Do religious freedom rights supersede other rights?

[chessnerd321]

Erm… I suspect you meant to say “the male gay population” there.

That’s common usage of the word gay. I’m sorry that you were confused. But I’m not here to argue semantics. Especially when you understood what I meant in the first place.

In either case, both you and @Londoner both misread me on this point so I’ll quote myself and try to explain each point more clearly.

So by the meer fact of homosexuality being accepted in society, it’s not considered a mental disorder.

There seems to be no contest here. Mostly included for context.

That in no way automatically makes it healthy or fine.

By this I mean that homosexuality not being in the DSM-5 doesn’t mean it’s healthy. This is actually my main point, but both of chose to zero in on the next one. Of course homosexuality isn’t a sin. Attraction isn’t sin, but actions are.

If you don’t agree with me on that, have a look at the incidence of new cases of AIDS in the gay population. EVEN TO THIS DAY.

This is me picking one example of how homosexuality could be understood as not beneficial. The most obvious way that same sex sexual encounters are damaging is to the own person’s soul. I just picked something that is a clear example of homosexuality leading to not the best things. “Not hurting anyone” isn’t a justification for one’s actions.

But no, my point wasn’t AIDS, therefore homosexuality is wrong. Just wanted to clear that up.

And just because this irritated me:

And we all know that God created AIDS because He does not like haemophiliacs. Are the JWs right about blood transfusions?

False analogy. Almost nobody gets HIV from blood transfusions. Certainly blood transfusions aren’t responsible for over 50% of new cases despite representing 3% of the population.

 

[Londoner]

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.

We are all free to choose one religion to follow, and most people (although certainly not all) do indeed believe that their particular religion is the one and only religion that is right. However, when we are talking about the law, I for one do not merely pretend that all religions are equally valid. I cannot see how a fair and consistent legal system could accommodate the idea that different religions enjoy differing degrees of validity. Islamic and atheist states (as well as many European countries until early modern times) demonstrate what can happen when religious doctrine is integrated into the legal system. So I would say that it isn’t a fiction, but a necessary reality, that all religions are equal within the context of the legal system.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

So I would say that it isn’t a fiction, but a necessary reality, that all religions are equal within the context of the legal system.

Yes, within the context of the legal system.
But that’s where the problems arise. When State and Creed collide, who gets the final say?

 

[Londoner]

The Catholic use of disordered is different from the psychological use of the term, and need to be kept separate.

That is actually what I said in my earlier comment. It is fine to say, “Homosexual sexual acts are morally disordered in terms of Catholic teaching”. That is simply a statement of what the Church says. What I was objecting to was calling LGBTQ etc. “disorders”. @o_mlly talked about, “LGBQT (did I leave out the latest letter for some new disorder?)”. Not only was that almost certainly intended to be offensive, it is also inaccurate. Being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or otherwise “queer” is not a disorder. Some of the acts that some LGBTQ people may engage in are considered to be disordered according to Catholic moral philosophy, but that is not the same as those ontological conditions being disorders.

 

[1cthlctrth]

What about the rights of girls to compete in girls-only sports?
What about the rights of girls to not-have-to-shower-with boys?
What about the rights of single-sex private schools?
The “Equality Act” attacks these rights.

 

[o_mlly]

He says he’s an athiest on other threads, so it is likely he forgot to change that part on his profile.

The exaggerated number of responses the poster has made may indicate either he/she is hurt by the original post or is employing a standard trolling technique to derail a thread. Either way, the prescription is the same: best to ignore the poster.

On a different note, I don’t think you meant that two were equivalent, but rather have certain similarity, but could you clarify?

The commonality shared by both acts is their intrinsic disorder: a categorical identity as posted back in #31.

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

That two things are the same in kind does not imply that they are the same in degree although the poster has tried to strawman that notion in his/her numerous posts. Calling him/her out on it doesn’t seem to have any effect so I suspect some hurt is being manifested so I’ll let it go.

 

[Wozza]

Calling him/her out on it doesn’t seem to have any effect so I suspect some hurt is being manifested so I’ll let it go.

A good idea. Comparing gay sex with bestiality was hardly a charitable position for a Christian to hold. Catholic or Anglican.

 

[rossum]

Almost nobody gets HIV from blood transfusions. Certainly blood transfusions aren’t responsible for over 50% of new cases despite representing 3% of the population.

Of what population? If you look at HIV in Africa then the great majority of new HIV cases are heterosexually transmitted. Was you data solely for America? For Western Europe? When was the survey made? Have there been more recent studies?

Again, with low HIV transmission rates for female-female sexual contact, why are you not including that in your ideas? You also ignored my point about pre-eclampsia; far more common among heterosexual women than lesbians.

Using disease as an argument to determine morality is not a sensible way to go. Does testicular cancer show that it is immoral to be a man? Does ovarian cancer show that it is immoral to be a woman? Pick a better way to make your case.

 

[Convert3]

What about the rights of girls to compete in girls-only sports?
What about the rights of girls to not-have-to-shower-with boys?
What about the rights of single-sex private schools?
The “Equality Act” attacks these rights.

These aren’t “rights” but laws enacted by the governments we elect. There are two kinds of rights. Those given by God, and those freedoms protected by the Constitution which means the government cannot enact a law to prevent you from practicing that right ( eg. religion or to bear arms) and provides protections for individuals (right to attorney or from establishment of a state religion).
Laws can be established to prevent abuse of the rights, subject to the courts determining they do not unreasonably restrict the rights.
Laws are established for other purposes, such as protecting people from discrimination. If we don’t agree with certain laws, such as you described dealing with gender, it can be dealt with by voicing your concerns with lawmakers, or at the ballot box. Sadly, morality has severely deteriorated in our country and it is affecting our youth. Our religious rights do allow us to put our kids in Catholic schools, but that does cost money many can’t afford.

 

[chessnerd321]

Using disease as an argument to determine morality is not a sensible way to go. Does testicular cancer show that it is immoral to be a man? Does ovarian cancer show that it is immoral to be a woman? Pick a better way to make your case.

That’s not what I did. I don’t know how, but you are somehow reading only the parts of my replies you find convenient.

But no, my point wasn’t AIDS, therefore homosexuality is wrong. Just wanted to clear that up.

Just fact checked you by the way, even in the world at large gay men are responsible for 18% of new infections. Still a shockingly disproportionate amount. And though I’m NOT arguing morality by disease. If I were, you haven’t even picked a good example. According to avert.org about 48% of new infections are due to what I would consider immoral actions: injection drug users, sex workers, the sex workers’ clients, and homosexuality.

Does testicular cancer show that it is immoral to be a man? Does ovarian cancer show that it is immoral to be a woman? Pick a better way to make your case.

Again. False analogy. I can’t think of anything that puts one at a 5 times risk of developing these conditions. If there were such a factor, like perhaps tobacco use, I would hope we could agree that that action is potentially harmful. But apparently we cannot.

 

[o_mlly]

That is actually what I said in my earlier comment. It is fine to say, “Homosexual sexual acts are morally disordered in terms of Catholic teaching”. That is simply a statement of what the Church says. What I was objecting to was calling LGBTQ etc. “disorders”. @o_mlly talked about, “LGBQT (did I leave out the latest letter for some new disorder?)”. Not only was that almost certainly intended to be offensive, it is also inaccurate. Being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or otherwise “queer” is not a disorder. Some of the acts that some LGBTQ people may engage in are considered to be disordered according to Catholic moral philosophy, but that is not the same as those ontological conditions being disorders .

I am sorry if my comment caused you distress. It was not intended to do so.

Since this is Catholic Answers, not Medical Science Answers, one should expect the Catholic position to be offered.

A disordered act can only be effected by a disordered person. In Catholic teaching, all mankind manifests a disordered affection for created goods. The Original Sin corrupted human nature but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence.

The passions move us to act and the proper object to our passion for physical union, the sex act, is only one’s spouse of the opposite sex. If we allow an improper object to move us to arousal or act, we sin.

Note that the phrase you take exception to was not as you quoted “the LBGQT people” but “the LBGQT community” as an active political movement with an agenda to normalize disordered behaviors in society.

“If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 John 8:9).” The Church resists efforts by all who would deny the existence of sin.

The litany of letters, i.e, LBGQT, could be truncated to merely “H” for all humanity. We all are fallen and each carry their own crosses only with the grace of Christ. Why do the LBGQT crosses deserve special attention? Are not those plagued by temptations to promiscuity, adultery, fornication, pornography, etc. due a letter in the litany as well?

 

[o_mlly]

A good idea.

Thank you. Hope you get to feeling better.

 

[rossum]

Just fact checked you by the way, even in the world at large gay men are responsible for 18% of new infections.

I will need to see a reference for that. It seems too large, given heterosexual transmission and intravenous drug use worldwide.

False analogy. I can’t think of anything that puts one at a 5 times risk of developing these conditions.

You want five times? How about pre-eclampsia from heterosexual intercourse vs pre-eclampsia from homosexual intercourse? That is a lot more than five times the risk.

You are right about what the Catholic Church says, but you are not using very good arguments to defend that position. The Church itself AFAIK does not make a lot of use of the medical/HIV argument. The Church doctrine was in place long before HIV appeared in humans.

This thread is not about Catholic doctrine, but about to what extent the Church, or any other religious organisation, has the right to impose its views on others.

 

[chessnerd321]

Never have I attempted to “defend church doctrine”. I’m defending my own statement that homosexuality is harmful to individuals, and through healthcare costs and loss of valuable human lives society. Anyway I see that you’re never going to get that so I’m done replying.

Here’s your source: Source.

 

[Wozza]

Thank you. Hope you get to feeling better.

Feeling great now. Thanks. But I was as concerned as you were about all those people who sin and seem to get little notice paid to them. And it’s just our gay friends and colleagues and relatives whose lifestyles get compared to…well, we don’t have to go there again, do we…

The litany of letters, i.e, LBGQT, could be truncated to merely “H” for all humanity. We all are fallen and each carry their own crosses only with the grace of Christ. Why do the LBGQT crosses deserve special attention? Are not those plagued by temptations to promiscuity, adultery, fornication, pornography, etc. due a letter in the litany as well?

I was going to check up on the percentages of Anglicans who sin and who fly under the radar. We could add an A to the LBGTQ list to represent them. But I use Pew for a lot of such info and there’s not much on Anglicans. But plenty on Catholics.

Like the number who support ssm and the percentages who get divorced and those who think that living outside marriage is perfectly ok. Or the number who have had abortions or who practice ‘unatural acts’.

If you like, I could dig up those figures and you can then add a C to the list so that the Catholics don’t get left out. Or as you said, we can just add an H and stop giving the other letters ‘special attention’ as you called it.

 

[o_mlly]

I was going to check up on the percentages of Anglicans who sin and who fly under the radar. We could add an A to the LBGTQ list to represent them. But I use Pew for a lot of such info and there’s not much on Anglicans. But plenty on Catholics.

Like the number who support ssm and the percentages who get divorced and those who think that living outside marriage is perfectly ok. Or the number who have had abortions or who practice ‘unatural acts’.

There’s only one requirement to becoming Catholic: be a professed and repentant sinner. To remain a practicing Catholic one must accept the constant teaching of the Church in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and her Magisterium.

Applying our criteria to your categories yields the following:

Like the number who support ssm (NPC) and the percentages who get divorced (PC) and those who think that living outside marriage is perfectly ok (PC). Or the number who have had abortions (PC) or who practice ‘unatural acts (?)’.

PC = Practicing Catholic
NPC = Non-practicing Catholic
? = Dunno

If you like, I could dig up those figures and you can then add a C to the list so that the Catholics don’t get left out. Or as you said, we can just add an H and stop giving the other letters ‘special attention’ as you called it.

Do what you like. We pray for anti-Catholics as well as non-Catholics.

A better litany for those in need of Christ’s grace than LGBQT would be PGEWLGS (pride, avarice (greed), envy, wrath, lust, gluttony, and sloth or acedia. That should cover most of us.

 

[rossum]

Here’s your source: Source.

Thank you for providing your source. Nowhere in that page is there any support for your claim that:

Just fact checked you by the way, even in the world at large gay men are responsible for 18% of new infections.

Your own source does not support your claim.

 

[Londoner]

When State and Creed collide, who gets the final say?

That’s something that courts have to decide. Thankfully, individual religious believers are rarely put in a position where the state forces upon them something that is contrary to their religious beliefs.

One obvious example would be when a court orders that a child or a person lacking mental capacity should undergo essential medical treatment contrary to the family’s religious beliefs, e.g. Jehovah’s Witnesses refusing blood transfusions.

Another such case would be that of Lillian Ladele, who was a registrar for the London Borough of Islington. A series of legal proceedings reached the conclusion that she could not be a registrar and refuse to be involved in civil partnerships (the forerunner to same-sex civil marriages). There is a certain undeniable logic in the argument that one cannot be employed by the state to carry out marriages and civil partnerships on behalf of the state if one does not share the state’s definition of marriage. (The state also allows remarriage for people who are divorced with a former spouse still living.) This was unfortunate for the small number of individuals involved, but a change of career is not the highest price anyone has ever had to pay for their faith.

 

[KMC]

0Scarlett_nidiyilii:

When State and Creed collide, who gets the final say?

That’s something that courts have to decide. Thankfully, individual religious believers are rarely put in a position where the state forces upon them something that is contrary to their religious beliefs.

Not sure about the UK, but here in the US, just a few examples:

1. HHS Mandate requiring employers to provide insurance with birth control, including abortafacients. This caused a lawsuit Little Sisters of the Poor vs Burwell (who was the secretary of the gov’ts Health and Human Services). Other religious entities also sued
2. Illinois tried to force Catholic Charities to adopt children to gay and lesbian couples. They ended up getting out of the adoption business
3. Cake Makers, Flower Arrangers, owners of wedding chapels have all been sued over being forced to use their artistic abilities in support of a gay wedding. Not just sell standard product, but actually make a special cake or flower arrangement.
4. A Washington state pharmacist was REQUIRED by the state to carry abortifacient drugs, despite the fact he owns his own pharmacy, and it violates his conscience.
5. A couple of cases I remember involved firemen being required to participate in a gay parade. Not just be there as part of their job, but actually be in the parade itself in support of something they disagree with.

These are just a few off the top of my head

 

[amt1985]

I’m of the opinion that all human rights are equal and none should be allowed to infringe upon any other. I don’t even think it’s possible in the first place for one right to infringe upon another, unless your definition of “rights” is a distorted perversion of rights in the first place. For example, if I claimed the abolition of slavery violated my right to own slaves, I don’t have a moral high ground, because there is no right to own slaves in the first place, as slavery itself is a violation of other people’s rights.