Are equal rights for gays incompatible with religious liberty?

[Fluffy]

Equal rights for gays is necessary for religious liberty. If equal rights are not given then religions in which homosexuality is amoral are being prevented from exercising their beliefs. The same is not true the other way around.

 

[Somkid]

I don't think "gay" should be an issue. The issue is human rights that's it bottom line by classifying this or that is pure self serving ignorance. All people have the same rights, I don't know what else to say, if any of these rights are restricted to anyone it is a violation to all of us.

 

[Green Gaia]

I don't think "gay" should be an issue. The issue is human rights that's it bottom line by classifying this or that is pure self serving ignorance. All people have the same rights, I don't know what else to say, if any of these rights are restricted to anyone it is a violation to all of us.

Do you feel then that in order to achieve rights for all people that one or some religious groups' liberty will have to be restricted? Why or why not?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you feel then that in order to achieve rights for all people that one or some religious groups' liberty will have to be restricted? Why or why not?

How do you define "religious groups' liberty"?

If it's a matter of ensuring that a religious person can do whatever he or she wants in the name of his or her faith, I'd think that other religions would place much greater restriction on that "liberty" than gay rights ever could.

 

[3.14]

Do you feel then that in order to achieve rights for all people that one or some religious groups' liberty will have to be restricted? Why or why not?

no people use religion as a exuse to withhold rights, cause they just don't want those people to have them. if you take away that right then people will take matters into there own hands, (beating the crap out of them)atleast with religion as exuse you know there stance on it

 

[Autodidact]

Exactly right. Tolerance is what is needed. Unless both sides learn to be more tolerant of each other, change will be another generation away.

I agree. Gay people need to stop their opposition to heterosexual rights, including the right of heterosexuals to marry and serve in the military.

 

[Autodidact]

I really thought about it, and I cannot envision any way that allowing gay rights could possibly infringe on anyone else's religious liberty. For the person who voted "yes," can you make your argument please?

 

[Green Gaia]

How do you define "religious groups' liberty"?

I question was asked because some religious conservatives are claiming that treating gays like fully equal citizens and human beings is incompatible with the conservatives' religious liberty. That they should be allowed, because of their religion, to deny gay people equal rights.

 

[logician]

Does anyone really know the lifestyle of the supposed Jesus, from scripture, on the surface, it doesn't appear to be heterosexual.

 

[Green Gaia]

Does anyone really know the lifestyle of the supposed Jesus, from scripture, on the surface, it doesn't appear to be heterosexual.

Don't know, and frankly I don't care....

 

[McBell]

Does anyone really know the lifestyle of the supposed Jesus, from scripture, on the surface, it doesn't appear to be heterosexual.

What does this have to do with the topic at hand?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I question was asked because some religious conservatives are claiming that treating gays like fully equal citizens and human beings is incompatible with the conservatives' religious liberty. That they should be allowed, because of their religion, to deny gay people equal rights.

Yes, but what are reasonable limits of "liberty"?

If the claim is that people should be able to do whatever they want in the name of religion, then the folks asking for that sort of religious liberty should start by making sacramental marijuana legal for Rastafarians, allowing Hindus to outlaw beef for everyone, and releasing the remaining 9-11 conspirators.

 

[logician]

What does this have to do with the topic at hand?

If Christians accepted the possibility that Jesus was not necessarily a heterosexual, a lot.

 

[McBell]

If Christians accepted the possibility that Jesus was not necessarily a heterosexual, a lot.

Since the Bible is not clear either way, and from my knowledge of it, (the Bible) one can just as effectively say that Jesus married as one can that Jesus did not marry.
Though I would be more inclined, based upon the Bible alone, that Jesus did not marry, since there is no mention of him being married.

So basically, unless you are going to argue a long line of snowballing "what ifs" your whole point is rather moot.

 

[Green Gaia]

Yes, but what are reasonable limits of "liberty"?

If the claim is that people should be able to do whatever they want in the name of religion, then the folks asking for that sort of religious liberty should start by making sacramental marijuana legal for Rastafarians, allowing Hindus to outlaw beef for everyone, and releasing the remaining 9-11 conspirators.

I'm failing to see how any of those circumstances you mentioned are in the same category as marriage. Maybe you could restate your opinion?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm failing to see how any of those circumstances you mentioned are in the same category as marriage. Maybe you could restate your opinion?

They're all in the category of freedom of religion. It seems to me like the claim that equal rights for gays is incompatible with freedom of religion assumes an absolute freedom of religion, regardless of reasonable limits and effects on others.

- for reasons rooted in their religion, Rastafarians smoke marijuana as a sacrament. In the United States, this is illegal; Rastafarians do not have absolute religious freedom.

- Hindu teaching (as I understand it) is that the slaughter of any cow is wrong. If they are not able to protect every single cow, Hindus do not have absolute religious freedom.

- the 9/11 conspirators engaged in actions that arose out of their religious beliefs. Those who did not die in those actions are now imprisoned because of them, since the actions are viewed by the State (and myself, and, IMO most reasonable people) as illegal and wrong. Not being able to engage in the dictates of your faith, however warped it may be, without imprisonment implies a lack of absolute religious freedom.

I think the second example I gave is the closest analogy to denial of rights to gay people. Consider these two statements:

- "because my beliefs rooted in my religion say it's wrong, you should not engage in homosexuality"
- "because my beliefs rooted in my religion say it's wrong, you should not eat beef"

 

[Green Gaia]

Except, (and correct me if I'm wrong, Hindus), I've never heard a Hindu say that everyone should not eat beef or that they have to protect every single cow. They do not force their belief on others that they themselves should abstain from beef.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Except, (and correct me if I'm wrong, Hindus), I've never heard a Hindu say that everyone should not eat beef or that they have to protect every single cow. They do not force their belief on others that they themselves should abstain from beef.

Could be. My knowledge of Hinduism is far from thorough. I always thought that their not forcing their beliefs on others in this regard, at least in the West, was because of the impracticality of a small minority doing so.

 

[DallasApple]

Its enchroachment..

Love

Dallas

 

[Aqualung]

Its enchroachment..

Love

Dallas

Care to expand upon that idea? Right now it's too general to be debateable or even discussable.