How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Love should be respected unclouded by di   [ Page: 1  2  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Love should be respected unclouded by discrimination such as Prop 8

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


25 posted 11-29-2008 10:53 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

quote:
There is a difference, because a church is not a business. A business is formed to make profit and a church is not.


But doesn't the Church still give a service to the people, as a business does?
freeand2sexy
Senior Member
since 09-12-2008
Posts 703
CA, USA


26 posted 11-29-2008 11:11 PM       View Profile for freeand2sexy   Email freeand2sexy   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit freeand2sexy's Home Page   View IP for freeand2sexy

Essorant,

I'm sorry, but i'm not sure what your saying.

I love pancakes!!!

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


27 posted 11-29-2008 11:28 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

...and I thought a church WAS formed to make prophets!
freeand2sexy
Senior Member
since 09-12-2008
Posts 703
CA, USA


28 posted 11-29-2008 11:31 PM       View Profile for freeand2sexy   Email freeand2sexy   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit freeand2sexy's Home Page   View IP for freeand2sexy

No a church isn't formed to make prophets.

I love pancakes!!!
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


29 posted 11-30-2008 03:27 AM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

That input from Balladeer was a joke Christine.
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


30 posted 11-30-2008 04:43 AM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam



quote:
To my mind there's a simple answer to the conundrum of marital status, remove the financial incentives and legal status that married couples enjoy and treat every couple, regardless of gender, as human beings who just happen to live together.


Precisely Grinch.

And Ess, I think you are making the case against yourself.   Freeand2sexy is right to point out that businesses make a profit and are therefore different.

The point is that in arguing that allgirl/boy schools are a legitimate "exception" you invoke the idea of a "special atmosphere".  This idea picks up on what is of underlying importance, the REASON for the discrimination.  

The rationale for a business's existence is generally to create wealth for those involved and particularly owners and shareholders.  If a business turns away a black person or a gay person and won't take their money this is in direct conflict with its own reason for being.  It would be quite legitimate in those circumstances to legislate to force compliance with its own ethos.

In complete contrast a religion's reason for being is to guide people to their god.  A church can be viewed as a society or club where people have to abide by certain rules and constraints in order to benefit from what the club has to offer.  It would be fairly pointless and counterproductive for instance for a government to legislate to force bridge clubs to allow entry to people who wanted only to play poker.  Similarly I don't think churches should be forced by law to carry out ceremonies for people whose way of life cuts right across the basic underlying beliefs of the church.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


31 posted 11-30-2008 09:49 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

I am not sure about that Moonbeam.  A church may believe whatever it wants.  But if it is going to "serve" the people too, as it does, giving a service and "giving out" something, it needs to give a service that obeys the rights and rules of the country.   What if those oneliners in the bible, that some religious folk will try to make us imagine are divine discourses against homosexuality, happened to be about people of a specific race instead?  What then?  Would we allow them to make ado against people of a specific race?  They are allowed to believe it, of course, if their minds are so stubborn, but I don't think we may allow them to teach or preach it or deny people a special service on the basis thereof.  That would be racism.  The same is preaching against homosexuality or denying homosexuals a public service, a service that is important to the people. It is racism, but pointed at homosexuality instead.  I don't think that should be tolerated as far as any "service" goes.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


32 posted 11-30-2008 10:37 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
A church may believe whatever it wants.


And the owner of a the Church, like the owner of any other private space, can refuse entry to anyone they like without having to give them a reason.
rhia_5779
Senior Member
since 06-09-2006
Posts 1304
California


33 posted 11-30-2008 01:24 PM       View Profile for rhia_5779   Email rhia_5779   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rhia_5779



Are you saying that churches/religious movements should be forced by law to allow same sex marriages?

I'm not entirely sure how I feel about that. I feel like for people who are christian and also gay or lesbian- it must be awful to be thrown out of their community but at the same time I am not religious and so I don't feel I have the right to judge the religious community since I don't really understand maybe.
I think what you need to ask yourself when you invoke the argument "it's traditional" is: "is there any other reason APART from historic custom to continue this practise?".  If the answer to that question is "no" then I think there is some serious doubt as to whether the practice is still relevant to today.  


I agree here.
Free, religion is important but our country doesn't make laws based on one religion or another or to take away rights based on religion. We aren't going to make laws based on it today when it hurts others.

In the latter case you need to consider what you mean by "religion".  There are many many religions out there now.  Are you going to pick christianity and say that the populace of the US should abide by christian based principles and no others?  Sure that used to be the case.  

I'm not religious though I was raised under Christianity and Judaism but a couple years ago I chose to not be religious or at least follow organized religion.  Should I have to follow the beliefs of a religion I don't believe in?
Religion is what you believe, i'm saying it applies to everything, because it can't be disregarded. Whether is Christianiy, satanism, or atheism, religion is always going to be apart of life.
I love pancakes!!!


But, I have beliefs but that isn't nessecarily my religion. I believe in things and values but I take from different beliefs systems and apply them to my life and how I think.


Even though this is a big topic for me because i am in a same sex relationship, i really think there are bigger issues than this. Tho i'm sure ppl will disgree. i jus think our focus, whether gay, bi, or straight, should be on the most important issues. I respect everyones beliefs but again, i see both sides, and think the best solution would be a compromise.

I can kinda get both sides but I strongly believe that intolerance is wrong. I have friends who look down on the kids at their school who call themselves 'ghetto' and who make snide comments because those kids have chosen to distance them selves from my friends. I understand that my friends don't understand what they have been through, and they feel hurt because some of them wanted to fit into that group but couldn't. I understand that side but its still not really right. I also understand from the point of view of the kids who are the minorities and who are considered 'ghetto' . My school is different then the bigger public one but we have a lot of kids who come from similar backgrounds. I understand their side , my friends who are intolerant but I also understand the side of my friends who are acting based on the way t hey  have been taught.
There may be more important issues relative to security and all but this is still important.

moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


34 posted 11-30-2008 02:12 PM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam



quote:
I am not sure about that Moonbeam.  A church may believe whatever it wants.  But if it is going to "serve" the people too, as it does, giving a service and "giving out" something, it needs to give a service that obeys the rights and rules of the country.   What if those oneliners in the bible, that some religious folk will try to make us imagine are divine discourses against homosexuality, happened to be about people of a specific race instead?  What then?  Would we allow them to make ado against people of a specific race?  They are allowed to believe it, of course, if their minds are so stubborn, but I don't think we may allow them to teach or preach it or deny people a special service on the basis thereof.  That would be racism.  The same is preaching against homosexuality or denying homosexuals a public service, a service that is important to the people. It is racism, but pointed at homosexuality instead.  I don't think that should be tolerated as far as any "service" goes.

Maybe I didn't explain too well what I meant Ess.

I am not arguing that it is desirable that churches effectively discriminate against homosexuals.  What I am saying is that it would unproductive, and therefore inappropriate, to legislate.  

However much you say churches are providing a public service for the people, they are no more doing this than the bridge club I mentioned earlier.  As Grinch has pointed out they are private organisations, not a publicly run bodies.  If the government was to legislate to force bridge clubs to accept people who played poker, what do you think would be the result?  Probably the bridge players would go all sulky and refuse to play with them, or fold the club and set up elsewhere or in a different format.  What are you going to do then?  Have the FBI or whoever stand over them with guns till they play poker?  

So with churches.  Any attempt to force those who didn't want to to perform gay marriages would almost certainly result in a go slow or downing tools by recalcitrant clergy.  On a day which is meant to be one of the happiest of your life this is hardly what you want.

The point I am trying to make here is that many people, and for that matter many christians, want to see gay people married in church.  The way to effect change is not by using the law to force a change which will fragment the "club", but to allow the members to convince themselves that they need to make changes in order to meet the requirements and expectations of today's society.  

After all, let's be positive, the christian churches have a long tradition of waking up to the error of their ways and recognising that being "christian" doesn't (among many other historic "certainties")  involve massacring infidels, burning "witches", stoning adulteresses, and excluding women from the priesthood - sooner or later it is to be hoped and expected that they'll do the usual and reinterpret scripture to remove the ungodly prejudice against gay people.  
freeand2sexy
Senior Member
since 09-12-2008
Posts 703
CA, USA


35 posted 11-30-2008 05:42 PM       View Profile for freeand2sexy   Email freeand2sexy   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit freeand2sexy's Home Page   View IP for freeand2sexy

yes i know it was a joke, i should have added a lol, my mistake, i guess it sounded more sarcastic in my head.

I love pancakes!!!

Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


36 posted 11-30-2008 09:09 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Moonbeam

I agree that we should inspire better changes among the churches, and most likely many better changes shall come about.  That is a good thing.  But until more changes come, and where the remnants remain of wrongful discrimination, the law ought to step in and defend the people, and indeed enforce the law on the church.  For a church is a popular institution to which many masses of the public go for worship, weddings, funerals, etc,  so it should need to be responsible not to discriminate wrongly against the public, just like a school or a library.  People equally don't deserve to be a victim of wrongful discrimination from a church anymore than from a library, museum, school, etc.  The service of marriage should be expected as a benefit that everyone should be able to participate in without facing sexism or racism, we expect such when seeing the museum, using resources at the library, being taught by a teacher at school, and we should expect such at a church too.  The law should equally step in whenever any of these institutions wrongly discriminates against someone.  

Juju
Member Elite
since 12-29-2003
Posts 3353
In your dreams


37 posted 11-30-2008 09:48 PM       View Profile for Juju   Email Juju   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Juju's Home Page   View IP for Juju

marriage should have never been used to call a civil union.  The bigger crime is this lack of separation of church and state.

-Juju

-"So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thougts
What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos

freeand2sexy
Senior Member
since 09-12-2008
Posts 703
CA, USA


38 posted 11-30-2008 10:33 PM       View Profile for freeand2sexy   Email freeand2sexy   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit freeand2sexy's Home Page   View IP for freeand2sexy

quote:
The way to effect change is not by using the law to force a change which will fragment the "club", but to allow the members to convince themselves that they need to make changes in order to meet the requirements and expectations of today's society.
  

Um, yeah i think the problem with that, in a church at least, is that their focus is not on the expectations of today's society, they focus on God's laws, and the body of Christ. As societies expectations change the less it has to do with the church. Unless they (the church) stray from God's ways, they won't make that change. (well i can't speak for all churches, of course)

I love pancakes!!!
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


39 posted 12-01-2008 08:29 AM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

I agree Juju that it is iniquitous for a state to favour one religion over another.

freeand2sexy, humm I am not sure you are totally right there.  History shows that religions often do shift their "rules" to better fit in with changes in society - what about the relatively recent admission of women to the ministry for instance? Sure, there are always going to be some diehard evangelicals, but moderation usually wins out in the end.

moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


40 posted 12-01-2008 09:08 AM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam



quote:
For a church is a popular institution to which many masses of the public go for worship, weddings, funerals, etc,  so it should need to be responsible not to discriminate wrongly against the public, just like a school or a library.  People equally don't deserve to be a victim of wrongful discrimination from a church anymore than from a library, museum, school, etc.  The service of marriage should be expected as a benefit that everyone should be able to participate in


Just as by having allboy schools you do not deprive girls from an education because there are allgirl schools too, so the barring of homosexuals from married in church does not bar them from being married (or it shouldn't) because they have the alternative of a registry office marriage, which is (or should be) equal under the law.  (I think there is a small argument that christian gay people may be deprived of a service, but no doubt the argument would be put forward (by evangelicals) that gay people can't be christian.  

As long as there is an alternative to church for gay people to be married I don't see that they are being denied, except insofar as church weddings are "prettier".  

Private schools in the UK DO discriminate.  They get to choose who is accepted into the school, normally on the basis of academic ability and also sometimes on the basis of whether a parent has attended the school.   They are private.  They get to set the criteria.  Moreover those criteria is directly relevant to the rationale for the existence of the school, viz, to get the best academic results they can.  Similarly a private church sets its criteria for membership and the benefit of its services directly by reference to its rationale for existence, viz, bringing people to their god.  So if god doesn't approve of gays and if their god will not recognise a marriage of gays then it seems entirely reasonable to refuse to marry gays - because after all any minister disobeying god's law might be struck down or be sent direct to hell (without passing Go).

Public schools and of course the other examples you gave of libraries and museums usually have whole or part public ownership and are therefore entirely different, being owned by the public they must serve all the public equally.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


41 posted 12-01-2008 05:21 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


Can a Muslim man legally as a U.S. citizen
have three wives, (all of whom he loves
and who love him in return), in the United States?


If not, why not?

Mohammed had a nine year old bride who
by all accounts loved him.  Would that be
ok in California now?


.

[This message has been edited by Huan Yi (12-01-2008 06:37 PM).]

freeand2sexy
Senior Member
since 09-12-2008
Posts 703
CA, USA


42 posted 12-01-2008 07:26 PM       View Profile for freeand2sexy   Email freeand2sexy   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit freeand2sexy's Home Page   View IP for freeand2sexy

Moonbeam, i understand what your saying and your mostly right, but not all changes in society are view as good, and i do agree that some churches will change as they stray from God, but the Church as a whole, the body of Christ, will not.

I love pancakes!!!

Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


43 posted 12-01-2008 11:57 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Moonbeam

Any school or church that denies people education at school or marriage at church because they do not believe the people deserve to have such because of their gender goes too far into the realm of unreasonable in my judgement, no matter how much they believe it is God's will.  People generally get married through a church and the sacredness thereof in one way or another is important to most people.  It is not offering anything equal when someone is denied it and forced to go to a different or alternative institution for what anyone else generally gets at the school or the church.  No one should be victims of that kind of unreasonableness at such important institutions as Schools and Churches.

[This message has been edited by Essorant (12-02-2008 12:56 AM).]

moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


44 posted 12-02-2008 02:24 PM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam



quote:
No one should be victims of that kind of unreasonableness at such important institutions as ... Churches.

I agree with you of course.

I just don't think  you are correct in thinking that legislation is the best way to achieve a harmonious outcome.

We are going to have to agree to disagree I guess, and hope that one way or another eventually equity and compassion prevail.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


45 posted 12-02-2008 08:30 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


moonbeam,

Clearly you are on the dark side of
Essorantís meaning . . .

I also note the evasion
of my questions.


.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


46 posted 12-03-2008 03:28 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Huan Yi,

            As a condition for joining the Union, Utah had to make polygamous marriages illegal.  I believe.  Enforcement of the law has generally been consistent.  Sometimes, it's been spotty, if you'll check your newspaper files.

     The question as the whether this should have been the case may be more complex, given the first amendment.  If we were as serious about the first amendment as we perhaps should be, them plural marriages should be legal, polyandry as well as polygamy and this would no doubt include the now somewhat controversial  same-gender unions.  These would seem to be logical implications of the first amendment that nobody seemed to bother writing down.  In the same way that 2 plus 2 equals four, it would seem that thirty two sixteenths plus thirty-two sixteens would equal sixty-four sixteenths; it sort of a function of commutability.

     But just because it makes perfectly good sense to me, that doesn't mean that it's perfectly sensible to you now, does it?

     It seems that your question about an Islamic marriage ought to be straightforward as that, but it probably is more like the you-have-to-be-like-Utah situation.  I find that a terrible thing to say to anybody, myself, but then I'm from Ohio originally, and a lot of people from back in Massachusetts where I spent 30 years pronounce "Ohio" exactly like "Utah."  Sometimes they make it sound like "Iowa," too, which just makes things merrier all around.

     What's your thought, Huan Yi?

Geographically yours, Bob Kaven
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


47 posted 12-03-2008 05:02 AM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

Huan Yi

Sorry, I seem to have missed something.

First, I don't understand what you meant by my being on the dark side of Ess's meaning.  Perhaps you could explain?

Second, I didn't know your questions were directed at me because you didn't preface with a quote or address me personally.  Even so, I have to admit I didn't understand what your questions were driving at.  Perhaps I am being stupid, or perhaps coffee deficiency.  Sorry to trouble you, could you elaborate?
moonbeam
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 12-24-2005
Posts 2038


48 posted 12-03-2008 09:56 AM       View Profile for moonbeam   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for moonbeam

Huan

I have woken up now!

As far as the example you gave of the Muslim with several wives is concerned I don't see any reason in principle why that should not be permitted.  I think any loving commitment between two adults is fine, and if it was up to me I would be inclined to enact laws to the effect that a man may marry as many women as he wanted and vice versa.  I think that the caveat would be that a single person should not be able to derive an economic or social benefit from multiple marriages - so any state provided benefits would have to be adjusted accordingly.

As far as a 9 year old girl is concerned I think this starts to impact on the principle of equality and free consent.  I think that unions where one party is very significantly less mature, or in fact any union where one party is mentally unable to understand the full implications of what is being asked of them, are problematic.  But that aside, I think that, again, a fixed lower age limit is more a matter of legal workability than any fixed principle.  Look at the situation in medieval times for instance.

Still don't get your comment about the dark side and Essorant though!
rhia_5779 will be notified of replies
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Love should be respected unclouded by di   [ Page: 1  2  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors