Also I feel (probably unintentionally) a bit [straw manned][1] here so again I raise that these comparisons are missing a dimension here.
He donated to a group that would like to deny another group of people civil rights.
Comparing this to someone donating to a BBQ society is a bit disingenuous, I have yet to meet a BBQ society that wants to legislate away the rights of vegetarians. That is honestly a ridiculous comparison. Ignoring completely what he thinks of gay people, the civil rights denial nature of the group compared to say the enthusiast nature of a BBQ society doesnât jive.
As a Canadian Iâm less used to thinking of guns as a civil rights issues either, but I respect at least that it is dealt with that way more so down in the US. But again, donating to pro-gun groups is more about preserving everyoneâs right to own guns, not take away a specific targeted groups rights to something. donating to an anti-gun group is closer because that is about civil rights denial but even then, its for everyone, not one targeted segment.
So these comparisons to liking meat, or a certain soft drink especially wash out the civil rights denial aspect of this situation in attempt to make the other side look more ridiculous.
I wasnât particularly wanting to weigh in on this, because Iâm only vaguely aware of the ins and outs of the situation in America. However, could someone who is please clarify the situation with regards to the above statement, because Iâm not convinced itâs actually true (or at least a definite truth, rather than a possibility).
In the UK, civil partnerships have been around for a while, and they allow gay people to have a legally defined partnership with all the same civil rights as heterosexual people who get married. Part of the problem in the UK has been the fear that gay marriage, far from apportioning equal rights (as they already exist), would rather allow gay rights groups to use this to force religious bodies to either perform gay marriages against their will, or be prosecuted for discrimination. Without careful legislation, this could happen.
Is the situation the same in the US? I did read last year that Jo Jordan, a lesbian senator(?) from Hawaii, voted against some gay marriage legislation for precisely the above reason.
I am not trying to make you look ridiculous; I am providing counter-arguments; this is the nature of debate.
While I agree with you that giving money to an organization that opposes gay marriage is more than just not agreeing with gay marriage, I am almost certain that if Eich had publicly stated his opposition of gay marriage without giving money to an organization, the very same shit-storm would have happened.
I donât think the issue here is with the funding; the issue is with the fact that people are offended that he, as a leader of Mozilla, opposes gay marriage. The funding is another stick to beat him with.
My point here is that other people feel as passionate about other issues as you do about this, and if we apply the logic that someone in a position of leadership sharing a personal view that offends some people should be booted out, then we should equally apply that logic and accountability to other areas of offense tooâŚand I am saying, this doesnât work.
As I have said multiple times, it doesnât work because everyoneâs view of what is offensive, unethical, or otherwise is different.
While I am more than happy to continue the debate, I think we might be going around in circles @dan, so I guess we should just agree to disagree. I really want to thank you though for engaging in the debate; this is exactly what we want Bad Voltage to doâŚraise topics that trigger interesting discussions.
thatâs the meat of the debate their. the deep mechanics of how that works or should work, ethics etc. In a word I disagree for reasons I hope I outlined ok above.
True, but it also doesnât give you the right to completely ridicule and marginalize the opinions that donât agree with yours or shout over the opposing viewpoints.
I am a Christian, and in the current climate, this makes me fair game for the very intolerance that those âin chargeâ to discriminate and persecute Christians? You see cases of desecration of chapels and religious symbols, people urinating in holy water vessels, a member of the EU parliament is trying to exclude Christianity from âfree-thinking Europe.â You have gay couples intentionally seeking out Christian businesses (bakers, wedding photographers, etc) and trying to engage them, and then suing them when they are turned down. Last I knew, America was a free-market society, and you had the right to refuse business. So why is it that the same groups that are so offended by someone donating his own money for a cause he believes in are fine with discriminating against Christians? Wouldnât that also fall in to the category of âbigotry and attacking the civil liberties of an entire communityâ? So why is one group seen as acceptable to discriminate while the other is sacrosanct? That crosses the line from pernicious argument to outright hypocrisy.
Also, I have read that there was a bunch of political wrangling around Prop 8. That it was approved and put on the ballot, and voted on by the people of California, only then did the courts got involved overturn the vote, after the people had spoken.
How is this any different from any other dive into an applicantâs personal life as a hiring requirement? So it is more important to be an idealogue than to be competent at your job?
Remember last year when people were upset because companies were demanding applicants turn over their facebook passwords prior to being hired? Many of the same people who were screaming about privacy invasions and companies stepping over the line by making a hiring decision based what you do when youâre not at work was over the line. But I guess that doesnât apply when it is one of the âprotectedâ groups. Then, your privacy goes out the airlockâŚ
At no point have I urinated in a font, nor have I encouraged others to do so. It is difficult to have a conversation about this while youâre accusing me of discriminating against Christians merely because I am on the same side of an argument as people who discriminate against Christians.
Stuart, I have never even couched the thought that you had urinated in a font. Nor was I making an accusation. Any more than you hopefully think that because I am pro-gun, I support those who randomly go shooting up military bases or schools, or because I am a Christian, I support blowing up abortion clinics and killing abortion doctors. I donât.
The problem is that the extremes of views tend to make the loudest noises, and completely drown out the opportunity for intelligent discussion between opposing viewpoints.
One question I have and would like to ask. And I am not throwing fuel on the fire, rather I am genuinely curious. In my mind, most gays are atheists (or at least non-Christian). Why is it that they want marriage, which is a religious rite. The government a few years back said âwe will give you civil unions, which will be just the same as marriage, all of the tax benefits, and so forth.â But they wanted gay marriage. Why is this? They want a sacrament of a religion they donât believe in?
Dan Savage, gay, widely read advice columnist is perhaps one of the best and most public examples of a gay Christian I know of and who springs to mind but there are actually plenty.
The most important difference: studies have shown that domestic
partnerships and civil unions are not equal to marriage. The biggest
area of inequality is in employment benefits for spouses. Employers in
some cases refused same sex couples the same health insurance benefits
of married couples. As I certainly know, health insurance is kind of a
big deal. A study found that in Massachusetts, where gay marriage was
allowed, same-sex couples did not have this problem. So for the people
arguing that civil unions and domestic partnerships are enough, its not
really enough.
Resources cited on the page.
But basically just because the government says it will treat your âcivil unionâ the same does not mean everyone else will. And the government is only one of the big organisations in your life. As stated, many employers who are responsible for your benefits and other things donât treat them equally.
I think the term âmarriageâ has become overloaded at this point. We have âcivil unionâ which as far as the government is concerned is equivalent, but not so with other organisations, then we have âlegal marriageâ which the government and organizations treat the same and finally âreligious marriageâ which is legal marriage + done or blessed or something by a member of a religious organization.
Also I have other random counter anecdotes if youâre interested. Here in Canada our Anglican church is happy to perform gay marriages for couples, how ever, of the several gay couples I know who are married, none of them had a remotely Christian representative perform the rites: either civil/legal representatives (like someone from city hall) or a registered officiant of a more philosophical nature than religious.
I think most people would probably be happy with the arrangement we have here in Canada, legally anyone can get a marriage license from the government and religious institutions are free to do what they want. Some wonât perform the marriages, some will, itâs not forced on them, as there are multiple âvendorsâ, the government who is but one.
So the debate is generally for the right to get âmarriedâ not the right to force specific people to perform the marriage Unless it is, in which case then I agree that may be a bit too much
From observational experience, I would not say most gay people I know are athiests, but most are fairly disinterested in religion. Most gay people I know believe in something, but they donât subscribe to anhy organized religion. I share this viewpoint too (I guess this is probably agnostic).
I think the other key point here is that only some people see marriage as a religious rite. Speaking personally, I am married, and I didnât marry my wife because of religion (or for the civil benefits); we married to make a declaration of love to each other. In our minds it is the truest sign of unwavering commitment.
We didnât marry in a church and we didnât pledge any commitment towards god (in fact, I donât think god was even mentioned in our ceremony). I have absolutely nothing against people who see marriage as a religious rite and would celebrate their decision to have a more involved religious ceremony in a church, but in this day and age we have to accept that marriage encompasses more than just those who wish to form a union in front of god.
Every gay person I have met who has shared a view about gay marriage says that it is this ability to define a long-lasting commitment that is the priority and the pro gay-marriage brigade (of which I am one) sees absolutely no reason why they should be denied that, frankly, pretty basic, right.
The rabbi who started my conversion to Judaism is gay. Another rabbi of a synagogue I attended for a while was a lesbian. A close family member is a gay Mormon. Marriage is an important institution for them all.
Most of my closest friends are atheists (most straight, some gay). Some of them rather devout. And marriage tends to be an important issue for them all.
Take from that what you will. Obviously a small sample size, but it seems to me that marriage â at least among those close to me â is a pretty critical thing regardless of religion or sexual orientation.
Our (my wife and Iâs) wedding ceremony was a very religious one. But many of my friends have had ceremonies that had absolutely no mention of any religious notion â and those ceremonies werenât any less meaningful or wonderful than ours.
I am very anxious about adding to this post. I desire very much to be respectful to you all and am afraid that I might come across as disrespectful. So, I ask forgiveness in advance if I fail to word my thoughts in a respectful way.
I do have a question for those here that believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, which would include, among others, Jews and Christians. The Scriptures are very clear, that homosexual acts are wrong. And these are stated in very strong terms. Actually all sexual acts outside of marriage (of which these scriptures always show is between a man and a woman) are wrong. I am very well aware that this is considered old fashioned, out dated in this day. My question is: When did the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob change his mind? The issue of morality on this has been pushed aside. It seems as though if a person does not want to discuss the morality of an issue, then turn it into a civil rights issue.
Does this excuse bad behavior (treating people badly for things they believe)? Absolutely not. There is no reason not to live by the golden rule (treat others as you wish to be treated) regardless of what the beliefs of the person you are dealing with are. Personally, I am a big believer in the right of a person to choose what they believe. But, in this post, I saw references of what is acceptable to God and the question above popped into my head.
Thatâs an accusation. I am offended by someone donating their money to stop people getting married. You specifically say that the same groups who are thus offended are also fine with discriminating against Christians. So, which is it to be? Iâm fine with you making accusations like that, Iâm just not going to get into a discussion with you. If youâre actually not making that accusation, then Iâm fine with that too, but I canât see another reading of the sentence above.
Firstly, no apologies needed up-front - thanks for joining the debate!
I think we are discussing morality. The people who are pro gay marriage (myself included) believe that it is morally right for gay people to be able to join together in marriage. Conversely, it is morally wrong to deny people marriage.
Now, if someone defines their morality by the scriptures, I can entirely understand if they consider homosexual acts to be wrong because the scriptures say so. While I might disagree with this, faith is deeply personal and I would never wish to deny someone the right to believe in whatever they choose, irrespective of what their peers think.
Where it gets sticky is when people deny other people rights. I donât believe it is fair for those of faith to deny marriage to those who donât share the same beliefs. Likewise, I donât think it is fair to expect those of faith to adjust their beliefs because another group disagrees with them.
I share Wanda Sykesâ view on this: if you donât like gay marriage, that is totally fineâŚjust donât get gay married. Feel free to marry someone of the opposite sex in your preferred church. There are however some people who do want to get get gay married, and we should let them share the same pleasure of a life-time commitment. That commitment will ultimately bear no influence on you, your life, or your faith.
Ok, apologies needed here Jono. I completely misread your statement. I thought you were stating, in essence, that all marriages are a union in front of god. Sorry, itâs Monday and to show how my day started, I thought my computer was dead because I kept pushing the button and the stupid thing wouldnât power up⌠till I realized that I was pushing the reset button. So, donât pay any attention to the brain dead one here.
But I still think my question earlier is a valid one.
I guess I should have made it clear that I meant the morality of homosexual acts, not the morality of discrimination.
I too dislike it when others are âin your faceâ about whatever position they have, in this case, for or against gay marriage. I have worked with homosexuals before and have always treated them as I do anyone else, treat them like I would like to be treated. I admit that at times I have failed to treat someone with dignity and respect and try to apologize when I realize it.
this one? I think it might have been politely ignored a smidge because this issue can spiral out of control very quickly. Iâd say lightly that a lot of people of faith these days âinterpretâ the bible rather than follow it literally taking what spirituality and inspiration they need from it. Some on the internet (Iâm sure a quick google can find some) will say the bible has some other controversial things in it that we donât all do today or pick and choose from personally like slavery, circumcision, and anything else to do with sex and marriage like adultery, premarital sex, divorce. Sure some people chooses to circumcise, remain celibate till marriage, or not get divorced, but lots of others donât and also still consider themselves people of faith within the abrahamic religions. And this hint gets us the important historical perspective on this process and issue. This process has actually been going on for a long long time, even the catholic churchâs split into protestants is a relatively recent part of this, clocking in several hundred years ago. The splits into christianity and islam are older fractures on the topic of how faith should work in this family of religious. The point is they are always and always have been evolving.
One could argue that this type of evolution is a trying to stay relevant to the masses and or keep current with the times. If you tried to put forth that only a literal interpretation of the abrahamic religions was acceptable, well youâd loose a lot of people. And thatâs exactly what has been happening forever. More orthodox or literal faith has been forever fracturing into different splinters and âloosingâ people. They didnât die out either though, there are still plenty of orthodox chruches and people but there are now also a lot of less orthodox/literal splinters around too, like most of the protestants in christianity and even probably some catholics. And the other religions also have many splinters of deeper or lesser âliteralnessâ, as @bryanlunduke mentioned, his rabbi is gay. People of all different types and lives can need faith so religion has had to adapt and has been for millennia. This isnât anything of a new process, just a continuation or an evolution and process that has been going on forever.
So to answer:
Never and always. Itâs all in the people and their interpretation. For some itâs never changed, for others it changed in their lives now, and for some it changed hundreds and thousands of years ago.
Ahhh⌠Iâm going to try to keep this from becoming an all out religion discussion. Because, quite honestly, I donât think itâs terribly relevant. That said, a few quick thoughts:
Jews donât see the Torah (or any other works) as âthe literal word of G-dâ. The Torah (those first 5 books) are typically considered to be something more akin to âthe chronicling of a peoples search for G-dâ. It is known to be written, by mans hand, as a record of stories and histories that were previously passed from one person to the next verbally. Which, as anyone whoâs ever played telephone is well aware, is a process filled with errors.
So leave the Jews out of this. As a general rule youâll find most Jews in America to be either okay with homosexuality or at least fairly tolerant. The Torah is, always, open to interpretation⌠even among the most âConservativeâ and âOrthadoxâ of Jews.
Okay, that out of the way:
There are, and have always been, two different issues: The moral issue and the civil rights issue.
For the moral issue you are deciding if you feel it is âgoodâ or âbadâ to be gay. Or to perform âgay actsâ. This is a personal thing and I will not judge anyone on this one way or the other. But it really doesnât impact anyone other than the person making the morality judgement. ie: it isnât something you force on others (just as you donât force all others to attend the same church as you).
For the civil rights issue, on the other hand, deals with all of us. We have to decide if we want to apply different sets of rules for different sub-sets of people. In many cases this is fine (such as "only people who have completed a driving test and have a valid license may drive a car) and in many cases this is not (such as âwomen canât vote for elected officialsâ).
Do distinctly different things. And the two can, and should, be considered independently of each other.
