Do religious freedom rights supersede other rights?

[Syttu]

You do or not not have a right to not be “discriminated” depending on what you mean by “discrimination”. If it is something like insults or mean words, you really have nothing against it, but if it is something like a serious death threat or an attack, it is a violation of individual rights and should be stopped it.

Its more of a matter of individual rights than religion or sexuality.

 

[o_mlly]

The ‘as well’ referred to ‘the LGBQT community’, who you stated were ‘disordered’. No acts mentioned. Except later to bring in bestiality as a comparison. Not just adultery or sex with more than one partner. But sex with animals.

Friend, learn to read. The “as well” refers to behaviors, not persons.

Again, any Christians struggling with their sexuality will draw their own conclusions. Maybe a young girl who has found she finds that she is emotionally and physically attracted to another confused girl. Been to bed you say? Well, that’s just the same as having sex with an animal.

Moral freedom begins with confronting one’s disordered behaviors. For instance, continually strawmannning posters is disordered. I suppose your counsel to the young anorexic girl is to tell her, “Yes, you do look fat” or to the bulimic girl, “Yes, go ahead and binge eat now. You’ll feel better.”

 

[Wozza]

Moral freedom begins with confronting one’s disordered behaviors.

Fine. If you think that moral freedom begins with telling gay people that what they do is comparable to bestiality, then please continue with that.

 

[o_mlly]

Fine. If you think that moral freedom begins with telling gay people that what they do is comparable to bestiality, then please continue with that.

If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools

If—

By Rudyard Kipling

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Fine. If you think that moral freedom begins with telling gay people that what they do is comparable to bestiality, then please continue with that.

If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools

How can I twist what you said by quoting what you said?

Would it be overly offensive to label bestiality…as “disordered” behaviors or acts as well?

 

[adgloriam]

My gut instinct is that religious freedom rights are the most important rights we have and so they do supersede

No!!! A child has a right to life saving medical care even if the parents religious beliefs say otherwise. Full Stop.

 

[adgloriam]

Holly3278:

right to not be discriminated against based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

People don’t have the right to not be discriminated against. Natural rights allow us to discriminate. Man made rights which infringe upon our God given freedoms prevent that.

Very good post.

 

[o_mlly]

How can I twist what you said by quoting what you said?

Would it be overly offensive to label bestiality…as “disordered” behaviors or acts as well?

Are you now asserting that it is overly offensive to label bestiality as disordered?

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

How can I twist what you said by quoting what you said?

Would it be overly offensive to label bestiality…as “disordered” behaviors or acts as well?

Are you now asserting that it is overly offensive to label bestiality as disordered?

No. I’m just pointing out that you think it’s comparable, as well, to two girls in bed together.

Would it be overly offensive to label bestiality…as “disordered” behaviors or acts as well?

 

[o_mlly]

No. I’m just pointing out that you think it’s comparable, as well, to two girls in bed together.

Oh, I see. So now you’re asserting that lesbian acts are not intrinsically evil?

Both acts, bestiality and homosexual acts are categorically the same: intrinsically evil.

 

[Wozza]

Both acts, bestiality and homosexual acts are categorically the same…

You keep saying it and I’ll keep quoting it. I think it’s good to have these views out in the open.

 

[o_mlly]

You keep saying it and I’ll keep quoting it. I think it’s good to have these views out in the open.

Ah, the knave comes out again to twist with a truncated quote.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

You keep saying it and I’ll keep quoting it. I think it’s good to have these views out in the open.

Ah, the knave comes out again to twist with a truncated quote.

Jane: I went to bed with my friend. I’m confused. I need some guidance.
W: Here’s some from someone who is a Catholic: ‘It’s evil. Just like making love to an animal’.
Jane: Gee, thanks. I feel like I could find some comfort within that religion.

 

[DarkLight]

Here’s a good question: how would you feel in the same case if, instead of a gay couple, it was an interracial couple? Most LGBT supporters see those as equivalent situations. So the question is, if my faith said that mixing races was wrong, when should I be allowed to discriminate?

 

[ATraveller]

Here’s a good question: how would you feel in the same case if, instead of a gay couple, it was an interracial couple? Most LGBT supporters see those as equivalent situations. So the question is, if my faith said that mixing races was wrong, when should I be allowed to discriminate?

They’re not equivalents but then again, I’m Canadian so the racial context and issues are different. We never had any laws that prohibited interracial marriages.

Now the question at hand, as a matter of principle, if someone claimed that were the case, then unfortunately they are free to refuse trivial services like wedding cakes. As much as I hate racism, that’s the cost of being a free society. It’s a give and take set up. But for important ones like emergency medical aid, then the answer is no, a person can’t refuse on grounds of religion.

 

[Londoner]

“Disordered” simply means the act in se does not intend the good end for which the act naturally aims but a deviated one, a disordered end, usually self-gratification.

I think you are confusing two (or perhaps more) things. Certainly you can say that homosexual activity is regarded as being “disordered” in the terminology used by Catholic moral philosophers. You cannot, however, say that the conditions of being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer are themselves disorders. Homosexuality was formerly believed to be a disorder. Being transgender is not a disorder. Gender dysphoria, on the other hand, is a disorder, although the term “gender identity disorder” is no longer used. Since you mention it, zoophilia is a disorder.

Are you now asserting that it is overly offensive to label bestiality as disordered?

Being sexually attracted to non-human species is a mental disorder. I don’t think anybody is going to argue with that.

I suppose your counsel to the young anorexic girl is to tell her, “Yes, you do look fat” or to the bulimic girl, “Yes, go ahead and binge eat now. You’ll feel better.”

I think you are getting confused between psychiatry and the moral teachings of the Catholic Church. Eating disorders are mental illnesses. Experiencing sexual attraction to an adult human of the same sex as oneself is not a mental illness.

 

[ratio1]

Being sexually attracted to non-human species is a mental disorder.

Just being a devil’s advocate, what exactly makes bestiality a disorder?

Eating disorders are mental illnesses. Experiencing sexual attraction to an adult human of the same sex as oneself is not a mental illness

And likewise, what exactly is it about eating disorder that makes it a mental illness?

 

[Londoner]

In a multi-religious society, we maintain a polite fiction that all religions are equally valid.

I don’t know whether you are using technical terms that are beyond my knowledge, but I would simplify that and say, “In a multi-religious society all religions are equally valid”. That is even the case in England, where the canon law of the Church of England and measures of its General Synod receive approval by both Houses of Parliament and Royal Assent and therefore are fully incorporated into the law of the land on exactly the same basis as all other legislation (as well as secondary legislation in the form of statutory instruments). The doctrine of the Church of England, however, does not enjoy a privileged legal status. This would be all the more the case in a country such as the USA where the state is explicitly separated from religion. The alternative is a state where the doctrine of a particular religion makes up part, or even all, of the law of the land, e.g. Saudi Arabia, where the Quran and the Sunnah are the constitution of the state and the basic source of law.

 

[CTBcin]

In a multi-religious society, we maintain a polite fiction that all religions are equally valid.

Yeah, this is at the heart of the issue. Our country was founded by those of a rationalist/positivist philosophical bent. In this view, religions are nothing more than a personal preference, like ice cream flavors. People have a right to their preferences. Americans are certainly tolerant of people’s religious preferences. But, when people start asserting truth claims about their religion, as we Catholics do, things get a little more messy.

For example, if I were to tell people that I’m a Catholic, they’d probably shrug their shoulders and say “oh, that’s nice.” But if I assert that elements of my religion say something intrinsically true about reality, then people get fired up. On issues such as marriage, this is clearly evident. Catholics have one very specific understanding of the nature of marriage and sexuality, and supporters of the LGBT movement have another.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

I get what you’re driving at, but I stand by my statement and here’s why.
All religions are legal.
But we only pretend that they’re all equally valid.
If we really believed they were all equally valid, we wouldn’t choose just one.