How "Christian" of him!!

[Asher]

You are seriously mentally retarded in some way.

You know many people have said so.

Quoted for ****ing posterity.

They've said I'd amount to nothing, and that I would never be anybody.

They were ****ing right. Look at you. The most pathetic excuse for a human being I've ever witnessed.

You call me liar and a hater and contrary to what Christ teaches, when you propound on how Christ is worthless in the very next sentence. What makes you think that any of your words here have any force on how I choose to conduct myself or live my life?

I'm not pretending my words on here force you to do anything. In fact, it is perfectly ****ing clear you will not take any advice or wisdom from anyone for any ****ing thing. This is because you are not only stunningly ignorant, you are amazingly stupid person with astounding cloudiness of thought and a complete inability to think for yourself. You live in a world of both grand delusions and small ones -- whether it's your delusions about politics on a large scale, or your delusions about what you and others say in this thread. The words you type do not correspond to anyone's reality, they're your own fantasy. You need serious ****ing help, but you won't ever get it.

This is the season of his nativity. I have no desire to cast fire and brimstone in return. Do this for yourself, Asher. God loves you more than you love yourself

It's impossible for God to love me more than he loves myself. That should be truly obvious from my perceived massive ego.

If he truly loved me, he'd do something to silence your inane bigoted ramblings.

[N35t0r]

(...) If the Catholic church has the same freedom of association, this means that they are not required to hire gay people to work for them, just as Arcus is not required to hire Catholics. (...)

Ben, I'm pretty sure that the church is not being forced to hire gay people, just recognise that same-sex marriages by law should receive the same benefits that all marriages by law receive.

Frankly, I don't see why, if there's no problem for the church to recognise non-church marriages, there's any problem with same-sex marriages.

[Elok]

You said you were done with this thread, Asher. How many more of your lies do you expect us to tolerate?

Also, did Kid actually do some sort of St. Paul thing or is he trying to put on somebody else's perspective and doing a splendid job? Either one would have me pleasantly surprised, of course...or has somebody hacked his account?

[Asher]

You said you were done with this thread, Asher. How many more of your lies do you expect us to tolerate?

Also, did Kid actually do some sort of St. Paul thing or is he trying to put on somebody else's perspective and doing a splendid job? Either one would have me pleasantly surprised, of course...or has somebody hacked his account?

I was expecting to have been banned by now.

I just can't take Ben's **** anymore. No ****ing way for me to restrain myself when dealing with someone of his caliber.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, I'm pretty sure that the church is not being forced to hire gay people, just recognise that same-sex marriages by law should receive the same benefits that all marriages by law receive.

The problem being as I see a few steps ahead. There have been cases filed up here arguing precisely this, that if the Church fires someone for homosexual conduct, that this is discrimination.

Frankly, I don't see why, if there's no problem for the church to recognise non-church marriages, there's any problem with same-sex marriages.

Ok this is a good question. The Church recognises marriage as a sacrament, between one man and one woman. Other non-Catholic churches which adhere to this sacrament, even if they don't call it such, have their marriages recognised as 'Christian marriages' per se. In this sense, two non-Catholics are recognised as married.

When a Catholic chooses to get married outside of the church, he has to obtain what is called a dispensation, from the priest. If the priest does not grant the dispensation, the Catholic cannot get married licitly outside of the Church.

So there are different rules for Catholics, how they treat each other and how Catholics treat other Christians. There are also different rules for those who break the sacrament altogether. The current position seems to be to not recognise any marriages performed by those who bless gay marriages.

WRT to hiring decisions, this plays a big role. The Catholic church considers two non-Catholics married to each other, or a mixed marriage with dispensation to be licit. Mixed marriage without dispensation would be taken into consideration, and generally considered to be a poor sign for anyone looking for someone to stick with Church teachings and be a good representative.

WRT to gay marriage, it's a complete non-starter.

[MrFun]

To prevent one of your veins from rupturing from all this stress, Asher, I recommend the Ignore feature.

[Asher]

We should start a contest. Can anyone find a single post where Ben did not lie or attempt to deceive?

[N35t0r]

The problem being as I see a few steps ahead. There have been cases filed up here arguing precisely this, that if the Church fires someone for homosexual conduct, that this is discrimination.

OK, this is another point entirely, but I'll argue it.

You'll have to agree that there's a big big range that can be classified under 'homosexual behaviour'. If they fire said person just because he/she kissed his/her couple, while a straight person kissing his/her couple would be OK, then yes it is discrimination. It's the same as firing a christian just because he crosses himself before having lunch.

Firing a gay person for behaving in a manner that would also get a straight person fired might be objectionable, but isn't discriminatory.

Ok this is a good question. The Church recognises marriage as a sacrament, between one man and one woman. Other non-Catholic churches which adhere to this sacrament, even if they don't call it such, have their marriages recognised as 'Christian marriages' per se. In this sense, two non-Catholics are recognised as married.

When a Catholic chooses to get married outside of the church, he has to obtain what is called a dispensation, from the priest. If the priest does not grant the dispensation, the Catholic cannot get married licitly outside of the Church.

So there are different rules for Catholics, how they treat each other and how Catholics treat other Christians. There are also different rules for those who break the sacrament altogether. The current position seems to be to not recognise any marriages performed by those who bless gay marriages.

WRT to hiring decisions, this plays a big role. The Catholic church considers two non-Catholics married to each other, or a mixed marriage with dispensation to be licit. Mixed marriage without dispensation would be taken into consideration, and generally considered to be a poor sign for anyone looking for someone to stick with Church teachings and be a good representative.

WRT to gay marriage, it's a complete non-starter.

But the law states that those married under the law get to receive benefits/whatever. Just as the church is free not to recognise people married without a dispensation as married 'to the eyes of god', it is not up to the church to decide who is or isn't legally married.

It's useful to think about legal and religious marriages as different matters. Your system doesn't help with that, though.

Over here in Argentina, church marriages aren't legally recognised: people who decide to have a christian marriage (or any other religious marriage), must also get married under the law, if they expect to receive the legal benefits. Thus, if two people are legally married, than all employers must recognise these legal rights, whether or not they are also religiously married. Conscuently, if you are married under the church, but not legally, then you are not entitled to the legal rights.

Wether or not gay marriages are legally recognised is for the government to decide. The church can of course not recognise them for their own internal workings, but they must abide by the law like every other institution.

[Ben Kenobi]

You'll have to agree that there's a big big range that can be classified under 'homosexual behaviour'. If they fire said person just because he/she kissed his/her couple, while a straight person kissing his/her couple would be OK, then yes it is discrimination. It's the same as firing a christian just because he crosses himself before having lunch.

Firing a gay person for behaving in a manner that would also get a straight person fired might be objectionable, but isn't discriminatory.

Oh, the case I have in mind went well beyond kissing.

But the law states that those married under the law get to receive benefits/whatever. Just as the church is free not to recognise people married without a dispensation as married 'to the eyes of god', it is not up to the church to decide who is or isn't legally married.

This is part of the problem, and why the Supremes argued that certain parts of marriage cannot be left up to the states. Where there is disagreement in the content of what constitutes marriage, cannot be used as a wedge to change the policies across the whole. This is the underlying problem with the change of policy in the DoC, a conflict which probably won't get resolved for quite sometime, until the Supremes smack it down.

Put it this way, the Church has the same rules across all jurisdictions. What you are arguing is that a change in one jurisdiction, ought to change the policies across all other jurisdictions. Do you see how that might create problems in an organisation? What's happened is the natural response; rather than abide by a ruling which afflicts a very small portion of the whole, the Church simply refuses the money for Washington, and keeps their policies the same across all parts of the Church.

It's useful to think about legal and religious marriages as different matters. Your system doesn't help with that, though.

WRT to how the Catholic church sees them, they are one and the same. This is why the conscience exemption is the rational way to deal with these disputes betwen civil and religious marriages. It's not just gay marriage but other things, as I discussed as well, are impacted. Is the church required to provide marriage benefits to common-law couples? Etc. I think you can see where I'm going with this point.

Over here in Argentina, church marriages aren't legally recognised: people who decide to have a christian marriage (or any other religious marriage), must also get married under the law, if they expect to receive the legal benefits. Thus, if two people are legally married, than all employers must recognise these legal rights, whether or not they are also religiously married. Conscuently, if you are married under the church, but not legally, then you are not entitled to the legal rights.

I don't know anyone who would do that here, but afaik most if not all church marriages are legally recognised here.

Wether or not gay marriages are legally recognised is for the government to decide. The church can of course not recognise them for their own internal workings, but they must abide by the law like every other institution.

They have no obligation to obey an unjust law. WRT to civil disobedience, it is entirely within their rights to reject a law that violates freedom of association. Their entirely legal response is to refuse the money which is causing these issues. Consequently this means that the people who suffer are the beneficiaries of church services because of a shortsighted and entirely unnecessary conflict between the two.

There is nothing unjust about permitting the church free exercise of their religion.

[MrFun]

I still haven't heard from posters here who said the DC archbishop was NOT going to cut services in response to my post where I quoted a call from activists to contact the archbishop to not cut services.

I mean, if the archbishop was not going to cut services as others have said here earlier, what gives?

[Nikolai]

Look at the mission statement for Arcus. Arcus is very specific that it has a philosophy which orients everything that it does, and they explicitly reject anyone who teaches that men and women are fundamentally different from one another.

Now, freedom of association means that Arcus is permitted to make these distinctions in who it funds. If the Catholic church has the same freedom of association, this means that they are not required to hire gay people to work for them, just as Arcus is not required to hire Catholics.

When Arcus lobbies hard for a bill arguing that the Catholic church should be required to hire gays and lesbians, that is in and of itself a fundamental tilt in the playing field. You can argue 'equality' all you want, but the end result is that there are special rights, not equal rights.

Freedom of association is not trumped by phantom concerns of equality. Just as the Catholic church has no right to interfere in the workings of Arcus, Arcus has not such right to interfere with the Catholic church and their charities.

I just saw this, and I had to wonder: What has Arcus to do with gay rights?

[Nikolai]

Can someone give me a quick recap of this thread btw? Sounds like an interesting topic, but I can't be arsed to dive through all the shiit.

[MrFun]

Can someone give me a quick recap of this thread btw? Sounds like an interesting topic, but I can't be arsed to dive through all the shiit.

Recap: a) some posters have posted saying DC archbishop was not going to cut services for needy

b) I later came across an article announcing a call for action from civil rights activists to contact archbishop to not cut such services

[N35t0r]

Oh, the case I have in mind went well beyond kissing.

You still didn't answer my question.

This is part of the problem, and why the Supremes argued that certain parts of marriage cannot be left up to the states. Where there is disagreement in the content of what constitutes marriage, cannot be used as a wedge to change the policies across the whole. This is the underlying problem with the change of policy in the DoC, a conflict which probably won't get resolved for quite sometime, until the Supremes smack it down.

I'm not familiar at all with US legal history, but it seems silly to have to wait until the supreme court rules on something that might affect all states rather than allowing lower-level rulings to come up beforehand.. and who will decide which issues should and which issues shouldn't reach what level?

What would have happened if before the civil war states hadn't been allowed to decide on slavery because it 'could be used as a wedge to change the policies across the board'?

Put it this way, the Church has the same rules across all jurisdictions. What you are arguing is that a change in one jurisdiction, ought to change the policies across all other jurisdictions.

Oh, but it does. I'm sorry, but the church very much changes its rules across jurisdictions. I'm pretty sure that church employees here in Argentina are not hired under US labour laws: it would be ridiculous. What I am arguing is that the church should abide by local laws wherever it is, like every other organisation.

Do you see how that might create problems in an organisation?

As I mentioned, if the church is able to abide by the different laws of the several hundred different countries it is present in, I don't see how one law in one city, which will probably not even affect the church (since, lets face it, even if there are gays working for the church they probably won't come out if they want to continue working there) will create much of a problem

What's happened is the natural response; rather than abide by a ruling which afflicts a very small portion of the whole, the Church simply refuses the money for Washington, and keeps their policies the same across all parts of the Church.

What has happened is that the church saw it might be able to threaten the city into backing down, and it couldn't.

WRT to how the Catholic church sees them, they are one and the same.

I'm sorry, but that is entirely the church's problem. It can't impose this view on others.

This is why the conscience exemption is the rational way to deal with these disputes betwen civil and religious marriages. It's not just gay marriage but other things, as I discussed as well, are impacted. Is the church required to provide marriage benefits to common-law couples? Etc. I think you can see where I'm going with this point.

I'm pretty sure that the church is required to reconise two people married by law as legally married for the purpose of the law

I don't know anyone who would do that here, but afaik most if not all church marriages are legally recognised here.

I know that, thus my 'your system doesn't help with that' line.

They have no obligation to obey an unjust law. WRT to civil disobedience, it is entirely within their rights to reject a law that violates freedom of association. Their entirely legal response is to refuse the money which is causing these issues. Consequently this means that the people who suffer are the beneficiaries of church services because of a shortsighted and entirely unnecessary conflict between the two.

How is having to recognise that two people legally married must receive the benefits that the law states marriages should have unfair, just because the two people in mind happen to have the same sex?

I also don't see how this violates freedom of association rights.

There is nothing unjust about permitting the church free exercise of their religion.

So you would be OK with stoning people to death, if it follows religious precepts? I'm sorry, but the church (any church) should follow a country's laws, even if they do not agree with them, or get out.

[Elok]

I move that, as before, we threadjack this into a discussion of Tolkien. Here's a guy whose class on JRRT I took in college:

http://www.tolkienprofessor.com/

He hosts an annual LOTR film marathon where the students eat six meals through the day while calling Peter Jackson an idiot every time he departs from the original storyline.

EDIT: Dag, that site is ugly. He needs some web design help. I got the URL wrong at first, too. But he still knows his stuff.