| |
|
|
- This is a moderated forum, all posts will be checked for bad language and composition.
- Before you post in the information section, make sure the information you add is fully accurate.
- All posts within the local and national policy sections must be factually correct and substantively debatable.
- Feel free to be provocative or even politically incorrect, within the rules set.
- No threats, sexual or racist remarks of any nature will be tolerated. Any posts that violate these common sense rules will be removed. Your account may also be suspended after so many violations.
- Creating multiple accounts and pretending to be someone else will result in instant termination of all accounts. We check up on all accounts / IP addresses frequently. You must register and login in order to post within the forums. Your information will not be given out or sold for mailing lists. The register and login section is at the top right. You can also register or login here.
|
|
| Author |
Messages |
|
Zasch
Posts:134
Senior User
Online Status:
 |
| 05/06/2007 6:01 PM |
|
No, you have failed to demonstrate the causal link between gay marriage and a decrease in religious tolerance. You have failed to demonstrate the employment link as well - that religious people will be discriminated against in large numbers if gay marriage is accepted (remember, the US has somewhere around 85% religious rate).
Too, you have not yet demonstrated that my own belief on hiring practices constitutes discrimination against the religious. In addition, you dropped the point about homosexuals having done nothing to you, and yet your desire to infringe upon their liberty: Which seems to be the exact opposite of what you are saying (that is, you are saying the liberty of religious people is going down). If my statement is true, it essentially negates your entire argument. Thus, declaring victory at this point is premature.
Certainly an acceptance of gay marriage would result in lower social tolerance for discrimination against homosexuals, but the inability for those of some religious beliefs to discriminate against homosexuals does not in any way constitute discrimination against the religious, nor is it a violation of their freedom of religion.
By saying "people of faith will be discriminated against", you are painting a wildly unrealistic portrait of the situation: That somehow if gay marriage is accepted, suddenly it will be taboo or bad to be religious and those who believe in God will be shut out of public life. Quite frankly, given the present climate in the US, such a scenario is so extremely unlikely as to not merit serious consideration. |
|
|
|
|
mulhollandj
Posts:230
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/07/2007 6:45 AM |
|
My link is government employment. How quickly are the number of government related jobs growing? You have shown that the government will discriminate and that is my point. Of course we could keep arguing about will private companies following the government example. I fail to believe that people promoting homosexuality will be more impartial than those opposing it. I have seen too many bitter homosexuals.
Also would government boycott companies which contribute to fight homosexuality as many family groups boycott those promoting it?
|
|
|
|
|
Zasch
Posts:134
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/07/2007 9:37 AM |
|
All I've shown is that *I* would discrmininate against *homophobes* in *some circumstances*. I'm not sure how you translate that into *government* discriminating against *religious people* in *all circumstances*.
Please tell me some of your experiences with bitter homosexuals.
The government thus far does not appear to be doing so - especially given that the executive is under the sway of those who oppose homosexuality, it isn't terribly surprising. |
|
|
|
|
Debator
Posts:46
Advanced User
Online Status:
|
| 05/07/2007 10:02 AM |
|
Certainly an acceptance of gay marriage would result in lower social tolerance for discrimination against homosexuals, but the inability for those of some religious beliefs to discriminate against homosexuals does not in any way constitute discrimination against the religious, nor is it a violation of their freedom of religion.
I must respectfully disagree with you. Not only has the Supreme Court held that it is (Corp. of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Amos), but freedom of association is one of the most fundamental freedoms of the Constitution. If an organization has a creed that requires certain kinds of behavior, then it would be fatal to that organization to deny them the right to exclude non-conformers. It would amount to the government telling them how to run their organization - a position that I see as totalitarian and destructive of free speech/association. (Imagine if the government required the Sierra Club to hire anti-environment types who could be in a position to compromise the mission of the organization.)
I think what MJ is trying to say (and MJ, please correct me if I'm wrong) is that requiring the government to recognize gay unions amounts to a state endorsement of a lifestyle he personally disagrees with. When the state begins to endorse something, it gives that position/action legitimacy (think racial and gender discrimination). This will make it more unpopular, more difficult for people who oppose that position to run for office, attract customers, get media attention, etc. It's a fair argument, even though I happen to disagree with it.
As I see it, homosexuality is a matter of private practice - it takes place in your own home. If a business chooses to recognize and implictly accept that behavior by granting domestic partners benefits, that's their choice. However, since marriage is such an important issue and since there is still so little data regarding the practical effects of homosexual marriage, I personally would leave it to the states to decide to give the experiment of federalism some time to work out the kinks. I'm hesitant to begin to extend the right to marriage because of the implications of making a hasty, highly politicized decision. On the other hand, I don't think that homosexuals should be denied "equal protection" under the laws. It should not be acceptable to discriminate against someone because of their sexual behavior unless it involves a lack of consent (i.e. rape, molestation, etc.) - in which case, the behavior should be illegal. |
|
|
|
|
mulhollandj
Posts:230
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/07/2007 10:56 AM |
|
You have restated some of my position. But I also argue that the government will start to discriminate against those who oppose homosexuality. Since the homosexual movement wants to liken themselves to the anti-racist movement they let us consider a few examples. We must especially consider those of high influence such as a public official, a judge, or a school teacher. Would you hire a teacher who is a member of the KKK? How about the Boy Scouts who oppose homosexuality? How about a judge or a police officer? Would the government hire a contractor who donates to the KKK? How about the Boy Scouts? The problem is on the horizon. Compare with views 80 years ago with minorities with today. I want to point out that according to history this is where we are going.
Now I wouldn't be as alarmed but there is an ever increasing effort to take away parents rights, especially when it comes to homeschooling. The size of the government is ever increasing, especially locally. As government taxes more and regulates more it is hard to escape their heavy influence in your personal life.
As far as this being a state issue there are many unresolved issues, especially when a couple moves. Let us say a couple is married in Mass, adopts and then moves to Utah. Is there family recognized? What if they divorce? Is that divorce recognized? Who gets custody? There are many challenges with will controlled at a federal level and therefore force states to accept it.
I think that it is perfectly acceptable to discriminate somebody based on their moral character or lack thereof. Would I want to hire someone convicted of tax fraud to do my taxes? |
|
|
|
|
Zasch
Posts:134
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/07/2007 11:27 AM |
|
Not only has the Supreme Court held that it is
Correct me if I am wrong, but this Supreme Court case did not strike down extending nondiscrimination protection to homosexuals as unconstitutional, which seems to be the issue here.
What I believe MJ is saying is that allowing for gay marriage will result in widespread discrimination against people who believe in some form of religion, and that this discrimination will manifest itself both in the inability of the religious to discriminate against homosexuals (for instance, by firing them simply for being gay or preventing certain types of contracts, such as marriage) and of widespread social disapproval against religion and the eventual stamping out of religious life from American culture as occured in the German Democratic Republic. I find no issue with the former (as I do not believe religious rights ought extend to such things) and I find the latter to be a somewhat absurd prediction.
If an organization has a creed that requires certain kinds of behavior, then it would be fatal to that organization to deny them the right to exclude non-conformers.
Indeed, I agree with you. At the same time though, there must be a balance between the interests of certain groups in maintaining an identity and purpose of operation with the need to limit society's ability to ostracise people from the community. I must wonder what would have happend if nondiscrimination laws were never passed for blacks, for instance. If private actors were entirely free to act in this matter, would we see the sort of equality (such as it is) that we have today? What do you think?
It's a fair argument,
It is indeed a fair argument, but one that should not serve as motivation to action.
However, since marriage is such an important issue and since there is still so little data regarding the practical effects of homosexual marriage,
What sort of data are you expecting to see? Surely you do not buy into the "societies with gay marriage collapse" theory 
I'm hesitant to begin to extend the right to marriage because of the implications of making a hasty, highly politicized decision.
And what are those implications, in your mind?
----
Would you hire a teacher who is a member of the KKK? How about the Boy Scouts who oppose homosexuality? How about a judge or a police officer? Would the government hire a contractor who donates to the KKK? How about the Boy Scouts?
But none of this is discriminatiaon against *religion*, which seems to be the central argument you are making.
Now I wouldn't be as alarmed but there is an ever increasing effort to take away parents rights, especially when it comes to homeschooling. The size of the government is ever increasing, especially locally. As government taxes more and regulates more it is hard to escape their heavy influence in your personal life.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say with this paragraph. Could you clarify - what is it you think the government will do?
As far as this being a state issue there are many unresolved issues, especially when a couple moves. Let us say a couple is married in Mass, adopts and then moves to Utah. Is there family recognized? What if they divorce? Is that divorce recognized? Who gets custody? There are many challenges with will controlled at a federal level and therefore force states to accept it.
At present, other states are not bound to recognise gay marriages conducted in states that allow it. I personally think that this is not proper: While I realise that it isn't legal doctorine (So you needn't come after me, Debator ;)) I think that as a general matter states ought to give full faith and credit to each other's laws.
I think that it is perfectly acceptable to discriminate somebody based on their moral character or lack thereof.
So is it acceptable for me to then discriminate against blacks if I consider their race to speak to their moral character? |
|
|
|
|
Zasch
Posts:134
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/07/2007 11:30 AM |
|
Basically, I'm confused as to why we seem to have this debate soley on the territory of homosexuality, rather than encompassing discrimination in general (including racial discrimination). It seems to me that there is an undercurrent to this debate that homosexuality is a thing that ought be discriminated against, but we seem reluctant to engage in the discussion of the morality of the issue itself, which seems central (to me) to the debate about how far discrimination protecions should extend.
|
|
|
|
|
mulhollandj
Posts:230
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/07/2007 12:12 PM |
|
Many may consider my view strange on this but I would say that true equality does not come through legislation. I would dare say to let a business discriminate against a certain group. If they do so then they can get very bad publicity. Let us talk about discriminating against Canadians, since I am originally one. Let us say that there are two software companies ABC and XYZ, since that is my profession. Company ABC discriminates and won't hire Canadians. First, all else being equal they will lose the business of Canadians. Secondly, if I am well qualified, they will lose my expertise. I will be hired by XYZ and they will benefit. If both refuse to hire me then I can start my own business. As long as the laws are just and those exercising the laws are just there isn't a problem. But forcing ABC to hire me only tells me that I am inferior and puts me in a bad situation. They will give me a puppet job and until attitudes change I will only be protected by the law and that discriminates against American.
I do not feel that a law is just which gives an unfair advantage to one group of people. |
|
|
|
|
Zasch
Posts:134
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/07/2007 2:27 PM |
|
I would dare say to let a business discriminate against a certain group. If they do so then they can get very bad publicity.
But if that discrimination is sponsored by society, then the negative publicity they may face will be mitigated by the support that they recieve from the community.
If both refuse to hire me then I can start my own business.
Assuming you are in a position to do so, if society still discriminates against Canadians, your business will likely fail because it is Canadian.
But forcing ABC to hire me only tells me that I am inferior and puts me in a bad situation. They will give me a puppet job and until attitudes change I will only be protected by the law and that discriminates against American.
Your interpretation of being protected by nondiscrimination laws is subjective: You may think it makes you inferior, others may not.
The thing is that the law is the only thing that would be able to protect you - if society is discriminating against you, then it is a truism to say that society is not protecting you. The law will allow you to still live normally in public life until such time that society stops discriminating against you (Unless, of course, that discrimination has some sort of rational basis).
I also dispute that it is discrimination against Americans. Rather, it merely negates (in theory - in practice, it only partially negates) the advantage that Americans would enjoy over you. You can view it either as you recieving a negative modifier, or everyone else recieving a positive modifier. Either way, it is an equalisation of the playing field, not an "undue advantage" that you are recieving.
You keep saying "unfair advantage" - but if society is discriminating against you due to factors beyond your control (homosexuality, race, gender) then you are at an unfair disadvantage, and so your advantage in this area is not particularly unfair. I suppose one way to assess whether the advantage is unfair or not is: Would you adopt the trait in question in order to gain the benefit? For instance, would you press a button to magically become a gay person in order to be protected by some discrimination law?
My belief is that people should not have to live in fear of the society around them simply because of how they were born. A black person should not have to fear discrimination from the police in a crime, a gay person should not have to fear being unable to get a job soley on that basis, etc.
Thus, I think that nondiscrimination laws and nondiscrimination in general are a useful equaliser in society in ensuring that people are not shut out of society simply because of how they were born. |
|
|
|
|
Debator
Posts:46
Advanced User
Online Status:
|
| 05/07/2007 2:39 PM |
|
A few points:
First, Z - the Supreme Court has only rarely held that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is unconstitutional (Lawrence v. Texas being one example). This is probably a reflection of the hesitation the Court shows when diving into divisive issues. It usually tries to stay away from them as long as it can. As far as private, non-profit organizations go, the Supreme Court held in BSA v. Dale that the freedom of association is broad enough for a group that disapproves of homosexuality to exclude homosexuals from its ranks. To me, the big difference is that the BSA, churches and other similar non-profit organizations provide a sort of voluntary benefit society as well as issue advocacy. For-profit corporations and non-associational non-profits (like the United Way, etc.) don't have the same mission or concerns. That is the line and the balance that should be drawn (and I believe is the balance that is drawn). If you want to know more, I suggest looking up "expressive association" and the cases cited in the BSA decision.
As far as the effects of legalizing gay marriage, I'm still undecided. Right now, I live in an environment where many people grow up with their mother or grandmother, or their father and their grandfather, but rarely with both parents. My experience is that the children who grow up in homes with both parents do significantly better than children who grow up in a home with only one parent (even if coupled with another adult). While my intuition is that the government (especially the Federal gum'nt) shouldn't be defining marriage one way or the other, I have to acknowledge that not defining marriage is also problematic. (i.e. if there is no definition of marriage, issues of inheritance, custody, power of attorney, employment benefits and many others are thrown into disarray). This is one (of the very few) areas where I swing conservative. But, I must clearly state that I do not believe that discrimination against homosexuals should be legal nor that it is moral. To me, it is much like religion - something that can theoretically be changed, but not something that society should expect or even ask people to change. I would like to see it protected, just like race, religion and other protected classes. To me, the government and the public have no right to discriminate against people because of their sexual choices. (Z - flowing from this position is my belief that if a state chooses to allow gay marriage, full faith and credit should extend to other states, requiring them to recognize that marriage.)
MJ - just for clarification, one of the Supreme Court justices appointed in the 50's was a member of the KKK (it slips my mind which one). It was an issue, but apparently not fatal to his nomination. This policy continues to today - the government cannot refuse to hire someone because they donate to the KKK. I happen to like it that way because during an administration whose policies I disagree with, I can still get hired because my personal life is largely irrelevant to my government duties.
Also, as to MJ's point about Canadians and discrimination - I think you are wrong. The "bad publicity" that would come from the discrimination would only be "bad" if society condemned that kind of discrimination. Secondly, the lost business would only extend to sympathizers with the discriminated-against group - oftentimes not nearly enough people to force change (how many people are honestly happy with Windows?). The Constitution was set up to protect minorities because the free market system just isn't going to. And, for the record, national origin is a protected class - a company could not refuse to serve you on the basis of your Canadian Bacon. |
|
|
|
|
Zasch
Posts:134
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/07/2007 3:44 PM |
|
| This debate is taking us away from Religious rights vs. Gay rights and going more into general GLBT issues, so I'm going to move my response to you (Debator) to the other thread |
|
|
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
|
ActiveForums 3.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|