Are equal rights for gays incompatible with religious liberty?

[lilithu]

Which is why I think it's all a bit of a waste of time. Except for being able to stretch some intellectual muscles. Then again, there are other and more productive ways to do that too.

Yes, I have thought that many times too.

But there are a couple of things that keep me in it:

1. If no one says anything in opposition, I just can't help but feel that somehow that looks like we condone it. You may not have managed to win any debates in the Rosie/chingchong thread but I can tell you that your posts made me feel less alone.

2. We may not be able to convince the person who is adamantly against us. But for every one of those, there may be more sitting on the fence. We may never hear from them. But maybe we made a difference.

Or I could just be deluding myself.

At any rate, even if we do occasionally make a difference, I wonder if I shouldn't be pursuing more effective ways to do so.

 

[Green Gaia]

Again, I don't see these two things (a hypothetical question and a hypothetical answer) at odds with each other.

Except the question has a basis in reality (what the heck do you think we're fighting for?) and your made up scenario is not; there is no legitimate basis for your assumption. Again, answer the question or don't, but stop wasting my time by going in circles.

 

[CRB]

Not completely. There are a couple of considerations I'd like to add to the pot. Then we can see what gets cooked up.
#1 The situation in Massachussets, where the R.C. church was prohibited from participation in the foster care system because they refused to behave in a certain manner. Accomodation could have been made by the state, but the situation was reduced to full participation or no participation. In that case the participatory liberty of a Christian group was limited for the sake of the agenda. A compromise for accompdation = could have been reached, but it wasn't seriously attempted. The net is a restriction on liberty, and it's documented history, not theory.

Information is at (change "dot" to . to create appropriate URL with http out front):
topics dot nytimes dot com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/a/adoptions/index dot html?query=HOMOSEXUALITY&field=des&match=exact

(I'm to new to post URLs.)

#2 I'm concerned about gay marriage because marriage is a cultural and religious affair which the states (US) recognize and regulate in certain cases. States could grant all of the same legal and economic benefits through a well-developed set of civil relationships. It would be beneficial for many groups besides the homosexual community and entirely meet the need without impinging on cultural and religious matters. It might surprize people to know that, as I understand, Dr. Dobson holds a similar opinion. (It's really quite liberal when you think about it.) It meets the needs as stated and keeps the state out of the church and culture.
Gay rights don't have to interfere with religious liberty. There are ways to accomodate needs and keep the state out of the church.

 

[Pah]

Win? We never win these debates, whether it's BGLT equality or the Iraq war or anything else. We spend a fair amount of time researching facts, analyzing, composing a coherent argument, thinking that maybe finally our logic will convince someone... and then the response is usually something like "Anyone can lie with statistics." or "You're just being pc."

You call that winning?

And despite facts, it is, in the anti-gay crowd, a theological issue. I think the reference to PC and denial of studies is only cover for homophobic religion.

 

[MaddLlama]

Not completely. There are a couple of considerations I'd like to add to the pot. Then we can see what gets cooked up.
#1 The situation in Massachussets, where the R.C. church was prohibited from participation in the foster care system because they refused to behave in a certain manner. Accomodation could have been made by the state, but the situation was reduced to full participation or no participation. In that case the participatory liberty of a Christian group was limited for the sake of the agenda. A compromise for accompdation = could have been reached, but it wasn't seriously attempted. The net is a restriction on liberty, and it's documented history, not theory.
#2 I'm concerned about gay marriage because marriage is a cultural and religious affair which the states (US) recognize and regulate in certain cases. States could grant all of the same legal and economic benefits through a well-developed set of civil relationships. It would be beneficial for many groups besides the homosexual community and entirely meet the need without impinging on cultural and religious matters. It might surprize people to know that, as I understand, Dr. Dobson holds a similar opinion. (It's really quite liberal when you think about it.) It meets the needs as stated and keeps the state out of the church and culture.
Gay rights don't have to interfere with religious liberty. There are ways to accomodate needs and keep the state out of the church.

Actaully, I think the whole problem is that certain church-going folk simply don't realize that a word can have more than one definition and use. Does the fact that the government uses the word marriage to refer to a legal ceremony having absolutely 100% nothing to do with any religious rite interfere with your religious liberty?

I think that beyond the marriage issue it boils down to one thing: If your religion forbids something, do you therefore have the right to try to mandate it out of existence, and keep people who don't follow your religion from having it? The ability to participate in the democratic process is one thing, but I think human and civil rights are beyond the need to vote for in the first place. If the feminazi's wanted to keep men from doing a bunch of things, do you really think something like that would even reach a vote?

 

[McBell]

Not completely. There are a couple of considerations I'd like to add to the pot. Then we can see what gets cooked up.
#1 The situation in Massachussets, where the R.C. church was prohibited from participation in the foster care system because they refused to behave in a certain manner. Accomodation could have been made by the state, but the situation was reduced to full participation or no participation. In that case the participatory liberty of a Christian group was limited for the sake of the agenda. A compromise for accompdation = could have been reached, but it wasn't seriously attempted. The net is a restriction on liberty, and it's documented history, not theory.

Would you be so kind as to provide a link.
I do not want to comment without knowing exactly which situation you are referring to.

#2 I'm concerned about gay marriage because marriage is a cultural and religious affair which the states (US) recognize and regulate in certain cases. States could grant all of the same legal and economic benefits through a well-developed set of civil relationships. It would be beneficial for many groups besides the homosexual community and entirely meet the need without impinging on cultural and religious matters. It might surprize people to know that, as I understand, Dr. Dobson holds a similar opinion. (It's really quite liberal when you think about it.) It meets the needs as stated and keeps the state out of the church and culture.
Gay rights don't have to interfere with religious liberty. There are ways to accomodate needs and keep the state out of the church.

This is the interesting thing.
To many people, marriage is religious.
However, once you strip away all the window dressing, marriage is a legal contract.
Religious window dressing is OPTIONAL.


I

 

[MaddLlama]

Here's a good question for you all....

What exactly is it about homosexual civil rights that could possibly interfere with your religious liberty, where civil rights for race/ethnicity, and gender don't have any interference?

When civil rights for Africa Americans was being considered, did the church argue against it just like they're doing today with the gay community? Yes, yes they did. Many staunch religious conservatives at the time were vehemently against the desegregation of schools. They believed that the subjugation of black people to white people was part of God's design, and that was more important than racial equality. Sound familiar? But, the religious lost that battle and there was no more segregation between the races in public places. Yet, the church was able to carry on, and their ability to practice their religion was not hindered. And, to my knowledge, no church was ever forced by the government through the passage of laws to accept black members or perform interracial marriages when they didn't want to. The church simply revised its policy over time and realized that racist policies were unnecessary. However, the point is that in giving them civil rights at the opposition to the religious conservatives still did not infringe on the Christian ability to be a Christian.

In the late 1800's there was also vocal opposition from the Christians for women's rights. Many argued that if we gave women a higher status in society, it would lower the status of man and therefore displease God, that God wanted men to have tyranny about women, and that having such rights would keep women from performing their "womenly duties". But, women got the right to vote and a whole lot of other rights as well. Now women and men are equal for the most part (I quantify that since it's a slight point of contention). Did giving women rights interfere with the church's ability to operate as a church? Did it somehow stop Christians from being Christian? No, they carried on with their lives with no interference. Some churches today allow women to be priests and ministers or what have you, and some still have a policy that keeps women from that position. However I am unaware of any instance where the government forced the church through legal sanctions to allow a woman to hold a certain office in the church.

So, the idea seems to be that if homosexuals are also extended civil rights, then the government will force the church to accommodate them. Frankly, that idea doesn't fit with the civil rights pattern at all. So, maybe someone can point out to me where the difference is and why? And, for that matter, did women's rights and desegregation actually interfere with the religious liberty of Christians at all?

 

[lilithu]

#1 The situation in Massachussets, where the R.C. church was prohibited from participation in the foster care system because they refused to behave in a certain manner. Accomodation could have been made by the state, but the situation was reduced to full participation or no participation. In that case the participatory liberty of a Christian group was limited for the sake of the agenda. A compromise for accompdation = could have been reached, but it wasn't seriously attempted. The net is a restriction on liberty, and it's documented history, not theory.

Assuming that what you say is accurate - and like Mestemia, I would like some links for that - the error can be addressed in court. No one is denying that in the effort to protect BGLT rights that some people may unnecessarily infringe on religious liberty in some places. But our constitutional law is set up to address that.

#2 I'm concerned about gay marriage because marriage is a cultural and religious affair which the states (US) recognize and regulate in certain cases. States could grant all of the same legal and economic benefits through a well-developed set of civil relationships. It would be beneficial for many groups besides the homosexual community and entirely meet the need without impinging on cultural and religious matters. It might surprize people to know that, as I understand, Dr. Dobson holds a similar opinion. (It's really quite liberal when you think about it.) It meets the needs as stated and keeps the state out of the church and culture.

There is admittedly overlap, but "cultural" and "religious" are not the same. I'm quite certain that many feel that they participate in American culture even tho they do not participate in anything religious.

But as for your "compromise", from my perspective that would be fine as long as states simultaneously give up any claim to authority over marriage in general - for hetero couples as well as same-sex couples. In other words, if marriage really is a religious affair, then the states' ability to grant marriages constitutes a violation of the separation of church and state and the states should have no part in it.

Again, the topic of this thread is whether equal rights for BGLT is incompatible with religious liberty. If everyone received only civil unions from the state, with the option of going to the church of their choosing for marriage, then there would be equality without any infringement upon religious liberty.

Soo...if there are religious groups that are concerned about the sacrament of marriage, then they should work in coalition with BGLT rights groups with the purpose of removing marriage from the civil domain and establishing civil unions for everyone. That would be in everyone's interests, would it not? I can give James Dobson the phone number to the Human Rights Campaign if he needs it.

 

[CRB]

That's why I used the terms Religious and Cultural. I realize that it's not just religious. There seems to be (and I'd ask you for more explanation so that I don't presume upon your statements) that the secular contract isn't enough. There seems to be a desire to impinge on the rest of society and gain not just the legal rights (that can be done via contract) but to affect the social and cultural institutions themselves.
There's no need for a secular marriage if a simple contract can accomplish the same thing. In fact, it would be easier on everyone if the simplest approach were taken.

 

[McBell]

That's why I used the terms Religious and Cultural. I realize that it's not just religious. There seems to be (and I'd ask you for more explanation so that I don't presume upon your statements) that the secular contract isn't enough. There seems to be a desire to impinge on the rest of society and gain not just the legal rights (that can be done via contract) but to affect the social and cultural institutions themselves.
There's no need for a secular marriage if a simple contract can accomplish the same thing. In fact, it would be easier on everyone if the simplest approach were taken.

You seem to not understand that marriage is a legal contract. period.
All this religious hype is just that, hype.
It has absolutely zero bearing on the legalities of the marriage.

UNTIL you get to same sex marriage.
RELIGION is the reason why it isn't allowed.
Since religion is merely window dressing tacked onto marriage by the individual couples, there should have to be a secular reason to ban same sex couples from entering into the legal contract.

There isn't one.

 

[lilithu]

That's why I used the terms Religious and Cultural. I realize that it's not just religious. There seems to be (and I'd ask you for more explanation so that I don't presume upon your statements) that the secular contract isn't enough. There seems to be a desire to impinge on the rest of society and gain not just the legal rights (that can be done via contract) but to affect the social and cultural institutions themselves.

I am not sure who this is addressed to. You seem to be responding to my post but your response was tacked onto MaddLlama's post. It would greatly help avoid confusion if you could quote from the person to whom you are responding. Thanks.

There are some in this thread and in society who would insist that marriage be made available to all regardless of how churches feel about marriage. I recognize that. I think it stems from the impression of churches having imposed their views on society in general, and therefore there is antipathy towards churches and little motivation to take their concerns into account. That is not where I am coming from, and I know that I am not alone. Over and over again I have heard from people who, while insisting on BGLT equality, would be willing to achieve equality in a way that does not impinge upon the church's definition of marriage.

That was what my whole post was about. If marriage is religious, and I accept the view that it is, then it does not belong in the domain of the state. Wouldn't you agree? So I reiterate, if people want to "protect" the sanctity of marriage then they should be working to remove it from the civil domain. If they refuse to remove marriage from the civil domain, then marriage cannot be considered religious, and therefore there is no reason not open it to all people.

Any desire to "impinge" upon society is no more than the desire to achieve equality, which I'm told is an American societal value.

There's no need for a secular marriage if a simple contract can accomplish the same thing. In fact, it would be easier on everyone if the simplest approach were taken.

As long as you mean "a simple contract" for everyone, we are in agreement.

 

[Aqualung]

First of all, the current hate crimes law does not make hateful thought illegal. Only actions are illegal. All it does is make actions motivated by hatred based on race or religion carry a stiffer punishment.

Exactly. So the difference between a crime and a hate crime is HATE, an emotion. So, hate is a crime in this regard.

Second of all, by your logic all hate crimes laws infringe upon citizens rights. It has nothing to do with adding sexual orientation to the list.

Adding sexual orientation to the list makes the infringement upon civil liberties GREATER. It doesn't START the infringement, but rather advances them to new levels. In other words, it does infringe upon civil liberties, but civil liberties that are at least partly infringed upon by other laws as well.

You can debate the legality of hate crimes laws in another thread. The OP was asking whether BGLT equality posed a threat to religious liberty. In other words, if there already is a hate crimes law, which there is, does adding BGLT to the already existent list of those protected pose a threat. No, it doesn't.

You're right. But you also said that it was wrong for me (or us, but I don't know who else is taking this stand) to only discuss only the marriage issue, but in my view this is the only issue which has any possible bearing on religion at all. So, while in the areas you mentioned granting equality to gays would infringe upon rights in general, none of them would infringe upon religious rights. And, we are back to my one scenario which only standing_alone has been able to counter (quite nicely, I might add).

I've read your "analysis," and as several people have already told you, your "analysis" is faulty.

But only one person has bothered to tell me how. Sure, you can come in here and SAY it's faulty, but unless you actually show it, that's true.

Your interpretation regarding Brown v. Dade is incorrect. And furthermore, you have not established a connection between it and its relevance to churches.

You're right, but I'm no longer arguing this point, either.

 

[Aqualung]

Your analyses are based on things that are, to the best of my knowledge, factually incorrect:

This is what my analysis is based upon:

P1 when civil equality issues for blacks were being fought, it infringed upon private business owners.

P2 Churches are in the business of marrying.

C1 If civil equality for gays is fought, this could lead to the rights of private marriage-bussiness owners being infringed upon.

I brought up cases to show where racial equality infringed upon the rights of private entities to show that the liberties of said private entities were diminshed. Then I maintain that if people took the not-so-far-fetched stance that a church is a business (whereas a faith is a religion), specifically a business that dabbles in the area of marriages, that this could lead to churches having to marry people who they don't want to. To support the not-so-far-fetched stance that a church is a business in the eyes of the law, I have mentioned that churches need to pay property taxes, if churches sell things they must pay sales tax, schools run by religions must pay taxes, etc. This shows that, at least in the eyes of the government, there is either a direct and willful disregard for the seperation of church and state or church is being interpreted much more leneiently to mean religion, and religion interpreted to mean faith, rather than the exterior structors of the church itself.

 

[Aqualung]

Except the question has a basis in reality

This is not correct. Your question is upon the assumption that you will win your fight, which has not yet happened. It's not, "Is fighting for gay equality infringing upon people's rights", but rather "If gays were given equality, would this infringe upon civil rights." Gays don't have euqlity, so this DOESN'T have a basis in reality. Or, it has just as much basis in reality as my scenario (I hypothetical basis based upon our own respective analysis of current political/legal trends).

Again, answer the question or don't, but stop wasting my time by going in circles.

I can't possibly waste your time. It's yours. Either you will choose to explain yourself more clearly (ie, you will choose to answer my questions and assuage my confusion), which takes time, or you will choose to not, which takes no time. But, the choice is up to you. I am not purposely wasting your time, because I genuinely don't understand what you are saying. If you think I'm not worth your time, but you still answer, you are wasting your own time, and you will have to deal with the consequences of that yourself without blaming me for wasting something that I have no access to whatsoever.

 

[lilithu]

Adding sexual orientation to the list makes the infringement upon civil liberties GREATER. It doesn't START the infringement, but rather advances them to new levels. In other words, it does infringe upon civil liberties, but civil liberties that are at least partly infringed upon by other laws as well.

By that logic, anyone of the protected identities being on the list makes the "infringement" "greater." There is no reason to single out sexual orientation. btw, the hate crimes bill that just passed in the House adds gender and disability to the list as well.

But only one person has bothered to tell me how. Sure, you can come in here and SAY it's faulty, but unless you actually show it, that's true.

:banghead3 I told you how in the very next paragraph, with a link and everything! Convenient to snip it out and then claim I'm just SAYing things.

You're right, but I'm no longer arguing this point, either.

Then you have no point.

 

[Aqualung]

By that logic, anyone of the protected identities being on the list makes the "infringement" "greater."

Esactly! I'm glad somebody is actually understanding me now!

:banghead3 I told you how in the very next paragraph, with a link and everything! Convenient to snip it out and then claim I'm just SAYing things.

No, you provided a link to ONE case that I MENTIONED IN PASSING a really long time ago. I am no longer arguing that case.

Then you have no point.

As a matter of fact I do. I summed it up about three posts ago or so, when I responded to Mr Spinks. You can look at that for my summary, and then go back through the posts to find my support of those points.

 

[Aasimar]

You seem to not understand that marriage is a legal contract. period.
All this religious hype is just that, hype.
It has absolutely zero bearing on the legalities of the marriage.

UNTIL you get to same sex marriage.
RELIGION is the reason why it isn't allowed.
Since religion is merely window dressing tacked onto marriage by the individual couples, there should have to be a secular reason to ban same sex couples from entering into the legal contract.

There isn't one.

Don't get me wrong, I think gays should be able to marry, as an atheist there is no reason for me to think otherwise. However Marriage is a legal contract, there are benefits involved with it. What is the reason for these benefits? The government rewards those who are married with tax breaks, join filings, etc. Now though I am not positive this is the reason, it stands to reason that male/female marriage is encouraged and rewarded because it benefits society (i.e. children.) Now while I think gay marriage should be allowed, should it get the same benefits? Along that same note, shouldn't a gay couple with an adopted child get the benefits? And shouldn't a straight couple with no children not get the benefits? Should marriage be rewarded or should raising children be rewarded?

 

[lilithu]

Esactly! I'm glad somebody is actually understanding me now!

And my very next sentence, which you again snipped out, is that there is no reason to single out BGLT equality as the one that should not be added to the list.

In other words, if you don't like the hate crimes law in general, work against the hate crimes law in general. This has nothing to do with BGLT equality.

No, you provided a link to ONE case that I MENTIONED IN PASSING a really long time ago. I am no longer arguing that case.

As a matter of fact I do. I summed it up about three posts ago or so, when I responded to Mr Spinks. You can look at that for my summary, and then go back through the posts to find my support of those points.

I see. So you are just switching from one argument to another as they get discredited.

Goodbye.

 

[Aasimar]

I see. So you are just switching from one argument to another as they get discredited.

So flexibility and willing to admit that you are wrong is bad? What a closed-minded thing to say. I hope no one else thinks mindlessly sticking to a discredited argument is a good thing. Believe it or not, being wrong is part of the learning process. I don't think anyone should try to insult or demean someone else because they were wrong or admitted they were wrong.

 

[lilithu]

So flexibility and willing to admit that you are wrong is bad? What a closed-minded thing to say. I hope no one else thinks mindlessly sticking to a discredited argument is a good thing. Believe it or not, being wrong is part of the learning process. I don't think anyone should try to insult or demean someone else because they were wrong or admitted they were wrong.

Have you read this read?? Where has she admitted that she is wrong in any of the points that she's abandoned?? Yes, it is wonderful to be able to concede when you are wrong. It's quite another to move from argument to argument, with no accountability to what you've said, all in the pursuit of proving your overall point to be correct.