|
Post by tsunderella (Ch3rryBoyHunter) on Jun 28, 2015 21:11:18 GMT
Yes I should state I've taken part in many parades, and like I previously stated it is a loud minority whom are lude in public. The majority of participants are truly there to show support. I think we are arguing two different points now. Gay pride and public indecency. 2 separate thing.
|
|
marklyell
Member
#heffing #spawningissues #purPOSE #foksakenoflayas
Posts: 390
Registered on: June 2015
|
Post by marklyell on Jun 28, 2015 21:13:10 GMT
Yes I should state I've taken part in many parades, and like I previously stated it is a loud minority whom are lude in public. The majority of participants are truly there to show support. I think we are arguing two different points now. Gay pride and public indecency. 2 separate thing. Agreed. Public indecency knows no race or sexual orientation and I feel we can agree on condemning it wherever it comes from
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Registered on: January 1970
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2015 21:18:42 GMT
Religious practise should be protected under the law Why? My political beliefs aren't protected under the law - I am in no position to discriminate against someone because I disagree with their politics. My cultural beliefs aren't protected under the law - I wouldn't be allowed to discriminate against anyone just because I wasn't a fan of the cultural norms they subscribe to. Infact, if I tried to invoke either of those two things as a means to discriminate against someone, you and everyone else would think it was ridiculous. Religion is different though - why? Can you give me any rational, reasoned and measured argument as to why religion is different? Why people's religious beliefs should be protected by law when they use them as a means to discriminate? And let's be honest here - this isn't actually about religion. It's about religion SPECIFICALLY as it relates to LGBT issues. If any religious leader, anywhere in the developed world attempted to discriminate against someone based on the colour of their skin - you and I would not be having this debate. So the question is - why should someone's religious beliefs be protected under the law when none of their other beliefs are? And why does this only apply to LGBT issues? Could it be that many people are still just fundamentally homophobic and using religion these days has become a way to put an acceptable face on prejudice? Religion has a multitude grounded benefits regarding income, taxes, community and society, much like marriage does. This isn't the case with your political beliefs or cultural preferences, meaning those are irrelevant to the discussion. Like I said, I don't believe this to be discrimination against the lesbian couple. An alternative means to complete there wedding was found in a satisfactory manner in which both parties walked away content. If the pastor were forced to do this ceremony, he would have been effectively forced to act against his religion, a breach of his freedom of expression. In America, that would've been a direct violation of the First Amendment. I understand it is a tough scenario where either party A has their rights infringed or Party B has their rights infringed, but the severity of infringing the pastor and the church's rights seems far more severe in this scenario. This scenario doesn't just apply to LGB issues. If the same thing were to happen to someone based off of race, the scenario would be the same, where either party A or party B will have their rights infringed. The only difference is that the fourteenth and fifteenth amendment should supersede the first in this scenario. That means the scenario's results are different, even though the circumstances are very similar. You're acting as though religious freedom is akin to discriminating against others. That isn't the case, nor do I agree with any variation of such an absurd statement.
|
|
|
Post by tsunderella (Ch3rryBoyHunter) on Jun 28, 2015 21:32:17 GMT
Why? My political beliefs aren't protected under the law - I am in no position to discriminate against someone because I disagree with their politics. My cultural beliefs aren't protected under the law - I wouldn't be allowed to discriminate against anyone just because I wasn't a fan of the cultural norms they subscribe to. Infact, if I tried to invoke either of those two things as a means to discriminate against someone, you and everyone else would think it was ridiculous. Religion is different though - why? Can you give me any rational, reasoned and measured argument as to why religion is different? Why people's religious beliefs should be protected by law when they use them as a means to discriminate? And let's be honest here - this isn't actually about religion. It's about religion SPECIFICALLY as it relates to LGBT issues. If any religious leader, anywhere in the developed world attempted to discriminate against someone based on the colour of their skin - you and I would not be having this debate. So the question is - why should someone's religious beliefs be protected under the law when none of their other beliefs are? And why does this only apply to LGBT issues? Could it be that many people are still just fundamentally homophobic and using religion these days has become a way to put an acceptable face on prejudice? Religion has a multitude grounded benefits regarding income, taxes, community and society, much like marriage does. This isn't the case with your political beliefs or cultural preferences, meaning those are irrelevant to the discussion. Like I said, I don't believe this to be discrimination against the lesbian couple. An alternative means to complete there wedding was found in a satisfactory manner in which both parties walked away content. If the pastor were forced to do this ceremony, he would have been effectively forced to act against his religion, a breach of his freedom of expression. In America, that would've been a direct violation of the First Amendment. I understand it is a tough scenario where either party A has their rights infringed or Party B has their rights infringed, but the severity of infringing the pastor and the church's rights seems far more severe in this scenario. This scenario doesn't just apply to LGB issues. If the same thing were to happen to someone based off of race, the scenario would be the same, where either party A or party B will have their rights infringed. The only difference is that the fourteenth and fifteenth amendment should supersede the first in this scenario. That means the scenario's results are different, even though the circumstances are very similar. You're acting as though religious freedom is akin to discriminating against others. That isn't the case, nor do I agree with any variation of such an absurd statement. And thus we meet at the crossroad, because a pastor who is protected by law to not perform a same sex marriage overlaps the 1st amendment rights of the gay couple whom wish to have their wedding performed in that church. My wife is a Christian, very much so. She wanted a holy ceremony. Her right to have that ceremony is in my opinion more important than a pastor's right to deny her of that (as if we would let a pastor like that marry us, but I digress) And that is (at least to me) what religious freedom means in this situation.
|
|
marklyell
Member
#heffing #spawningissues #purPOSE #foksakenoflayas
Posts: 390
Registered on: June 2015
|
Post by marklyell on Jun 28, 2015 21:40:57 GMT
Why? My political beliefs aren't protected under the law - I am in no position to discriminate against someone because I disagree with their politics. My cultural beliefs aren't protected under the law - I wouldn't be allowed to discriminate against anyone just because I wasn't a fan of the cultural norms they subscribe to. Infact, if I tried to invoke either of those two things as a means to discriminate against someone, you and everyone else would think it was ridiculous. Religion is different though - why? Can you give me any rational, reasoned and measured argument as to why religion is different? Why people's religious beliefs should be protected by law when they use them as a means to discriminate? And let's be honest here - this isn't actually about religion. It's about religion SPECIFICALLY as it relates to LGBT issues. If any religious leader, anywhere in the developed world attempted to discriminate against someone based on the colour of their skin - you and I would not be having this debate. So the question is - why should someone's religious beliefs be protected under the law when none of their other beliefs are? And why does this only apply to LGBT issues? Could it be that many people are still just fundamentally homophobic and using religion these days has become a way to put an acceptable face on prejudice? Religion has a multitude grounded benefits regarding income, taxes, community and society, much like marriage does. This isn't the case with your political beliefs or cultural preferences, meaning those are irrelevant to the discussion. Like I said, I don't believe this to be discrimination against the lesbian couple. An alternative means to complete there wedding was found in a satisfactory manner in which both parties walked away content. If the pastor were forced to do this ceremony, he would have been effectively forced to act against his religion, a breach of his freedom of expression. In America, that would've been a direct violation of the First Amendment. I understand it is a tough scenario where either party A has their rights infringed or Party B has their rights infringed, but the severity of infringing the pastor and the church's rights seems far more severe in this scenario. This scenario doesn't just apply to LGB issues. If the same thing were to happen to someone based off of race, the scenario would be the same, where either party A or party B will have their rights infringed. The only difference is that the fourteenth and fifteenth amendment should supersede the first in this scenario. That means the scenario's results are different, even though the circumstances are very similar. You're acting as though religious freedom is akin to discriminating against others. That isn't the case, nor do I agree with any variation of such an absurd statement. Wait what? Someone's politics has nothing to do with community, society and taxes? I think you need to look up politics. Politics has everything to do with those things. If I attempted to discriminate against a heterosexual married couple because I disagreed with the politics of them being given tax breaks that I wasn't because I'm not married - it would be illegal. This has every relevance to this debate I'm afraid. Or, are you making the point that married people enjoy tax benefits and the fact that society and communities hold a certain view of married couples? If that's the case, why should gay couples not be entitled to marry and enjoy those same things? As for me apparently "acting as though religious freedom is akin to discriminating against others" - Sorry, but that's just a random phrase you've plucked out of the air. You know fine well that's not what I'm saying, you've just gone for a cheap dig. I am VERY specifically talking about so-called "religious freedom" ONLY when it relates to discrimination against LGBT couples, NOT religious freedom in general. If I was against religious freedom I would, as an atheist, call for religious practice to be banned because it's not something I believe in. I am not championing the end of religion, I am not calling for people who hold religious beliefs to be prosecuted, I am not of the belief that churches and places of worship should be outlawed. I am of the simple belief that invoking religion as a means to discriminate against anyone is wrong and should be illegal. Now, if you consider that an "absurd" argument, then I really really worry about what you consider a fair argument.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Registered on: January 1970
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2015 21:45:43 GMT
Religion has a multitude grounded benefits regarding income, taxes, community and society, much like marriage does. This isn't the case with your political beliefs or cultural preferences, meaning those are irrelevant to the discussion. Like I said, I don't believe this to be discrimination against the lesbian couple. An alternative means to complete there wedding was found in a satisfactory manner in which both parties walked away content. If the pastor were forced to do this ceremony, he would have been effectively forced to act against his religion, a breach of his freedom of expression. In America, that would've been a direct violation of the First Amendment. I understand it is a tough scenario where either party A has their rights infringed or Party B has their rights infringed, but the severity of infringing the pastor and the church's rights seems far more severe in this scenario. This scenario doesn't just apply to LGB issues. If the same thing were to happen to someone based off of race, the scenario would be the same, where either party A or party B will have their rights infringed. The only difference is that the fourteenth and fifteenth amendment should supersede the first in this scenario. That means the scenario's results are different, even though the circumstances are very similar. You're acting as though religious freedom is akin to discriminating against others. That isn't the case, nor do I agree with any variation of such an absurd statement. And thus we meet at the crossroad, because a pastor who is protected by law to not perform a same sex marriage overlaps the 1st amendment rights of the gay couple whom wish to have their wedding performed in that church. My wife is a Christian, very much so. She wanted a holy ceremony. Her right to have that ceremony is in my opinion more important than a pastor's right to deny her of that (as if we would let a pastor like that marry us, but I digress) And that is (at least to me) what religious freedom means in this situation. If the couple's right to marry supersedes the pastors right to deny his involvement, does the pastor either follow through with the ceremony against his religious beliefs, or deny the service then be prosecuted for being discriminatory? I believe that he has the right to refuse his service as a pastor based off of religious beliefs, especially since this in no way impedes on a gay couple's ability to get married legally. I don't condone the same line of thinking outside of religious organizations and professions, namely in corporations, but within the confines of a church or other religious organization it is of the utmost importance that religious freedoms are held with extreme importance.
|
|
|
Post by tsunderella (Ch3rryBoyHunter) on Jun 28, 2015 21:47:13 GMT
Anyway, I just want to point out that the decision forcing the 50 states to recognize gay marriage is not a 1st amendment issue. The decision has nothing to do with religion in anyway. Yet it is only religious entities who donate huge sums of money to try to keep states from recognizing gay marriage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Registered on: January 1970
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2015 22:06:40 GMT
Religion has a multitude grounded benefits regarding income, taxes, community and society, much like marriage does. This isn't the case with your political beliefs or cultural preferences, meaning those are irrelevant to the discussion. Like I said, I don't believe this to be discrimination against the lesbian couple. An alternative means to complete there wedding was found in a satisfactory manner in which both parties walked away content. If the pastor were forced to do this ceremony, he would have been effectively forced to act against his religion, a breach of his freedom of expression. In America, that would've been a direct violation of the First Amendment. I understand it is a tough scenario where either party A has their rights infringed or Party B has their rights infringed, but the severity of infringing the pastor and the church's rights seems far more severe in this scenario. This scenario doesn't just apply to LGB issues. If the same thing were to happen to someone based off of race, the scenario would be the same, where either party A or party B will have their rights infringed. The only difference is that the fourteenth and fifteenth amendment should supersede the first in this scenario. That means the scenario's results are different, even though the circumstances are very similar. You're acting as though religious freedom is akin to discriminating against others. That isn't the case, nor do I agree with any variation of such an absurd statement. Wait what? Someone's politics has nothing to do with community, society and taxes? I think you need to look up politics. Politics has everything to do with those things. If I attempted to discriminate against a heterosexual married couple because I disagreed with the politics of them being given tax breaks that I wasn't because I'm not married - it would be illegal. This has every relevance to this debate I'm afraid. Or, are you making the point that married people enjoy tax benefits and the fact that society and communities hold a certain view of married couples? If that's the case, why should gay couples not be entitled to marry and enjoy those same things? As for me apparently "acting as though religious freedom is akin to discriminating against others" - Sorry, but that's just a random phrase you've plucked out of the air. You know fine well that's not what I'm saying, you've just gone for a cheap dig. I am VERY specifically talking about so-called "religious freedom" ONLY when it relates to discrimination against LGBT couples, NOT religious freedom in general. If I was against religious freedom I would, as an atheist, call for religious practice to be banned because it's not something I believe in. I am not championing the end of religion, I am not calling for people who hold religious beliefs to be prosecuted, I am not of the belief that churches and places of worship should be outlawed. I am of the simple belief that invoking religion as a means to discriminate against anyone is wrong and should be illegal. Now, if you consider that an "absurd" argument, then I really really worry about what you consider a fair argument. Politics affect those aspects in a different way, and I was hoping the implication of how would be understood. The political beliefs of an individual very rarely affect their taxes, their morality, or the society they are a part of; some of those aspects are entirely separate form politics, some of them are affected by the majority of the voter population instead of the individual, and some are affected by external influences. Political beliefs held by an individual don't automatically set them up for certain tax benefits, community relations or any other grounded benefit like participation in a religious organization or marriage does, making it a comparison of apples to oranges. What I am saying is that the pastor of the church in British Columbia has a right to deny religious services to those who are in direct violation of his establishment's beliefs. The same can't be said for non-religious organizations, but within the confines of a religious body, the freedom to express their beliefs should be valued. On a legal stage, gays have a right to marry, and rightly so. The societal, communal, and tax benefits held by partners in marriage shouldn't be infringed, and the pastor in the example I gave did nothing to infringe that. I don't consider that premise an absurd argument, namely because I agree with it. The only issue is that, I believe it is the religious bodies that have had their rights infringed in the case I've been referencing. We have a very similar point of view, Mark. It's just the intricacies that are being debated.
|
|
|
Post by tsunderella (Ch3rryBoyHunter) on Jun 28, 2015 22:10:16 GMT
I've also been reading up on these Knights of Columbia; although I could not find that specific case. I did learn that they adhere to an outdated definition of marriage. They claim that thier "gay brothers and sisters" do have equal marriage rights by stating that a gay woman can marry any man she wants to. I'm sorry but that is a bigotry. It is a lack of understanding that other people define marriage as 2 adults and not specifically a man and a woman, and I find it hard to agree with anybody that holds this outdated view of the world.
|
|
marklyell
Member
#heffing #spawningissues #purPOSE #foksakenoflayas
Posts: 390
Registered on: June 2015
|
Post by marklyell on Jun 28, 2015 22:15:43 GMT
Wait what? Someone's politics has nothing to do with community, society and taxes? I think you need to look up politics. Politics has everything to do with those things. If I attempted to discriminate against a heterosexual married couple because I disagreed with the politics of them being given tax breaks that I wasn't because I'm not married - it would be illegal. This has every relevance to this debate I'm afraid. Or, are you making the point that married people enjoy tax benefits and the fact that society and communities hold a certain view of married couples? If that's the case, why should gay couples not be entitled to marry and enjoy those same things? As for me apparently "acting as though religious freedom is akin to discriminating against others" - Sorry, but that's just a random phrase you've plucked out of the air. You know fine well that's not what I'm saying, you've just gone for a cheap dig. I am VERY specifically talking about so-called "religious freedom" ONLY when it relates to discrimination against LGBT couples, NOT religious freedom in general. If I was against religious freedom I would, as an atheist, call for religious practice to be banned because it's not something I believe in. I am not championing the end of religion, I am not calling for people who hold religious beliefs to be prosecuted, I am not of the belief that churches and places of worship should be outlawed. I am of the simple belief that invoking religion as a means to discriminate against anyone is wrong and should be illegal. Now, if you consider that an "absurd" argument, then I really really worry about what you consider a fair argument. Politics affect those aspects in a different way, and I was hoping the implication of how would be understood. The political beliefs of an individual don't always affects their taxes, their morality, or the society they are a part of; some of those aspects are entirely separate form politics, some of them are affected by the majority of the voter population instead of the individual, and some are affected by external influences. Political beliefs held by an individual don't automatically set them up for certain tax benefits, community relations or any other grounded benefit like participation in a religious organization or marriage does, making it a comparison of apples to oranges. What I am saying is that the pastor of the church in British Columbia has a right to deny religious services to those who are in direct violation of his establishment's beliefs. The same can't be said for non-religious organizations, but within the confines of a religious body, the freedom to express their beliefs should be valued. On a legal stage, gays have a right to marry, and rightly so. The societal, communal, and tax benefits held by partners in marriage shouldn't be infringed, and the pastor in the example I gave did nothing to infringe that. I don't consider that premise an absurd argument, namely because I agree with it. The only issue is that, I believe it is the religious bodies that have had their rights infringed in the case I've been referencing. We have a very similar point of view, Mark. It's just the intricacies that are being debated. Yes, well I completely agree with the final line of your post - I certainly do jump into a debate with gusto when it's something I feel passionate about and I certainly don't hold anything personal against you for your views, even if I fundamentally disagree with several of your positions. Your take on this appears to be that you believe that LGBT people should be legally allowed to be marry but you also believe that religious leaders should legally be allowed to refuse to marry them on an individual basis if it goes against their religious beliefs. This is a viewpoint shared by many politicians, intellectuals and commentators the world over so it's certainly not grounded in outright bigotry and hatred and I believe many people who hold this view, including yourself, are good, honest people. However it will never be a view I share. No amount of arguments to the contrary will convince me that if this issue was about skin colour, people's religious beliefs would not be given any credence but it's still acceptable to give them credence when it comes to LGBT rights. That being said, I think we've both laid our arguments on the table and this would be a good time to agree to disagree and end it here. As you say, it's the intricacies we won't see eye to eye on and that's fair enough. The world would be boring without disagreements.
|
|
|
Post by endersai on Jun 28, 2015 22:43:53 GMT
In addition to the excellent point made above, I'd note that the consequence - unintended or intended - of any form of discrimination against same-sex marriages creates a two-tiered society. If you allow widespread prohibitions or it, or allow an exceptions-based approach for religions, you still create a society where actively treating people as second-class citizen through a denial or rights is the outcome.
I would like to conclude that we, as a species, have moved past this.
|
|
Duchartre
Member
Posts: 461
Registered on: March 2015
|
Post by Duchartre on Jun 29, 2015 1:02:55 GMT
All organised religion that I've seen has been illogical. It's no surprise to me that they find themselves fighting progress time and time again, when their viewpoints stem from books written thousands of years ago by men. I'm kind of an agnostic atheist like most are. I'm not certain that there isn't some kind of god(s) but I've just never seen any evidence for them. I definitely don't like people who rail on religious people with insults, usually about their intelligence. But I have a quote for you. I'm most familiar with Christianity so it will be from the bible.
"If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them." - Leviticus
Why do we allow this book to have such a massive effect on all our lives? It's outdated. 'Religious freedom' only ever seems to mean the freedom to tell other people what to do. If the books are followed then all sorts of people need to be killed for all sorts of ridiculous reasons. I never see Christians complaining about seafood being served, multi blend T-shirts, or leather gloves. But it's used over and over as an excuse for defending hatred and bigotry.
Surely it's time for religion to fall into obscurity?
Ive seen some backwards opinions on this forum before about LGBT issues. The logic that accompanies them is always lacking, and I've already seen some nasty apologism and terribly thought out arguments in this thread. If everyone is going to continue to be polite then I don't see why we can't continue to discuss this, because conversation and understanding is massively important in making things better.
No-one can help the opinions that they start with any more than they can help the parents they are born to, or the people they are attracted to. But unlike the latter two, opinions can be changed.
I don't think religion should be put on a pedestal, unable to be criticised. If we saw some of these views in any other context they would be dealt with appropriately. What possible reason exempts religion? (I don't think 'tax breaks' is a valid answer)
|
|
|
Post by JettaArts on Jun 29, 2015 2:42:01 GMT
<3 I NEVER SAW THIS OMG CH3RRY I'M SO HAPPY FOR YOU AND ALL OF AMERICA <3 CONGRATZ <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
|
|
V12
Member
Posts: 185
Registered on: March 2015
|
Post by V12 on Jun 29, 2015 3:55:34 GMT
I think if people realised we only get our 80 years (if we're lucky) and then it's game over, we might stop worrying about what everyone else is doing and try to enjoy our brief, insignificant lives while we can without fucking it up for anybody else. On a lighter note, congratulations to you and your partner tsunderella (Ch3rryBoyHunter)! This should have come long ago but at least it's here now.
|
|
|
Post by KoBo_043 on Jun 29, 2015 17:06:31 GMT
Such a heavy discussion, while we should be drinking beers (or lemonade if your religion doesn't allow the consumption of alcohol ofcourse) and eating cake in celebration I'm just glad I'm Dutch, where most/a lot of people are really open minded about this stuff, and to see the rest of the world is graduately following. Maybe... MAYBE... at one point we can all get along
|
|