Posts by Idiot Savant
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
It's not as though there is a cabal of folk doing this on purpose you know.
Well, yes and no. Yes, in that there's a lot of borrowing from crazed US evangelicals, who have built their persecution complex to a fine art. And no, because as I said, it's CULTS101 - an obvious tactic for any totalising memeplex.
I think there's a fantastic sociology thesis in the importation of religious rhetoric and tactics from the US. But I'm not doing it. For a start, it would be Caring Too Much.
-
But forcing people into participating in gay adoption or solemnising a gay marriage is okay?
Both adoption and marriage are public functions under law. You either perform those functions according to the law, or you don't do them at all.
(And to Steve: I think the question of whether public officials should obey the law is rather different from whether private individuals should)
-
Question to the world at large: how do these discussions always come around to 'oh noes, you are oppressing [religious sect] by forcing them to treat people equally!'?
Because, as noted a long way upthread, religious groups have begun cultivating persecution complexes as both a political organising tool and a defence mechanism in the face of declining interest, relevance and status. It's CULTS101...
-
No, I meant actually performing blood transfusions, not donating blood.
Health professionals have a professional duty to act in the best interests of the patient. If they're not willing to do this, they shouldn't be health professionals. It's that simple. Religion does not give you a right to kill people by neglect.
-
I'd descriminate against Tony Vietch if he wanted to run a woman's refuge. Or a pedophile from babysitting children.
Not discrimination. And quite rightly so. The law recognises reasonable limits, which are again widely accepted. Generalised religious bigotry and homophobia is not one of them.
-
Also, if God thinks two loving parents of the same sex is 'spiritually harmful', then God is kind of a... total asshole.
You could say that. I prefer to simply go "you're talking about your imaginary friend again", and ignore the quack.
-
You're thinking from a utilitarian perspective, with utilitarian axioms. Which is fine, but it's not going to lead to any kind of understanding, assuming you're interested in that.
Translation: "evidence? I don't need no steenking evidence! This is about _-faith__"
Which is fine, but don't expect anyone to take you seriously.
-
But as to why? Practically it's a historical hold over from when religion was far more central to the community's life.
Actually, it's a historical holdover from feudalism. Which is another reason to get rid of it.
-
Tess: no-one is talking about "forcing religions to change the tenants of their faith". We are talking about forcing everyone who participates in the market - irrespective of their race, colour, gender, sexual orientation or relgion - to deal fairly and equally with everyone else who participates in the market - irrespective of their race, colour, gender, sexual orientation or relgion. We have laws to make this happen - by, for example, forbidding employers to refuse work to women or pay them less, banning shopkeepers from refusing to serve Jews, and banning landlords from refusing to rent a house to de facto couples. Those laws are widely accepted, precisely because they protect every single one of us from the abuses of the powerful and petty victimisation as we go about our daily lives.
It doesn't matter if you think it is "actively harmful" to serve someone equally and in a non-discriminatory fashion. People thought it was "harmful" to serve blacks and Jews. Those hiding behind religion are no less bigoted or monstrous.
(And again, people donating blood is not providing a good or service, and you know it isn't. Stop with the canards already)
-
I'd rather not invalidate marriages to modernise marriage which means amending the Marriage Act right?
Same-sex marriage does not in any way invalidate existing marriages. See the original post which spawned this thread.
Amending it to allow same-sex marriages. If that were done, marriages could be performed either by churchy folk (with or without homophobia) and celebrants?
Exactly as happens now for opposite-sex couples.