Are equal rights for gays incompatible with religious liberty? (homosexuality, marriage)

[MaddLlama]

Nobody has anything to say about my post? I'm a bit disappointed.
I suppose those who don't understand history are doomed to repeat it...

[Aqualung]

Originally Posted by lilithu

And my very next sentence, which you again snipped out, is that there is no reason to single out BGLT equality as the one that should not be added to the list.

I thought for some reason that you understood my reason since you quite succinctly rephrased it. Sorry, I didn't mean to unduly ignore parts - I just thought it was asked and answered.

The reason to deny gays this rights it the same reason we should deny these rights to everybody. You are making an is/ought fallacy to say that because these groups of people ARE given these "rights," that other groups of people OUGHT to be given these "rights" as well. It's similar to saying, because black people were slaves, indians ought to be slaves as well. Your further restricting freedom because it's already restricted a little bit. The little bit of restriction is not justified, so the further restriction is certainly not justified.

In other words, if you don't like the hate crimes law in general, work against the hate crimes law in general. This has nothing to do with BGLT equality.

It does if you (and you did) define equality as being allowed have hate crime legislation passed in your favour. You, so far, are the only one who has defined "equality" (which is what my entire discussion has been about - more specifically, does "equality" mean "being able to be married anywhere where a straight can be" or does it mean "being allowed to married"). You have chosen to define one aspect of "equality" as "having hate crime legilation passed in your favour", among other things. From this defintion, supplied by you, I have begun to argue that this would infringe upon my rights in general. So, yes, this general idea of hate crimes has to specifically with GLBT equality, because you brought it into a discussion about GLBT equality. I was perfectly happy to discuss just the marriage issue, but since you brought up hate crime legislation I am just as happy discussing how that infringes upon rights, too. But, as I mentioned before when you pointed it out, not religious rights. So we can drop it if you want, but you ahve to be the one to drop it. I will respond to any post you create in this regard. Your choice is to post or not post.

I see. So you are just switching from one argument to another as they get discredited.

That's right. Is there a problem with that? I chose a stance that I didn't necessarily agree with but that I thought would afford (a) a good debate and (b) a good learning experience. When people point out my errors, I find it better practice to learn from my mistakes (eg, posting a law suit that didn't really fit with the subject) rather than ignore the counter arguments of those whom I debate. Again, though, I don't really see a problem with this, but I would like to know what you think the problem is.

Aasimar says it pretty well, I suppose, by saying:

Originally Posted by Aasimar

So flexibility and willing to admit that you are wrong is bad? What a closed-minded thing to say. I hope no one else thinks mindlessly sticking to a discredited argument is a good thing. Believe it or not, being wrong is part of the learning process. I don't think anyone should try to insult or demean someone else because they were wrong or admitted they were wrong.

so kudos to him.

Goodbye.

Hope you have a good day.

[Green Gaia]

Originally Posted by Aqualung

This is not correct. Your question is upon the assumption that you will win your fight, which has not yet happened. It's not, "Is fighting for gay equality infringing upon people's rights", but rather "If gays were given equality, would this infringe upon civil rights." Gays don't have euqlity, so this DOESN'T have a basis in reality. Or, it has just as much basis in reality as my scenario (I hypothetical basis based upon our own respective analysis of current political/legal trends).

Oh forget it AL. You definitely live up to your title. I will move on to people to actually want to answer the question.

[Aqualung]

Originally Posted by Green Gaia

Oh forget it AL.

Suit yourself.

You definitely live up to your title. I will move on to people to actually want to answer the question.

I don't appreciate this type of rudeness, and I would greatly appreciate if in the course of debate you would either refrain from it or not respond to me at all. Thanks.

[Green Gaia]

Originally Posted by Aqualung

I don't appreciate this type of rudeness, and I would greatly appreciate if in the course of debate you would either refrain from it or not respond to me at all. Thanks.

How is it rude when you say it about yourself? And I would great appreciate if in the course of debate you would either refrain from derailing an entire thread with your rufusals to answer the question or not respond at all. Thanks.

[Green Gaia]

So, does anyone want to actually discuss the topic of the thread? Can anyone show me how gays rights are fundamentally incompatible with religious liberty?

Lilithu, ours is a religion that supports gay rights, do you feel our religious liberty is infringed upon by denial of equal rights for gblt people by the government?

[Green Gaia]

Originally Posted by MaddLlama

Nobody has anything to say about my post? I'm a bit disappointed.
I suppose those who don't understand history are doomed to repeat it...

I saw it and it was a very good post. Frubals!