Chmpocalypse
Blizzard
...which uses public resources, like firemen and police.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Conservative lawmakers and faith groups seek exemptions after same-sex ruling
- Thread starter GK86
- Start date
- Status
...which uses public resources, like firemen and police.
obin_gam
Member
Yeah, from Europe. I'll withdraw my statement of it being private. Blame it on a temporary loss of mind.
And yes I forgot, "separation between church and state" which so conveniently matters only when it suits the religion itself, and conveniently disappears completely when it [the religion in question] tries to force its belief on to the state.
I am going add though that I think no one should treat anyone any different because of whom they are. And you should not be able to hide behind (because that is what this is) saying once religion says so. That is pure and utter nonsense.
Discrimination should be a question above religios views.
demented waffle
Gold Member
Everyone uses public resources. Not sure how much of a bearing that means.
Once you allow the government full authority over religions (or vice versa) you start going down a dark road. The US was founded on getting away from that bullshit.
obin_gam
Member
It has worked pretty well in Sweden. On paper we are a Christian country (we've in practice moved to about 80% secular) and our churches have themselves accepted to wed everyone that wants to.
timetokill
Banned
Glad there aren't many, but amazed at the blatant rejection of the first amendment by some posters in here
rokkerkory
Member
Why is it that Republican leaders are always acting like they are LOSING something when no one is TAKING anything away from them? They are acting like whiny little bitches.
GameGuru59
Banned
I'm not saying we shouldn't have pursued the legal reforms in the Civil War or the 60's, I'm saying some things are either (1) outdated and no longer relevant, (2) could be implemented better, or (3) need to be improved. And example is the voting rights act. In light of recent events, the VRA should be expanded to every state. There should be pre-clearance for all changes to voting laws to every state. Not just the ones in the south. The Supreme Court struct down the VRA (a section of it) for being outdated, and focusing only on southern states. The SC is probably right legally. Therefore, an appropriate fix in my eyes would be to expand the VRA to all states.
If the local KKK club catches fire or is shot up, the firemen and police have to respond to that too. There's also probably a road leading there, and it gets mail just like any other place. That argument isn't really convincing.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
In the Church of Sweden, sure. There are more churches that just that one though. Even Sweden hasn't been able to force everyone to perform all kinds of wedding.
obin_gam
Member
That's true, people full of hate that hide behind some vague scribblings in ancient texts exists here as well sadly.
Actually I do not believe this for an instance. It is nothing but an excuse to not have to be held responsible for thinking some people are less worth than others.
Red Mage
Member
Churches have the right to hold ceremonies for whom they choose. As for saying that the churches are hiding behind their doctrine to discriminate, sure, some might. Many, however, do it for the opposite reason. They believe that holding such a ceremony in a church is likely to call down God's wrath upon the couple in question, because they are not holding the ceremony to the Lord's standards. This is why many churches do not allow guests to take part in the Lord's Supper.
You can laugh and call it superstitious, but it isn't just priests and pastors thinking gays are icky.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
Yeah, the way you're talk about them is sure conducive to effecting change in society.
/s
What you believe isn't in question here, nor does your belief really matter.
Wiktor
Member
You do realize you're criticing exactly the same behaviour you're now displaying?
Right, on paper. Religion and churches there are just admired for their history and past culture. Completely different than the US. There's also the whole Constitution thing.
GameGuru59
Banned
I have access to LexisNexis et. all and reading laws is literally in my job description.
I probably would need to at least confer with a lawyer though. But depending on how serious I felt about the case, and whether I feel like doing it, I could probably represent myself. I would need some advice about the many technicalities of filing shit with the court though and all that.
obin_gam
Member
No no, I know. Just making an observation about what seems to be pro-discrimination.
I could see how it could be interpreted as such. My stance is this: everyone is equally worthy and should be treated as such. Everyone who thinks less of any one else in the sense of social rights are assholes. To go along with this: every human being on this planet should have the same rights and obligations as everyone no matter if you are a good guy or bad guy. And if you are a bad guy, you are an asshole.
Red Mage
Member
So, I guess when we explain the rules of participating in the Lord's Supper, we're really just wanted to discriminate against random people?
You sound like you have a very narrow view of the world.
obin_gam
Member
Aren't you though?
If I come to a church and want to take comunion, because I want to - why shouldn't I be able to?
I'm guessing whatever god that church might be following would love new possible followers?
At the same time - If I am gay and want to get married in a church, I should be able to.
timetokill
Banned
You can, just find a gay church or start your own.
What i don't get is why you'd even want to get married in a church if you're gay. I'm not gay but i'm an atheist and i'd never want to get married in a church. There's other ways.
obin_gam
Member
Family tradition, or because churches looks very nice and majestic.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
Uh...why should you be able to? That's ludicrous. If you aren't a part of a church, what gives you the right to demand to participate besides your own massive ego?
timetokill
Banned
So religious freedom shouldn't matter because you like the pretty buildings and want to use them how you see fit.
Oh boy.
CrimzonSamurai
Member
The view of the Rite of Communion varies greatly from denomination to denomination. Many will let you take it without prerequisites, but Catholics for example believe that only those who have undergone the Rite of Confirmation may take Communion. To mandate otherwise would be a very direct infringement on the tenets of their faith. That's a human rights violation in any sense.
In a country that has a state religion that's obviously not so cut and dry, since the church would be bound under the equality laws of the rest of the state. However, it's not permissible in American law to mandate the unwilling violation of religious beliefs and I don't think it's moral either.
In America, marriage is not a solely religious institution nor does it even mandate a relgious component. It is simply a contract between the couple and the state that comes with certain civil benefits: tax breaks, hospital visitation, child custody, etc. Marriage as a religious institution is solely the realm of religious bodies, the state has no say in that, and if the religious body believes that it would violate its faith the state does not have a right to mandate otherwise. However, the state institution of marriage is a secular contract, and by the same token religious bodies have to right to mandate anything of the state either. A religious ceremony in isolation does not actually make two people married in the eyes of the state, just as marriage as a matter of state does not necessitate that two people be married in the eyes of any given religious body. Equality in state-recognized civil marriage is the only equality that is legally necessary because it's the only one that actually affords rights and benefits.
Family tradition as in "our family has always gone to church and married in one, so therefor you should (will) too!"? Wouldn't that same family be very conservative and go "YOU'RE GAY!?!?? Oh lord..."?
obin_gam
Member
Maybe I'm curious and interested in that churchs traditions and want to try it out?
If that exercise of freedom entails hindering other people from doing something that isn't hurting anyone then no, what the religion says shouldn't matter.
That is my main point in all of what I'm trying to say here - to close, or whatchamacall it:
Hindering other people from doing something that is not hurting or injuring a fellow being in any way shape or form should not be legal anywhere, no matter what ones personal belief is. This should be a question of citizenship basically.
Your saying one would be forced to marry in a church? The family tradition could be as you say "our family has always gone to church and married in one" but then go to "and I want to too because the feeling of marrying in a church seemed great and grand"
timetokill
Banned
Oh man, there are a shitload of laws you'd want to throw out, then.
Anyway I don't really think you understand what religious freedom is so let's just leave it at that.
Then find one that will allow gay marriage? The idea that the government should force all churches to accept gay marriages on their private property is insane. Just trust us Americans on this.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
Who cares what you want to "try" out? You don't have a right to demand to participate in a religious institution just because you want to "try it out."
Especially not when these religious institutions have detailed and rational theologies behind their closed communion. It sounds like you don't understand religious freedom or theology itself.
Right on.
Red Mage
Member
No.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+11:23-32
I'm not saying you must believe as anyone else does, but I am saying that the practice is not about discrimination.
BTW in many weddings, Communion is taken by the couple.
I can understand religious institutions working on their own rules, but if a religion is discriminating or breaking laws or encouraging boytcotting gay marriages outside of those institutions, maybe the concept shouldn't be applied to them and they should be treated as cults which should be prosecuted.
obin_gam
Member
Well, yeah obviously.
Freedom of religion is that you are able to think and practice what you want without repercussions. I know what it is - I have no problem with that.
I just think one shouldnt hide behind such belief when discriminating against others.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
This is going in the opposite direction, you are now infringing on freedom of religion. If someone's religion says they want to sit in a room where everyone wears shoes on their head for 3 hours every Sunday, they have the right to do that.
Demanding to be allowed in wearing shoes on your feet *just because* is trampling on their beliefs, which is downright rude. And is ironically the boogieman that the religious right thinks is coming for them because of recent legislation.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
Most religious groups think that you can't participate in their services or sacraments without becoming part of their group and agreeing to their rites and norms.
It's not "discrimination" in an unjust sense to say that you can't participate in someone's services if you're not a part of their group. In fact it's entirely sensible.
SkeptiMism
Member
In your example though, it wasn't particularly because of him being Catholic, but it was him being of different Church in the first place. I think there's a difference.
I am assuming here of course, that a Church would not have to serve people other than their members.
But then again, I have to admit here that I'm not quite sure if this is logical and consistent with my argument otherwise, so I'll have to give it some more thought. I'll have to go sleep anyway.
But if the church wanted to marry someone, they'd be forced to marry everyone or then nobody, in order for the marriages to be actual marriages legally. So the end would seem the same for me.
That is a good point and very true. In Sweden where the government gave the church the choice to either keep their license to marry people (including gays) or lose it, it worked because of multiple factors, but one was that there wasn't resistance like in the US (at least in the same level) and most likely those for whom it was a problem, actually reconsidered their position.
In the US it would indeed (most likely) lead to a lot more resistance.
However, I don't think it's reason enough not to do it just because some people would be grumpy while doing it.
It's also worth noting that not everyone would be necessarily forced to marry these cases. It could be up to the church to organize it and they could have a person who would be a bit more open to it do it.
Anyway, for the record, I wouldn't be forcing the change immediately. Like, in Finland the law will change in 2017 so that same sex couples can get married, and the law won't apply on the church at least at first, but eventually, I'd say it's guaranteed to become more of a question and there's a chance there might be an ultimatum similar to what Sweden did. If it does happen, it will be good that it wasn't immediate, because it gives some time for the conservatives to see that sky isn't actually falling because of gays getting married.
Ah right, I see now. Sorry, the system is very different from my country's. I'll back down at least for now (and go to sleep) and I'll admit that I really shouldn't be arguing if I don't know how the system works in the first place.
Thank you for the information and patience.
Chuck Norris
Banned
I have no problem with this
Well actually I have a small problem with it but it's up to the church now to decide, and I don't expect anyone should be allowed to force them to conduct gay marriage ceremonies against their will
Well actually I have a small problem with it but it's up to the church now to decide, and I don't expect anyone should be allowed to force them to conduct gay marriage ceremonies against their will
obin_gam
Member
To take this example, I would of course take of my shoes and follow the rite. That's not the issue. The issue is if I shouldn't be allowed in because I'm either of a different skin color or love people of the same sex (or love everyone or no one). I thus think I should be allowed in - without shoes - because those part of me doesnt hinder me in any way to practice it.
I would never want that to be a thing.
Absolutely. There are those who, like you said, like the idea of getting married in a church because reasons X or Y and those people should by all means get married in a church. What i was commentating on was "why would you want to get married in a church if you're gay?" and what i meant by that was: why would you want to get married in a christian building who's religion and teachings doesn't approve of you and your sexuality?
Wiktor
Member
So..if you're out in the city and see a fun looking group of strangers will you also demand to be able to join them because you're not hurting anyone and thus it shouldn't matter that those people might not want you in their group?
Z_Y
Member
For a fucking cake!
orthodoxy1095
Banned
Religious groups will often refuse to perform a marriage ceremony if you aren't of their religion. This concept isn't really much different. Religious groups require belief and subsequent adherence to their theology.
And why not? You do believe in the separation of church and state, right?
In modern society this is not really an issue, because of the sheer amount of services available. I understand the argument that you wouldn't really want to associate with people who don't like you anyway.
Now that being said, private businesses are not sovereign island within our country. They use public resources to their advantage, they benefit from the community in many ways. Thus they should also respect the community in all its diversity. So you can't make the argument that demanding equal treatment from them infringes their liberty.
Churches are obviously another thing. We can't demand that Catholics have female bishops if it is against their own regulations. Hopefully in time they will come around in their interpretation of the Holy Bible. I believe the core message of Jesus was to love thy neighbor and that we are all faulty beings in front of God. Homosexuality might be wrong according to texts but so are many other things that we do in modern society. It is the principle of empathy that should always reign supreme.
A lot of Christians are worried that now society will turn against their faith but that is simply not the case. All these social interactions are so insignificant anyway. A person comes to your private business and asks for something. If by some chance you find out that he is a member of some group, the ramifications are negligible. You just give him what he wants, shake your head afterwards and move on. The problem is that we create all this drama when it doesn't really exist and politicians use it to advance their own careers. What frustrates me is that tax payers actually pay Bobby Jindal money to say this stuff.
Now that being said, private businesses are not sovereign island within our country. They use public resources to their advantage, they benefit from the community in many ways. Thus they should also respect the community in all its diversity. So you can't make the argument that demanding equal treatment from them infringes their liberty.
Churches are obviously another thing. We can't demand that Catholics have female bishops if it is against their own regulations. Hopefully in time they will come around in their interpretation of the Holy Bible. I believe the core message of Jesus was to love thy neighbor and that we are all faulty beings in front of God. Homosexuality might be wrong according to texts but so are many other things that we do in modern society. It is the principle of empathy that should always reign supreme.
A lot of Christians are worried that now society will turn against their faith but that is simply not the case. All these social interactions are so insignificant anyway. A person comes to your private business and asks for something. If by some chance you find out that he is a member of some group, the ramifications are negligible. You just give him what he wants, shake your head afterwards and move on. The problem is that we create all this drama when it doesn't really exist and politicians use it to advance their own careers. What frustrates me is that tax payers actually pay Bobby Jindal money to say this stuff.
obin_gam
Member
Interesting example, your equating a group of friends with a communion. I wouldnt equate those two becasue they are two different social constructs. If the group of friends on the street would let me hang with them then yes, but if they were to tell me to fuck off I would... but if that had to do with weather I was gay, I would think that as a discriminatory action and I dont know how I would react to that. If it was just because we have different views, then I would think they were assholes who dont want me around
That's true, and a good point. But that shouldn't stop those other "shallower" people from doing it there.
Yup, in fact my friend's baptist church requires you to meet with the pastors, describe your testimony, sign a contract that means you agree to the church holding you accountable and disciplining you according to the Word of God (means if you're in sin, you're giving them the right in writing to tell you you're wrong and that you need to change this or that. Of course they can't force you to do anything, it's just a written agreement to accountability), and sign up for volunteering in a weekly task for the church and officially joining a weekly home bible study, all in order to become a member of that church. All very bureaucratic but very standard according to the southern baptist view of the way a Christian should live: submitting to church accountability, serving their community, and meeting weekly with the church. And if you're not a member and you don't do some premarital counseling, the pastors don't perform weddings for you.
Which is super valid.
"Shallower" as in agnostics and spiritual people who "don't believe in god but believe that there's something bigger, powerful out there"? Yeah i don't understand why those folks get married in church. I guess it's because they view the ceremony as something "beautiful" and that the church in itself is beautiful. As an atheist i would never get married in a church, for several reasons.
EDIT: double post! trigger happy! thought this thread was moving fast yo
Sho_Nuff82
Member
The "rite" is not something that's negotiable within the context of the church.
Marriage is now defined as a union between two people who love one another. Specifically Catholic/Evangalical/Mormon/etc marriage is between a man and a woman (or women).
If you can get married, why would you possibly insist on being Mormon-married if you're not Mormon, for example? Why force a preacher to go through a ceremony that both you and he know he doesn't believe in? There are any number of swanky locations that you can choose to host a ceremony that don't put the religious out on their ass. To ask this shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what following a religion entails.
Yup. A regular Uncle Ruckus.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked