How do you feel about Same-Sex Marriage?

[FreakyLocz14]

It affects them by placing a legal injunction on their discriminatory behaviour? I fail to see the negative aspect of that. Gay marriage or not, gay people exist and shouldn't be excluded from any curriculum. Perhaps if kids were taught about homosexuality in schools we'd see far less discrimination both in schools and later in life. But as I'm sure you'll be ever-so-vigilant in reminding me, that is my opinion.

Also, the fact that the Catholic Church stopped adoption services in Massacheusetts - depriving who knows how many children of loving homes even in traditional families - rather than allowing children to be placed in the care of same-sex couples is just another testament to how beautiful and well-intentioned that institution really is.

The opinion of the majority of voters in what is commonly called "the most liberal state in the Union" seems to disagree with you. We don't want homosexuality showed down our children's throats in public schools and we don't want the government forcing religious organizations to compromise their beliefs. The Catholic Church runs some of the most charitable activities in this country. They are a very well-intentioned organization.

Parents deserve to be able to control what social beliefs are taught to their children. School is a place to learn academics, not political indoctrination.

 

[Livewire]

They are a very well-intentioned organization.

And how did the whole Pedophile coverup lawsuit work for the Catholic Church? You're in law school, I'd imagine that your familiar with the case somewhat. They do good work, there's no doubting that. However, they're not without due criticism, and rightfully so.

Regardless, The Catholic Church's stance is irrelevant. The law is to be void of religious bias.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

And how did the whole Pedophile coverup lawsuit work for the Catholic Church? You're in law school, I'd imagine that your familiar with the case somewhat. They do good work, there's no doubting that. However, they're not without due criticism, and rightfully so.

Regardless, The Catholic Church's stance is irrelevant. The law is to be void of religious bias.

The separation of church and state is a double-edged sword. While the law is to be void of religious bias, the law also not supposed to infringe on the Church's right to free exercise of their religion. That includes not forcing them to place children in homosexual families.

 

[Shining Raichu]

The opinion of the majority of voters in what is commonly called "the most liberal state in the Union" seems to disagree with you. We don't want homosexuality showed down our children's throats in public schools and we don't want the government forcing religious organizations to compromise their beliefs. The Catholic Church runs some of the most charitable activities in this country. They are a very well-intentioned organization.

Parents deserve to be able to control what social beliefs are taught to their children. School is a place to learn academics, not political indoctrination.

The majority on Proposition (H)8 wasn't that large. A 52%/48% pass isn't necessarily a victory morally speaking, particularly considering the level of confusion regarding the wording could have easily switched the numbers verbatim.

Teaching simple tolerance acceptance isn't shoving anything down anyone's throat, and it's certainly not political indoctrination (though, that was nice buzz word there - kudos).

It's astonishing to me that people are so invested in protecting the rights of religious organisations, yet they don't bat an eyelid to the obvious injustice done to the basic civil rights of the homosexual community. The hipocrisy there is so clear it rivals the intensity of the hipocrisy inherent within the Church itself, yet it's allowed to continue.

And how did the whole Pedophile coverup lawsuit work for the Catholic Church?

There have been far more than one of those. This is part of the hipocrisy I just mentioned above. Live Wire, I'm so glad you brought this up because I was afraid if I did it would be too off-topic :)

 

[FreakyLocz14]

The majority on Proposition (H)8 wasn't that large. A 52%/48% pass isn't necessarily a victory morally speaking, particularly considering the level of confusion regarding the wording could have easily switched the numbers verbatim.

Teaching simple tolerance acceptance isn't shoving anything down anyone's throat, and it's certainly not political indoctrination (though, that was nice buzz word there - kudos).

It's astonishing to me that people are so invested in protecting the rights of religious organisations, yet they don't bat an eyelid to the obvious injustice done to the basic civil rights of the homosexual community. The hipocrisy there is so clear it rivals the intensity of the hipocrisy inherent within the Church itself, yet it's allowed to continue.

Allow me to begin this post with the cliche "It doesn't matter if you win by an inch or a mile. Winning is winning."

The State of California is amongst the most homosexual-friendly in the United States. We give homosexuals a lot more legal rights and protections than other states do, including the ALL of the rights associated with marriage that a state can give. The homosexual community is far from oppressed here, so protecting the 1st Amendment rights of the Catholic Church is not hypocritical in the least.

 

[Shining Raichu]

Allow me to begin this quote with the cliche "It doesn't matter if you win by an inch or a mile. Winning is winning."

The State of California is amongst the most homosexual-friendly in the United States. We give homosexuals a lot more legal rights and protections than other states do, including the ALL of the rights associated with marriage that a state can give. The homosexual community is far from oppressed here, so protecting the 1st Amendment rights of the Catholic Church is not hypocritical in the least.

So it's OK, because you're throwing them a bone? It's not good enough - anything less than equality is not good enough anymore. I won't go further into the Catholic Church, because the evil therein gets me riled up too much that I'll go off-topic. It's slowly becoming more irrelevant to society, and while it'll never be extinct, it will eventually become next to ineffectual.

I'll match you cliche for cliche and say "You may have won the battle, but we will win the war." It's lucky, really, that none of our opinions on California matter anymore. We can debate it until the cows come home, but ultimately it's not being put to the public again, this court case IS going ahead, we've won the first round and it's looking good that we'll win all future ones. Mostly because even the judicial system can't find a flaw in the argument for same-sex marriage. Everybody will be equal under the law, and my guess is it will be sooner rather than later. I'd say "nee nur nee nur nee nur", but that might be a bit immature.

The law gave the church no choice so long as they adhered to their beliefs. The law may as well have directly shut down the services instead of pretending it was at all reasonable to ask the catholic church to change their beliefs. In /fact/, the whole setup seems like a secular attack on the church. The individuals who ran the agencies that closed down strongly believed said religion. They acted on their own accord.

The law didn't force the church-associated centres to close their doors, that's your spin. What happened was that they let religion influence their judgment, and started playing God with the lives of innocent children. They put their beliefs before what was best for those children, which is to have a loving home. There's no two ways around that. If they were really the force of good that they try to convince the world that they are, they would be doing whatever they could to help everyone, not just those they deem appropriate.

Whether or not it was the church itself that forced these closures is irrelevant. The ones that did close did so because they chose to believe the messages spread to them by the church: that gay is wrong.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

So it's OK, because you're throwing them a bone? It's not good enough - anything less than equality is not good enough anymore. I won't go further into the Catholic Church, because the evil therein gets me riled up too much that I'll go off-topic. It's slowly becoming more irrelevant to society, and while it'll never be extinct, it will eventually become next to ineffectual.

I'll match you cliche for cliche and say "You may have won the battle, but we will win the war." It's lucky, really, that none of our opinions on California matter anymore. We can debate it until the cows come home, but ultimately it's not being put to the public again, this court case IS going ahead, we've won the first round and it's looking good that we'll win all future ones. Mostly because even the judicial system can't find a flaw in the argument for same-sex marriage. Everybody will be equal under the law, and my guess is it will be sooner rather than later. I'd say "nee nur nee nur nee nur", but that might be a bit immature.



The law didn't force the church-associated centres to close their doors, that's your spin. What happened was that they let religion influence their judgment, and started playing God with the lives of innocent children. They put their beliefs before what was best for those children, which is to have a loving home. There's no two ways around that. If they were really the force of good that they try to convince the world that they are, they would be doing whatever they could to help everyone, not just those they deem appropriate.

Whether or not it was the church itself that forced these closures is irrelevant. The ones that did close did so because they chose to believe the messages spread to them by the church: that gay is wrong.

If full legal equality is your goal, then attacking Prop 8 is a fruitless battle until the Defense of Marriage Act is repealed at the federal level. Prop 8 takes away no rights from same-sex couples other than the purely symbolic use of the word "marriage". Until then, I don't see how fighting purely symbolic battles will help you win the war.

Regarding the situation with adoption centers in Mass., the state is at fault here because they should have respected the 1st Amendment rights of those privately owned entities. The overreaching arm of the State of Mass. provided excellent talking points for the Yes on 8 campaign, which helped sway enough undecided voters to push the initiative over the top to victory.

 

[lx_theo]

Article clearly implies it was not just the church's choice, and that only some agencies have refused to change their stance.

The law gave the church no choice so long as they adhered to their beliefs. The law may as well have directly shut down the services instead of pretending it was at all reasonable to ask the catholic church to change their beliefs. In /fact/, the whole setup seems like a secular attack on the church. The individuals who ran the agencies that closed down strongly believed said religion. They acted on their own accord.

And when you attack the foundation (The Church) and try to force it to do things against it's will, you're pretty much begging to damage the building (The adoption services)


The OP actually did. I don't think it was wrong at all for the agencies to act on their beliefs. The law had /NO/ right to tell them what they should believe, absolutely no right. So they gave up their jobs, since it was the only other option. What you're seeing is called a failed secular attack. People tried to force other people to abandon their religious beliefs, and ultimately failed. ...Er, in some cases anyway. Sorta succeeded in others. Boy, that is a depressing thought.

Ugh... I feel sick just reading that. If the Catholic Church decides to treat homosexuals as lesser people, fine. If they want to refuse the service to them and not go into compliance with a law that is simply says you can't discriminate based on religious beliefs, fine. If they choose to shut down because they don't like the new law that isn't based on their beliefs, fine. If they call it an attack on their beliefs, for the lack of a better expression, NO.

If you honestly think its an attack, then there's something wrong there. Is making a law basically saying that organizations aren't allowed discriminate and force their own beliefs into a service that affects so many other people that are not Catholic or one of those other groups effected an attack? No, it is not. If it was, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would have just been a secular attack.

Now please stand down from your high horse and remember this is not the Christian States of America.

 

[Happy Azumarill]

my thought is it is marrage witch all unsuccessful marriages lead to divorce, so why not

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Ugh... I feel sick just reading that. If the Catholic Church decides to treat homosexuals as lesser people, fine. If they want to refuse the service to them and not go into compliance with a law that is simply says you can't discriminate based on religious beliefs, fine. If they choose to shut down because they don't like the new law that isn't based on their beliefs, fine. If they call it an attack on their beliefs, for the lack of a better expression, NO.

If you honestly think its an attack, then there's something wrong there. Is making a law basically saying that organizations aren't allowed discriminate and force their own beliefs into a service that affects so many other people that are not Catholic or one of those other groups effected an attack? No, it is not. If it was, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would have just been a secular attack.

Now please stand down from your high horse and remember this is not the Christian States of America.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The main problem with your equivocation fallacy is that the Constitution specifically protects the right of religious organizations to refuse to accept homosexuality. There is no similar Free Exercise protection for racial discrimination. The Church has the right to refuse service to homosexual couples in accordance with their right to freely exercise their belief that homosexuality is immoral. Since the State of Mass. decided to infringe on that right, the Church decided to just close-up shop instead of sue the state.

Constantly degrading the black civil rights movement by comparing it to homosexuality is insulting to them, and one of the contributing factors to Prop 8's passage here (70% of the black vote in favor). It's fallacious anyway from a legal standpoint, since the issues are covered by completely separate areas of the Constitution (1st Amendment for religion, 14th Amendment for race and homosexuality) and enjoy different levels of scrutiny (strict scrutiny for race and religion, rational basis for homosexuality).

 

[lx_theo]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The main problem with your equivocation fallacy is that the Constitution specifically protects the right of religious organizations to refuse to accept homosexuality. There is no similar Free Exercise protection for racial discrimination. The Church has the right to refuse service to homosexual couples in accordance with their right to freely exercise their belief that homosexuality is immoral. Since the State of Mass. decided to infringe on that right, the Church decided to just close-up shop instead of sue the state.

Constantly degrading the black civil rights movement by comparing it to homosexuality is insulting to them, and one of the contributing factors to Prop 8's passage here (70% of the black vote in favor). It's fallacious anyway from a legal standpoint, since the issues are covered by completely separate areas of the Constitution (1st Amendment for religion, 14th Amendment for race and homosexuality) and enjoy different levels of scrutiny (strict scrutiny for race and religion, rational basis for homosexuality).

Freedom of Religion is the same as freedom from religion.

Its not stopping them from exercising their beliefs at all. In fact, we've done much worse in the past, like banning Polygamy though it was a large part of the Mormon religion when it was done. So don't act as though precedent favors that interpretation.

They have no right to force their beliefs on other people that may or may not lie in accordance with them. Its not like the law stops them from protesting it in belief. They are perfectly capable of being allowed to refuse any service they'd like to people so long as its their own service. Adoption services are not the Church, whether they believe in that homosexuality is wrong or not. They don't have that right.

And don't give me the bs that I'm degrading the Civil Rights Movement. People are people, no matter what your belief is. Your reason why not is non sequitur anyways.

Also, if you're going to keep using the new term you learned, equivocation fallacy, use it correctly please.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Freedom of Religion is the same as freedom from religion.

Its not stopping them from exercising their beliefs at all. In fact, we've done much worse in the past, like banning Polygamy though it was a large part of the Mormon religion when it was done. So don't act as though precedent favors that interpretation.

They have no right to force their beliefs on other people that may or may not lie in accordance with them. Its not like the law stops them from protesting it in belief. They are perfectly capable of being allowed to refuse any service they'd like to people so long as its their own service. Adoption services are not the Church, whether they believe in that homosexuality is wrong or not. They don't have that right.

And don't give me the bs that I'm degrading the Civil Rights Movement. People are people, no matter what your belief is. Your reason why not is non sequitur anyways.

Also, if you're going to keep using the new term you learned, equivocation fallacy, use it correctly please.

Catholic Charities runs its adoption services, not the state. The state merely regulates them. The extent of the state's regulation cannot interfere with the Church's freedom to disapprove of homosexuals. Forcing the Church to place orphans in homosexual families is akin to forcing them to accept homosexuals as clergy members. The Church is not imposing its beliefs on the state because it is not attempting to make other adoption service providers from placing children in homosexual families. It is merely trying to protect its right to not do so; thus, your cliche at the beginning of your post does not apply here.

 

[lx_theo]

Catholic Charities runs its adoption services, not the state. The state merely regulates them. The extent of the state's regulation cannot interfere with the Church's freedom to disapprove of homosexuals. Forcing the Church to place orphans in homosexual families is akin to forcing them to accept homosexuals as clergy members. The Church is not imposing its beliefs on the state because it is not attempting to make other adoption service providers from placing children in homosexual families. It is merely trying to protect its right to not do so; thus, your cliche at the beginning of your post does not apply here.

I never said they're opposing their belief on the state, they're imposing it on other people, which is not within their right.

 

[kevcrash]

I would like to welcome myself into this conversation, hello everyone.

First off,
I'm pretty sure that like PkMn Trainer Yellow said, bisexuality is found in pretty much every species, and that it is probably more dominant than homosexuality. That's not to say it's different in our species. There are plenty of bisexuals in our species, and (this is just my opinion) many humans have bisexual tendencies, that's what hormones are, eh?

Anyways, onto a different context of the conversation. To simply put it, I am all for gay marriages, mostly because people deserve the same treatment as others. Another reason is that the main opposer to same-sex marriage is religion. I take that back, rather, it's the followers of a religion, instead of the thing itself. On a religious level, the Bible was not written by God or Jesus, but by a bunch of old men who held different translations of what was originally implied. On a secular level, this country was founded and established mainly for the purpose of religious freedom, so people could escape from the bigotry of a religion, so why must a bigoted religion's views get in the way of people's rights? If I'm gay, and I believe in God, well of course I want to get married in God's eyes.

 

[Esper]

This is not directed at any specific person or statement that's been made (since I've been skimming more than reading), but I want to throw it in anyway.

The government is the ultimate law of the land. When it says that gay marriage is okay and gay couples adopting is okay then everyone under that government has to abide by that law. Ideally the government won't overstep and tell people to do/not do things that it has no business in, but when it comes to stopping discrimination I feel that's an appropriate place for the law to step in. Religious groups offering adoption services have one foot in the religious sphere and one in the public sphere. When religions are within their own sphere they can do what they want, but when they want to play in the public sphere they have to play by the rules. The only thing I draw from this church adoption thing in Massachusetts is that adoption agencies shouldn't be religious because there's too great a chance for conflict and it's the kids that suffer.

Also, and I apologize or skimming over some of it, what's with all the biology in this discussion? Yeah, I know that it's nice to say "Look at those animals. See, homosexuality/bisexuality/etc. is part of nature so accept it." Really though, I want to live in a world where no one even cares where homosexuality comes from and just accepts it whether it's nature, nurture, or whatever. I don't want to hear people say "Well, you can't help being gay. It's not your fault you were born that way" any more than I want to hear "Homosexuality is wrong."

Another concern was that public schools would be forced to teach about homosexuality without allowing for parental opting-out.

Why should parents be allowed to keep their kids from learning about gay people? That seems pretty extreme, like people who deny the holocaust and don't want their kids to learn about it in school. Religious charities who don't want to help same-sex parents adopt kids are frankly not very charitable sounding.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I never said they're opposing their belief on the state, they're imposing it on other people, which is not within their right.

Actually, it is. The Constitution (including the 1st Amendment) protects us against state action. The Constitution does not restrict the actions of private entities. If the Church was trying get a law passed that banned homosexual adoption on religious grounds, then I would agree with your argument. That was not the case here.

This is not directed at any specific person or statement that's been made (since I've been skimming more than reading), but I want to throw it in anyway.

The government is the ultimate law of the land. When it says that gay marriage is okay and gay couples adopting is okay then everyone under that government has to abide by that law. Ideally the government won't overstep and tell people to do/not do things that it has no business in, but when it comes to stopping discrimination I feel that's an appropriate place for the law to step in. Religious groups offering adoption services have one foot in the religious sphere and one in the public sphere. When religions are within their own sphere they can do what they want, but when they want to play in the public sphere they have to play by the rules. The only thing I draw from this church adoption thing in Massachusetts is that adoption agencies shouldn't be religious because there's too great a chance for conflict and it's the kids that suffer.

Also, and I apologize or skimming over some of it, what's with all the biology in this discussion? Yeah, I know that it's nice to say "Look at those animals. See, homosexuality/bisexuality/etc. is part of nature so accept it." Really though, I want to live in a world where no one even cares where homosexuality comes from and just accepts it whether it's nature, nurture, or whatever. I don't want to hear people say "Well, you can't help being gay. It's not your fault you were born that way" any more than I want to hear "Homosexuality is wrong.".

Wrong! The government is not the ultimate law of the land. The Constitution is. The Constitution is a document that restricts the powers of the government specifically. The Constitution protects the right of churches to not provide services to homosexuals via the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment.

 

[lx_theo]

Actually, it is. The Constitution (including the 1st Amendment) protects us against state action. The Constitution does not restrict the actions of private entities. If the Church was trying get a law passed that banned homosexual adoption on religious grounds, then I would agree with your argument. That was not the case here.




Wrong! The government is not the ultimate law of the land. The Constitution is. The Constitution is a document that restricts the powers of the government specifically. The Constitution protects the right of churches to not provide services to homosexuals via the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment.

Precedent is about the opposite of what you've said.

In fact, Scarf put together a more coherent and straightforward way of saying what I meant, and history favors that interpretation.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Precedent is about the opposite of what you've said.

In fact, Scarf put together a more coherent and straightforward way of saying what I meant, and history favors that interpretation.

Oh, it is, eh?

In Cantwell v. Connecticut (310 U.S. 296), the 1st Amendment was applied to state and local governments by the US Supreme Court. In Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (447 U.S. 74), the Court decided the 1st Amendment only restricts the actions of the state, and not the actions of private entities. And let's not forget about Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (530 U.S. 640), where the Court upheld that Boy Scout's right to exclude homosexuals because they are a private entity, and not an agent of the state.

Simply put, the Constitution protects the right of the Church to deny service to homosexuals, and not the other way around.

 

[Esper]

Wrong! The government is not the ultimate law of the land. The Constitution is. The Constitution is a document that restricts the powers of the government specifically. The Constitution protects the right of churches to not provide services to homosexuals via the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment.

Wasn't specifically referring to one country or another. Forgive me for not going into the technical definitions of law, but I was trying to explain how in a religious sphere of influence the church has its laws, but when it comes to the common public space a religious rule shouldn't override government/the law/the constitution/whatever. I know you and I are both from the same country (and state even) but same-sex marriage is more of a world-wide issue.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Wasn't specifically referring to one country or another. Forgive me for not going into the technical definitions of law, but I was trying to explain how in a religious sphere of influence the church has its laws, but when it comes to the common public space a religious rule shouldn't override government/the law/the constitution/whatever. I know you and I are both from the same country (and state even) but same-sex marriage is more of a world-wide issue.

I'll give you that. I thought you were referring to the Mass. incident where Catholic Charities stopped providing adoption services because they would have been forced to place children in the homes of same-sex couples. Personally, I have no problem with homosexual couples adopting. Legally, I'd be very worried if we allow the Free Exercise Clause to be trampled on, however. In pre-law and law school, they teach you to "think like a lawyer." So forgive me if I analyze these issues from a strictly legal perspective.