Being against same-sex marriage, assumed to be hateful

[josh987654321]

.

Hi epan.

May I answer?

Please explain how someone else’s marriage infringes on your religious freedom. That is the difficult part for you, because it does not.

That’s a good argument, Dr Phil brought up the same one when he was talking about SSM on his show.

I agree.

When the day comes that any religious organization is required to perform marriages which are contrary to it’s ethical code or religious views, then an infringement has occured.

I agree.

What is taught in public schools, what is legislated as social rights, what benefits are given to people by employers or government agencies - none of these things infringe in any way on religious freedoms.

I wonder what you would say in a secular thread about teachers teaching that a homosexual union was not a marriage? that the sexual acts of homosexuality were a miss use of the body? That marriage is only between a man and a woman given the human anatomy.

And yet when it’s vice versa, when they include terms such as boyfriend and girlfriend, husband and wife as ‘homophobic’ language, it’s not infringing in anyway on our religious freedom when it comes to education?

I can see that point the being required to provide some health insurance may feel like an infringement on religious liberty. The obvious counter to that, is that nobody is required to get an abortion (as a conscientious objector may be required to pay for war, but not to fight in one). Religious rights are a personally exercised rights. So, whether an employer is required to pay certain benefits to employees, who many not share the employer’s religious point of view, is somewhat disingenuous. Once again, no religious freedom has been infringed upon. It is merely another case of a religious groups objecting to the behavior of others.

The taxpayers’ situation is similar, by analogy. You may be a pacifist, in fact a Quaker with strongly held religious views. Yet, this will not stop the IRS from seizing everything you own, and charging you with criminal intent, if you fail to pay for our military operations through your taxes. There are numerous examples like this. Yet, you may be excused from military duty individually, if you are indeed such a conscientious objector.

I agree when it comes to this argument about tax payers.
"Gospel of Matthew:

**Matthew 22:15-22

Paying Taxes

15 The Pharisees got together and planned how they could trick Jesus into saying something wrong. 16 They sent some of their followers and some of Herod’s followers[a] to say to him, “Teacher, we know that you are honest. You teach the truth about what God wants people to do. And you treat everyone with the same respect, no matter who they are. 17 Tell us what you think! Should we pay taxes to the Emperor or not?”

18 Jesus knew their evil thoughts and said, “Why are you trying to test me? You show-offs! 19 Let me see one of the coins used for paying taxes.” They brought him a silver coin, 20 and he asked, “Whose picture and name are on it?”

21 “The Emperor’s,” they answered.

Then Jesus told them, “Give the Emperor what belongs to him and give God what belongs to God.” 22 His answer surprised them so much that they walked away.**

I’m sure the emperor would have used that money to fund immoral things too.

There seems to be a lot of recent confusion individual religious freedom. Your simple objection to another’s behavior on religious grounds, does not rise to the test of violating your religious liberty.

I’m not too sure what your saying here.

If you object on religious grounds to SSM, then your choice is simple. Don’t marry anyone of the same sex. As long as you have that right, and you are not forced to do enter such a marriage, then your religious liberty has been preserved.

Okay. So what unions have the ‘right’ to be recognised as marriage’s? wouldn’t we have to first determine what a marriage is? aren’t we simply objecting to recognising homosexual unions as marriages? is there somethign wrong with us doing that? isn’t this what Skigirl1689 is talking about?

On what grounds would you legalise SSM and yet not legalise any other union someone at a whim or fancy wishes to call a marriage? e.g. polygamous.

Please continue to next post -

 

[josh987654321]

Continued from above post -

There is a basic fundamental right to earn a living (perhaps to run a business) in our society. However, when a business infringes on a fundamental right of an individual, then a balance must be found. Your example of a business being sued, is one of precedence. Being required to cater flowers, or take photos, is not the same as being denied the right to marriage. The person providing the flower is not afterall, being required to do anything contrary to their religion. They are only objecting to the behavior of others. Taking a photo is not a religious act, in this case. Nor does taking a photo violate any religious precept in this case.

I assume that is what you meant by businesses being sued. The courts do indeed, and fortunately for all of us, do require people to act against their preferences in order to enforce individual rights. There is a sense by a business person that they have the right always to run their business in their own way. This is obviously false in our society. There are many laws, many regulations, and so on… which may be enforced.

If you disagree with me, then please explain how your religious freedom has been threatened, Because, I don’t understand how. It is a personal right to practice, as I understand it.

I would simply ask, how can you establish a fundamental right (such as homosexual unions have the right to marriage) and yet not enforce this right?

at the moment I believe you are right, I am however worried about how far it will go, such as the changes to education etc.

For example MarcoPolo said
"MarcoPolo:

For example, in many countries there are movements where you can now go to the government and declare yourself the opposite gender and they’ll change it on your ID card. No surgery required. You just say I am now [the other gender] to fulfilll my desires and voila! We define whatever we want however we want. Just do a search for “sex change no surgery.” The movement is fairly common around the world.

I mean are they serious epan? what do you think of this in the example MarcoPolo gave?

I think that the point of those who support SSM is that the historic treatment has been both wrong and unjust. As long as there is a valid argument to be made in that respect, then you can’t really claim this supposed high ground.

In a democracy, which shows no favor to any particular religious view, then the view which is diametrically opposed to yours must also be given equal treatment.

As for the isssue of a caterer being required to cater an SSM wedding, there is a sense of unfairness perhaps, but I don’t see injustice. What is being weighed by the courts is the fundamental right to marriage, against the preference of HOW to operate a business. The fundamental right to operate that business, and to make a living is not being infringed upon. It is the relative weight of the “rights” which are important.

Of course, for someone who rejects the notion of the right to SSM, then it does seem that the injured party is the caterer. But the courts to not have the option to make that sort of determination. If a marriage is legal, then it has the same status of any other marriage, and the same protections. If that same caterer decided not to cater inter-racial marriages, then the issue would be similar.

So who has the right to marriage and why? why should one person’s opinion of what marriage is (such as the opinion of same sex marriage or polygamous or even traditional) be any more authentic than anyone else’s?

If you remove God from the picture, if you remove creationalism, the simple fact that we were created male and female (as for evolution I don’t believe we evolved from nothing) because any attempt to enforce one would be sheer pragmatism, open to any challenge for other pragmatic reasons and I believe this is where we go when it comes to legalising same sex marriage.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[oneofmany]

It’s still a dangerous lifestyle or way to live. This is from the Family Research Council. Is it hateful to warn friends they are livng a dangerous lifestyle, let alone a spiritually wrong one? Would you say something to a friend who had multiply sex partners or someone who was dating a married person with a family or would your friend say to leave them to follow what they want to do and not to judge them?

"In 1995, long after the deadly effects of AIDS and other stds became widely known, homosexual author Urvashi Vaid expressed one of the goals of her fellow activists: “We have an agenda to create a society in which homosexuality is regarded as healthy, natural, and normal. To me that is the most important agenda item.”[79] Debilitating illness, chronic disease, psychological problems, and early death suffered by homosexuals is the legacy of this tragically misguided activism, which puts the furthering of an “agenda” above saving the lives of those whose interests they purport to represent.

Those who advocate full acceptance of homosexual behavior choose to downplay the growing and incontrovertible evidence regarding the serious, life-threatening health effects associated with the homosexual lifestyle. Homosexual advocacy groups have a moral duty to disseminate medical information that might dissuade individuals from entering or continuing in an inherently unhealthy and dangerous lifestyle. Education officials in particular have a duty to provide information regarding the negative health effects of homosexuality to students in their charge, whose very lives are put at risk by engaging in such behavior. Above all, civil society itself has an obligation to institute policies that promote the health and well-being of its citizens. --"

frc.org/get.cfm?i=Is01B1

 

[oneofmany]

I would say that people’s religious freedom is being infringed upon (take any business or individual that has been sued over this issue). So your notion of “live and let live” sounds nice, but is simply not feasible. This also goes against the libertarian point of view, as again, businesses have been reprimanded for not supporting same sex marriage.

Isn’t your final statement hypocritical? Aren’t you in fact doing that same thing that you are accusing us of doing? Don’t get me wrong, it sounded nice and clever, but logically it doesn’t have much merit.

I don’t understand why gay people would want a business to do a service for them if they don’t want to. If I were in their shoes I would think they won’t do a good job for us so let’s go to another business where we can guarantee good service.

The way I see it, it’s a good way to get some money when a judge decides in your favor. I think right now it’s only the militant gays who are suing but many will follow in the future. Like I say, it’s a good way to get money, to heck with shutting down the business.

 

[RedFox0456]

My suggestion would be to enter the 21st century. You point of view is waning rapidly. My hope is that you will not become bitter as we “good progressives” find that progress continues onward.

The percentage of people who believe something doesn’t make it valid. If I administer a math test I don’t give the answer that the largest number of people make credit and say the others are wrong.

You also claim progress as a given. You are simply trying to make changes. Whether or not they are truly progress is actually what we are debating here.

You claim we are afraid of progress. Sounds great, but it’s an entirely unfounded accusation.

I think Chesterton summed it up pretty well.

Men invent new ideals because they dare not attempt old ideals. They look forward with enthusiasm, because they are afraid to look back.

Your arguments lack a logical consistency. For instance, while taking a photo might not be a religious act, consider this. If the state forces a photographer to take said photograph, which you insist is meaningless, then that person is in fact being forced to participate in an event that his conscious tells him is wrong. Moreover, it is making a statement that religion has to take a back seat to whatever the state deems is good. This is a huge problem for people who truly have faith, because we realize that building a relationship with God is the single most important thing we can focus on. God isn’t just another item in a list of things in our life. If Christianity was an arbitrary moral code then things would be different, but it isn’t.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Nobody objects to someone practicing their own beliefs. If you don’t believe in SSM, then don’t do it.

The problem arises because our society is so diverse. There are people who disagree with your position. They believe that if they don’t interfere with your religious practices, then you should also not interfere with what they do among themselves. It is as simple as that.

The libertarian point of view, which is in large part the underlying philosophy of our form of government, would respect your right not to support SSM, while at the same time it would support someone else’s right to support it.

I would not go as far as calling your aversion to it as being hateful. Not at all. However, there might be an issue of hypocrisy, if you believe that you are entitled to live your life according to your own beliefs, while at the same time proscribing the right of others to live the way that they choose to live.

The bolded statement highlights an error in your assessment of the situation. Catholics do not believe they are “entitled” to live a life according to their beliefs as if their “beliefs” have been invented by the same process a libertarian atheist might have used to arrive at a set of beliefs as a matter of personal choice.

The Catholic position is that human beings do not have personal choices about moral matters precisely because moral matters are, to put it simply, obligatory for everyone.

To make a judgement of hypocrisy premised on a libertarian view of ethics is simply missing the boat or a tacit attempt to undermine the opposing view.

Anyone who claims to have a right to determine their own code of ethics, as if ethics were optional, non-obligatory and simply of one’s own making has an egocentric view of reality - that the values governing the universe can be determined inside one’s own head.

A position that views same sex marriage as morally wrong is not a position that views morals along the lines of personal preference.

Yes it would be hypocritical to hold that morals are merely personal preferences but, at the same time, insisting that individuals’ preferences divergent from one’s own are immoral, because that would be showing a hypocritical inconsistency and partiality in the way the “rules” are applied.

However, to hold to a moral belief system that fundamentally claims moral obligations apply equally and non-negotiably to all human beings - but that certain freedoms regarding non-moral issues might also exist - is not being hypocritical.

I did not read the poster as claiming, "My moral position is that it is wrong for others to engage in same sex behaviour, but it’s okay for me. That would be hypocritical. The poster seemed to be implying that moral issues are, after all, moral issues that NO ONE has a right to supercede by appeal to human liberty.

The issue is more like one of shooting the messenger, or, at least, calling the messenger hypocritical, for iterating what they understand is the message from the governing authority.

 

[Nacho45]

What country sentences Christians to death or decades in prison, sanctioned by the government, if it is discovered they are Christians?

Sarah x

Throw a dart at the Middle East.

 

[Starrsmother]

Throw a dart at the Middle East.

Throw TWO darts at Syria!!!

 

[Nacho45]

Yet more proof you have no idea what you’re talking about.

Christianity and Catholicism are present and growing in China.

There are difficulties between Chinese Authorities and the Vatican, but that is a mile away from your claim a communist government **doesn’t allow **Christianity.

And you still haven’t provided any official government policies.

Let’s leave it there.

You are seriously misinformed about everything from IMF policy to health care in Uganda to the relationship between China and the Vatican and the daily life of Christians in China.

Please read and educate yourself before you make any more outlandish baseless claims.

Sarah x

You can Google “China persecutes (or arrests) Christians”. While you are at it, look up North Korea too.

 

[Nacho45]

Throw TWO darts at Syria!!!

Syria is really bad right now where it wasn’t before, but that is another discussion.

 

[neighbor]

:thumbsup:I never looked at like that …and I should have …because that is so true .

I totally used to think that way. I used to wonder what business people had telling other people what they should and shouldn’t do. I have also been very impressed with a lot of LGBT people I’ve met.

 What got me thinking, though, was two pretty amazing things that happened after the sexual revolution:  The divorce rate in the U.S. went from about 10% to about 50%, and the rate of kids born to unwed parents went from 4% to 40%.  We all share this society, and the preceding changes in our culture have major impacts on us, from our education system to our criminal justice system to where our tax money needs to go (single mothers are, necessarily, the fastest-growing group of welfare recipients in our country).  

 People who initiated the sexual revolution and participated in it weren't trying to deal a damaging blow to American society; they just wanted sexual "freedom".  As crazy as it might sound, I think sex really IS for making babies and making families, and our attempts to divorce sex from that purpose and make it serve our own purposes have caused pain.  I also think the word "freedom" has recently begun to be applied to a lot of things.  Some of those things might really be freedoms; some of them might be behavioral choices that, although in response to genuine feelings and inclinations, require some serious examination- just food for thought.

 

[atheistgirl]

It doesn’t matter. If we are looking at this logically then you have to consider all cases. You can’t just dismiss a logical argument because you don’t think it’s likely to happen.

This is why I like to live in the real world, but admittedly remain fascinated with logic and philosophy

You could with a bit of effort logically prove if I had wheels I’d be a wagon, but the fact remains I’m not

Sacramental marriage is a gift, and also a vocation. Legal marriage and any benefits conferred are similarly not actually rights, and therefore no one can claim entitlement.

Sacramental marriage is not the only kind of marriage as you know.

In fact, globally, it may well be a minority

Once all conditions are met for a legal marriage, ‘rights’, entitlements and benefits are indeed conferred, and where same sex marriage is *legally *recognized, these ‘rights’ are the same rights heterosexual couples enjoy.

As it should be.

The businesses are not refusing service to homosexual people. They are refusing service to an event. In many of the cases the plaintiffs made it clear they would be happy to do business with homosexual people outside of services rendered for a same sex wedding. In some cases, the people were openly gay and had done regular business with the plaintiff. In some cases, the business actually offered to help them locate someone who would be comfortable providing for their event. And, as religious freedom is a form of freedom, it should certainly be protected. Just like we have the right to freedom of speech, etc.

To my ears, this is just game playing.

They’re not refusing to service an event, they’re refusing to provide a service to a homosexual couple they would otherwise provide to a heterosexual couple, no questions asked.

Sarah x

 

[RedFox0456]

This is why I like to live in the real world, but admittedly remain fascinated with logic and philosophy

You could with a bit of effort logically prove if I had wheels I’d be a wagon, but the fact remains I’m not

I’m a mathematician. You do that and I’ll tell you where you made a logical error, because it’s impossible to do this. You can’t just make up a statement. Logic isn’t statistics - you can’t just bend it to say whatever you want, otherwise it would cease to be logic.

atheistgirl:

Sacramental marriage is not the only kind of marriage as you know.

In fact, globally, it may well be a minority

I never said it was the only kind, and I was simply pointing out that as one of the types of marriage in the world, it is not considered to be a right.

atheistgirl:

Once all conditions are met for a legal marriage, ‘rights’, entitlements and benefits are indeed conferred, and where same sex marriage is *legally *recognized, these ‘rights’ are the same rights heterosexual couples enjoy.

As it should be.

You’ve yet to actually make any real case for same sex marriage. You’ve only made a case against keeping it from being marriage.

atheistgirl:

To my ears, this is just game playing.

They’re not refusing to service an event, they’re refusing to provide a service to a homosexual couple they would otherwise provide to a heterosexual couple, no questions asked.

Sarah x

But once again, they aren’t refusing to provide any service to a homosexual couple. They are refusing to provide service for one day because they don’t think it’s and appropriate event. This one is particularly irritating to me because there is a double-standard here. Christians can be legally prosecuted for speaking or acting out their faith (a denial of the freedom of religion - because we’re not just Catholic on Sunday mornings).

Regardless, whether or not a Christian’s rights are being denied doesn’t change whether or not same sex marriage is a right. Something you have failed to actually show. You can’t just say it is.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

But once again, they aren’t refusing to provide any service to a homosexual couple. They are refusing to provide service for one day because they don’t think it’s and appropriate event. This one is particularly irritating to me because there is a double-standard here. Christians can be legally prosecuted for speaking or acting out their faith (a denial of the freedom of religion - because we’re not just Catholic on Sunday mornings).

Regardless, whether or not a Christian’s rights are being denied doesn’t change whether or not same sex marriage is a right. Something you have failed to actually show. You can’t just say it is.

To put a different frame around it your scenario reads like an Amish farmer that refuses to sell someone a pie because they are going to eat it at a birthday party where there will be drinking and dancing.

It’s really none of his business where the pie is eaten or by whom.

 

[RedFox0456]

To put a different frame around it your scenario reads like an Amish farmer that refuses to sell someone a pie because they are going to eat it at a birthday party where there will be drinking and dancing.

It’s really none of his business where the pie is eaten or by whom.

Here’s the problem with your logic here. If a farmer is at a stand selling pies that are already made, then he probably isn’t questioning each person who comes to buy a pie on when and where they’re going to eat it. More importantly, this is quite different from a photographer being forced to attend a ceremony/reception to render his services. It is even different from a person who is making a wedding cake, because you order those ahead of time and the baker specifically sets time out to perform the service.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Here’s the problem with your logic here. If a farmer is at a stand selling pies that are already made, then he probably isn’t questioning each person who comes to buy a pie on when and where they’re going to eat it.

Or…Because he realizes it’s none of his business.

The Amish have a good sense of their own space in the world. They realize that they have chosen to live a certain way because of religious beliefs. They also realize not everyone shares those beliefs. They live the way they choose to live and the world will turn it’s own way.

I don’t see them refusing to sell a playground set because little Johnny has two Dads.

Are you suggesting that Catholic business owners are morally obligated to not offer services to those that perceive immoral? Do you have a list of acceptable sins and unacceptable sins? Since we are all sinners we’re all guilty of something so it would be helpful to know where the line in the sand is. Or… is just gay weddings. But that would be, I think it’s called, oh yeah…discrimination.

 

[atheistgirl]

refusing to provide any service to a homosexual couple.

That is exactly what they are doing.

They are refusing to provide service for one day because they don’t think it’s and appropriate event.

I haven’t had time to look at my copy of the CCC but I’m wondering is there anything in there that would forbid a Catholic providing a service to a gay couple who want to get married?

Do Catholic Priests and Bishops instruct their congregations that if any of them are in the service industries they must not provide these services at a gay marriage but they’re fine to provide these services on an individual, non marriage related, basis?

This one is particularly irritating to me because there is a double-standard here. Christians can be legally prosecuted for speaking or acting out their faith (a denial of the freedom of religion - because we’re not just Catholic on Sunday mornings).

I do understand your frustration but religious freedom does not and not not ever be allowed to trump civil law.

You are free to enjoy your religious freedom right up to the point where you infringe the law for example discriminating against people on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Regardless, whether or not a Christian’s rights are being denied doesn’t change whether or not same sex marriage is a right.

What makes it wrong?

Sarah x

 

[RedFox0456]

Or…Because he realizes it’s none of his business.

The Amish have a good sense of their own space in the world. They realize that they have chosen to live a certain way because of religious beliefs. They also realize not everyone shares those beliefs. They live the way they choose to live and the world will turn it’s own way.

Tell you what - you go find an Amish person and tell him he has to go bake you a pie because you want to go get drunk and think pie is a great addition to the party. Let me know how it turns out.
Roscoe Turner:

I don’t see them refusing to sell a playground set because little Johnny has two Dads.

Are you suggesting that Catholic business owners are morally obligated to not offer services to those that perceive immoral? Do you have a list of acceptable sins and unacceptable sins? Since we are all sinners we’re all guilty of something so it would be helpful to know where the line in the sand is. Or… is just gay weddings. But that would be, I think it’s called, oh yeah…discrimination.

Offer services to people we deem as immoral? No problem there.

Participate in an immoral event? We are indeed asked not to do this.

Why do you assume we are asked only to not participate in gay weddings? Are you so single-mindedly focused that you think that is the only thing we find immoral? We are asked not to do quite a few things. I won’t provide a complete list because it’d be darned exhaustive. Why are you supposing we should participate in one immoral act while ignoring the others? If this was the only immoral situation we were asked not to participate in, then I would agree that is discrimination. If we are doing our best to avoid the occasion of sin in all cases, however, then I don’t think your case holds up.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Tell you what - you go find an Amish person and tell him he has to go bake you a pie because you want to go get drunk and think pie is a great addition to the party. Let me know how it turns out.

Offer services to people we deem as immoral? No problem there.

Participate in an immoral event? We are indeed asked not to do this.

Why do you assume we are asked only to not participate in gay weddings? Are you so single-mindedly focused that you think that is the only thing we find immoral? We are asked not to do quite a few things. I won’t provide a complete list because it’d be darned exhaustive. Why are you supposing we should participate in one immoral act while ignoring the others? If this was the only immoral situation we were asked not to participate in, then I would agree that is discrimination. If we are doing our best to avoid the occasion of sin in all cases, however, then I don’t think your case holds up.

Let’s make this simple. You, as our theoretical cake baker, what other sinners weddings would you avoid participating? What other sins are justification for lack of services?

 

[RedFox0456]

That is exactly what they are doing.

You’re going around in circles now.

atheistgirl:

I haven’t had time to look at my copy of the CCC but I’m wondering is there anything in there that would forbid a Catholic providing a service to a gay couple who want to get married?

Do Catholic Priests and Bishops instruct their congregations that if any of them are in the service industries they must not provide these services at a gay marriage but they’re fine to provide these services on an individual, non marriage related, basis?

Providing these services is to participate in an immoral event. We are asked not to participate in immoral events. And yes, to deny service to a person simply because of their sexual orientation is wrong. But to deny service to a wedding is not because the person is gay. It is because you think the event is wrong.

For example, I have several close friends who are openly gay. I will not go out to a gay bar with them because I don’t agree with that lifestyle, but I will have a couple drinks with them. I celebrate their birthdays. I spend time with them. I joke with them. I feel for them when they are hurt. My relationship with the person is not equal to how I feel about their lifestyle.

atheistgirl:

I do understand your frustration but religious freedom does not and not not ever be allowed to trump civil law.

You are free to enjoy your religious freedom right up to the point where you infringe the law for example discriminating against people on the basis of their sexual orientation.

The problem is that civil laws change. For instance, sexual orientation was not always in that list of protected things - I’m not saying it doesn’t belong there, mind you. I’m simply stating this as a point to how civil law can fundamentally change. Meanwhile, the fundamental beliefs of the Church have remained pretty darned consistent for a couple millennia now.

Regardless of this, you are claiming discrimination without actually proving that it’s happening. “Because they’re gay,” doesn’t actually count as a logical argument, for the record. These are nonessential services, and more importantly, services to which the couple have many options. I fail to see how informing people that you can’t in good conscience participate in their event is the same thing as refusing to sell them groceries or even just having the decency to give them a lift if their car breaks down.

Yes, refusal to participate in this sort of event is to refuse service to a gay couple, but not because the couple is gay. It is simply a double-effect because the only people who have a gay wedding must obviously be gay. If a couple said they were going to have a wedding with a pagan ceremony I would certainly expect those same services to tell them they would not be comfortable in assisting. If they didn’t then that is clearly hypocritical and then yes, I would certainly claim discrimination against the gay couple along with you.

atheistgirl:

What makes it wrong?

Sarah x

Well, I’ve provided a logical basis for how marriage becomes fundamentally altered once you start making adjustments to it. You never actually provided a counter-argument. You just sort of swept it under the rug and said, “democracy.”