An example why Gay agenda undermines religious freedom

[SughaNSpice]

Okay children, all together now! CORRELATION DOES NOT MEAN CAUSALITY!

I could as easily say that the actions of a few KKK members is proof that all Christians have a conspiracy to hurt black people and deny them of their rights. How, from your logic, can you argue against that? Clearly there is a Christian agenda at work, and these men are just in the right place in the pecking order. You should be ashamed of yourself! Your people are trying to undo the civil rights movement. You are obviously racist because you have something in common with KKK members.


Do you see why this does not make sense?

Great post
thank you!

 

[SughaNSpice]

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/TOB/S/2009SB-01098-R00-SB.htm

That's the text of the bill. It's about the actions of any religious organization as a 501(c) non-profit and the way such should be set up to be legal. Pay particular attention to Section (h).



...so, basically, it doesn't say what is being claimed. It doesn't restructure the religious hierarchy, applies to any religious group that functions as a corporation (not just the Catholic Church), and generally isn't an evil conspiracy.

Primary sources FTW.

This matter has nothing to do with the orientation of anyone involved. It also has nothing to do with religious freedom. This does not tell any church how to conduct religious business, it modifies existing corporate law in a way that specifically makes the religious activities of the church seperate from the corporate activities, allows the church to avoid accusations of misappropriation of funds and a clear line of responsibility for corporate decision making.

I don't particularly agree with secular law that is specific to one religious group, and would need to know more about existing state law before I would say this is appropriate but It's not anti Christian, and it's not delving into actual religious practice and teaching

(h) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit, restrict or derogate from any power, right, authority, duty or responsibility of the bishop or pastor in matters pertaining exclusively to religious tenets and practices.

Thanks to you both for taking the time to research the claims of the OP and for the courage to post the truth about the bill in question.

 

[Jade Margery]

In an attempt to try and steer this back to the OP: a little research shows this has absolutely nothing to do with any "gay agenda". In fact, this bill was proposed by Paul Lakeland, a former Jesuit priest who is chairman of religious studies at Fairfield University -- a Jesuit University -- and Thomas Gallagher, an attorney who regularly attends a Catholic parish. And the bill was written because of these Catholics concern over an ebezzlement epidemic in Catholic dioceses (85% of dioceses were found by Villanova University to have had money embezzled in the last 5 years). And the reason Sen. McDonald and Lawlor were co-sponsoring the bill is that they co-chair the Judicial committee, where the hearings on this bill would occur and also because Sen. McDonald is from Darien, a community that recently had a massive scandal where a priest of a local Catholic church plead guilty to embezzling over 1.3 million dollars from his parish.

Now, per a press release from Sen. McDonald, he was sponsoring this bill because he was asked to by a group of faithful Catholic parishoners. His idea in sponsoring this bill was to hold hearings to allow these parishoners to make their case as to why the bill was needed. He goes on to say, "Despite what has been portrayed, we have not endorsed nor are advocating for this proposal."

This has nothing to do with any gay agenda but instead appears to be an attempt by some Catholics to introduce accountability in response to the problems the church is seeing with embezzlement.

In fact, if one were as big a conspiracy theorist as some on this board, I'm sure we could say this is part of the Fundamentalist/Conservative Christian anti-gay agenda. That you get some gay legislators to introduce a bill that is supposedly to help solve embezzlement problems in the Catholic church but then turn around and use their introduction of the bill to claim gays are trying to destroy religion.

Excellent post and well researched.

 

[SughaNSpice]

Well like I said, marriage isn't a right. It is a special right. Like owning a handgun and becoming a doctor.

The Supreme Court disagrees noting that marriage is a constitutionally protected right.

Should people of color be denied the right to become doctors just because of the color of their skin?
Should Mormons be denied the protections of the second amendment just because of their religion?

What you are advocating is the denial of equal rights to a minority group solely because they are a minority group. And that is no different form such atrocities as segregation or Jim Crow or the denial of Suffrage

Am I gonna yell in the street that I have no rights because the state won't let me practice as a doctor without a license? Am I free to become a doctor with a license? Of course not. Its all subjective

No one is saying that because you belong to some minority group they don’t like that you cannot become a doctor. Yet gays are denied equal rights and equal protection because they belong to a minority group some people don’t like.

All you are doing here is saying that discrimination is bad when it happens to you but it is somehow a good thing when you discriminate against others

They are marching in the streets because of they're unwillingness to make the sacrifices marriage requires. That is they're problem they have to deal with, not marriage.

Gee I guess those black people in Alabama should have just dealt with sacrifices required by segregation

 

[SughaNSpice]

In an attempt to try and steer this back to the OP: a little research shows this has absolutely nothing to do with any "gay agenda". In fact, this bill was proposed by Paul Lakeland, a former Jesuit priest who is chairman of religious studies at Fairfield University -- a Jesuit University -- and Thomas Gallagher, an attorney who regularly attends a Catholic parish. And the bill was written because of these Catholics concern over an ebezzlement epidemic in Catholic dioceses (85% of dioceses were found by Villanova University to have had money embezzled in the last 5 years). And the reason Sen. McDonald and Lawlor were co-sponsoring the bill is that they co-chair the Judicial committee, where the hearings on this bill would occur and also because Sen. McDonald is from Darien, a community that recently had a massive scandal where a priest of a local Catholic church plead guilty to embezzling over 1.3 million dollars from his parish.

Now, per a press release from Sen. McDonald, he was sponsoring this bill because he was asked to by a group of faithful Catholic parishoners. His idea in sponsoring this bill was to hold hearings to allow these parishoners to make their case as to why the bill was needed. He goes on to say, "Despite what has been portrayed, we have not endorsed nor are advocating for this proposal."

This has nothing to do with any gay agenda but instead appears to be an attempt by some Catholics to introduce accountability in response to the problems the church is seeing with embezzlement.

In fact, if one were as big a conspiracy theorist as some on this board, I'm sure we could say this is part of the Fundamentalist/Conservative Christian anti-gay agenda. That you get some gay legislators to introduce a bill that is supposedly to help solve embezzlement problems in the Catholic church but then turn around and use their introduction of the bill to claim gays are trying to destroy religion.

Thank you for the research and the courage to post the truth

 

[lawtonfogle]

Well, in that case it's been voted down multiple times, is not a civil right, and you should oppose the APA asserting, completely outside the scope of its profession, that a society that looks at homosexuality as a bad thing is somehow at fault for homosexuals recorded social and emotional issues.

That does sound more like an ASA dealing, but with Socio-psychology, it could fall under the APA as well.

 

[Chazemataz]

Well like I said, marriage isn't a right. It is a special right. Like owning a handgun and becoming a doctor. Am I gonna yell in the street that I have no rights because the state won't let me practice as a doctor without a license? Am I free to become a doctor with a license? Of course not. Its all subjective

They are marching in the streets because of they're unwillingness to make the sacrifices marriage requires. That is they're problem they have to deal with, not marriage.

And yet the government doesn't outright ban owning firearms or becoming a doctor. They regulate it slightly, just like they regulate heterosexual marriage. They don't want to be higher than the law, they want to be equal with the law.

And what makes you think that they are unwilling to make sacrifices? Isn't that the whole point of marching in the street, that they do care enough to be marching and flaunting their sexuality in display of God and everyone?

Oh, and as a final "I'm tired and frustrated" thought, why do you even care so much about what 9 million out of 200 million (at least, idk the exact number) people want to do with each other? I care about defending it because my lifelong friend is gay and I have a relative that is also.
So: if it makes you so angry and distraught, why do you care so much about being against gay rights? They're certainly not going anywhere. They will always be here, always have been.

 

[CCGirl]

In an attempt to try and steer this back to the OP: a little research shows this has absolutely nothing to do with any "gay agenda". In fact, this bill was proposed by Paul Lakeland, a former Jesuit priest who is chairman of religious studies at Fairfield University -- a Jesuit University -- and Thomas Gallagher, an attorney who regularly attends a Catholic parish. And the bill was written because of these Catholics concern over an ebezzlement epidemic in Catholic dioceses (85% of dioceses were found by Villanova University to have had money embezzled in the last 5 years). And the reason Sen. McDonald and Lawlor were co-sponsoring the bill is that they co-chair the Judicial committee, where the hearings on this bill would occur and also because Sen. McDonald is from Darien, a community that recently had a massive scandal where a priest of a local Catholic church plead guilty to embezzling over 1.3 million dollars from his parish.

Now, per a press release from Sen. McDonald, he was sponsoring this bill because he was asked to by a group of faithful Catholic parishoners. His idea in sponsoring this bill was to hold hearings to allow these parishoners to make their case as to why the bill was needed. He goes on to say, "Despite what has been portrayed, we have not endorsed nor are advocating for this proposal."

This has nothing to do with any gay agenda but instead appears to be an attempt by some Catholics to introduce accountability in response to the problems the church is seeing with embezzlement.

In fact, if one were as big a conspiracy theorist as some on this board, I'm sure we could say this is part of the Fundamentalist/Conservative Christian anti-gay agenda. That you get some gay legislators to introduce a bill that is supposedly to help solve embezzlement problems in the Catholic church but then turn around and use their introduction of the bill to claim gays are trying to destroy religion.

This needs to be quoted throughout the thread

 

[David Brider]

I think its funny how liberals try to equate marriage with freedom. It isn't. Marriage is a special right with special requirements.

Sure. And the question is - should same-gender couples be excluded from the right to marry?

David.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Psudopod,
In response to

Everyone doesn't enjoy equal rights. Adulterers, fornicators, polygamists, the incestuous, molesters, just to name a few, are discriminated against. They don't enjoy equal rights. What makes homosexual activity so special? What exactly is contributed to society at large by such sexual activity? NOTHING.

But they do have equal rights. They have the same rights as you and I. Equal rights doesn't mean freedom to do whatever you want. However the issue with gay rights is that it is not equal: anyone can marry the consenting adult of their choice, not matter what apart from gender. People are discriminated against on the basis of thier gender preference. People used to be discriminated against on the basis of their racail prefernce but this has been fixed.

And also no one is talking about sexual activity. That's already legal.

What makes an adulterer an adulterer is the act of adultery. What makes a homosexual a homosexual is having same sex attraction. The adulterer is a heterosexual offender and comparable with the homosexual offender. I would say you are wrong and that’s where we should start the debate.

Well you are correct that people used to (and indeed still are) discriminated against on account of their race. Should they be? I don’t think so because I see Christ said make disciples and brother and sisters of all nations, but racists would no doubt disagree with both our views.
For you to say people are discriminated against on the basis of their gender is true if you think separate male and female toilets does that.
The idea that gays should be allowed same sex marriage is a gay view, not a view held by many others. You seem to think that because you think its right everyone else’s view is discrimination, which is ok as long as you accept they might see your view as discrimination against reality.
The homosexual has all rights grated to any other male and female in most respects, what the homosexual can’t do is form the same relationship with a member of the same sex as a male and female can. This is because a male and female can reproduce. That’s a fact regardless of whether some male and female are infertile, male and female as opposed to same sex can reproduce, a rather fundamental part of the union where the species has two sexes.

So although you may see prejudice and discrimination, others don’t. What I would say is, if you wish to refer to it in terms of prejudice and discrimination, we can take the line that the gay view is prejudiced and discriminatory to common sense reason and reality and should be prejudiced and discriminated against for the good of the whole of humanity.

 

[b&wpac4]

For you to say people are discriminated against on the basis of their gender is true if you think separate male and female toilets does that.

What? Has someone seriously argued this...ever?

 

[brightmorningstar]

The other instance form the UK I would like to bring up again is the one with the Christian hotel owner. I will gladly try and add the links again if someone addresses the points and request them.
A Hotel owner in Scotland who happened to be a Christian refused to offer a double room to a gay couple and instead offered two single rooms. The tourist board penalised the hotel owner.
In the subsequent media reporting it was revealed that there are gay only hotels, and indeed one could look these hotels websites up. No susequent action was taken with these hotels.
So all could see it is ok to discriminate against 'heterosexuals' but not agianst homosexuals.
Yet all we get is cries of discrimination from homosexuals. It seems therefore that the guilty are accusing the guiltless of their guilt.
Furthermore I observed one of the gay organisation Stonewall representatives corrected in a morning interview for claiming the hotel had refused room to the gay couple so they would have to find other accomodation, whereas the couple didnt have to find alternative accomodation rather they didnt want the specific accomodation on offer. This same spun claim was repeated in subsequent interviews.

Now the website of the gay only hotel cited had infact a whole area devoted to why the Bible was wrong about homosexuality (which did disappear, I dont know wether it still exists) Why would a gay only hotel be bothered about theology?

 

[b&wpac4]

The other instance form the UK I would like to bring up again is the one with the Christian hotel owner. I will gladly try and add the links again if someone addresses the points and request them.
A Hotel owner in Scotland who happened to be a Christian refused to offer a double room to a gay couple and instead offered two single rooms. The tourist board penalised the hotel owner.
In the subsequent media reporting it was revealed that there are gay only hotels, and indeed one could look these hotels websites up. No susequent action was taken with these hotels.
So all could see it is ok to discriminate against 'heterosexuals' but not agianst homosexuals.
Yet all we get is cries of discrimination from homosexuals. It seems therefore that the guilty are accusing the guiltless of their guilt.
Furthermore I observed one of the gay organisation Stonewall representatives corrected in a morning interview for claiming the hotel had refused room to the gay couple so they would have to find other accomodation, whereas the couple didnt have to find alternative accomodation rather they didnt want the specific accomodation on offer. This same spun claim was repeated in subsequent interviews.

Now the website of the gay only hotel cited had infact a whole area devoted to why the Bible was wrong about homosexuality (which did disappear, I dont know wether it still exists) Why would a gay only hotel be bothered about theology?

Did the gay only hotels actually discriminate? If I showed up with my girlfriend, would they truly not give me a room? Was that case ever brought before a court?

Are the laws there such that you are not allowed to deny people a room based on gender, race, orientation, and the like? If so, the hotel broke the law. You must follow the law.

There are bars that are marketed for homosexuals. Does that mean my girlfriend and I are barred entry or that the bar is marketed toward a certain demographic?

 

[Psudopod]

What makes an adulterer an adulterer is the act of adultery. What makes a homosexual a homosexual is having same sex attraction. The adulterer is a heterosexual offender and comparable with the homosexual offender. I would say you are wrong and that’s where we should start the debate.

Okay let’s start here. Point one, having an attraction is different to committing an act. One is involuntary, the other is a voluntary decision. Point two, adultery is an act that causes harm, homosexuality (the orientation) does not.

For you to say people are discriminated against on the basis of their gender is true if you think separate male and female toilets does that.

No. It would be discriminatory if toilets were provided for men and not for women. I think maybe you misunderstood my point. Let me put it this way: if someone said to you “you cannot marry that woman as she is black and you are white” that would be discrimination on the basis of race, because the only reason given was the race of the couple involved. This fortunately doesn’t happen. Instead, we say “you cannot marry that man because you are a man.” The only reason given is the gender of the couple involved. See the comparison?

The idea that gays should be allowed same sex marriage is a gay view, not a view held by many others. You seem to think that because you think its right everyone else’s view is discrimination, which is ok as long as you accept they might see your view as discrimination against reality.

That gays should be allowed to marry is not a gay view. Just look at this thread for example, there are lots of straight people who accept it. And I don’t view people’s views as discriminatory, just people’s actions.

The homosexual has all rights grated to any other male and female in most respects, what the homosexual can’t do is form the same relationship with a member of the same sex as a male and female can. This is because a male and female can reproduce. That’s a fact regardless of whether some male and female are infertile, male and female as opposed to same sex can reproduce, a rather fundamental part of the union where the species has two sexes.

They have the same rights, except the right to marry. And they can form a relationship because this has nothing to do with reproducing. A loving couple is the best environment to reproduce in, but it doesn’t mean the two are tied. You love your wife before you have children, don’t you, and you’ll love her when any children are grown up. And no, infertile couples cannot reproduce (unassisted at least), that’s what infertile means.

So although you may see prejudice and discrimination, others don’t. What I would say is, if you wish to refer to it in terms of prejudice and discrimination, we can take the line that the gay view is prejudiced and discriminatory to common sense reason and reality and should be prejudiced and discriminated against for the good of the whole of humanity.

No, you’d have to demonstrate this first.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To b&wpac4,

Did the gay only hotels actually discriminate? If I showed up with my girlfriend, would they truly not give me a room? Was that case ever brought before a court?

Hmmn, the gay couples weren’t refused rooms, I don’t think you can make that comparison, I believe the Christian owner also refused unmarried couples rooms to share.
Can I suggest to address the points rather than just look to try and justify the gay position which is already looking on shaky assumptions.

Are the laws there such that you are not allowed to deny people a room based on gender, race, orientation, and the like? If so, the hotel broke the law. You must follow the law.

So you have made the same blind error that the gay organisation reporter made. The hotel owned by the Christian didn’t deny the gay couple rooms, so they didn’t break the law.
Furthermore the gay hotel may have done. Do you recognise that?

Now two more things.
Firstly a hotel is generally for a room and food, not sex. If an unmarried couple demanded a shared room, would the law ask the hotel to provide the shared room? What if the unmarried couple then committed adultery?
Secondly the owner of the hotel is of course the owner of the hotel. Why shouldn’t the owner of the hotel, gay or Christian not be able to specify the use of the product they are providing?
I don’t necessarily see it wrong for there to be a gay only hotel, nor do I see it wrong for the Christian owner to offer particular accommodation on the basis of use. What I do see as prejudice and discrimination is if one view is allowed and the other isn’t. So clearly the Christian owner was discriminated against as the gay hotel wasn’t treated the same.

 

[Braunwyn]

In an attempt to try and steer this back to the OP: a little research shows this has absolutely nothing to do with any "gay agenda". In fact, this bill was proposed by Paul Lakeland, a former Jesuit priest who is chairman of religious studies at Fairfield University -- a Jesuit University -- and Thomas Gallagher, an attorney who regularly attends a Catholic parish. And the bill was written because of these Catholics concern over an ebezzlement epidemic in Catholic dioceses (85% of dioceses were found by Villanova University to have had money embezzled in the last 5 years). And the reason Sen. McDonald and Lawlor were co-sponsoring the bill is that they co-chair the Judicial committee, where the hearings on this bill would occur and also because Sen. McDonald is from Darien, a community that recently had a massive scandal where a priest of a local Catholic church plead guilty to embezzling over 1.3 million dollars from his parish.

Now, per a press release from Sen. McDonald, he was sponsoring this bill because he was asked to by a group of faithful Catholic parishoners. His idea in sponsoring this bill was to hold hearings to allow these parishoners to make their case as to why the bill was needed. He goes on to say, "Despite what has been portrayed, we have not endorsed nor are advocating for this proposal."

This has nothing to do with any gay agenda but instead appears to be an attempt by some Catholics to introduce accountability in response to the problems the church is seeing with embezzlement.

In fact, if one were as big a conspiracy theorist as some on this board, I'm sure we could say this is part of the Fundamentalist/Conservative Christian anti-gay agenda. That you get some gay legislators to introduce a bill that is supposedly to help solve embezzlement problems in the Catholic church but then turn around and use their introduction of the bill to claim gays are trying to destroy religion.

Excellent post.

 

[wanderingone]

I think the thread shows the evidence, I dont expect any pro-gay supporters to believe or accept any evidence presented.

I agree the bill targets a specific religious group, I think it's questionable, but I don't think it has anything much to do with religious freedom or some fantasy gay agenda. That gay agenda stuff is paranoia. Organizations have agendas, the local gay and lesbian community center has an agenda, every gay person in albany is not interested in their agenda, a lot of gay people I know think the idea of a gay and lesbian community center is absurd. The Catholic church has an agenda, I know every Catholic doesn't support all their agenda.. but I suspect that Catholic churches are more in sync with each other than individual gay organizations are in sync with each other.

 

[wanderingone]

In an attempt to try and steer this back to the OP: a little research shows this has absolutely nothing to do with any "gay agenda". In fact, this bill was proposed by Paul Lakeland, a former Jesuit priest who is chairman of religious studies at Fairfield University -- a Jesuit University -- and Thomas Gallagher, an attorney who regularly attends a Catholic parish. And the bill was written because of these Catholics concern over an ebezzlement epidemic in Catholic dioceses (85% of dioceses were found by Villanova University to have had money embezzled in the last 5 years). And the reason Sen. McDonald and Lawlor were co-sponsoring the bill is that they co-chair the Judicial committee, where the hearings on this bill would occur and also because Sen. McDonald is from Darien, a community that recently had a massive scandal where a priest of a local Catholic church plead guilty to embezzling over 1.3 million dollars from his parish.

Now, per a press release from Sen. McDonald, he was sponsoring this bill because he was asked to by a group of faithful Catholic parishoners. His idea in sponsoring this bill was to hold hearings to allow these parishoners to make their case as to why the bill was needed. He goes on to say, "Despite what has been portrayed, we have not endorsed nor are advocating for this proposal."

This has nothing to do with any gay agenda but instead appears to be an attempt by some Catholics to introduce accountability in response to the problems the church is seeing with embezzlement.

In fact, if one were as big a conspiracy theorist as some on this board, I'm sure we could say this is part of the Fundamentalist/Conservative Christian anti-gay agenda. That you get some gay legislators to introduce a bill that is supposedly to help solve embezzlement problems in the Catholic church but then turn around and use their introduction of the bill to claim gays are trying to destroy religion.

Thanks for getting the facts- my coworker had gotten an email telling her to protest the bill and she laughed because she said it was the catholics who wanted it. I didn't follow up when she mentioned it.. I'm glad you did.. facts are so disconcerting to the "agenda" folks.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Psuodpod,

Okay let’s start here. Point one, having an attraction is different to committing an act.

How bizarre. Yes that’s what I am saying, which is why they shouldn’t be compared together. You are happy they are put together and then when I point out the difference you point out the difference.

No. It would be discriminatory if toilets were provided for men and not for women.

I accept that point. However the function is to urinate, the function of sex is to reproduce.

The idea that gays should be allowed same sex marriage is a gay view, not a view held by many others. You seem to think that because you think its right everyone else’s view is discrimination, which is ok as long as you accept they might see your view as discrimination against reality.

That gays should be allowed to marry is not a gay view.

I totally disagree, I look at the thread and see gays almost if not unanimously take that view.

Just look at this thread for example, there are lots of straight people who accept it. And I don’t view people’s views as discriminatory, just people’s actions.

I yes but straight and gay is a gay view not a Christian one nor necessarily a view that any other person whether religious or not would take. Others may see male and female rather than gay or straight. My basic point stands your benchmark is sexual attraction, gay and straight, whereas mine and many others is male and female.


The homosexual has all rights grated to any other male and female in most respects, what the homosexual can’t do is form the same relationship with a member of the same sex as a male and female can. This is because a male and female can reproduce. That’s a fact regardless of whether some male and female are infertile, male and female as opposed to same sex can reproduce, a rather fundamental part of the union where the species has two sexes.

They have the same rights, except the right to marry.

But the ‘right’ to marry is noi right at all, as they cant form the same relationship.
That’s the problem, their insistence on a right is outside reality.

And no, infertile couples cannot reproduce (unassisted at least), that’s what infertile means.

Again that’s deliberately trying to avoid the fact that as opposed to same sex couples, male and female can reproduce. Again outside reality.

No, you’d have to demonstrate this first.

I can’t demonstrate reality to someone who cant see reality. What I have demonstrated is reality. You would have to prove and demonstrate that a couple of the same sex can reproduce together in their union, which I know you can’t because it is outside reality.

 

[Andreusz]

That’s the problem, their insistence on a right is outside reality.
.

So the six countries that have legal gay marriage are outside reality?