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

[MaddLlama]

Originally Posted by Aqualung

I've answered every question you've posed, starting with your question of is it possible for gay equality to infringe upon religious liberty. The entire derailment, though, was caused by a lack of an answer for what "equality" meant (posed in, I think, the second or third post of the thread). If you want to answer that question, the entire discussion, which based on one interpretation of the word equal, might be rendered invalid and we can get to the meat of the discussion. To reiterate that question:

If "equal" means "being able to get married any place where straigh people can" then it would be an infringement. If "equal" means "being able to enter into the same type of marriage contract as straight people", then no it wouldn't.

I'll put it a different way. You posed a question about the equality of gays and if it would infringe upon religious liberty. I said it depended on how equality was defined. The entire rest of thread was spent trying to determine, if equality were define the first way, if this would infringe upon religious rights. I think, however, that if you think I am off topic this is because you, in your mind, had defined equality the second way. Is this the case, or am I still off track?

The problem is that nobody in the GLBT community, that I know of, is defining "equality" in the first way. That's been said so many times in so many threads I'm sick of writing it. This is not a hypothetical debate of "well, if we define it this way, then this happens, but if we change to mean something else then this happens". We're talking about the reality of the situation, and as far as marriage goes (and I agree that it's probably the only area that one could possible argue the religious liberty), nobody is saying, or has ever said that they want to be able to, as you put it, "get married in all the same places straight people can". Nobody here on the forum has ever argued that, and no Gay Rights organizations have argued that (at least none that I know of).
The issue is whether or not allowing the government to extend legal benefits and contracts to homosexual couples, with optional participation from religious groups is an infringement of anyone's religious freedom. And, assuming the answer is no, then what reason is there to be against gay rights?

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Green Gaia

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?

Yes. It is our first (ie-primary) principle that we affirm and promote the inherent worth of every person. This means that every person is meant to have the opportunities to live the richest, fullest lives of their capacities, and that anything that gets in the way of these opportunities is morally wrong. It is also our belief, as suggested by our principles 2 and 6, that it is our religious duty to pursue justice where there is injustice. It is our religious duty to pursue equity where there is inequity. In terms of BLGT rights it means that, for those of us who are queer it would be a sin to complacently accept one's second-class status. And for those of us UUs who are straight, it would be a sin to complicitly allow this inequity to continue. The struggle for BGLT equality is part and parcel of our living faith. The continued denial of equal rights affronts our deepest religious values.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Aqualung

Again, I find mysefl asking, same in what way? Do you mean that if I get married by a priest a gay person should be able to be married by the same priest?

Geez louise, No!

[Aqualung]

Originally Posted by MaddLlama

The problem is that nobody in the GLBT community, that I know of, is defining "equality" in the first way.

Unfortunately for me, and what has created a lot of opportunities for others to redicule me ceaslesses and, IMO, groundlessly, is that it HASN'T been defined, at all, in this thread.

That's been said so many times in so many threads I'm sick of writing it. This is not a hypothetical debate of "well, if we define it this way, then this happens, but if we change to mean something else then this happens". We're talking about the reality of the situation,

In reality, the situation doesn't exist at all, though, so that doesn't make sense. In fact, I'm getting sick of writing this, too. We seem to be talking past each other. You think it's a reality and I don't. What do you think is a reality? I think that it's not a reality that gays have equal rights, so any definition MUST by hypothetical. As I have mentioned before, I see that there is a distinct possibility that legal system could define it either way. So why do you think your definition is better? And, by the way, what is your definition (since this word still hasn't been defined)?

and as far as marriage goes (and I agree that it's probably the only area that one could possible argue the religious liberty), nobody is saying, or has ever said that they want to be able to, as you put it, "get married in all the same places straight people can".

But then what do you mean by "equal"?

The issue is whether or not allowing the government to extend legal benefits and contracts to homosexual couples, with optional participation from religious groups is an infringement of anyone's religious freedom. And, assuming the answer is no, then what reason is there to be against gay rights?

Well, then, if that's how equality is defined, then no. And thank you for being the first person, after like thirty pages, to define the key term of the debate.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Aqualung

Unfortunately for me, and what has created a lot of opportunities for others to redicule me ceaslesses and, IMO, groundlessly, is that it HASN'T been defined, at all, in this thread.

Well, then, if that's how equality is defined, then no. And thank you for being the first person, after like thirty pages, to define the key term of the debate.

It has been defined several times in this thread by several different posters, and I know you've read at least some of the posts because you argued with them.

If you truly did not get it until just now then that's an unfortunate misunderstanding, but it is not the fault of those you did not understand.

[MaddLlama]

Originally Posted by Aqualung

Unfortunately for me, and what has created a lot of opportunities for others to redicule me ceaslesses and, IMO, groundlessly, is that it HASN'T been defined, at all, in this thread.

No. It hasn't. However, people have said several times in this thread that equality is NOT being defined as "being able to force the church to do something it doesn't want". So, that definition of equality was thrown out at the start. There aren't really many other options to work with.

In reality, the situation doesn't exist at all, though, so that doesn't make sense. In fact, I'm getting sick of writing this, too. We seem to be talking past each other. You think it's a reality and I don't. What do you think is a reality? I think that it's not a reality that gays have equal rights, so any definition MUST by hypothetical. As I have mentioned before, I see that there is a distinct possibility that legal system could define it either way. So why do you think your definition is better? And, by the way, what is your definition (since this word still hasn't been defined)?

The reality of the situation is that homosexuals are being denied certain things partially on the very basis that if we allow gay couples to get married it will somehow infringe on the Christian's ability to be Christian. Maybe you just haven't been keeping up with the issue in the news.
Why is my definition better? Because its the definition that is most likely to make it through the court. Did you read my post about black civil rights and women's rights? In the history of civil rights I can't think of a time where the government forced a church to do something it didn't want to. Why would it start now?

Well, then, if that's how equality is defined, then no. And thank you for being the first person, after like thirty pages, to define the key term of the debate.

Like I said, the idea that equality means that gay people can get married in any church by any priest they want was thrown out on the very first page. You onlt presented 2 options in your fist post in this thread: 1. If gay people want to get married in the same place as straight people, then it is; 2. if gay people just want to be able to get married, then no it doesn't.
3 people then responded to your post and said that nobody on the board or in politics has suggested that we define equality as the first definition. So, how many more options are left? I think we all were hoping that since these were your options you could infer which one was correct. So, I'm still not sure why you were clinging to that definition later in the thread. I can see where people are frustrated, because you brought up hypothetical situations based on the assumption that we're defining equality in a way that everyone already said we aren't.
I don't know if maybe you just didn't see the responses to your first post, but I think this issue was put to rest 25 pages ago.