Are gay rights a civil rights issue?

[Belk]

You just can't let it go, can you.

Comparing it to segregation is a slippery slope argument.

We aren't forcing gays to use different drinking fountains, different bathrooms, different schools, different theaters, levying poll taxes against them, &c.

No, you just want a different law for the exact same legal arraignment.

We're allowing them the same rights and protection under the law. But we're not calling it marriage.

Which is the very definition of "separate but equal"

As for the "we wash for white people only" you're using a slippery slope argument again.

You don't know what a slippery slope argument is do you?

We aren't denying gays service. We aren't forcing them to sit in different sections of the restaurant. We are not doing that.

"We are not denying gays" service followed by...

The constitution promises that congress shall make no law denying an individual the free practice of a religion.


A business is simply a collection of individuals. If Churches are not forced to marry gays, why should wedding planners, photographers, and florists? They're individuals with rights too.

"Why don't we have a religious right to deny gays service?"

And you guys wonder why you are losing this legal battle?

 

[Aryeh Jay]

and don't force people and businesses who don't want to be involved in gay unions to do so.

We aren't denying gays service.

 

[Anovah]

Regardless of whether or not gays are allowed to marry, they will continue to have sex.

Which has only been legal nation wide for about 10 years. Do you think they should have left the laws on the books or do you think people should have fought these laws in court and congress?

Do you really think that my opposition to same sex marriage is going to prevent them from being together?

I think it would be more accurate to say, the reasons you use to oppose same sex marriage are the same reasons people have used to subjugate our fellow Americans for decades.

I have no idea how this conversation got so far out of hand, and as a result, I will publish my beliefs.

I honestly think this is one of the tamer threads that has homosexuality in the title.

I am morally opposed to same-sex marriage,

And you of course are entitled to your opinion

but am all in favor of civil unions with the same civil rights as marriages.

Separate but equal is not the same.
Can you see a pattern in these arguments and those made with other civil rights issues?

Just don't call it marriage, and don't force people and businesses who don't want to be involved in gay unions to do so.

I've heard the argument made that businesses who don't want to feed or serve non-whites shouldn't be forced to do so.
Do you see the parallel yet?

That is my political belief. Give them the rights. Don't call it marriage. Butt out of the bedroom.

Yet you want to parse civil unions and marriage based on what goes on in the bedroom

Perhaps you should take your own advice?

 

[VDMA]

You don't know what a slippery slope argument is do you?

A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect.

By comparing civil unions to the South under Jim Crow, you assume that the passage of a law barring gays from marriage but affording them the same rights under the guise of a civil union, will lead to a society where gays are forced to use separate bathrooms, separate theaters, separate restaurants, &c., &c.

You're also using Ad hominem by implying that we who propose civil unions and deny gay marriage are in effect, no different then Faubus, Wallace, and Thurmond, (who were all Democrats, might I add) who actively campaigned against desegregation and rigidly enforced separation.

 

[VDMA]

Yet you want to parse civil unions and marriage based on what goes on in the bedroom

Perhaps you should take your own advice?

No, I want to separate civil unions and marriage based upon my own moral convictions, the free practice of my religion, and the traditional Western definition of marriage which has existed since the foundation of Christendom.

 

[VDMA]

We are not enacting laws that deny gays services in restaurants, gas stations, body shops, housing, education (except for Seminary obviously), &c., &c.

If I am a wedding photographer, and I morally refuse to photograph a gay "wedding", the gays can just as easily go to another photographer.

We're not enacting laws denying service (i.e. Jim Crow), we're just practicing our religion and the dictates of our own moral conscience.

 

[Belk]

A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect.

Close. You forgot to add that it is a chain of inevitable events.

By comparing civil unions to the South under Jim Crow, you assume that the passage of a law barring gays from marriage but affording them the same rights under the guise of a civil union, will lead to a society where gays are forced to use separate bathrooms, separate theaters, separate restaurants, &c., &c.

No, that was not the claim at all. The claim was that limiting homosexuals to civil unions is the definition of separate but equal and that was the same "solution" tried in the Jim Crow south.

You're also using Ad hominem by implying that we who propose civil unions and deny gay marriage are in effect, no different then Faubus, Wallace, and Thurmond, (who were all Democrats, might I add) who actively campaigned against desegregation and rigidly enforced separation.

That is not an ad hominem. That would be guilt by association at best and that was not what we were implying either. Do you need us to explain why we view your solution as separate but equal and feel that is a bad idea?

Are you going to address your claim of not denying homosexuals service which you then followed up by claiming you have a religious right to deny homosexuals service or are we just sweeping that one under the rug?

 

[Anovah]

Let's pause a sec and take a look at the poll. As of this post I see 70 votes. Only a quarter of the respondents seem to reject the idea that this is a civil rights issue.

Otherwise it's a resounding YES from CF!

Thanks guys! You've impressed me!

 

[Aryeh Jay]

We are not enacting laws that deny gays services in restaurants, gas stations, body shops, housing, education (except for Seminary obviously), &c., &c.

If I am a wedding photographer, and I morally refuse to photograph a gay "wedding", the gays can just as easily go to another photographer.

We're not enacting laws denying service (i.e. Jim Crow), we're just practicing our religion and the dictates of our own moral conscience.

Wow, crazy, I’m a photographer as well.

 

[Sistrin]

You're also using Ad hominem by implying that we who propose civil unions and deny gay marriage are in effect, no different then Faubus, Wallace, and Thurmond, (who were all Democrats, might I add) who actively campaigned against desegregation and rigidly enforced separation.

QFT

 

[VDMA]

Wow, crazy, I’m a photographer as well.

I was leading a hypothetical argument. I'm not really a wedding photographer.

I'm only 18.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You just can't let it go, can you.

Evil triumphs when good men do nohting.

Comparing it to segregation is a slippery slope argument.

So you say...

We aren't forcing gays to use different drinking fountains, different bathrooms, different schools, different theaters, levying poll taxes against them, &c.

No, you're demanding one set of rules for one class of people, and another (inferior) set for another class.

We're allowing them the same rights and protection under the law. But we're not calling it marriage.

You don't get to make that decision, however -- you don't decide who does or doesn't have rights.

As for the "we wash for white people only" you're using a slippery slope argument again.

We aren't denying gays service. We aren't forcing them to sit in different sections of the restaurant. We are not doing that.

No, but you'll toss them out of the restaurant entirely if they want a reception.

And the funny part is, they don't even have to be gay -- they just have to be of the same gender.

The constitution promises that congress shall make no law denying an individual the free practice of a religion.

Is "we don't like marriage" a religion now?

A business is simply a collection of individuals. If Churches are not forced to marry gays, why should wedding planners, photographers, and florists? They're individuals with rights too.

Because they're not churches -- you don't get to have it both ways.

If you want to argue against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- the very law which got rid of those "whites only" signs and the same law which opens the door for same sex marriage -- I suggest you write your congressman.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I was leading a hypothetical argument. I'm not really a wedding photographer.

I'm only 18.

And completely hung up on homosexuality. Let's take it out of the equation for a moment:

Let's talk about three people: Bob, Mary, and Alan.

For the record, all three of them are as heterosexual as they come.

Now, Bob marries Mary, no problem.

Mary divorces Bob and marries Alan, no problem.

BUT -- if Bob divorces Mary and marries Alan, all of a sudden there's a problem.

Why?

Remember, I specified earlier that all three are heterosexual -- so why are Bob and Mary's business welcome for you as a hypothetical photographer, but Bob and Alan's business isn't?

 

[VDMA]

Evil triumphs when good men do nothing

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke . . . devout Christian and the father of modern Conservatism. Good to see you've joined my side.

Or were you quoting Bonhoeffer? "Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act." Also a devout Christian, and a Lutheran Pastor.

No, you're demanding one set of rules for one class of people, and another (inferior) set for another class.

Who on Earth said gays were inferior? I certainly don't think they are. I'm in favor of giving them the same exact benefits that exist in heterosexual marriage, while simply titling it a "civil union."

You don't get to make that decision, however -- you don't decide who does or doesn't have rights.

You're right. I don't get to make that decision, and I don't decide who does or doesn't have rights.

God does. And he already has spoken very clearly on the subject.

No, but you'll toss them out of the restaurant entirely if they want a reception.

And the funny part is, they don't even have to be gay -- they just have to be of the same gender.

No. I'll still hold a reception, just like I'll hold a birthday party for gay people. I just won't hold a wedding ceremony.

And why the heck would two people of the same gender who are not homosexual get married?

Is "we don't like marriage" a religion now?

No, but at it's core, marriage is religious. Marriage was instituted so that in the eyes of God, two people could live together and know each other Biblically.

The government just came along and gave married people civil rights, like filing taxes together, visiting each other in the hospital, &c. I'm simply saying that we should afford gays those same right, but not call it marriage, for in sooth, marriage is a religious institution.

"We don't like marriage" is not a religion. Christianity is.

Because they're not churches -- you don't get to have it both ways.

If you want to argue against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- the very law which got rid of those "whites only" signs and the same law which opens the door for same sex marriage -- I suggest you write your congressman.

That's not at all what I'm saying. I, as an individual, have rights to practice my own religion. My business, as a collection of like minded individuals, should have the same rights, as it's simply a group of individuals, each with their own religious liberty.

Think of it like a union, or a charity, or a mob, I don't care.

I am also not arguing the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The color of ones skin and ones sexual preference are two entirely different things. Can't you see that?

 

[VDMA]

And completely hung up on homosexuality. Let's take it out of the equation for a moment:

Let's talk about three people: Bob, Mary, and Alan.

For the record, all three of them are as heterosexual as they come.

Now, Bob marries Mary, no problem.

Mary divorces Bob and marries Alan, no problem.

BUT -- if Bob divorces Mary and marries Alan, all of a sudden there's a problem.

Why?

Remember, I specified earlier that all three are heterosexual -- so why are Bob and Mary's business welcome for you as a hypothetical photographer, but Bob and Alan's business isn't?

If all three are heterosexual, then why would Bob marry Alan?

 

[Belk]

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke . . . devout Christian and the father of modern Conservatism. Good to see you've joined my side.

Or were you quoting Bonhoeffer? "Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act." Also a devout Christian, and a Lutheran Pastor.



Who on Earth said gays were inferior? I certainly don't think they are. I'm in favor of giving them the same exact benefits that exist in heterosexual marriage, while simply titling it a "civil union."



You're right. I don't get to make that decision, and I don't decide who does or doesn't have rights.

God does. And he already has spoken very clearly on the subject.



No. I'll still hold a reception, just like I'll hold a birthday party for gay people. I just won't hold a wedding ceremony.

And why the heck would two people of the same gender who are not homosexual get married?



No, but at it's core, marriage is religious. Marriage was instituted so that in the eyes of God, two people could live together and know each other Biblically.

The government just came along and gave married people civil rights, like filing taxes together, visiting each other in the hospital, &c. I'm simply saying that we should afford gays those same right, but not call it marriage, for in sooth, marriage is a religious institution.

"We don't like marriage" is not a religion. Christianity is.



That's not at all what I'm saying. I, as an individual, have rights to practice my own religion. My business, as a collection of like minded individuals, should have the same rights, as it's simply a group of individuals, each with their own religious liberty.

Think of it like a union, or a charity, or a mob, I don't care.

I am also not arguing the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The color of ones skin and ones sexual preference are two entirely different things. Can't you see that?

No, at it's core marriage is a civil issue which is why it started as a civil institution. It wasn't until 1215 that the church declared marriage a sacrament and set up a system of canon law around it.

 

[VDMA]

No, at it's core marriage is a civil issue which is why it started as a civil institution. It wasn't until 1215 that the church declared marriage a sacrament and set up a system of canon law around it.

And it wasn't until 1776 that America was founded.

Marriage didn't start as a civil issue, either:

"Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." Genesis 2:24

It was divinely begun during Creation.

So no, at it's core, marriage is not an civil issue.

And who said marriage was a sacrament?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

If all three are heterosexual, then why would Bob marry Alan?

Because marriage isn't only about having sex.

 

[cow451]

And it wasn't until 1776 that America was founded.

So you can bring up historical argument, but someone with an opposing viewpoint is not allowed to do the same.

So no, at it's core, marriage is not an American civil issue.

There is criminal law and there is civil law. Most issues regarding marriage are handled through civil litigation. A few, such as bigamy, are handled through criminal justice.

Either way, there are laws that preclude gender discrimination. My contention is that barring someone from marrying another person because of that person's gender is discrimination.

 

[AirPo]

Either way, there are laws that preclude gender discrimination. My contention is that barring someone from marrying another person because of that person's gender is discrimination.

It really is that simple.