I really, really hate smokers

[Monk]

If we define it as a certain class of sexual attraction, then I cannot see how you can exclude, say pedophilia as a sexual orientation.

I'm not doing that at all, I absolutely view pedophilia as a sexual orientation. I can't see why somebody would not. I also don't see what it has to do with anything, since the homosexual marriages we argue for are made between adults with the legal option of signing a contract.

Marriage generally has been recognised as an exclusive sexual relationship between a man and a women other then the last few years. If we get away from the sex component, then I don't see how you can define 'marriage' as a sexual relationship at all.

Why should I care what goes on in other people's marriages? And do you think my grandparents should get a divorce, since there's presumably no sexual relationship between them, both being in their eighties?

Look, I'm not dictating to you what you should feel about marriages, I only want that adult people are offered some equality to other adult people in terms of what they can legally do and what they can't. The objective factor of marriage as a legal contract, not the subjective factor of what it means to you or me or anybody.

[Ben Kenobi]

No, rather my question was whether a Muslim should have a right to refuse to sell important medicine that's wrapped in a certain way just because he wasn't informed this could possibly be expected of him.

I would say yes, given my own experience with vegetarians refusing to handle animal products.

Do keep in mind people hiring other people aren't supposed to ask potential employees what religion they are. They're supposed to assume that if I'm applying for a job, I know what's expected of me, and if I want special treatment due to my personal beliefs, that's something I request before and not after we sign the contract.

I am of the strong belief that if an employee wishes to receive accommodation, they must inform their employer of their religion. I feel disclosure is a two-way street. If a muslim or a Catholic does not disclose that they practice their religion, then I don't feel they have any right to complain when they object to certain practices based on the teaching of their respective religions.

I have had bosses that did not appreciate the disclosure, but then again I have to deal with my disability which generally tends to be a bigger point. I'm a big fan of disclosure and I know it has cost me jobs in the past.

And that's the point I'm making - that I can't see any difference to this hypothetical Muslim who wasn't explicitly warned and a Christian who won't hand out a morning-after pill. And now I'm wondering if you can?

Monk, I don't believe there is a difference between the two. I think that if an employee wishes to receive an accommodation, that they must be open and up front with an employer prior to signing the contract. If something changes along the way, then that's something different. I would feel that an employee who converts while employed has to talk it out with their employer.

[Nikolai]

This is why the concept of marriage as a right is corrosive. No one has the right to get married in the church. If the church thinks you smell funny, then they can go to you and say, yes, we don't want to marry you.

We are having the same troubles here, as you can see. NYE's opinions are not strange, and we get cases all the time from folks who have been denied access to a church for their gay marriages. This is where the whole concept of respect comes under fire.

If you sincerely believe that others have the right to practice their religion freely, then you cannot demand them to marry you in the church period. Your rights do not trump their rights.

Well said.

[Nikolai]

Marriage is a contract between a man and a woman who loves each other and wants to promise life long faithfulness and love to each other, in both good and bad days, Ben. Sex is an important part of this, but not necessary. Old people who wants to promise life long faithfulness and love, or people who are impotent or something for whatever reason, can still marry. It's a holy promise in front of God and a sign for great affection, not a sexual contract. But sex usually follows of course.

[Ben Kenobi]

But with the new law we got from new year, the Church of Norway is under pressure to change its marriage practice. It's a pressure on the right of religion and beliefs. But what's worst: People in partnerships can choose if they want to remain in a partnership or convert to the new marriage law. People married under the old law has no such option. If that is not oppressive and excluding, I don't know what is...

This is why the concept of marriage as a right is corrosive. No one has the right to get married in the church. If the church thinks you smell funny, then they can go to you and say, yes, we don't want to marry you.

We are having the same troubles here, as you can see. NYE's opinions are not strange, and we get cases all the time from folks who have been denied access to a church for their gay marriages. This is where the whole concept of respect comes under fire.

If you sincerely believe that others have the right to practice their religion freely, then you cannot demand them to marry you in the church period. Your rights do not trump their rights.

[Ben Kenobi]

Not really directed to me, but - it's not a matter of expressing a sexual orientation as much as a matter of getting it legally recognised on par with others.

Which is why I raised my question as to what exactly constitutes a 'sexual orientation', I realise that the purpose is to grant rights to certain behaviours, but before we can discuss whether this should happen we should have an idea as to what 'sexual orientation' precisely can be defined.

I don't think anybody is arguing anybody should be allowed to have sex in your front yard (although I really wouldn't care myself) or commit rape or anything of the sort.

If we define it as a certain class of sexual attraction, then I cannot see how you can exclude, say pedophilia as a sexual orientation.

That's actually my view. Why not? Or are you saying that marriage is wrong for somebody who's too old or medically impaired somehow so they can't have sex and/or children?

Why is it necessary to represent non-sexual relationships as marriage? If we go this route, then why can't two roomates marry since they share a living space. Marriage generally has been recognised as an exclusive sexual relationship between a man and a women other then the last few years. If we get away from the sex component, then I don't see how you can define 'marriage' as a sexual relationship at all.

[Nikolai]

Marriage is a contract between a man and a woman. This is how it has been historically, and there is no reason to change that. That does not mean that homosexual persons should not be able to made a similar contract. I don't know for Ben, but this is my view. In Norway, we have had marriage for heterosexuals and a similar arrangement for homosexuals called partnership. Two different ways to live your life, two different laws to regulate them. Same rights and duties though. It worked well. Then some people found out that not having these laws merged was oppressive and excluding. Well, it wasn't. But with the new law we got from new year, the Church of Norway is under pressure to change its marriage practice. It's a pressure on the right of religion and beliefs. But what's worst: People in partnerships can choose if they want to remain in a partnership or convert to the new marriage law. People married under the old law has no such option. If that is not oppressive and excluding, I don't know what is...

[Monk]

I presume you are arguing that you have a right to express your sexual orientation. How do you define sexual orientation? Is pedophilia an orientation?

Not really directed to me, but - it's not a matter of expressing a sexual orientation as much as a matter of getting it legally recognised on par with others. I don't think anybody is arguing anybody should be allowed to have sex in your front yard (although I really wouldn't care myself) or commit rape or anything of the sort.

Marriage cares about who you sleep with, I don't see what's so hard to understand. It seems common sense to me. Are you saying that marriage shouldn't care who you sleep with?

That's actually my view. Why not? Or are you saying that marriage is wrong for somebody who's too old or medically impaired somehow so they can't have sex and/or children?

[Monk]

Hey again, Ben Kenobi!

'His question was whether I would accept the claim of the Muslim that he should have been informed about the pig gelatin.'

No, rather my question was whether a Muslim should have a right to refuse to sell important medicine that's wrapped in a certain way just because he wasn't informed this could possibly be expected of him.

Do keep in mind people hiring other people aren't supposed to ask potential employees what religion they are. They're supposed to assume that if I'm applying for a job, I know what's expected of me, and if I want special treatment due to my personal beliefs, that's something I request before and not after we sign the contract.

And that's the point I'm making - that I can't see any difference to this hypothetical Muslim who wasn't explicitly warned and a Christian who won't hand out a morning-after pill. And now I'm wondering if you can?

[notyoueither]

Ben, I am not going to debate marriage with you one more time. Nor am I going to discuss an apparent thickness, oblivious to the parallels in cases regarding human rights.

It would be as large a waste of time as it was the first and twentieth time.

You've demonstrated your bigotry on the subject in a complete fashion. Congratulations.

I'll stick to the piss off part, thanks.

[Ben Kenobi]

Nobody is talking about ****ing on your front lawn, Ben. Nevermind that they not use the missionary position.

I'm trying to understand your position. It makes no sense to me.

1. You talk about a 'right' to sexuality, or as you've defined it a 'right to a sexual orientation.'

I presume you are arguing that you have a right to express your sexual orientation. How do you define sexual orientation? Is pedophilia an orientation?

Yeah, when darkies want to marry white trash, we should have a say in that, right, Ben?

Sure. We should permit it and issue a marriage license. That's intervention. Are you saying that the state should refrain from issuing marriage licenses?

Your views are the same old ****, just warmed over in microwavable form. Bigotry keeping up with the times.

Marriage cares about who you sleep with, I don't see what's so hard to understand. It seems common sense to me. Are you saying that marriage shouldn't care who you sleep with?

Marriage does not care about anything. I assure you.

Then why am I not permitted to marry my sister, if I should have one?

People care about marriage and state sanctions, encouragement, obligations, and rights for living arrangements. There is a difference. I am not going to get into them with you, one more time, though.

I didn't say what people cared about. I said what marriage cares about. Marriage obviously cares about who you sleep with. That's the whole purpose of the institution, and why we have regulations surrounding whom you can marry, and when.

Views perfectly in tune with thoughts in Mississippi in 1890 and 1950, I am sure.

So are you saying I'm tolerant? That's all I was after. If you tolerate something that implies you disapprove.

Yes, you do. You have a right to exist. I will avail myself of the right to tell you to piss off though.

Good! That's what the free world is all about. The ability to tell each other to piss off.

You might pay heed to who is becoming hostile.

I've got no more time for a bigot who has demonstrated nothing but a determination to remain a bigot over the course of years. Period. Point blank.

I don't see why you are accusing me of being racist towards black people. Have I praised Byrd or the KKK? I mean really.

[notyoueither]

What do you mean by 'sexuality'?

I would disagree with a freedom of sexual expression. We do not have the right to do what we want whenever we want, however we want.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/sexuality?view=uk

sexuality
noun (pl. sexualities) 1 capacity for sexual feelings. 2 a person’s sexual orientation or preference

Nobody is talking about ****ing on your front lawn, Ben. Nevermind that they not use the missionary position.

Nothing about marriage? "Each husband his own wife, and each wife her own husband?"

Marriage cares about who you sleep with and when, unlike human rights.

Yeah, when darkies want to marry white trash, we should have a say in that, right, Ben?

Your views are the same old ****, just warmed over in microwavable form. Bigotry keeping up with the times.

Marriage does not care about anything. I assure you.

People care about marriage and state sanctions, encouragement, obligations, and rights for living arrangements. There is a difference. I am not going to get into them with you, one more time, though.

Tolerate, means that you put up with something to which you disagree. I assure you that I am tolerating those who see marriage as a right that is doled out by the state.

If you ask whether I approve this thought, no I don't approve of it at all. Approval is not the same as toleration.

Views perfectly in tune with thoughts in Mississippi in 1890 and 1950, I am sure.

I have every right to be here as you do. I disagree with you but hell, I think you should have the right to tell me to piss off.

Yes, you do. You have a right to exist. I will avail myself of the right to tell you to piss off though.

I'm surprised by poly being hostile?

No, I'm only surprised by those who say just the opposite.

You might pay heed to who is becoming hostile.

I've got no more time for a bigot who has demonstrated nothing but a determination to remain a bigot over the course of years. Period. Point blank.

[Ben Kenobi]

Sexuality is a fundamental human right every bit as much as freedom of conscience and religion are.

What do you mean by 'sexuality'?

I would disagree with a freedom of sexual expression. We do not have the right to do what we want whenever we want, however we want.

The relevant issue to you is that homosexuality is a sin and it is shunned in your dogma.

Nothing about marriage? "Each husband his own wife, and each wife her own husband?"

Marriage cares about who you sleep with and when, unlike human rights.

You cannot tolerate the thought that the majority of us in our society don't agree that your dogmatic morality should affect the lives of people who are not religious, let alone Christian or Catholic.

Tolerate, means that you put up with something to which you disagree. I assure you that I am tolerating those who see marriage as a right that is doled out by the state.

If you ask whether I approve this thought, no I don't approve of it at all. Approval is not the same as toleration.

As far as rules to govern society are concerned, please take your dogma for a long walk off a short pier, and I for one am tired of explaining this to you.

I have every right to be here as you do. I disagree with you but hell, I think you should have the right to tell me to piss off.

You are as welcome as some redneck who insists on defining issues based on colour of skin, gender, or religious choice. This is my opinion, of course. I just don't think you should be surprised by the declining number of people willing to take you seriously, or others who begin to be hostile.

I'm surprised by poly being hostile?

No, I'm only surprised by those who say just the opposite.

[notyoueither]

I don't see what that has to do with this issue at all. People have rights that have nothing to do with who they sleep with and why.

Sexuality is a fundamental human right every bit as much as freedom of conscience and religion are.

The only thing I argue is that marriage is not one of them. This is not an issue of "gay people do not deserve human rights", but rather, "what is a human right, and why?"

I'd appreciate it if you understood that is what I am saying. The disagreement isn't over whether gay people are deserving, etc, but it's over what is a right? It's a much more fundamental disagreement.

To me the issue of whether gay people have 15 partners or 1 is irrelevant to the rights issue.

No, you lie.

The relevant issue to you is that homosexuality is a sin and it is shunned in your dogma. You cannot tolerate the thought that the majority of us in our society don't agree that your dogmatic morality should affect the lives of people who are not religious, let alone Christian or Catholic.

'We' would appreciate if you understood what 'we' are saying. As far as rules to govern society are concerned, please take your dogma for a long walk off a short pier, and I for one am tired of explaining this to you.

You think that makes me happy? I find it sad.


So I'm not welcome here because I disagree on this one issue? Discourse to me doesn't rely on one person being right and the other person being wrong, or the whole thesis/antithesis/synthesis.

I didn't take you for a Hegelian, and that rather surprises me, NYE.

I think people can discuss an issue come to opposite conclusions, and still have a productive discussion, in that the issue is better understood.

I don't think less of anybody that they disagree with me, and I only expect that the same courtesy be applied.

Now, that being said, this is not what the thread was about. I will send you a pm if you are really interested in this question.

I'm rapidly proceeding past caring, Ben.

You are as welcome as some redneck who insists on defining issues based on colour of skin, gender, or religious choice. This is my opinion, of course. I just don't think you should be surprised by the declining number of people willing to take you seriously, or others who begin to be hostile.

[Ben Kenobi]

I haven't read the original, but what you claim to have said comes off extremely condescending and I understand how a person like Asher would get in a fit over this, being limited in response by the site's rules.

Well, again I am sorry if I came off that way.

Health wise, he'll be far better off.