Are equal rights for gays incompatible with religious liberty?

[MaddLlama]

Nobody has anything to say about my post? I'm a bit disappointed.
I suppose those who don't understand history are doomed to repeat it...

 

[Aqualung]

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.

I thought for some reason that you understood my reason since you quite succinctly rephrased it. Sorry, I didn't mean to unduly ignore parts - I just thought it was asked and answered.

The reason to deny gays this rights it the same reason we should deny these rights to everybody. You are making an is/ought fallacy to say that because these groups of people ARE given these "rights," that other groups of people OUGHT to be given these "rights" as well. It's similar to saying, because black people were slaves, indians ought to be slaves as well. Your further restricting freedom because it's already restricted a little bit. The little bit of restriction is not justified, so the further restriction is certainly not justified.

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.

It does if you (and you did) define equality as being allowed have hate crime legislation passed in your favour. You, so far, are the only one who has defined "equality" (which is what my entire discussion has been about - more specifically, does "equality" mean "being able to be married anywhere where a straight can be" or does it mean "being allowed to married"). You have chosen to define one aspect of "equality" as "having hate crime legilation passed in your favour", among other things. From this defintion, supplied by you, I have begun to argue that this would infringe upon my rights in general. So, yes, this general idea of hate crimes has to specifically with GLBT equality, because you brought it into a discussion about GLBT equality. I was perfectly happy to discuss just the marriage issue, but since you brought up hate crime legislation I am just as happy discussing how that infringes upon rights, too. But, as I mentioned before when you pointed it out, not religious rights. So we can drop it if you want, but you ahve to be the one to drop it. I will respond to any post you create in this regard. Your choice is to post or not post.

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

That's right. Is there a problem with that? I chose a stance that I didn't necessarily agree with but that I thought would afford (a) a good debate and (b) a good learning experience. When people point out my errors, I find it better practice to learn from my mistakes (eg, posting a law suit that didn't really fit with the subject) rather than ignore the counter arguments of those whom I debate. Again, though, I don't really see a problem with this, but I would like to know what you think the problem is.

Aasimar says it pretty well, I suppose, by saying:

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.

so kudos to him.

Goodbye.

Hope you have a good day.

 

[Green Gaia]

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).

Oh forget it AL. You definitely live up to your title. I will move on to people to actually want to answer the question.

 

[Aqualung]

Oh forget it AL.

Suit yourself.

You definitely live up to your title. I will move on to people to actually want to answer the question.

I don't appreciate this type of rudeness, and I would greatly appreciate if in the course of debate you would either refrain from it or not respond to me at all. Thanks.

 

[Green Gaia]

I don't appreciate this type of rudeness, and I would greatly appreciate if in the course of debate you would either refrain from it or not respond to me at all. Thanks.

How is it rude when you say it about yourself? And I would great appreciate if in the course of debate you would either refrain from derailing an entire thread with your rufusals to answer the question or not respond at all. Thanks.

 

[Green Gaia]

So, does anyone want to actually discuss the topic of the thread? Can anyone show me how gays rights are fundamentally incompatible with religious liberty?

Lilithu, ours is a religion that supports gay rights, do you feel our religious liberty is infringed upon by denial of equal rights for gblt people by the government?

 

[Green Gaia]

Nobody has anything to say about my post? I'm a bit disappointed.
I suppose those who don't understand history are doomed to repeat it...

I saw it and it was a very good post. Frubals!

 

[Aqualung]

How is it rude when you say it about yourself? And I would great appreciate if in the course of debate you would either refrain from derailing an entire thread with your rufusals to answer the question or not respond at all. Thanks.

I've answered every question you've posed, starting with your question of is it possible for gay equality to infringe upon religious liberty. The entire derailment, though, was caused by a lack of an answer for what "equality" meant (posed in, I think, the second or third post of the thread). If you want to answer that question, the entire discussion, which based on one interpretation of the word equal, might be rendered invalid and we can get to the meat of the discussion. To reiterate that question:

If "equal" means "being able to get married any place where straigh people can" then it would be an infringement. If "equal" means "being able to enter into the same type of marriage contract as straight people", then no it wouldn't.

I'll put it a different way. You posed a question about the equality of gays and if it would infringe upon religious liberty. I said it depended on how equality was defined. The entire rest of thread was spent trying to determine, if equality were define the first way, if this would infringe upon religious rights. I think, however, that if you think I am off topic this is because you, in your mind, had defined equality the second way. Is this the case, or am I still off track?

 

[bluestone]

Personally, I don't see why giving anyone in the LGBT community equal rights would infringe on religious liberty. We are all people, and we should all have the same rights. It should not matter what our sexual orientation is, or what religion we are. To my knowledge, the main rights that are not afforded to homosexuals are the right to marry and the right to adopt, and that's only in certain countries. (Please correct me if I am wrong.) I see no problem with allowing same-sex marraige or adoptions, for those things in no way affect or invalidate the marraige or family life of heterosexual couples, nor do they infringe upon the rights of heterosexual couples.

Religions are at complete liberty to allow anyone they want to be in their religion, and likewise to allow anyone they want to get married. It works in reverse as well...if a specific religion chooses not to allow same-sex marraige, that is their right. However, that same couple should be allowed to get married by the state, or in another religion, if the other religion allows it. It's a basic right. The same goes for adoptions, but only if the adoption agency is not recieving and State-sponsored children or funding. If they are recieving State-sponsored children or funding, they should be required to follow state guidelines relating to adoption, even if those guidelines go against their religion. I see no problem with private agencies who are not affiliated with the state in any way restricting who they adopt to, however.

 

[Aqualung]

Personally, I don't see why giving anyone in the LGBT community equal rights would infringe on religious liberty. We are all people, and we should all have the same rights.

Again, I find mysefl asking, same in what way? Do you mean that if I get married by a priest a gay person should be able to be married by the same priest?

Religions are at complete liberty to allow anyone they want to be in their religion, and likewise to allow anyone they want to get married.

Ah, but this only applies if you define "same" to mean "similar". Gay people should be allowed similar marriages, but if they are allowed to request the same marriages (eg, a marriage by a priest), and if that priest is legally required to obey in order to maintain sameness (instead of similarity) this could be problematic.

 

[MaddLlama]

I've answered every question you've posed, starting with your question of is it possible for gay equality to infringe upon religious liberty. The entire derailment, though, was caused by a lack of an answer for what "equality" meant (posed in, I think, the second or third post of the thread). If you want to answer that question, the entire discussion, which based on one interpretation of the word equal, might be rendered invalid and we can get to the meat of the discussion. To reiterate that question:

If "equal" means "being able to get married any place where straigh people can" then it would be an infringement. If "equal" means "being able to enter into the same type of marriage contract as straight people", then no it wouldn't.

I'll put it a different way. You posed a question about the equality of gays and if it would infringe upon religious liberty. I said it depended on how equality was defined. The entire rest of thread was spent trying to determine, if equality were define the first way, if this would infringe upon religious rights. I think, however, that if you think I am off topic this is because you, in your mind, had defined equality the second way. Is this the case, or am I still off track?

The problem is that nobody in the GLBT community, that I know of, is defining "equality" in the first way. That's been said so many times in so many threads I'm sick of writing it. This is not a hypothetical debate of "well, if we define it this way, then this happens, but if we change to mean something else then this happens". We're talking about the reality of the situation, and as far as marriage goes (and I agree that it's probably the only area that one could possible argue the religious liberty), nobody is saying, or has ever said that they want to be able to, as you put it, "get married in all the same places straight people can". Nobody here on the forum has ever argued that, and no Gay Rights organizations have argued that (at least none that I know of).
The issue is whether or not allowing the government to extend legal benefits and contracts to homosexual couples, with optional participation from religious groups is an infringement of anyone's religious freedom. And, assuming the answer is no, then what reason is there to be against gay rights?

 

[lilithu]

Lilithu, ours is a religion that supports gay rights, do you feel our religious liberty is infringed upon by denial of equal rights for gblt people by the government?

Yes. It is our first (ie-primary) principle that we affirm and promote the inherent worth of every person. This means that every person is meant to have the opportunities to live the richest, fullest lives of their capacities, and that anything that gets in the way of these opportunities is morally wrong. It is also our belief, as suggested by our principles 2 and 6, that it is our religious duty to pursue justice where there is injustice. It is our religious duty to pursue equity where there is inequity. In terms of BLGT rights it means that, for those of us who are queer it would be a sin to complacently accept one's second-class status. And for those of us UUs who are straight, it would be a sin to complicitly allow this inequity to continue. The struggle for BGLT equality is part and parcel of our living faith. The continued denial of equal rights affronts our deepest religious values.

 

[lilithu]

Again, I find mysefl asking, same in what way? Do you mean that if I get married by a priest a gay person should be able to be married by the same priest?

Geez louise, No!

 

[Aqualung]

The problem is that nobody in the GLBT community, that I know of, is defining "equality" in the first way.

Unfortunately for me, and what has created a lot of opportunities for others to redicule me ceaslesses and, IMO, groundlessly, is that it HASN'T been defined, at all, in this thread.

That's been said so many times in so many threads I'm sick of writing it. This is not a hypothetical debate of "well, if we define it this way, then this happens, but if we change to mean something else then this happens". We're talking about the reality of the situation,

In reality, the situation doesn't exist at all, though, so that doesn't make sense. In fact, I'm getting sick of writing this, too. We seem to be talking past each other. You think it's a reality and I don't. What do you think is a reality? I think that it's not a reality that gays have equal rights, so any definition MUST by hypothetical. As I have mentioned before, I see that there is a distinct possibility that legal system could define it either way. So why do you think your definition is better? And, by the way, what is your definition (since this word still hasn't been defined)?

and as far as marriage goes (and I agree that it's probably the only area that one could possible argue the religious liberty), nobody is saying, or has ever said that they want to be able to, as you put it, "get married in all the same places straight people can".

But then what do you mean by "equal"?

The issue is whether or not allowing the government to extend legal benefits and contracts to homosexual couples, with optional participation from religious groups is an infringement of anyone's religious freedom. And, assuming the answer is no, then what reason is there to be against gay rights?

Well, then, if that's how equality is defined, then no. And thank you for being the first person, after like thirty pages, to define the key term of the debate.

 

[lilithu]

Unfortunately for me, and what has created a lot of opportunities for others to redicule me ceaslesses and, IMO, groundlessly, is that it HASN'T been defined, at all, in this thread.

Well, then, if that's how equality is defined, then no. And thank you for being the first person, after like thirty pages, to define the key term of the debate.

It has been defined several times in this thread by several different posters, and I know you've read at least some of the posts because you argued with them.

If you truly did not get it until just now then that's an unfortunate misunderstanding, but it is not the fault of those you did not understand.

 

[MaddLlama]

Unfortunately for me, and what has created a lot of opportunities for others to redicule me ceaslesses and, IMO, groundlessly, is that it HASN'T been defined, at all, in this thread.

No. It hasn't. However, people have said several times in this thread that equality is NOT being defined as "being able to force the church to do something it doesn't want". So, that definition of equality was thrown out at the start. There aren't really many other options to work with.

In reality, the situation doesn't exist at all, though, so that doesn't make sense. In fact, I'm getting sick of writing this, too. We seem to be talking past each other. You think it's a reality and I don't. What do you think is a reality? I think that it's not a reality that gays have equal rights, so any definition MUST by hypothetical. As I have mentioned before, I see that there is a distinct possibility that legal system could define it either way. So why do you think your definition is better? And, by the way, what is your definition (since this word still hasn't been defined)?

The reality of the situation is that homosexuals are being denied certain things partially on the very basis that if we allow gay couples to get married it will somehow infringe on the Christian's ability to be Christian. Maybe you just haven't been keeping up with the issue in the news.
Why is my definition better? Because its the definition that is most likely to make it through the court. Did you read my post about black civil rights and women's rights? In the history of civil rights I can't think of a time where the government forced a church to do something it didn't want to. Why would it start now?

Well, then, if that's how equality is defined, then no. And thank you for being the first person, after like thirty pages, to define the key term of the debate.

Like I said, the idea that equality means that gay people can get married in any church by any priest they want was thrown out on the very first page. You onlt presented 2 options in your fist post in this thread: 1. If gay people want to get married in the same place as straight people, then it is; 2. if gay people just want to be able to get married, then no it doesn't.
3 people then responded to your post and said that nobody on the board or in politics has suggested that we define equality as the first definition. So, how many more options are left? I think we all were hoping that since these were your options you could infer which one was correct. So, I'm still not sure why you were clinging to that definition later in the thread. I can see where people are frustrated, because you brought up hypothetical situations based on the assumption that we're defining equality in a way that everyone already said we aren't.
I don't know if maybe you just didn't see the responses to your first post, but I think this issue was put to rest 25 pages ago.

 

[Green Gaia]

Again, I find mysefl asking, same in what way? Do you mean that if I get married by a priest a gay person should be able to be married by the same priest?

Are you kidding me???

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,.... a thousand times NO! How many times do we have to say it?!?!

Here it is again for those who weren't paying attention earlier....

The fight for equal marriage is not a fight for religious marriage, but civil marriage.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

MaddLlama -

All I have to say about your post (the one about historical civil rights movements) is.....frubalicious. Thanks for bringing some clear-cut historical cases and facts to bear on this discussion.

Post # 232:

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

Yep, and the difference between a premeditated murder and a crime of passion is thinking. So, thinking is a crime in this regard, too. :areyoucra

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.

Well, I wouldn't characterize it as private business owners' rights being "infringed upon", but I at any rate I see your point - I have some libertarian leanings as well, so I can sympathize.

Your argument raises complicated legal concerns that I don't expect to resolve on this thread, so I'll just respond with a few points for your consideration; I don't expect you to agree, but just consider them:

• (Response to P1) If private business owners use their "right to discriminate" to block (say, homosexual) people from getting home loans, or employment, not on the basis of merit but on prejudice, they are infringing upon the rights of homosexuals. We have to decide which "rights" trump the others. Current constitutional law recognizes civil rights, not economic discrimination "rights".
• (Response to P2) The law distinguishes bewteen religion and private business. Freedom of religion is very clear in the Constitution. However, the government must necessarily draw a line between what constitutes "religion". When churches start SELLING stuff, as opposed to simply accepting donations, and when they start making a PROFIT off of it, the line between business and religion becomes blurred, and yes if you sell a product for profit you absolutely should be taxed. (Otherwise, everyone who starts their own business could just call it their own, new, "religion" and not get taxed.) This makes for bad public policy and, in my opinion, bad religion.
• (C1) You propose a "possibility", and no one can deny that it is possible. The question is, "how likely?" MaddLlama and others have demonstrated, by historical examples of black rights and women's rights and Jewish rights, that there is no historical precedent for this, nor does ANYONE, it appears, support laws forcing priests to marry anyone (inter racial, same-sex, Jewish, etc).
• (Taxes) You make it sound like churches don't get tax breaks. They do. Non-profit organizations (including churches) get tax-exempt status.
  http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...xes+church&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us&ie=UTF-8

Again, I find mysefl asking, same in what way? Do you mean that if I get married by a priest a gay person should be able to be married by the same priest?

No. She doesn't mean that. I don't mean that. I have yet to meet a single person who means that. Nor do I think anyone meant that when they fought for inter-racial marriage rights. But, again, just so we're clear: NO, that's not what we're talking about. :help:

 

[Aqualung]

Are you kidding me???

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,.... a thousand times NO! How many times do we have to say it?!?!

Here it is again for those who weren't paying attention earlier....

The fight for equal marriage is not a fight for religious marriage, but civil marriage.

Can you point out which post number you mentioned that in earlier?

Nevermind. I missed it because it was on the first page, but when I came back it was like ten pages long, so I just started there.

Well, it was fun while it lasted. When people weren't ridiculing anyway. Good talking to you, spinks!

 

[Aqualung]

MaddLlama -

All I have to say about your post (the one about historical civil rights movements) is.....frubalicious. Thanks for bringing some clear-cut historical cases and facts to bear on this discussion.

Post # 232:
Yep, and the difference between a premeditated murder and a crime of passion is thinking. So, thinking is a crime in this regard, too. :areyoucra

Exactly. Yet another mind crime. They're rampant in our society, but that doesn't mean they should get worse.

Your argument raises complicated legal concerns that I don't expect to resolve on this thread, so I'll just respond with a few points for your consideration;

Cool. I'll probably respond anyway, because I like discussing with you. You always bring something new to the table without criticising anybody.

I don't expect you to agree, but just consider them:
(Response to P1) If private business owners use their "right to discriminate" to block (say, homosexual) people from getting home loans, or employment, not on the basis of merit but on prejudice, they are infringing upon the rights of homosexuals.

Only if you define rights positively, which I think is always wrong. Rights are always negative. After all, a gay person could just go to a different place, a place that wasn't biased. Nobody has a right to be unconditionally liked, after all.

(Response to P2) The law distinguishes bewteen religion and private business. Freedom of religion is very clear in the Constitution. However, the government must necessarily draw a line between what constitutes "religion". When churches start SELLING stuff, as opposed to simply accepting donations, and when they start making a PROFIT off of it, the line between business and religion becomes blurred, and yes if you sell a product for profit you absolutely should be taxed. (Otherwise, everyone who starts their own business could just call it their own, new, "religion" and not get taxed.) This makes for bad public policy and, in my opinion, bad religion.

Good point. I will have to disagree based on the reasons mentioned earlier, but I haven't anything new to offer to this most excellent of observations.

(C1) You propose a "possibility", and no one can deny that it is possible. The question is, "how likely?" MaddLlama and others have demonstrated, by historical examples of black rights and women's rights and Jewish rights, that there is no historical precedent for this, nor does ANYONE, it appears, support laws forcing priests to marry anyone (inter racial, same-sex, Jewish, etc).

Wait, now, I demonstrated using historical examples the exact opposite!

(Taxes) You make it sound like churches don't get tax breaks.

The point isn't so much how many tax breaks churches get, it's the fact that they actually have to apply for tax breaks. The tax "break" (ie, not being taxed at all because it diminishes church/state seperation) ought to be the default, but since it's not, I see that the seperation is diminishing and could continue diminishing.

No. She doesn't mean that. I don't mean that. I have yet to meet a single person who means that. Nor do I think anyone meant that when they fought for inter-racial marriage rights. But, again, just so we're clear: NO, that's not what we're talking about. :help:

Yes, people have finally started answering this question. After this long. :biglaugh: So really this thread isn't about equality, but about similarity.