Are equal rights for gays incompatible with religious liberty?

[Green Gaia]

That's your opinion and I'm sure you will stick with it.

So tell me, how is your religious liberty denied if GBLT people were to be treated equally?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Religious conservatives say that allowing same gender marriage would violate their religious freedom to discriminate against GBLT people because their religion prohibits same gender marriage. My religion allows same gender marriage, therefore not allowing same gender marriage is violating my religious freedom.

Perhaps we should arm wrestle to determine the outcome.

 

[gmelrod]

In other threads I have offered this compromise I would like to see how you feel about it sandy. If for the sake of this argument, we define marriage as a religious ceremony whose requirements are determined diffrently by diffrent religions and define a civil union as a governemt recognized commitment between two legaly consenting individuals and that one form of creating a civil union is through a marriage ceremony and another is a simple filling out of the proper forms at the courthouse. Do you have a problem with all people who wish to make a commitmant being granted a civil union while leaving it up to individual chruches who they will and will not marry. Therefore in the eyes of the government all people are joined by civil union while in the eyes of your faith you are allowed to marry only those people who meet your requirement. Keeping in mind that other faiths are free to have diffrent requirements.

Since GLBTs are not getting "married" then you cannot claim that there is any change or violation to your definition. The rights of your church are not infringed on in any way. There is also no way to claim a change in society's view of marriage has been changed since a new term has been created instead. Is this more acceptable?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

So tell me, how is your religious liberty denied if GBLT people were to be treated equally?

That's not what I'm discussing. I'm discussing the ability of all parties to influenc society for what they believe to be right.

 

[Storm]

Wrong. Christians accually do have the right to influence society in a way that fits their beliefs. I call that democracy.

Funny, the Founding Fathers called it "the tyranny of the majority" and took steps to prevent it.

Nowadays, reasonable folk just call it theocracy. If the majority of our populace were Muslim, would you be content to live under Shariah law?

 

[Green Gaia]

Perhaps we should arm wrestle to determine the outcome.

Perhaps you should answer the question put forth in the OP or move on to derail another thread.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

No, it's not. Please go back and read the OP.

I changed the subject.

 

[Ardent Listener]

I tried hard to come up with a good reason to vote for the choice listed below but I was not able to do so.

Perhaps occasional compromises are needed, but there is no fundamental incompatibility.

 

[Storm]

That's really funny. The debate, though, is about the character of legal marriage. Each side is allowed to try and influence it's outcome.

The debate is about whether or not you, as a Christian, have the right to deny others basic civil liberties which in no way infringe upon your own, simply because your religion disapproves of them.

Not much of a debate from where I sit.

P.S. I posted that in response to you saying that people who seek equal rights for GLBTs are practicing bigotry, which has nothing to do with "the character of legal marriage," either. Not that that's the topic.

 

[Green Gaia]

That's not what I'm discussing. I'm discussing the ability of all parties to influenc society for what they believe to be right.

Well that is not what the thread is about, if you don't like it go start your own thread and discuss whatever you wish. You can't just come in here and derail a thread and change the subject.

 

[Storm]

I wasn't aware that same sex marriage was a religious freedom.

There are plenty of religious groups out there who wish to marrysame-sex couples, just a there are plenty of religious same-sex couples who wish to be married. You wish to deny them that freedom.

What I am saying is that Christians have the same right to influence the society they live in as you do. You seem to wish to deny them that.

Yes, you do; and no, we don't. The Westboro Baptist Church is allowed to operate freely, are they not?

What we wish to deny you is the ability to enforce your (internally controversial) religious proscriptions on those who do not follow your religion, in a secular society.

 

[McBell]

I believe that now is relevant.

Fair enough.
However, how are you going to feel when it is changed, yet again?

 

[Darkness]

Wrong. Christians accually do have the right to influence society in a way that fits their beliefs. I call that democracy.

This is simply an application of "Might makes right." American democracy is supposed to be something more enlightened than that narrowminded ideology. In your view of what American Democracy is, it would be righteous/acceptable to place all of the Black people into slavery, if that is what the majority wanted. I am sorry, that is not my view of what a good Democracy is. It violates all the principles of what American Freedom stands for. It violates human decency and human liberty.

 

[Storm]

So tell me, how is your religious liberty denied if GBLT people were to be treated equally?

That's not what I'm discussing. I'm discussing the ability of all parties to influenc society for what they believe to be right.

What a cop-out. Do you think that bait-and-switch tactic is fooling anyone? You won't answer the question, because you would have to either lie through your teeth or admit that equal rights for GLBT wouldn't affect you at all, much less infringe on your own civil rights.

 

[lizskid]

*** Mod Post***

Just a reminder to one and all that you are expected to stay
on the topic of the original post. If you wish to discuss another topic in depth,
you are free to start your own thread.

Play nice!​

 

[CaptainXeroid]

This is simply an application of "Might makes right."...

This is exactly the reason America was created to be a Republic not a democracy...so that we could better protect minority opinions.

Tolerance is not a Christian principle.

I think storm did an excellent job of pointing out how inaccurate this statement is.

Jesus taught us to love our neighbor as ourself. He taught us to forgive those who have wronged us. He taught us "he who is without sin cast the first stone". Sounds like a rather tolerant guy to me. :162:

As for the topic of this thread "Are equal rights for gays incompatible with religious liberty?", I have yet to see any evidence that equal rights for gays would interfere with anybody's liberty to practice religion as they see fit, and I doubt any will be forthcoming.

 

[Moey]

Has anyone been able to tell us why gay rights might be incombatible to religious liberty?

 

[Storm]

Nope.

 

[Moey]

I figured that would happen.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

With more and more people accepting GBLT people as they there, religious conservatives are starting to lose the argument that GBLT people are fundamentality flawed and should therefore not have equal civil rights to them. In response to that trend, one thing I've noticed is religious conservatives claiming that treating gays like fully equal citizens and human beings is incompatible with the conservatives' religious liberty. Are they right?

This is not a "Is homosexuality wrong?" thread or a debate on same gender marriage. Please stick to the question asked.

To be honest, I picked the next to last option and not the last one.

American society, thank God, is slowly starting to wake up and see the reality of the GLBT movement for what it is, not for what it isn't: They just want the right to live as we heterosexuals do. That's it.

Unfortunately, many preachers behind the pulpit do not see things that way. Shielded by heavy protection of the law, they continue to indoctrinate their followers with the idea that homosexuality is an abomination of the devil. And I'm very sorry, but when a leader of any organization, group, mosque, synagogue, or church openly advocates hatred of another group of humans, at some point enough is enough.

Now of course, conservative Christians would cry persecution to such a policy. But really, if hate is what's being reeled in, is that really "persecution"? More importantly, why the hell do we have to resort to the government to make the church do what it should be doing in the first place, teaching everyone to love like Christ?