Equality of marriage and love

paleoperson

robindch wrote: »

Mod: Indeed.

Carded for incivility.

Wasn't he at least as uncivil?

Turtwig

paleoperson wrote: »

Wasn't he at least as uncivil?

Mod: not for discussion in thread. Take it to pm.

Penn

paleoperson wrote: »

Someone should kick you in the nuts.

Also, as pig ignorant as you are to not know, misrepresenting yourself for a contract can be a major criminal offence and you would hopefully end up in jail. Wouldn't be too funny then would it smartass.

I was actually using humour to point out that discrimination on the basis of religious belief (or lack thereof) tends to be fine when it's in favour of their religion, whereas the inverse is not true. I then bookended this comment with an OTT alternate example (kicking David Quinn in the nuts) to highlight that the preceding comment was not intended to be taken literally.

Hey, I'm not saying it was the best post I've ever made (Top 50 for definite), but just to be make things absolutely clear:

No one (bar the guy in the gimp suit he hires on the second Saturday of each month) should kick David Quinn in the nuts.

(^^^^ again, a joke)

recedite

robindch wrote: »

Mr Peskov's back in the news again - this time saying that yes, Putin did speak with Elton John.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34346595

Looks like Putin felt sorry for Elton after hearing the voice recording of his grovelling conversation with the Russian prankster.
Unfortunately Putin had to call three times because Elton kept hanging up*.


*not true

robindch

Pope Frank - It's a human right that religious people can deny other people their rights

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/pope-francis-visits-america/pope-francis-i-understand-anger-catholic-church-sex-abuse-victims-n434681

NBC News wrote:

[...] The pontiff was asked: "Do you … support those individuals, including government officials, who say they cannot in good conscience, their own personal conscience, abide by some laws or discharge their duties as government officials, for example when issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples?"

He did not refer specifically to Davis in his reply, saying: "I can't have in mind all the cases that can exist about conscientious objection … but yes, I can say that conscientious objection is a right that is a part of every human right. It is a right. And if a person does not allow others to be a conscientious objector, he denies a right."

Francis added: "Conscientious objection must enter into every juridical structure because it is a right, a human right. Otherwise we would end up in a situation where we select what is a right, saying, 'this right that has merit, this one does not.'"

Asked if this principle applied to government officials carrying out their duties, he replied: "It is a human right and if a government official is a human person, he has that right. It is a human right." [...]

lazygal

Not a million miles from the Lolek limited approach to RTE.

oscarBravo

I don't disagree that conscientious objection is a right, but it seems somehow to have morphed from a right not to do something into a right to prevent other people from doing things.

Same-sex marriage is against your religion? Fine, don't marry someone of the same sex. But you don't get to tell other people that they can't marry someone of the same sex.

It's a distinction that's getting carefully glossed over, and it needs to be called out.

Penn

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't disagree that conscientious objection is a right, but it seems somehow to have morphed from a right not to do something into a right to prevent other people from doing things.

Same-sex marriage is against your religion? Fine, don't marry someone of the same sex. But you don't get to tell other people that they can't marry someone of the same sex.

It's a distinction that's getting carefully glossed over, and it needs to be called out.

Completely agree. And funnily enough, people's "conscientious objections" only ever seem to come into effect in relation to same-sex couples.

And as well as that, if your conscientious objection is something which will interfere with your job, find a new f*cking job then.

paleoperson

Nothing is a "right" unless/until it's enshrined by law.

Whether you have a "right" to do something or not isn't by itself a validation of it.

One eyed Jack

Penn wrote: »

Completely agree. And funnily enough, people's "conscientious objections" only ever seem to come into effect in relation to same-sex couples.

I can certainly think of a few more examples, particularly in terms of women's reproductive rights in this country, in which people value their right to conscientious objection.

And as well as that, if your conscientious objection is something which will interfere with your job, find a new f*cking job then.

Do you mean that a teacher in a religious ethos school who identifies as atheist, and has a conscientious objection to teaching religion, should find a new f*cking job?

If a teacher in a religious ethos school has a conscientious objection to teaching an RSE program which makes no mention of their sexuality... find a new f*cking job?

There are employment laws to cover that sort of discrimination, and they are under review at the moment to take S.37 out of the legislature. That would make it against the law for religious ethos schools to discriminate against a person on the basis of their sexual orientation. I'm nearly sure it doesn't mention that a person cannot be discriminated against on the basis of whether they are or are not religious, but that would be covered I'm nearly sure too by the 'genuine occupational qualification' legislation.

With regard to that poster and teaching materials that were referred to earlier, well pardon me if I don't get too excited over what's nothing more than an exercise in PR and appeasing the 'little people'. It's a joke basically, a pretty awful joke and all, because all the parties know they're only making representations, without actually doing anything, and this latest nonsense won't do anything either.

I posted this in the LGBT forum earlier in the week -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Or from their friends, or other children in and out of school.
...

They won't hear anything about same sex parents families or one parent families in 92% of schools across the country. The poster is little more than a token gesture that will more likely gather dust in the Principal's office.
...

I would hope for that day too, and I actively work towards it on a daily basis, but to suggest that nobody will give a crap because they are different, is unrealistic (even the poster suggests 'different families, same love'). Once they hear the word 'different', the fact that it's followed by 'love', is of little value, cognitively speaking.
...

The INTO didn't do this though, the INTO LGBT group did this, effectively a mini-union within an actual union. It would be like suggesting that the people of Ireland voted for marriage equality. No, the people of Ireland didn't vote in favour of marriage equality, the majority of the electorate voted in favour of marriage equality. I wouldn't be saying fair play to the INTO for anything, when they as a whole, as a proper Union, still cannot function as a complete and cohesive unit, that they still have to have splintered groups with their own special interests, and then have the strange idea of referring to themselves as a Union?
...

You can't indoctrinate children to be more accepting and loving of diversity and difference. I'm 38 btw and I was never taught to be more accepting and loving of diversity and difference and all the rest of it. That was simply something I learned over time, in my own time, from other people. You cannot teach that to other people. They have to be open and willing and want to learn, and learn from leadership and guidance, not being taught what to find acceptable and what not to find acceptable, not being taught who and how to love, but to learn to love everybody, yes, even the people behind the Iona Institute that you seem to delight in the fact that something pissed them off. They need to be shown love too. Anyone who has hatred or negativity in them, needs to be shown love.

Nobody needs to be taught how and who to love. That does nothing but breed suspicion, segregation, and resentment of those people whom we perceive to be different from ourselves.

Condensed it down a bit, but the original post is here -

INTO LGBT Poster

Penn

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I can certainly think of a few more examples, particularly in terms of women's reproductive rights in this country, in which people value their right to conscientious objection.

I was speaking in general terms. But yes, I'm sure there are those where abortion plays into it too, but not as much as when it comes to same-sex couples. With abortion, those who object tend to hide behind the legal standing as opposed to religious reasons or "conscientious objections".

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Do you mean that a teacher in a religious ethos school who identifies as atheist, and has a conscientious objection to teaching religion, should find a new f*cking job?

Yes, if you won't teach religion, and teaching religion is part of your job, and the school has a religious ethos, then yes, find a new f*cking job.

Obviously, schools (or at least the majority of State-funded schools) shouldn't have a religious ethos as raising children in one faith shouldn't be part of the curriculum, but until that changes, if you can't do the job you're supposed to do for moral reasons, you can't expect the circumstances of the job to be changed for you. As part of my job, I've been involved in projects for religious organisations, whose practices I disagree with. But I did it, because it's my job. If I had a strong enough objection to doing those projects for them based on who they are, then I'm not doing what I was paid to do, but I can't expect the company I work for to not take on those projects just to please me. If they say I either do that project or leave, that's the choice I'm left with.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If a teacher in a religious ethos school has a conscientious objection to teaching an RSE program which makes no mention of their sexuality... find a new f*cking job?

Again, if someone is either faced with the choice of either doing their job (even if they disagree with it) or standing by their conscientious objections and not fulfilling the role they were hired for, that's the choice they have. They cannot expect the job to change around their own personal beliefs. The difference with schools is, they're State funded, and as such they should not allow any discrimination with regards to race, sex, gender, religion age etc.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There are employment laws to cover that sort of discrimination, and they are under review at the moment to take S.37 out of the legislature. That would make it against the law for religious ethos schools to discriminate against a person on the basis of their sexual orientation. I'm nearly sure it doesn't mention that a person cannot be discriminated against on the basis of whether they are or are not religious, but that would be covered I'm nearly sure too by the 'genuine occupational qualification' legislation.

With regard to that poster and teaching materials that were referred to earlier, well pardon me if I don't get too excited over what's nothing more than an exercise in PR and appeasing the 'little people'. It's a joke basically, a pretty awful joke and all, because all the parties know they're only making representations, without actually doing anything, and this latest nonsense won't do anything either.

I posted this in the LGBT forum earlier in the week -

Condensed it down a bit, but the original post is here -

INTO LGBT Poster

I largely agree. The problem is the number of religious ethos schools and their monopoly of the education system. It's not through the actual school or teachers where children will learn about different types of families etc. It's through each other. There'll be children from those different types of families, or children who have same sex relations and learn about it outside of school, and tell other children about it. To me, the poster you're referring to will be largely ineffective.

recedite

Is it possible that Pope Frank, in his protected ivory tower world, does not know about the Kim Davis case?
Either he is ignorant of it, or he is insensitive to it.

Links234

Same sh*t different Pope, Pope compared transgender people to nuclear weapons.

Hotblack Desiato

Links234 wrote: »

Same sh*t different Pope, Pope compared transgender people to nuclear weapons.

Dickhead.

MrPudding

recedite wrote: »

Is it possible that Pope Frank, in his protected ivory tower world, does not know about the Kim Davis case?
Either he is ignorant of it, or he is insensitive to it.

I was going to post last night that I doubt this was the case, but didn't get a chance. And now we have this.

robindch

MrPudding wrote: »

And now we have this.

Yes, the New York Times is running with the same story - according to Davis' lawyer, Davis met with Pope Frank.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/30/us/county-clerk-kim-davis-who-denied-gay-couples-visited-pope.html

lazygal

I saw The Quinn on my way to work this morning. He was all in a lather about that childcare study that Breda wrote about. I didn't get a chance to ask him if Mothers And Fathers (Still) Matter now the gays can get married.

robindch

Ye gods, Davis really is the story which keeps on giving.

Seems the Vatican confirmed this morning that she and Frank had a briefly emotional meeting at which point some religious trinkets were handed over:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jasonwells/vatican-confirms-private-meeting-between-pope-francis-and-ke

It also seems that skepticism concerning the reliability of the claims of Davis' lawyers might not have been misplaced - they'd apparently been previously caught out posting photographs of what they claimed were vast crowds of Davis supporters in Peru which, on closer investigation, turned out instead to be photos of some other religious festival from last year.

Nodin

robindch wrote: »

Ye gods, Davis really is the story which keeps on giving.

Seems the Vatican confirmed this morning that she and Frank had a briefly emotional meeting at which point some religious trinkets were handed over:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jasonwells/vatican-confirms-private-meeting-between-pope-francis-and-ke

It also seems that skepticism concerning the reliability of the claims of Davis' lawyers might not have been misplaced - they'd apparently been previously caught out posting photographs of what they claimed were vast crowds of Davis supporters in Peru which, on closer investigation, turned out instead to be photos of some other religious festival from last year.

"Protestant Catholic Divide Ends Over Need To Stop TeH Gheys"

recedite

Well well well... Frank is a sneaky little man with his secret Kim Davis meeting.
He has really gone out on a limb by supporting her because;
1) She is not even RC.
2) Her main claim to fame is preventing gays from getting civil marriage certs.
Not just preventing gays from getting married in a church setting.

Frank is very far outside his jurisdiction on this one.

Shrap

Wonder if they made a patsy of the pope?! Think his PR guy must have been asleep on the job, or something. To my mind, this was not the cleverest thing he's done.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/09/30/pope-francis-kim-davis-and-the-controversial-group-at-the-center-of-it-all/?tid=sm_tw

Peregrinus

Interesting analysis here.

Shrap

Peregrinus wrote: »

Interesting analysis here.

Still carefully missing a vital point, which is that the "continuum of concern for human dignity" that his mouthpieces are spouting about, is never ever going to be extended to LGBT people. Lest we forget (and we won't), our referendum was described as a "defeat for humanity" by these people.

Nowhere in this article does it actually point out the elephant in the room - that a "religious freedom" tour is basically a promo for further polarisation of debate.....except between the lines by this guy:

Longtime Vatican observer John Allen said
“Francis has significantly strengthened the hand of the US bishops and other voices in American debates defending religious freedom. To put the point in crudely political terms, Francis is a figure who utterly defies the usual left/right divides, equally capable of meeting Kim Davis and embracing poor immigrant children at a Harlem school – seeing both as part of a continuum of concern for human dignity. That will be a source of consolation to some and consternation to others.”

Clearly, if you are consternated (is that a word?) by his meeting with Kim Davis, it's because you are anti-immigrant. Not because you are pro-marriage equality. The Pope's actual stance on gay marriage is carefully left out of the whole analysis.

oscarBravo

Peregrinus wrote: »

Interesting analysis here.

It seriously wrecks my head to see the phrase "religious freedom" used as a dog-whistle for "permission to discriminate".

Cabaal

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-34392333

A marriage proposal on the Beijing underground has been the talk of Chinese social media - because it took place between two men.

As the other riders look on, several people can be heard shouting “disgusting” or “sin” in the background

As the two men embrace the carriage breaks out in spontaneous applause, drowning out the shouters

Peregrinus

Oh, sure. I'm not suggesting that Frankie's stance here is completely coherent, still less that it's something we have to agree with or accept. I'm just trying to wrap my head around what he thinks he's doing, and in that regard I think the Guardian article is helpful. Up in post #682 you suggest that, basically, he has been played by conservatives in his own ranks, and I must say that thought occurred to me too. But the Guardian article does suggest another reading, which is, basically

- he is less concerned than "conservative warriors" would like about having official Catholic perspectives on, e.g., gay marriage reflected in civil law; but

- he is more concerned than "liberal warriors" would like about minorities (in this case, conservative minorities, but the principle would hold good either way) being marginalised, frozen out, excluded. A diverse and pluralist society should endeavour to include as broad a range of people as possible, including those who are nonconformists in one way or another from dominant positions. Regardless of your views on gay marriage (or any other issue), if you introduce gay marriage on terms that don't require dissentient county clerks to resign, that's better than introducing it on terms that do require that.

I'm not sure I'm convinced, as I say. But it's at least as plausible as the "he was played" line. And I think it does tie in with what I think is is his distaste for polarisation.

Shrap

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm not sure I'm convinced, as I say. But it's at least as plausible as the "he was played" line. And I think it does tie in with what I think is is his distaste for polarisation.

I'm going either way on it too and agree with you, except for this last point. He's smart enough to know he can't have it every which way. This article I just read strikes me as a truer analysis, if a little too surprised and disappointed that he's not the fluffy/fair-minded father figure people were hoping for.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/pope-francis-kim-davis_b_8221090.html

But this news about Kim Davis portrays him as a more sinister kind of politician. That's the kind that secretly supports hate, ushering the bigots in the back door -- knowing they're an embarrassment -- while speaking publicly about about how none of us can judge one another.

seamus

Chances of seeing Kim Davis on the election trail for senate (or even POTUS )? Now that she probably thinks she's more important/influential than she actually is?

PopePalpatine

Now that you've mentioned it, I wouldn't be surprised. After all, she was elected to the role of county clerk.

Cabaal

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Now that you've mentioned it, I wouldn't be surprised. After all, she was elected to the role of county clerk.

I'd say it'll likely happen, after all she even has a handy tag line for the posters
"Supported by the Pope!"