Anti-Gay Marriage

[Baldrick]

For clarification:

Discussing WHY that person feels like that will usually go over better; people usually like to talk about themselves, and you'll get a better idea of what makes them tick.

This is the kind of thing I meant. It'll be a lot easier to change someone's mind if you empathise with them.

[Chiki]

It's a weird claim to say that churches can be bigoted as long as they don't commit a crime. Discrimination is itself a crime.

[eclipse]

Okay, so I guess we agree on that then. I don't think insulting is the most effective way to get people to agree with you either. I do think however that it is part of one effective method that should be employed in certain situations. I also am pretty much positive that that won't be the greater outcome.

Okay. . .so, what was the point of the last page?

I'm just going to drop this and this in here and go on the record as stating that the condemnation of homosexuality by some segments of the Christian church by is a tricky thing at best.

I'll also go on record as stating that individual churches can be as bigotted as they want insofar as they don't commit or condone any crimes. In fact the more bigoted the better. That way people will be more likely to be driven to the churches that actually preach love and acceptance, and treating your neighbor as yourself. You know, focusing on what Jesus himself is purported to have said, rather than any of the handful of inconclusive things Paul might have said for him.

It'll also separate those that want to use religion as an excuse to be homophobic, as well! Hell, a really good one should be able to change the minds of more than a few constituents! I like this idea!

(that wasn't sarcasm)

[Dwalin2010]

I do think however that it is part of one effective method that should be employed in certain situations.

Such as? Really, I don't get your logic, as much as I would like to. I think that being calm under any circumstances would make a better impression generally and make the adversaries probably think they are in the wrong if they see you are calm. I really loathe it when people try to shovel their ideology down the others' throat, being it religion, homosexuality or something else.

And, as I said, I criticize only the methods used, not the ideologies by themselves.

Edited May 4, 2013 by Dwalin2010

[Balcerzak]

It's a weird claim to say that churches can be bigoted as long as they don't commit a crime. Discrimination is itself a crime.

I have to disagree with you on this one. Discrimination isn't a crime. When discrimination cases are brought before the courts, as far as I'm aware they are invariably civil matters. Nobody will go to jail for discrimination alone. Further, I'm pretty sure the Civil Rights Act only apply to public organizations or to private entities engaged in interstate commerce. The federal government only has that much jurisdiction, after all. Perhaps my memory is faulty.

[Chiki]

http://www.seattle.gov/civilrights/discrimination.htm

If being homosexual is a "protected class," and you can show that treatment by a church harmed you, then yes, it can be a crime.

[Constable Reggie]

The free exercise clause trumps whatever hurt feelings you have from refusal of religious service.

[Baldrick]

An honest question; why would you want to get married in a place whose management (for lack of a better word) feel so strongly what you are doing is wrong they refuse to officiate your marriage?

[Jaybee]

At least you all are able to talk about gay marriage.

Gay sex between guys isn't even allowed here. Strangely enough, it's fine for women, but oh well. Apparently the government says they won't 'actively enforce' the law but then why the fuck is it there

how is it even constitutional

[Narga_Rocks]

The free exercise clause trumps whatever hurt feelings you have from refusal of religious service.

Unfortunately, the court in 1878 pretty much turned that clause into the weakest thing ever. "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices."

Like, if the government doesn't like what you say you could get in trouble, even if you aren't preaching to actually hurt anybody. Now, while I agree that if there is a religious belief out there encouraging marrying sheep or child sacrifice or whatever you should stop the act from happening, but the court really should've been more specific.

So basically, this could easily be interpreted as believe whatever you want, just never ever practice it even if a minority of people get hurt over what you say/do rather than them doing the intelligent thing like leaving a church that doesn't like what you do (note: they don't like what you do, but they still love you. Why don't some churches understand this concept?) or what you say? Consider that these people are tithing to a church that proclaims what they do is a sin. Why are they giving money to this? Find a church that accepts it, as there are more and more out there that are willing to.

[Saint of Games]

I just came in here to say my mother is a christian.

She supports Gay marriage.

[-Cynthia-]

I saw an atheist argument against gay marriage that was basically "it's a state's rights issue and the American people have not voted for gay marriage, Supreme Court should stay out of it." Granted, this is more of an argument about the legislation itself than the philosophical part but it's a non-religious argument that exists.

[shadykid]

The free exercise clause trumps whatever hurt feelings you have from refusal of religious service.

nope, not gonna work in Washington

[Constable Reggie]

Unfortunately, the court in 1878 pretty much turned that clause into the weakest thing ever. "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices."

Employment Division v. Smith made it clear that this is only allowed with neutral laws that are applicable to everyone. Forcing churches to perform marriages they don't want to is not an example of this, since it's specifically mandating religious institutions. Same as trying to ban ceremonial animal sacrifice .

Like, if the government doesn't like what you say you could get in trouble, even if you aren't preaching to actually hurt anybody. Now, while I agree that if there is a religious belief out there encouraging marrying sheep or child sacrifice or whatever you should stop the act from happening, but the court really should've been more specific.

Again, only if whatever is said is regulated under general applicability laws, but this isn't even specific to religious speech. The Brandenburg test makes it clear that simply advocating something by itself is not enough cause for legal action.

So basically, this could easily be interpreted as believe whatever you want, just never ever practice it even if a minority of people get hurt over what you say/do rather than them doing the intelligent thing like leaving a church that doesn't like what you do (note: they don't like what you do, but they still love you. Why don't some churches understand this concept?) or what you say? Consider that these people are tithing to a church that proclaims what they do is a sin. Why are they giving money to this? Find a church that accepts it, as there are more and more out there that are willing to.

The syntax in this part is confusing me a little bit.

nope, not gonna work in Washington

The courts decide the legality of legislation.

Edited May 4, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[shadykid]

The courts decide the legality of legislation.

the status of a protected class isn't going away, good try though

(off topic, but how come later quotes can't show a different person being quoted)

[Constable Reggie]

Are you going to add any context to that?

[Sublime Manic]

Consider the case of a hypothetical man named John. John was baptized by a church after he was born, and ever since then he has been an active member of the church for 25 years.

At the age of 13 he realized he was gay. He got engaged at the age of 24. He asked the church to marry him and his boyfriend, but the church refused, forcing John to complain to the government.

Should their marriage be forced by the government in this case?

I say yes. Ah, but one could say that it's the church's decision to marry them.

But that's flat out discrimination according to both the Constitution and common sense morals.

As appreciable as the sentiment of your claim is, why shouldn't the church be able to discriminate in this instance? And how is it John went over 10 years after discovering his sexuality without figuring out his church wouldn't be willing to perform a same-sex marriage on his behalf? Most churches are quite vocal about where they stand on the matter. John seems quite foolish.

Discrimination, in and of itself, is not always immediately unethical and is perfectly legal in a myriad of contexts, including some where it may be unethical anyway. Further, if churches were to be forced to wed gay couples, efforts to legalize gay marriage would lose a LOT of traction.

[Dwalin2010]

Constable Reggie, I agree with most of what you are saying, apart from this:

Same as trying to ban ceremonial animal sacrifice .

Is there still someone who practices animal sacrifices? Animal aren't droids, they feel pain too, and what about animal rights associations? Killing anyone or anything for other reasons than survival is sick as incest. I thought that whatever disagreements different people in this world may have, senseless violence is bad anyway, from any point of view.

[Constable Reggie]

Is there still someone who practices animal sacrifices? Animal aren't droids, they feel pain too, and what about animal rights associations? Killing anyone or anything for other reasons than survival is sick as incest. I thought that whatever disagreements different people in this world may have, senseless violence is bad anyway, from any point of view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santer%C3%ADa

It may seem extremely distasteful to the overwhelming majority of people in the US, but not liking something shouldn't be grounds for banning it. It may seem like senseless violence to you and me, but what about to Santerians?

[Dwalin2010]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santer%C3%ADa

It may seem extremely distasteful to the overwhelming majority of people in the US, but not liking something shouldn't be grounds for banning it. It may seem like senseless violence to you and me, but what about to Santerians?

I understand the logic, but I still think that there should be a limit even to the respect of the historical traditions of different cultures. As few as they may be, there are still places on this planet where humans eat other humans, but nobody says it shouldn't be banned. If animals were intelligent, they too could have started human sacrifices for retaliation, and probably wouldn't have given a damn about the humans' opinions about it. Just because animals are less intelligent, that doesn't mean their life has no value.

[eclipse]

the status of a protected class isn't going away, good try though

(off topic, but how come later quotes can't show a different person being quoted)

Multiquote still works. If you're having problems with it, shoot me a PM!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santería

It may seem extremely distasteful to the overwhelming majority of people in the US, but not liking something shouldn't be grounds for banning it. It may seem like senseless violence to you and me, but what about to Santerians?

Seems that it's part of their initiation ceremony. While I may not agree with why they're doing it, as long as they don't torture the animal and dispose of its body properly, eh. I'm far more impressed with their take on medicine, tbh.

[Constable Reggie]

The thing is, laws against cannibalism isn't discriminate against specifically religious practice. Banning of "unnecessary" (something not clearly defined in the original ordinance against animal sacrifice) animal sacrifice is specifically targeting religious practice. Why should religious institutions not be allowed to kill animals in the name of religious enlightenment (or whatever reason they do it), when companies can do it freely in the name of business?

Seems that it's part of their initiation ceremony. While I may not agree with why they're doing it, as long as they don't torture the animal and dispose of its body properly, eh. I'm far more impressed with their take on medicine, tbh.

I personally don't agree with or condone it either, but practices like these need to be upheld in the name of religious freedom if it's to remain truly free.

Edited May 4, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Rehab]

But when you do that, you absolutely run the risk of tacitly supporting their bigotry. I mean, I know coming from me this is going to sound old, and nobody is going to take it seriously, but straight up being nice to people won't always help. I have friends and people I am nice to who believe awful things, and not a single one of them has changed their horrible horrible opinions. On the other hand, of the people I've been far more aggressive with, I've seen far more success.

I am at a point in my life where I actually consider terminating friendships I have had for years because those friends refuse to change their sexist, racist, homophobic, etc beliefs, even on a fairly minor level, because in many cases I can't change peoples' minds by being nice.

Now this is not to say it can't be done. It might even be just as good as being aggressive. The point is, making it clear that horrible opinions are not acceptable to you does actually work to discourage horrible opinions.

I guess it depends on what you mean by shitting on though. Regardless though, if you can't see the difference between calling somebody a fag for being gay, and calling someone a homophobic asshole for doing that, I don't know what to tell you.

I had success with this once, both in the race and sexuality departments. It probably helped that he later admitted to having a racist upbringing, to being bi and to finding people of certain other races attractive, but anyway

(not to argue a point or nothin, just sane, felt good man etc)

Edited May 4, 2013 by Rehab

[Chiki]

http://www.nomblog.com/29727

A New Jersey court ruled not allowing a gay civil union ceremony in a church as discrimination.

[Constable Reggie]

Ocean Grove Association is a business entity, not a religious one.