Up Front: Are We There Yet?
777 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 15 16 17 18 19 … 32 Newer→ Last
-
I suspect what you really want is to force religions that disagree with you into being merely private affairs. To push those who don't agree into an unobtrusive silence.
Only those willing to abort may become doctors. Clergy must marry anyone, adoption agencies must adopt to same sex couples. What this means is people with a certain beliefs are unable to participate. Which really is what you want.
Realistically I'm not going to change any of your minds by participating here. But on a political note people of faith won't be silenced or shoved into a corner so as to not annoy you. And really the greatest threat to your beliefs won't come from shrinking polite Christianity, but from a disgruntled Islam.
-
Judges who practice conscientious objection?
Actually I have no problem with that. Suppose a judge was against the death penalty, should she/he be forced into sentencing someone to death? I say they shouldn't.
-
The bummer is that atheism doesn't really lend itself to that kind of organisation.
which I think undercuts any claim to fairness.
Well that's not my fault is it :)
If you all want tax breaks then get cracking organising. Sheesh.
-
Suppose a judge was against the death penalty, should she/he be forced into sentencing someone to death? I say they shouldn't.
I am strongly against capital punishment, but yes they should, absolutely. If you take on the responsibilities of an office, and you can't exercise them on grounds of conscience, leave the office.
-
<quote>'oh noes, you are oppressing [religious sect] by forcing them to treat people equally!'?</quote
Because your idea of equal is different to mine, but you want everyone to play by your rules, yet somehow everyone playing by my rules is wrong and terrible.
If you don't want the discussion to turn this way, then don't try and force people of faith to act against their consciences.
-
people of faith won't be silenced or shoved into a corner so as to not annoy you
It would be unforgivably flippant to embed a relevant clip from Dirty Dancing right here, wouldn't it?
-
Only those willing to abort may become doctors. Clergy must marry anyone, adoption agencies must adopt to same sex couples. What this means is people with a certain beliefs are unable to participate. Which really is what you want.
Everybody must obey the law, regardless of their religion. There is no basic right to treat decent people like scum. If you want to be fire-fighter you should be prepared to fight fires.
You can say whatever you like. You can practice your religion to the point where it impinges on the rights of others. But you have no special religious privilege to interfere with those rights.
Because your idea of equal is different to mine, but you want everyone to play by your rules, yet somehow everyone playing by my rules is wrong and terrible.
Discrimination (against groups, which you well understood when you introduced the Veitch herring) is wrong and terrible, whether it's religious or civil. Once again, own opinions, not own reality. You can think 'you get four and you get two' is 'equal' but that simply doesn't make it so.
-
What this means is people with a certain beliefs are unable to participate. Which really is what you want.
Some of us want to remove the right to discriminate on the basis of religion or personal belief, yes. But needless to say, nobody forces a religious person to gay adopt or gay marry. Did I say it plainly enough?
'oh noes, you are oppressing [religious sect] by forcing them to treat people equally!'?
Because the children of mass murderers, Nazi absconders, witch hangers, book burners and so on and so forth have no sense of shame, history or poportions.
-
If you take on the responsibilities of an office, and you can't exercise them on grounds of conscience, leave the office.
No, I disagree. So much judicial work does not involve the death penalty, it's not a core function of the office.
Now if you are arguing against the State Executioner, then you have a point. Likewise if a hospital was employing a doctor to perform abortions as the core function of the job, and someone got the job but refused to do abortions, fair enough. But to make the entire career predicated on that basis is silly.
-
Everybody must obey the law, regardless of their religion.
Hmmm.... so, prior to 1984, no one should not have engaged in sexual acts?
-
It would be unforgivably flippant to embed a relevant clip from Dirty Dancing right here, wouldn't it?
Not at all since that was what I was thinking when I wrote it.
-
Question to the world at large: how do these discussions always come around to 'oh noes, you are oppressing [religious sect] by forcing them to treat people equally!'?
Because, as noted a long way upthread, religious groups have begun cultivating persecution complexes as both a political organising tool and a defence mechanism in the face of declining interest, relevance and status. It's CULTS101...
-
Fuck!
I mean, prior to 1984, no one should have engaged in homosexual acts?
-
But needless to say, nobody forces a religious person to gay adopt or gay marry.
But forcing people into participating in gay adoption or solemnising a gay marriage is okay?
-
Baby was an abortion-procurer, Tess. It's a slippery slope identifying with her!
-
I mean, prior to 1984, no one should have engaged in homosexual acts?
Heh, fair call. Because everybody, regardless of religious affiliation, has the same level of obligation to obey the law?
-
Fuck!
That is a forceful imperative. Fnaar fnaar.
-
And really the greatest threat to your beliefs won't come from shrinking polite Christianity, but from a disgruntled Islam.
Funny you should mention that. Going back a bit:
So I'm coming around to yes, let's have gay marriage in the churches, by golly.
Is this to apply to ALL religions, btw? I presume Islam will no longer be allowed any bigotry? Same question for Danielle: "'oh noes, you are oppressing [religious sect] by forcing them to treat people equally!'?"
Islam should be forced to treat people equally, right?
-
But forcing people into participating in gay adoption or solemnising a gay marriage is okay?
Again (is anybody counting?) nobody is forcing anybody to be a marriage celebrant(with I/S's caveat about automatically becoming one, which is silly) or to run an adoption agency. If you freely choose to do that, you are also freely choosing to comply with the law in that area.
Tricky at the point where the law changes while you're doing the job, yes.
-
Hmmm.... so, prior to 1984, no one should not have engaged in sexual acts?
Was sex illegal in NZ prior to 1984? Interesting!
Obviously, there is civil disobedience and civil disobedience . Back home, I refused to go in the army and was put to work for a year in a hospital instead (got off easy - my grandfather spent quite a bit of time in jail for the same 'crime'), but arguably nobody was getting hurt by my decision. Refusing to perform an abortion or prescribe a day after pill obviously are decisions that affect others.
-
But forcing people into participating in gay adoption..
Wha...?
-
'Struth! Look away and suddenly there's pages more.
Maximum respect to Tess, from me, and I can tell from the attackers too cos none of them took the opportunity to link tenants of the faith with the exclusion of gays from Catholic church housing, or some such way of borax-poking cf. tenets of the faith.
Steve, I know it's dragging on tediously but
You're saying that eventually CUs will be seen effectively as a kind of marriage? So much so that most people will not really make a distinction in most discourse?
Yes. Only more so, CUs already are a kind of marriage right from the start, so close legally no one can tell the difference except for that narrowness of marriage that currently insists on one-man-one-woman-only; and yes, everyday language will probably catch up with that pretty soon, especially if it's helped along by people who care.
-
Islam should be forced to treat people equally, right?
Of course. And obviously mine regarding forcing the priests to gay marry others, was meant provocatively, to an extent. If they don't drop the ridicolous arguments pro-discrimination, I'm more than willing to go ahead with it though.
-
...religious groups have begun cultivating persecution complexes as both a political organising tool and a defence mechanism in the face of declining interest, relevance and status.
It's not as though there is a cabal of folk doing this on purpose you know.
Have you ever considered that people are sincere in their belief and genuinely concerned about their freedoms?
The most extreme example of this would be Islamism. So much terrorism is fuelled by a genuine concern that if they don't fight back the West, ie America, will crush them. Obviously it doesn't help that America's response to this is to try and well, crush them.
-
link tenants of the faith
I'm going to have to ask that people stop calling them "tenants". There might be children reading this thread, and Lord knows my son has enough issues with spelling as it is.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.