conclude it's simply what I've stated there.
It's not a legitimate move. You can't say "unless you fully explain the implications of not-X, then X, even though X is self-contradictory and subject to disproof by reductio ad absurdum."
|
I don't really know what can be done about discriminatory religious beliefs. On one hand, I think it would be best to make any public organization's discrimination based upon sexual orientation illegal. On the other, I don't think it would be possible to do that without a massive protest from all religious people. It's impossible to convince someone whose beliefs are based upon faith that they are mistaken, and there are simply too many religious people to just say "they'll get over it".
Oops, I thought I was in a thread about the legalization of gay marriage in the UK. Looks like this one is a lame philosophy thread...
|
On January 03 2013 13:16 JDub wrote:
Oops, I thought I was in a thread about the legalization of gay marriage in the UK. Looks like this one is a lame philosophy thread...
The question is quite relevant to the discussion we've been having about this law. A lot of people's positions have been supported with claims that assume positivism, so refuting positivism is relevant.
|
On January 03 2013 13:18 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 13:16 JDub wrote:
Oops, I thought I was in a thread about the legalization of gay marriage in the UK. Looks like this one is a lame philosophy thread... The question is quite relevant to the discussion we've been having about this law. A lot of people's positions have been supported with claims that assume positivism, so refuting positivism is relevant.
Interestingly that's exactly what it comes down to... funny that.
On January 03 2013 13:13 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 13:06 Reason wrote:
How is the opposite of positivism NOT claiming that all beliefs are equal or that "all beliefs have a seperate value, meaning and truthfulness which cannot be proven, tested or judged apart from by each individual".
This is actually a question I'm quite interested in and nobody has a totally secure position about this as far as I'm concerned. But this is more of a question of active research, whereas the simple refutation of positivism is by this point pretty noncontroversial. So this question is a real problem. But you can't conclude from that, that this: Show nested quote +
If you can't tell me what this basis for judgement is then I have to conclude it's simply what I've stated there.
It's not a legitimate move. You can't say "unless you fully explain the implications of not-X, then X, even though X is self-contradictory and subject to disproof by reductio ad absurdum."
Okay... I still feel the refutation of positivism inherently implies "all beliefs are equal"...
If the process of disproving something by reductio ad absurdum results in an argument that is also disproved by the same method don't you have a paradox there or something to that effect?
So, what I'm saying is...
"unless you fully explain to me the implications of not-X, then universe explodes, because it appears X and not-X are both self contradictory and subject to disproof by reductio ad absurdum"
|
On January 03 2013 13:18 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 13:16 JDub wrote:
Oops, I thought I was in a thread about the legalization of gay marriage in the UK. Looks like this one is a lame philosophy thread... The question is quite relevant to the discussion we've been having about this law. A lot of people's positions have been supported with claims that assume positivism, so refuting positivism is relevant.
Well it's hard to see the connection when reading the most recent 5 pages of posts I find only the philosophical debate. I guess I should go ahead and read the entire thread then...
|
Hey guys, it's been 36 pages, isn't it time to bring up Hitler?
|
On January 03 2013 13:20 Reason wrote:
Okay... I still feel the refutation of positivism inherently implies "all beliefs are equal"...
If the process of disproving something by reductio ad absurdum results in an argument that is also disproved by the same method don't you have a paradox there or something to that effect?
Yes, you're quite right. It's a big problem. If not-positivism is equivalent to relativism, then you have a big problem. But you can't prove that this relationship is the case, because you have to assume positivism to show that relativism follows from not-positivism, and of course anything at all follows from positivism AND not-positivism.
Since both positions can be disproved by RAA, I think we are forced to conclude that it is not the case that "if not-positivism, then relativism". At this point we have to start looking for a third option which we haven't considered.
edit:
On January 03 2013 13:25 JDub wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 13:18 sam!zdat wrote:On January 03 2013 13:16 JDub wrote:
Oops, I thought I was in a thread about the legalization of gay marriage in the UK. Looks like this one is a lame philosophy thread... The question is quite relevant to the discussion we've been having about this law. A lot of people's positions have been supported with claims that assume positivism, so refuting positivism is relevant. Well it's hard to see the connection when reading the most recent 5 pages of posts I find only the philosophical debate. I guess I should go ahead and read the entire thread then...
lol yeah I know we're a bit far afield but we got here from a discussion of basic difference in our attitudes towards appropriate scope of secular power, and the disagreement hinges on this point
|
On January 03 2013 13:27 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 13:20 Reason wrote:
Okay... I still feel the refutation of positivism inherently implies "all beliefs are equal"...
If the process of disproving something by reductio ad absurdum results in an argument that is also disproved by the same method don't you have a paradox there or something to that effect?
Yes, you're quite right. It's a big problem. If not-positivism is equivalent to relativism, then you have a big problem. But you can't prove that this relationship is the case, because you have to assume positivism to show that relativism follows from not-positivism, and of course anything at all follows from positivism AND not-positivism. Since both positions can be disproved by RAA, I think we are forced to conclude that it is not the case that "if not-positivism, then relativism". At this point we have to start looking for a third option which we haven't considered.
Well... I'm going to bed now 4:44am.
This is becoming awfully complicated. Thanks for explanations... I will now attempt to process... 
On January 03 2013 13:13 DoubleReed wrote:
I tried to follow the conversation, but as a Bayesian I'm totally confused.
Beliefs should be expressed as probabilities of certainty. There aren't "beliefs that can be tested" and "beliefs that cannot be tested." There are just beliefs. And we have evidence, whether anecdotal, logical, scientific, authority-based or whatever that influences how much we believe something.
And this is for everything. Whether you think the sun will rise tomorrow, whether there's cereal in the pantry, whether that girl likes me or not, or whether I should bring an umbrella in case it rains.
There is no such thing as absolute certainty, as it is impossible to attain with Bayes' Theorem. Absolute certainty doesn't exist, and even if it did, it would be completely useless. What absolute certainty actually says is that no matter the evidence presented to me, even if I died and went to Valhalla, I would still believe in Jesus.
Okay interesting lol. Nice to hear a (possibly?) different take on this.
So you don't think any beliefs can be tested? It's all probability?
For example "testing" a dice to see if it's 1 in 6 chance to roll any number from 1 to 6, you think it's impossible to "test" this, you could just roll it a few million times and only ever be "fairly certain" that it's 1 in 6 for each number but that you haven't actualy "tested" this?
What about the belief in God, do you believe that is equally testable or untestable? Do you think either can be tested or proved to a higher degree of certainty than the other?
Does either belief then hold more "value" or "meaning"?
|
On January 03 2013 13:30 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 13:27 sam!zdat wrote:On January 03 2013 13:20 Reason wrote:
Okay... I still feel the refutation of positivism inherently implies "all beliefs are equal"...
If the process of disproving something by reductio ad absurdum results in an argument that is also disproved by the same method don't you have a paradox there or something to that effect?
Yes, you're quite right. It's a big problem. If not-positivism is equivalent to relativism, then you have a big problem. But you can't prove that this relationship is the case, because you have to assume positivism to show that relativism follows from not-positivism, and of course anything at all follows from positivism AND not-positivism. Since both positions can be disproved by RAA, I think we are forced to conclude that it is not the case that "if not-positivism, then relativism". At this point we have to start looking for a third option which we haven't considered. Well... I'm going to bed now 4:39 am. This is becoming awfully complicated. Thanks for explanations... I will now attempt to process
Sweet dreams, nice talking to you. I know it seems a little weird and vague but I actually think it's a pretty important point, processing the implications of this is sort of a watershed moment in one's philosophical education, in my experience. A lot of people I think want so badly to argue against religion, for good reasons, that they end up falling into some philosophical peril of their own. So the question for me has a lot more importance for contemporary social discourse than it might seem when you are trying to wrap your head around the idea of incompleteness and getting involved in logical stuff.
edit: basically I think there's very real danger in fetishizing "science" as the only True Path to Knowledge, which is a fairly common ideological assumption in our moment
edit: and yes you're quite right to feel that the "well then, what?" is a very troubling thing to try to think about. Trust me, they felt the same way the first time people started going around saying "there is no God"
|
On December 12 2012 05:09 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +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:On December 12 2012 04:17 dAPhREAk wrote:
debated whether to even get into this, but here is where i stand: the right to marriage (gay or not) and the right to practice religion are both fundamental rights that should not be infringed lightly. if you force a church to allow gay marriage (by forcing their priests (or whatever they call themselves) to be subject to discrimination lawsuits because they wont violate their religious principals) you are infringing their right to practice their religion as long as its an actual belief of the church. so, i am opposed to that. you may not like that result, but thats why we have fundamental rights--to prevent others from forcing their beliefs on others.
people who want to get married (gay or not) have options, they do not need to infringe believer's fundamental rights to do so.
by the way, freedom from discrimination is not a fundamental right, and never has been.
edit: by the way, i support gay marriage. 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
This document is used way too often to promote gay rights and is just plain wrong to use. My personal opinion is of course give them the freedom of marriage, but this is not a good document to use as your argument. This document was created in the 1950's and was intended for man and woman. Gay marriage was not a prominent issue and these leaders could not have possibly predicted that it would later become an important issue. No where does it say that marriage is a fundamental right for homosexuals all it is intended for is a man and woman. There has been a precedent by the supreme court (USA) which even defined marriage as a man and woman (1970's-present), my understanding is the UK also has nothing that says marriage is equalized for everyone, but correct me if I am wrong because I am more familiar with American law. This is basically the secular argument against gay marriage. Marriage has been defined by traditional values as man and woman so it seems somewhat strange for you to use this document considering it promotes woman and man marriage and not gay rights. This document only promotes marriage between a man and woman and simply does nothing to promote gay marriage you must truly see the context of the document to understand it.
Many people think gay marriage hasn't passed just because of non secular, but truly there is a large community of secular that disagree with gay marriage just because it goes against traditional values.
I disagree with the traditional value and think it's important to look at our society as of today and think gay marriage should finally be accepted throughout the world. Saying gay marriage is a fundamental right is technically false as there has been no historic value for this and there is no historic document that promotes gay marriage as of my understanding.
|
The language in the UDHR seems ambiguous to me.
|
On January 03 2013 14:24 sam!zdat wrote:
The language in the UDHR seems ambiguous to me.
I agree but you have to look at the context of when it was written it was no intended for gay marriage. 10 December 1948 this was when the document was created. To say gay marriage was an issue in 1948 and they addressed it in the UDHR is pretty silly considering countries created a precedent in 1973 saying marriage was between a man and a woman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act
"is a United States federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman for federal and inter-state recognition purposes in the United States" enacted on 1996. Although it is a US law and this topic is on the UK it just goes to show that the UDHR is in no way agreeing with gay marriage.
|
Quoting the UDHR is fine if you want to refer to the message is conveys : everyone is equal and must be treated fair etc even if the thing is outdated or doesn't specifically speak out for gay people it was still written in the best interests of humanity and is a useful if slightly blunt tool to use on occasion.
On January 03 2013 13:25 JDub wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 13:18 sam!zdat wrote:On January 03 2013 13:16 JDub wrote:
Oops, I thought I was in a thread about the legalization of gay marriage in the UK. Looks like this one is a lame philosophy thread... The question is quite relevant to the discussion we've been having about this law. A lot of people's positions have been supported with claims that assume positivism, so refuting positivism is relevant. Well it's hard to see the connection when reading the most recent 5 pages of posts I find only the philosophical debate. I guess I should go ahead and read the entire thread then...
For all of a similar mind, don't read pages 32 - 36 if you want to avoid the "philosophy" part of the debate... though if you follow the first 30+ pages you will probably begin to understand why this came up in the first place
On January 03 2013 13:25 Zrana wrote:
Hey guys, it's been 36 pages, isn't it time to bring up Hitler?
Somebody already tried, failed and then was banned. Good luck with that though.
|
On January 03 2013 13:30 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 13:27 sam!zdat wrote:On January 03 2013 13:20 Reason wrote:
Okay... I still feel the refutation of positivism inherently implies "all beliefs are equal"...
If the process of disproving something by reductio ad absurdum results in an argument that is also disproved by the same method don't you have a paradox there or something to that effect?
Yes, you're quite right. It's a big problem. If not-positivism is equivalent to relativism, then you have a big problem. But you can't prove that this relationship is the case, because you have to assume positivism to show that relativism follows from not-positivism, and of course anything at all follows from positivism AND not-positivism. Since both positions can be disproved by RAA, I think we are forced to conclude that it is not the case that "if not-positivism, then relativism". At this point we have to start looking for a third option which we haven't considered. Well... I'm going to bed now 4:44am. This is becoming awfully complicated. Thanks for explanations... I will now attempt to process... Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 13:13 DoubleReed wrote:
I tried to follow the conversation, but as a Bayesian I'm totally confused.
Beliefs should be expressed as probabilities of certainty. There aren't "beliefs that can be tested" and "beliefs that cannot be tested." There are just beliefs. And we have evidence, whether anecdotal, logical, scientific, authority-based or whatever that influences how much we believe something.
And this is for everything. Whether you think the sun will rise tomorrow, whether there's cereal in the pantry, whether that girl likes me or not, or whether I should bring an umbrella in case it rains.
There is no such thing as absolute certainty, as it is impossible to attain with Bayes' Theorem. Absolute certainty doesn't exist, and even if it did, it would be completely useless. What absolute certainty actually says is that no matter the evidence presented to me, even if I died and went to Valhalla, I would still believe in Jesus. Okay interesting lol. Nice to hear a (possibly?) different take on this. So you don't think any beliefs can be tested? It's all probability? For example "testing" a dice to see if it's 1 in 6 chance to roll any number from 1 to 6, you think it's impossible to "test" this, you could just roll it a few million times and only ever be "fairly certain" that it's 1 in 6 for each number but that you haven't actualy "tested" this? What about the belief in God, do you believe that is equally testable or untestable? Do you think either can be tested or proved to a higher degree of certainty than the other? Does either belief then hold more "value" or "meaning"?
Well, how do you know it's not a weighted die? You must have evidence, even if that evidence is simply that nearly all dice are unweighted.
"Fairly certain" isn't really accurate. Bayesian inferences can be pretty dramatic. Having a 99.99% certainty is the same thing as "knowing" something, by the colloquial term "know."
Yes, belief in God is the same thing. Often, the main evidence is based on Authority by parents and priests.
Beliefs obviously are meaningful because they affect our decisionmaking. And believing is false statements can obviously make bad and harmful decisions.
|
The question then becomes, what sort of false statements can we believe in that do not lead to bad and harmful decisions ?
|
Can someone please tell me why we can't just let everyone get married and then if you don't want to call it "marriage" and instead want to call it "an abomination against god" you can go and do that to your heart's content? It seems to me that if a group of people wanted to specify that a "sandwich" was exactly [2 parts bread 1 part mayo 1 part ham 1 part cheese] and that every other bread/meat/condiment/bread combination was a "festering sacrilege" they would be allowed to be crazy by themselves off in a corner while the rest of the population who give no shits what is on their sandwich could still call it a sandwich and eat it in peace.
|
On January 04 2013 01:20 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 13:30 Reason wrote:On January 03 2013 13:27 sam!zdat wrote:On January 03 2013 13:20 Reason wrote:
Okay... I still feel the refutation of positivism inherently implies "all beliefs are equal"...
If the process of disproving something by reductio ad absurdum results in an argument that is also disproved by the same method don't you have a paradox there or something to that effect?
Yes, you're quite right. It's a big problem. If not-positivism is equivalent to relativism, then you have a big problem. But you can't prove that this relationship is the case, because you have to assume positivism to show that relativism follows from not-positivism, and of course anything at all follows from positivism AND not-positivism. Since both positions can be disproved by RAA, I think we are forced to conclude that it is not the case that "if not-positivism, then relativism". At this point we have to start looking for a third option which we haven't considered. Well... I'm going to bed now 4:44am. This is becoming awfully complicated. Thanks for explanations... I will now attempt to process... On January 03 2013 13:13 DoubleReed wrote:
I tried to follow the conversation, but as a Bayesian I'm totally confused.
Beliefs should be expressed as probabilities of certainty. There aren't "beliefs that can be tested" and "beliefs that cannot be tested." There are just beliefs. And we have evidence, whether anecdotal, logical, scientific, authority-based or whatever that influences how much we believe something.
And this is for everything. Whether you think the sun will rise tomorrow, whether there's cereal in the pantry, whether that girl likes me or not, or whether I should bring an umbrella in case it rains.
There is no such thing as absolute certainty, as it is impossible to attain with Bayes' Theorem. Absolute certainty doesn't exist, and even if it did, it would be completely useless. What absolute certainty actually says is that no matter the evidence presented to me, even if I died and went to Valhalla, I would still believe in Jesus. Okay interesting lol. Nice to hear a (possibly?) different take on this. So you don't think any beliefs can be tested? It's all probability? For example "testing" a dice to see if it's 1 in 6 chance to roll any number from 1 to 6, you think it's impossible to "test" this, you could just roll it a few million times and only ever be "fairly certain" that it's 1 in 6 for each number but that you haven't actualy "tested" this? What about the belief in God, do you believe that is equally testable or untestable? Do you think either can be tested or proved to a higher degree of certainty than the other? Does either belief then hold more "value" or "meaning"? Well, how do you know it's not a weighted die? You must have evidence, even if that evidence is simply that nearly all dice are unweighted. "Fairly certain" isn't really accurate. Bayesian inferences can be pretty dramatic. Having a 99.99% certainty is the same thing as "knowing" something, by the colloquial term "know." Yes, belief in God is the same thing. Often, the main evidence is based on Authority by parents and priests. Beliefs obviously are meaningful because they affect our decisionmaking. And believing is false statements can obviously make bad and harmful decisions.
Not really sure what you're saying here...
On January 03 2013 13:13 DoubleReed wrote:
Beliefs should be expressed as probabilities of certainty. There aren't "beliefs that can be tested" and "beliefs that cannot be tested." There are just beliefs. And we have evidence, whether anecdotal, logical, scientific, authority-based or whatever that influences how much we believe something.
So with the example of rolling the die, are you saying that the belief the die in not weighted can't be tested?
The evidence is rolling it a few million times and being 99.99% certain it's not weighted.
What about belief in God? Can you ever remove that from square on 50% certain vs 50% uncertain?
I think the former is a belief that can be "tested" and the second cannot. This would seem to contradict what you're saying..
What if I have anecdotal evidence that the die isn't weighted, because I'm never used a weighted die before, and I have authority-based evidence because my parents who never learned to count to three promised me that the die isn't weighted, but I've rolled the die a few billion times and that "evidence" shows there's a 99.9999% chance that it is weighted...
You are saying all types of evidence hold the same level of importance? Is this two against one and I should ignore the mathematical data and instead trust my gut instinct and my parents?
On January 04 2013 03:11 Arghmyliver wrote:
Can someone please tell me why we can't just let everyone get married and then if you don't want to call it "marriage" and instead want to call it "an abomination against god" you can go and do that to your heart's content? It seems to me that if a group of people wanted to specify that a "sandwich" was exactly [2 parts bread 1 part mayo 1 part ham 1 part cheese] and that every other bread/meat/condiment/bread combination was a "festering sacrilege" they would be allowed to be crazy by themselves off in a corner while the rest of the population who give no shits what is on their sandwich could still call it a sandwich and eat it in peace.
Lol, nice analogy, I think the problem is that we want to buy our "festering sacrileges" from their "sandwich shop" and we also want them to be branded as "sandwiches" and not "festering sacrileges".
Now, we've already forced every other sandwich shop to sell all types of sandwiches and brand them as sandwiches despite their own personal tastes, but unfortunately this is a religious sandwich shop.
This means, apparently, that they don't have to confirm to the same laws as every other sandwich shop, which is essentially the crux of the debate here.
|
When did I say all evidence is the same importance? Where did you even come up with that? I suggested no such thing.
What do you mean by "tested"? If I pray to God and nothing happens, do you consider that evidence against God? Certainly it is evidence against a God that answers prayers.
Why would we be unable to get away from 50/50 for God? Are you really saying that we have absolutely zero information about the world that we live in? This is not at all accurate. You might want to actually look up Bayes Theorem.
|
On January 04 2013 04:46 DoubleReed wrote:
What do you mean by "tested"? If I pray to God and nothing happens, do you consider that evidence against God? Certainly it is evidence against a God that answers prayers.
Well, strictly speaking, that would be evidence against a God that would answer that prayer from you at that time
edit:
I wrote this in a PM but I thought it might be useful so I'll post it. Then I'll leave you guys alone and we can let this thread die maybe.
When I say that you have to assume positivism to show that relativism follows from not-positivism, this is what I mean:
1) it is not the case that positivism, i.e. "it is not the case that a belief is legitimate if and only if it is scientific"
if you want to get
2) not-positivism -> relativism, i.e. "if it is not the case that a belief is legitimate if and only if it is scientific, then all beliefs are equally legitimate"
you have to assume
3) positivism, i.e. "a belief is legitimate if and only if it is scientific."
which leads to the corollary
4) "there is no way for a belief to be legitimate unless it is scientific."
if you reject (4), then (2) does not follow from (1). Since assuming (1) already implies that (4) is not the case, then there's no way to derive (2) without a contradiction.
|
On January 04 2013 04:50 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 04:46 DoubleReed wrote:
What do you mean by "tested"? If I pray to God and nothing happens, do you consider that evidence against God? Certainly it is evidence against a God that answers prayers. Well, strictly speaking, that would be evidence against a God that would answer that prayer from you at that time
No it isn't. It's evidence, not proof. An unanswered prayer would be evidence against the idea of prayer.
Trying to be absolute is a cheat, so faithful can ignore all the evidence against.
|
On January 04 2013 05:12 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 04:50 sam!zdat wrote:On January 04 2013 04:46 DoubleReed wrote:
What do you mean by "tested"? If I pray to God and nothing happens, do you consider that evidence against God? Certainly it is evidence against a God that answers prayers. Well, strictly speaking, that would be evidence against a God that would answer that prayer from you at that time No it isn't. It's evidence, not proof. An unanswered prayer would be evidence against the idea of prayer.
Only if you consider prayer to be fundamentally petitionary in nature, and only if you believe that God has an obligation to fulfill all requests made in such petitionary prayer.
I'll go ahead and be charitable and assume that when you say "evidence against the idea of prayer" you don't really mean that precisely.
edit:
On January 04 2013 05:12 DoubleReed wrote:
Trying to be absolute is a cheat, so faithful can ignore all the evidence against.
of course. And trying to theorize credence in terms of probability is also absurd, except as an interesting thought experiment
|
No it isn't. Actuaries have doing it since the early 20th. There is nothing absurd about Bayesian Reasoning. Hell, that's how Nate Silver predicted the election!
Sorry, just read a book on the history of Bayesian Reasoning. But if you think it is just a thought experiment then you gravely mistaken. This is a very powerful mathematical tool and philosophy.
|
On January 04 2013 07:26 DoubleReed wrote:
No it isn't. Actuaries have doing it since the early 20th. There is nothing absurd about Bayesian Reasoning.
it is when you ascribe any sort of ontological significance to it, or think that it's a good model for beliefs of all types. Certainly it's a useful way to think about particular kinds of things. but that's certainly not how most people go around believing things
How do Bayesians deal with the Sleeping Beauty problem? augh, I guess that's a topic for another thread
|
But it is a good model for beliefs of all types!
|
United States42437 Posts
Doesn't the statement "assumptions which can be falsified and tested and have been subjected to the tests(scientific method) successfully can be assumed to be true" pass the test of whether the statement itself can be assumed to be true. You would falsify it by finding an assumption which is true but fails to get results in reality or an assumption which is false but reliably gets positive results, you would test it by taking some assumptions which are judged as presumably true by this assumption and seeing if they pan out, for example rolling a fair dice a high number of times or dropping things to see if they fall. The statement passes its own test as true.
|
On January 04 2013 07:36 DoubleReed wrote:
But it is a good model for beliefs of all types!
lol now we get to play my favorite game again
what credence do you ascribe to this belief?
edit:
On January 04 2013 07:26 DoubleReed wrote:
Sorry, just read a book on the history of Bayesian Reasoning. But if you think it is just a thought experiment then you gravely mistaken. This is a very powerful mathematical tool and philosophy.
I've taken upper level seminar on information and possibility, so I'm not totally uninformed about these matters, although I haven't thought much about bayesian reasoning recently
|
On January 04 2013 07:38 KwarK wrote:
Doesn't the statement "assumptions which can be falsified and tested and have been subjected to the tests(scientific method) successfully can be assumed to be true" pass the test of whether the statement itself can be assumed to be true. You would falsify it by finding an assumption which is true but fails to get results in reality or an assumption which is false but reliably gets positive results, you would test it by taking some assumptions which are judged as presumably true by this assumption and seeing if they pan out, for example rolling a fair dice a high number of times or dropping things to see if they fall. The statement passes its own test as true.
how would you know the assumption was true, when it fails to get "results in reality"? I don't see how what you describe tests the claim, you're just assuming the claim and then testing gravity...?
at any rate that's a weaker claim than what we were discussing before. Your claim here is "a belief is justified if it is justified by science", while the earlier claim was "a belief is justified if and only if it is justified by science."
|
On January 04 2013 07:38 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 07:36 DoubleReed wrote:
But it is a good model for beliefs of all types! lol now we get to play my favorite game again what credence do you ascribe to this belief?
Well, first of all, it works. Time and time again, Bayesian statistics is better than alternatives. Secondly, it is literally the only model I have heard of that easily answers issues of absolute certainty and inference, without being inconsistent or silly.
I'd suggest taking the time to consider the model more thoroughly before discarding it like that.
|
On January 04 2013 07:46 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 07:38 sam!zdat wrote:On January 04 2013 07:36 DoubleReed wrote:
But it is a good model for beliefs of all types! lol now we get to play my favorite game again what credence do you ascribe to this belief? Well, first of all, it works. Time and time again, Bayesian statistics is better than alternatives. Secondly, it is literally the only model I have heard of that easily answers issues of absolute certainty and inference, without being inconsistent or silly. I'd suggest taking the time to consider the model more thoroughly before discarding it like that.
Maybe I'll make a blog about the sleeping beauty problem and we can take it up there. Bayesianism here is perhaps derailing even by my standards.
edit: please understand that I do not wish to deny that it is often useful
|
United States42437 Posts
On January 04 2013 07:41 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 07:38 KwarK wrote:
Doesn't the statement "assumptions which can be falsified and tested and have been subjected to the tests(scientific method) successfully can be assumed to be true" pass the test of whether the statement itself can be assumed to be true. You would falsify it by finding an assumption which is true but fails to get results in reality or an assumption which is false but reliably gets positive results, you would test it by taking some assumptions which are judged as presumably true by this assumption and seeing if they pan out, for example rolling a fair dice a high number of times or dropping things to see if they fall. The statement passes its own test as true. how would you know the assumption was true, when it fails to get "results in reality"?
The issue there is that it is a paradox because anything you would seriously try and test is a belief already founded on observation because the assumption that that which you observe to be true is true is already made by most humans. You are right that it is a nonsense but so is the idea of a current scientific theory which, when tested, doesn't work. But if there was a hypothetical truth that existed outside of the scientific method then you could test reality's ability to live up to that and falsify the assumption that results obtained in reality must in some way equate with truth.
|
Sorry Kwark, I really don't follow
@DoubleReed: you still need to tell me what percentage you believe "Bayesianism is a good model for all beliefs"
edit: taken to pm
|
Somewhere up around 99% (for high numbers, odds are usually easier to understand, like 1:1000). I'm basically totally convinced and am very skeptical that there could be something better.
|
Double Post by DoubleReed
|
United States42437 Posts
On January 04 2013 07:55 sam!zdat wrote:Sorry Kwark, I really don't follow @DoubleReed: you still need to tell me what percentage you believe "Bayesianism is a good model for all beliefs"
People already assume that all truth is based on observation, whatever they like to believe about religion they dismiss actual tests of faith against reality. Therefore any knowledge which the scientific method might be tested against is already a product of the scientific method (or at least in part of it) and therefore will pass. Therefore falsifying the assumption that "things which can be falsified but, when tested, are not are true" would require a truth which, when tested, did not pan out but was still true. We do not have access to any such truths because people, when it gets right down to it, rely upon observation of results, whatever their claims to higher knowledge.
|
but the point is that some beliefs can't be tested, like beliefs about morals
sure, it's as much a category error to use religious justification to make a scientific claim as it is the other way around
edit: I'm pretty happy to say: "any belief which can be tested with science is legitimate if and only if it is legitimized by science"
|
DoubleReed:
+ Show Spoiler +On January 04 2013 04:46 DoubleReed wrote:
When did I say all evidence is the same importance? Where did you even come up with that? I suggested no such thing.
What do you mean by "tested"? If I pray to God and nothing happens, do you consider that evidence against God? Certainly it is evidence against a God that answers prayers.
Why would we be unable to get away from 50/50 for God? Are you really saying that we have absolutely zero information about the world that we live in? This is not at all accurate. You might want to actually look up Bayes Theorem. I'd like you to answer the questions I've posed You came in here saying this... On January 03 2013 13:13 DoubleReed wrote:
I tried to follow the conversation, but as a Bayesian I'm totally confused.
Beliefs should be expressed as probabilities of certainty. There aren't "beliefs that can be tested" and "beliefs that cannot be tested." There are just beliefs. And we have evidence, whether anecdotal, logical, scientific, authority-based or whatever that influences how much we believe something.
Which has led me to ask you these questions for clarification : On January 04 2013 03:25 Reason wrote:
So with the example of rolling the die, are you saying that the belief that the die is not weighted can't be tested?
The evidence is rolling it a few million times and being 99.99% certain it's not weighted.
What about belief in God? Can you ever remove that from square on 50% certain vs 50% uncertain?
I think the former is a belief that can be "tested" and the second cannot. This would seem to contradict what you're saying..
What if I have anecdotal evidence that the die isn't weighted, because I'm never used a weighted die before, and I have authority-based evidence because my parents who never learned to count to three promised me that the die isn't weighted, but I've rolled the die a few billion times and that "evidence" shows there's a 99.9999% chance that it is weighted...
You are saying all types of evidence hold the same level of importance? Is this two against one and I should ignore the mathematical data and instead trust my gut instinct and my parents?
I apologise if my questions strike you as foolish, perhaps I misunderstood. If that is the case, please answer my questions specifically and as effortlessly as you seem capable.
|
On January 04 2013 08:13 sam!zdat wrote:
edit: I'm pretty happy to say: "any belief which can be tested with science is legitimate if and only if it is legitimized by science"
Can we go further yet?
If there are two types of beliefs, beliefs which can be tested by science and those which can not, how do we judge or test the latter?
You can't deem any of them more or less meaningful/valuable/important/true than each other because you have no basis upon which to judge them...
If we can't come up with a methodology for judging them, why is it wrong to say "until we know by what criteria these beliefs are too be judged, we must judge them all equally"
Would that be an acceptable way of phrasing what I said earlier  lol ?
|
well I would argue that there are five types of beliefs but let's not go there.
it's only wrong to say that because it would be better to say "let's have a serious discussion about how we're going to judge those other things". Your thing is ok, I guess, but a bit lazy, uninteresting, and useless
the point is to try to find a basis. yes it's hard.
|
On January 04 2013 10:55 sam!zdat wrote:
well I would argue that there are five types of beliefs but let's not go there.
Lets 
|
On January 04 2013 10:53 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 08:13 sam!zdat wrote:
edit: I'm pretty happy to say: "any belief which can be tested with science is legitimate if and only if it is legitimized by science" Can we go further yet? If there are two types of beliefs, beliefs which can be tested by science and those which can not, how do we judge or test the latter? You can't deem any of them more or less meaningful/valuable/important/true than each other because you have no basis upon which to judge them... If we can't come up with a methodology for judging them, why is it wrong to say "until we know by what criteria these beliefs are too be judged, we must judge them all equally" Would that be an acceptable way of phrasing what I said earlier lol ?
You are assuming here that science is the only way of proving the legitimacy of a belief. I personally think that is true, but i know that some religious people will say that the Bible proves the legitimacy of a belief in a Christian/Jewish God over others.
|
On January 04 2013 10:57 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 10:53 Reason wrote:On January 04 2013 08:13 sam!zdat wrote:
edit: I'm pretty happy to say: "any belief which can be tested with science is legitimate if and only if it is legitimized by science" Can we go further yet? If there are two types of beliefs, beliefs which can be tested by science and those which can not, how do we judge or test the latter? You can't deem any of them more or less meaningful/valuable/important/true than each other because you have no basis upon which to judge them... If we can't come up with a methodology for judging them, why is it wrong to say "until we know by what criteria these beliefs are too be judged, we must judge them all equally" Would that be an acceptable way of phrasing what I said earlier lol ? You are assuming here that science is the only way of proving the legitimacy of a belief. I personally think that is true, but i know that some religious people will say that the Bible proves the legitimacy of a belief in a Christian/Jewish God over others.
No, I'm specifically not doing that.
We are all in agreement that some beliefs are verifiable by science and others are not.
I'm asking then, how, if at all, can we verify these other beliefs?
I'm actively seeking other methods of verifying beliefs that don't involve science...
|
On January 04 2013 10:55 sam!zdat wrote:well I would argue that there are five types of beliefs but let's not go there.it's only wrong to say that because it would be better to say "let's have a serious discussion about how we're going to judge those other things". Your thing is ok, I guess, but a bit lazy, uninteresting, and useless the point is to try to find a basis. yes it's hard.
I'd come to expect more from
+ Show Spoiler +
The Indefatigable Sophist
Also, I disagree, it means until we find a suitable alternative for positivism then it's acceptable to use it, does it not?
On January 04 2013 10:53 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 08:13 sam!zdat wrote:
edit: I'm pretty happy to say: "any belief which can be tested with science is legitimate if and only if it is legitimized by science" If we can't come up with a methodology for judging them we then must say
"until we know by what criteria these beliefs are too be judged, we must judge them all equally"
|
On January 04 2013 10:59 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 10:57 Jockmcplop wrote:On January 04 2013 10:53 Reason wrote:On January 04 2013 08:13 sam!zdat wrote:
edit: I'm pretty happy to say: "any belief which can be tested with science is legitimate if and only if it is legitimized by science" Can we go further yet? If there are two types of beliefs, beliefs which can be tested by science and those which can not, how do we judge or test the latter? You can't deem any of them more or less meaningful/valuable/important/true than each other because you have no basis upon which to judge them... If we can't come up with a methodology for judging them, why is it wrong to say "until we know by what criteria these beliefs are too be judged, we must judge them all equally" Would that be an acceptable way of phrasing what I said earlier lol ? You are assuming here that science is the only way of proving the legitimacy of a belief. I personally think that is true, but i know that some religious people will say that the Bible proves the legitimacy of a belief in a Christian/Jewish God over others. No, I'm specifically not doing that. We are all in agreement that some beliefs are verifiable by science and others are not. I'm asking then, how, if at all, can we verify these other beliefs? I'm actively seeking other methods of verifying beliefs that don't involve science...
Yeah i see what you mean. Well then ignore my first sentence, and you have one way of verifying beliefs. Its not one which i agree with, but i have seen it used (in a debate between Hitchens and a Pastor whose name i can't remember). He claims that faith in God, as depicted in the Bible, proves the legitimacy of the Bible as a basis for beliefs.
|
On January 04 2013 11:02 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 10:59 Reason wrote:On January 04 2013 10:57 Jockmcplop wrote:On January 04 2013 10:53 Reason wrote:On January 04 2013 08:13 sam!zdat wrote:
edit: I'm pretty happy to say: "any belief which can be tested with science is legitimate if and only if it is legitimized by science" Can we go further yet? If there are two types of beliefs, beliefs which can be tested by science and those which can not, how do we judge or test the latter? You can't deem any of them more or less meaningful/valuable/important/true than each other because you have no basis upon which to judge them... If we can't come up with a methodology for judging them, why is it wrong to say "until we know by what criteria these beliefs are too be judged, we must judge them all equally" Would that be an acceptable way of phrasing what I said earlier lol ? You are assuming here that science is the only way of proving the legitimacy of a belief. I personally think that is true, but i know that some religious people will say that the Bible proves the legitimacy of a belief in a Christian/Jewish God over others. No, I'm specifically not doing that. We are all in agreement that some beliefs are verifiable by science and others are not. I'm asking then, how, if at all, can we verify these other beliefs? I'm actively seeking other methods of verifying beliefs that don't involve science... Yeah i see what you mean. Well then ignore my first sentence, and you have one way of verifying beliefs. Its not one which i agree with, but i have seen it used (in a debate between Hitchens and a Pastor whose name i can't remember). He claims that faith in God, as depicted in the Bible, proves the legitimacy of the Bible as a basis for beliefs.
A story told in X book proves legitimacy of X book as a basis for beliefs?
That doesn't even make sense! I'm not disagreeing with you that people may have attempted to use that argument but come on... that's terrible.
On January 04 2013 08:13 sam!zdat wrote:
but the point is that some beliefs can't be tested, like beliefs about morals
Perhaps then morals are not a set of beliefs that cannot be tested, but rather themselves a/the framework to test beliefs which cannot be verified by science?
We collectively though obviously not unanimously hold the moral belief that it is wrong to discriminate against people based upon gender/race/sex/etc and we are happy to base secular law around such judgements, what happens when two different codes of morality/ethics clash?
Which takes precedence, always the majority right?
I suppose that would lead us back to the conclusion that it's right for religious groups to discriminate against homosexual couples for as long as the majority holds that opinion?
I don't like that answer myself but it does seem reasonable 
|
On January 04 2013 11:07 Reason wrote:
Perhaps then morals are not a set of beliefs that cannot be tested, but rather themselves a/the framework to test beliefs which cannot be verified by science?
Ah now you're on to something :D A+
I don't like that answer myself but it does seem reasonable
welcome to my life
I don't think you have to do "majority rules" but I'm not really in a position to put forth my own ethical theory, I just want to show people that they don't actually know what they think they know.
When I say "useless" I just mean if you decide "there's no way to judge things" then you can't get anywhere useful. So you try to come up with something that IS useful, but it's really hard and you turn all cranky and angry like me when you try.
edit: and you try to avoid talking to people who say things like "some people say the bible proves that the bible is true, and idk man what can you do??"
edit: rejecting positivism doesn't mean you can't use science, it just means you can't reject truth claims just because they're not scientific.
edit: I claim following Habermas, that the five kinds of truth-claims are:
cognitive-instrumental: (truth of propositions, efficacy of teleological action)
moral-practical: (rightness of norms of action)
evaluative: (adequacy of standards of value)
expressive: (truthfulness or sincerity of expression)
explicative discourse: (comprehensibility or well-formedness of symbolic constructs)
|
I'll do the best I can, Reason:
On January 04 2013 03:25 Reason wrote:
So with the example of rolling the die, are you saying that the belief that the die is not weighted can't be tested?
The evidence is rolling it a few million times and being 99.99% certain it's not weighted.
What about belief in God? Can you ever remove that from square on 50% certain vs 50% uncertain?
I think the former is a belief that can be "tested" and the second cannot. This would seem to contradict what you're saying..
What if I have anecdotal evidence that the die isn't weighted, because I'm never used a weighted die before, and I have authority-based evidence because my parents who never learned to count to three promised me that the die isn't weighted, but I've rolled the die a few billion times and that "evidence" shows there's a 99.9999% chance that it is weighted...
You are saying all types of evidence hold the same level of importance? Is this two against one and I should ignore the mathematical data and instead trust my gut instinct and my parents?
I have no idea what you mean by "tested." You have evidence. Rolling the die provides evidence. Comparing to other dice provides evidence. What do you mean by 'tested' vs 'untested'? I mean, let's say you roll it a million times and you find out that it's perfectly even. But then you roll it a billion times and you find that rolling a 1 has a .018% chance higher of being rolled than another number.
Belief in God has evidence for it and against it. I have no idea why you think otherwise. Personally, I'd say that's a random assertion meant to protect your belief from scrutiny. Consider a Christian's beliefs vs a Muslim's beliefs. Their personal experiences, for whatever reason, lend one to the Christian God and the other to the Muslim God. I don't really know how that's arguable.
One is obviously more than 50% toward Christian God and the other is obviously more than 50% to Muslim God. So I really don't understand the assertion that you can never be anything different from 50/50.
As to your 'authority vs empiricism' argument, I don't really get it. Your parents are obviously a terrible authority, so their weight shouldn't be garnered nearly as much as empiricism. You'll find that if you actually start using Bayesian Reasoning you will find empiricism to be much stronger than nearly anything else. You don't always have empiricism to rely on, though.
|
On January 04 2013 11:56 DoubleReed wrote:I'll do the best I can, Reason: Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 03:25 Reason wrote:
So with the example of rolling the die, are you saying that the belief that the die is not weighted can't be tested?
The evidence is rolling it a few million times and being 99.99% certain it's not weighted.
What about belief in God? Can you ever remove that from square on 50% certain vs 50% uncertain?
I think the former is a belief that can be "tested" and the second cannot. This would seem to contradict what you're saying..
What if I have anecdotal evidence that the die isn't weighted, because I'm never used a weighted die before, and I have authority-based evidence because my parents who never learned to count to three promised me that the die isn't weighted, but I've rolled the die a few billion times and that "evidence" shows there's a 99.9999% chance that it is weighted...
You are saying all types of evidence hold the same level of importance? Is this two against one and I should ignore the mathematical data and instead trust my gut instinct and my parents? I have no idea what you mean by "tested." You have evidence. Rolling the die provides evidence. Comparing to other dice provides evidence. What do you mean by 'tested' vs 'untested'? I mean, let's say you roll it a million times and you find out that it's perfectly even. But then you roll it a billion times and you find that rolling a 1 has a .018% chance higher of being rolled than another number. Belief in God has evidence for it and against it. I have no idea why you think otherwise. Personally, I'd say that's a random assertion meant to protect your belief from scrutiny. Consider a Christian's beliefs vs a Muslim's beliefs. Their personal experiences, for whatever reason, lend one to the Christian God and the other to the Muslim God. I don't really know how that's arguable. One is obviously more than 50% toward Christian God and the other is obviously more than 50% to Muslim God. So I really don't understand the assertion that you can never be anything different from 50/50. As to your 'authority vs empiricism' argument, I don't really get it. Your parents are obviously a terrible authority, so their weight shouldn't be garnered nearly as much as empiricism. You'll find that if you actually start using Bayesian Reasoning you will find empiricism to be much stronger than nearly anything else. You don't always have empiricism to rely on, though.
You yourself coined the phrase "tested" in your OP, that's why I've used it since.
It means verified to a certain standard, for example if I flip a coin twice and it comes up heads once and tails once, I don't think it's fair to say that we've "tested" the coin and "verified" that it's a fair coin
On the die subject, do you have any idea of the probability of rolling it a million times and not discovering the 0.018% tendency to roll a 1 over another number?
I think we usually go for accurate to X% with a margin of error of X% or something like that, I'm happy to accept that sort of "verification". I don't think any die ever constructed is atomically correct enough to roll every number with equal probability, you would just look for a reasonable distribution and account variances simply to variance itself or to minute imperfections that don't really make a difference.
There is no evidence for or against the existence of God, I have no idea why you think otherwise as this is a very well known fact.
It's very clear that we can "test" if the die is a fair one, or not, but you can't "test" for God, which is what all of this was about, sparked by your original comment that there aren't beliefs that can or can't be tested, merely beliefs.
On God being 50/50, as there is no evidence against or for his existence I'm curious how you would create a test that could determine the liklihood of his existence or non-existence credibly, therefore I referred to it being a 50% chance and I don't see how you could deviate from that.
|
United States42437 Posts
Saying there are two outcomes and therefore both are equally likely based on no information is absurd. There are a great, great many numbers between 0 and 100, the odds of it being 50 are no better than it being pi% that he exists. There is no shame in saying you cannot test it but claiming that ignorance somehow makes it 50/50 is nonsense, ignorance means it is very unlikely to be any given number over any other.
|
Actually he's right in that regard. Having zero information, all possibilities have equal probability (You may disagree with the number of possibilities of course). That's part of Bayes' Theorem and part of Bayesian reasoning.
What he's not right in, is that there is zero evidence against God's existence. The fact that we have yet to discover any supernatural entities using empiricism does in fact give evidence against the entire idea of the supernatural. The fact that we have yet to find irreducibility in things gives evidence against the idea of irreducibility.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. That is an absolutely essential part of Statistics and Bayesian Reasoning.
|
On January 04 2013 12:33 DoubleReed wrote:
Actually he's right in that regard. Having zero information, all possibilities have equal probability (You may disagree with the number of possibilities of course). That's part of Bayes' Theorem and part of Bayesian reasoning.
What he's not right in, is that there is zero evidence against God's existence. The fact that we have yet to discover any supernatural entities using empiricism does in fact give evidence against the entire idea of the supernatural. The fact that we have yet to find irreducibility in things gives evidence against the idea of irreducibility.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. That is an absolutely essential part of Statistics and Bayesian Reasoning.
Can you characterize this use of "absence" a bit more? What sort of space does it take up? I guess what I'm trying to ask is whether or not "evidence of absence" and "evidence of absence of evidence" mean the same thing to you?
|
oh god I feel a specter of Derrida beginning to haunt this thread. take it away farv
|
On January 04 2013 12:39 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 12:33 DoubleReed wrote:
Actually he's right in that regard. Having zero information, all possibilities have equal probability (You may disagree with the number of possibilities of course). That's part of Bayes' Theorem and part of Bayesian reasoning.
What he's not right in, is that there is zero evidence against God's existence. The fact that we have yet to discover any supernatural entities using empiricism does in fact give evidence against the entire idea of the supernatural. The fact that we have yet to find irreducibility in things gives evidence against the idea of irreducibility.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. That is an absolutely essential part of Statistics and Bayesian Reasoning. Can you characterize this use of "absence" a bit more? What sort of space does it take up? I guess what I'm trying to ask is whether or not "evidence of absence" and "evidence of absence of evidence" mean the same thing to you?
What?
Think about statistics for a moment. Let's say you're trying to find a correlation between two things, but even after lots of sampling and data and stuff, there's no evidence at all of a correlation. That, by definition, is evidence against the idea of a correlation between those two things. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Get it?
|
edit: shouldn't multitask
|
Well you construct your possibilities so that they are disjoint...
|
On January 04 2013 13:37 DoubleReed wrote:
Well you construct your possibilities so that they are disjoint...
right so there seems something question begging about this. what credence do you give to the belief that the disjunction of propositions to which you offer credence is the correct one?
|
On January 04 2013 12:33 DoubleReed wrote:
The fact that we have yet to discover any supernatural entities using empiricism does in fact give evidence against the entire idea of the supernatural. The fact that we have yet to find irreducibility in things gives evidence against the idea of irreducibility.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. That is an absolutely essential part of Statistics and Bayesian Reasoning.
Okay, I'm liking it, though I'm forced to ask this question following the previous discussion concerning positivism:
If the supernatural is by it's very nature undetectable via empiricism is it logical to use this line of reasoning in this instance?
|
On January 04 2013 13:43 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 13:37 DoubleReed wrote:
Well you construct your possibilities so that they are disjoint... right so there seems something question begging about this. what credence do you give to the belief that the disjunction of propositions to which you offer credence is the correct one?
What? I think you're going too meta about this for my brain. You do have to make assumptions for any model to work. That's a complaint you could make about any model. Besides, you can't judge the consistency of a model from within a model. Err... if I'm reading you correctly, which I don't think I am. Shrug.
|
yeah, my point is just against attributing undue ontological status to any model.
"there are beliefs for which bayesianism is not a good model" QED
|
On January 04 2013 13:51 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 12:33 DoubleReed wrote:
The fact that we have yet to discover any supernatural entities using empiricism does in fact give evidence against the entire idea of the supernatural. The fact that we have yet to find irreducibility in things gives evidence against the idea of irreducibility.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. That is an absolutely essential part of Statistics and Bayesian Reasoning. Okay, I'm liking it, though I'm forced to ask this question following the previous discussion concerning positivism: If the supernatural is by it's very nature undetectable via empiricism is it logical to use this line of reasoning?
Empiricism is applicable to all observable phenomena, no matter how indirectly they may be observed. To be beyond empiricism is to be beyond observation.
Suppose an entity takes no action whatsoever, except that it contacts certain people's minds. In doing so, it alters the behavior of those humans, producing observable phenomena! Empiricism applies.
Any effect the 'supernatural' has on humans, no matter how indirect, is a piece of data. Consequently, the only way the supernatural can be immune to empiricism is if the supernatural has no effect on observers at all.
|
On January 04 2013 13:51 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 12:33 DoubleReed wrote:
The fact that we have yet to discover any supernatural entities using empiricism does in fact give evidence against the entire idea of the supernatural. The fact that we have yet to find irreducibility in things gives evidence against the idea of irreducibility.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. That is an absolutely essential part of Statistics and Bayesian Reasoning. Okay, I'm liking it, though I'm forced to ask this question following the previous discussion concerning positivism: If the supernatural is by it's very nature undetectable via empiricism is it logical to use this line of reasoning?
That would imply that the supernatural gives zero information which makes it immediately vulnerable to Occam's Razor. Think about it: you are actually suggesting that there is no difference between the supernatural existing and the supernatural not existing.
The supernatural would be able to explain any possible outcome just as easily as any other, and therefore the supernatural gives zero information. Information has to shift the probability of outcomes.
|
I would agree that God contains no information
|
On January 04 2013 14:13 sam!zdat wrote:
I would agree that God contains no information
What does it mean to contain information?
|
On January 04 2013 14:18 Severedevil wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 14:13 sam!zdat wrote:
I would agree that God contains no information What does it mean to contain information?
tells you about what possible world you are in
|
On January 04 2013 13:32 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 12:39 farvacola wrote:On January 04 2013 12:33 DoubleReed wrote:
Actually he's right in that regard. Having zero information, all possibilities have equal probability (You may disagree with the number of possibilities of course). That's part of Bayes' Theorem and part of Bayesian reasoning.
What he's not right in, is that there is zero evidence against God's existence. The fact that we have yet to discover any supernatural entities using empiricism does in fact give evidence against the entire idea of the supernatural. The fact that we have yet to find irreducibility in things gives evidence against the idea of irreducibility.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. That is an absolutely essential part of Statistics and Bayesian Reasoning. Can you characterize this use of "absence" a bit more? What sort of space does it take up? I guess what I'm trying to ask is whether or not "evidence of absence" and "evidence of absence of evidence" mean the same thing to you? What? Think about statistics for a moment. Let's say you're trying to find a correlation between two things, but even after lots of sampling and data and stuff, there's no evidence at all of a correlation. That, by definition, is evidence against the idea of a correlation between those two things. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Get it?
Ok, from within the frame of statistics, I cannot really disagree with that mantra. But to what degree do you extrapolate outward from that point? How appropriate are statistical modes of thinking when it comes to something like taste, quality, or experience? From the perspective of language, statistics relies on terminology with necessarily definite connotation and meaning; words like correlation, data, and sample size rely on a narrow avenue of application for them to "work", lest accuracy and use value fall by the wayside. If we are to appropriate the linguistic and connotative tools of statistical reasoning and implement them in the investigation of the divine or supernatural, we ought to expect accordingly limited answers. With that line of thinking in mind, what if the entire question of God's existence is a relatively worthless one to ask, for we already know the answer given how we understand the words we use to ask it. Instead, we might want to approach religiosity from a vantage point that can take possibly language-problematic phenomena (statistics and symbolic logic included) into account, which amounts to a less specific and less particularly rigorous implementation of both words and logic, for we are looking to understand that which can be difficult to speak of or quantify (If a willful agnostic has an earnest conversation with a strong Catholic over matters of faith, neither party will leave that exchange satisfied with what the other has to say. However, if a willful agnostic survives another night of homelessness after being given shelter by a Catholic, the result could be very different.).
Think on modalities of worship throughout the religious world. Almost all of them rely on far more than words to express and communicate matters of faith, including song, communal presence, and even something as simple as repetition. Do you really think the words of a prayer are the important part? If that were the case, then why dress them so plainly and with such exhausting drab! Instead, what is important is the feeling one conjures up within as they interact with various deeply held thoughts and convictions, perhaps sparked by the reminders of an old, quiet place of reverence or the simple repetition of a series of words that they know oh so well. And these "points of contact" are not exclusive to the church. The enjoyment of music, of food, of good conversation, the feeling of deja vu: these are all experiences that inevitably challenge the efficacy of linguistic expression, for words/numbers on paper, on screen, or uttered aloud will never quite replicate that which they meant to represent. This is where the utility of art comes in, as artists, poets, singers, and writers attempt to create patterns of expression that do something to fill in the margins where conventional language might fail (Why else would the Church have spent so much time and money sponsoring artists and big ass architectural masterpieces? Because the Sistine Chapel speaks so well!).
I'll leave you with this; think on the power of placebo as we understand it in terms of medicine. In some cases, humans are able to literally think themselves well, or think themselves ill. If a man is to live his relatively empty life under the delusion that God exists, does it really behoove him to "know" that God is imaginary? Would a statistical suggestion that God does not exist do him or anyone else for that matter any good? And what say you to the man who achieves excellence in life while muttering to himself every morning, "Thank you God, for seeing me through the night.". If your answer is "You believe in gibberish, you fool", do you really think he cares, and does he really need to?
|
On January 04 2013 20:20 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 13:32 DoubleReed wrote:On January 04 2013 12:39 farvacola wrote:On January 04 2013 12:33 DoubleReed wrote:
Actually he's right in that regard. Having zero information, all possibilities have equal probability (You may disagree with the number of possibilities of course). That's part of Bayes' Theorem and part of Bayesian reasoning.
What he's not right in, is that there is zero evidence against God's existence. The fact that we have yet to discover any supernatural entities using empiricism does in fact give evidence against the entire idea of the supernatural. The fact that we have yet to find irreducibility in things gives evidence against the idea of irreducibility.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. That is an absolutely essential part of Statistics and Bayesian Reasoning. Can you characterize this use of "absence" a bit more? What sort of space does it take up? I guess what I'm trying to ask is whether or not "evidence of absence" and "evidence of absence of evidence" mean the same thing to you? What? Think about statistics for a moment. Let's say you're trying to find a correlation between two things, but even after lots of sampling and data and stuff, there's no evidence at all of a correlation. That, by definition, is evidence against the idea of a correlation between those two things. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Get it? Ok, from within the frame of statistics, I cannot really disagree with that mantra. But to what degree do you extrapolate outward from that point? How appropriate are statistical modes of thinking when it comes to something like taste, quality, or experience? From the perspective of language, statistics relies on terminology with necessarily definite connotation and meaning; words like correlation, data, and sample size rely on a narrow avenue of application for them to "work", lest accuracy and use value fall by the wayside. If we are to appropriate the linguistic and connotative tools of statistical reasoning and implement them in the investigation of the divine or supernatural, we ought to expect accordingly limited answers. With that line of thinking in mind, what if the entire question of God's existence is a relatively worthless one to ask, for we already know the answer given how we understand the words we use to ask it. Instead, we might want to approach religiosity from a vantage point that can take possibly language-problematic phenomena (statistics and symbolic logic included) into account, which amounts to a less specific and less particularly rigorous implementation of both words and logic, for we are looking to understand that which can be difficult to speak of or quantify (If a willful agnostic has an earnest conversation with a strong Catholic over matters of faith, neither party will leave that exchange satisfied with what the other has to say. However, if a willful agnostic survives another night of homelessness after being given shelter by a Catholic, the result could be very different.). Think on modalities of worship throughout the religious world. Almost all of them rely on far more than words to express and communicate matters of faith, including song, communal presence, and even something as simple as repetition. Do you really think the words of a prayer are the important part? If that were the case, then why dress them so plainly and with such exhausting drab! Instead, what is important is the feeling one conjures up within as they interact with various deeply held thoughts and convictions, perhaps sparked by the reminders of an old, quiet place of reverence or the simple repetition of a series of words that they know oh so well. And these "points of contact" are not exclusive to the church. The enjoyment of music, of food, of good conversation, the feeling of deja vu: these are all experiences that inevitably challenge the efficacy of linguistic expression, for words/numbers on paper, on screen, or uttered aloud will never quite replicate that which they meant to represent. This is where the utility of art comes in, as artists, poets, singers, and writers attempt to create patterns of expression that do something to fill in the margins where conventional language might fail (Why else would the Church have spent so much time and money sponsoring artists and big ass architectural masterpieces? Because the Sistine Chapel speaks so well!). I'll leave you with this; think on the power of placebo as we understand it in terms of medicine. In some cases, humans are able to literally think themselves well, or think themselves ill. If a man is to live his relatively empty life under the delusion that God exists, does it really behoove him to "know" that God is imaginary? Would a statistical suggestion that God does not exist do him or anyone else for that matter any good? And what say you to the man who achieves excellence in life while muttering to himself every morning, "Thank you God, for seeing me through the night.". If your answer is "You believe in gibberish, you fool", do you really think he cares, and does he really need to?
I don't think anyone who doesn't believe in God would say something like "You believe in gibberish, you fool" if the belief has a positive effect on him, unless of course that person is an Idiot which is independent of faith...
To get back on topic though - I think the main point (and if I understand you correctly you agree with me) is that there is no correlation between God/faith/however you may call it and the real world (meaning no influence on any actions in the real world) and in my opinion, the government should make laws in ways that positively affect the real world based on all the data/correlations that are known.
|
On January 04 2013 20:20 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 13:32 DoubleReed wrote:On January 04 2013 12:39 farvacola wrote:On January 04 2013 12:33 DoubleReed wrote:
Actually he's right in that regard. Having zero information, all possibilities have equal probability (You may disagree with the number of possibilities of course). That's part of Bayes' Theorem and part of Bayesian reasoning.
What he's not right in, is that there is zero evidence against God's existence. The fact that we have yet to discover any supernatural entities using empiricism does in fact give evidence against the entire idea of the supernatural. The fact that we have yet to find irreducibility in things gives evidence against the idea of irreducibility.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. That is an absolutely essential part of Statistics and Bayesian Reasoning. Can you characterize this use of "absence" a bit more? What sort of space does it take up? I guess what I'm trying to ask is whether or not "evidence of absence" and "evidence of absence of evidence" mean the same thing to you? What? Think about statistics for a moment. Let's say you're trying to find a correlation between two things, but even after lots of sampling and data and stuff, there's no evidence at all of a correlation. That, by definition, is evidence against the idea of a correlation between those two things. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Get it? Ok, from within the frame of statistics, I cannot really disagree with that mantra. But to what degree do you extrapolate outward from that point? How appropriate are statistical modes of thinking when it comes to something like taste, quality, or experience? From the perspective of language, statistics relies on terminology with necessarily definite connotation and meaning; words like correlation, data, and sample size rely on a narrow avenue of application for them to "work", lest accuracy and use value fall by the wayside. If we are to appropriate the linguistic and connotative tools of statistical reasoning and implement them in the investigation of the divine or supernatural, we ought to expect accordingly limited answers. With that line of thinking in mind, what if the entire question of God's existence is a relatively worthless one to ask, for we already know the answer given how we understand the words we use to ask it. Instead, we might want to approach religiosity from a vantage point that can take possibly language-problematic phenomena (statistics and symbolic logic included) into account, which amounts to a less specific and less particularly rigorous implementation of both words and logic, for we are looking to understand that which can be difficult to speak of or quantify (If a willful agnostic has an earnest conversation with a strong Catholic over matters of faith, neither party will leave that exchange satisfied with what the other has to say. However, if a willful agnostic survives another night of homelessness after being given shelter by a Catholic, the result could be very different.). Think on modalities of worship throughout the religious world. Almost all of them rely on far more than words to express and communicate matters of faith, including song, communal presence, and even something as simple as repetition. Do you really think the words of a prayer are the important part? If that were the case, then why dress them so plainly and with such exhausting drab! Instead, what is important is the feeling one conjures up within as they interact with various deeply held thoughts and convictions, perhaps sparked by the reminders of an old, quiet place of reverence or the simple repetition of a series of words that they know oh so well. And these "points of contact" are not exclusive to the church. The enjoyment of music, of food, of good conversation, the feeling of deja vu: these are all experiences that inevitably challenge the efficacy of linguistic expression, for words/numbers on paper, on screen, or uttered aloud will never quite replicate that which they meant to represent. This is where the utility of art comes in, as artists, poets, singers, and writers attempt to create patterns of expression that do something to fill in the margins where conventional language might fail (Why else would the Church have spent so much time and money sponsoring artists and big ass architectural masterpieces? Because the Sistine Chapel speaks so well!). I'll leave you with this; think on the power of placebo as we understand it in terms of medicine. In some cases, humans are able to literally think themselves well, or think themselves ill. If a man is to live his relatively empty life under the delusion that God exists, does it really behoove him to "know" that God is imaginary? Would a statistical suggestion that God does not exist do him or anyone else for that matter any good? And what say you to the man who achieves excellence in life while muttering to himself every morning, "Thank you God, for seeing me through the night.". If your answer is "You believe in gibberish, you fool", do you really think he cares, and does he really need to?
It's being discovered more and more nowadays that we have Bayesian Brains. Our Brain makes lots of shortcuts and extrapolates based on previous information about the world around us. You are acting as if Statistics has nothing to say about language, music, food, or socialization, when it's very much the opposite. How exactly do you think you figure out the connotations? Notice that my example works for any correlation. And it's been shown to work for literally all applications that we have put it to.
As to your thought experiment, we are not living in a world where the religious keep to themselves and don't mean any harm. That is not the situation we are in. We are in the situation where massive churches with tons of money have the power and influence to change the law to whatever bizarre will they want (like banning gay marriage, for example). I don't find your example intriguing, and coming up with examples that don't really matter is not an argument for belief.
And come on, the placebo effect is another example of statistics! You can't use statistics as an argument against itself!
On January 04 2013 14:18 Severedevil wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 14:13 sam!zdat wrote:
I would agree that God contains no information What does it mean to contain information?
Anything that shifts your belief or probability of possible outcomes is information.
|
Severedevil:
+ Show Spoiler +On January 04 2013 14:05 Severedevil wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 13:51 Reason wrote:On January 04 2013 12:33 DoubleReed wrote:
The fact that we have yet to discover any supernatural entities using empiricism does in fact give evidence against the entire idea of the supernatural. The fact that we have yet to find irreducibility in things gives evidence against the idea of irreducibility.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. That is an absolutely essential part of Statistics and Bayesian Reasoning. Okay, I'm liking it, though I'm forced to ask this question following the previous discussion concerning positivism: If the supernatural is by it's very nature undetectable via empiricism is it logical to use this line of reasoning? Empiricism is applicable to all observable phenomena, no matter how indirectly they may be observed. To be beyond empiricism is to be beyond observation. Suppose an entity takes no action whatsoever, except that it contacts certain people's minds. In doing so, it alters the behavior of those humans, producing observable phenomena! Empiricism applies. Any effect the 'supernatural' has on humans, no matter how indirect, is a piece of data. Consequently, the only way the supernatural can be immune to empiricism is if the supernatural has no effect on observers at all.
Thanks, nice explanation.
DoubleReed:
+ Show Spoiler +On January 04 2013 14:06 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 13:51 Reason wrote:On January 04 2013 12:33 DoubleReed wrote:
The fact that we have yet to discover any supernatural entities using empiricism does in fact give evidence against the entire idea of the supernatural. The fact that we have yet to find irreducibility in things gives evidence against the idea of irreducibility.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. That is an absolutely essential part of Statistics and Bayesian Reasoning. Okay, I'm liking it, though I'm forced to ask this question following the previous discussion concerning positivism: If the supernatural is by it's very nature undetectable via empiricism is it logical to use this line of reasoning? That would imply that the supernatural gives zero information which makes it immediately vulnerable to Occam's Razor. Think about it: you are actually suggesting that there is no difference between the supernatural existing and the supernatural not existing. The supernatural would be able to explain any possible outcome just as easily as any other, and therefore the supernatural gives zero information. Information has to shift the probability of outcomes.
You're right, just because something is beyond the understanding of science doesn't necessarily mean that it has no effect on the world. If it really has no effect on anything ever then it might as well not exist so lack of evidence does apply here.
Samzdat:
+ Show Spoiler +On January 04 2013 11:54 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 11:07 Reason wrote:
Perhaps then morals are not a set of beliefs that cannot be tested, but rather themselves a/the framework to test beliefs which cannot be verified by science?
Ah now you're on to something :D A+ welcome to my life I don't think you have to do "majority rules" but I'm not really in a position to put forth my own ethical theory, I just want to show people that they don't actually know what they think they know. When I say "useless" I just mean if you decide "there's no way to judge things" then you can't get anywhere useful. So you try to come up with something that IS useful, but it's really hard and you turn all cranky and angry like me when you try. edit: and you try to avoid talking to people who say things like "some people say the bible proves that the bible is true, and idk man what can you do??" edit: rejecting positivism doesn't mean you can't use science, it just means you can't reject truth claims just because they're not scientific. edit: I claim following Habermas, that the five kinds of truth-claims are: cognitive-instrumental: (truth of propositions, efficacy of teleological action) moral-practical: (rightness of norms of action) evaluative: (adequacy of standards of value) expressive: (truthfulness or sincerity of expression) explicative discourse: (comprehensibility or well-formedness of symbolic constructs)
So, how does this sit with you then in your own ethical theory?
Everyone:
We seem to be at the point where we're happy for religious convictions to trample over all others simply because a large number of people are religious. That seems very, very wrong to me.
+ Show Spoiler +On December 14 2012 07:12 dAPhREAk wrote:
you seem to be misconstruing what i am saying. the reason why religions should receive preference by the government is because the government's job is to do what the constituents want. it has nothing to do with right or wrong, it has everything to do with how the government should function. On December 23 2012 05:49 KwarK wrote:
What this bill would do is several things. It would legalise it for the churches that are willing, it would provide unprecedented exemptions from antidiscrimination laws for those that aren't, it would act as a precedent that religious convictions should not be held to the same common standards as secular convictions in society and it would involve secular law heavily in the church including laying out a legally approved doctrine and making apostasy and schism illegal. On January 04 2013 11:07 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 08:13 sam!zdat wrote:
but the point is that some beliefs can't be tested, like beliefs about morals
Perhaps then morals are not a set of beliefs that cannot be tested, but rather themselves a/the framework to test beliefs which cannot be verified by science? We collectively though obviously not unanimously hold the moral belief that it is wrong to discriminate against people based upon gender/race/sex/etc and we are happy to base secular law around such judgements, what happens when two different codes of morality/ethics clash? Which takes precedence, always the majority right?
I suppose that would lead us back to the conclusion that it's right for religious groups to discriminate against homosexual couples for as long as the majority holds that opinion?I don't like that answer myself...
Just because a view is a majority view I don't think that makes it impossible to argue against it. Many pages back in this thread we came to the conclusion "things are the way things are because they want it so" and we almost seem to be back there again.
Would you not speak out if you lived in a country where people were repressed based upon their race and gender?
Would you simply accept it as the majority view and go with the flow or would you take a stand?
Harsh reality and circumstance may choose for you another answer, but I think we know what most of us would like our response to be, and in every place and time where views like these are predominant there are always those who have spoken out and initiated change.
I think the same applies here, just because the majority of people have it wrong doesn't mean you shouldn't be speaking out for what is right.
The thing that upsets me the most is actually the complete lack of respect for peoples convictions unless they are religiously derived. No one gives a crap what you think or believe unless you heard it in a Church first and that has to be one of the scariest truths of my present day existence.
I think it's a lot more concerning than homosexual couples being refused marriage in certain venues and speaks of a far wider and greater problem.
Unless we can find a way to make it work so that the convictions of any group or any individual are treated with the same respect as any other, nobody should be exempt from anti-discrimination laws or similar legislation, it's a violation of every notion of equality that we've established so far.
|
On January 04 2013 21:31 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 20:20 farvacola wrote:On January 04 2013 13:32 DoubleReed wrote:On January 04 2013 12:39 farvacola wrote:On January 04 2013 12:33 DoubleReed wrote:
Actually he's right in that regard. Having zero information, all possibilities have equal probability (You may disagree with the number of possibilities of course). That's part of Bayes' Theorem and part of Bayesian reasoning.
What he's not right in, is that there is zero evidence against God's existence. The fact that we have yet to discover any supernatural entities using empiricism does in fact give evidence against the entire idea of the supernatural. The fact that we have yet to find irreducibility in things gives evidence against the idea of irreducibility.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. That is an absolutely essential part of Statistics and Bayesian Reasoning. Can you characterize this use of "absence" a bit more? What sort of space does it take up? I guess what I'm trying to ask is whether or not "evidence of absence" and "evidence of absence of evidence" mean the same thing to you? What? Think about statistics for a moment. Let's say you're trying to find a correlation between two things, but even after lots of sampling and data and stuff, there's no evidence at all of a correlation. That, by definition, is evidence against the idea of a correlation between those two things. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Get it? Ok, from within the frame of statistics, I cannot really disagree with that mantra. But to what degree do you extrapolate outward from that point? How appropriate are statistical modes of thinking when it comes to something like taste, quality, or experience? From the perspective of language, statistics relies on terminology with necessarily definite connotation and meaning; words like correlation, data, and sample size rely on a narrow avenue of application for them to "work", lest accuracy and use value fall by the wayside. If we are to appropriate the linguistic and connotative tools of statistical reasoning and implement them in the investigation of the divine or supernatural, we ought to expect accordingly limited answers. With that line of thinking in mind, what if the entire question of God's existence is a relatively worthless one to ask, for we already know the answer given how we understand the words we use to ask it. Instead, we might want to approach religiosity from a vantage point that can take possibly language-problematic phenomena (statistics and symbolic logic included) into account, which amounts to a less specific and less particularly rigorous implementation of both words and logic, for we are looking to understand that which can be difficult to speak of or quantify (If a willful agnostic has an earnest conversation with a strong Catholic over matters of faith, neither party will leave that exchange satisfied with what the other has to say. However, if a willful agnostic survives another night of homelessness after being given shelter by a Catholic, the result could be very different.). Think on modalities of worship throughout the religious world. Almost all of them rely on far more than words to express and communicate matters of faith, including song, communal presence, and even something as simple as repetition. Do you really think the words of a prayer are the important part? If that were the case, then why dress them so plainly and with such exhausting drab! Instead, what is important is the feeling one conjures up within as they interact with various deeply held thoughts and convictions, perhaps sparked by the reminders of an old, quiet place of reverence or the simple repetition of a series of words that they know oh so well. And these "points of contact" are not exclusive to the church. The enjoyment of music, of food, of good conversation, the feeling of deja vu: these are all experiences that inevitably challenge the efficacy of linguistic expression, for words/numbers on paper, on screen, or uttered aloud will never quite replicate that which they meant to represent. This is where the utility of art comes in, as artists, poets, singers, and writers attempt to create patterns of expression that do something to fill in the margins where conventional language might fail (Why else would the Church have spent so much time and money sponsoring artists and big ass architectural masterpieces? Because the Sistine Chapel speaks so well!). I'll leave you with this; think on the power of placebo as we understand it in terms of medicine. In some cases, humans are able to literally think themselves well, or think themselves ill. If a man is to live his relatively empty life under the delusion that God exists, does it really behoove him to "know" that God is imaginary? Would a statistical suggestion that God does not exist do him or anyone else for that matter any good? And what say you to the man who achieves excellence in life while muttering to himself every morning, "Thank you God, for seeing me through the night.". If your answer is "You believe in gibberish, you fool", do you really think he cares, and does he really need to? It's being discovered more and more nowadays that we have Bayesian Brains. Our Brain makes lots of shortcuts and extrapolates based on previous information about the world around us. You are acting as if Statistics has nothing to say about language, music, food, or socialization, when it's very much the opposite. How exactly do you think you figure out the connotations? Notice that my example works for any correlation. And it's been shown to work for literally all applications that we have put it to. As to your thought experiment, we are not living in a world where the religious keep to themselves and don't mean any harm. That is not the situation we are in. We are in the situation where massive churches with tons of money have the power and influence to change the law to whatever bizarre will they want (like banning gay marriage, for example). I don't find your example intriguing, and coming up with examples that don't really matter is not an argument for belief. And come on, the placebo effect is another example of statistics! You can't use statistics as an argument against itself! Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 14:18 Severedevil wrote:On January 04 2013 14:13 sam!zdat wrote:
I would agree that God contains no information What does it mean to contain information? Anything that shifts your belief or probability of possible outcomes is information.
If I gave you the impression that "statistics has nothing to say" in regards to language, music, food, or socialization, forgive me, for I did not mean to imply such a thing. Symbolic logic as represented through Bayes theorem can most certainly provide a great deal of information and insight in regards to a great many phenomena, even those of artistic or creative merit. But, this information is necessarily narrow by virtue of the words, symbols, and logical framework with which we analyze it. I do not doubt that Bayes theorem works for any correlation; my concern is in regards to information that does not reduce neatly enough to suitably warrant the implementation of tools such as correlation or even binary comparison. Consider the question "Does God exist?". How do we prove that this question or the insight it might provide are worth anything at all? Using logic and the tools of science and math, we can become reasonably certain that from within the realm of rationality, God as is traditionally conceived of most certainly does not exist. But of what importance is this, for beliefs are founded upon personal experience, intuition, and feeling in addition to empirical knowledge, with the first three oftentimes taking priority. Many believers might "know" in a certain sense that their faith is irrational, if prompted with the appropriate line of reasoning, but the experience of attending religious services or entertaining religious thoughts might provide alternative "justification" (and I use that word loosely for we are at the boundaries of "good language"). In the end, the importance and relative applicability of rational and statistical models in regards to "belief" phenomena are incredibly subjective, for the hard nosed scientist and the devout artist can both be "right" at the same time, with both simply relying on different frameworks of inquiry.
Now, if we are to begin to extrapolate outward from there, towards a societal and governmental recognition of "belief" phenomena (which is more or less what this thread is all about), I actually agree with you amongst others in terms of relying a bit more on rationality and the likes of Bayes' Theorem; the muddled waters of subjective religiosity make for very poor building materials when it comes to healthy legal and governmental systems (It is with this in mind that the US Constitution shines most brightly, I think, for it maneuvers around "belief" in a highly efficacious and then unprecedented way). I think this is where you misunderstand me a bit, for I am not suggesting that belief ought to trump rationality or that the majority ought to dictate the course of the minority, and I think governments are, in general, right to keep religious justification out of lawmaking. It is with this in mind that the law described in the OP makes the least sense, for it effectively consolidates religious authority and enforces a certain mode of legal religiosity that simply makes no sense. The government has no place in assisting church leadership when it comes to enforcing doctrine, especially given the contemporary climate of tolerance and acceptance that church leaders oh so hate to see creeping through their sanctuary doors. As to the question of whether or not a government ought to be able to force specific churches to marry gays, I'm not sure I can provide more insight than has already been brought to bear by others in this thread; I do not think governmental intervention in the affairs of specific religious institutions makes much sense, for I personally find the sort of organic changes like that which we see in the Episcopal Church of the United States far more felicitous, though I can see how KwarK's and others arguments in terms of "public service" could apply.
In the end, I am merely repeating what Sam!zdat has already suggested, which is that Bayes' Theorem, along with other tools of rational thinking (standard language systems included), cannot explain the "edges" of human experience and understanding, for that is where tragedy, song, compassion, and performative expression take over.
As to whether or not the fact that our brain takes "shortcuts" and extrapolates renders it "Bayesian", well we'll just have to disagree there
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On January 04 2013 22:02 Reason wrote:Everyone:We seem to be at the point where we're happy for religious convictions to trample over all others simply because a large number of people are religious. That seems very, very wrong to me. + Show Spoiler +On December 14 2012 07:12 dAPhREAk wrote:
you seem to be misconstruing what i am saying. the reason why religions should receive preference by the government is because the government's job is to do what the constituents want. it has nothing to do with right or wrong, it has everything to do with how the government should function. On December 23 2012 05:49 KwarK wrote:
What this bill would do is several things. It would legalise it for the churches that are willing, it would provide unprecedented exemptions from antidiscrimination laws for those that aren't, it would act as a precedent that religious convictions should not be held to the same common standards as secular convictions in society and it would involve secular law heavily in the church including laying out a legally approved doctrine and making apostasy and schism illegal. On January 04 2013 11:07 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 08:13 sam!zdat wrote:
but the point is that some beliefs can't be tested, like beliefs about morals
Perhaps then morals are not a set of beliefs that cannot be tested, but rather themselves a/the framework to test beliefs which cannot be verified by science? We collectively though obviously not unanimously hold the moral belief that it is wrong to discriminate against people based upon gender/race/sex/etc and we are happy to base secular law around such judgements, what happens when two different codes of morality/ethics clash? Which takes precedence, always the majority right?
I suppose that would lead us back to the conclusion that it's right for religious groups to discriminate against homosexual couples for as long as the majority holds that opinion?I don't like that answer myself... Just because a view is a majority view I don't think that makes it impossible to argue against it. Many pages back in this thread we came to the conclusion "things are the way things are because they want it so" and we almost seem to be back there again. Would you not speak out if you lived in a country where people were repressed based upon their race and gender? Would you simply accept it as the majority view and go with the flow or would you take a stand? Harsh reality and circumstance may choose for you another answer, but I think we know what most of us would like our response to be, and in every place and time where views like these are predominant there are always those who have spoken out and initiated change. I think the same applies here, just because the majority of people have it wrong doesn't mean you shouldn't be speaking out for what is right. The thing that upsets me the most is actually the complete lack of respect for peoples convictions unless they are religiously derived. No one gives a crap what you think or believe unless you heard it in a Church first and that has to be one of the scariest truths of my present day existence. I think it's a lot more concerning than homosexual couples being refused marriage in certain venues and speaks of a far wider and greater problem. Unless we can find a way to make it work so that the convictions of any group or any individual are treated with the same respect as any other, nobody should be exempt from anti-discrimination laws or similar legislation, it's a violation of every notion of equality that we've established so far.
This is what annoys me the most about this, much more than just the whole "well you think this so you can discriminate as you please" attitude of the exemption. It seems religions are getting a free pass because they are popular and have been around for a long time which seems like a bad way of deciding who gets exemptions from something that for anyone else would be breaking the law. It's like saying "well there a lot of white people in the uk so we should let them be more discriminatory than all the black and asian people." The only difference is that people seem to respect your beliefs a lot more if they are a part of a large religion.
|
On January 04 2013 22:02 Reason wrote:
Samzdat:+ Show Spoiler +On January 04 2013 11:54 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 11:07 Reason wrote:
Perhaps then morals are not a set of beliefs that cannot be tested, but rather themselves a/the framework to test beliefs which cannot be verified by science?
Ah now you're on to something :D A+ welcome to my life I don't think you have to do "majority rules" but I'm not really in a position to put forth my own ethical theory, I just want to show people that they don't actually know what they think they know. When I say "useless" I just mean if you decide "there's no way to judge things" then you can't get anywhere useful. So you try to come up with something that IS useful, but it's really hard and you turn all cranky and angry like me when you try. edit: and you try to avoid talking to people who say things like "some people say the bible proves that the bible is true, and idk man what can you do??" edit: rejecting positivism doesn't mean you can't use science, it just means you can't reject truth claims just because they're not scientific. edit: I claim following Habermas, that the five kinds of truth-claims are: cognitive-instrumental: (truth of propositions, efficacy of teleological action) moral-practical: (rightness of norms of action) evaluative: (adequacy of standards of value) expressive: (truthfulness or sincerity of expression) explicative discourse: (comprehensibility or well-formedness of symbolic constructs) So, how does this sit with you then in your own ethical theory?
It means that when people conflate cognitive-instrumental and moral-practical truth claims (by claiming e.g. that morality can be grounded in science) they are committing a heinous category error and should be publicly mocked in philosophical show trial
For anyone interested who hasn't seen it, here's a problem about Bayesianism:
http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=391489
|
On January 05 2013 04:19 farvacola wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 04 2013 21:31 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 20:20 farvacola wrote:On January 04 2013 13:32 DoubleReed wrote:On January 04 2013 12:39 farvacola wrote:On January 04 2013 12:33 DoubleReed wrote:
Actually he's right in that regard. Having zero information, all possibilities have equal probability (You may disagree with the number of possibilities of course). That's part of Bayes' Theorem and part of Bayesian reasoning.
What he's not right in, is that there is zero evidence against God's existence. The fact that we have yet to discover any supernatural entities using empiricism does in fact give evidence against the entire idea of the supernatural. The fact that we have yet to find irreducibility in things gives evidence against the idea of irreducibility.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. That is an absolutely essential part of Statistics and Bayesian Reasoning. Can you characterize this use of "absence" a bit more? What sort of space does it take up? I guess what I'm trying to ask is whether or not "evidence of absence" and "evidence of absence of evidence" mean the same thing to you? What? Think about statistics for a moment. Let's say you're trying to find a correlation between two things, but even after lots of sampling and data and stuff, there's no evidence at all of a correlation. That, by definition, is evidence against the idea of a correlation between those two things. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Get it? Ok, from within the frame of statistics, I cannot really disagree with that mantra. But to what degree do you extrapolate outward from that point? How appropriate are statistical modes of thinking when it comes to something like taste, quality, or experience? From the perspective of language, statistics relies on terminology with necessarily definite connotation and meaning; words like correlation, data, and sample size rely on a narrow avenue of application for them to "work", lest accuracy and use value fall by the wayside. If we are to appropriate the linguistic and connotative tools of statistical reasoning and implement them in the investigation of the divine or supernatural, we ought to expect accordingly limited answers. With that line of thinking in mind, what if the entire question of God's existence is a relatively worthless one to ask, for we already know the answer given how we understand the words we use to ask it. Instead, we might want to approach religiosity from a vantage point that can take possibly language-problematic phenomena (statistics and symbolic logic included) into account, which amounts to a less specific and less particularly rigorous implementation of both words and logic, for we are looking to understand that which can be difficult to speak of or quantify (If a willful agnostic has an earnest conversation with a strong Catholic over matters of faith, neither party will leave that exchange satisfied with what the other has to say. However, if a willful agnostic survives another night of homelessness after being given shelter by a Catholic, the result could be very different.). Think on modalities of worship throughout the religious world. Almost all of them rely on far more than words to express and communicate matters of faith, including song, communal presence, and even something as simple as repetition. Do you really think the words of a prayer are the important part? If that were the case, then why dress them so plainly and with such exhausting drab! Instead, what is important is the feeling one conjures up within as they interact with various deeply held thoughts and convictions, perhaps sparked by the reminders of an old, quiet place of reverence or the simple repetition of a series of words that they know oh so well. And these "points of contact" are not exclusive to the church. The enjoyment of music, of food, of good conversation, the feeling of deja vu: these are all experiences that inevitably challenge the efficacy of linguistic expression, for words/numbers on paper, on screen, or uttered aloud will never quite replicate that which they meant to represent. This is where the utility of art comes in, as artists, poets, singers, and writers attempt to create patterns of expression that do something to fill in the margins where conventional language might fail (Why else would the Church have spent so much time and money sponsoring artists and big ass architectural masterpieces? Because the Sistine Chapel speaks so well!). I'll leave you with this; think on the power of placebo as we understand it in terms of medicine. In some cases, humans are able to literally think themselves well, or think themselves ill. If a man is to live his relatively empty life under the delusion that God exists, does it really behoove him to "know" that God is imaginary? Would a statistical suggestion that God does not exist do him or anyone else for that matter any good? And what say you to the man who achieves excellence in life while muttering to himself every morning, "Thank you God, for seeing me through the night.". If your answer is "You believe in gibberish, you fool", do you really think he cares, and does he really need to? It's being discovered more and more nowadays that we have Bayesian Brains. Our Brain makes lots of shortcuts and extrapolates based on previous information about the world around us. You are acting as if Statistics has nothing to say about language, music, food, or socialization, when it's very much the opposite. How exactly do you think you figure out the connotations? Notice that my example works for any correlation. And it's been shown to work for literally all applications that we have put it to. As to your thought experiment, we are not living in a world where the religious keep to themselves and don't mean any harm. That is not the situation we are in. We are in the situation where massive churches with tons of money have the power and influence to change the law to whatever bizarre will they want (like banning gay marriage, for example). I don't find your example intriguing, and coming up with examples that don't really matter is not an argument for belief. And come on, the placebo effect is another example of statistics! You can't use statistics as an argument against itself! Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 14:18 Severedevil wrote:On January 04 2013 14:13 sam!zdat wrote:
I would agree that God contains no information What does it mean to contain information? Anything that shifts your belief or probability of possible outcomes is information. If I gave you the impression that "statistics has nothing to say" in regards to language, music, food, or socialization, forgive me, for I did not mean to imply such a thing. Symbolic logic as represented through Bayes theorem can most certainly provide a great deal of information and insight in regards to a great many phenomena, even those of artistic or creative merit. But, this information is necessarily narrow by virtue of the words, symbols, and logical framework with which we analyze it. I do not doubt that Bayes theorem works for any correlation; my concern is in regards to information that does not reduce neatly enough to suitably warrant the implementation of tools such as correlation or even binary comparison. Consider the question "Does God exist?". How do we prove that this question or the insight it might provide are worth anything at all? Using logic and the tools of science and math, we can become reasonably certain that from within the realm of rationality, God as is traditionally conceived of most certainly does not exist. But of what importance is this, for beliefs are founded upon personal experience, intuition, and feeling in addition to empirical knowledge, with the first three oftentimes taking priority. Many believers might "know" in a certain sense that their faith is irrational, if prompted with the appropriate line of reasoning, but the experience of attending religious services or entertaining religious thoughts might provide alternative "justification" (and I use that word loosely for we are at the boundaries of "good language"). In the end, the importance and relative applicability of rational and statistical models in regards to "belief" phenomena are incredibly subjective, for the hard nosed scientist and the devout artist can both be "right" at the same time, with both simply relying on different frameworks of inquiry. Now, if we are to begin to extrapolate outward from there, towards a societal and governmental recognition of "belief" phenomena (which is more or less what this thread is all about), I actually agree with you amongst others in terms of relying a bit more on rationality and the likes of Bayes' Theorem; the muddled waters of subjective religiosity make for very poor building materials when it comes to healthy legal and governmental systems (It is with this in mind that the US Constitution shines most brightly, I think, for it maneuvers around "belief" in a highly efficacious and then unprecedented way). I think this is where you misunderstand me a bit, for I am not suggesting that belief ought to trump rationality or that the majority ought to dictate the course of the minority, and I think governments are, in general, right to keep religious justification out of lawmaking. It is with this in mind that the law described in the OP makes the least sense, for it effectively consolidates religious authority and enforces a certain mode of legal religiosity that simply makes no sense. The government has no place in assisting church leadership when it comes to enforcing doctrine, especially given the contemporary climate of tolerance and acceptance that church leaders oh so hate to see creeping through their sanctuary doors. As to the question of whether or not a government ought to be able to force specific churches to marry gays, I'm not sure I can provide more insight than has already been brought to bear by others in this thread; I do not think governmental intervention in the affairs of specific religious institutions makes much sense, for I personally find the sort of organic changes like that which we see in the Episcopal Church of the United States far more felicitous, though I can see how KwarK's and others arguments in terms of "public service" could apply. In the end, I am merely repeating what Sam!zdat has already suggested, which is that Bayes' Theorem, along with other tools of rational thinking (standard language systems included), cannot explain the "edges" of human experience and understanding, for that is where tragedy, song, compassion, and performative expression take over. As to whether or not the fact that our brain takes "shortcuts" and extrapolates renders it "Bayesian", well we'll just have to disagree there
Bayesian Reasoning is almost completely based on the idea of subjectivity. It uses numbers, but you can perfectly easily factor in personal experiences and all that jazz. That is it's main criticism before we realized how effective it is: that is 'measuring ignorance' and 'subjectivist.'
Anyway, the brain is more Bayesian in the fact that your brain makes 'guesses' and then keeps updating as it gets more and more information from your senses and experiences. Or all the different risk assessments that it makes all the time. Stuff like that. It just seems to function this way. Shrug.
|
Right but the point is that there's a difference between saying
"It's often useful"
and
"It's a good way to think about all kinds of beliefs"
the latter was your original claim
So I can ask e.g. how do I apply Bayesian Reasoning to claim "This is a very pretty painting"
|
On January 05 2013 06:32 sam!zdat wrote:
Right but the point is that there's a difference between saying
"It's often useful"
and
"It's a good way to think about all kinds of beliefs"
the latter was your original claim
So I can ask e.g. how do I apply Bayesian Reasoning to claim "This is a very pretty painting"
Hmm... I don't know. I haven't considered it. That's still my claim though.
But that question doesn't seem that far out. In fact the only reason it sounds difficult is because it's often difficult to describe why we like things in general. But I don't see why it wouldn't work in the exact same way.
|
Well think about it and let me know what you come up with. I'm pretty sure it's nonsense to talk about mathematical credence in such a belief, but I would be very interested to hear what you have to say about it.
|
I don't think it's legitimate to criticize an information dependent process for not being able to answer a question just because we are incapable of supplying the relevant information.
Also, to reiterate on topic, I think granting legal exemptions for religious convictions and dismissing any and all otherwise derived convictions is the most important type of discrimination addressed in this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ly_xvk7evEY/SfG8Y1cV__I/AAAAAAAAA5A/X72njBC0zbY/s320/450px-New_York_City_Proposition_8_Protest_outside_LDS_temple_20.jpg)
