The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[Johnnypenso]

All this talk of left handed people reminds me that my Dad told me once that when he was younger they sometimes referred to gay men as "left footers".

But the bigger reason is that gay marriage does not affect anyone but the people involved in it. Why stop people from doing what their heart desires (within reason)?

LGBT's should be able to partake in the same agony, frustration, disappointment and lunacy as the rest of us...I mean yeah..I support gay marriage

 

[TenEightyOne]

Because of the religious ties to marriage. Most religions disapprove gay marriage and the state forcing the issue is an infringement upon their (the religion it's self) religious freedom.

But in those cases isn't the state saying "we support your right to do as you like, we support the LGBT right to do as they like. Don't join in gay marriage unless you want to"?

 

[afbarnes]

All this talk of left handed people reminds me that my Dad told me once that when he was younger they sometimes referred to gay men as "left footers".

LGBT's should be able to partake in the same agony, frustration, disappointment and lunacy as the rest of us...I mean yeah..I support gay marriage

Could you imagine a Gay Divorce?

 

[FoolKiller]

I wonder if one is allowed to file a complaint about the Holy Books (take your pick)? They include numerous themes that are often echoed in the reasons for challenging books.

Imagine the outrage that would cause on what I imagine to be most of the people that file complaints about this kind of stuff.

This is simple. These are the same people who took their young kids to see films like Saving Private Ryan and The Passion of the Christ so that "they can see what it was really like."

The violence in those films is extremely violent. If they were a Tarantino film there would have been protests from these same people. But when some parents voiced concern over showing children what it would look like to see someone scourged these parents just stood on their soapbox and said that it was important for children to see what Christ went through to save them.

Short of threats from some extremists, I doubt you would get much more than a moralistic debate.

Because of the religious ties to marriage. Most religions disapprove gay marriage and the state forcing the issue is an infringement upon their (the religion it's self) religious freedom.

The state recognizing a marriage is not the same as requiring a church to recognize one. So long as a church was not successfully sued and found guilty of rights violations for refusing to perform or host a gay marriage then I see no infringement of religion.

Allowing gay marriage in a non-religious setting infringes religion about as much as allowing pre-marital or extramarital sex to occur without dressing the guilty parties in giant, scarlet As.

 

[squadops]

But in those cases isn't the state saying "we support your right to do as you like, we support the LGBT right to do as they like. Don't join in gay marriage unless you want to"?

That is the general idea, we're going to see a clash between religious rights and civil rights however, because of workplace. This relates to a previous discussion in this thread debating new U.S. state laws regarding religious rights. Below is an example of how these things can/will be settled in the court system. This example is from The European Court of Human Rights. There are three other complaints decided on in the proceedings, but this one addresses gay marriage or civil union.

January 2013

Ms Ladele was a registrar for a local authority. She believes that same-sex civil partnerships are
contrary to God’s law. She had been employed by the authority since 1992 and as a registrar
since 2002. The authority had a “Dignity for All” policy in which the authority agreed to
challenge discrimination in all its forms. This applied to staff, residents and services users and
covered discrimination on the grounds of sexuality. The policy stated that the authority had no
tolerance for discrimination. In 2005 the Civil Partnership Act 2004 came into force, providing
for legal registration of civil partnerships between same-sex couples. In December 2005 the
authority designated all registrars as civil partnership registrars, a role that Ms Ladele felt she
could not undertake given her beliefs. Initially Ms Ladele avoided conducting civil partnerships
by making informal arrangements with colleagues. However, in 2006, two of her colleagues
complained that this was discriminatory. The authority informed Ms Ladele that her refusal to
conduct the partnerships was a breach of its Code of Conduct and equality policy. Formal
disciplinary proceedings were taken and Ms Ladele lost her job. Ms Ladele brought claims of
direct and indirect discrimination. Although the Employment Tribunal found in her favour, the
UK's appeal courts both found against her.

Ms Ladele claimed that she had been discriminated against in respect of her right to freedom of
religion. The Court, by a five to two majority, rejected that claim. It considered that it was “clear”
that Ms Ladele’s objection to participating in the creation of same-sex civil partnerships was
directly motivated by her religious beliefs. As the events “fell within the ambit” of Article 9, the
Article 14 obligations applied...

...In considering whether the requirement that all registrars conduct civil partnerships as well as
marriages was a proportionate means of achieving its legitimate aim, the Court considered that
a balance needed to be struck between Ms Ladele’s freedom to religious beliefs and the
protection of the Convention rights of others. Acknowledging that the authority’s policy was
introduced precisely in order to seek to protect the Convention rights of others, and that the
authority is to be afforded a wide margin of appreciation in determining how to best go about
this, the Court held that it could not find that the state, either in the form of the local authority
who enforced the policy or the courts who adjudicated the authority’s decision, had violated Ms
Ladele’s Article 14 right.

The two dissenting judges held that the issue should be seen as one of conscientious objection
rather than religious objection to civil partnership. They considered that Ms Ladele had been
unjustifiably discriminated against. They disagreed with the majority that there had been any
impact on the rights of same-sex service users of the local authority. They pointed out that no
same-sex users of the registry service had complained or been unable to access the service. It
was the judges' view that the only person to have suffered discrimination was Ms Ladele. She
had not made her views public and they had not impacted on the content of her job only its
extent. Accordingly, her treatment by the authority was “totally disproportionate”.

http://www.equalrightstrust.org/ertdocumentbank/Case Summary Eweida and others v UK.pdf

 

[TenEightyOne]

You can't pick and choose the parts of a job that you wish to do, particularly not on an imaginary principle such as religion. These people should be relieved of their employment and get a job that they're mentally suited to.

 

[squadops]

Two of them didn't question their duties however, and the one I quoted's duties changed in her eyes. Either way, if it was that simple we wouldn't need laws or courts.

 

[Pseudopod]

Could you imagine a Gay Divorce?

Not only do they want gay marriage, but gay divorce as well? Give them an inch and they'll take a mile... What's next, gay funerals?

 

[FoolKiller]

There are two ways to deal with this:

1) During the hiring process the employer states the tasks to be completed and the duties of the job. This is very common. Employers merely need to add in that they serve everyone equally, without any exception and their staff must adhere to that rule. Serving everyone equally becomes part of their job duties. Then the employer asks if there is anything that my prevent the potential hire from being able to do their job to its full extent. If the employee says yes then they have zero expectation of being able to opt-out in specific situations.

2) Treat religious employees that state objections upon hiring the same way we do under-aged people working in places that serve and sell alcohol. A person of age has to handle that service or sale. Many restaurants have specific bar staff that take drinks to the tables instead of a teenaged wait staff.



In the specific case the woman had been hired before the new policy. Her job duties changed. This is not uncommon in any job I know of. What should have happened is that she should have informed her employer of her belief issue (in the quoted section I don't see where she did this formally). Upon knowledge of her personal conflict the employer should have taken steps to find her a move to a lateral position with similar pay where her beliefs do not conflict with her job duties. During the interim the employer could have worked with other staff to deal with the cases she that caused her conflict. This would have avoided any discrimination against her, by allowing her to continue working without creating conflict, and avoided upsetting other employees who felt she was ducking on her responsibilities, as they would know it was temporary to avoid legal issues for staff and/or homosexual couples who come in.

To me, this sounds like Ms. Ladele was at fault for trying to avoid responsibilities without making a formal statement. If she did notify her employer, then it is a different story, but it doesn't read like that happened.

Ultimately, she is a government employee. You can't work as a representative of government and discriminate at the same time. I'm a government employee and my free political speech rights and rights to state political and religious beliefs contrary to the government/law end at the edge of the parking lot.

 

[squadops]

I thought working for the government and avoiding responsibilities went hand and hand

Seriously though, indeed as a government employee discrimination is one of the last things you'd think of getting away with.

Personally I don't know where a line might be drawn for me in separating my personal life and employment, but it wouldn't be over any of the 4 above's reasons. To be honest I live my life the way I want to and do my best to respect others right to the same. I see many of these social issues as nothing more than one or a group wanting to impose their ways upon another, most of the time I think in my mind "why don't they just shut the hell up already"

I've worked for more than one business where I didn't agree with policies, one even being a small company full of racism which limited business opportunities and put me in awkward situations. So what, it was just a job and at the end of the day I went home to my life with a paycheck. No one asked the lady to marry another lady, I guess is how I look at that, and if she doesn't like providing that service to others, there's the door. People have such thin skins today.

 

[FoolKiller]

Separating personal life and employment is easy. If you are seen as a representative of that employer at the time you need to watch your personal opinion statements. You should also check your employment contract and any forms you sign on being hired, as you may have a clause about the results of outside behavior. This is a big issue in the world of famous people.

 

[squadops]

I meant a line that would force me to leave the job, of course all you just wrote is correct.

 

[FoolKiller]

I meant a line that would force me to leave the job, of course all you just wrote is correct.

That's a hard line to define, but you know it when you see it.

 

[niky]

Personally, if the job demands it, you do it, whatever your belief. This goes for government employees, hospital workers and emergency workers.

You can't just pick and choose the parts you like. Just like you can't go into a medical course declaring: "I don't want to see blood or dead people" as a way of getting out of Anatomy 101.

Shame the woman lost her job, but Foolkiller is right, she should have officially declared her inability to fulfill her role, and sought a lateral transfer.

 

[KSaiyu]

Sorry Christians, you're going to have to go back to older days of 'praying the gay away':

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article4411495.ece

An eminent medical body has been accused of changing its position on the nature of homosexuality, it emerged yesterday, as a conference was held in London to discuss the controversial “gay cure” therapy.

Three leading members of the Royal College of Psychiatrists have been reported to the General Medical Council after it was claimed that they had used “bad science” to propagate the “myth” that sexuality was settled and unchangeable from birth.

It is claimed that after stating homosexuality was “biological in nature and fixed at birth” in evidence submitted to various inquiries, the college had now acknowledged that it was “neither inborn nor unchangeable”.

One of the complainants, Peter May, a retired GP, said that the college had been challenged about the lack of evidence for its prenatal claims of homosexuality.

The formal complaint, from members of the Core Issues Trust, a Christian group that helped to organise the conference, came as it was claimed that therapists were risking their careers if they used “gay cure” or conversion therapy for people who felt that their sexuality was incompatible with their faith.

 

[DK]

Over here, the RCC has threatened to refuse to solemnise a marriage to give it legal standing if the marriage equality referendum passes. Right now I've got a mental image of a baby throwing a golden rattle out of its pram.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Russian Siri initially refused to discuss gay bars. Apple say this was a bug and that they've fixed it.

 

[KSaiyu]

Russian Siri initially refused to discuss gay bars. Apple say this was a bug and that they've fixed it.

If only homophobia was a "bug"

 

[afbarnes]

Not only do they want gay marriage, but gay divorce as well? Give them an inch and they'll take a mile... What's next, gay funerals?

My funeral is going to have glitter cannons and pop music to celebrate my decent in to hell

 

[Mike458]

My funeral is going to have glitter cannons and pop music to celebrate my decent in to hell

I'll take that as well, if there was a hell!

 

[Daniel]

Christian auto shop owner vows to deny service to openly gay customers.

GRANDVILLE, Mich. — The owner of a Michigan auto repair shop says he won’t hesitate “to refuse service to an openly gay person or persons.”

WOOD-TV reports that Brian Klawiter, the owner of Dieseltec in Grandville, posted the statement to his company’s Facebook page on Tuesday because he says the voices of those who have Christian, conservative values are often overshadowed by those who do not.

“I would not hesitate to refuse service to an openly gay person or persons. Homosexuality is wrong, period,” Klawiter wrote. “If you want to argue this fact with me then I will put your vehicle together with all bolts and no nuts and you can see how that works.”

I honestly don't see the problem. Is he bigoted? Yeah. But I think he should be able to do what he wants to. I'd just go somewhere else and strongly suggest that other people do.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Christian auto shop owner vows to deny service to openly gay customers.

If you want to argue this fact with me then I will put your vehicle together with all bolts and no nuts and you can see how that works.

Arguably there are cases where two sets of nuts might be more appropriate.

 

[Daniel]

Arguably there are cases where two sets of nuts might be more appropriate.

He wants all the nuts to himself.

 

[Joel]

I wonder how much money he'll get after there's a counter backlash to the backlash.

 

[squadops]

The Michigan religious freedom restoration act is passed in the state House and waiting on the Senate, it's the same law that's popping up across the nation.

The media loves stirring up the pot leading to behavior like this guys and equally silly behavior on the other side.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Christian auto shop owner vows to deny service to openly gay customers.



I honestly don't see the problem. Is he bigoted? Yeah. But I think he should be able to do what he wants to. I'd just go somewhere else and strongly suggest that other people do.

And in response:

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/04/17/cummins-asks-anti-gay-repair-shop-stop-using-logo/

 

[Mike458]

FINALLY: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7064850

We've been waiting for this to happen, but the Supreme Court is debating whether to legalize gay marriage in all 50 states.

 

[Johnnypenso]

The Michigan religious freedom restoration act is passed in the state House and waiting on the Senate, it's the same law that's popping up across the nation.

The media loves stirring up the pot leading to behavior like this guys and equally silly behavior on the other side.

Pretty sure I heard Rick Snyder on the radio telling the the senate and house not to waste their time because he'll veto any RFRA legislation.

Yup: http://www.freep.com/story/news/pol...-veto-religious-freedom-legislation/70823112/

 

[The McMerc]

I must say I'm surprised at the number of "A problem that needs to be cured" votes. I'm curious to know why people think it's a problem and how they think they're going to "cure" it.

 

[Carbonox]

I must say I'm surprised at the number of "A problem that needs to be cured" votes. I'm curious to know why people think it's a problem and how they think they're going to "cure" it.

The earlier history of this thread definitely had its fair share of angry opponents.