California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban

[maximdewinter]

Quote by: Sonart . During the summer and fall of 2007, I got into an extended debate over this issue -- on another board. I had all the other liberals going berzerk because I was arguing that, since it was vitally important for Democrats to win the mid-term elections, and since anthropologically, marriage is -- in fact -- entirely about procreation, it might be better to not push the issue of gay marriage that year, lest we drive conservatives to the polls, and put it off for another time. Well, it's another time. Yes, I can make an extended anthropological case that the tradition of marriage is historically about procreation, and therefore the conservative argument against gay marriage is based on a certain grain of truth. But the bottom line is that the United States is not a theology... it is a secular, pluralistic, Constitutional republic that guarantees equal treatment of the law to all its citizens, and with this latest Court ruling, the time has come to make that clear. Baptism, Communion, Penance and Death are sacraments too, and one would expect them to be available without discrimination. I doubt that gays take the Sacrament of Marriage any less seriously than anyone else, and a majority of Americans have come to accept the idea. It's time for the devout to accept that the Civil Rights movement has seeped into every corner of America, that we can't eliminate one form of bigotry while accepting others. Who knows, maybe one day we'll even get an openly declared Atheist elected to public office. I have no problem with folks saying whatever pops into their heads. I just have a problem with acting on those ideas when it calls for denying people equal treatment for no good reason. You don't see a difference with speech and action? .

My first post in this thread:

Quote by: maxim I think that gays should be permitted to have unions in all 50 states, I think women should receive equal pay for equal work and also some of my best friends are white people. OK? But there is a problem with allowing gay marriages and that problem must be addressed before any of this goes any further.

And then I went to the potential problem of the politics of anti-harassment laws being used against people for their religious beliefs. Once again, my problem with gay marriages isn't the gay marriage--- it is the way we have structured our world to punish people for not being PC and stifle speech. If I were against gay marriage (for any reason) I would want to say it and not fear losing my job.(side note: I also don't like the concept of increased punishment during the commission of a crime for the use of hate speech. I think it is absurd and Orwellian.)

You and I have no problem with folks saying whatever comes into their heads. But in this age of gotcha anybody can be reamed at any time for an unfortunate turn of phrase (e.g. hillary this week with her RFK comment, Obama's wife "the first time I have ever been proud of America" and so on and so.) The entire OJ verdict in the 90's turned on Mark Fuhrman's overheard use of the word "nigger" at some time in his past.

Some may say this is a silly concern of mine. I don't think it is. I think that PC has squelched freedom of speech at a large percentage of universities in the US. It has been used to fire professors and administrators if they don't tow the "correct line."

And yes as I said in the polygamy/stoning example above speech and action are two completely different things.

[Jack]

I think that PC has squelched freedom of speech at a large percentage of universities in the US. It has been used to fire professors and administrators if they don't tow the "correct Line."

I agree. It's an unfortunate result of our litigious nature and the belief that too many people have that they are protected by law from being made uncomfortable. Now the Muslims want to prosecute people for blasphemy. It appears to be a situation that's getting worse. I can only hope that it will quickly reach a point of total ridiculousness and people can once again express their opinions, no matter how unpopular.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: sonart Well, it's another time. Yes, I can make an extended anthropological case that the tradition of marriage is historically about procreation, and therefore the conservative argument against gay marriage is based on a certain grain of truth.

This truth is inapplicable though. Overpopulation makes this "truth" obsolete.

That truth helps our argument.

Who knows, maybe one day we'll even get an openly declared Atheist elected to public office.

Hah. That's going to take a while.
Start with an agnostic. In fact other religions have a better chance getting office then an atheist.

It sucks, but it's true.

Quote by: maximdewinter it is the way we have structured our world to punish people for not being PC and stifle speech. If I were against gay marriage (for any reason) I would want to say it and not fear losing my job.(side note: I also don't like the concept of increased punishment during the commission of a crime for the use of hate speech. I think it is absurd and Orwellian.)

Ya, but how do you differentiate speaking out against gay marriage and calling a minority worker a [insert any racist word].

Oh and I don't mind you voicing your descent, I just disagree with you.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: maximdewinter What irony? Why don't you try clarity next time. Oh BTW when you want to add an ironic touch or double meaning that does not come through the screen try one of these I still have no idea who "my guys" are. The firemen? The Founders? The religious people? Irony can also be the opposite meaning of what is stated. Did you mean "your guys" when you you wrote "my guys." You need an editor. Oh wait a second...you need an editor

Those quotes were invented before smilies for exactly that purpose. And it was irony of the sarcastic kind ( or more simply, verbal irony) that should have been clear, since I pretty much slapped you in the face with the fact that I believed the action of the professors was stupid. At the risk of reducing this to off topic bickering, do you need clarity or spoon-feeding of ideas? And, ummm..."your guys" would have been the firefighters.

Quote by: maximdewinter I'm not saying anything of the sort. There is no hidden meaning here. I'm saying that religious people (granted freedom of religion) should be able to tell other people (freedom of speech) what it is they believe without any interference from the government (anti-harassment laws). Of course private companies can tell you not to have religious proselytizing in the break room.I already said that.

So, Mr. Clarity, since the examples you quoted involved no legal action (an internal harassment complaint duly investigated and dismissed and the break room hypothetical), how is the government involved?

Quote by: maximdewinter You are putting the word "preach" in my mouth. I never said "preach." What I have said now twice is that someone in the break room making a comment about believing gay marriage is against the will of God could be in trouble. Is that "preaching?" Read my previous posts in threads and you should have no trouble understanding me either.

If he is saying it to someone who does not share his belief and they report it to management, then that is pretty much the issue I was addressing when it comes to the private company. If he was saying it to someone who did agree with him, but in tones loud enough to be overheard, and someone reported it, same deal. Call it preaching, call it political advocacy...I don't care. The private company has the right to ban such behavior on company property and especially on company time. I have had jobs where they flat out told employees to keep those opinions to themselves. Anti-war rhetoric, flat-tax rhetoric, religious rhetoric; it does not matter.

Now, if the same individual wrote it in a book and offered it for sale to the public, it is protected. If he said it from the pulpit in his church or offered the opinion in Bible study, protected. If he offered the opinion at a political rally, protected. If he typed it on his computer on his blog, protected. That is the freedom of religious expression coupled with the freedom of speech we all enjoy.

Again, try not to confuse public sanction with government action. I am free to think that anyone who believes gays are ruining marriage is a jerk. Your freedom to believe it, or support those who believe it does not entitle you to be free of my displeasure, or the expressions of my displeasure. It does not free you to state that opinion anywhere, at anytime, under any circumstances. If you say it in the break room and the company you work for has a policy that says this can lead to disciplinary action, that is not an attack on your religious freedom or your freedom of expression, because it is not government sponsored, legal action. It is part of your "At Will" employment contract. ( Those aren't ironic quotes, those are special use quotation marks, for the sake of clarity.) Now, explain again how the examples you gave are examples of government saction that harms freedom of religion or freedom of expression?

[another day]

Quote by: Winter wind Start with an agnostic. In fact other religions have a better chance getting office then an atheist. It sucks, but it's true..

Hah, I wonder, who has a better chance in america, an open atheist, or an open muslim?

[Winter wind]

That's a hard one. About equal, but maybe Muslim would be slightly less derogatory. Atheists are literally Godless, so they have a lesser chance...i think.

[maximdewinter]

lsbskins1 ,
I will lay it out for you in a clear manner.
There will be no irony. Words and concepts that I consider to be important will be bold.


The California decision just happened. There may be consequences which follow that will occur in the future. The reason those consequences may occur is because of the different way those who are anti-gay marriage may be treated.

Now that the California court has ruled that laws against same-sex marriage are the SAME as laws against interracial marriage, anti same-sex marriage adherents may now be treated as bigots subject to anti-harassment laws for voicing their objections based on their religious belief. Most of those anti-harassment laws have to do with the workplace but there may also be an effect on anti-discrimination laws in housing too.

That is a new development. You and other people on this board may have had this same opinion for years but the difference is that now that opinion is codified as law in the state of California.

Since this law is new nothing has happened yet. But there are issues that IMO must be addressed. The firemen in San Diego feared for their jobs when they refused to be used as props in a political pro-gay rally. A librarian at OSU feels a feels a chilling effect, possibly facing action or firing, for recommending a book on traditional marriage. No, it's true, the firemen were not fired and librarian wasn't either. But that does not mean that there isn't a potential problem. Had the court venue or judge been different or had tons of money been thrown at it by a activist benefactor or organization the outcome might have been different.

We live in an age of absurd lawsuits. Our legal system has become like a circus. As I said at the start of this thread and will say again, constitutional conflicts regarding religious liberty and free speech need to be headed off now.

It is my opinion that by denying this problem the gay movement will be set back by years. Right now referenda in states show an overwhelming majority of voters do not favor same sex marriage. Don't you think that by assuring those voters that they won't have a permanent gag order about the subject on same sex marriage you would be helping your cause?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Winter wind This truth is inapplicable though. Overpopulation makes this "truth" obsolete.

I absolutely agree with you, Winter. It affects the whole concept of the "sanctity" of life.

Another example; Dr. assisted suicide or Death with Dignity. Medical science has made it possible for people to be kept alive far beyond what people might figuratively or literally consider 'living', but the religious ideology that "Life is Sacred" is incapable of comprehending that. So not only are the dying being kept alive far longer than they'd actually wish, it's become a massive weight on our economy.

It's become a case in which well-intended but obsolete religious ideology has become both cruel and immoral. Same with Abortion and Stem cell research. When gawd knows we really don't need to be fruitful and multiply, the idea of forcing women to bear unwanted, unloved children (when research even shows that not doing so even reduces crime) strikes me as equally cruel and immoral.

And so does discrimination against gays strike me as cruel and immoral.

Quote by: maximdewinter it is the way we have structured our world to punish people for not being PC and stifle speech.

I'm unclear exactly where this discussion jumped the track and shifted from whether or not gays should be permitted to marry to stopping people from expressing their opinions. Who exactly is suggesting denying the religious their rights to express their opinions? Certainly not me.

Any more than I can stop someone from expressing their opinion that women should remain in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant or that blacks are inferior to whites. But what they can't do is deny anyone their equal, legal civil rights.

Quote by: maximdewinter The California decision just happened. There may be consequences which follow that will occur in the future. The reason those consequences may occur is because of the different way those who are anti-gay marriage may be treated.

So you're already inventing future harassment that hasn't happened yet? How does anyone respond to that? "I pledge not to harass any Christian for simply expressing their opinion" ???

Quote by: maximdewinter anti same-sex marriage adherents may now be treated as bigots subject to anti-harassment laws for voicing their objections based on their religious belief.

Number one, what laws are those? Anyone can express an opinion against interracial marriage. That's free speech. They simply can't prevent an interracial marriage based simply on their beliefs.

Number two, far more than racism, the religious were dead set against the liberation of women because of their religious beliefs. The Bible is chock full of anti-feminism.

Yet although it took a while, the religious somehow got over it. They're still perfectly free to express their opinions on what women should and shouldn't be doing, but they can't deny women their equal rights.

Number three, while Christians may claim their revulsion of homosexuality is Biblically based, I suspect it has more to do the with same "Ick"factor that is generally the source of most opposition to homosexuality... it makes hetero's feel "icky" to think about homosexual sex. And I suspect this because, as with the liberation of women, the Bible says SO MANY THINGS that are incompatable with modern civilization and which Christians conveniently ignore and can rationalize ignoring.

So as with the equality of women, the religious are simply going to have to "Get over it" and accept that in the modern world, gays are equal to everyone else.

Quote by: maximdewinter We live in an age of absurd lawsuits. Our legal system has become like a circus. As I said at the start of this thread and will say again, constitutional conflicts regarding religious liberty and free speech need to be headed off now.

So how about we worry about that if and when it happens, instead of predicting the worst.

After all, as much as anyone, it's the religious who have the reputation for harassing those they disagree with, not the other way around. Perhaos they're worried that the centuries of self-righteous intolerance will be turned on them?

.

[maximdewinter]

Quote by: Sonart . I'm unclear exactly where this discussion jumped the track and shifted from whether or not gays should be permitted to marry to stopping people from expressing their opinions. Who exactly is suggesting denying the religious their rights to express their opinions? Certainly not me. .

If I were to answer this it would mean repeating what I have written for a third time which means I'm either not making it clear enough or something else is going on. Here, let some others have their say about this issue of religious liberty in conflict with the law and hope they can do a better job at adumbrating the issue (you like that one nono?):

California: Impact on religious liberty » GetReligion

or
Gay marriage debate includes questions of religious liberty | csmonitor.com

But don't bother reading these lengthy articles if the subject of First Amendment Rights doesn't interest you.

England is tackling a similar problem too:
[COLOR=#666666]Pro-Gay Legislation Fuels Concerns Over England's Anti-Faith Trend | Christianpost.com[/COLOR]

[Sonart]

.

California: Impact on religious liberty » GetReligion

--"For if orientation is like race, then people who oppose gay marriage will be treated under law like bigots who opposed interracial marriage. Sure, we don’t arrest people for being racists, but the law does intervene in powerful ways to punish and discourage racial discrimination, not only by government but also by private entities."--

Like what? The law only punishes you if you act on your bigotry by denying someone their civil rights. As I pointed out before, the last time politics and religion crossed so forcefully was not regarding the issue of race, but of gender. The Religious Right had very clear instructions from God on the proper role of women and their appropriate subjugation to men, and it didn't involve social and economic equality, and certainly not allowing them authority over men.

And yet here we are. Anyone can predict gloom and doom. But once folks see that equality for gays does not bring about the end of civilization as we know it -- just as since gays have come out of hiding over the last few decades, average Americans have found them to be , except for that one little thing, perfectly normal -- they'll eventually get over what once seemed an insurmountable division.

Gay marriage debate includes questions of religious liberty

Again, they're making dramatic speculations that even the author doesn't actually think are a problem.

--"Some experts express similar concerns, while others dismiss them as without merit, given constitutional guarantees of religious liberty."--

--"Eventually, gay couples might also seek "protection against church bodies in employment or enrollment decisions, in clerical appointment decisions, associational decisions with schools, charities, etc.," he adds."--

Oh NO! How awful!!!

--"There is wide agreement that a minister, priest, or rabbi has the discretion to decide whom they will marry, and cannot be forced to perform any service."--

--"Many religions won't perform interfaith marriages," says Erwin Chemerinsky, a law professor at the University of Southern California. "The law would never force anyone to perform either a civil union or same-sex marriage ... All the constitution would say is that the right to have civil unions is protected in the state."--

--"Dr. Chemerinsky insists... "I cannot imagine any circumstance in which the government would force, coerce, pressure religious entities to recognize same-sex marriages or civil unions," he says.

Proponents of gay marriage have taken pains to distinguish between civil marriage and religious marriage. They are pressing for civil rights, they say, which will not interfere with the right of religious bodies to follow their own teachings, as Catholics do on divorce. Of course, that doesn't preclude groups in churches from pressing for change from within."--

Given your lack of concern about the rights of one group, you seem inordinately concerned about a not very real threat to the rights of another. Remember, not all religions have problems with gays... just the most conservative. If they have to live with the cloud of being labeled bigots swirling about them, that's unfortunate but hardly a major threat to their freedom...

and besides... they ARE bigots, after all.

Pro-Gay Legislation Fuels Concerns Over England's Anti-Faith Trend | Christianpost.com

And given the source of this report, I suspect that we're not getting the full story.

.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: maximdewinter If I were to answer this it would mean repeating what I have written for a third time which means I'm either not making it clear enough or something else is going on. Here, let some others have their say about this issue of religious liberty in conflict with the law and hope they can do a better job at adumbrating the issue (you like that one nono?): California: Impact on religious liberty » GetReligion or Gay marriage debate includes questions of religious liberty | csmonitor.com But don't bother reading these lengthy articles if the subject of First Amendment Rights doesn't interest you. England is tackling a similar problem too: [COLOR=#666666]Pro-Gay Legislation Fuels Concerns Over England's Anti-Faith Trend | Christianpost.com[/COLOR]

I will take the last, first. The Church of England is, essentially, the official state church of England (hence, the name) and is a completely different kettle of fish than any church in American. There is an official relationship between Church and State there and that necessitates a more coordinated relationship. So, we can really just ignore those issues, as they will not repeat here.

As to the other articles...they were not necessary for me, as they make the same arguments you make, and I did understand the argument you are making. When it comes down to brass tacks, religious people are afraid of...dum da dum...social sanction and not legal sanction. One of the articles expressed concern that preachers/clergymen will conform to, not legal requirements, but congregational pressure, to perform same sex marriages. That would be the Church body and not the law, affecting policy. How is that some legal chilling affect on religious freedom. They also talked about concerns that they will be viewed as bigots. Well, so? If the shoe fits. I view people who see black people as less evolved or immoral as bigots, but I can't have them arrested for it. This is still all about fearing social sanction. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

[Maryjane]

Quote by: Sonart . I absolutely agree with you, Winter. It affects the whole concept of the "sanctity" of life. Another example; Dr. assisted suicide or Death with Dignity. Medical science has made it possible for people to be kept alive far beyond what people might figuratively or literally consider 'living', but the religious ideology that "Life is Sacred" is incapable of comprehending that. So not only are the dying being kept alive far longer than they'd actually wish, it's become a massive weight on our economy. It's become a case in which well-intended but obsolete religious ideology has become both cruel and immoral. Same with Abortion and Stem cell research. When gawd knows we really don't need to be fruitful and multiply, the idea of forcing women to bear unwanted, unloved children (when research even shows that not doing so even reduces crime) strikes me as equally cruel and immoral. And so does discrimination against gays strike me as cruel and immoral. I'm unclear exactly where this discussion jumped the track and shifted from whether or not gays should be permitted to marry to stopping people from expressing their opinions. Who exactly is suggesting denying the religious their rights to express their opinions? Certainly not me. Any more than I can stop someone from expressing their opinion that women should remain in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant or that blacks are inferior to whites. But what they can't do is deny anyone their equal, legal civil rights. So you're already inventing future harassment that hasn't happened yet? How does anyone respond to that? "I pledge not to harass any Christian for simply expressing their opinion" ??? Number one, what laws are those? Anyone can express an opinion against interracial marriage. That's free speech. They simply can't prevent an interracial marriage based simply on their beliefs. Number two, far more than racism, the religious were dead set against the liberation of women because of their religious beliefs. The Bible is chock full of anti-feminism. Yet although it took a while, the religious somehow got over it. They're still perfectly free to express their opinions on what women should and shouldn't be doing, but they can't deny women their equal rights. Number three, while Christians may claim their revulsion of homosexuality is Biblically based, I suspect it has more to do the with same "Ick"factor that is generally the source of most opposition to homosexuality... it makes hetero's feel "icky" to think about homosexual sex. And I suspect this because, as with the liberation of women, the Bible says SO MANY THINGS that are incompatable with modern civilization and which Christians conveniently ignore and can rationalize ignoring. So as with the equality of women, the religious are simply going to have to "Get over it" and accept that in the modern world, gays are equal to everyone else. So how about we worry about that if and when it happens, instead of predicting the worst. After all, as much as anyone, it's the religious who have the reputation for harassing those they disagree with, not the other way around. Perhaos they're worried that the centuries of self-righteous intolerance will be turned on them? .

Excellent post Sonart...take a bow! I applaud you.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: sonart And so does discrimination against gays strike me as cruel and immoral.

I was going for illogical, but discrimination against gays is those things too.

Quote by: maximdewinter England is tackling a similar problem too: [COLOR=#666666]Pro-Gay Legislation Fuels Concerns Over England's Anti-Faith Trend | Christianpost.com[/COLOR]

I'll argue this one. The others are properly covered by sonart, and ibskins.

Removing my personal opinions from the situation, this is a hard to solve issue (From a logical stand point)

Stopping the Church from preaching against homosexuality infringes on the Churches rights, however, the homosexuals that heard a flaming speech damning homosexuals would be subject to mental injury and possibly physical injury for something that beyond their control.

There shouldn't be a law banning a church from discriminating against gays verbally, and this is for logical reasons.

If you ban a church from discriminating, the ones who would care would ignore the law and piggyback a full news cycle furthering their cause when they are "prosecuted" by the justice system. What they would lose in legal losses, they would more then make up for in media attention.

If you don't ban the church from discriminate and the church speaks out, its just another reminder that these hypocritical Bible thumpers (Ignore the part where it says people should eat kosher) are a dying breed that don't deserve to go out with a bang, but rather to drift into bland obscurity.

However, that had nothing to do with the affirmation of homosexual marriage itself.

[maximdewinter]

Quote by: Sonart So how about we worry about that if and when it happens, instead of predicting the worst. After all, as much as anyone, it's the religious who have the reputation for harassing those they disagree with, not the other way around. Perhaos they're worried that the centuries of self-righteous intolerance will be turned on them?

.

Quote by: Maryjane Excellent post Sonart...take a bow! I applaud you.

So it's really about payback with you two isn't it. Am I detecting an anti-religion bias with that?

However, as far as I am concerned it is a freedom issue. Pardon me if I am an avid fan of freedom. I think people should be free to marry whomever they please. I think that people should be allowed to believe whatever they want to believe. And I think that anyone should be able to say whatever they want without some sort of police coming to prevent them

Also pardon me, call me a "worrier", for investigating what happens when freedoms collide as they sometimes do. I have the freedom to be free in my personal effects thanks to the 4th Amendment yet why is the man at the airport legally able to rifle through my suitcase without any "probable cause."? Well..it's because there are many other laws on the books which chip away at the basic freedom that I don't want get into right now.

IMO it all begins here:

Harassment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In 1964, the United States Congress passed Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, , prohibiting discrimination at work on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin and sex. This later became the legal basis for early harassment law.

that was the vital step required before hate speech laws could be written:

Hate speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity and any other distinction-liability.

Will there ever be a time when speech content itelf will be punishable? If you attend some universities or belong to some trade unions and other organizations that time is already here in the form of speech codes. Yes you can be punished by expulsion for violation of those speech codes. As I've stated for the nth time, government has passed anti-harassment and anti-discrimination laws which can be used as tools for the stifling of free speech and freedom of religion. The entire "civilized' (ironic) West is entering into a new dark age of suppressed speech where there once was freedom. Here is a list from wiki and whenever you see "racial hatred" consider how easily the line blurs into "same sex marriage hatred" once a concept like "anti interracial marriage adherents and anti same sex marriage adherents are found by the courts to be the SAME--they are bigots."

# In the United Kingdom, incitement to racial hatred is an offence under the Public Order Act 1986 with a maximum sentence of up to seven years imprisonment.

#In Germany, Volksverhetzung (incitement of hatred against a minority under certain conditions) is a punishable offense under Section 130 of the Strafgesetzbuch (Germany's criminal code) and can lead to up to five years imprisonment.

# In Canada, advocating genocide or inciting hatred against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offense under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum terms of two to fourteen years.

# In Brazil, according to the 1988 Brazilian Constitution, racism and other forms of race-related hate speech are "imprescriptible crime(s) with no right to bail to its accused"

So after reading those items can somebody rationally assure me that my concerns about this are completely unfounded and silly?

[Maryjane]

So it's really about payback with you two isn't it. Am I detecting an anti-religion bias with that?

And so what if you are? You are all about freedom right? Am I not allowed to express my opinion? The religious persecution complex makes me laugh. You'd be happer if everyone shut up and let the religious go on with their nosey business as usual.

Pardon me if I want to be in control of my womb. Pardon me if I want to have sex with a consentual adult partner of my choosing. Pardon me if I want to die with dignity.

I appreciate Sonart's reply because every day I wake up a male dominated world and I'm sick to death of being treated like a pair of tits and a vagina. Thankfully, that's changing. I wish the same changes for my homosexual friends who wish to marry and live in harmony like the rest of us heterosexuals. Yes, it's all about freedom.

[maximdewinter]

Quote by: Maryjane And so what if you are? You are all about freedom right? Am I not allowed to express my opinion? The religious persecution complex makes me laugh. You'd be happer if everyone shut up and let the religious go on with their nosey business as usual. Pardon me if I want to be in control of my womb. Pardon me if I want to have sex with a consentual adult partner of my choosing. Pardon me if I want to die with dignity. I appreciate Sonart's reply because every day I wake up a male dominated world and I'm sick to death of being treated like a pair of tits and a vagina. Thankfully, that's changing. I wish the same changes for my homosexual friends who wish to marry and live in harmony like the rest of us heterosexuals. Yes, it's all about freedom.

I didn't say you're not allowed to express your opinion, to the contrary if you've actually read my posts in this thread. I was merely pointing out the anti religious tone so thick in can be knife cut. You're allowed to be anti religious and say so. Can't I point it out that you are?

If you are tired of being treated like a pair of tits and vagina you might try growing a set of balls. I could put you in touch with my wife.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: maximdewinter I'm not saying anything of the sort. There is no hidden meaning here. I'm saying that religious people (granted freedom of religion) should be able to tell other people (freedom of speech) what it is they believe without any interference from the government (anti-harassment laws). Of course private companies can tell you not to have religious proselytizing in the break room.I already said that.

If it was the KKK asking for separate rest rooms for blacks and whites through the guise of preachers what would your stance be? If you really truly mean what you said that's pretty brave and I won't try to change your mind, but stop for a moment and ponder what you're getting into.

EDIT: And did you just totally edit your post around while I was replying to it?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: maximdewinter So it's really about payback with you two isn't it.

I'm not the one predicting a backlash against Christians, maxim. You are.

Quote by: maximdewinter Am I detecting an anti-religion bias with that?

I wouldn't be surprised, although if you've read any of my many, many posts in the Philosophy & Religion board you'd see that I'm considerably more understanding of the religious than I once was.

I invited Christ into my life at 18, but promptly discovered that I simply wasn't buying any of it, and I've been a complete and total atheist ever since. It's a charming self-discovery (somewhat akin to finding out you gay) after spending your entire young life listening to men of gawd telling millions of my fellow citizens, and my fellow citizens, friends, peers, and even family telling each other, that atheists are evil incarnate, and the moral equivilent of murderers, rapists, child molesters and communists, and that >>I<< deserve nothing less than suffering the most unbearable agony for all eternity... for no other reason than I didn't believe in a superstition that others did.

And so it's continued throughout my life, listening to the same moral outrage and condemnation, listening to myself being described to all the world as immoral by definition, and even listening to my own President, George H.W. Bush, say that, "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

So what would you think, maxim? If you heard yourself viciously condemned all your life by everyone you knew and didn't know, would you develop a bias?

But as I said, in recent years I've become much more accepting, tolerant and patient with the religious, but that's another thread.

Quote by: maximdewinter Will there ever be a time when speech content itelf will be punishable? If you attend some universities or belong to some trade unions and other organizations that time is already here in the form of speech codes. Yes you can be punished by expulsion for violation of those speech codes. As I've stated for the nth time, government has passed anti-harassment and anti-discrimination laws which can be used as tools for the stifling of free speech and freedom of religion. The entire "civilized' (ironic) West is entering into a new dark age of suppressed speech where there once was freedom. Here is a list from wiki and whenever you see "racial hatred" consider how easily the line blurs into "same sex marriage hatred" once a concept like "anti interracial marriage adherents and anti same sex marriage adherents are found by the courts to be the SAME--they are bigots."

Given the breadth of the civil rights movement, maxim, a whole lot of people have had to learn to reconfigure their "Conventional Wisdom" and to learn to put brakes on things they once thought were perfectly acceptable to talk about.

Whites had to learn that not everyone thought race jokes were funny. Men had to learn that not everyone thought that rough, sexist ribaldry was a bonding experience. And they've been learning that the guy or gal you're telling that classic homo joke to may very well turn out to be gay.

So it is with Christians, maxim. They're going to have to accept that the world is not theirs to command, that what's good enough for Christians does not necessarily mean that it should be just fine for everyone, and that they too will have to learn that they can't say whatever pops into their heads simply because they're convinced of their own superiority and anyone who gets offended should simply keep it to themselves.

Think of it as the last customary "Traditional Value" based on prejudice. Until 50 years, "Traditional Values", despite the promises of our founding documents, held that other races were inferior and could be segregated and discriminated against, by law.

The same applied to Jews, who could legally be denied equal rights.

40 years ago it was a "Traditional Value" that women should be subject to men and could be discriminated against, by law.

30 years ago it was a "Traditional Value" that homosexuals were fags and the scum of the earth and could be discriminated against for sport.

The last "Traditional Value of prejudice" is that the U.S. is a Christian nation and that Christians are therefore free to dictate what everyone should and shouldn't find acceptable. Once these folks come to grips with the new reality of what constitutes the full spectrum of civil rights, once they realize that, in a pluralistic society in which everyone is guaranteed equal protection of the law, hate speech against gays and atheists will be no more acceptable than hate speech against nationalities, racial groups or women, the better all around.

Quote by: maximdewinter # In the United Kingdom, incitement to racial hatred is an offence under the Public Order Act 1986 with a maximum sentence of up to seven years imprisonment.

Well then, I suspect the religious are going to have to learn -- as have the rest of us -- to keep their hateful, bigoted opinions to themselves.

Quote by: maximdewinter I didn't say you're not allowed to express your opinion, to the contrary if you've actually read my posts in this thread. I was merely pointing out the anti religious tone so thick in can be knife cut.

Yeah... so?

How's that any different than the anti-gay tone and anti-atheist preaching we've had to endure all our lives?

.

[Maryjane]

Quote by: maximdewinter I didn't say you're not allowed to express your opinion, to the contrary if you've actually read my posts in this thread. I was merely pointing out the anti religious tone so thick in can be knife cut. You're allowed to be anti religious and say so. Can't I point it out that you are? If you are tired of being treated like a pair of tits and vagina you might try growing a set of balls. I could put you in touch with my wife.

Some of us are anti religious. Big deal. If you'd read Sonart's post you'd have a better understanding of the reasons why. My advice to you is... Deal with it if you plan on hanging around Volconvo. We aren't main stream America here.

I don't think you have a lot to fear when it comes to losing your freedom of speech. Look at Fred Phelps and the stuff he gets away with.

As far as the balls comment...

So your solution for those that are oppressed it to be more like their oppressor? Sorry, if I wanted to be a man I'd have a sex change operation. I want to be treated equally...as a woman. I should not have to be a prick to make my way in this world.

Btw...this is the second time this week when I've engaged a man in a serious conversation, he makes a remark about his wife. <eye roll>

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: maximdewinter . However, as far as I am concerned it is a freedom issue. Pardon me if I am an avid fan of freedom. I think people should be free to marry whomever they please. I think that people should be allowed to believe whatever they want to believe. And I think that anyone should be able to say whatever they want without some sort of police coming to prevent them.

You are free to believe that people should be able to say whatever they want, but that is not what the law says, nor is it what the law ever said, nor is it what the law should say. I'll quote my friend, Abe Lincoln:

"...Must I shoot a simple-minded soldier boy who deserts, while I must not touch a hair of a wiley agitator who induces him to desert?"

If you encourge someone to behave illegally, if you encourge someone to riot, if you encourage someone to harm or harrass an innocent individual, why should there not be sanction? If you scream "fire" in a crowded theater and many are hurt in the scramble for the exits, why should you not be punished? Public order and safety demands limits on these kinds of speech. The argument that your are making is baseless, and makes no more sense that saying that if we make theft illegal, we are on a slippery slope towards making borrowing your friends lawn- mower illegal.

Quote by: maximdewinter Also pardon me, call me a "worrier", for investigating what happens when freedoms collide as they sometimes do. I have the freedom to be free in my personal effects thanks to the 4th Amendment yet why is the man at the airport legally able to rifle through my suitcase without any "probable cause."? Well..it's because there are many other laws on the books which chip away at the basic freedom that I don't want get into right now.

The right of the public at large to be safe from a plane exploding in mid-air supercedes your right to not be subject to that search. You may wish to be free of the collision of rights, but you can not be.

Quote by: maximdewinter IMO it all begins here: Harassment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia In 1964, the United States Congress passed Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, , prohibiting discrimination at work on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin and sex. This later became the legal basis for early harassment law. that was the vital step required before hate speech laws could be written: Hate speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity and any other distinction-liability. Will there ever be a time when speech content itelf will be punishable? If you attend some universities or belong to some trade unions and other organizations that time is already here in the form of speech codes. Yes you can be punished by expulsion for violation of those speech codes. As I've stated for the nth time, government has passed anti-harassment and anti-discrimination laws which can be used as tools for the stifling of free speech and freedom of religion. The entire "civilized' (ironic) West is entering into a new dark age of suppressed speech where there once was freedom. Here is a list from wiki and whenever you see "racial hatred" consider how easily the line blurs into "same sex marriage hatred" once a concept like "anti interracial marriage adherents and anti same sex marriage adherents are found by the courts to be the SAME--they are bigots." # In the United Kingdom, incitement to racial hatred is an offence under the Public Order Act 1986 with a maximum sentence of up to seven years imprisonment. #In Germany, Volksverhetzung (incitement of hatred against a minority under certain conditions) is a punishable offense under Section 130 of the Strafgesetzbuch (Germany's criminal code) and can lead to up to five years imprisonment. # In Canada, advocating genocide or inciting hatred against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offense under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum terms of two to fourteen years. # In Brazil, according to the 1988 Brazilian Constitution, racism and other forms of race-related hate speech are "imprescriptible crime(s) with no right to bail to its accused" So after reading those items can somebody rationally assure me that my concerns about this are completely unfounded and silly?

Why should it be a protected right to "incite to racial hatred" or "advocate genocide"?