What core values was America founded upon that I am not respecting?
Pick a topic and I'll tell you. On this topic it would be freedom and justice for all.
Your next statement implies because I have a concern that my religious rights and freedoms could be the next victim of gay activism that I have no right to bitch if a case of this nature was not thrown out of court is naive and ignorant.
Wrong. It's your stance on the whole creating separate laws/lexic for separate people that would make you have no right. As well as your stance on the abortion issue. America was founded on principles of freedom and justice for all. That would be hypocritical to cite the first ammendment freedom of Religion and then want to create two laws/lexical categories for two different types of people.
Because it is those very rights and freedoms that America was founded upon.
Good, now fall in line with the civil unions for everyone and we can all live in harmony.
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:People have the right to make friends and hang out with whomever they choose. If someone chooses not to befriend gay people because they make them feel uncomfortable, why don't they have that right and freedom?
I'm down with that. Please - be as homophobic as you like. Just keep it out of the law.
What fucking kind of freedom is it to be forced to spend personal time with someone they don't care for?
Interesting... What are you referring to - the catholic school thing?
And how does that make someone a homophobe?
Homophobe is someone who fears homosexuals. I guess technically it doesn't but it does make someone uhm well there's not a good word for it, but someone who dislikes gay people. Insert black people here in place of gay people and the word would be racist.
The law however should have no say in this so long as job discrimination or other such things are not involved.
If you are referring to spending personal time with a gay couple at a prom, no one is forcing you to. I'm pretty sure the dance floor is big enough for you to not even notice it.
Nope. I was talking about peoples desires to force everyone to embrace and want to befriend gays. I personally have had work aquantances with gays and have played EQ with gays, but as far as hanging out on my free time with a gay that just doesn't interest me. I have done it when it was for an after work work event. I didn't personally care to hang around with a guy who was essentially a girl.
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Nope. I was talking about peoples desires to force everyone to embrace and want to befriend gays.
This is my opinion...
To force anyone to be friends with anyone else is dumb, but I don't see how this concept applies here.
People are people no matter what color/race/sexuality, etc. they are. People can be assholes, nice, somewhat okay, etc. It doesn't depend on those factors.
If you don't feel comfortable with people because of one of these factors, fine, whatever. They probably don't feel comfortable with someone who dislikes them because of said factor anyways. Such is life.
Lynks wrote:Who the hell is forcing you? That isn't right, although, I think the "forcing" thing is just in your head.
BTW, no one is telling you to embrace it, just accept it.
I'm glad you said that. Accept what exactly? That people are gay? Not a problem. That is quite obvious. That gay people want to have some of the same protections and benefits as married men and women? Not a problem. I think they should be allowed to have civil unions and receive rights and benefits. So then....accept what?
Christian Right-Wingers do not like the use of the word Marriage since it is somehow supposedly tied to their religion as having some meaning.
Gay people want to be recognized as 'married' under the law.
Here's where the compromise occurs:
Christian Right, the government no longer marries people. In fact I'm not sure why you'd think that they did anyways. Isn't it a union of man and woman under god according to your religious texts/evangelicals? Where does the government actually fit in here?
Gay People - You can not get married sorry. You can have a civil union like everyone else under the government's eyes. You can call it marriage all you want, but that's not the government's words. Find whatever religion that suits you if you want some religious meaning. Start a new branch of Christianity if you like.
So both sides give up one thing and gain one thing.
The Christian Right gives up this word in government texts. They don't want the government to 'marry' people anyways.
Gay people get the same rights as everyone else, preserving our ideals of equality and justice for all, and the government is not using a potentially religiously loaded word anymore.
Seems like a winning solution to me.
-=Lohrno
Last edited by Lohrno on December 8, 2004, 3:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Lynks wrote:That they want to get married. It wouldn't be forcing you to spend time with them either.
And where back at the begining!
rofl
What's to stop them from saying they are married anyway? We have had this discussion before. Once they get their civil union, every document they fill out will have only a single or married or divorced box to check....they will check the married one. When one of them is out at a bar and another guy hits on them, they will say "I'm married, but thank you anyway."
So what the fuck are you complaining about?
You have people on your side. Stop fighting us and come together and try to help the rest of the country understand it is okay. Embrace the fact our president has also made claims he is in favor of such a thing. Stop creating division and negativity where there need not be.
I disagree with the paperwork ramifications that you describe.
Because they would be neither single nor married, we would have to add another checkbox on all those single-married forms, because they are not single nor are they married. This would produce a ton of paperwork and excessive cost.
It would be akin to the government manufacturing a form that said "Criminal history: Clean record / felon" and allowing people who had been convicted of misdemeanors to choose their category.
More likely the form would say "single / legally united," and the 'legally united' box would be the one checked by both civilly unionized gay folks and married straight folks. This seems pointless and absurd, but that's the whole point.
In addition, choosing not to associate with gay people makes you a homophobe to exactly the same extent choosing not to associate with minorities makes you a racist or choosing not to associate with poor people makes you an elitist. The more approproriate term would be hetero-ist, as opposed to homophobe, but the meaning is the same. How does the legalization or the lack of legalization of gay marriage affect who you choose to spend your time with?
Personally, I wouldn't be too offended with a civil union compromise (although, as has been pointed out, civil unions are now illegal in many states). I simply feel that granting gay marriage is preferable because of the logistical hassles and sheer absurdity of granting gays an equal status but separate title.
Last edited by Sueven on December 8, 2004, 4:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Fash wrote:a school prom and a marraige ceremony are two drastically different things, something even a judge isn't going to draw a correlation between.
I'm not discriminating against gays on a personal level, it's not their right to be my close friend, it's a priviledge i bestow upon people i'm comfortable spending a lot of time with.
I'm 25, and you still have not provided any reasoning how it affects your religious freedom.
A school prom at a CATHOLIC school. Catholic schools have the same beliefs that a Catholic Church has. The Catholic church believes that homosexuality is a sin. The court decided in favour of the gay kid in spite of the fact that the kid could have attended a public school where we all know that no religious overtones or beliefs are permitted. Instead he chose to grandstand. Where is the religious tolerance? If this could happen in a religious school could it not also happen in an actual church?
"The kid could have attended public school" - Nevermind that maybe it wasn't his choice to go to a catholic school, and maybe his parents didn't know he was gay when they made that choice. It's a one night issue, a social gathering, it's nothing new for these kids to be together since they go to school together... all the other kids are bringing strangers, he's just bringing 1 more stranger.
"Where is the religious tolerance?" - Can you please repeat that while looking at something reflective? Thanks.
Do I have to mention that you still haven't said a word about how any of this affects your religious freedom?
Last edited by Fash on December 8, 2004, 4:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Sueven wrote:
Please provide a single sensible legal argument to back up your claims that such lawsuits are plausible.
That depends... If they church says they accept all people and don't, then they might have a case. If they don't claim so (and they probably shouldn't) then said plaintiff is SOL as per 1st ammendment rights.
I think we're discussing US law, not canadian. In any case, that is unconstitutional here if they don't say that they accept every person into their school as per 1st ammendment.
A catholic school board doesn't have beliefs when it comes to a person's sexual preference. The only prerequisite to attend one is to be...get this...part of the catholic church. Since they have no written rule in the board, then what the school did was illegal.
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
I'm dense? I gave you a link to what someone had brought up and you thought was impossible. Take a chill pill Mr. Negative.
Plus they should have the right to tell him no. It is against their beliefs. It is their event.
I think they should not have accepted him into the school in the first place but yeah. I kinda agree. Although it would kind of be like a Jew at a Catholic prom being refused. I just think they shouldn't have let him into the school in the first place, or kicked him out.
Lynks wrote:A catholic school board doesn't have beliefs when it comes to a person's sexual preference. The only prerequisite to attend one is to be...get this...part of the catholic church. Since they have no written rule in the board, then what the school did was illegal.
They should have ex-communicated him if they didn't want him around.
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
I gave you a link to what someone had brought up and you thought was impossible. Take a chill pill Mr. Negative.
not really... you gave a link to the identical situation from the thread starting topic happening in canada... this has nothing to do with a lawsuit involving gay marraige and the church.
Last edited by Fash on December 8, 2004, 4:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lynks wrote:They wouldn't be able to kick him out though. Not without justification and the last time I checked, being gay wasn't a crime.
They can punish sinners right? I mean it is a church school...
Edit: Yes I know that in the bible it says that the only person who can really judge people is God, but most of these people ignore this, so I will too.
-=Lohrno
Last edited by Lohrno on December 8, 2004, 4:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Civil, privately owned institution, they can revoke membership for any reason they want.
You pay them to take your children. They have the right to refuse service.
Akaran of Mistmoore, formerly Akaran of Veeshan I know I'm good at what I do, but I know I'm not the best.
But I guess that on the other hand, I could be like the rest.
Lynks wrote:A catholic school board doesn't have beliefs when it comes to a person's sexual preference. The only prerequisite to attend one is to be...get this...part of the catholic church. Since they have no written rule in the board, then what the school did was illegal.
They should have ex-communicated him if they didn't want him around.
Lynks wrote:They wouldn't be able to kick him out though. Not without justification and the last time I checked, being gay wasn't a crime.
They can punish sinners right? I mean it is a church school...
Edit: Yes I know that in the bible it says that the only person who can really judge people is God, but most of these people ignore this, so I will too.
-=Lohrno
Not really, the catholic board isn't part of the church. An example would be, if the church wanted a school, it would end up being a private school, like we have in my hometown.
Last edited by Lynks on December 8, 2004, 4:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I would actually agree with you Mid, except for the fact that allow him to go to the school in the first place. If they are so against his lifestyle, and truly feel that being homosexual is an against their beliefs, then they should not have allowed him in the school to begin with. I know that in the United States a private school can basically turn away people as they choose, perhaps Canda is different, I don't know. Either way, they want his money, and let him attend the school, then they should let him bring his date to the prom. Afterall, prom isn't a religous celebration, it is a secular one.
Lynks wrote:
Not really, the catholic board isn't part of the church.
I'm not sure I understand what makes it a catholic school then. I was assuming that it was a school for only catholics, and someone who defies catholic belief would not be allowed to attend?
I think i can shed some light on this for a second. The canadian catholic school board is owned by the government, therefore, it is a public school. The only prerequisite is that they must be catcholic and proof of that is first communion, ect.
We have public catholic school boards, regular public school boards, and private schools.
Kargyle wrote:I would actually agree with you Mid, except for the fact that allow him to go to the school in the first place. If they are so against his lifestyle, and truly feel that being homosexual is an against their beliefs, then they should not have allowed him in the school to begin with. I know that in the United States a private school can basically turn away people as they choose, perhaps Canda is different, I don't know. Either way, they want his money, and let him attend the school, then they should let him bring his date to the prom. Afterall, prom isn't a religous celebration, it is a secular one.
The thing is, how would they know he is gay or not? Isn't not a question on the entrance exam. He may not have known he was gay when he first started school there. Maybe he was a masculine gay and no one know. Maybe he started going there when he was in Kindergarten. Don't ask don't tell. Once you tell, well then the rules have changed now. Catholics think it's an abomination and a sin. Don't tell them you are gay and you can stay. Don't tell them you are gay in the military and you can stay as well. Everybody has rules. Rules are in place for a reason. A reason, most here on these boards couldn't possibly fathom. You Sgt. Caffe? You Lt. Weinberg?
Lynks wrote:I think i can shed some light on this for a second. The canadian catholic school board is owned by the government
This IMHO is bad. But I'm not Canadian. =P You guys don't have separation of Church and State? (I know, you can probably ask the same of us...=D)
, therefore, it is a public school. The only prerequisite is that they must be catcholic and proof of that is first communion, ect.
If Catholics are so anti-gay, and it is a mortal sin, then I can see them kicking him out. I see a definite lack of connection between 'public school' and 'Catholic School.' If he is not a closeted gay, then he is not a good Catholic... (insert altar boy joke here)
Lohrno wrote:
This IMHO is bad. But I'm not Canadian. =P You guys don't have separation of Church and State? (I know, you can probably ask the same of us...=D)
Midnyte: Like Lohrno said, I figured that because we were discussing the legal status of marriage in the United States it might make sense to use legal arguments, in, you know, the United States legal system.
Lynks wrote:
Really? I love it, it prevents discrimination.
I would see being gay in this situation as maybe somewhat equivalent to showing up with a tie that says "There is no god." Would not letting this person in be discrimination?
I considered that. To me, which may or may not be a reflection of the law, once they found out he was gay, he should have been asked to leave the school if they considered it an affront to their beliefs. Obviously they have known he was gay for some time, as they knew he intended to bring a male date to the prom.
The whole Catholic government school thing is just weird, and I can't even begin to sort through all of the legal problems such a combination would have. I can only assume that the Canadian judge knows and understands the laws, and applied them fairly and in the way they were intended. Either way, I think this is an example of why mixing government and religion is a bad idea.
Lynks wrote:
Really? I love it, it prevents discrimination.
I would see being gay in this situation as maybe somewhat equivalent to showing up with a tie that says "There is no god." Would not letting this person in be discrimination?
-=Lohrno
I don't know anyone who has been kicked out for saying tha. I went to a catholic school all my life, even a private highschool operated by nuns and I never really heard anyone say that, but that isn't to say it hasn't happen yet. Stuff like this doesn't normally get reported.
Lynks wrote:That they want to get married. It wouldn't be forcing you to spend time with them either.
And where back at the begining!
rofl
What's to stop them from saying they are married anyway? We have had this discussion before. Once they get their civil union, every document they fill out will have only a single or married or divorced box to check....they will check the married one. When one of them is out at a bar and another guy hits on them, they will say "I'm married, but thank you anyway."
So what the fuck are you complaining about?
You have people on your side. Stop fighting us and come together and try to help the rest of the country understand it is okay. Embrace the fact our president has also made claims he is in favor of such a thing. Stop creating division and negativity where there need not be.
so why not fucking ignore them and let them have the same rights as everyone else...
but then again i guess midnyte doesnt listen to women, since im a women because of my one alleged drunk, non sexual incident that declared me to be gay in midnytes eyes despite the rest of my alleged sex life...hence all homosexuals are women in his eyes
...am i not making any sense? good...because neither does your argument
-xzionis human mage on mannoroth
-zeltharath tauren shaman on wildhammer
Lynks wrote:
I don't know anyone who has been kicked out for saying tha. I went to a catholic school all my life, even a private highschool operated by nuns and I never really heard anyone say that, but that isn't to say it hasn't happen yet. Stuff like this doesn't normally get reported.
That does not make sense to me then. I can't see how "I'm a flaming gay person." can be worse than "There is no god."
Rekaar. wrote:And so, in the dar hierarchy of values, what holds the top rung of importance if not life?
I would think you'd be against the war in Iraq. Love the fetus, hate the already born?
The already born have choice. Who is more in need of protection - those with or without a voice?
I think you're confusing open minded with liberal.
bam
What are you talking about? You think every Iraqi choose to be in this war? Or do you just blindly see it one sided as the americans choose to be in the military.
This is not brain surgery thess. While beliefs may differ between you and I you cannot debate the simple fact that we are not in Iraq for genocide. If no one was shooting at us, we wouldn't be shooting back. Each combatant opposing the US had and has the choice to lay down their arms. Those that choose to fight and die were given the decision. A baby was not.
See? Simple.
Right so you are under the impression every iraqi who has been killed is an insurgent. Okay - that makes sense, even my good friend who I talk to atleast once a week in Iraq says that is not the case.
Let alone the chemicals we've released there, but it's ok, the birth defect rate is only up something like 150%.
Lynks wrote:That they want to get married. It wouldn't be forcing you to spend time with them either.
And where back at the begining!
rofl
What's to stop them from saying they are married anyway? We have had this discussion before. Once they get their civil union, every document they fill out will have only a single or married or divorced box to check....they will check the married one. When one of them is out at a bar and another guy hits on them, they will say "I'm married, but thank you anyway."
So what the fuck are you complaining about?
You have people on your side. Stop fighting us and come together and try to help the rest of the country understand it is okay. Embrace the fact our president has also made claims he is in favor of such a thing. Stop creating division and negativity where there need not be.
so why not fucking ignore them and let them have the same rights as everyone else...
but then again i guess midnyte doesnt listen to women, since im a women because of my one alleged drunk, non sexual incident that declared me to be gay in midnytes eyes despite the rest of my alleged sex life...hence all homosexuals are women in his eyes
...am i not making any sense? good...because neither does your argument
Lynks wrote:
I don't know anyone who has been kicked out for saying tha. I went to a catholic school all my life, even a private highschool operated by nuns and I never really heard anyone say that, but that isn't to say it hasn't happen yet. Stuff like this doesn't normally get reported.
That does not make sense to me then. I can't see how "I'm a flaming gay person." can be worse than "There is no god."
That whole system I think needs to be rethought.
-=Lohrno
It doesn't, but thats why I suspect homophobia came into play. That board, or principle, should have denied the prom to anyone that says they don't believe in God or didn't follow what rules he thought they should have. Either way, this was an abuse of power if anything.
Lynks wrote:
It doesn't, but thats why I suspect homophobia came into play. That board, or principle, should have denied the prom to anyone that says they don't believe in God or didn't follow what rules he thought they should have. Either way, this was an abuse of power if anything.
At least a double standard. A Catholic school should logically uphold Catholic ideals right? I think I'll just leave it at your Catholic schools are not really Catholic schools, and thus should not be discriminating if they are not upholding other ideals as well. I don't see how "We only accept catholics." equates with not punishing people for blasphemous ideals equates with punishing people for certain blasphemous ideals.
Right. Also, maybe its just where I went to school but, doesn't the highschool committee organize proms and not the board? We had a dinner where teachers dinned with us, but once the dance took place, it was our time, our DJ, our location. Even the grad party had 0 teachers.
Lynks wrote:
I don't know anyone who has been kicked out for saying tha. I went to a catholic school all my life, even a private highschool operated by nuns and I never really heard anyone say that, but that isn't to say it hasn't happen yet. Stuff like this doesn't normally get reported.
That does not make sense to me then. I can't see how "I'm a flaming gay person." can be worse than "There is no god."
That whole system I think needs to be rethought.
-=Lohrno
It doesn't, but thats why I suspect homophobia came into play. That board, or principle, should have denied the prom to anyone that says they don't believe in God or didn't follow what rules he thought they should have. Either way, this was an abuse of power if anything.
uh-huh
Or....it was a catholic school board (run by whomever the fuck you want), who are are cathlocis (otherwise why the fuck would they be on this board?) enforcing a belief that is a part of their religion. They think being gay is a fucking sin. They do not want that shit going on in front of their children, on their premises, or during a school function. Plain and fucking simple.
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Or....it was a catholic school board (run by whomever the fuck you want), who are are cathlocis (otherwise why the fuck would they be on this board?) enforcing a belief that is a part of their religion. They think being gay is a fucking sin. They do not want that shit going on in front of their children, on their premises, or during a school function. Plain and fucking simple.
If they are not punishing people for other infringements like atheism, or other such, then there is a double standard (and they probably are not a legitimate Catholic school), you have to see that... If they are, then fine, it's all good.
Or....it was a catholic school board (run by whomever the fuck you want), who are are cathlocis (otherwise why the fuck would they be on this board?) enforcing a belief that is a part of their religion. They think being gay is a fucking sin. They do not want that shit going on in front of their children, on their premises, or during a school function. Plain and fucking simple.
What part of "the government owns the catholic school board here" do you not understand? Governement and religion don't mix and one should not affect the other.
This is either a case of homophobia, or an abuse of power,
