LGBT rights discussion

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Invisusira » Sat Nov 17, 2012 4:50 pm

I completely and totally agree 100%, Fridmarr. I do not support voting on candidates based on prejudices towards religion at all; in fact, that's precisely what my post was talking about - the thousands upon thousands of people who voted for Romney based solely on the fact that he's an Honest Christian trying to Return the Country to God.

My freedom from religion comment is simply based in the fact that I do not want any sort of religious morales forced on my by law. Gay marriage is an excellent example of something which is outlawed simply because Christians find it offensive; there is no actual reason for it to be illegal. I have zero problems with public comments about religion or any of that other sort of stuff you mentioned; that's precisely the ridiculous self-important attitude (not talking about you, talking about the I DONT WANT TO HEAR ANYTHING I DONT LIKE people) I despise.
User avatar
Invisusira
Moderator
 
Posts: 5848
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 6:23 pm
Location: alt-tabbed

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Paxen » Sat Nov 17, 2012 7:15 pm

Fridmarr wrote:Well it's a bit hypocritical to say it doesn't matter on one hand and say you'd like to see an athiest elected on other. Having read through most of this thread and the politics thread, it seems to me that the presence of religion means more to those who aren't religious than those who are.


Right now an atheist wouldn't stand a chance in the general election, and certainly not in the primaries (as he would appear to be unelectable solely for that).

The nutters who won't vote for an atheist aren't posting in this thread; that doesn't mean they don't exist.
Paxen
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:38 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Koatanga » Sat Nov 17, 2012 7:40 pm

Fridmarr wrote:But it ought to be about that candidate's views, and not one's own prejudices about religion in general. That is the same sort of gross generalization used to justify the worst sorts of human behavior.


But that's just it - the candidate in question doesn't espouse the views of Christianity. He didn't want to feed the hungry or clothe the naked or love his neighbour as himself or anything of the kind. He's not even mainstream Christian - Mormon is anything from a sect to a cult depending on who you ask. He was using religion as a tool to get himself elected, and that's it.

The core beliefs of his party revolve around the rights of businesses to prey on consumers without interference from government in the form of regulations such as the kind that would have prevented the credit collapse and the current recession. There's nothing Christian there. They just wave the Christian banner because if they didn't they wouldn't stand a chance in hell of getting elected.

I find that to be morally reprehensible. And while I agree there shouldn't be any laws banning candidates from talking about their religion, I hate the idea that candidates can be elected on the basis of religion.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Darielle » Sat Nov 17, 2012 8:05 pm

Well it's a bit hypocritical to say it doesn't matter on one hand and say you'd like to see an athiest elected on other. Having read through most of this thread and the politics thread, it seems to me that the presence of religion means more to those who aren't religious than those who are.


To be completely fair, it isn't really hypocritical to say that you'd to see an atheist elected unless you were also saying that you want him elected because he's an atheist. The attitude is more that he/she would like to see one elected in spite of the fact that the candidate is atheist (which you're not advanced enough socially to handle).

Or at least, that's how I read it.
Darielle
 
Posts: 853
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 2:41 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Fridmarr » Sat Nov 17, 2012 10:02 pm

Koatanga wrote:But that's just it - the candidate in question doesn't espouse the views of Christianity. He didn't want to feed the hungry or clothe the naked or love his neighbour as himself or anything of the kind. He's not even mainstream Christian - Mormon is anything from a sect to a cult depending on who you ask. He was using religion as a tool to get himself elected, and that's it.

The core beliefs of his party revolve around the rights of businesses to prey on consumers without interference from government in the form of regulations such as the kind that would have prevented the credit collapse and the current recession. There's nothing Christian there. They just wave the Christian banner because if they didn't they wouldn't stand a chance in hell of getting elected.

I find that to be morally reprehensible. And while I agree there shouldn't be any laws banning candidates from talking about their religion, I hate the idea that candidates can be elected on the basis of religion.
...ok so then it's even more stupid to vilify religion then isn't it? That's my point.

You're dead wrong on the rest though, if you're going to look at regulations/or the lack thereof, that led to the credit collapse the GOP has rather clean hands in comparison. Specifically, Just look at those regulations that exist around incentivizing lenders to create high risk loans, the politics around that whole issue and why they were promoted, and those regulations that reclassified those loans into a less risky security class. You can see the discussion in the politics thread for that though, this isn't the thread for that discussion.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Shoju » Mon Nov 19, 2012 7:35 am

Fridmarr wrote:
Invisusira wrote:You're absolutely right, it DOES matter a lot more to us. Why? Because, as non-religious or non-Christian Americans, we're the ones who are forced to live with it every single day. When half a country is so gung-ho to elect an candidate based on the fact that he is so openly Christian and vows to get the country back to God and cure it of the gay instead of ACTUAL POLITICAL ISSUES, there is something absolutely disgustingly wrong with how shit works.

America was founded on the principle of freedom of - and freedom from - religion. We all know the separation of church and state is... not quite there. When we have someone looking to set the country back 50 years with his views on basic civil rights for women and gays almost get elected, you damn well better believe religion matters to us.
.
But it ought to be about that candidate's views, and not one's own prejudices about religion in general. That is the same sort of gross generalization used to justify the worst sorts of human behavior.

That said, if someone hates religion that's fine with me, they just shouldn't say that religion shouldn't matter to anyone, while it clearly does to them.

For the record, freedom "from" religion, is just about the dumbest thing I have ever heard. That would imply that anyone who makes a public comment about religion is violating your rights and is therefore committing a crime. There could not possibly be anything less American than that. The government isn't responsible to keep you free from religion, they are responsible to protect your religious choices and to treat religions equally.


Freedom "from" Religion, isn't implying that anyone who makes a public comment about religion is violating your rights and is therefore committing a crime.

Freedom From Religion, in this aspect, is more about removing religion from government. Not from the people who run the government. If you are Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Mormon, Atheist, Catholic, Protestant, Wiccan, Satanist, Etc... it shouldn't matter. That should not be a part of the job of governing the United States. As an elected official, you are chosen to represent your district / state / county / city / nation, not your personal religious affiliation. Your job (in regards to religion) is protecting the rights of all religious (and non religious) groups, not pushing your personal religious group's agenda.

There is a difference between making sure that each person has the right to worship the way that they choose, in the religious denomination that they choose and pushing to make / keep things illegal based on your own religious views.

That is the problem. That is where Religious Freedom needs to work, and that is where it is currently failing.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Klaudandus » Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:42 am

The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9378
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Shoju » Mon Nov 26, 2012 11:46 am

On one hand, I understand the problem with the ideology. On the other hand, I see a business that is going to work the system to save them the most money, and that.... is capitalism.

But it also highlights the problem, and shows perfectly why this needs to be a federal issue, and not a state by state issue. Until the Federal Government steps in, this is what we are going to see. Companies who will take every avenue they can to save money, to not have to pay, to not have to recognize. Until we see the Federal Government wade into it, we will have problems like this.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Koatanga » Mon Nov 26, 2012 1:36 pm

Fridmarr wrote:You're dead wrong on the rest though, if you're going to look at regulations/or the lack thereof, that led to the credit collapse the GOP has rather clean hands in comparison. Specifically, Just look at those regulations that exist around incentivizing lenders to create high risk loans, the politics around that whole issue and why they were promoted, and those regulations that reclassified those loans into a less risky security class. You can see the discussion in the politics thread for that though, this isn't the thread for that discussion.


And the major shareholders and board members who determine how the lending institutions behave - are those Republicans or Democrats, generally?
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1671
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Fridmarr » Mon Nov 26, 2012 3:21 pm

Koatanga wrote:And the major shareholders and board members who determine how the lending institutions behave - are those Republicans or Democrats, generally?


I don't know if that information is readily available and it is of rather dubious value anyhow (but I'd bet it's more even than you think). About the only thing you can really look at is the flow of the money.

Campaign contributions are honestly a bit of a wash over the last 12 years. Generally groups like Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Citigroup, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, even Bank of America have trended Democratic but barely (overall). Then in the 2008 election cycle the Dems peaked and got significantly more money from these financial institutions than the GOP.

This year however, that flip flopped with Romney getting getting a strong clean sweep from the financial sector.

(see opensecrets.org (could be .com) for your own research)

That said, this topic has absolutely no value in a LGBT Rights thread. If you want to continue this discussion, revisit it in the politics thread, it does not belong here and will be moderated going forward.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Klaudandus » Tue Dec 11, 2012 10:08 pm

The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9378
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby KysenMurrin » Wed Dec 12, 2012 3:01 am

The UK parliament has revealed their plans for legislation: Same-sex marriage will be legal, except in the Church of England, where it will be illegal. :?
KysenMurrin
 
Posts: 4838
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
Location: UK

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Nooska » Wed Dec 12, 2012 3:47 am

KysenMurrin wrote:The UK parliament has revealed their plans for legislation: Same-sex marriage will be legal, except in the Church of England, where it will be illegal. :?

Thats a rather interesting political stance - we will legalize same sex marriage, but we will ban it in 1 religious institution. I know the Church of England is subject to the Queen, but that doesn't mean its subject to parliaments political views. If the CoE decides that they will not conduct same sex marriages for religious reasons, thats their prerogative - but secularly elected politicians have no business legislating religion, except to subject religious practises to the same standards as secular practises (ie, if same-sex marriage is banned secularly, then religious institutions cannot conduct them either, naturally).

(Though I know the discussion, it existed around here for almost a decade - where the right wing wanted to "not legislate what the church could do", while it was legislaion that kept the church from conducting same-sex marriages, so it was a deregulation the left wanted)
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1553
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby KysenMurrin » Wed Dec 12, 2012 3:57 am

I don't know how accurate this is, but what I've heard in the past is that because the Church of England is a state institution headed by the Queen, then if it was legal for them to perform same-sex marriages, EU law could be interpreted to require them to do so because of anti-discrimination rules.
KysenMurrin
 
Posts: 4838
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
Location: UK

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Nooska » Wed Dec 12, 2012 4:08 am

That can only be considered scare-tactic politics.

No anti-disctrimination laws hold sway over religios institutions acts based on religios views. Only on actual hirings for example.
(else how can some mosques have gender segregation for instance)

That seems like a ploy by anti EU, anti same-sex marriage politicians to me.
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1553
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby KysenMurrin » Wed Dec 12, 2012 4:22 am

THe Church of England is a state institution, which makes it distinct from independant churches as far as what rules it has to follow.
KysenMurrin
 
Posts: 4838
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
Location: UK

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Nooska » Wed Dec 12, 2012 5:39 am

No, not really. It is a religious institution. We have "the peoples church" in denmark, which also has the Queen at its head and is controlled by the church ministyr - that doesn't make it a "state institution" in any respect with anti discrimination etc in its practises. Subjecting any religious body, whether independant or state sponsored, to comply with laws dictating how its practises should go would be in conflict with both the ECHR article 9, and UN DHR article 18.

European Convention on Human Rights wrote:ARTICLE 9
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience
and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or
belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and
in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship,
teaching, practice and observance.
2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be
subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are
necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety,
for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the
protection of the rights and freedoms of others.


The Universal Declaration of Human rights wrote:Article 18.
• Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1553
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Klaudandus » Wed Dec 12, 2012 5:50 am

Why would it matter if its banned within the church of england? Cuz afaik, same-sex couples here in the us, just want to get married at the civil level.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9378
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby KysenMurrin » Wed Dec 12, 2012 5:55 am

Well all right then, I guess I heard wrong. :)

That makes this less understandable, though. If it's an opt-in situation for every other church, why should CofE have it enshrined in law?


Klaud - there are Anglican homosexuals who also want to get married.
KysenMurrin
 
Posts: 4838
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
Location: UK

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Nooska » Wed Dec 12, 2012 6:13 am

yeah, same sex couples have ad civil unions in a large part of europe for a long time - they want the next level now (well the religious ones do I guess)
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1553
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Klaudandus » Wed Dec 12, 2012 6:42 am

as bad as it sounds, shouldnt it be up to the churches to decide whether they want to marry someone or not?

I think otherwise, it just opens a can of worms -- the church would be, well, if you are forcing us to marry someone against our beliefs, then we should also force our beliefs on something you don't agree (ie, euthanasia, abortion, et al)

not familiar with the UK system, but I'm saying this based on what goes here in the US (not that it stops the american churches from trying to impose their views on the general population)...
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9378
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Nooska » Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:46 pm

^aye exactly, the discussion above was about it still being unlawful in the UK because if it wasn't the CoE would be forced to wed same sex couples (which they wouldn't was the result).

If you are religious you believe in something divine (trying to put it siply, so bear with me) - if that divine says "you cannot marry" it shouldn't come as a surprise to you taht believe in that divine that you should not be married.

Now intepretation of religious texts is best left to religious institutions themselves, and out of the hands of lawmakers. Lawmakers have a responsibility to make an effort to ensure that laws do not infringe on the rights of the religious institutions.

Article 9, section 2 of the ECHR is particularly interesting there, in that it becomes a human rights violation if lawmakes impose restrictions on the practices of a religious instituion unless it can be demonstrated that they are necessary in a democratic society - so in essence, if I were to gather a group of likeminded individuals in a religious institution, where same sex marriage was endorsed, it would be a human righst violation to restrict our right to perform such marriages.

The DHR is not nearly as clear about it, but is also designed to span more than the primarily christian based countries of europe - still, it says that you have a human right in practise and observance, so the same case could be made - I don't know if the US is actually a signatroy to the DHR (it honestly wouldn't suprise me if they weren't, looking at the way the equal protection for people with disabilities convention was handled), but if they are, a human righst argument could be made against DoMA - all it take sis finding 1 religious institution that endorses same sex marriage based on a non-silly interpretation of religious dogma for said religion.
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1553
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Ironshield » Wed Dec 12, 2012 3:10 pm

I must say the whole CofE (and Church of Wales btw, but it gets a bit of a mouthful, so just excuse my omission henceforth) exclusion seems bizarre to me. I can only imagine it has something to do with the whole established church, inclusion in the government thing. There are other rules that apply differently for CofE and everyone else, notably foreign marriages. I needed to get forms signed by the home office etc... to get married in a Catholic church (I wasnt naturalized at the time) but if we had been so inclined we could have done it in a CofE church with no red tape.

I just find it weird that it seems the argument for excluding CofE seems to be something to do with Europe and human rights, but I would have thought that since they have allowed other groups to do it, you'd have MORE recourse to claim a Human rights violation for the exclusion.
Image
Ironshield
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 5:46 pm

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Fridmarr » Wed Dec 12, 2012 7:12 pm

Nooska wrote:Article 9, section 2 of the ECHR is particularly interesting there, in that it becomes a human rights violation if lawmakes impose restrictions on the practices of a religious instituion unless it can be demonstrated that they are necessary in a democratic society - so in essence, if I were to gather a group of likeminded individuals in a religious institution, where same sex marriage was endorsed, it would be a human righst violation to restrict our right to perform such marriages.

Yes, it would be a human rights violation, but I don't think that means what you are implying. I'm pretty sure the government would not stop you from doing that, however, that does not mean that the government must recognize those marriages legally. That is an entirely different issue.

Churches in states that don't allow gay marriage here, still marry gay people. The government can not stop that without violating the constitution. However, that marriage only has any meaning within the context of that church, it has no legal standing. Just because the government can't restrict your religious actions (unless necessary to preserve a democratic society), doesn't make your actions law.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: LGBT rights discussion

Postby Nooska » Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:48 pm

^thats true, though it would make an interesting case. What you are saying (and being correct about) is that the government can just let you perfor the marriages, iwthout any civil standing to follow.

That the CoE can perform marriages without red tape isn't so different from many other couontries. In several countries recognized religious entities can perform both the religious and the secular/civil union at the same time - in dnemark fonr instants, the "peoples church", the catholic church, the mosaic beleif society (jewish church), the primary asatru association as well as several islamic mosques can perform a civil wedding at the same time as the religious ritual (ie, one go). I know some countries have this completely seperated, but that doesn't make the church a "part of the state" they have just been given permission to perform certain works that the state would usually do.

Now on that, the danish peoples church is the sole registrar of births and names - that riles some feathers (having to register your children with the church, despite ones own religious beliefs)
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1553
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest