(November 21, 2017 at 4:41 pm)Bow Before Zeus Wrote:

(November 21, 2017 at 1:56 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: I have to agree with this. It is one thing to give gays the right to get married. It is quite another to force institutions to conduct ceremonies which they do not wish to. For better or worse, people have the right to be bigoted. The important thing is to make sure that the government doesn't have bigoted policies.

Fine, so let's go back to allowing xtians to not marry mixed couples and performing ritual blood sacrifices on the church alter. That will take the ethics we have developed in modern society a few millenia back.

When did we "allow" xtians (aka Christians) to not marry mixed couples? I don't know the laws down under, but the Southern STATES in the US had LAWS forbidding the marriage of mixed race couples. Those laws had to go. If a church wants to refrain from doing something, it's their right to refrain. Mandating compulsory actions borders on fascism. As vile and disgusting as it is, I feel like these institutions ought not be compelled to do things to which they are opposed. I sense a breeze of strong anti-theism coming from you. Have you ever tried cannabis? It works wonders. If people want to be bigots and perform blood sacrifices, let them. Just don't let them anywhere near the legislative body. That's my position.

(November 21, 2017 at 5:37 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

---

(November 21, 2017 at 4:39 pm)Bow Before Zeus Wrote: This is very relevant so thanks for brining it here. The No campaign in Australia also argued that marriage is a union between a man and a woman for the purpose of having a family, however the majority of the country disagreed so that argument has been put to bed. But there are civil and religious ceremonies and I'm pretty sure in Australia they are essentially legally equivalent. I do find it difficult to understand why some same sex couples want to marry in a religious institution but they do. So the question remains, why should religious institutions be allowed to discriminate?

Let's use an equivalent example to show what I mean. If a black African man and a white Australian woman wanted to marry and they turn up to a church in Australia, is the priest allowed by law to say to them "Sorry but the church does not believe in mixed marriages - marriage is between a white man and a white woman only". Would they get away with it? No, because it is racial discrimination and there are laws that protect against that happening by any organisation or person in the country. Yet it is being argued that the church should be allowed to discriminate against a section of community based on their sexual orientation.

The more interesting question is why religious leaders want to be unethical. This is something that I don't understand. I say stop all discrimination and if we have to legislate to stop it, then so be it.

bold mine

Are those same sex couples members of the religious institution? My guess is no if the institution says no. It's their club (the church), they get to make their own rules.

I think the same holds with the black/white issue. I think they can get away with it if the black/white couple are not members. 

However, the exception is if the church has a history of allowing nonmembers to marry outside of the churches beliefs. That opens the door. 

Not sure if this applies to Oz: https://www.quora.com/Constutional-Laws-...rientation

The church should not be allowed to not let in people based on the colour of their skin, nationality or sexual preference. I believe the "No blacks allowed" or "Whites only" signs were taken down half a century ago - notwithstanding any still left in the southern US states. It is discrimination to not allow certain groups of people join a club, team or church. The ethics of the human civilisation has progressed beyond that stage and is at least partly if not wholly protected by the rule of law. Laws of certain states/nations may still need to catch up but they are generally heading the direction of more ethical rather than less ethical.

(November 21, 2017 at 5:37 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

---

(November 21, 2017 at 4:41 pm)Bow Before Zeus Wrote: They should be forced to perform actions against their religious beliefs when those primitive iron-age religious beliefs contradict the ethical structure of modern society. No animal sacrifices and no discrimination against people for any reason. Non religious people should be making requests or even demands of religious institutions on ethical grounds. And, yes, the "damn cake thing" did come up in parliamentary debate!

bold mine

Good luck with that pie in the sky ideal. 

Who's ethics? Yours when your not even in the club?

The ethics of the society. As a current member of the club called humanity, all entities, companies, people, organisations need to conform to the laws of the land. Why should a particular class of clubs called religions be exempt from being ethical? The great irony being, of course, that they always claim the higher moral ground but act otherwise.

---

(November 21, 2017 at 6:33 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(November 21, 2017 at 4:41 pm)Bow Before Zeus Wrote: Fine, so let's go back to allowing xtians to not marry mixed couples and performing ritual blood sacrifices on the church alter. That will take the ethics we have developed in modern society a few millenia back.

When did we "allow" xtians (aka Christians) to not marry mixed couples? I don't know the laws down under, but the Southern STATES in the US had LAWS forbidding the marriage of mixed race couples. Those laws had to go. If a church wants to refrain from doing something, it's their right to refrain. Mandating compulsory actions borders on fascism. As vile and disgusting as it is, I feel like these institutions ought not be compelled to do things to which they are opposed. I sense a breeze of strong anti-theism coming from you. Have you ever tried cannabis? It works wonders. If people want to be bigots and perform blood sacrifices, let them. Just don't let them anywhere near the legislative body. That's my position.

So religious groups don't need to obey the laws of the land when it comes to discrimination? What about the laws relating to murder, theft, destruction of property? How about we let the churches do what they want? The laws are there for a reason. To ensure order in society and not allow the thugs in the community take advantage of the weak. If the churches are exempt from the laws of the land, they will become the thugs despite always claiming the higher moral ground.

I often wonder what reaction I'd get if I opened a practice that refused to treat Christians?

I would, of course, never do it (Hippocratic oath, and all that), but I would love to see the reaction of theists to this.

Now, let me say that I've never had a problem with a Christian patient, apart from the standard problems patients pose, unlike a Muslim patient I once had.

But, freedom of religion, in the context of refusing service to people whose lifestyles you don't agree with, works BOTH ways. Some Conservative Christians don't seem to think of it this way.

Lots of diversion, none of which addresses my point that a secular civil marriage has an essential objective character that distinguishes it from other types of relationships and social institutions.

(November 21, 2017 at 7:07 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Lots of diversion, none of which addresses my point that a secular civil marriage has an essential objective character that distinguishes it from other types of relationships and social institutions.

All marriages are civil marriages, there is no such thing as a sacramental marriage. Two people married by a priest are not married until they sign the papers, state papers. Other than that, I don't have the remotest idea what you're talking about.

(November 21, 2017 at 7:25 pm)Succubus Wrote:

(November 21, 2017 at 7:07 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Lots of diversion, none of which addresses my point that a secular civil marriage has an essential objective character that distinguishes it from other types of relationships and social institutions.

All marriages are civil marriages, there is no such thing as a sacramental marriage. Two people married by a priest are not married until they sign the papers, state papers. Other than that, I don't have the remotest idea what you're talking about.

Again, what objective essential feature distinguishes a marriage from any other relationship or social institution, like roommates, business partners, care-givers with power of attorney, and the like?

(November 21, 2017 at 6:47 pm)Bow Before Zeus Wrote:

(November 21, 2017 at 5:37 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

---

bold mine

Are those same sex couples members of the religious institution? My guess is no if the institution says no. It's their club (the church), they get to make their own rules.

I think the same holds with the black/white issue. I think they can get away with it if the black/white couple are not members. 

However, the exception is if the church has a history of allowing nonmembers to marry outside of the churches beliefs. That opens the door. 

Not sure if this applies to Oz: https://www.quora.com/Constutional-Laws-...rientation

The church should not be allowed to not let in people based on the colour of their skin, nationality or sexual preference. I believe the "No blacks allowed" or "Whites only" signs were taken down half a century ago - notwithstanding any still left in the southern US states. It is discrimination to not allow certain groups of people join a club, team or church. The ethics of the human civilisation has progressed beyond that stage and is at least partly if not wholly protected by the rule of law. Laws of certain states/nations may still need to catch up but they are generally heading the direction of more ethical rather than less ethical.

(November 21, 2017 at 5:37 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

---

bold mine

Good luck with that pie in the sky ideal. 

Who's ethics? Yours when your not even in the club?

The ethics of the society. As a current member of the club called humanity, all entities, companies, people, organisations need to conform to the laws of the land. Why should a particular class of clubs called religions be exempt from being ethical? The great irony being, of course, that they always claim the higher moral ground but act otherwise.

---

(November 21, 2017 at 6:33 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: When did we "allow" xtians (aka Christians) to not marry mixed couples? I don't know the laws down under, but the Southern STATES in the US had LAWS forbidding the marriage of mixed race couples. Those laws had to go. If a church wants to refrain from doing something, it's their right to refrain. Mandating compulsory actions borders on fascism. As vile and disgusting as it is, I feel like these institutions ought not be compelled to do things to which they are opposed. I sense a breeze of strong anti-theism coming from you. Have you ever tried cannabis? It works wonders. If people want to be bigots and perform blood sacrifices, let them. Just don't let them anywhere near the legislative body. That's my position.

So religious groups don't need to obey the laws of the land when it comes to discrimination? What about the laws relating to murder, theft, destruction of property? How about we let the churches do what they want? The laws are there for a reason. To ensure order in society and not allow the thugs in the community take advantage of the weak. If the churches are exempt from the laws of the land, they will become the thugs despite always claiming the higher moral ground.

How old are you? It almost feels like I'm talking to yet another person suffering from chronic victim mentality. 

We already have one of those.

(November 21, 2017 at 3:23 am)Bow Before Zeus Wrote: Ok, time for another thread. This time I am going to try to be a little more compassionate and considerate with the feelings of the xtians here in stating the truth in a more conciliatory fashion. Hope I get it right this time!

Some of you might be aware that Australia has just spent $120M on a non-binding voluntary (our parliamentary voting is mandatory) vote on same sex marriage (SSM). For the tech-heads out there, that's around 2 SpaceX rocket launches worth of voting!!!! Anyway, the votes are in and surprise, surprise, about 61% of those that voted were for SSM & 39% were against. About what phone polls (at a fraction of the cost) were already showing. So, great news for gay and lesbian couples, yes? Not so fast, speed racer! You see, we have a right wing conservative government in power at the moment so they're not going to make this so easy. They have now decided to debate a bill which ensures "freedom of religion". Which basically means religions will have the right to discriminate against a section of the community. If it is against the religion to marry gay couples, they will have the right to decline!!! So what the majority voted for is going to be rejected at the pulpit!!! We still are not getting what we voted for.

Why should religions be allowed to discriminate when the person in the street isn't allowed to? What if the section of the community they were allowed to discriminate against is blacks/hispanics/asians? Would that be fair? Or would we call that racism and not allow it? How is discrimination against gays any different to racism? Why do religions think they are above the law when it comes to common decency and ethics? I say we need freedom from religion, not freedom of religion!

first, discrimination against gays is by no means different from racism. In fact, it's usually the same assholes who do it.

Second, for everyone the church discriminates against, that's fewer tithes and offerings for them, so I'm all for it. The fewer blacks duped by xtianity the better.

Do Australians use the Justice of the Peace to marry people? I was married by a judge (should have asked for a jury, but...)

(November 21, 2017 at 6:15 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Right,  you can practice your religion just dont expect to be allowed to make a living. Yeah, that's how a free society works. < sarcasm>

Who said you couldn't make a living?  Honestly..if you can't make a living at what you're doing while remaining true to your religion...it seems like you might want to pick a different profession?  

That's not at all what you're objecting to, ofc..unless "practicing your religion" is the euphemism you use for discrimination.  Is it, can we get confirmation on that count?  Can you not simultaneously be a christian and not be a bigoted, discriminatory asshole?  Really?  I only ask..because some seem to manage it.

(November 21, 2017 at 8:12 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(November 21, 2017 at 6:15 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Right,  you can practice your religion just dont expect to be allowed to make a living. Yeah, that's how a free society works. < sarcasm>

Who said you couldn't make a living?  Honestly..if you can't make a living at what you're doing while remaining true to your religion...it seems like you might want to pick a different profession?  

That's not at all what you're objecting to, ofc..unless "practicing your religion" is the euphemism you use for discrimination.  Is it, can we get confirmation on that count?  Can you not simultaneously be a christian and not be a bigoted, discriminatory asshole?  Really?  I only ask..because some seem to manage it.

Yet again, what objective essential feature distinguishes a marriage from any other relationship or social institution, like co-signing roommates, business partners, care-givers with power of attorney, and the like?