| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/10/2013 07:45:35 PM · #6176 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I would disagree with the assuredness of this sentiment Robert. The New Mexico judge said as much in his ruling as said that religious freedom COULD trump freedom of equality and that direct head-to-head confrontation between the two rights had not been decided in the NM case (because the judge felt the wrong argument had been made and he couldn't make the argument for them). |
So it would be your argument that if a religion, in its doctrine, considered, say, black people to be "not human", then a business run by an adherent of that religion would be free to discriminate against black people? And if that's the case, how can you rationally accept discrimination ONLY if it's institutionalized? Or do yuou feel that ANY business owner should be free to refuse service to black people, or gay people for that matter? Given that the law of the land says we can't do that? |
I would say the juxtaposition between two rights is gray and slippery. The court may decide one way on one issue and another way on another. In fact, one state supreme court may make the opposite determination as another on essentially the same case. We don't like this, but I'm confident it's the way things are. The SCOTUS decision could try to set a precedent for all states, but I highly doubt this will happen knowing the Roberts court likes to be narrow in the scope of its decisions. |
And besides THAT, I'm not asking for your analysis of the state of SCOTUS: I'm asking what YOU, as a moral human being, think is RIGHT. I personally don't see how anyone can argue against the civil-liberty aspect of this issue, but that's just me. I don't care what the churches do, especially, but I sure as hell think the government, which oversees marriages as a civil issue, has no right to deny any group their civil rights just because some OTHER collective group is squeamish about the issue. |
|
|
|
04/10/2013 07:59:32 PM · #6177 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
And besides THAT, I'm not asking for your analysis of the state of SCOTUS: I'm asking what YOU, as a moral human being, think is RIGHT. I personally don't see how anyone can argue against the civil-liberty aspect of this issue, but that's just me. I don't care what the churches do, especially, but I sure as hell think the government, which oversees marriages as a civil issue, has no right to deny any group their civil rights just because some OTHER collective group is squeamish about the issue. |
Well, as we all know, the MORAL arguments and the LEGAL arguments get conflated and confused. Even in your reply above you start with the moral question and then move straight into a legal argument.
MORALLY? I feel the idea of obligating someone to do something they have an objection to is tenuous ground at best. But I think you know that and I didn't really wade back into the thread to start things all over again.
I really only entered to say that here we have a second lawsuit against someone exercising their religious conscience. IF they are liable then the takehome message is that if you object to gay marriage you better fight hard to keep it from becoming a reality in your state because if it does it WILL affect you. The argument that you shouldn't worry too much and just let the other people do what they want in their own little world has become obsolete. |
|
|
|
04/10/2013 08:01:30 PM · #6178 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
Actually, as a Catholic I can tell you that the Church also pointed out (and it isn't malarkey) that passage of Marriage Equality without exemptions could very likely lead to the Church not being allowed to hold weddings inside the Church for parishioners, not allowing the Church to rent out the Church Hall, forcing the Churches Foster Child program to shut down (This happened in Illinois), forcing the Churches adoption services to shut down (this is HUGE for me for several reasons (i.e. see the bundle I'm holding in the avatar to the left)), marriage counselling services gone, pre and post school daycare gone...
|
I would argue that if the church can't do something as important as finding loving families for children without also discriminating against the prospective parents for reasons that have nothing to do with their ability to raise healthy children, then the church probably isn't qualified to be in that business. Perpetuating the stereotype that gay people can't be good parents does everyone a disservice, especially the kids who need homes and loving families.
As to some of the other things, it sounds more like scaremongering than reality. After school daycare? Renting church halls? What do those things have to do with gay marriage?
|
|
|
|
04/10/2013 08:03:41 PM · #6179 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... the Roberts court likes to be narrow in the scope of its decisions. |
Nonsense -- the Roberts court has gone so far as to ask for a re-argument in order to expand the scope of its decision ("Citizens United" overturned about 100 years of precedent), and he certainly caught a lot of analysts by surprise with his reasoning in the ACA case. |
I dunno, Paul. I don't make these things up. I have heard that sentiment multiple times by Nina Totenberg when discussing SCOTUS. Roberts keeps a narrow scope of intepretation in decisions and he favors state rights (I didn't mention that before but that would ALSO make a sweeping ruling less likely). It's possible there are exceptions, but I'm talking generalities. |
|
|
|
04/10/2013 08:15:29 PM · #6180 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I really only entered to say that here we have a second lawsuit against someone exercising their religious conscience. IF they are liable then the takehome message is that if you object to gay marriage you better fight hard to keep it from becoming a reality in your state because if it does it WILL affect you. The argument that you shouldn't worry too much and just let the other people do what they want in their own little world has become obsolete. |
The problem with your argument is that it doesn't matter whether or not gay marriage is legal. Gay couples have been already been having "marriage" ceremonies for years, in churches, with pictures, cakes, dresses, tuxedoes, flowers, and the whole works. Making gay marriage legal doesn't change that, and it doesn't change the balance of whether or not turning down a photography (or flower) gig is discrimination. |
|
|
|
04/10/2013 08:20:54 PM · #6181 |
| Ann raises an interesting point - is a bakery allowed to discriminate against a client requesting a birthday cake if that client is gay? What about a photographer turning down a senior portrait session because the client is gay? Nothing to do with marriage whatsoever, and legalizing gay marriage won't affect those two situations at all. |
|
|
|
04/10/2013 08:49:58 PM · #6182 |
|
|
|
04/10/2013 09:47:26 PM · #6183 |
Originally posted by Ann:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I really only entered to say that here we have a second lawsuit against someone exercising their religious conscience. IF they are liable then the takehome message is that if you object to gay marriage you better fight hard to keep it from becoming a reality in your state because if it does it WILL affect you. The argument that you shouldn't worry too much and just let the other people do what they want in their own little world has become obsolete. |
The problem with your argument is that it doesn't matter whether or not gay marriage is legal. Gay couples have been already been having "marriage" ceremonies for years, in churches, with pictures, cakes, dresses, tuxedoes, flowers, and the whole works. Making gay marriage legal doesn't change that, and it doesn't change the balance of whether or not turning down a photography (or flower) gig is discrimination. |
Your argument would hold more weight if you could show legal cases from more than a year or two ago involving "marriage" ceremonies... |
|
|
|
04/10/2013 11:00:44 PM · #6184 |
| I attended 3 in the early 80's, Ann said marriage ceremonies nothing about officially recognized.. |
|
|
|
04/11/2013 12:34:18 AM · #6185 |
Originally posted by Ann:
Originally posted by myqyl:
Actually, as a Catholic I can tell you that the Church also pointed out (and it isn't malarkey) that passage of Marriage Equality without exemptions could very likely lead to the Church not being allowed to hold weddings inside the Church for parishioners, not allowing the Church to rent out the Church Hall, forcing the Churches Foster Child program to shut down (This happened in Illinois), forcing the Churches adoption services to shut down (this is HUGE for me for several reasons (i.e. see the bundle I'm holding in the avatar to the left)), marriage counselling services gone, pre and post school daycare gone...
|
I would argue that if the church can't do something as important as finding loving families for children without also discriminating against the prospective parents for reasons that have nothing to do with their ability to raise healthy children, then the church probably isn't qualified to be in that business. Perpetuating the stereotype that gay people can't be good parents does everyone a disservice, especially the kids who need homes and loving families.
As to some of the other things, it sounds more like scaremongering than reality. After school daycare? Renting church halls? What do those things have to do with gay marriage? |
It is against Church doctrine to recognize same sex marriages. I'm not defending that doctrine, just pointing it out. So a Catholic Church CAN NOT rent a Church Hall to a gay couple for their reception. This means if there is no exemption, they have to close down renting the hall to anyone. Same with placing children in the homes of gay couples. So in Illinios, they had to close the doors of their Foster Care services. No one has stepped up to replace the services they were doing and children are suffering because the court said they had to either disobey Church doctrine or get out of the "business" of spending large sums of money to help children. They could NOT comply and remain Catholic, so they were forced to close their doors. As a result children that would have been placed in Foster Care are sitting in state institutions because the cash strapped states can't provide the service the Church had been paying for. This isn't fear mongering, this is what happened in Illinios.
It seems from this discussion that many here believe there is no right to religious freedom. It may not be long before you're right about that. |
|
|
|
04/11/2013 01:15:12 AM · #6186 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
It is against Church doctrine to recognize same sex marriages... They could NOT comply and remain Catholic, so they were forced to close their doors. |
This is disingenuous at best. It is also against church doctrine to recognize interfaith marriages, specifically prohibited in the Bible and virtually unheard of just a few decades ago, yet as many as 40% of Catholics today are married to non-Catholics (including myself). Not only could they comply and remain Catholic, but the church officially prefers to host the ceremony in the Catholic church. All that's required is special permission from the bishop (and some cash). So how do they justify taking part in this affront? From the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops: âThough they do not participate in the grace of the sacrament of marriage, both partners benefit from Godâs love and help [grace] through their good lives and beliefs.â There is NO reason whatsoever that very same sentence couldn't equally apply to gay marriage.
Originally posted by myqyl:
It seems from this discussion that many here believe there is no right to religious freedom. |
The right to religious freedom is not contingent upon a right to discriminate. Read carefully.
Message edited by author 2013-04-11 01:20:58. |
|
|
|
04/11/2013 07:54:18 AM · #6187 |
| What Shannon said: the Church was perfectly happy to join me (a non-Catholic) in Holy wedlock to my Catholic wife; and she was DIVORCED, to boot. Within my living memory, this wouldn't have been the case. Cherry-picking doctrines, are we? |
|
|
|
04/11/2013 08:25:02 AM · #6188 |
I've had my say and am disappointed though frankly not overly surprised at the reaction. For a brief moment I thought we could co-exist, but apparently gay rights and religious rights are viewed as mutually exclusive.
I'm most saddened to think of the gay couples in the south and mid-west that will likely have to fight for decades in courts for the right to what should be common sense. Religious people will fight tooth and nail for religious freedom, and if you make them choose between gay marriage and their church they will not support gay marriage. If the choice did not involve an attack on their own freedoms I'm betting there would be very little opposition.
I find it interesting that I've been told several times that religious freedom means I'm allowed to talk about my religion but not allowed to practice it. I wonder what the gay community would think if it was said it's ok for them to talk about being gay but were not allowed to practice it... This should be easy to envision since this is largely the oppression they are trying to throw off. Unfortunately it seems, like so often in history, when an oppressed people finally throw off their chains, they can't resist putting those chains on someone else.
I think Rodney King put it best... "Can't we all just get along?" |
|
|
|
04/11/2013 08:46:08 AM · #6189 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
It is also against church doctrine to recognize interfaith marriages, specifically prohibited in the Bible and virtually unheard of just a few decades ago, yet as many as 40% of Catholics today are married to non-Catholics (including myself). |
That's interesting... Could you point out where in the Catholic Catechism it says there is a prohibition on interfaith marriages? I've read it several times and missed that part. Specifically I'm curious where it contradicts what it says in ccc 1633 through 1637, where it explicitly states that it's perfectly valid and proposes steps that the Catholic spouse needs to keep in mind.
I keep hearing people talk about the doctrines of the Church, but can never find these doctrines when i go to look them up. Yes, it was a custom for many years that Catholics would marry Catholics, but it has certainly not doctrine.
And for Bear_Music, I'd also point to the Catechism (around 1625 or so... can't look up right now) to show that your marriage, like my marriage to a non-Catholic (at the time) divorcee are perfectly valid and don't go against any Church doctrine.
I mean really folks, if you want to attack the Church for what it teaches and believes, find out What It teaches and believes first... |
|
|
|
04/11/2013 10:04:51 AM · #6190 |
Did any of you know that this is the actual Church teaching on homosexuality?
Originally posted by CatholicCathechism:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." 141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection. |
While I'm certain many will disagree with most of what's said here, I'd like to single out a couple of lines :
"They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."
Many Catholics, myself included (and several priests I know), take this to mean that we are called upon by the Catholic Faith to Support Marriage Equality... This would be an easy argument to make and has been the deciding factor in many Catholics voting for Pro-Marriage Equality measures (again, including me and several priests I know)... The only conflict comes when a measure will force the Church to abandon ministries and services because of the "Under no circumstances can they be approved" and the possibility of being barred from ministries by civil laws that would force approval or closing up shop.
On another note : "tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered" is an interesting wording... "Tradition" has a very specific meaning to Catholics. It is wildly different than dogma. I (and many Catholics) pray this tradition will be reconsidered, and we are very hopeful that it will be. Unfortunately hostility on both sides of the chasm make that unlike in the short term.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2013 10:35:38 AM · #6191 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
Could you point out where in the Catholic Catechism it says there is a prohibition on interfaith marriages? I've read it several times and missed that part. |
You're moving the goalposts. I said church doctrine on interfaith marriage has changed within the past few decades and it most certainly has, whether enshrined in catechism or not.
Originally posted by myqyl:
Did any of you know that this is the actual Church teaching on homosexuality? ..."tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered" is an interesting wording... |
The 2nd edition of 2358, "This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial" was itself a change from the the first edition: "They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial." Note that catechism 2366 declares it "necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life," yet sterile and elderly couples are married all the time without issue or special permission and no churches are closed as a result. Hardly a surprise since all of these are arbitrary rules written by man, including the part about homosexual persons being called to chastity. Hostility derives from the oppressors, not those who object to their discrimination. |
|
|
|
04/11/2013 11:04:29 AM · #6192 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by myqyl:
Could you point out where in the Catholic Catechism it says there is a prohibition on interfaith marriages? I've read it several times and missed that part. |
You're moving the goalposts. I said church doctrine on interfaith marriage has changed within the past few decades and it most certainly has, whether enshrined in catechism or not.
|
I've read the article you linked 3 times now looking for where it says Church doctrine changed. I see where the tradition of interfaith marriages being performed in the rectory instead of during a Mass was changed in Vatican II... Is that what you're talking about? For the life of me I can't find any reference to interfaith marriages being prohibited... Could you be more specific? |
|
|
|
04/11/2013 11:11:30 AM · #6193 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
The 2nd edition of 2358, "This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial" was itself a change from the the first edition: |
Yes, Church teachings on traditions change... I think I said that...
Originally posted by scalvert:
Hostility derives from the oppressors, not those who object to their discrimination. |
Hostility is easy to see in others... In ourselves we call it righteous indignation... that's true on both sides, even if we only see it of those we disagree with. |
|
|
|
04/11/2013 12:15:27 PM · #6194 |
I came to this thread in hopes of bridging gaps, but from reading my last few posts it feels much more like I'm gapping bridges...
My apologies to anyone offended or upset... I'll shut up now |
|
|
|
04/11/2013 01:22:07 PM · #6195 |
Mike, I have actually learned quite a bit from you about the church's stance. Me having little to nothing to do with the churches in 40 years or so.
I have had some very good friends that are in the gay community during the course of my life.
I hope someday a middle ground can be found.. |
|
|
|
04/14/2013 04:48:40 AM · #6196 |
After gay marriage passes, what relationship should we have the government regulate next? I think we should have friendship marriages. It would be nice to have the right to have my best friend visit me in the hospital. After that, maybe cousin marriages or co-worker marriages. If this is about equal rights, why stop at gay marriage? Let's keep on truckin'! There are plenty of rights to go around. Then, someday, there will be no distinctions between relationships and we'll all have the same rights. Then your relationship with your sister will be exactly the same as your relationship with your spouse. You can just call your spouse "friend" and your sister "friend" like you already do on Facebook!
|
|
|
|
04/14/2013 06:15:35 AM · #6197 |
What, no mention of marrying one's horse or dog?
Perhaps you should take the time to familiarize yourself with some of the fundamental issues involved in this matter. Equality before the law, that is at the forefront of this argument, a factor that is conveniently forgotten by some.
What possible impact could gay marriages have on your life?
Ray |
|
|
|
04/14/2013 06:16:28 AM · #6198 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
After gay marriage passes, what relationship should we have the government regulate next? |
The question before the Supreme Court is if the government has the right to act to limit the rights of certain Americans because they belong to a certain class, that is, homosexuals. Can we continue to bar them from a set of rights available to other Americans? You are looking at it as if the government is going to start regulating this behavior. Wrong end of the stick. It has been regulating. Most Americans would like our government to stop.
I personally do not feel my marriage needs to be defended by the Federal government. I can take care of that locally.
Message edited by author 2013-04-14 06:17:22. |
|
|
|
04/14/2013 06:17:56 AM · #6199 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
... You can just call your spouse "friend" and your sister "friend" like you already do on Facebook! |
I do believe that what you are alluding to in this specific instance transpired during the time of Adam and Eve (sans the Facebook of course) ... but it was OK then right?
Ray |
|
|
|
04/14/2013 08:00:45 AM · #6200 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
After gay marriage passes, what relationship should we have the government regulate next? I think we should have friendship marriages. It would be nice to have the right to have my best friend visit me in the hospital. After that, maybe cousin marriages or co-worker marriages. If this is about equal rights, why stop at gay marriage? Let's keep on truckin'! There are plenty of rights to go around. Then, someday, there will be no distinctions between relationships and we'll all have the same rights. Then your relationship with your sister will be exactly the same as your relationship with your spouse. You can just call your spouse "friend" and your sister "friend" like you already do on Facebook! |
These arguments get old. You know exactly why two men or two women want to have their marriages recognized. Quit using your religious beliefs as guise over your inability to accept something different than you. The definition of a relationship is blatantly obvious. what isn't defined is who we all believe should able to partake in them, which should be everyone.
If Jesus can accept everyone, why the hell can't his followers?
|
|
