Do religious principles justify discrimination against SS couples?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tomdstone
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
KendraDZ1902 said:
Rau- It’s the law of the land. It’s a good thing!

Kendra- just because it is legal doesn’t mean you are going to do it. (I think I said that a few times.)

Rau-states allow sibling sex.

Kendra-yeah well, doesn’t mean everyone does it.

Rau-They are endorsing SSM marriage! Ahhh!!

Kendra- Yeah, well. They aren’t giving out extra incentives to have a SSM. Oh, and just because the state allows/endorses/makes it legal doesn’t mean people are going to jump in and do it.

My mind isn’t changing, dude.

Eye rolls don’t bother me. I roll my eyes so much that half the time I’m not even aware that I am doing it, I know because I get called out. And then I roll them again.
Click to expand...
Paraphrasing is not necessary. What was actually said is listed up-thread.
 
Tomdstone said:
Would there be any difference between renting an apartment to a SS couple and renting an apartment to a couple who you knew would be practicing ABC? In both cases, they are likely to engage in immoral activity.
Click to expand...
There are already laws on the books against discriminating against familial status which would include a normal heterosexual couple.
 
Thorolfr said:
What do people think here about renting an apartment to a same-sex couple? After all, you are providing them a place (a bedroom) where they are likely to commit sexual acts that you might consider immoral. Would refusing to rent an apartment to a same-sex couple be unjust discrimination?
Click to expand...
A married heterosexual couple can just stop using birth control and not be in a state of sin.

A homosexual couple by nature is inherently disordered according to church teaching.

So yes, there is a difference.
 
KendraDZ1902 said:
I would tell my children that those people have different beliefs than me and that they are entitled to believe whatever way they want to. …
Click to expand...
The problem with this statement is too many people believe that it’s OK to replace what works with what sounds good.
Reynolds v. United States was the 1878 Supreme Court decision that upheld the
constitutionality of anti-polygamy laws. It was a landmark decision. It defends the idea that American democracy rests upon specific family structures, which are legitimately protected by law. Chief Justice Morrison Waite, writing for a unanimous Court in Reynolds, wrote, “… polygamy leads to the patriarchal principle, . . . which, when applied to large communities, fetters the people in stationary despotism, while that principle cannot long exist in connection with monogamy. … For all their differences, Brigham Young and Chief Justice Waite would have agreed that monogamy and polygamy give rise to divergent governing principles.”
“Polygamy Versus Democracy: You can’t have both”
by Stanley Kurtz
Click to expand...
What kind of government will we have once SS"M" replaces hetero marriage?
 
AyJSimon said:
A fabulous one!
Click to expand...
And when it implodes, where will its proponents be?

Previous generations of social experimenters have caused unimaginable misery for millions of people. None of them have ever been held accountable.
By the way, it’s never going to happen
Click to expand...
You have more faith in the SCOTUS than I.
 
Discrimination is a word whose political redefinition originated in the civil rights movement.

In normal usage, discrimination is synonymous with discernment, but as used in a civil rights context it means **irrational bias **against a person. “Irrational” is the hidden qualifier in the term that distinguishes appropriate discernment from prejudice.

In an enlightened society there can be no rational basis for discrimination on criteria such as race, skin color or ethnicity. However, the introduction of morally significant criteria changes the analysis of discrimination.

Discrimination against harmful conduct (Dangerous sexual behavior) is entirely rational, and in many cases necessary.

Discrimination is now synonymous with racial prejudice in the public mind. Gay activists have exploited this association to legitimize their own claims by adding itself to the list of minorities in anti-discrimination statutes.

Our religious principles include teachings that state:
" Based on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” 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. "
Click to expand...
…

Since the concept of same sex marriage promotes acts of grave depravity, that are intrinsically disordered and are contrary to the natural law, our religious principles not only justify discrimination of the actions of SS couples…they require it.
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
In an enlightened society there can be no rational basis for discrimination on criteria such as race, skin color or ethnicity. However, the introduction of morally significant criteria changes the analysis of discrimination.

Discrimination against harmful conduct (Dangerous sexual behavior) is entirely rational, and in many cases necessary.
Click to expand...
There are obviously disagreements over what it means to be enlightened. Also, not all same-sex sexual activity is dangerous. Some is dangerous and some is not dangerous just as some opposite-sex sexual activity is dangerous and some is not. There is nothing intrinsically dangerous about gay sex whereas all straight sex is intrinsically not dangerous. 🤷
 
Thorolfr said:
There are obviously disagreements over what it means to be enlightened. Also, not all same-sex sexual activity is dangerous. Some is dangerous and some is not dangerous just as some opposite-sex sexual activity is dangerous and some is not. There is nothing intrinsically dangerous about gay sex whereas all straight sex is intrinsically not dangerous. 🤷
Click to expand...
This analysis neglects the spiritual realm when determining damage.
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
Discrimination is a word whose political redefinition originated in the civil rights movement.

In normal usage, discrimination is synonymous with discernment, but as used in a civil rights context it means **irrational bias **against a person. “Irrational” is the hidden qualifier in the term that distinguishes appropriate discernment from prejudice.

In an enlightened society there can be no rational basis for discrimination on criteria such as race, skin color or ethnicity. However, the introduction of morally significant criteria changes the analysis of discrimination.
Click to expand...
I share your irritation at the muddying of the notion of “discrimination”. Clearly we discriminate on all manner of subjects on a regular basis and that is perfectly proper.

The law seeks to establish that some forms or bases of discrimination are or should be “universally” unacceptable. In so doing, it seeks to identify and/or promote what ought to be universally acceptable societal norms, eg: people come in two sexes, people have a variety of skin colours, a variety of (bona fide) religious beliefs, etc. and society (through the law) is making the statement: “this is routine, nothing to see here”.

Now as far as I’m concerned, there’s no problem in extending that list to “sexual orientation” - I accept (absent evidence to the contrary) that the orientation simply “is” (however it arises) and does not itself constitute a chosen behaviour. Hence, IMHO, it would always be unacceptable to decline to sell a car to a man because he is a black man, an Asian, or has a same sex orientation. The problem is that the State creates the potential for great ambiguity when it adds some behaviours to the “acceptable norms” list, and then discovers those behaviours are in conflict with other “rights” and other freedoms people thought they enjoyed. That’s where the “participation in SSM” issue comes in.

At the end of the day, “democracy”, not “theocracy” will determine the societal rules. And given everyone has rights, and these rights may come into conflict, everyone should get to voice their position. The criticism of some religiously inclined persons that they are seeking to live under a theocracy and thus compel others to live under their system of morality is really an attempt (perhaps unrecognised) to suppress democracy, and fails to recognise that the other side of the debate seeks to do the same thing - to establish their cherished rights as (1) universally acceptable, and (2) more important.

Note that these remarks are directed at the debate concerning the right (or not) to decline to participate in activities such as SSM. The question of whether SSM ought be an option under the law is a somewhat different question IMHO.
 
Rau said:
…
The law seeks to establish that some forms or bases of discrimination are or should be “universally” unacceptable. …
Click to expand...
But people tend to take one data point and extrapolate a whole universe. Racial discrimination is bad, ergo, all discrimination is bad. A once sensible view of “discrimination” has been grotesquely perverted into an illustration of Justice Benjamin Cardozo’s famous reminder of “the tendency of a principle to expand itself to the limit of its logic.” This tendency has mutated to extend beyond the limit of its logic.” When it comes to discrimination, we have to be willing to distinguish between different types of discrimination. Discriminating between different concepts is called intelligence. Refusing to lump all forms of discrimination together is called common sense. It is what keeps us from having blind airline pilots.
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
…In normal usage, discrimination is synonymous with discernment, but as used in a civil rights context it means **irrational bias **against a person. “Irrational” is the hidden qualifier in the term that distinguishes appropriate discernment from prejudice.
…
Click to expand...
In fact, it is so hidden that it is no longer there. My secretary once complained about discrimination over a job advertisement. I asked if she didn’t want me to “discriminate” between her exceptional job performance and another secretary’s average performance come evaluation for annual bonuses.

I believe that the definition of discrimination is “observing a difference.” Some would add “and to act on that observation.” I don’t. What say you?
 
Take a specific case such as renting out an apartment.
Do religious principles justify not renting out an apartment to a SS couple?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top