Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Landmark gay marriage trial starts today in California
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 91 of 759 (573235)
08-10-2010 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Hyroglyphx
08-10-2010 1:15 PM


Hyro writes:
If you'll go back and read what I've been writing for the last three pages, you'll see that Subbie cleared that issue up for me. Now that I know there is a provision that equally protects religion and homosexuals, I no longer have no objections, and haven't for several pages.
I know. What bothers me is before subbie "cleared it up" almost every word you said reminded me of those deceiving ads against gay marriage.
I didn't know exactly those provisions that were cited. But at least I knew that priests and pastors can already deny marrying people based on their teachings. That's why we don't see Jewish couples getting married by catholic priests.
I don't care what you think about the issue now. Just do me a favor and stop watching/reading those ads and spit them back out at us. Don't be like Darth Vader, man. The dark side ain't cool.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-10-2010 1:15 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-10-2010 2:49 PM Taz has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 92 of 759 (573240)
08-10-2010 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Hyroglyphx
08-10-2010 1:41 PM


hyro writes:
Ask yourself the same question in reverse. If religion isn't allowed to dictate why homosexuals can or can't marry, why would/should the opposite be true?
Because the reverse doesn't make any sense.
Think about it this way. Doctors must treat the patient in the emergency room, correct? Does this mean that people must, therefore, go to the emergency room? Restaurants must accept every potential customer as long as the customer is reasonable, correct? Does this mean that I have to go into the restaurant?
The reverse doesn't make any sense.
Marriage is a business. If they want to participate in the business, they have to follow the rule of business. The exception doesn't make any sense to me.
It's not right for religionists to say that homosexuals shouldn't marry in secular society (it's not their place), and by the same token it's not right for the state to dictate that a religion goes against its own beliefs.
Nobody is saying the religion should go against its own beliefs. If they don't like marrying gay people, then don't participate in the business.
If you're a doctor and don't like treating transexuals, then go find another profession. If you're a restaurant owner but you don't like to serve black people, go find something else to do. If you're a catholic pe... priest and you don't like to marry gay people, then go do your catholic priest thing and let others do the marrying part.
It's really a simple concept. Marriage is a business. Hell, every pastor and every priest I know of charges money if a couple wants to get married by him. Why should they get a free ticket to discriminate when we don't allow other businesses to discriminate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-10-2010 1:41 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-10-2010 3:09 PM Taz has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 759 (573250)
08-10-2010 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Taz
08-10-2010 1:48 PM


I don't care what you think about the issue now. Just do me a favor and stop watching/reading those ads and spit them back out at us.
I honestly have no idea what ads you are referring to. There was no propaganda being fed to me, I came up with that inference all on my own.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Taz, posted 08-10-2010 1:48 PM Taz has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 94 of 759 (573252)
08-10-2010 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by onifre
08-10-2010 1:23 PM


But why should religious people be protected to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation, yet no other person(s) or business would be protected in the same manner?
Why does religion get a pass? And this has nothing to do with the separation of church and state.
No, it has to do with the Free Exercise Clause. One is free to argue that we shouldn't have a Free Exercise Clause, but as long as it's there, the State cannot require anyone to do anything that violates their religious dictates without a compelling interest, and then it must do it in a way that intrudes on religious beliefs in the least possible manner.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by onifre, posted 08-10-2010 1:23 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by onifre, posted 08-10-2010 4:59 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 759 (573253)
08-10-2010 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Taz
08-10-2010 1:56 PM


Doctors must treat the patient in the emergency room, correct? Does this mean that people must, therefore, go to the emergency room? Restaurants must accept every potential customer as long as the customer is reasonable, correct? Does this mean that I have to go into the restaurant?
Secular society and religious institutions are two entirely separate entities, which makes it irrelevant.
Marriage is a business. If they want to participate in the business, they have to follow the rule of business. The exception doesn't make any sense to me.
It's not a business for pastors, but it is for the State. Furthermore, why would anyone want a bigot to preside over their wedding anyhow?
Nobody is saying the religion should go against its own beliefs. If they don't like marrying gay people, then don't participate in the business.
You cannot remove the historical context or the religious implications. This is still a very new revelation. It would actually be easier for the pastors to make this argument against homosexual marriage. Secondly, they are operating under the pretense of serving god's laws, first and foremost, not man-made laws.
If you're a doctor and don't like treating transexuals, then go find another profession. If you're a restaurant owner but you don't like to serve black people, go find something else to do. If you're a catholic pe... priest and you don't like to marry gay people, then go do your catholic priest thing and let others do the marrying part.
Don't you see what's happening? You are simply reversing the roles. You are saying that unless they conform to your beliefs, you will accept nothing else. You are expecting them to change their beliefs. Isn't that what many of them expected of gays -- assimilate or deal with it?
Why should they get a free ticket to discriminate when we don't allow other businesses to discriminate?
Because it's their Constitutional right. Forcing them to go against their religious beliefs within the sanctity and confines of their own sanctuary, is abridging their freedoms for the sake of anothers, which is hypocritical.
They don't get to dictate the affairs of secular society, and we shouldn't dictate their affairs.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Taz, posted 08-10-2010 1:56 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by hooah212002, posted 08-10-2010 3:18 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 98 by ringo, posted 08-10-2010 3:32 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 99 by Taz, posted 08-10-2010 3:45 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 96 of 759 (573255)
08-10-2010 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Hyroglyphx
08-10-2010 3:09 PM


They don't get to dictate the affairs of secular society, and we shouldn't dictate their affairs.
But they are the only group who is actively opposing homosexual marriage. They are trying to dictate secular affairs.

"A still more glorious dawn awaits
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise
A morning filled with 400 billion suns
The rising of the milky way"
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-10-2010 3:09 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-10-2010 3:26 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 759 (573258)
08-10-2010 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by hooah212002
08-10-2010 3:18 PM


But they are the only group who is actively opposing homosexual marriage. They are trying to dictate secular affairs.
Yeah, but that's through protest, which is another thing afforded to them by Constitution.
The critical difference would be forcing them through legal means to do something against their religious beliefs.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by hooah212002, posted 08-10-2010 3:18 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by hooah212002, posted 08-11-2010 11:36 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 98 of 759 (573259)
08-10-2010 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Hyroglyphx
08-10-2010 3:09 PM


Hyroglyphx writes:
It's not a business for pastors, but it is for the State.
If the pastor is acting as an agent of the state - e.g. presiding over the formalizing of a state-sanctioned contract - then it definitely is a "business" for him, though I'd be more inclined to call it a "job requirement" myself. If the pastor was moonlighting as a bus driver, would you condone him refusing to drop passengers off at bars, strip clubs, etc?
It's simple enough. You do your job or you get out of the business. If you can refuse to marry one couple for any reason, then the state can (should) remove your right to marry any couple.

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-10-2010 3:09 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 99 of 759 (573261)
08-10-2010 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Hyroglyphx
08-10-2010 3:09 PM


hyro writes:
Don't you see what's happening? You are simply reversing the roles. You are saying that unless they conform to your beliefs, you will accept nothing else. You are expecting them to change their beliefs. Isn't that what many of them expected of gays -- assimilate or deal with it?
Oh, please. Just because they have a brain, a vocal chord, and a mouth to translate their bigotry into words doesn't mean their position has any merit.
You're making the mistake of treating the human right issue as an opinion. In other words, you're obfuscating the issue by pretending like their bigotry has equal footing as my fight against bigotry.
Let's go back to slicing people up to force a confession. Suppose I've captured a known rapist and murderer and I want to slice him up one little piece at a time until he confesses to everything. You step in to prevent me from doing that saying morally speaking what I want to do is morally repugnant. I then tell you that's a matter of opinion.
See how that works? You're acting like those religious bigots have any legitimate reason to impose their hate on the rest of us.
Human right is non-negotiable. It's not up for debate. And if you're willing to take a compromise in the issue of human right, then... you figure it out.
They don't get to dictate the affairs of secular society, and we shouldn't dictate their affairs.
I feel like I'm talking to a wall here, but let me try again.
Nobody is talking about forcing these priests or pastors to perform secular marriage. But if they're going to perform a secular marriage and issue a secular, state sponsored marriage license then they ought to not discriminate.
If they want to discriminate, they should get out of the business of issuing state marriage licenses and only perform religious marriage ceremonies. The religious marriage they perform will just not mean a goddamn thing to the state, that's all.
But if they want to you to pay for them to perform and issue a secular marriage license, they have no excuse to discriminate.
In other words, get out of the business if they want to discriminate. But nobody is forcing them to unwillingly perform religious marriage ceremony. But if they're going to perform state recognized marriage and issue marriage license then they cannot discriminate.
I feel like a broken record, but it seems like you're having trouble understanding the difference between religious marriage and secular, state recognized marriage.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-10-2010 3:09 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-10-2010 7:06 PM Taz has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 100 of 759 (573269)
08-10-2010 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by subbie
08-10-2010 3:09 PM


No, it has to do with the Free Exercise Clause. One is free to argue that we shouldn't have a Free Exercise Clause, but as long as it's there, the State cannot require anyone to do anything that violates their religious dictates without a compelling interest, and then it must do it in a way that intrudes on religious beliefs in the least possible manner.
Right, but no one is asking them to perform religious ceremonies that violate their religious beliefs. I'm talking about the right to legally marry someone through a state sanctioned license. Same as say, legally selling alcohol through a state sactioned license.
Wouldn't it now separate the pastor from his church and make him/her a representative of the state when he legally marries someone?
Doesn't that not also require them to adhere to non-discriminatory laws that the state mandates, that supercede individual beliefs?
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by subbie, posted 08-10-2010 3:09 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 101 of 759 (573272)
08-10-2010 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Hyroglyphx
08-10-2010 1:41 PM


If religion isn't allowed to dictate why homosexuals can or can't marry, why would/should the opposite be true?
Because the pastor went to the state and asked for a license to marry, which means, they should now adhere to the laws of the state. If they don't like the laws of the state, then they don't have to apply for the license. Simple as that.
If you want to get a license to sell alcohol, but you think the drinking age should be 18, then you are in violation of the state law. Either follow the state law or don't apply for the license. Simple as that.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-10-2010 1:41 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Huntard, posted 08-10-2010 5:10 PM onifre has replied
 Message 108 by kjsimons, posted 08-11-2010 10:32 AM onifre has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 102 of 759 (573274)
08-10-2010 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by onifre
08-10-2010 5:03 PM


onifre writes:
Because the pator went to the state and asked for a license to marry, which means, they should now adhere to the laws of the state. If they don't like the laws of the state, then they don't have to apply for the license. Simple as that.
Precisely. Nobody is stopping him from holding a religious marrying ceremony for the couple as well, if he is so inclined. If he doesn't want to marry people the state says can marry, it's pretty clear he should not be marrying at all. Say if I worked for a garbage disposal company, and one day I go up to my boss and say to him "Hey boss, you know what, I only want to take on pink dumpsters from now on, any other dumpster can stuff it as far as I'm concerned", what do you think my boss will do?
If you want to get a license to sell alcohol, but you think the drinking age should be 18, then you are in violation of the state law.
Pff, just sell it to them when they're sixteen, we do it over here (well beverages up to 15% that is, anything over that and you need to be 18)
Either follow the state law or don't apply for the license. Simple as that.
Agree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by onifre, posted 08-10-2010 5:03 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by onifre, posted 08-10-2010 5:42 PM Huntard has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 103 of 759 (573278)
08-10-2010 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Huntard
08-10-2010 5:10 PM


Nobody is stopping him from holding a religious marrying ceremony for the couple as well
That seems to be the only area where the church has (and rightfully so) jurisdiction. Like when my kids marry their dolls, and I tell them, "Don't marry the black and the white one together," but they do it anyway. My kids, in that ceremony, have the authority.
But not state sanctioned marriages, where state law supercedes. Sorry, but their invisible friend doesn't have any say so in those cases.
"Hey boss, you know what, I only want to take on pink dumpsters from now on, any other dumpster can stuff it as far as I'm concerned", what do you think my boss will do?
Call you queer and ask you to marry him? Lol
I know I shouldn't have assumed the boss was a male but it wouldn't have been as funny with a female boss.
Pff, just sell it to them when they're sixteen, we do it over here (well beverages up to 15% that is, anything over that and you need to be 18)
When I was younger this would have been great. But now that I'm older, I'd hate to be in bars with annoying 18 year old douche bags, and it would certainly be worse if they were 16.
I think the drinking age should be 30 for men, 21 for women.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Huntard, posted 08-10-2010 5:10 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Huntard, posted 08-11-2010 7:49 AM onifre has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 104 of 759 (573291)
08-10-2010 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Taz
08-10-2010 3:45 PM


You're making the mistake of treating the human right issue as an opinion.
But is there an human right to be married by whoever you want? I don't think there is. Lots of people are qualified to conduct marriages, but that doesn't mean that you can compel any particular one of them to perform a marriage at a time or a place or for a couple of your choosing.
The issue is not without its parallels. A lawyer is in the law business, and everyone has a right to employ counsel, but this doesn't mean that you can compel any particular person qualified as a lawyer to take your case if he thinks you're in the wrong --- or if he's busy, or retired, or you don't have enough money, or if he doesn't like your face, or any other reason that seems sufficient to him.
---
And I would point out that liberty of conscience is also a human rights issue. You don't pull the mask off the old Lone Ranger, and you don't mess around with the Free Exercise Clause.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Taz, posted 08-10-2010 3:45 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Taz, posted 08-10-2010 7:19 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 105 of 759 (573300)
08-10-2010 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Dr Adequate
08-10-2010 7:06 PM


DrA writes:
The issue is not without its parallels. A lawyer is in the law business, and everyone has a right to employ counsel, but this doesn't mean that you can compel any particular person qualified as a lawyer to take your case if he thinks you're in the wrong --- or if he's busy, or retired, or you don't have enough money, or if he doesn't like your face, or any other reason that seems sufficient to him.
I understand what you mean. However, the profession you mentioned is very heavily regulated. Not only that, if you're a public attorney you have to counsel when called upon.
Besides, I did mention before that restaurants have to serve you as long as you are reasonable. In other words, you have the right to be served at a restaurant within reason. Places like McDonalds have imposed the policy of not serving people without shoes or shirts, and I think that's pretty reasonable of them.
In regard to the business of marriage, remember that we're talking about secular marriage. I have no problem with a pastor refusing to marry a couple if he thought the couple was committing fraud. Just like I have no problem with a lawyer refusing to represent a client if he thought the client was guilty as hell. But refusing to serve for no reason other than "I don't like them niggers" or "I don't like them fags" is clearly not fashionable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-10-2010 7:06 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-10-2010 11:07 PM Taz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024