Politics and Homophobia

[Sayonara]

So how do single sex schools work?

By not allotting rights based on arbitrary characteristics.

[Pat Says]

Then I guess the same thing would happen with this situation?

[Dak]

You seem to be disregarding the need to belong to the church that is felt by the homosexuals in question' date=' just like you earlier disregarded the need that they may feel for getting married in the first place.

 

I don't see that you have any objective basis on which to decide that such needs can be tossed aside from this discussion, given that these are all questions of pursuing what's important to the human psyche.[/quote']

 

there are religions who would marry gays, and there are civil marrages. some -- even the majority of -- religions refusing to marry gays would not stop gays getting married, or even from getting married in a religiouse seromony.

 

given that a religion that refuses to marry gays would quite obviously be of the oppinion that gays shouldnt marry, id question a gays right to demand to be marryd by that church -- if they are followers of that church, they should accept gods will and not enter into a gay marrage; if they are not followers of that church, why would they specifically require that church to marry them, as opposed to one of the others.

 

 

I don't know what alarcenouce is, but I assume you mean "a larcenous man".

 

larcenouce = theif.

a- = not (prefix)

alarcenouce = not theif.

 

(possibly not correct, but thats what i meant)

 

If this is so then you have missed the point - if the bible defines the moral barriers to marriage, and therefore theft is grounds for being barred from marriage, then homosexuals are treated in a discriminatory fashion by comparison to theives.

 

religions interpret these things in different ways. if a religion felt that marrying a thief would be going against gods wishes, then i dont feel that that church should be forsed to do what they feel is wrong by god; espescially as there exist numerouse other churches which will marry thiefs.

 

same with gays: some churches feel its ok to marry gays, others think it goes against gods will. i dont see why the latter should be forced to commit what they would consider a sin when the former exist, and would willingly do it.

 

My argument does not require them to go against their beliefs, but to justify them.

 

you know the score. 'god says x therefore x'.

 

aimed externally, i think it should be stopped, so: "god says 'thout shal not lay with another man', so homosexuality should be illegalised" i think is patently wrong and should not be allowed.

 

aimed internally, i think it should be allowed, so: "god says 'thout shal not lay with another man', so this church isnt going to marry gays" is, imo, acceptable, (albeit not very nice).

[Dak]

So how do single sex schools work?

 

By not allotting rights based on arbitrary characteristics.

 

how does that work?

 

sex is surely an arbitrary charechtoristic, and they are surely being denied the right to attend a specific school based upon it.

[-Demosthenes-]

I guess they have the right to do that, its their bigoted religious beliefs

How is it bigoted to think that a behavior (something someone controls) is morally wrong in their opinion?

[Sayonara]

Then I guess the same thing would happen with this situation?

No. The situations are not analagous. Same-sex schools segregate pupils for actual reasons that make sense, not because of an unexplained and ancient distinction. They also are not making a value judgement of any kind.

I myself went to an all-boys school, and the girls' school was about a mile away. At no point did I or anyone I knew think "hold on a minute, why can't I go to the girls' school instead?"

Even at 12 years old we were sufficiently astute to realise that the curriculum and pastoral care were more easily and efficiently organised if the genders were taught separately.

 

And even if same-sex schools were discriminatory, all you have done is said "hey, I found another example of discrimination being tolerated by society", which doesn't contribute to explaining the issue of prejudice in religous organisations.

 

 

sex is surely an arbitrary charechtoristic, and they are surely being denied the right to attend a specific school based upon it.

Because of the teaching method of the school, not because the pupils are judged unworthy of the right to learn. In fact most segregated schools are in fact two schools, at different sites.

 

And as I said above, an extra example wouldn't really help anyone.

 

 

there are religions who would marry gays' date=' and there are civil marrages. some -- even the majority of -- religions refusing to marry gays would not stop gays getting married, or even from getting married in a religiouse seromony.

 

given that a religion that refuses to marry gays would quite obviously be of the oppinion that gays shouldnt marry, id question a gays right to demand to be marryd by that church -- if they are followers of that church, they should accept gods will and not enter into a gay marrage; if they are not followers of that church, why would they specifically require that church to marry them, as opposed to one of the others.[/quote']

You seem to be either advocating the idea that people should choose which church to follow based on their marriage requirements, or suggesting that sexual and/or relationship preferences are immutable and predictable. Neither are true.

 

You are also synonymising the "rules" of churches with the wishes of god, which as a basis for argument is beyond tenuous.

 

larcenouce = theif.

a- = not (prefix)

alarcenouce = not theif.

I don't find any signs that word exists, but at least now I know what you meant.

The fact that the bible is selective about who it likes and who it doesn't is the entire problem I am highlighting, so pointing out that it doesn't disciminate against the control group isn't very helpful.

Also you'll notice that the argument "marriage is between a man and a woman" relies heavily on a black-and-white interpretation of gender identity which has been medically invalid for the better part of three centuries.

 

 

religions interpret these things in different ways. if a religion felt that marrying a thief would be going against gods wishes, then i dont feel that that church should be forsed to do what they feel is wrong by god; espescially as there exist numerouse other churches which will marry thiefs.

Well quite, but the idea that they might be forced to act against their wishes is not what I am advocating. I am trying to explain to you why people have a problem with the bar to marriage, not what ought to be done about it.

 

 

aimed internally, i think it should be allowed, so: "god says 'thout shal not lay with another man', so this church isnt going to marry gays" is, imo, acceptable, (albeit not very nice).

All well and good, but put yourself in the shoes of a seventeen year old girl who has been going to the same church with her family since she was born, has enough faith for two, and is just realising that she is in love with her female friend. You are unlikely to reconcile your emotional needs with the idea that your church's rules do not discriminate against you.

[the tree]

How is it bigoted to think that a behavior (something someone controls) is morally wrong in their opinion?

It isn't, but homosexuality is a preference, not a behaviour.

You seem to be advocating the idea that people should choose which church to follow based on their marriage requirements... not true.

If they wish to get get married, then they obviously don't see it as wrong. If the Church does see it as wrong then there's a pretty major difference in beliefs and it clearly isn't the right Church for them.

The church they choose should be choosen according to all thier beliefs, marriage included.

You are also synonymising the "rules" of churches with the wishes of god, which as a basis for argument is beyond tenuous.

If a church doesn't base it's rules on what it belives to be the wishes of it's God then what does it base them on?

[Pat Says]

It's their religion, I guess I just don't understand why they can't discriminate who gets married, if gay marriages were legalized it wouldn't be like they don't have an alternative to marry. They gay couples would still have an equal opportunity to get married just not with the tag of a Catholic marriage.

[Sayonara]

It isn't, but homosexuality is a preference, not a behaviour.

Homosexuality is an act. It's a behaviour that is (partially) governed by a preference.

 

 

If they wish to get get married, then they obviously don't see it as wrong. If the Church does see it as wrong then there's a pretty major difference in beliefs and it clearly isn't the right Church for them.

This appears to simply be repetition of what I was replying to, and does not advance the point.

 

The church they choose should be choosen according to all thier beliefs, marriage included.

If this is not held to be true for the rest of the members of the church (and it rarely is), I don't see why a special case must be made for homosexuals. Spot the recurring theme.

 

 

If a church doesn't base it's rules on what it belives to be the wishes of it's God then what does it base them on?

Even if a church has based its rules on the most sacred of their beliefs, which have remained essentially unchanged for centuries - and few have - they are still only basing them on an interpretation of what somebody once thought god wanted. I don't know about you, but I for one don't see why that should interfere with my life in a major way.

[Dak]

You seem to be either advocating the idea that people should choose which church to follow based on their marriage requirements, or suggesting that sexual and/or relationship preferences are immutable and predictable. Neither are true.

the former, sort of. if a persons sexual practices and their religiouse beliefs clash, then they have to abandon one or the other, or be a hypocrite.

 

if they feel their sexuality is the more inportant, then they can chose another church (and get married their). if they feel their church is the more inportant, then they can supress their homosexual desires and remain in the church, possibly even getting married there to a member of the opposite sex.

 

the root of hypocracy leeds to a position where they are essentially saying "I feel a strong need to get married in this particular church; what i dont feel a strong need to do is heed this churches teachings on homosexual marrage being bad".

 

either that particular churches take on marrage is inportant, in which case they should actually accept that its wrong for gays to marry, or its not inportant in which case they can get married elsewhere.

 

You are also synonymising the "rules" of churches with the wishes of god, which as a basis for argument is beyond tenuous.

 

a sects interpretations of the rules of god. thats whats inportant to them. i just feel its asking a bit much to expect them to go against what they perciev as gods wishes.

 

I am trying to explain to you why people have a problem with the bar to marriage, not what ought to be done about it.

 

O righty ho. im well aware of why people have a problem with it. but tollerance is a two way thing. religiouse people who feel that gays are debased and immoral are expected and forsed to tolerate homosexuals. I feel that homosexuals should be expected to tolerate the fact that some people have homo-unfriendly views.

 

<!--fatuigue sets in here-->

 

whilst the religiouse people who disaprove of gay marrage are forsed to tolerate the existance of gays and churches who will marry them, i think that gays should be forsed to tolerate the existance of churches who disaprove of gay marrage.

 

as long as gays have other churches to get married in, i dont think they should be forsed onto the churches who dont want to marry them.

 

in a similar vein: nazis can hate blacks for all i care, as long as they dont go around shouting abuse at them, beating them up or depriving them of jobs or in any other way being nasty to them. they dont have to like or accept them, only tolerate them. If they tolerate black people thus, i think black people should tolerate the fact that the tits exist, and that they will hang aroung in their little neo-nazi clubs slagging off black people. I also think black people should tolerate the fact that they will not be allowed in these clubs (as long as there are other clubs to go to).

 

religiouse people can bar homosexuals from their weddings, as long as other churches exist where they can get married, and aslong as the churches dont go around actively making the gays lifes hell. if think that they should be allowed to quietly disaprove of gays; forsing them to marry gays would be like a black man specifically going to a nazi club and ordering a pint.

 

if they dont like them but arent actively trying to harm them, then let them be... and let the gays tolerate certain churches quiet condemnation.

 

im very tired*, so the above might have sounded wrong,,, my central piont is that you cant force acceptance. you cant force religiouse people to accept gays. some will chose to of their own accord, others can be forced to tolerate them and not be actively nasty. i think its best for gays to just leave them be, and not force themselves on them.

 

of cource, all of that assumes that its actually based in homophobia, and not the genuine belief that god doesnt want gays to marry, which would make the argument against forsing them to marry gays stronger.

 

im still increadably curiouse as to why someone would want to get married in a church which condems them anyway.

 

[edit]----------------------------------

*dont spend too long arguing against anything from 'fatuigue sets in here', as ill probably agree that its cak and reword it tomorrow when im less tired. stoopid insomnia [/edit]

[Dak]

they are still only basing them on an interpretation of what somebody once thought god wanted. I don't know about you, but I for one don't see why that should interfere with my life in a major way.

 

it shouldnt.

 

unless you go to the church and ask for a religiouse seromony which is based heavaly on their interpretation of what somebody once thought god wanted.

 

in which case it will. obviously.

[In My Memory]

Tree,

 

Belive it or not' date=' it's actually defined in official legistation.

Wikipedia: hate crime

The US Congress (HR 4797 - 1992) defined a hate crime as: "[a crime in which] the defendant's conduct was motivated by hatred, bias, or prejudice, based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or gender identity of another individual or group of individuals."

That particular legislation is outdated, only extending to 1992. According to Wikipedia - Matthew Shepard:

The Shepard case prompted President Bill Clinton to renew attempts to extend federal hate crime legislation to include gays, women and the disabled. These efforts were rejected by the Republican majority in the House of Representatives in 1999.

 

 

Dak,

 

what right do gay people have to turn round to religiouse people and demand them to a)ignore the fact that their god has condemed homosexuals, and b)perform a religiouse ceromony on aforementioned condemed heathens, that c) is specifically desighned by god to unite two people of the opposite sex.

Dak, would you have any objection to two people getting divorced or remarrying other people? You probably dont find anything unusual about this, but the bible condemns this.

 

Do you find any objections to a theists marrying a non-theist? You should, because the bible condemns this.

 

Do you find any objections to people marrying who have had kids out of wedlock? You should, because the bible condemns this.

 

How do you feel about the fact the church sanctified same-sex marriages in the 4th century? Or how about the fact polygamous marriages were part of Jewish tradition for hundreds of years?

 

The basic point is that no one cares what the bible has to say about marriage unless the bible says something that agrees with their prejudices. The fact there are no groups dedicated to defending what the bible actually says about marriage, and instead single out gay marriage as unholy and evil is evidence of prejudice, not a committment to godly values.

 

 

Demosthenes,

 

How is it bigoted to think that a behavior (something someone controls) is morally wrong in their opinion?

Because the motivation is irrational. If someone isnt a bigot for being disgusted by certain behavior for non-rational reasons, what are they?

[Dak]

Dak, would you have any objection to two people getting divorced or remarrying other people? You probably dont find anything unusual about this, but the bible condemns this.

 

personaly, yes. i think it kinda defeats the point

 

Do you find any objections to a theists marrying a non-theist? You should, because the bible condemns this.

 

personally, no.

 

Do you find any objections to people marrying who have had kids out of wedlock? You should, because the bible condemns this.

 

personally, no. its better late than never.

 

How do you feel about the fact the church sanctified same-sex marriages in the 4th century? Or how about the fact polygamous marriages were part of Jewish tradition for hundreds of years?

 

personally, i think thats fine and dandy.

 

allthough, its up to variouse religions to interpret the bible as they see fit. there are valid religiouse arguments both for and against the above.

 

however, now that iv had some sleep and can think strait, i can see the argument against.

 

Ok, so as i see it, if a church refuses to wed gays, then its for one of two reasons:

 

1/ they genuinely believe that god doesnt wish gays to marry

 

2/ they hate poofs.

 

if one, then i think they should be allowed to refuse to wed gays. if two, then i can see now how thats wrong. a gay person shouldnt be deprived the right to be married by his/her faith simply because their priest is a homophobe (if god is a homophobe theres little can be done).

 

ok, so heres a question: if a church claims to think that god is against homosexual marriage, how do you determine wether they are genuinely of that oppinion, or just abusing their eccumenical position to enforce their own bias?

 

dont spend too long arguing against anything from 'fatuigue sets in here', as ill probably agree that its cak and reword it tomorrow when im less tired. stoopid insomnia

yep, i was tired; and that was indeed poorly worded (and irrelivant) cak

[the tree]

Homosexuality is an act. It's a behaviour that is (partially) governed by a preference.

homosexuality

n : a sexual attraction to (or sexual relations with) persons of the same sex

I'm pretty sure that who someone is attracted to comes under preference, it's not nessersarly an act.

If this is not held to be true for the rest of the members of the church (and it rarely is), I don't see why a special case must be made for homosexuals. Spot the recurring theme.

What do you mean by a special case for homosexuals? I never said that anyone should be sticking with a Church that they disagree with on any issue.

That particular legislation is outdated, only extending to 1992.

Meh, I only spent about a minute looking it up. I didn't have any idea that it was an official term until it was used in the OP.

[alibabba]

I think that all marriages should be civil unions conducted in the county clerk's office or in the office of a civil official designated to perform these contractual agreements, or even at a place designated by the couple if the government official can will do "house calls."

 

After that, if someone wants his marriage to have the blessing of his/her church, they can work that out with the church of their choice, but the church ceremony should have no legal status at all.

 

No church should be forced to conduct a marriage ceremony for anyone that it doesn't want to for any reason what-so-ever. It should be strictly up to the church.

 

After that, as far as gays are concerned, if they want to have the same civil union (contract) that other people get, then why not? If they can find a church that will sanction (in the eyes of the church) their marriage, fine. It is up to the church.

 

And incidently, I am about as "conservative" as they come and I do not oppose gay marriage.

[Sayonara]

homosexuality

n : a sexual attraction to (or sexual relations with) persons of the same sex

I'm pretty sure that who someone is attracted to comes under preference' date=' it's not nessersarly an act.[/quote']

Fair enough, as long as we're all using the term in the same way.

 

What do you mean by a special case for homosexuals? I never said that anyone should be sticking with a Church that they disagree with on any issue.

As IMM explained further in her previous post there are several reasons given in the bible why people can not be married, and the same-sex relationship is the only one which the church (and various public groups) chose as actual grounds for refusal. Thus they are making a special case against one arbitrarily selected group, which is the result of prejudice rather than piety.

[Aardvark]

Thus they are making a special case against one arbitrarily selected group, which is the result of prejudice rather than piety.

 

In a free society people should be allowed to hold arbitrary prejudices, just as long as they don't impose those prejudices on anyone else or cause a person harm throught the those prejudices.

 

If a Church decides that it will not marry two people because they are homosexual we may condemn the Churches decision but we should also respect its right to make that decision. The homosexual couple are not being denied their right to marry by the Church, rather they are merely being denied the right to marry in THAT Church, which is an important distinction.

 

We may strongly disagree with a religions beliefs/prejudices/practices, but as long as it is not imposing on others then no one has the right to impose on them. If a Church refuses to marry people because they are homosexual or because they are of mixed race or because they have green eyes that is the Churches perogative. Laws which are appropiate for keeping prejudice out of the Public sphere are not appropriate for the Private sphere.

[Dak]

The homosexual couple are not being denied their right to marry by the Church, rather they are merely being denied the right to marry in THAT Church, which is an important distinction.

 

thats what i was initially arguing, but what if the church make the desision based on the high-up's own personal oppinion of gays, and not on their interpretation of scripture?

 

thatd leave the gays in a position where they could think that christianity (for example) as interpreted by that church was the correct religion and therefore the one in which they should be married, and also that cristianity as interpreted by that religion allows gay marrage but that the bishops etc of that church were preventing gay marrage for personal (not religiouse) reasons.

[Aardvark]

thats what i was initially arguing, but what if the church make the desision based on the high-up clergy's own personal oppinion of gays, and not on their interpretation of scripture?

 

That's the high-up clergy's right. High-up clergy are allowed personal opinions, whether we agree with them or not.

 

 

thatd leave the gays in a position where they could think that christianity (for example) as interpreted by that church was the correct religion and therefore the one in which they should be married, and also that cristianity as interpreted by that religion[/i'] allows gay marrage but that the bishops etc of that church were preventing gay marrage for personal (not religiouse) reasons.

 

If the homosexuals have that disagreement with the Church then they can leave and go to a different Church where the clergy have different opinions.

 

It doesn't matter if we think that the clergy are acting according to personal prejudice or religious teaching. They are allowed to be as prejudiced and idiotic as they want in the private sphere. Part of living in a free society means tolerating people and behaviour you dislike or disapprove of.

[In My Memory]

Dak,

 

ok, so heres a question: if a church claims to think that god is against homosexual marriage, how do you determine wether they are genuinely of that oppinion, or just abusing their eccumenical position to enforce their own bias?

It doesnt matter what the churches think, because marriage is a state thing that involves legal rights. People dont want gays to have those legal rights (fundamentally, its no different than denying gays the right to vote or the right a trial by jury).

 

In terms of the state, marriage is secular. (There's a lot of talk about "civil unions", but thats just a redundant term for something we already have in our country - strangely, not as many people are offended by calling it a "civil union" than a "marriage". I dont know why this is, because many people already recognize several other kind of non-religious marriage, like common-law marriage.)

 

Marriage ceremonies take place in the church, and civil marriages are taken care of by the state - but, for some reason, many people think they are the same thing, and its due to this mistake that people are under the impression that legalizing gay marriage means forcing churches to marry people against their interests.

 

But, for the sake of argument, lets just say that religious marriage and legal marriage were the same thing. Now, what are we supposed to do when one church marries gays and another church refuses to - which church are we supposed to base our laws on? If you answer is "IMM, that doesnt make sense - we shouldnt single out one particular church out of all the others and one particular religious belief to make law, because that would be a violation of church and state", then you would be correct.

 

 

Aardvark,

 

The homosexual couple are not being denied their right to marry by the Church, rather they are merely being denied the right to marry in THAT Church, which is an important distinction.

They are also being denied to marry at the courthouse.

 

And our Defense of Marriage Act allows states to refuse recognizing the legal status of marriages in other states (this is unconstitutional as its an obvious violation of the Art IV, Sec 1 "Full Faith and Credit" clause).

[Dak]

It doesnt matter what the churches think, because marriage is a state thing that involves legal rights. People dont want gays to have those legal rights (fundamentally, its no different than denying gays the right to vote or the right a trial by jury).

 

i wasnt arguing that gays shouldnt be allowed to marry... like i said, i dont see the point and id advise them against it for a few reasons, but thats not enough for me to think that they shouldnt be allowed.

 

my argument was that they should be allowed civil marages, and allowed religiouse marrages by those sects that chose to marry them. those sects which chose not to should not be forsed to.

 

im now coming round to some of sayos arguments abit, but i still feel that if their descision is genuinly what they think god wants, they shouldnt be forsed to marry gays.

 

That's the high-up clergy's right. High-up clergy are allowed personal opinions, whether we agree with them or not.

 

they are not allowed to abuse their position in a way which is unjustifiably detrimental to others.

 

hence, if its just their personal oppinion, they shouldnt be able to use it as basis for denying gays marrage, in the same way that an enployer has the right to hate gays, but not to deny them enployment (unless there was a valid reason that gays couldnt/shouldnt perform the job)

[Sayonara]

If the homosexuals have that disagreement with the Church then they can leave and go to a different Church where the clergy have different opinions.

I'm not discussing Adam and Steve meeting resistance from their local vicar, I'm talking about institutionalised prejudices among both church leaders (or "staff" if you like) and the church as in "other worshippers".

 

The issue I have is with this suggestion that someone should be effectively barred from either:

a) Living their life as they feel is right, while practicing that religion,

b) Entering that religion with the "intention" of being homosexual, or

c) Staying in that religion after discovering their sexuality is not compatible with it,

...while any other parties the religion condemns are pretty much left to their own devices.

 

 

It doesn't matter if we think that the clergy are acting according to personal prejudice or religious teaching. They are allowed to be as prejudiced and idiotic as they want in the private sphere. Part of living in a free society means tolerating people and behaviour you dislike or disapprove of.

Yes, and the other part of living in a free society is having the right to not let other people's irrational prejudices have a very real impact upon your life. Hence the fact that we have laws expressly prohibiting discrimination in the public and private sectors (although personally I think calling the church part of the "private sphere" is pretty flimsy).

[Aardvark]

Aardvark' date='

 

They are also being denied to marry at the courthouse.

.[/quote']

 

I am aware of that but that wasn't the point i was discussing. I was discussing whether an individual Church had the right to refuse to conduct a wedding ceremony for homosexuals, not whether homosexuals should be denied the right to marry at all.

[Dak]

a) Living their life as they feel is right, while practicing that religion,

 

yes, but if that sect's interpretation of god's words lead them to the opinion that god forbids homosexuality, then they arent practicing that sect's religion, are they?

 

Itd be like me, without changing my diet, trying to join the Most-Holy-Vegan-Order-of-The-Sacred-Sprout (who believe that eating meat is the worst sin). i could not even begin to claim to practice that religion, for the simple reason that i am far too fond of sausage. the analogy should be obviouse.

 

Although i do see your point when you say this:

 

If this is not held to be true for the rest of the members of the church (and it rarely is), I don't see why a special case must be made for homosexuals. Spot the recurring theme.

 

someones sex is more relevant to marrage than wether or not they (for example) steal.

 

I guess im abit split on the issue now; without a means of determining wether or not the sect genuinly believe its gods will or are just homophobes, i dont think they should be forsed into marrying them.

[Sayonara]

yes' date=' but if that sect's interpretation of god's words lead them to the opinion that god forbids homosexuality, then they arent practicing that sect's religion, are they?

 

Itd be like me, without changing my diet, trying to join the Most-Holy-Vegan-Order-of-The-Sacred-Sprout (who believe that eating meat is the worst sin). i could not even begin to claim to practice that religion, for the simple reason that i am far too fond of sausage. the analogy should be obviouse.[/quote']

No, it's not the same thing.

 

To someone who believes in god with every fibre of their being, and wants to express that by worshipping in the way that seems most correct, the matter of their sexuality is going to be a minor concern to them by comparison and certainly is not the business of anyone they aren't having a relationship with.

 

The situation you described is not analagous at all - if it were, this hypothetical homosexual would need to be joining "the church of absolutely no gayers", whereas sexuality actually comes pretty low down on the list of most religion's priorities (until, it seems, the tiresome homos* want something).

 

 

Although i do see your point when you say this:

someones sex is more relevant to marrage than wether or not they (for example) steal.

True, but if the religion is going to start saying things like "two women marrying is wrong, but someone who has broken a commandment can marry if they like" without justifying it, and abdicating responsibility to scripture, they are simply reinforcing the idea that it's a decision founded in prejudice.

 

 

 

 

* sardony.