Are equal rights for gays incompatible with religious liberty?

[Aqualung]

Fair enough.
However it is also a fallacy to assume that it will when it hasn't in the past.

It has never been tried in the past, yet similar things have. Some (like the interracial marriage thing you brought up) haven't turned out how I have proposed. Yet many have (which I brought up earlier). For this reason, I claim that it is possible (since it has happened before) that people will misinterpret a negative right as a positive one.

Your point is perfectly valid. Still, I think I can safely speak for 99% of Americans when I say that I in no way support the government forcing churches to perform ritualistic ceremonies on all (willing) persons, just as 99% of Americans don't support the government forcing churches to allow atheists to preach at the pulpit on Sunday morning (although freedom of speech is a slippery slope).

I agree that a majority (though perhaps not that vast a majority) agrees with that point. But, as the adage goes, it's the squeaky wheel that gets the oil. Many things in this nation's history have been done by the minority. Heck, the American revolution was fueled by a minority.

 

[Green Gaia]

Is this just another example of how you try and control people who do things you don't agree with. My book calls this hypocrasy.

How am I controlling you? Go start your own thread and say whatever you want! You are in the wrong for derailing this thread from it's stated topic.

 

[Reverend Rick]

That's right. Nobody really wants the American way. And that's not sarcasm, either.

Please tell me what country we should model our system after. What country allows gay marriage? As for not wanting the American way, don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya!

 

[Green Gaia]

I am posing a scenario where they would. In other words, I am answering the question the thread posed.

Well, sure anyone can make up a scenario where it could happen. Beings from outer space could come to Earth and wipe out all life. It could happen. I was looking for specific things that if equal civil rights for gays were granted today, would that and how would that infringe upon the ability of others to practice their religion as they see fit (religious liberty).

 

[Green Gaia]

When this country was founded, the only people who had rights where white men who owned property. Among some of those men's property was slaves. That is the reality about this country. All this talk about the founding fathers and what they intended is incorrect. They did leave us all a system to effect change however.

We have had to have a war to change some things. Why do you think YOUR rights are going to be simply handed to you? Show me one group that did not have to fight for their rights?

Are you kidding me? We are fighting, everyday. Just because we don't kill people and blow things up doesn't mean we aren't fighting. Perhaps killing people and blowing things up is the only thing that gets Americans attention, hmmmm.....

 

[Green Gaia]

Please tell me what country we should model our system after. What country allows gay marriage? As for not wanting the American way, don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya!

I'm confused.... pro-gay = unAmerican, now? Oh please.....


As for which countries/states allow same gender marriage, allow me to educate you:
Canada
Spain
Belguim
The Netherlands
Massachusetts, USA

Countries/states currently allow same-sex registered partnerships / civil unions:
Denmark
Norway
Sweden
Iceland
France
Germany
Finland
Luxembourg
New Zealand
Britain
Connecticut, USA
Vermont, USA
New Hampsire, USA
New Jersey, USA


Now, would you like to attempt to answer the question in the OP? How would granting equal civil rights to GBLT people infringe upon the ability of others to practice their religion as they see fit (their religious liberty)?

 

[Aqualung]

Please tell me what country we should model our system after. What country allows gay marriage? As for not wanting the American way, don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya!

I was agreeing with you.

When this country was founded, the only people who had rights where white men who owned property. Among some of those men's property was slaves. That is the reality about this country. All this talk about the founding fathers and what they intended is incorrect.

If we followed the morals that this country was founded upon, I definitely be where I am now.

 

[Aqualung]

Well, sure anyone can make up a scenario where it could happen.

You're right, andybody could, but my scenario has the extra strength of being similar to things that have happened in the past. Unlike your rediculous straw man. Your rediculous scenario does not make mine rediculous, which you so cunningly tried to insinuate.

I was looking for specific things that if equal civil rights for gays were granted today, would that and how would that infringe upon the ability of others to practice their religion as they see fit (religious liberty).

Ah, equal CIVIL rights. You have begun to qualify your question. That's good, because we obviously weren't debating the same thing what with your unqualified initial post.

I'm confused.... pro-gay = unAmerican, now?

I think we're all talking past each other on this one...

 

[Green Gaia]

You're right, andybody could, but my scenario has the extra strength of being similar to things that have happened in the past.

Religions have been made to marry people against their will? When?

 

[standing_alone]

From this general, I declare that if there were a law proposing EQUALITY to gay couples, that this law too has a good chance of being interpreted positively even if it were written negatively. Therefore, I see there as being a change that if gay couples were awarded EQUALITY that this could infringe upon the rights of religion.

And I disagree, since churches/religious institutions aren't held to the anti-discrimination laws that other institutions, such as businesses and universities, are held to. The laws you are using as your support are laws that have been applied to business and schools. You're arguing from a completely seperate area. Show me when any group has been given protected status that all churches were forced to comply against their will. This IS about religious freedom and equality. Given racial minorities protected status and forcing businesses and academic institutions to comply with anti-discrimination policy hasn't forced the Church of the World Creator to desegregate. Why would it suddenly change with gays?

Allowing same-sex couples marriage would be allowing same-sex couples to take part in a secular government contract. A church isn't necessary for the contract to be granted. The couple only need go to the courthouse to get a marriage liscence. A church isn't even needed for the process EVER. Therefore, the government isn't going to need to force churches to marry couples they do not wish to. If anyone tried to bring a lawsuit against any church, it wouldn't stand. No unnecessary burdon is placed on them because they need only go to the courthouse. The worry given over this petty point is really more than necessary.

 

[Green Gaia]

Aqualung, please tell me how the government allowing a woman to marry another woman in civil marriage would infringe upon your right to practice your religion. That's what this thread is about no matter how often you, Sandy and Rick try to take it off topic.

 

[Sunstone]

Even if some misguided politicians passed a law mandating that churches perform weddings for gays, surely such a law would not hold up in court.

 

[standing_alone]

When this country was founded, the only people who had rights where white men who owned property. Among some of those men's property was slaves. That is the reality about this country. All this talk about the founding fathers and what they intended is incorrect. They did leave us all a system to effect change however.

We have had to have a war to change some things. Why do you think YOUR rights are going to be simply handed to you? Show me one group that did not have to fight for their rights?

Ummm, what the hell do you think all the marches, demonstrations, political lobbying, raising awareness about the issue, writing Congress, debating, etc. is? Expecting rights to be handed to us? Puh-leeze.

We are fighting for our rights. Just because you want to pretend we aren't doesn't make it so.

 

[standing_alone]

Even if some misguided politicians passed a law mandating that churches perform weddings for gays, surely such a law would not hold up in court.

Exactly!

 

[Green Gaia]

Even if some misguided politicians passed a law mandating that churches perform weddings for gays, surely such a law would not hold up in court.

I don't think it would even get that far. Everyone from religious conservatives to religious liberals to political libertarians would be fighting it. No church wants to be told who they have to marry and they won't be and I am sick of having to refute this same old lie. If heterosexual marriage didn't cause this to happen, same gender marriage won't either, because the fight for marriage is not a fight for religious marriage, but civil marriage. Let me say it again for those who missed it for the fourteen millionth time, the fight for marriage is not a fight for religious marriage, but civil marriage. I don't want to get married in Catholic church or a Mormon church or by an Islamic cleric. Same gender couples already have religious folks who accept them and are willing to marry them. But that's not what marriage equality is about. It's about legal, civil rights. And if this is all people can come up with in regards to the question of gay rights infringing upon religious liberty... well, then I guess they have nothing to worry about, which makes me question their motives for continually dragging out the same tired, old, debunked argument.

 

[MaddLlama]

I think the whole crux of the argument that you're making, AL, is a slippery slope. Just because the government grants marriage rights to gay couples, it does not automatically follow that the government will force churches to participate. Like it's been stated previously, several times, the church has the right to turn away whoever it wants. Do you think that a Pagan could legally sue a Catholic church for refusing to perform their Pagan wedding ceremony?

There are so many other religious options available to those gay couples that want a religious ceremony that it's really a non-issue.

But, back to the main topic, I'm still not sure I understand how making gay marriage legal (as in, secular and having to do with the government) stops Christians from believing that being gay is wrong. I have met more than my fair share of Christians who think that Buddhists, Pagans, and Atheists are abhorrent and wrong and shouldn't exist, but that doesn't mean, first of all, that Christians have the right to try to stop these ways of belief (or non belief) from existing or trying to outlaw them, and second, the fact that they are legal doesn't infringe upon their freedom of speech to tell an Atheist, a Buddhist, or a Pagan that they're wrong and going to hell. Matter of fact I have seen such on this very board.

So, if the government isn't forcing churches to marry gay couples, and they're not stifling the free speech to say that they think being gay is wrong, then how is it infringing on your ability to be a Christian?

 

[Aqualung]

Religions have been made to marry people against their will? When?

Obviously you haven't read any of the posts I've made so far. Please go back and read them. Then we can have a much more productive conversation, since you won't be jumping in the middle.

Aqualung, please tell me how the government allowing a woman to marry another woman in civil marriage would infringe upon your right to practice your religion.

Please read the following post numbers:

6, 81, 82, 83, 94, 95, 101, 114, 116, 128, 134, 149, 150, 154, 161

Then, if you still have questions, reply to specific posts, and specific points in the posts, so I will be able to answer more effectively, instead of having to reply to more nebulous posts that I feel I have already addressed.

And I disagree, since churches/religious institutions aren't held to the anti-discrimination laws that other institutions, such as businesses and universities, are held to. The laws you are using as your support are laws that have been applied to business and schools.

(a) Schools are religious institutions if they are religious schools. (b) Churches are seen more as businesses than as religion (for example, they are taxed like businesses, and preachers have to pay income tax).

Show me when any group has been given protected status that all churches were forced to comply against their will.

I can't, because nothig similar has ever happened. But I can (and have) shown you where private insitututions have been forced to comply with this type of thing, and I have also showed you where laws have been frequently interpreted as positive laws instead of negative laws. Therefore, because of this, I find it somewhat likely that this could happen to this type of law. You are asking for proof of something that has never happened. it's like asking me to prove that my dog will barf if he eats all the dog food in the bag by asking me to show that he HAS thrown up from eating the whole bag. He has never eaten the whole bag. But, he has eaten part of a bag and thrown up. He has eaten large quantities of other things and has thrown up. Therefore I would find it reasonable to assume that if he ate the whole bag of food he could throw up.

I think the whole crux of the argument that you're making, AL, is a slippery slope. Just because the government grants marriage rights to gay couples, it does not automatically follow that the government will force churches to participate.

This is true, and I never said it was definite. I just said there was a possibility, based on the history of similar things, that this type of thing could happen again.

Do you think that a Pagan could legally sue a Catholic church for refusing to perform their Pagan wedding ceremony?

Depending on the wording of whatever documentation, I think it could possibly come to that.

 

[standing_alone]

(a) Schools are religious institutions if they are religious schools.

Yes, and we've already addressed that religious schools can and are given exception to anti-discrimination laws under certain conditions.

(b) Churches are seen more as businesses than as religion (for example, they are taxed like businesses, and preachers have to pay income tax).

What taxes (besides preachers paying income tax) do churches pay? I thought churches were treated more like non-profits than businesses.

But I can (and have) shown you where private insitututions have been forced to comply with this type of thing, and I have also showed you where laws have been frequently interpreted as positive laws instead of negative laws. Therefore, because of this, I find it somewhat likely that this could happen to this type of law. You are asking for proof of something that has never happened. it's like asking me to prove that my dog will barf if he eats all the dog food in the bag by asking me to show that he HAS thrown up from eating the whole bag. He has never eaten the whole bag. But, he has eaten part of a bag and thrown up. He has eaten large quantities of other things and has thrown up. Therefore I would find it reasonable to assume that if he ate the whole bag of food he could throw up.

Mmmm... Dog barf examples.

But the thing is, the government also treats churches differently from businesses and schools. I'm not saying that maybe someone would try to challenge churches being able to deny certain couples marriage ceremonies, but I see no reason that churches would be forced to (as I think such a case would be seen as having no merit).

The one problem about talking about things that haven't happened is that we can both say "this has a good chance of happening," but we really don't know until it happens, as you've made clear with your dog barf example. You have backed up why you think could happen based on how anti-discrimination laws have been applied to businesses and universities and I've backed up my position based on how churches are treated differently and granted certain exceptions that businesses and universities typically don't get. We both have decent reasons to feel the way we do, and at this point, neither of us can really be right or really be wrong. So yes, we'd have to wait and see what happens. I do really appreciate what I've found to be a pretty respectful dialogue with you thus far, by the way.

 

[Green Gaia]

Obviously you haven't read any of the posts I've made so far.

Yeah, I have and all I've seen you offer is the same old, tired myth that if same gender couples are allowed marriage then all religions and churches would be forced to marry them, of which there is no evidence for. If you have evidence that would definitely happen, please present it. Otherwise it has no basis in reality except to try to scare people into voting against gay rights.

 

[jitty256]

i think that it's easy to forget that there have always been people with different sexual orientaions. perhaps longer than religion existed!
unfortunately its only recently that religion has taken on a puritanicle front.
why does someones sexual preference need to be such a problem for the church. if not for some members this would not be an issue.