Okay, that is where the confusion came in.  The original question was about whether you thought homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt.  Your three topics, while important, don't actually answer the question that was asked.  I get the impression you're trying to imply without saying something like "homosexuals can adopt, as long as they do so in a straight relationship," or something like that.  Perhaps for clarity's sake, you could answer: "do you think homosexual couples should be able to adopt?"


Yes, you did say that a number of times.  I would disagree.  Equality of marriage doesn't imply you can't discriminate (though other laws might).  I gave examples of cases where people of different groups that have legally the same marriage can be discriminated against.  Marriage laws are separate from discrimination laws.

Let's try it this way:  If gay marriage were made legal, with the provision that adoption agencies could still take orientation into account, would that affect your view of it in any way?  Would you support that kind of gay marriage law?



That's all well and good.  However, I don't think it's fair to say that you're not saying they're equal, or that you're not saying they're worse.  I think you've made it very clear that you feel gay couples are worse than straight couples at raising children.  We might all discriminate in various ways, but let's not downplay what you're doing here.  You do believe, if I'm not mistaken, that homosexuals are bad, yes?  You do believe it's a sin, and that by being an openly practicing homosexual, you do think they are doing a bad thing, correct?  [note, that was a real question]

It's all well and good to say we all discriminate, so we shouldn't be offended when you do it.  But let's at least be honest about your position.

Also, some of the questions I asked sort of got missed.  The questions below can be taken as real questions:





Okay, that's better.  Now, since the "average homosexual male" doesn't actually exist, but is rather just a concept, we need to be careful not to base laws on what he does or doesn't do.  If a monogomous couple comes in, and neither has HIV, is it fair to tell them "well, on average you're going to live 20 years less than straight people, due to aids, so you lose points for that?"  No, I don't think so.  They should be judged by their own merits, not those of other people who happen to be in the same group as them.


No, it's not a strawman argument.  It's an example that your logical is fundamentally flawed.  It's a case where two legally identitical marriage can legally be treated differently.  You're saying if two marriages are legally the same, then you can't discriminate between the two.  I've given a counter that shows that that's simply not true.


Yes, I'd agree to that.  But that's a change of argument.  You've switch your original premise of "if gay marriage is legally the same as straight marriage" to "if you can't legally discriminate."  Those are two different laws.  If what you're opposed to is laws that make discrimination illegal, make that clear, and drop the issue of legalized gay marriage.  They're not the same thing.

Have to disagree with this one.  To say that no one cares what they do does seem pretty absurd.


You don't need to get married to procreate or raise children.  If marriage were primarily about children, you'd get married after your first child was born.  This argument is a weak one, and it's a misdirection.  The idea that marriage is just a license, and it represents what society wants to encourage is true.  But to say that they only want to encourage future tax payers is silly.  I've never once been to a wedding that had anything about "future taxpayers" in the vows.  I've never seen a wedding card that mentioned future tax payers.  Marriage is about much, much more than procreation.


Actually, there are a number of ways in which homosexual couples can have kids.  Should homosexual couples who have children from previous partners be able to marry?  How about surrogate mothers or artificial insemination?  It's not impossible for homosexual couples to procreate these days.  Should they be allowed to marry because of that?


To say it's irrelevant contradicts your premise that marriage is primarily about procreation.  If that was the primary function of marriage, preventing sterile couples from marrying would be of prime importance.  The fact that you consider sterile couples "irrelevant" just illustrates that you really don't buy that marriage is primarily about procreation.  What could possibly be more relevant if that were true?

The idea that a "right to privacy" prevents such intrusions falls flat, because as you say, marriage isn't a right, it's a priveledge, so it'd be legal to ask people to not make use of that right to gain a priveledge.


Yeah, I can agree that polygamy should be legal.


This last point is critical, I think.  It doesn't matter what's best on average, it just matters what's best in any given case.  The fact that gay couples are statistically less likely to be monogamous doesn't mean any given gay couple is less likely to be so than any given straight couple.  Each case needs to be judged on it's on merit, rather than trying to solve every case all at once with one ruling.

This is important. I'm asking if you are tolerant of other views. It appears from the above that not all views will be welcome. If people aren't tolerant of other views, and it will result in difficulty when another view is held, does that mean replies will be unwelcome, or welcome?

I did answer if homosexual couples should be able to adopt. I told Falkus that they should be able.


It would change the previous reasons we went over. Would I support it with that, technically no. Just so everything is clear, the problem is if marriage is altered on the basis of preventing discrimination, the discrimination part is what is making the marriage part get altered.

To reclarify, yes, that change would alter my view. Would I still support it with that change alone? No.



That needs some redirection. That doesn't express my view or how I truly see things. I don't think same sex couples are the same as married husband and wife, because there is a gender missing when raising the children. That doesn't mean that a homosexual loves their child less, or that they won't try as hard to raise their children.

Homosexuals are people. And to Jesus, they are a people who God wants to be with. Just like every other person on the planet. Homosexuals aren't bad. Do I think it's a sin? Yes. And I think so is lying, masturbation, cheating on a spouse, and watching porn. But every person that does these things aren't bad people. God loves them just as much as anyone else. He loves them so much that He gave His Son up in sacrifice.

I have been honest. But what relevance does religion have to do with discrimination? Research doesn't stand or fall based on religious beliefs.

I don't think calling things strawman is helping us out very much. We both seem to disagree on it's meaning. You accuse me of it, and I explain why I feel it works, and I accuse you, and you explain why you feel it works. I am thinking strawman must be a subjective thing.

Perhaps we should give some leeway, and consider that we try and bring in things that we feel are relevant, and important to the conversation. Even if the other person feels it's not, we probably don't bring in things because we want to trick others. Would you agree with that?


In Canada, that's why same sex unions were legalized. It was discriminatory in their view. I do realize you feel they are different arguments, but it's what happened.
This message was last edited by the player at 15:09, Tue 04 Mar 2008.

*** Yes you're right in that it is important, and judging from your question, I didn't explain myself very well. Let me try again: I try very hard to be tolerant of other views, but I am not always as successful at this as I might try to be. Yes, I'd say that other views are welcome, but it's hard for me to ... it's like something Jefferson once said (I think): "I do not agree with what you are saying, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Do I welcome your views, however much they may disagree with my own? Yes. Does that automatically mean I'm going to like them? Not necessarily. Is that ... does it make more sense?


*** Okay, for those of us who are slow, can you rephrase that please? I'm seriously not sure what it is you're saying here (it's the second part that confuses me).


*** Well, if you claim to believe in a religion that teaches tolerance, and you're acting in a manner that is intolerant, it's going to make it difficult to convince people of the truth of your religion. It's like, Jesus was cool with the IRS, right (Matthew, Zaccheus, etc)? So if the disciples were holding a pancake breakfast and wouldn't let the tax guys in, that's sort of conflicting with the heart of their message. Does that make sense?


*** Tell that to Galileo.

   Also, if I'm understanding you correctly, the thrust of your arguement seems to be that children need both a male and female parent, correct? Would you be okay with a marriage which involved two males and one female?

(Galileo's research fell based on his pissing on a lot of powerful political figures, including directly insulting the Pope himself.  Just thought I'd mention that.  Please continue.)

Thank you, that's very clear.  I'm still a bit confused, though.  To clarify: you think homosexual couples should be able to adopt, but that adoption agencies should be able to take the fact that they're a same-sex couple into acount in making their decision?  If so, I'd say most people here probably agree with you.  The question comes in where you link this to gay marriage.


It is the motivation for many people, yes.  But I think the "discrimination" they're talking about is being able to get married or not.  Being able to adopt or not (without having your orientation taken into account) is a related by separate issue.


Okay, why not?

In this argument you've linked legalized gay marriage with adoption.  If we grant that gay couples would still have their orientation taken into account when they try to adopt, even if they're legally married, we've removed the only objection you've raised here.  But you say you'd still oppose it.  What's the other factor(s) that would make you oppose it?



Okay, this is good.  Then why not give them the same help we give straight couples to make it easier.  Why shouldn't we try to help their children just as much as we try to help the children of straight parents?


This is good too.  But why, then, should the law treat them as if they aren't as good as everyone else?  Why should the law treat their relationship as less valuable than staight people's?



What relevance does religion have to do with discrimination?  Tons!  If your religion causes you to have certain views, then your religion is very much a part of the discussion.  Research shouldn't be based on religious beliefs, but all too often it is, and certainly people's interpretation of religious beliefs is affected by their religion.

I honestly feel that it's your religious belief that homosexuality is a sin that is the reason you oppose legalized gay marriage.  While you argue about adoption, I have a hard time accepting that that's really your primary concern.  I may be wrong on that, and I'd be happy to hear if I am.  But I think the real disagreement is at a deeper level than all this stuff about adoption.  I think it's far more fundamental than this higher level stuff we're debating here.  If the fundamental disagreement remains, nothing we end up agreeing on at the higher level will matter.  The fact that gay marriage with the provision that their orientation could still be considered in adoption cases wouldn't change your view illustrates this.  We finally reached a point where we agreed, and it didn't change our positions at all, because the issue of adoption isn't what we really disagree about.  If we're all completely honest about why we support or don't support legalized gay marriage, we're more likely to at least understand each other's view, or at most come to some sort of meaningful agreement.



But you're equating motivation for a law, and the law itself, when these are different things.  What it sounds like you really want, is to be legally able to discriminate against homosexuals.  You feel like legalized gay marriage reduces your ability to discriminate, so you're opposed to it.  It's not the gay marriage that's the real problem, it's the underlying motivation.  I think more progress can be made if we get as close to the root of the disagreement as possible.  Debating the pros and cons of gay adoption won't really get us anywhere if our real disagreement is over whether we should be able to discriminate based on sexual preference or not.

As I say I think it's just the fact that there would be a legal precident to argue in that direction if someone wanted to.  You know as well as I that people with an ax to grind get off on forcing people to do what they don't want to do.  The answer to your first question is: the gay couple who were told by a pastor that he wouldn't marry them because the bible says that homosexuality is a sin.  What a power trip to force that person to preform the ceremony and eat his words or loose his church tax license, go to prison or get a fine.

Many churches rent out their building as a way of reaching out to poeple who are unsaved.  The vast majority of people get married in churches even if they are non-attenders or non-religious.  I don't understand it, but that's the facts.  To have to restrict the use of your building to church members only could be a problem, and if you require church membership for marriage ceremonies, then it opens up law suits for discrimination if you refuse to allow homosexuals to be church members.  If you think that's far-fetched, talk to the Boy Scouts.



Oh I beg to differ.  The bible explicitly defines homosexuality as sin.

Lev 18:22:
22. You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

And:

1 Cor 6:9
9. Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,  nor sodomites,

And:

1 Tim 1:10
10. for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine

And:

Rom 1:26-27
26. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
27. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Biblical doctrine is emphatic that homosexuality is a sin.  Now if your making the case that the temptation to be homosexual is not sinful, just the consumation of homosexuality, I might agree with you, however Jesus makes it plain that lust in the heart is the same as acting upon that lust, whether homosexual or streight.
I think it's important to say here that homosexuality is no worse than any other sin in God's eyes.  Sin is sin and it all needs to be repented of, so I'm not trying to paint a picture of homosexuals as any worse than any other sinner.  I have things in my life I struggle with and have to repent of, so I'm not condemning anyone.  The point is, the bible specifically teaches that homosexuality is sinful and if we start passing laws that could be used to prohibit pastors from preaching the teachings of the bible on the grounds that it's "discriminatory" or "hate speech" is very threatening, not to mention unconstitutional.

This isn't likely.  A catholic priest doesn't have to marry a jewish couple, and a rabbi doesn't have to marry a lutheran couple, and so on.  Religious leaders are free to set whatever conditions for their services that they desire.  Civil servants, on the other hand, would be required to give marriage licenses, even if they were opposed to gay marriage, I suppose.  But they're already required to provide licenses to any number of groups they might not agree with, so that's nothing new.


That I could see, and in such cases I would actually oppose the law forcing anyone to rent out their property to anyone they objected to.  Private citizens should be allowed to discriminate, the government shouldn't.  This is one of those cases where I may be well out of step with much of the left.


If the law protects the KKK when they have their rallies, I think your pastors are safe.  Gay marriage doesn't affect anyone's right to free speech.  Equating these separate issues only confuses the issue, and makes it harder to come to some kind of agreement.

I'm not positive, but I'm guessing the hate crimes bill would stifle this as well.

It's not a crime to rally, ergo it can't be a hate crime.  It would only be a hate crime if they committed an actual crime based on the victim's gender, race, religion, etc.

So yes, the KKK can and does continue to hold rallies.

The hate crimes bill has not yet passed.

While I'm (weakly) opposed to the idea laws defining "hate crimes" in general, my admittedly limited understanding of the bill is that it will only add sexual orientation and gender to the existing categories.  Expressing anti-gay biblical ideas would only become "hate" crimes if they were crimes already.  If I understand the bill (and there's a decent chance that I don't), it doesn't make anything new illegal, but rather increases the penalties for things already illegal depending upon the motives behind them.

Yes, it does make more sense to me. Thank you.  I'll try and catch up to your other questions.


I was pressed for time, and that could have been worded better. What I was trying to say, if marriage is altered to prevent discrimination, then whatever description it is given, in this case, male-male, or female-female will be married in the eyes of the law. By law, a marriage could not be shown less than another marriage based on the couple's orientation. It would be a protected right.


I'm a christian, and this may be a surprise, but I don't feel christianity teaches tolerance per say. Though it would make it interesting if I stopped there, I'll explain. God wants us to love the people He created. The greatest commandments are to love God with all your heart, with all your soul, and all your mind, and then also is to love our neighbor as yourself. And Jesus did love the people. He died for all of us, so that we could be with God. But that didn't happen so that people could do things that God doesn't want us to do. Jesus loved people who sinned, but He didn't love sin. Jesus didn't like it when the teachers and authorities made laws and rules that didn't lead to God. Matthew chapter 23 is a good example of how blunt, and controversial he could be. Jesus was taken to the authorities, and they begged for Jesus to be crucified.


I understand, but did the point make sense?

  I half suspect that research would say that is a better environment. I personally don't see how that could work in society. I think jealousy would make it difficult. Could you imagine a woman faking twice the number of headaches? ;) Tongue in cheek, there. I would think that all the reasons given so far would not apply in any way to that however. My answer would have to be that I wouldn't be ok with marriage being defined to three or more people. Falkus pointed out some problems with it, and I'd add tax laws, and insurance could possible collapse without a complete revision to anything to do with income tax, and child tax, refunds, etc.  I'd be half inclined to think that divorce might be the most unusual item to deal with ever. What if Barbie wants to divorce Ken, but stay married to Antonio, and Antonia wants to stay married to Ken? Really, I can't see how group situations could work by law.

I think that has more to do with the view one is coming from. At this point, from the view of others, they wouldn't want a law created to change marriage, as they feel it would be unjust. It's one of those things, two sides, (maybe more) where they have opposing ideas of what is right, and what is wrong. It's kind of subjective.


That definition is kind of vague. That would mean that a sister and brother could have a marriage if the law was redefined, or even multiple people, or even even a child and an adult, (with parental consent of course). It has some good points, like legal, and binding, and of course recognized by the law. But it does need more definition to be legally binding.




Strangely enough, when the law was changed in Canada, Marriage commissioner's were forced to officiate same sex weddings. Those who had religious views that did not accept same sex weddings were told they would not have a job. They were denied their religious beliefs. They were forced to quit, or perform the ceremony.

Yes, that's my point. We are seeing eye to eye.  Could you rephrase so I get a clear picture of what is being asked.



Because that's only one issue.

Bare with me, this will take a few lines of explanation. I'm not going to answer this at this time. I've found that if I throw out too much information topics are  "cherry picked", and while multiple ideas are there, each need extensive debate to clear up the reasons, the question, and the responses, plus follow up questions that arise. So for example, I'll give six reasons, and one person replies how full of garbage they are, and proceed to write up the problem with reasons 2 and 4, ignoring that 1, 3, 5 and 6 were valid.

A gluttony of information isn't helpful to a debate all at once. Quite Frankly, I also detest the idea that someone might take on the challenge of replying to each point all at once too. Then it takes an hour for each turn at replying what was addressed.



What help do they not get now? Child tax rebates, and income tax deductions are given to the child's guardian/parent.


I disagree with the wording here. Currently the laws are equal for all people. Rights don't apply to couples, but to individuals (I'm giving Heath credit for that one).



I'd call that a bias. Personal beliefs, and religious beliefs are rights we enjoy. You don't actually need to prove why you think something is good or bad before a vote for example. I'm not saying I'm trying to hide my belief. So my views don't impact the research that is out there.

I'm not that black and white. ;) Seriously though, I look at something, and can talk about something strongly for a myriad of reasons. With the current debate, I haven't brought up the bible because I'm not trying to debate if it's a sin. I'm trying to show the differences in a relationship. We're debating law, and rights, and to bring up the bible when talking about your's, or Vexen's, or Falkus' views has little to do with the bible.

I think I have been fairly accused as brutally honest. And if I wanted to hop on a soap box, and blast "them heathens and sinners!", I'd have people just keep on walking.

In this subject, I'm not bringing up the bible, because that isn't answering the questions brought up. That I'm a christian, and will bring up the bible in many posts yet to come on a variety of subjects is a given. I know you'll all be waiting excitedly for that. ;)

I think it's not what you're saying, but how you're saying it that doesn't really explain my views on this.

It's not that I don't want to discriminate, as I do. In the sense of saying there's a difference, not in the manner that I want to say they aren't equal.

I'll have to go back and check, but I believe that it was in Canada that the CBC stopped a radio station from airing a religious group talk about homosexuality. I'll get more details about this.

:)



Well, you want adoption agencies to be able to treat gay couples differently than straight couples.  You've argued that if the gay couple were married, then it wouldn't be possible to differentiate.  I think that's a logical leap.  It's possible for two legally equal marriages to be differentiated, as illustrated by the example of income.  You're tacitly assuming that legalized gay marriage equals no discrimination at the adoption agency.  What you're really concerned about is the latter, but you're arguing against the former by treating them as the same thing.  So the question, I guess, is do you agree that it's possible for legally equal marriages to be differentiated.  If so, let's drop down to a slightly more fundamental level, and discuss the issue of legal discrimination, rather than the issue of gay marriage, which is more a consequence of the issue.




That's fair enough.  But we've reached a level of agreement on the one point you've raised so far, but still don't agree on whether gay marriage should be legalized.  So we need to address the next point.  One at a time is fine by me.




Well, here we get back to the assumption that marriage is intended to be about raising kids.  I'm not sure if I agree with that assumption, but it seems to be taken as fact by the anti-gay-marriage side, so let's work with it.  If it's better for kids to have married parents than non-married parents, why not let gay parents get married?  If being married is an aid to parents that helps them successfully raise children, why not give that same aid to gay parents?

Conversely, if marriage isn't any benefit, why extend it to straight couples?



That's an unfair dodge, though.  Saying gay people have the right to marry opposite sex people is silly.  It's like making a law that outlawed marriages between christians, and when they called it unfair, telling them "well, you can still get married, you just have to marry a non-christian.  You have the same rights as everyone else here.  Couples don't have rights, individuals do.  You've got the same right to marry a non-christian as everyone else."  Marriage is about couples.  To act as though it's not is to ignore the obvious.  The law treats homosexual couples as inferior to straight couples.  There's no getting around that.  Heath even makes this more explicit.  He says 'why should the government support that kind of relationship?'  He's made it clear that the idea is to promote one kind of relationship because it's better.  If you disagree with him, fair enough, I hadn't realized.  If you do agree with him, though, the question stands:  why treat gay couples as inferior to straight couples if everyone is as good as everyone else?


I'm not asking you to prove anything is good or bad before you vote, though.  I'm trying to understand why you're voting the way you are.  We could both sit here and just vote "aye" or "nae" to various topics, but that doesn't really get us anywhere.  Figuring out our fundamental motivations does, though.  Yes, you have the right to your religious beliefs, and you're free to vote based on them.  I'm not trying to take that away from you.  But if you're religious beliefs *are* what determines your vote, that's what I want to talk about.  Not about adoption, because that doesn't alter either of our votes.  At the end of the day, you vote one way, and I vote another, because there's some issue we disagree on.  That disagreement may lead to a number of other disagreements, such as adoption, but those other disagreements aren't really the true difference.  That true difference is where we should focus our efforts, because everything else is just a consequence of that difference.

My best guess is that our point of disagreement is something like you want laws to maximize the number of people doing what God wants, whereas I want laws to maximize people's ability to make up their own minds.  I think the point of disagreement that leads to that is that you're completely confident in your beliefs about God, whereas I think no one's got it all figure out.  Other people's freedoms aren't as important to you as it is to me, because you're convinced you know if what they're doing is right or wrong, whereas I think they're just as likely to be right as you, or me, or anyone else, since we're all just humans trying to do the best we can with limited information.  I think if we could come to some agreement about that, all of the other, higher level stuff, would fall into place.  If you could convince me that that your religion is obviously right and the others are obviously wrong, then my view on gay marriage would shift, without having to discuss points 1-6 or whatever.  Likewise, if I could convince you that you could be wrong, and you're only just about as likely to be right as anyone else, you'd probably be much more likely to let other people figure things out on their own, again without us having to debate points 1-6.

That's really what I'm getting at here.  I'm trying to peel back the layers of disagreement to the true sticking point.  The issue over adoption isn't what determines either of our positions on gay marriage, it's just something we argue over because we feel it back up our side.  We can both bring studies that show X, Y, or Z, but really we'll both just think our own studies are good and the other's aren't, so that doesn't get us anywhere either.  All that is just consequence of our more fundamental disagreement.  Does that make sense?


True, but it has a lot to do with your view (at least I think so).  I don't think adoption really has a lot to do with anyone's view on gay marriage, to be honest.  It's a side issue to be sorted out afterwards for most people.  I'm guessing that even if all studies showed that children were better off raised by two gay men than by a man and a women that you wouldn't change your oppinion on gay marriage.  I wouldn't be too surprized if it turned out that gay couples aren't statistically as good as straight couples at raising kids (though the studies seem to show otherwise), but it wouldn't make me think gay marriage should stay illegal.  To make any progress on this, we need to get down to the issue that would change our views.  I'm guessing that our views of the certainty of your religion is that point.  If I became as certain as you about your religion, then my views of gay marriage would match yours, and if you became as uncertain about it as I am, your view of gay marriage would match mine.


Certainly, and I'm not suggesting you do that by any means.  But if the bible is the real reason you oppose gay marriage, to change people's minds you need to convince them that your view of the bible is correct.  To change your mind, I'm guessing I'd have to convince you that there's a real chance that you're wrong about God.  Not necesssarily that you are wrong, but that it's at least possible.


Well, saying there's a difference means they're not equal, really.  But I'm trying to use 'discriminate' as you mean it: recognizing a difference.  Perhaps 'differentiate' is a less politicaly charged word, so I'll use that instead.  You want to be able to differentiate between gay couples and straight couples.  Fair enough, I think that should be legal too.  But I think gay marriage doesn't prevent that, though other laws might.


This was in your discussion with Mr. Crinkles, but I thought I'd add my thoughts.  Marriage commissioners, I assume, are government employees.  It's very different to force government employees to treat people a certain way, as opposed to forcing clergy to treat people a certain way.  You should be free to practice your religious views, but if your jobs duty's conflict with your religious views, I don't think your employer is obligated to keep you on.  If your religions says part of your job is wrong, and you shouldn't do it, that's probably a job you shouldn't keep.

I'll come back to the rest of your post tonight, as I have only a little time before heading off to work.

The problem I see with this is that means you can fire someone based on their religious beliefs. Think of it this way. They were perfectly capable of the job before, and now, due to their religious beliefs, they are considered incapable. Fired for religious beliefs is illegal.

As long as it doesn't create undue hardship, alternatives are made to accommodate. For examples, there are people who want to take holy days off for their specific religion. You accommodate their beliefs even though you may not celebrate those same holy days.

If that means the commissioners are to be marked not available for some parts because it conflicts with their religious beliefs, then you accommodate that. Imagine telling someone that can't have their holy days off because they don't match Christmas, or Easter. Human rights would be all over that.

Freedom of religion is one of the rights that the USA and Canada are quite vocal, and legendary for.

Well then why don't we just say commissioners hired before the allowance of gay marriages can make a religious claim indicating they can't do those marriages, but all new ones know the rules when they're getting hired and can't make that claim.  Would that then make it okay?



I don't know about Canada, but here, if you want to take off a holy day, you spend leave just like everyone else.  If for some reason the company can't give you leave, you gotta work on that day.  I haven't heard any human rights complaints, however.

They're not being fired for their religious beliefs.  They're being fired for being incapable of doing their job.  Their reason for refusing to do parts of the job may be religious, but it's the fact that they're not doing their job that actually matters.  A christian who married gay couples, even though he thought they were wrong to get married, could keep his job.

An example might be a hindu applying for a job at Mcdonalds, and then refusing to serve anyone hamburgers because it was against their religion.  Mcdonalds would be well within their rights to fire any employee who wouldn't serve people beef, even if the person's reasons for not serving beef were religious.

The simple fact of the matter is that if your religion prevents you from carrying out the duties of a particular job, you're not the best candidate for that job, and someone else should have it.

Freedom of religion only means that no one can stop you from practicing your religion.  It doesn't mean anyone else has to accomodate your particular needs.  They're free to if they like (and in many cases will), but they shouldn't be required to.


Employers are certainly free to make accomodations, but they shouldn't be required to do so.  In this case, they'd have to hire someone who would give out marriage licenses to gay couples, in addition to the one who wouldn't.  If that 2nd person could do the whole job by themselves, I don't see any reason to keep the 1st person on the payroll.  Religious holidays are fairly easy to work around.  A person simply refusing to perform their duties isn't.


Maybe in Canada, but in the US there's nothing that guarantees you the days off that you want off.  Most employers will work with you to give you the days you want, but no law forces them to do so (to my knowledge).


Yes, but again freedom of religion just means you're free to practice your religion, not that anyone else has to help you do it.  It's sort of like freedom of speech: you're free to say what you like, but nothing compels other people to listen to you.  If swear at your boss, you won't have much luck arguing your first amendment rights when you get fired.  In this case, you're free to practice your religion, but if that means you can't do your job, you're going to get fired.

*** Okay, I see your points, but wouldn't the whole "Seperation of Church and State" thing come into play? (I'm not trying to say you're wrong, btw, just figuring out why I am.) I guess I don't see how the government can force a church official to perform a church function, or to allow church property to be used for non-church purposes, or to allow people to join a church against the church's will. With the Boy Scouts, there was no conflict between church and state, so they were rightly forced to not discriminate, but I'd think a church would be different.


*** What I was saying is that the Bible doesn't say that being gay is a sin. It says that acting gay is a sin. Yes, I'm aware of the "lust in your heart" argument, but I don't think we can equate temptation with actual sin, as Jesus Himself was tempted, yet He was also without sin.


*** So would I, to a point. I think it's wrong for an apartment manager to refuse to rent an apartment to someone just becos he doesn't like the group they belong too, for example, but a church shouldn't have to rent their building out to just anyone either.


*** Okay, I'm still not clear on how this is a bad thing.


*** I'm not trying to be offensive, I swear, but DUH!!!


*** No, you're right. It's God's fault that people can do things He doesn't like. He's the one who came up with that whole "free-will" nonsense.


*** Yeah, and maybe people are better about that today, but scientific/medical breakthroughs have always had opposition from religion, and I really don't see that changing anytime soon.


*** Is it just becos of the legal issues, or is there another reason?


*** And I intended it to be. The law should be vague on something like this. From a legal standpoint, I see no reason why a brother and sister should not be allowed to marry. Ditto for your other examples. Anyone capable of consenting to a marriage should be allowed to be married.


*** Okay, what's a Marriage Commisioner? If that's a religious job, then I think what happened was wrong. If it's a civil job, then I don't. Tycho said it better:



*** Not true. If two (or more) individuals all want to participate in the same marriage, the law won't allow them to. Also, unless you're going to define anyone under 21 as "not people", the law is EXTREMELY discriminatory where they're concerned.


*** And everyone has the right to their own beliefs. The problem comes when person A tries to force person B to live in accordance with person A's beliefs, without regard for person B's beliefs.


*** Unless your reason for wanting a law is Biblical. Then it has a lot to do with it. Ex: I believe the law against driving under the influence is a good one, becos it helps people more than it hurts. This has nothing to do with my Biblical beliefs, so in this instance, the Bible is irrelevant. But if I wanted a law against drinking simply becos I think the Bible is against it, then it would be relevant.


*** No, it means you can fire someone for actions based on their religious beliefs. No one is saying they're incapable of doing the job; they'd be fired for refusing to do it. It's not becos of their beliefs, it's becos of their refusal to work.


*** This is why (in the US, at least), we have the law phrased as "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" when talking about religion. Yes, you're free to practice your religion as you see fit, but I don't have to help you do it.

Gay marriage needs to be made legal. To say it's not is basicly saying that homosexuals are secound class citizens that don't have the same rights and privalidges that someone of a different sexual orientation, any arguments against such a motion are just excuses.

Careful, your bias is showing (as well as your lack of knowledge about history).  This isn't the thread for a proper discussion, but I think a little research will show how very wrong this statement is.

Just want to check something here for clarity's sake.  When I asked TitL about wearing garments made of two fabrics (which is declare unnaccecptable in the next chapter of Leviticus), he said that doesn't apply to christians, it's just a rule for the jews.  First of all, do you agree with him on that?  And if so, wouldn't this statement fall under the same category?

If you feel Leviticus shows God's true thoughts on this matter, do you think Leviticus 20:13 holds as well?  If the crime is still just as much a crime as it was at this time, should the punishment remain the same as well?  What is your opinion of those who do think Lev 20:13 is still God's intention, and preach such from the pulpit?

I find that Leviticus is one of those books that christians tend to pick and choose from.  They keep what they like, and what they don't like, they say is 'just for the jews of that time.'