Homosexuality

This is the bit of your argument I would have issue with Arwen-

'I also think that if you don't agree with it, you have every right to say so, and to not have your job threatened to be taken, or something like that, just because you exercised your constitutional right to free speech.'

Even if what you say or do goes against the law of the land?

Lets roll back in time to suffragettes- one could easily imagine those opposed after women gained some rights to vote and work might have said about it much the same as you do above.

Or race equality- there were and still are many who think that non whites are somehow inferior, or a different species of humanity than whites- should they be able to discriminate against blacks? Refuse to sell them goods, offer them services because they believe blacks are somehow wrong?

As someone without religion I find it incredible that an institute and business (and all churches are businesses too) can exempt themselves from democratically created laws of the land on the highly contentious grounds that an unprovable, invisible super being wrote them a book 2000 thousand years ago telling them they could.

That that excuse is still used and stands up in our legal system as a reason to avoid the law, its incredible to me.

halfwise wrote:Um, what's your preferred eating, Eldo?  Staying away from the refined carbs?  How about the exercise thing?

Drifted away from the exercise thing, unfortunately, but I have been more active than I was over the winter. Hoping to build on that. I don't have great metabolism but I'm still young. At least that's what I tell myself when I feel bad about not working out more.

(Sorry I missed this post earlier.)

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Or race equality- there were and still are many who think that non whites are somehow inferior, or a different species of humanity than whites- should they be able to discriminate against blacks? Refuse to sell them goods, offer them services because they believe blacks are somehow wrong?

As someone without religion I find it incredible that an institute and business (and all churches are businesses too) can exempt themselves from democratically created laws of the land on the highly contentious grounds that an unprovable, invisible super being wrote them a book 2000 thousand years ago telling them they could.

I'm with you on the anti-discrimination thing in commercial business, but I'm not up for trying to force churches to perform marriages they don't endorse. That's largely because I know it would cause a far more massive shitstorm than it's worth, but I do understand some people's point about not liking that. In the case of a state church, though, I don't think they should get exemptions. The massive gaps in England's same-sex marriage laws for the CoE are a disgrace.

Arwen_Evenstar wrote:However, I also think that if you don't agree with it, you have every right to say so, and to not have your job threatened to be taken, or something like that, just because you exercised your constitutional right to free speech. (Just speaking for Mericans on that last sentence. I think, anyway.)

Well, a law saying that people who disagree with gay marriage are not allowed to work would be blatantly unconstitutional, but the constitution doesn't protect people from the actions of other private citizens. And unfortunately, the majority of the US has at-will employment, which means an employer can fire their employees for any reason, at any time. The major exception to this is protected classes, groups whom the government have deemed vulnerable to discrimination. It is illegal to fire someone on the basis of their belonging to one of these groups (at the federal level, this includes age, sex, race, and religion, among others). However, political beliefs and/or speech and/or action are not covered (at least not in most states), so there is no legal recourse for being fired because your employer doesn't want to be associated with your beliefs, especially not for a public figure like an actor or an executive.

Legality aside, I do have mixed feelings about the morality of this. It sucks for anyone to be fired for something that is not directly related to their job performance. But on the other hand, I can certainly understand companies (or non-profits) not wanting to be associated with certain views. It's not hard to imagine what the reaction would be to a public figure saying that they disagree with inter-racial marriage, for instance.

I'm not up for trying to force churches to perform marriages they don't endorse. - Eldo

I dont think Churches should be forced to marry those they dont think should be married- churches should be treated like private members clubs- they can believe what they like in Church- what I object to is someone saying they will not serve gay people, or the Christian employer who wont offer full Health care including contraception or abortion coverage to an employee, even though its the employees right to it under the law if they were working for any other employer.

If the law says its discrimination then I dont understand why anyone should be exempt from following the laws of their land, especially not on the highly dubious grounds the church claim exemption on.

Imagine the Bible had said black people are an abomination instead of gay people, presumably in this alternative reality the Church would have got exemptions from all that race equality thing, just as they have gay marriage and contraception, and would be the only people left still allowed to have slaves.
Its that mad.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:what I object to is someone saying they will not serve gay people, or the Christian employer who wont offer full Health care including contraception or abortion coverage to an employee, even though its the employees right to it under the law if they were working for any other employer.

I'm totally with you on that.  This is an issue that is currently being worked over in legislatures and courts in the US.  My fingers are crossed that it ends justly.

Any chance of working in some more geoduck jokes?   

I do have some sympathy with people feeling they can't say what they believe, but society is always a balance between individuality and cohesiveness. Even the golden rule isn't perfect: we'd spend all our time giving and receiving and quite possibly nothing would get accomplished due to the lack of motivational self interest.

we'd spend all our time giving and receiving- Halfwise

There probably space somewhere in there to squeeze a geoduck joke!

who cares what two consenting adults do in private? as long as no geoducks get hurt.

Yes. People should keep their opinions about the Private Lives of others to themselves. If you want to criticise - then expect to be criticised in return. I Believe Christians believe in a Being who does not exist - and then they try to tell me how to live my life on the strength of what their imaginary Being* tells them is Right behaviour - but do I criticise Christians for their Private Beliefs in return - no --- so long as they keep they're ugly Beliefs (delusionally based) Private.   



{{{*Thor or Set - or one of those God-guys - they're all interchangeable}}}

maybe slightly bit off what you guys were/are talking about but this gay penguin couple in Bergen have got now little baby now. there was another couple that got three eggs, and the last one came much later than the first two (two eggs being normal for this penguin spieces) so the last one was donated to these two nice gentlemen. they've both been in heterosexual relationships before and fostered up kids, but these two seem to have come out of the closet together.

David H wrote:
You've got to be careful about the right of free  speech argument though, Arwen.  Free speech is only healthy in a society if everybody is civil and agrees to respect the rights of others.  (Just look at our divided congress that's become so dysfunctional that all they can do is lob insults back and forth and sue the President. It's just like watching the Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq!  )

It is my opinion that in order to have a society where everyone respects each other, everyone has to have a voice. And if this voice is arguing for gay rights, yay. If this voice is disagreeing with gay rights.. Well, they have every right to do so. I'm not saying that's me. I'm only saying that I've read about too many cases where people have been sacked or unfairly treated because they didn't go with the popular vote. Both sides have a right to be heard, I think..  

And yes, it is a personal decision. But so is religion, and yet people still debate their hearts content on that one.  

So Arwen, do you believe there is any moral obligation to disagree respectfully, or does freedom of speech give everybody the right to call anybody else every insulting name in the book? I know some civil libertarians don't agree with the hate-speech laws for example. And what do you think about slander and libel? Those have always been difficult issues for the courts.

I believe that freedom of speech does have restrictions in the way it is given. If you insult and make a fool of yourself, nobody is going to value your opinion anyway. But if you keep your morals about you (and by morals I mean realizing that the other person is a human too, albeit with different opinions, an respecting them for it) then I see nothing wrong with expressing your opinion.

That being said, I think that talking about someone behind someone's back is nasty and cowardly. Anything I say about someone, I'm also prepared to say it to their face with the proper defense. And libel and slander sound a lot like going behind someone's back, which (and maybe it's because of my experience in the every-man-for-himself high school hallways) I have no respect for.
Not sure if that was exactly what you were asking, but that's my answer.  

Yes, that's pretty much what I was asking. When you say,

But if you keep your morals about you (and by morals I mean realizing that the other person is human too, albeit with different opinions, an respecting them for it) then I see nothing wrong with expressing your opinion.

you make it very clear that you understand that there are times when it might not be morally correct for a person to express their opinion, namely when they don't respect the opinion of the other person.

Freedom of speech may be a legal right, at least sometimes, but just because something is legal doesn't always mean it's moral or ethical. Right?

it's ok to be against gay marriage and gay love, but there is a totally different thing to act uopn those believes. 

I just think you cant have a society which has progressed as far as ensuring in law you cannot discriminate against someone for their beliefs, colour of skin or gender, whilst also saying you can discriminate against people because of who they are naturally inclined to fall in love with.

Its not just wrong its weird. Its out of balance and makes no sense- either discriminating against people for being themselves is wrong or it isn't.

If you think it's wrong then you cant draw arbitrary lines and say this is illegal to discriminate against someone for one thing but not another.

I am certain after women got rights there were men saying things like "If I want to discipline my wife by beating here twice  a day with a stick that's between me and God, its our marriage and none of the business of the government" and when slavery was abolished there were probably slave owners lamenting that the government doesn't understand its destroying their way of life, and anyway their slaves get food and shelter and only beaten when necessary what business of the government is it to say they should have to stop and set them free?

And now its gays. And people claiming they have a right to discriminate against them, and what right has the government to tell them what to believe ect

Its the same old shit to the same old shitty tune I'm afraid.
And eventually it will pass because like the previous examples of women's rights and slavery its obviously stupid and unsustainable to argue people should be allowed to discriminate on any grounds whilst we live in a society where there are laws protecting people against discrimination.

can't people just be nice? and polite? i think that would solve a lot. The Law of Politeness. Every man's Right to be Nice.  like say/mean whatever you won't just don't rub it up someone's face and make them feel bad about it/uncomfortable/judged/insulted etc. etc. As long as you don't oppress or hinder someone else, do whatever you want

Its quite interesting just where this hatred of gay sex came from. its bizarre to think some people think its somehow immoral behaviour. but why is it immoral? thats my question. its just two people having sex like anyone, whats wrong with same sex sex? its probably because of religions obsession with breeding and procreation, like breeding is somehow sacred when all it is is biological like eating or pooing, we dont get steamed up about people pooing do we. Well Petty does, cos he does it in Daves fields and its hard work running away from an angry farmer.

I think the tread of religious objection to homosexuality in Jewish/Christian/Islamic cultures goes all the way back to the ritual sex practices of some of the earlier religions in the Middle East. But really, there's very little mention of homosexuality or masturbation in the Bible. Far more about money lending! These are things that seem to have crept into the culture more recently, especially in Victorian times.

Mrs Figg wrote:Its quite interesting just where this hatred of gay sex came from. its bizarre to think some people think its somehow immoral behaviour.

I genuinely think that a lot of it boils down to people going "eww buttsex".  Listen to the rhetoric about sodomy (and how people almost always use it strictly to mean anal sex, ignoring the older, more extensive definition).  It's also interesting to consider the different ways that societies both current and historical have treated men who engage in anal sex (whether or not that they identify as gay) based on whether or not they are the penetrative partner.  The stigma against men taking it up the ass can be found everywhere from the Ancient Greeks to modern people making fun of victims of prison rape.