DEMOTED For Not Backing Gay Marriage
Scroll to see replies
LOL as if you understand what persecution is OP.
Original post by Trigger
Plenty of people who have no faith get married in church because it looks nice, i don't see those, straight couples being hounded. It's about time people stopped worrying about who is sticking their penis into who and perhaps exercised some of those Christian values that we hear so much about.
Mosques are pretty, why don't gays try marrying in them? They know better not to try it instead they intentionally target christian institutions because they can get away with it to make some point on gay rights. This is christian persecution.
Original post by Wahala
Mosques are pretty, why don't gays try marrying in them? They know better not to try it instead they intentionally target christian institutions because they can get away with it to make some point on gay rights. This is christian persecution.
I'm sure plenty of gay muslims would love to.
Original post by SwingOnTheSpiral88
yeah true perhaps he shouldn't be demoted for having an unpopular view, but since it's such a stupid, brainwashed view I still don't care that it happened.
You should care. This is a blatant attack on free speech. You either believe in free speech for all, even those with views you cannot stand. Or you don't believe in it at all.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Wahala
Mosques are pretty, why don't gays try marrying in them? They know better not to try it instead they intentionally target christian institutions because they can get away with it to make some point on gay rights. This is christian persecution.
Many people who wish to marry the same sex don't want to get married in a church and only wish to have a civil Marriage, staying away from a church and religion, but some would prefer a ceremony in a church, even though some churches would allow this (i realise it would only be a small percentage), but the law actually prevents the churches from making a choice about this.
Where is your religious freedom now?
Original post by Trigger
I'm sure plenty of gay muslims would love to.
Sure - in gay mosques if they have such. But hey by the argument discussed they don't even have to be moslems or gay. It is a mosque, it is a pretty venue I want to marry there, I don't care about the religious beliefs of the institution involved. I should be able to marry anywhere I want. NO. That is disrepectful. The church has the right to uphold their beliefs and not be forced to hold such marriages.
There are gay church congregations where gays could easily marry in peace but no they would rather make a statement and demand to get married in a conventional church.
Original post by Wahala
Sure - in gay mosques if they have such. But hey by the argument discussed they don't even have to be moslems or gay. It is a mosque, it is a pretty venue I want to marry there, I don't care about the religious beliefs of the institution involved. I should be able to marry anywhere I want. NO. That is disrepectful. The church has the right to uphold their beliefs and not be forced to hold such marriages.
There are gay church congregations where gays could easily marry in peace but no they would rather make a statement and demand to get married in a conventional church.
There are gay church congregations where gays could easily marry in peace but no they would rather make a statement and demand to get married in a conventional church.
You seem to be taking it all personally.
Original post by kat2pult
Original post by kat2pult
A book based on events over 2000 years ago... because times don't change, obviously 
I'm not agreeing with them, I think that's a joke, the bible is supposed to be timeless and starts from the beginning to the end, so their rules should be timeless, hence giving them an excuse for homophobia. However I'm an atheist, I'm just seeing it from their point of view, which is flawed but that's why they do it.
Original post by derangedyoshi
You assume that homosexuality goes against religious rules. In cases where this is true, I would imagine that the religious organization in question would not allow their churches (/synagogues/mosques etc) to be used for civil partnerships. However, there exist in this country religions which allow homosexuality, and for the government to deny this and forbid them from conducting civil partnerships on their premises is wrong.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Original post by Wahala
Sure - in gay mosques if they have such. But hey by the argument discussed they don't even have to be moslems or gay. It is a mosque, it is a pretty venue I want to marry there, I don't care about the religious beliefs of the institution involved. I should be able to marry anywhere I want. NO. That is disrepectful. The church has the right to uphold their beliefs and not be forced to hold such marriages.
There are gay church congregations where gays could easily marry in peace but no they would rather make a statement and demand to get married in a conventional church.
There are gay church congregations where gays could easily marry in peace but no they would rather make a statement and demand to get married in a conventional church.
I feel a bit like I'm banging my head against a brick wall in this thread.
No one is saying churches should be forced to allow civil partnerships on their premises. That would indeed be wrong, and a restriction of religious freedom.
However, the status quo is that no churches are allowed to have civil partnerships. So your suggestion that:
There are gay church congregations where gays could easily marry in peace
is not true. At the moment even liberal churches which accept homosexuality are not allowed to hold civil partnerships. That is just as much a restriction of religious freedom as forcing conservative churches to hold them.
The government has recognized that this is an issue for churches to decide, not the law. So this law merely seeks to allow consenting churches to have civil partnerships. I'd imagine that, for example, Catholic churches will laugh at the very idea (or have a good whine judging from the letter Bishop Tartaglia sent to my house about the Scottish consultation on gay marriage).
Original post by Sgt.Incontro
Demoted for not backing gay marriage: housing manager's pay slashed for criticising new law on Facebook
The man can believe whatever he wants to believe in, marriage should be between a woman and a man anyway.
Persecution of Christians, pure and simple. It is time Christians start standing up and protesting their ill treatment. I hope he wins big damages.
The man can believe whatever he wants to believe in, marriage should be between a woman and a man anyway.
Persecution of Christians, pure and simple. It is time Christians start standing up and protesting their ill treatment. I hope he wins big damages.
Sorry but why do posts like that get negative reputation? He's making a valid point, are you all just stupid?
While I completely disagree with the "offender"'s view here, the state should have whatsoever no qualms about people expressing their views. If it were a private company, I could completely understand that they only want employees of a certain mindset, but it's a PUBLICLY funded organisation. It is responsible to be fair to -everyone-, not just homosexuals.
Why should we protect hate speech crimes? While they're utterly bad, persecuting them violates our freedom of speech and gives certain groups EXTRA rights, creating inequality towards the systems of justice and the state.
On the subject of marriage, the only unions that should be recognised legally should be CIVIL ones, not religious ones. Whether someone wants to be married according to their faith is their business - but if they want to attain the legal status of being married they should also get married through a civil authority. This leaves Religious Organisations free to do whatever the hell they want (preferably drop dead) and any kind of consenting individuals free to pair up.
While homosexuals should be free to do what they want, the policies of Private Companies, Corporations or Religious Organisations shouldn't be any business of the state (as long as they're not funded by it). Public employees should also be treated according to the freedoms the state accords them, one of these being the freedom of speech. If it were a private company, I'd totally endorse kicking someone out or demoting them on whim, but not a public organisation.
Why should we protect hate speech crimes? While they're utterly bad, persecuting them violates our freedom of speech and gives certain groups EXTRA rights, creating inequality towards the systems of justice and the state.
On the subject of marriage, the only unions that should be recognised legally should be CIVIL ones, not religious ones. Whether someone wants to be married according to their faith is their business - but if they want to attain the legal status of being married they should also get married through a civil authority. This leaves Religious Organisations free to do whatever the hell they want (preferably drop dead) and any kind of consenting individuals free to pair up.
While homosexuals should be free to do what they want, the policies of Private Companies, Corporations or Religious Organisations shouldn't be any business of the state (as long as they're not funded by it). Public employees should also be treated according to the freedoms the state accords them, one of these being the freedom of speech. If it were a private company, I'd totally endorse kicking someone out or demoting them on whim, but not a public organisation.
Original post by derangedyoshi
I feel a bit like I'm banging my head against a brick wall in this thread.
No one is saying churches should be forced to allow civil partnerships on their premises. That would indeed be wrong, and a restriction of religious freedom.
However, the status quo is that no churches are allowed to have civil partnerships. So your suggestion that:
is not true. At the moment even liberal churches which accept homosexuality are not allowed to hold civil partnerships. That is just as much a restriction of religious freedom as forcing conservative churches to hold them.
The government has recognized that this is an issue for churches to decide, not the law. So this law merely seeks to allow consenting churches to have civil partnerships. I'd imagine that, for example, Catholic churches will laugh at the very idea (or have a good whine judging from the letter Bishop Tartaglia sent to my house about the Scottish consultation on gay marriage).
No one is saying churches should be forced to allow civil partnerships on their premises. That would indeed be wrong, and a restriction of religious freedom.
However, the status quo is that no churches are allowed to have civil partnerships. So your suggestion that:
is not true. At the moment even liberal churches which accept homosexuality are not allowed to hold civil partnerships. That is just as much a restriction of religious freedom as forcing conservative churches to hold them.
The government has recognized that this is an issue for churches to decide, not the law. So this law merely seeks to allow consenting churches to have civil partnerships. I'd imagine that, for example, Catholic churches will laugh at the very idea (or have a good whine judging from the letter Bishop Tartaglia sent to my house about the Scottish consultation on gay marriage).
I think people don't get it because they don't want to get it, they are determined to hold on to their righteous indignation.
Semantics aside, if it's his personal opinion expressed on his facebook page it is obviously his personal opinion and therefore his personal opinion should have limited consequences on his job.
Honestly, his opinion probably has no bearing on his job, nor does it make him perform any less (unless someone can prove otherwise), nor is his job so outwardly public that such a thing has an effect, should have an effect or should have any bearing on his job and his job role.
I am for gay marriage. If someone is against it I'd be willing to argue or debate the issue with them, however trying to publicly out someone as a homophobe to publicly shame them or humiliate them is petit and unprofessional.
Honestly, his opinion probably has no bearing on his job, nor does it make him perform any less (unless someone can prove otherwise), nor is his job so outwardly public that such a thing has an effect, should have an effect or should have any bearing on his job and his job role.
I am for gay marriage. If someone is against it I'd be willing to argue or debate the issue with them, however trying to publicly out someone as a homophobe to publicly shame them or humiliate them is petit and unprofessional.
If he was making it to those he works with directly, then there would be a problem. He made them on FB for crying out loud! Its just too far. We are becoming a nanny state of robots who all believe in the same thing.
Original post by Trigger
Plenty of people who have no faith get married in church because it looks nice, i don't see those, straight couples being hounded. It's about time people stopped worrying about who is sticking their penis into who and perhaps exercised some of those Christian values that we hear so much about.
Such as homosexuality being immoral?
If he was only saying that imposing laws on religion is wrong.....he is absolutely correct and it would be a freedom of speech matter anyway if it wasn't.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by truechristian91
If he was making it to those he works with directly, then there would be a problem. He made them on FB for crying out loud! Its just too far. We are becoming a nanny state of robots who all believe in the same thing.
It could be considered worse that it's on facebook. Saying it to someone is one thing, but writing it on facebook counts as publishing it.
Original post by chrislpp
Such as homosexuality being immoral?
If he was only saying that imposing laws on religion is wrong.....he is absolutely correct and it would be a freedom of speech matter anyway if it wasn't.
If he was only saying that imposing laws on religion is wrong.....he is absolutely correct and it would be a freedom of speech matter anyway if it wasn't.
I was thinking love thy neighbour and judge no less thy be judged. We will gloss over that you are not allowed near menstruating women, cannot touch pork and can't eat shellfish as that is all too, immoral.
Original post by Sephiroth
People should be allowed to say/do whatever they want in their own time and not have it affect their jobs.
No, they really shouldn't. If that was the case then people would be allowed to rape/murder/steal/shout racial abuse etc in 'their own time' and still keep their jobs. So what you really mean is ''within reason'' people ought to be allowed to do/say what they want without it affecting their jobs. This whole discussion revolves around the ''within reason" part. What you see as being an acceptable thing to say/do may not be what someone else thinks is acceptable.
(edited 12 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Im gay but a christian
- Being black (Somali), gay and Muslim
- Husband has never been physically intimate with me
- Queer Muslim female
- Why dont women do it??
- Figuring it out?
- Marriage
- Is it weird to be 23 and single?
- Question for Muslim Brothers?
- Forced marriage
- Marriage, sex and cheating
- Why does the council think I'm married 😭
- Why is religion against sex?
- Watched straight and gay porn
- I think I'm trans but it's freaking me out and would ruin my life
- Who am I supposed to date/marry?
- boyfriend’s gay bestie getting a little too much
- closeted gay muslim AMA
- sign for Istikhara
- Make it More Cheese-ey !!
Latest
Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 5 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 5 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
