Gays May Be Prosecuted at 2014 Olympics

[gnosisofthomas]

Religion, itself, is under attack in the US and around the world, and the Russians get that.

Prayer and the truth, along with hope and faith.

It certainly is, I agree with that. For example, my Church recognizes marriage as a sacrament, whether the couple is same-sex or opposite-sex. Yet there are people out there who want to infringe upon my religious beliefs by insisting that marriage is only between a man and a woman – some even going so far as to make that the law!

 

[jmcrae]

It certainly is, I agree with that. For example, my Church recognizes marriage as a sacrament, whether the couple is same-sex or opposite-sex. Yet there are people out there who want to infringe upon my religious beliefs by insisting that marriage is only between a man and a woman – some even going so far as to make that the law!

If you are a Gnostic Christian, how is it that you believe in Sacraments? Isn’t all matter supposed to be considered evil, in that religion?

 

[MasterWooten]

An this is why I will never vote Republican.

K…

I thought this was a Catholic Forum? I know we’re not supposed to persecute sinners since we are all sinners, however supporting or even promoting their sinful ways runs counter to the faith does it not?

Republican, Democrat or Independent, any position expressing support for the homosexual lifestyle doesn’t sound too Catholic to me, I mean if you bother reading the Bible and the Catechism. I have mixed views on the Russian law. Denying people freedom to expression I find hard to accept, however I as a Catholic Christian concur with the sentiment behind the Russian law that homosexuality is wrong. Just imagine for example “Gay Pride Parades.” Pride normally speaking is not a Christian virtue in and of itself much less when you’re expressing public pride in a sinful lifestyle. Essentially the Russian law is aimed at preventing that, not even so much toward the persecution of people for being gay so much as it is focused on advocacy as it relates to homosexuality. That’s my understanding of it I think however since this law is relatively new we should at least first wait to see how, if and when it is ever enforced, at least what the Russian courts say about it. Who knows, the court may end up sending it back to the Duma!

I dunno maybe this law is Russia’s way of placing the atheist faith which dominated communism with their traditional Orthodox faith which makes them our brothers and sisters in faith. The athletes going to Sochi are the best in the world at what they do. They are after all athletes, they are not members of congress, or political scientists and need to remember that they’re going to Sochi as guests of the Russian Federation to partake in their sporting events, not act as surrogates for the Obama administration’s social and political agenda.

 

[meltzerboy]

Who ever said we just want marriage? What we want is to be treated with dignity. We want to not be called slurs and refused service at restaurants or shops just because of who we are. I don’t care at all whether you accept my marriage, just like I don’t care whether you share my religious beliefs. But, you don’t have the right to treat me like a second class citizen because you don’t agree with me. If I owned a shop and a Roman Catholic, or Jew, or Muslim or any member of a faith that teaches anti-gay teachings comes into my shop, I do not have the right to refuse them service. If one of my employees tells me he is a member of one of those religions that I disagree with, I don’t have the right to fire him. If I did, I am certain that there would be a thread on here filled with comments about how I violated his rights the very next day. When those companies are being sued, it’s for violating the law, not for refusing to recognize a marriage. Just because I don’t recognize your beliefs on my marriage as valid, doesn’t mean I get to refuse you service. Honestly, I’d never want to. I’d feel horrible about it because it’s not the way people deserve to be treated, and it’s not in keeping with the ideals that America stands for.

The UK is an entirely different story. They have a national religion. If we had a national religion, then I would certainly argue for it to be inclusive… but we don’t, which is one of the greatest things about our nation. By keeping religion out of government, it protects the governed from unwanted religious influence, and it protects the religions from unwanted secular influence. But that separation doesn’t extend into the public marketplace. Once you participate in the public sector, you lose the ability to impose your religious beliefs. That ability exists in the religious realm… the religions get to decide what requirements are placed on their members, but it stops there… as soon as you are in that public sector you are required to obey the same laws as everyone else. You still have the right to practice your religion, and hold the beliefs you choose to hold, but you don’t get to enforce those beliefs on the public.

Excellent post! I’ll have to rethink some of my views on this.

 

[meltzerboy]

True, I don’t have the right to force my religious convictions on him… but he doesn’t have the right to refuse me service either (at least in places with non-discrimination laws). Taking pictures and participating in a religious ceremony are two completely different things.

I am a medical provider. I am not comfortable treating female genital problems, but I can’t deny them care. I am actually not comfortable providing care for genital issues of men who have made it known that they are anti-gay, but I still am required to do so. Being uncomfortable is sometimes part of your job, that is why you get paid to do it. Being put in uncomfortable situations does not, however constitute a violation of your religious liberties.

Good point! But maybe sometimes there are religious violations?

 

[gnosisofthomas]

If you are a Gnostic Christian, how is it that you believe in Sacraments? Isn’t all matter supposed to be considered evil, in that religion?

Nope, matter isn’t evil, it’s just imperfect. Actually, one of the oldest exegeses on the Sacraments is the Gnostic Gospel of Philip. The Sacraments have always been important to Gnostics.

 

[edwest2]

Not to derail but for those who don’t know about Gnosticism.

catholic.com/quickquestions/whats-gnosticism

Peace,
Ed

 

[SeannyM]

Good point! But maybe sometimes there are religious violations?

I’m sure there are, and they should be addressed individually. But the idea that because a few people may run into problems and unlawful treatment we should perpetuate the mistreatment of an entire class, seems pretty absurd. It’s basically saying that the rights of those few who have unfortunate and unlawful experiences are more important, and deserve more protection than the rights of an entire class of people who are experiencing unlawful, and unconstitutional treatment. I just find it pretty laughable, but that doesn’t mean that I condone the actions of those who are infringing on the religious liberties of others.

 

[SeannyM]

Excellent post! I’ll have to rethink some of my views on this.

Literally the first time I’ve read those words on a religious forum! I appreciate your open mind!

 

[holyrood]

True, I don’t have the right to force my religious convictions on him… but he doesn’t have the right to refuse me service either (at least in places with non-discrimination laws). Taking pictures and participating in a religious ceremony are two completely different things.

I am a medical provider. I am not comfortable treating female genital problems, but I can’t deny them care. I am actually not comfortable providing care for genital issues of men who have made it known that they are anti-gay, but I still am required to do so. Being uncomfortable is sometimes part of your job, that is why you get paid to do it. Being put in uncomfortable situations does not, however constitute a violation of your religious liberties.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=47322

Being an accessory to a crime is a crime in itself. Being an accessory to a sin is sin in itself: From the above post:

Nine ways of being an accessory to another’s sin.
1.By Counsel
2.By Command
3.By Consent
4.By Concealment
5.By Defense of Evil Done
6.By Partaking
7.By Provocation
8.By Praise
9.By Silence

There is nothing sinful about women’s genitals or giving medical care to women’s genitals. According to every major world religion for thousands of years, there is something sinful about homosexual acts. By taking photographs for a ceremony that promotes and defends and uplifts homosexual acts, one becomes an accessory to that sin by consent, defense, partaking, and silence, at the very least.

You keep posting as if there’s no health or moral component to the question, and as a result, what you say is simply wrong. You can deny it all you like, but it won’t change the facts.

And actually, yes, businesses do have the right to refuse service for various reasons. I can’t imagine a liberal publisher being forced by the government, for example, to print books by Ann Coulter.

 

[holyrood]

I’m sure there are, and they should be addressed individually. But the idea that because a few people may run into problems and unlawful treatment we should perpetuate the mistreatment of an entire class, seems pretty absurd. It’s basically saying that the rights of those few who have unfortunate and unlawful experiences are more important, and deserve more protection than the rights of an entire class of people who are experiencing unlawful, and unconstitutional treatment. I just find it pretty laughable, but that doesn’t mean that I condone the actions of those who are infringing on the religious liberties of others.

What rights are you talking about? Voting? Right to an education? Miranda rights? What rights exactly are being denied to anyone on the basis of homosexuality?

I’ll be honest, a previous poster (I think it was you, but I could be wrong) claimed that gays do not define themselves by their sexual desires, and yet here you’re defining those with SSA as a ‘class’ of citizen. That is defining them by their sexual proclivities, and that’s a very strange way to view people.

I’m sorry, but if you *force *a Christian to take part in a ‘gay marriage,’ you are violating their religious freedom. You are forcing them to be an accessory to homosexuality.

 

[SeannyM]

What rights are you talking about? Voting? Right to an education? Miranda rights? What rights exactly are being denied to anyone on the basis of homosexuality?

The right to equal application of the law. In states where gay marriage is not allowed, gay people are denied over 1,100 federal benefits, not to mention the numerous state benefits. Marriage is considered a civil right (Loving v Virginia) and it is the people who deny that right to a group of people based on one characteristc, who are singling them out and defining them by their sexual desires.

I’ll be honest, a previous poster (I think it was you, but I could be wrong) claimed that gays do not define themselves by their sexual desires, and yet here you’re defining those with SSA as a ‘class’ of citizen. That is defining them by their sexual proclivities, and that’s a very strange way to view people.

If you want to insist that that is how we identify ourselves, then fine, it doesn’t change anything. Even though that is not how we define ourselves, it just happens to be one charateristic we have in common, like race, ethnicity, and gender.

I’m sorry, but if you *force *a Christian to take part in a ‘gay marriage,’ you are violating their religious freedom. You are forcing them to be an accessory to homosexuality.

Taking pictures, or baking a cake, or making a flower arrangement is not participating in the marriage. It is not condoning the marriage. It is not doing anything other than providing the same service your business provides to anyone else. I’d challenge you to replace the word “gay” with any other adjective like “catholic” or “black” and explain to me how it would be acceptable to deny service then.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

The right to equal application of the law. In states where gay marriage is not allowed, gay people are denied over 1,100 federal benefits, not to mention the numerous state benefits. Marriage is considered a civil right (Loving v Virginia) and it is the people who deny that right to a group of people based on one characteristc, who are singling them out and defining them by their sexual desires.

Again, as I have stated, the reason government gives benefits to heterosexual couples is to help encourage them to have children in a stable environment. Homosexual unions do not create children without third party help. Therefore, it would be silly to give them the same benefits as heterosexual couples who have the chance of procreating.

If you want to insist that that is how we identify ourselves, then fine, it doesn’t change anything. Even though that is not how we define ourselves, it just happens to be one charateristic we have in common, like race, ethnicity, and gender.

Taking pictures, or baking a cake, or making a flower arrangement is not participating in the marriage. It is not condoning the marriage. It is not doing anything other than providing the same service your business provides to anyone else. I’d challenge you to replace the word “gay” with any other adjective like “catholic” or “black” and explain to me how it would be acceptable to deny service then.

You couldn’t be more wrong in this. You’re being forced to participate in something that you find morally reprehensible. It still makes you an accessory to said act.

 

[Slavonic]

You couldn’t be more wrong in this. You’re being forced to participate in something that you find morally reprehensible. It still makes you an accessory to said act.

But it’s funny how it’s only applied to gays. I’ve never heard of florists refusing service based on the couple’s use of oral contraception, IUDs, or vasectomies which close the marriage to the gift of life. That’s also morally reprehensible. It’s funny how a bakery refused a gay couple but made a cake for a dog wedding. The whole thing is a bit capricious.

Returning to the ban, how do you feel about the Olympians and Russian citizens who must be an accessories to a morally reprehensible ban?

 

[ComputerGeek25]

But it’s funny how it’s only applied to gays. I’ve never heard of florists refusing service based on the couple’s use of oral contraception, IUDs, or vasectomies which close the marriage to the gift of life. That’s also morally reprehensible. It’s funny how a bakery refused a gay couple but made a cake for a dog wedding. The whole thing is a bit capricious.

The bakery is not partaking in the sexual act with the couple, therefore any contraception use by the couple does not affect the bakery.

Dog weddings are simply silly.

Christ spoke very clearly about not giving scandal to others.

Returning to the ban, how do you feel about the Olympians and Russian citizens who must be an accessories to a morally reprehensible ban?

I have no issues with laws regarding public decorum. Even in our country we have laws limiting “free speech.”

I have not studied the laws in Russia well enough to form a full opinion.

 

[gnjsdad]

Again, as I have stated, the reason government gives benefits to heterosexual couples is to help encourage them to have children in a stable environment.

Yes, social stability is a very important consideration for any state. Authentically married couples relieve the state of the burden of looking after parentless children; a not insignificant burden!
ComputerGeek:

Homosexual unions do not create children without third party help. Therefore, it would be silly to give them the same benefits as heterosexual couples who have the chance of procreating.

I don’t think it’s possible, in reality, to speak of homosexual “unions”. One can speak of homosexual sex, and the most charitable thing that can be said about that is that it is sterile. No state with an interest in self-preservation should be promoting sterility.

Getting back to Russia, I pointed out much earlier in the thread that the Russian government’s animus toward gays could be rooted in demographic concerns. The Russian population is shrinking; that Russia is dying may be what motivates the government to treat the practitioners and promoters of sterile sex so harshly.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Yes, social stability is a very important consideration for any state. Authentically married couples relieve the state of the burden of looking after parentless children; a not insignificant burden!

I don’t think it’s possible, in reality, to speak of homosexual “unions”. One can speak of homosexual sex, and the most charitable thing that can be said about that is that it is sterile. No state with an interest in self-preservation should be promoting sterility.

Getting back to Russia, I pointed out much earlier in the thread that the Russian government’s animus toward gays could be rooted in demographic concerns. The Russian population is shrinking; that Russia is dying may be what motivates the government to treat the practitioners and promoters of sterile sex so harshly.

I did hear an interview with a Russian lawmaker, and there is a genuine concern over demographics in their country. The issue lost in the debate is that the Russians want to give benefits to those who will help build their society, and in this case, they want to help provide a stable framework to help build families.

 

[Slavonic]

The bakery is not partaking in the sexual act with the couple, therefore any contraception use by the couple does not affect the bakery.

The bakery doesn’t participate in a sex act with a gay couple either.

 

[Monkey1976]

But it’s funny how it’s only applied to gays. I’ve never heard of florists refusing service based on the couple’s use of oral contraception, IUDs, or vasectomies which close the marriage to the gift of life. That’s also morally reprehensible. It’s funny how a bakery refused a gay couple but made a cake for a dog wedding. The whole thing is a bit capricious.

Given a random sampling of couples requesting the services of a wedding photographer/baker/caterer/meeting hall which of the following can you pick out at a glance without asking them any questions at all?

• The faithful Catholic couple
• The contracepting couple
• Individuals divorced and remarrying without annulment
• The couple currently living together
• The homosexual couple

 

[holyrood]

The right to equal application of the law. In states where gay marriage is not allowed, gay people are denied over 1,100 federal benefits, not to mention the numerous state benefits. Marriage is considered a civil right (Loving v Virginia) and it is the people who deny that right to a group of people based on one characteristc, who are singling them out and defining them by their sexual desires.

But you DO have equal application of the law. You are restricted in whom you may marry in exactly the same ways I am. I am not allowed to marry anyone I please. Not my father, aunt, brother, cousin, a person of the same sex, or any person of the opposite sex who is already legally married. You and I are absolutely equal in the application of law.

The legal benefits you want–well, see above. You have every right to claim them by marriage under the same exact restrictions by which I must live. If you want to legally declare someone next of kin, do so with a legal document.

By the way, what are those 1,100 federal benefits? I went to a site someone linked that claimed to list them all, and it was a very short list. Nowhere near 1,100.

If you want to insist that that is how we identify ourselves, then fine, it doesn’t change anything. Even though that is not how we define ourselves, it just happens to be one charateristic we have in common, like race, ethnicity, and gender.

And yet…it’s the one we hear about over and over…and over…and over.

Taking pictures, or baking a cake, or making a flower arrangement is not participating in the marriage. It is not condoning the marriage. It is not doing anything other than providing the same service your business provides to anyone else. I’d challenge you to replace the word “gay” with any other adjective like “catholic” or “black” and explain to me how it would be acceptable to deny service then.

Being black is not a moral issue, is it? Being black is not a lifestyle that often leads to sexually transmitted diseases. Are you aware that many black people are offended by and sick to death of their skin color being equated to a sexual act? Or are liberals only concerned about other people’s feelings when it suits them?

Likewise for being Catholic or Jewish. History, religion, health statistics…they all highlight that homosexual activity is not only immoral, but harmful both to the individual and eventually to society, the more prevalent it becomes.

In addition, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it’s perfectly legal for someone to refuse to participate in a Catholic wedding. So be it. There are plenty of bakers and photographers.

But it’s funny how it’s only applied to gays. I’ve never heard of florists refusing service based on the couple’s use of oral contraception, IUDs, or vasectomies which close the marriage to the gift of life. That’s also morally reprehensible. It’s funny how a bakery refused a gay couple but made a cake for a dog wedding. The whole thing is a bit capricious.

It gets really old, this willful ignoring of facts. Tell me how many florists have refused service because a person is gay. Florists have been serving gay people for as long as florists have existed. The difference is the demand to very publicly act in a way that condones that exact behavior. I rather trust that if someone walked into a Catholic florist and said, “Hey, I want you to decorate my bedroom in celebration of the fact that I’m going to use contraception tonight” you might see the same thing.

If a KKK member walked in and wanted flowers for a banquet celebrating the anniversary of a great cross-burning or lynching–I think you’d see the same thing.

Seriously, Seanny–are you really incapable of seeing the difference between baking a birthday cake for a person, and baking a cake specifically celebrating, condoning, approving, and applauding a specific behavior that every religion throughout history has taken moral exception to?? Are you telling me you really can’t see that?

Person. Behavior. Nobody cares about providing services to any person. We have a right not to be involved in promoting, applauding, approving, or supporting, in any way, behaviors.

The bakery is not partaking in the sexual act with the couple, therefore any contraception use by the couple does not affect the bakery.

Dog weddings are simply silly.

Christ spoke very clearly about not giving scandal to others.

Well said.