Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
To some extent yes. Discriminating on the basis of skin colour is very similar to discriminating on the basis of sexuality.So random question do you think Churches should be forced to give communion to gays and other supposed sinners?
It's kind of the same principle.
The relevant distinction is when the institution is performing a public service, then protected classes can't be discriminated against in principle. If you are renting part of your house to the public, then yes, you have to let black people apply for that service. Otherwise, this doesn't apply to you. If you are selling something on your property, then yes, you have to let black people use that service. Otherwise, this doesn't apply to you. If you have a prayer service that is open to the public, then you have to let black people attend. Otherwise, this doesn't apply to you. So, if you have a prayer service that is invite only (i.e. friends only), then this doesn't apply to you. Also, since the refusal to remove shoes is not a protected class, then this example doesn't apply. However, if it can be shown that you adopted this policy in order to discriminate against a certain community based on a protected class, then it would be relevant if you're performing a public service. This is the distinction between de jure and de facto discrimination; the former being illegal and the latter being legal. There is no double standard here; this is actually fairly established law, so it shouldn’t be too controversial.So what you're saying is that their moral theology should be ignored in their own institution?
It's kind of setting a double standard to say that gays can do whatever they want in their private lives, and that Christians shouldn't invade their functions and protest, but Christians can't do what they want in their private institutions, and gays are allowed to come in and force them to give them communion.
Does this mean I have to let all black people in my own house too? If it's my house, I should be able to pick and choose who I let into my house.
To me what you're suggesting is like a guest going to a person's house where they remove their shoes before entering the house, but the guest refusing to remove his shoes and insisting he is entitled to wear them in the host's property.
Um... no. You have no control over what color skin you're born with, you most definitely have control over your sexuality. To explain a bit more: I understand that some people are not tempted towards homosexuality while others most definitely are, and that there's a limited at best control over what tempts you. However, the actual act of homosexuality is definitely a choice, which means it's closer to discriminating because someone watches pornography than because they're a different skin color.To some extent yes. Discriminating on the basis of skin colour is very similar to discriminating on the basis of sexuality.
Every reputable psychologist disagrees with you. (SOURCE)Um... no. You have no control over what color skin you're born with, you most definitely have control over your sexuality. To explain a bit more: I understand that some people are not tempted towards homosexuality while others most definitely are, and that there's a limited at best control over what tempts you. However, the actual act of homosexuality is definitely a choice, which means it's closer to discriminating because someone watches pornography than because they're a different skin color.
What is this? I don't even.Um... no. You have no control over what color skin you're born with, you most definitely have control over your sexuality. To explain a bit more: I understand that some people are not tempted towards homosexuality while others most definitely are, and that there's a limited at best control over what tempts you. However, the actual act of homosexuality is definitely a choice, which means it's closer to discriminating because someone watches pornography than because they're a different skin color.
It's not actually, at the end of the day you're discriminating against a person for who they are. By saying "yeah it sucks you're like that, but just ignore it." So in reality what you're saying is these people need to live unhappy lives lying to themselves?I'm not arguing whether the attraction's a choice or not, I'm saying that the actual act is definitely a choice, and that's what I'm calling wrong. This is based on the Bible stating that sex is meant to be only within the bounds of marriage between a man and a woman, so I don't expect you to agree with me. However, I do expect you to understand how it's different from discrimination with respect to race.
The bible mentions rules about slavery and says you can't eat pork or shellfish too... I'm willing to bet you don't follow every part of the bible exactly.I'm not arguing whether the attraction's a choice or not, I'm saying that the actual act is definitely a choice, and that's what I'm calling wrong. This is based on the Bible stating that sex is meant to be only within the bounds of marriage between a man and a woman, so I don't expect you to agree with me. However, I do expect you to understand how it's different from discrimination with respect to race.
Tanning and make-up. Being of a particular skin colour is a lifestyle choice. Being gay is not.Um... no. You have no control over what color skin you're born with, you most definitely have control over your sexuality.
That depends on whether you put up a sign saying, "Communion for WHITES ONLY Inside" or if you actually contact people (who happen to be white) directly and invite them in.Rv- So if I make a church, and invite all white people, does that count as a public service or not?
Gays do not go around ****** children or killing people, like serial killer and paedophiles do. What they do is an expression of love (just ask Stephen Fry). And I don't think it is reasonable to ask them to not engage in sexual activity, just because. We may be asking the same thing of paedophiles and serial killers, but we have a whole lot better reason to. Why ask someone to stop doing something that they enjoy for no good reason at all?Also, saying that asking gays to not act upon their sexuality because it's hard on them is a poor argument because we ask this of many types people, such as pedos and serial killers and we find it reasonable that they manage to do it.
Now of course even if practicing homosexuality is immoral, gays aren't in the same league as killers or pedos, but the point is we ask the same things of them as Christians are asking of gays.
Yeah, but you choose to be a priest. You don't choose to be gay. Who would do that? With all the stigma that they have attached to them, why wouldn't you want to be heterosexual?In fact, Christians ask of their priests and unmarried the same as they ask if gays.
No, it's a sound argument. These people are being discriminated against because of what they are. It's not their fault, and they don't harm anyone so why the hell should we care?I find what they ask totally illogical, inconcistent and in complete conflict with human biology, but the argument from inconvenience is a terrible argument.
If you make it invite only and only invite white people, then this is de facto discrimination and is legal. If you make it open to the public with the condition that only white people are allowed to attend, then this is de jure discrimination and is illegal. However, lets say that you have a really good reason to discriminate on the basis of someone's melanin content, then you can. But no such reason exists for a Church service, so no.Dre. said:Rv- So if I make a church, and invite all white people, does that count as a public service or not?
Heh. Being an Eagle Scout and Assistant Scout Master (way back when) I can attest that this is truth, and harshly overlooked. If you go up for your board of review and are asked "do you believe in God?" and say "No," you will NOT be promoted.So a Catholic church which pays no taxes and is in effect subsidized in part by gays and lesbians, must be open to gays and lesbians. Similarly, the Boy Scouts (a Christian orginization) who receives preferential treatment and free rousources from the state should not be allowed to ban gays and atheists from membership nor leadership position.
Not likely. Like I said earlier, "However, this rule cannot be put into place simply to disproportionately effect said protected class." If it is obvious that you are doing this on purpose, it would be de jure discrimination barring a good reason. This is the same as having it be public with the condition of being white for eligibility. This would be like instead of a firm putting a job listing on a website with said condition, they simply mailed the position to every white person in the country. It would be found in the court to be de jure discrimination. However, let's say that they could prove that they decided that they were going to mail it out to 195,000,000 people and they did so randomly. If they randomly selected just about every white person in the country, and they could prove this, then it would be legal. However, the odds of that happening by chance would be so small that, barring evidence to the contrary, it would be "proof" of de jure discrimination.Rv- So if I send invites to every white person in the country, is that allowed?
Yes. However, local origin is not a protected class, so it is legal to discriminate on that basis. National origin, however, is a protected class so it is illegal to discriminate on that basis. If you said that people from Mexico were not invited, then that would be illegal.What if the mayor of a town displays a public notice saying that everyone in the town is invited to a party. Is that discrimination against people who don't live in the town?
I find this odd that all non-Christians would be at risk when there are awards in the areas of Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, and Unitarian Churches. It seems like it would be an easy thing to track. Just curious, did you join the Order of the Arrow? Given the emphasis on Indian Lore, I would have thought any mention of God would have referred to Mother Earth and had pantheistic origins rather than to the Christian deity. This is to say, ignoring the active discrimination that has gone on, which is deeply disappointing to me and warrants the loss of any public privileges.Sucumbrio said:As it turns out, we had a few members in our troop that were neither straight, nor christian. They still got promoted, but only so long as they kept the truth of themselves quiet.
Well it's good you point that out because in point of fact the BSA has an answer for everything (kinda like the Catholics).I find this odd that all non-Christians would be at risk when there are awards in the areas of Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, and Unitarian Churches. It seems like it would be an easy thing to track. Just curious, did you join the Order of the Arrow? Given the emphasis on Indian Lore, I would have thought any mention of God would have referred to Mother Earth and had pantheistic origins rather than to the Christian deity. This is to say, ignoring the active discrimination that has gone on, which is deeply disappointing to me and warrants the loss of any public privileges.
Uh, I'm not sure why you addressed me with this, I don't think I said anything to evoke this response? ... but to answer your question (which seems rhetorical) I would not pick someone who enjoyed child porn, and I'd question the grounds on which their being "better" was based.Hey Succumbio, if you had two candidates for a boy scout leader, but the better one was known to be an avid watcher of child pornography, would you still pick him? I'm pretty sure that 90% of parents wouldn't. Also, I condemn homosexuality on the same grounds I condemn pornography, in that the Bible condemns it, and I believe that to be the word of God.
uh, sure! But of course there's "sin" and then there's sin. I mean, chocolate, it's -sinful-. Hah. Being gay isn't a sin. Acting on being gay is a sin (to some faiths) ... to the Catholics, acting on your gay impulses is a sin and must be confessed. Then you can take communion. If you go out that night and do it again, you can confess again, and take communion... again. It's a rigorous cycle being a Catholic. Kinda makes one wonder what the point is, but that's for another discussion methinks.Also, the question about sin depends on the attitude. If someone is legitimately struggling with pornography or whatever, then I'll pray for them and hope they can overcome it, and they'd be accepted at just about any church. If they're sneaking off in the middle of service to look at pornography, then they're clearly not repentant and definitely shouldn't be in any sort of leadership position.
Wow, I was going to stay out of this one, but this is ****ing ridiculous.And the point about the child pornography question was that he wasn't actually hurting anyone, so by (your? someone used it) argument you should pick him
I'm just telling you the law. It's probably because protected classes are added once its recognized to be a problem. For example, it is legal to discriminate job applicants on the basis of eye color since that's not a protected class. However, if this started happening, it would probably be added as a protected class. It's not a protected class simply because there's no tradition of it happening (law is usually reactionary). However, race and national origin are protected classes because people are actually discriminated on that basis. If people were discriminated based on their local town, then that might warrant adding.Dre. said:Rv- The distinction between local and national discrimination seems pretty arbitrary to me.
So I looked this up, and was confused to see that the lines in the bible that people use as an excuse to be bigots is also in Leviticus. Can you explain to me what distinguishes the "commands for Israelites back then" and the lines you're using?@blazed
If you'd bothered to look at the context, you'd know that the books of Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (and the ones with the other similar commands) were specifically commands for Israelites back then and no longer apply.
I do not disagree, and this analysis is applicable to Catholics as well as most Protestants (though there are several Protestant churches that do not discriminate against gays).1. Christianity only condemns the act (as well as lusting, aka: daydreaming about it) of homosexuality which is definitely a choice. It does not condemn being tempted towards it which you can't really control.
Well... okay. But...2. Using the above definition, Christianity's condemnation of homosexuality is much like Christianity's condemnation of pornography, and is nothing like racism as some posters have been suggesting.
Alright, well I've never heard this as the argument against homosexuality from the bible. That being said, let me ask this. If someone were married under a different religion and has sex is this considered adultery? If not, and 2 gay people are married by a different church, is them having sex still considered adultery?@blazedaces
I don't recall anything specifically directed at homosexuality off the top of my head, it's mainly that (just from new testament stuff), the Bible condemns sex outside of marriage (which is split into the two cases of adultery and fornication), and marriage is almost always referred to as being between a man and a woman. So yeah, if people are using only Leviticus as a source, they need to change their reference. Anything else?
If a man and a woman happened to be married under a different religion, then I'd say it was fine. However, marriage is by definition between a man and a woman, so in the gay example you gave I'd wouldn't consider it to be marriage, and consider the act of sex to be fornication.Alright, well I've never heard this as the argument against homosexuality from the bible. That being said, let me ask this. If someone were married under a different religion and has sex is this considered adultery? If not, and 2 gay people are married by a different church, is them having sex still considered adultery?
-blazed
Yes, but realistically I don't see any politician being able to pull it off. At least not in today's American culture.I'm seeing a lot of posts about whether or not it's consistent within a religion's own dogma to discriminate agaist gays, but nothing to do with legal matters. The question about whether or not gays should be allowed the right to attend church services seems to be completely a legal issue, not a theological one.
And as far as I'm concerned, you can't simulataneously claim to be tax emempt and also discriminatory organization. Do we have consensus that churches should either lose their tax exempt status in the US or else be forced to give full undiscriminated service to every willing member of the public?
I just want to point out Dre that you have never once in the debate hall defined the word natural properly. It's pretty obvious that Sucumbio's use of the word varies greatly with whatever you mean by it.Sucumbio- Just want to point out that an appeal to nature is really only an appal to human nature, not animal nature.
For example one could say that because animals like dolphins and bonobos have social sex, we should too. However, on biology alone this doesn't work. Unlike those animals humans don't have a way of having sex without the chance of procreation (without any artificial means, we're talking about biology here remeber).
Even the idea of pulling out doesn'y apply because that's not natural, in fact the opposite is what's natural.
So I'm not saying sex can't be done casually, that's another debate, but you can't make that argument by analogy to the animal kingdom because the analogy turns out to be quite weak.
Churches survived just fine until 1954 when they were granted tax immunity:Is that really practical? The tax-exempt status is one of the necessary cogs for any religion to maintain its practice, since churches and holy men survive on donations, which is the only realistic way for them to continue their practice. Taxing churches is more like retaxing religious taxpayers.