New Book On Homosexual Behaviour

[Perigrina]

On a more serious note, unless you deliberately do some sort of book club type thread, it is difficult to have a thread about a book and not have it get derailed, as most posters will unlikely be able to make a comment of substance about it.

 

I realized that we could not have a discussion about the book, but I thought we might discuss the quote I included.  I did not intend it as a debate subject.   I did expect the Spanish Inquisition, but I am surprised that so many non-Catholic views are expressed here. 

[Perigrina]

Churches aren't forced to provide their rituals toward any people.

Does a flourist have to provide flowers for a gay wedding?
I'm sure if the flourist business was run by the church it seems they can discriminate to their hearts content, Catholic schools discriminate and get away with it.

I'm wondering if I can discriminate against Catholocs, knowing that they discriminate against gays, and myself being against this discriminataion of gays then does that make it legally OK for me to withold my services against all Catholic people.
It seems this slippery slope of discriminating against people will lead to a fractured and resentful society. Is this the Christain way?

 

Churches are not yet forced to provide rituals, but I have heard of cases where they are forced to rent out their halls.  And yes, florists have to provide flowers for gay weddings.

 

There is nothing to prevent people who object to Catholics from providing services to them.  In general, businesses are allowed to decide whom they will serve.

[Perigrina]

 

That's not exactly where I was going with my post, but thanks.  Now I'm wishing I could remember my GPA.  I might get a gold star.

[NotreDame]

That's not exactly where I was going with my post, but thanks.  Now I'm wishing I could remember my GPA.  I might get a gold star.

[Perigrina]

[stevil]

Churches are not yet forced to provide rituals, but I have heard of cases where they are forced to rent out their halls.  And yes, florists have to provide flowers for gay weddings.
 
There is nothing to prevent people who object to Catholics from providing services to them.  In general, businesses are allowed to decide whom they will serve.

Really,

Is it legal for a business to turn people away saying "Sorry, but we don't serve blacks or muslims here!"

Anyway, I teach my children not to judge people by race, religion, skin colour, culture, size, gender, sexual orientation, social-economic status etc. I am hoping my kids grow up tolerant and accepting of diversity, and play nicely with others.


I think maybe some Catholics confuse Secular marriage with Catholic marriage. They are not the same thing. Secular marriage is generally a marriage as recognised by the government giving certain legal rights. A Catholic marriage is a marriage as recognised by the Catholic church. Generally Catholic marriage comes with a secular marriage as well. But most secular marriages aren't Catholic marriages. I can understand that your religious beliefs pertain to Catholic marriage, but I don't know what they have to do with secular marriage?

Do Catholic florists get upset if they have to provide flowers for a non Catholic divorcee that is getting married in a non Catholic ceremony?

[Not The Philosopher]

Um, well, it is true that the rationalization of homosexual acts comes as a result of the rejection of teleology, and the philosophical/cultural reasons for that shift occurring are interesting.

 

And it is true that the gay community tends to be oversensitive, and has recently discovered the use of the state as a blunt weapon against people who disagree with them. I think a lot of the butthurt perhaps comes from the conflation of people who are just genuinely misguided with the loud radical activist/academic types.

 

EDIT: Whoops, I forgot to indicate that I was responding to Peregrina.

Edited June 15, 2014 by Not The Philosopher

[Ice_nine]

I'm wondering if I can discriminate against Catholocs

 

Go ahead, do your thing. I'd rather have the animosity out on the table than bubble behind a pleasant façade. And I might not want to give my $$$ to someone who finds me detestable. Unless said person can whip up that bomb cake son, then maybe I'd sell out. Sucker for a good cake.

Edited June 15, 2014 by Ice_nine

[Perigrina]

Really,

Is it legal for a business to turn people away saying "Sorry, but we don't serve blacks or muslims here!"

Anyway, I teach my children not to judge people by race, religion, skin colour, culture, size, gender, sexual orientation, social-economic status etc. I am hoping my kids grow up tolerant and accepting of diversity, and play nicely with others.


I think maybe some Catholics confuse Secular marriage with Catholic marriage. They are not the same thing. Secular marriage is generally a marriage as recognised by the government giving certain legal rights. A Catholic marriage is a marriage as recognised by the Catholic church. Generally Catholic marriage comes with a secular marriage as well. But most secular marriages aren't Catholic marriages. I can understand that your religious beliefs pertain to Catholic marriage, but I don't know what they have to do with secular marriage?

Do Catholic florists get upset if they have to provide flowers for a non Catholic divorcee that is getting married in a non Catholic ceremony?

 

I'm not sure how it works in the US.  In Canada we have the Human Rights Commission which has officially ruled that it is not possible to discriminate against Christians since they are not a minority.  People would get in trouble for refusing services to blacks or Muslims.

 

There may be Catholic florists who do not provide their services to any people getting married in violation of Church teaching.  (Although it is hard to imagine how they would survive.) As far as I know, the government would only interfere in the case of same-sex marriage. 

 

I would object to same-sex  marriage far less, if it were not used as a political tool to force people to act against their conscience.  There would still be significant philosophical problems with it, but secular marriage is very far removed from the traditional understanding of marriage in almost every respect.  We are pretty much closing the barn door after the horses have been stolen.  

[Perigrina]

Um, well, it is true that the rationalization of homosexual acts comes as a result of the rejection of teleology, and the philosophical/cultural reasons for that shift occurring are interesting.

 

And it is true that the gay community tends to be oversensitive, and has recently discovered the use of the state as a blunt weapon against people who disagree with them. I think a lot of the butthurt perhaps comes from the conflation of people who are just genuinely misguided with the loud radical activist/academic types.

 

EDIT: Whoops, I forgot to indicate that I was responding to Peregrina.

 

The teleology thing is huge, although it has been mostly neglected in this discussion.

 

I have huge problems with the homosexualist movement (which is not only homosexual people - I used to be part of it) but I do not have anything against homosexual people.  I agree that these become conflated and this leads to a lot of confusion.

[stevil]

First up, I want call out a special thanks to you Perigrina for having a cordial conversation with me on this "contraversial" topic.
 

There may be Catholic florists who do not provide their services to any people getting married in violation of Church teaching. (Although it is hard to imagine how they would survive.) As far as I know, the government would only interfere in the case of same-sex marriage.

As a guess I would think that government would also interfere if a florist refused to sell flowers to an inter-racial couple getting married. So there are probably a few cases where the government will get involved and force people to comply to a standard despite the person's individual position or beliefs.

I would object to same-sex marriage far less, if it were not used as a political tool to force people to act against their conscience.

So I guess it comes down to how important the government deems a person's conscience to be vs how important it is that society members play nicely together.
Often with different people or different groups there are conflicts, so a leader attempts to mediate in order to resolve the conflict.
In this case you have gay people whom want to celebrate the love they have for someone and want to form a government recognised family with this person.
On the other hand you have various religious groups whom collectively feel it is immoral for other people to have same sex marriages, thus I presume these individuals feel a conscious obligation not to support such marriages.

It seems (to me) that the religious people would be happy implementing a law outlawing same sex marriage (even secular marriage). Thus happy to interfere in the lives of gay people to such a great degree that they will legally stop these people from forming families with the person they love. This has a huge impact on the gay people. It impacts their daily lives, their ability to share their lives with a loved one, their ability to adopt, care for and raise children and makes them feel outcast from society.
The gay people, want the choice to marry their loved ones. This has a minor impact on religious groups whom don't want their church to be forced to perform such weddings and don't want themselves to be forced to sell cakes, flowers, accomodation etc for such occassions.
Please note that there is a big difference between being forced to live a life apart from your loved one and being forced to sell a cake, or flowers when one is in the business of selling cakes or flowers.

If a government opens up society to be tolerant of discrimination, thus allows people to choose who to provide goods and services to based on the customer's race/skin colour/religious belief/sexual orientation then what will be the impact on society?
Will tensions rise? Will there be more conflict? Or will these religious people now be in support of removing laws against gay marriage? Edited June 16, 2014 by stevil

[superblue]

Does a flourist have to provide flowers for a gay wedding?
I'm sure if the flourist business was run by the church it seems they can discriminate to their hearts content, Catholic schools discriminate and get away with it.

Incase you didn't know a very similar case was brought up against a wedding cake baker who refused to service to a gay couple requesting a cake for their wedding ( the topic was discussed to no avail on CAF ) but in the end the bakery lost that fight, and could not claim being Christian as a reason for not serving .

 

So you can expect your question about the florist to lose that war also.

 

And you are right catholic schools discriminate and do get away with it, but then again, exactly how many homosexuals with children are lining up at a private catholic school, to not only get an education but to also get a religious education as well that does not support the way they live ?

 

I would find it very wrong if a homosexual couple had a child, and wanted that child to be in a private catholic school and also be catholic and to then have the door shut on them . But if homosexuals are just playing games with the system and saying ah ha look discrimination ! I don't buy it.

[NotreDame]

First up, I want call out a special thanks to you Perigrina for having a cordial conversation with me on this "contraversial" topic.

 

 

[stevil]

And you are right catholic schools discriminate and do get away with it, but then again, exactly how many homosexuals with children are lining up at a private catholic school, to not only get an education but to also get a religious education as well that does not support the way they live ?
 
I would find it very wrong if a homosexual couple had a child, and wanted that child to be in a private catholic school and also be catholic and to then have the door shut on them . But if homosexuals are just playing games with the system and saying ah ha look discrimination ! I don't buy it.

What about homosexual teachers that are qualified to teach but find due to Catholic schools that they have less employment opportunities than non gay teachers?

[Perigrina]

First up, I want call out a special thanks to you Perigrina for having a cordial conversation with me on this "contraversial" topic.
 
As a guess I would think that government would also interfere if a florist refused to sell flowers to an inter-racial couple getting married. So there are probably a few cases where the government will get involved and force people to comply to a standard despite the person's individual position or beliefs.
So I guess it comes down to how important the government deems a person's conscience to be vs how important it is that society members play nicely together.
Often with different people or different groups there are conflicts, so a leader attempts to mediate in order to resolve the conflict.
In this case you have gay people whom want to celebrate the love they have for someone and want to form a government recognised family with this person.
On the other hand you have various religious groups whom collectively feel it is immoral for other people to have same sex marriages, thus I presume these individuals feel a conscious obligation not to support such marriages.

It seems (to me) that the religious people would be happy implementing a law outlawing same sex marriage (even secular marriage). Thus happy to interfere in the lives of gay people to such a great degree that they will legally stop these people from forming families with the person they love. This has a huge impact on the gay people. It impacts their daily lives, their ability to share their lives with a loved one, their ability to adopt, care for and raise children and makes them feel outcast from society.
The gay people, want the choice to marry their loved ones. This has a minor impact on religious groups whom don't want their church to be forced to perform such weddings and don't want themselves to be forced to sell cakes, flowers, accomodation etc for such occassions.
Please note that there is a big difference between being forced to live a life apart from your loved one and being forced to sell a cake, or flowers when one is in the business of selling cakes or flowers.

If a government opens up society to be tolerant of discrimination, thus allows people to choose who to provide goods and services to based on the customer's race/skin colour/religious belief/sexual orientation then what will be the impact on society?
Will tensions rise? Will there be more conflict? Or will these religious people now be in support of removing laws against gay marriage?

 

A lot of people who object to same-sex marriage would be OK with giving the same legal protections to couples by way of civil unions.  In many cases the dispute is about the meaning of marriage and has nothing to do with hating or harming homosexual people as is so often portrayed.  For example, the book in the OP is not directed against homosexual people at all.  It is about the ramifications of the philosophical position entailed in same-sex marriage.

 

I'm not sure that forcing people to live apart from their love one was ever at stake. Even when homosexuality was illegal, couples lived together and kept the nature of their relationship a secret.  An any event, there does not seem to be any question of stopping same-sex marriage now.  The current legal/political battles seem to be about forcing people to support same-sex marriage regardless of their beliefs.  If the homosexualists win those battles, as they seem poised to do, they will not stop there.  They will look for other ways to exert their power.

 

There is a difference between denying services based on a person's sexual orientation and denying services for a specific event that is against one's religious beliefs.  "I won't sell you food because you are gay" is discrimination.  "I do not want to provide services for a same-sex wedding because I think they are wrong" is following through on one's beliefs.

 

Thank you for cooperating with my wish for civil discussion.