-
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.
NYT: Anticipating Nationwide Gay Marriage, States Weigh Religious Exemption Bills
- Thread starter ivysaur12
- Start date
- Status
I actually agree with you here, on the merits of his work; I've had long contact with a Spencer scholar and have respect for some of his ideas. Even his support for Lamarckianism makes sense in the context for which he was promoting it, which involves social rather than merely physical evolution.
However, Spencer has long been used as part of the ideology of racial purity, albeit incorrectly. The seminal text on race and American law does name him in this connection because his name was often cited in that connection. Again, it's too bad his readers only seized upon certain parts of his work and aligned it with contradictory beliefs, like Galton's.
AuthenticM
Member
I'm glad we don't have that shitty debate in Canada.
Whenever you read judge's decisions in old cases involving race from the 60s and earlier, it is remarkable just how much is based on backward ass Christian religious interpretations inserted into law.
benjipwns
Banned
Your Conservative Party in comparison is practically silent on most social issues.
You never know.. if the gay dude forces such a sale and then uses the caloric energy stored within that taquito to consumate his homo-man marriage, the 7/11 guy's essentially being forced to "celebrate" that event.
Taquito-powered sodomy. You heard it here first, folks.
benjipwns
Banned
Stop talking about sodomy, Taquitos and shit you guys. Some of us are trying to have clean Mexican food free sodomy while posting.
No, again this is demonstrably false and betrays a lack of historical knowledge. Miscegenation laws were not a result of Christian doctrine, and the main sources were secular ideologies of race and progress that swept through in that era. That's not really something you can legitimately debate anymore.
No you're the only one lacking knowledge, or you're just willfully ignorant. One or the other. Just because some of the background for the attitudes came from other sources than religious text does not mean religion didn't play a huge part.
benjipwns
Banned
The real question is did the people banning interracial marriage say "bless you" to people sneezing?
And did they clap after banning it?
And did they clap after banning it?
This is beautiful.
CornBurrito
Member
Hachi's basic argument against gay marriage is essentially "homosexuality is a sin" and "slippery slope, next we'll have polygamy and people marrying animals."
Chance Hale
Member
Cross species marriage was added at the same time as gay marriage in FF14 online so idk
CornBurrito
Member
But not the traditional sexual ethic that Christians subscribe to. And we all know Christians are the only people that actually matter.
Again, we can read the judge's decisions for ourselves. They directly reference Christian ideology as part of the reason for decisions hundreds of times throughout American history. This is essentially indisputable, and arguing otherwise would suggest you simply wholesale decide to ignore the words on display.
You may be talking about a larger overall trend that may also be true, but the reality is that on a case-by-case basis the justification for a huge number of discriminatory decisions were partially rooted in fucked up interpretations of Judeo-Christian ideology.
RoninChaos
Member
HOLY FUCKING SHIT.
Man, I'm glad my sexy ass wife's people decided that an ocean wasn't a problem.
(Citation needed)
What relationship to empirical data? There is no "ought" of humanity. There is only "is". "Ought" is a nice way of saying "This would be Utopia", but we don't live in Utopia, we live in the real world, with real people who have real feelings and value(s).
You can talk about the hypotheticals all day long, but those aren't the realities of the situation.
And no, it no longer deserves respect. At one time, I would agree with you. We've moved past that as a society, however, and now that we see that they were, essentially, wrong, they have very little place in the real world. Assimilate or be left behind. Your choice.
Awww
I was married in Iowa because it was his home state. (And it wasn't legal in AZ at the time.)Real feelings and values? You're already deep in the realm of the "ought," or at least that people ought to be able to pursue their own values. Religious communities pursue their notion of human fulfillment, you pursue yours, and the question is of how the law should carefully protect both. There are legitimate conflicts that deserve attention.
The law doesn't allow discrimination against protected classes, flat-out.
It doesn't give a damn if the basis for it is religous or not, it's not allowed.
You serve the general public, you obey discrimination laws.
So unless you want to overturn the first amendment and the fourteenth amendment, you will have to deal with it.
Oh don't be disingenuous now. The "ought" that you were talking about is vastly different and is an ideology, vs the "ought" of the real people here and now.
There are not legitimate conflicts, especially when the US was partially created in response to these "oughts" that England wanted to levy against the settlers. They came here to get away from a country that wanted them to eschew individuality and submit to the tyranny of the chosen religion at the time. There is no question here that you can have any religious values that you choose, however you can't use those religious values *in the general public* to deny other people services because you don't like their values.
Non-discrimination is very different from being forced to use your creative agency to promote or engage in a ceremony that contradicts your beliefs. There is a real distinction, and religion is also a protected class (everywhere, not only in some states like sexual orientation).
You serve the general public as a business?
You obey those laws.
And all your examples are where gays are a protected class.
Also relgious freedom also protects non-believers. Hiding behind relgious freedom doesn't do you any good.
Places of public accommodation can not, and should not, be allowed to discriminate. Just because it's a "private entity" doesn't mean it operates on an island - the infrastructure, stability, security, and opportunities which allow the private entity to exist and grow are public in nature. And this entity exists for the purpose of offering a good or service to the public - without people operating the entity, or using the entity, it's literally just a lifeless corpse - the actions of the "private entity" are actually the actions of the individuals operating it. So no, people, as members of society, should not be allowed to discriminate against other members of society on the basis of religion - such an act goes against the very principle of religious freedom.
Those laws include protections for religion and protections against doing something that fundamentally violates your beliefs, and we're debating clarifying those protections. I would also dispute the wisdom of adding orientation as a protected class, but that's another can of worms. We disagree on these laws, and the quick back and forth is getting less and less useful at this point.
CornBurrito
Member
Sexual orientation may very well become a protected class in every state. But if your argument is that it shouldn't because it isn't then lol.
Don't run a business that produces cakes or flowers if you don't want to serve people.
Your beliefs matter for nothing if you are serving the general public while taking advantage of services paid for the by general public as a business if you want to discriminate against protected classes.
If you want to operate a business based on your beliefs, you can become a private entity that doesn't serve the general public, but you forfeit all related benefits from the government in doing so.
Your argument would allow for people to discriminate against Blacks just like they did during Segregation, which has already been determine to be unconstitutional. And suprise! People used relgious beliefs as an argument for Segregation.
M0nochromatic
Member
So religious business owners should have the right to deny service to customers on the basis of sexuality? What do you think is more important, forcing businesses to acknowledge LGBT individuals and gay marriage and to treat them as they would straight, heterosexual marriages, or respecting religious views and allowing businesses to act accordingly to those views?
This is absurdly circular now. We've already covered the difference here and how it directly relates to religious freedom legislation.
And be careful how you imagine religion to be involved in these things when you don't have an educated sense of history beyond soundbites. The first high-profile case of interracial marriage restrictions being struck down in the US was argued on the basis of religion, and it set in motion the momentum that fixed the problem. The plaintiffs were Catholic, and the Catholic church practice as well as doctrine has had an unbroken history of supporting all male-female marriages without regard to race, so they successfully argued that disallowing their freedom to marry was denying their freedom to engage in the sacraments of their religion.
You just denied that relgious beliefs were used against interracial marriage, slavery and a multitude of other topics and you have the gall to argue religion is now involved here?
It's only involved when it's positive?
Also you Are ignoring all of the evangelicals on the other side of the same fight of interracial marriage and segregation.
Serving gay people isn't against your religious beliefs - having "gay experiences" is.
Protections for religions are meant for things like... allowing Chick Fil A to close on Sundays, so if a student paying his tuition through a job at Chick Fil A ends up having classes Monday through Saturday next semester, he can't sue Chick Fil A for wrongful termination because they didn't have hours set aside on the only day he was free.
While your skull is unworthy of being pledged to Khorne, the Bloodfather cares not from whence the blood flows, only that it flows, so I'd like to point out that those who worship the dark gods care not about the laws of men and act accordingly, so questions such as these aren't even entertaining philosophical masturbation, just pointless.
Now run back to your corpse emperor on his throne of lies and suckle on the teat of his imperial "truth" as you drift off to sleep, interloper.
CornBurrito
Member
Sserving gay patrons a wedding cake is a no-no to hachi because it forces innocent Christians to bear witness to the degradation of the sexual ethics they hold so dear . I do wonder if these Christians also refuse to serve people who had sex before marriage, especially if the sex was with people other than their current lover. Or is that not against their strict code of sexual ethics?
IDK, I have mixed feelings about this.
I don't shoot weddings, but if I did I would have an awful hard time with someone telling me I HAVE to take pictures of their wedding.
To me there is a distinction between "open to the public" and someone that works on a commission or contractual basis. If you are any good you have to be selective of your clients. I don't see how anyone can legally force me to come to their event, take photos, edit them, put them together in a book and give it back to them.
I don't shoot weddings, but if I did I would have an awful hard time with someone telling me I HAVE to take pictures of their wedding.
To me there is a distinction between "open to the public" and someone that works on a commission or contractual basis. If you are any good you have to be selective of your clients. I don't see how anyone can legally force me to come to their event, take photos, edit them, put them together in a book and give it back to them.
Mercury Fred
Banned
That's not how public accommodation laws work.
Obviously people can't be forced to take every customer that comes to them, but businesses may not refuse to take a client on the grounds that they don't like their race, religion (and in some states sexuality, gender identity, etc).
Is what is written in the original bible all that anti gay?
It is believed that Paul in the bible coined the term "arsenokoitai" Paul's intended meaning behind this word has been lost. But arsen means man, koitai means beds.. There was a time in history when many believed the word referred to masturbation. After all, arsen is singular for male. Another time, many believed in referred to male prostitutes. Again arsen us singular for male, koitai is plural for beds. A man who sleeps in many beds? Malakoi also found in 1 Corinthians 6:9, was a word that meant soft. It has been believed that arsenokoitai referred to the active male prostitute. While malakoi referred to the passive partner in such acts. But in 1946, it was just decided arsenokoitai meant homosexual, without any proof for this translation. Arsen means man, but there are female homosexuals too.
Leviticus 18:22, 20:13. states that a male shall not lie with a male as he does with a woman; it is an abomination. Here the word abomination was translated from the word "toebah" But, research of toebah shows that it seemed to mean something closer to today's word, "taboo". Abomination wasn't the proper word to use when translating. 20:13 advises the death penalty for a male who lies with another male. Here's the thing, every Leviticus law the prescribes the death penalty as punishment is repeated again in Deuteronomy except one. That one law being, male shall not lie with male (Leviticus 20:13). Of all the "death penalty laws" why was that not important to repeat again? Or was it repeated, but in a way that made it clearer what it was referring too? In Deuteronomy, it prescribes the death penalty for a male prostitute. Could it be a male prostitute that Leviticus 18:22, 20:13 is really referring too. You know male prostitute, the same term that in the past has thought to be what the word arsenokoitai was referring too.
Leviticus was written during a time when they ignorantly thought that a man's sperm contained the whole child. A woman only provided the incubator space, they played no role in creating new life. They also thought a man had a limited amount of sperm. When a man didn't ejaculate into a woman, he was seen as wasting new life.
Of course not; one can't determine the effects of Christianity on that era or any era by simply choosing positive or negative cases to suit one's personal agenda. Although, that's exactly what you've been doing, because you haven't offered any other criterion, and have merely resorted to "bad people invoked God" over and over. But every political position, on both sides, invoked God in that region and in that time period; you'll need some way of determining which beliefs originate in the religious doctrine and which originate in other sources which then are attached to it for political expedience. Have you ever written a historical research paper? These are basic methodological questions you have to get a handle on before jumping to simplified conclusions. And historians have rather broadly determined that it was in fact secular ideologies (of racial superiority, genetics, etc) that led to miscegenation laws; it is also rather indisputable that the doctrines of the Christian church historically are aligned directly against it, and that many of the key people on the front lines of ending racial discrimination were fighting from a Christian perspective, including the first case that struck down these laws by invoking religious freedom.
Dude Abides
Banned
This is inaccurate. The religious freedom argument was the basis for a concurrence, not the opinion of the court.
True, actually, there were two public opinions, but the plaintiffs actually argued their case on the basis of the religious grounds, and the concurring opinion which recognized that basis was published in the offical court document. The key is that the Catholic church was recognized as being very evidently in favor doctrinally and historically of interracial marriage, which puts the issue on different ground from what may be supposed in the vague attempts to obscure the secular rather than religious basis for these laws entering the US culture in the first place.
PlayALLtheGames
Banned
And the answers are: one has a right to believe and promote whatever they want, and the extent to which one's beliefs should be protected as it concerns denying service as a business owner is none. You're muddling the debate with all the stuff about how long gay marriage has been in conflict with traditional marriage and how long people have believed this or that. It doesn't matter. Furthermore, can we, for a second, just remind ourselves that we are talking about the musings of ancient desert-dwellers? Of all the things that might serve as a legal basis to allow someone to claim an exemption when serving as a business owner/provider, religion should never, ever be one of them. To even suggest it in this day and age is laughable.
Dude Abides
Banned
There was actually one opinion of the court, two concurrences, and one dissent. Of course the concurrence you refer to was published in the official court document. It is standard practice to publish all opinions in a case. But the reason the law against interracial marriage was overturned was because it was a restriction on liberty to marry (fortunately not precisely the sexual liberty you find so distasteful, I suppose, but see Lawrence v. Texas), not religious liberty.
The dissent also pointed out that while the Catholic Church was not in favor of these laws, it was not particularly opposed to them either:
Crediting the Catholic Church, or Christianity more broadly, for the outcome in Perez v. Sharp is more than a bit of a stretch.
Be careful, insofar as the liberty to marry was stated precisely and exclusively in its connection with the pre-state intergenerational process of procreation in the ruling, and without that connection it would hardly have been deemed something that cannot be legally restricted. From the ruling:
In fact, all arguments originally categorizing marriage as a "fundamental right" based that on the old notion that the natural family is "pre-state" in that it exists as a biological set of relationships prior to contracts that create other combinations.
The section you quote does not support that; it only steps back to say "don't engage in marriages against the laws that are currently over you," but brackets that within a clear statement that Catholic doctrine has never, in any capacity, held that marriage concerns race or should be restricted by it. But gender is written into pretty much every line of every document, secular or otherwise, that concerns marriage from its inception; so the topics aren't comparable on any level.
Any historian can tell you that racial restrictions on marriage are historically tremendously limited in scope, unlike gender which was ubiquitously and explicitly tied to it in all legal, social, and theological contexts; they will also resoundingly tell you that anti-miscegenation emerged from secular ideologies in the period in question.
CornBurrito
Member
"
The right to marry is as fundamental as the right to send one's
child to a particular school or the right to have offspring.
Indeed, "We are dealing here with legislation which involves one
of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are
fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."
"
Aww gee Hachi, thanks for wanting to deny homosexuals that fundamental right. <3
The right to marry is as fundamental as the right to send one's
child to a particular school or the right to have offspring.
Indeed, "We are dealing here with legislation which involves one
of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are
fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."
"
Aww gee Hachi, thanks for wanting to deny homosexuals that fundamental right. <3
You Know Nothing
Member
This is… not true.
Are we talking about in modern Western history? Or all history? If we're talking all history, this is demonstrably false. Western history, you're correct.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked