The thread where you couldn't be bothered posting the article

[JimC]

There isn't actually an article to accompany this, which is actually one of the reasons I am posting about it. On Monday night on a popular national Q&A type program on the national broadcaster there was a discussion about the impending legalisation of gay marriage here in Australia. Politicians from both sides of the divide stated that the State isn't interested in forcing religious organisations to marry gays if it goes against their (the churches) religious beliefs. Contrast this to the news we often hear out of the US where the State is essentially forcing cake makers etc to have to do things against their religious beliefs. The interesting thing was that there weren't any raised eyebrows about this at all. It's apparently perfectly reasonable in our fairly atheistic country to not give a shit about discrimination via fairy tale. And to tell the truth, I initially didn't give much of a shit about this, as I figured - What gays are going to want to get married by a bigoted organisation? But I've since found out that there are a not insignificant number of religious gays. Some of which want to have a religious wedding. Fuck knows why they have anything to do with religion, but that's their decision. Regarding non-religious organisations, I"m not sure what the law is in regards to refusing service here in Australia. I'd assume it is illegal to refuse service to gays on religious grounds. Strange if so, as that would be a clear case of the State forcing organisations (and people) to do things against their religious beliefs.

I have no objection to any religion saying that they won't marry gays in a religious service. Even though I think it reflects their narrow-minded prejudice, they have that right not to make their woo available to all. But many of the religions are agitating for a ban on gay marriage in general, at which point they need to be told to fuck off.

As far as other service providers being forced to treat gays equally to others, no matter what their particular woo is, of course they fucking should.

[pErvinalia]

So why shouldn't churches be forced to treat gays equally then?

[JimC]

So why shouldn't churches be forced to treat gays equally then?

Basically because they are not providing a service in the same way a doctor does, they are just doing meaningless woo, and I don't think they should be forced to do their meaningless woo on gays. They have always had the right to say "we'll only marry you if at least one of you is a catholic" for example, and I don't think there's any point in fighting that.

But services which anybody needs, like medical, legal, governmental or retail should be available to all without exceptions.

[pErvinalia]

I personally am not going to fight for any right to some religious ceremonial wibble, but if some gays want to have a religious marriage and can't, then discrimination is going on. It seems wrong to me to say some segments of society can be forced to do something against their will and other segments aren't.

[JimC]

I personally am not going to fight for any right to some religious ceremonial wibble, but if some gays want to have a religious marriage and can't, then discrimination is going on. It seems wrong to me to say some segments of society can be forced to do something against their will and other segments aren't.

I think christian gays would be pretty damn silly to belong to a homophobic denomination when there are many liberal churches that are quite happy to have gay members, and marry them once it becomes legal...

[pErvinalia]

You can't legislate against stupidity..

[JimC]

Basically, it seems pointless to agitate for such a stupid "right"

[Hermit]

So why shouldn't churches be forced to treat gays equally then?

They do treat them equally, darling. All gays are equally excluded by the RCC from availing themselves to the holy sacrament of the union between a man and a woman.

More seriously, churches are not cake shops. They promote and enforce their own respective dogmata. It's their raison d'être. Membership is explicitly exclusive. For instance, my mother could not get married under the auspices of the RCC, and she was not even gay. The fact that she was a divorcee and her first husband was still alive disqualified her from the church's services even though she regarded herself as a Roman Catholic.

[pErvinalia]

This really goes to the special privilege religion has in our societies. Although, it's not going to change any time soon I guess.

[Hermit]

This really goes to the special privilege religion has in our societies. Although, it's not going to change any time soon I guess.

Religion definitely has special privileges, but you can't cite the refusal to conduct same sex marriage ceremonies as an example. You can only be a member of a church if you agree with and obey their dogmata. Promoting and enforcing their own respective dogmata is, as I mentioned, their raison d'être. Bit like a club, really. Clubs are free to choose who they will admit as members an whom they will bless with the benefits of their services. For example, when I arrived in Australia my father could not become a member of the RSL if he tried even though he was a war veteran. Having fought as a member of the Wehrmacht was not sufficient qualification.

[pErvinalia]

Well there are lgbti who belong to various churches. Although, they might have to remain in the closet for all I know.

[Hermit]

Well there are lgbti who belong to various churches. Although, they might have to remain in the closet for all I know.

My mother felt she belonged to the RCC. The church never formally disagreed. It just said she did not qualify for marriage under the auspices of the RCC because she broke one of their dogmata, and adherence to church dogma is what it takes to be a full member of a church Churches are like clubs; Full membership, and the resultant entitlement to the full range of its services are conditional. Cake makers don't have that recourse in order to refuse service.

[Svartalf]

I just wonder if the priest across the street would give me communion after all these years out of the fold... at any rate, I don't need the "services" of the RCC or any other church...

[JimC]

I just wonder if the priest across the street would give me communion after all these years out of the fold... at any rate, I don't need the "services" of the RCC or any other church...

He would kill the fatted calf if a lost sheep like you returned to the fold...

[Seth]

You can't legislate against stupidity..

Are you kidding? Of course we can. The problem occurs when we DON'T restrict ourselves to legislating against stupidity and start legislating against differences of opinion.