http://www.washingtonblade.com/2014/...lgbt-job-bias/

In the post DOMA/DADT era the main advocacy point from the LGBT rights movement to the white house has been to get an executive order signed preventing LGBT disrimination among federal contractors. The typical white house response, for years, has been that they prefer to do this legislatively with a bill known as ENDA (employment non discrimination act) which of course would apply much more broadly than to just federal contractors. However, given an obvious inability to pass anything through the House, Obama has been taking to increasing the amount of executive orders in the last year and this argument was getting increasingly shallow as other related workplace laws got executive orders but not this one. I'm actually a little surprised, because while the pressure has been there for a long time, the administration didn't appear to be very receptive of it.

Really more politics than religion, but since it is in keeping with a series of threads addressing the balance of discrimination vs freedom, usually LGBT or religious freedom or the intersection of the two, in society in this forum, it seems fine here.

thanks, Obama!

Wish you wouldn't bring your political fanaticism to RGT.

-1

17 states have fully legalized gay marriage. You might need to recalibrate your political extremism-o-meter, because that **** is mainstream

welcome to 2014!

I didn't make a normative claim in the OP. Do you feel similarly about similar such discussions in the intersection of freedom/discrimination of late?

I could of course point out that there are 50 states, and not 33, and that most of this has taken place against the general wishes of the voting public, which have voted down the anti-christian gay marriage agenda 33 times in the states, and has mainly only passed through activist, liberal legal fiat. But why give you rope? This thread is no different than most others here- which amounts to an ultimately meaningless excessive-celebration dance in the end zone by an opposing team. Because real, true meaning is only found in the eternal righteousness of the living God of love.

When you are talking of opposing teams Doggg it may do well to remember there are gay christians.

Jesus Christ- for whatever he might have been or not have been- he certainly believed in "God the Father." You might even say that everything he commanded and taught put "Father God" first. Can we say confidently that Christ was a theist? I think we can.

I "get" Christ. I understand him.

I will never understand the bitter seriousness of political discourse apart from religious conviction or a theistic framework. And if I were still an atheist, I'd just say...

Je m'enfou de votre civilisation!

Christians have nothing to fear from "gay christians." They aren't the people we have to worry about. And I never said they were.

Gay christians may be among those celebrating this decision so what side do you put them on?

If they are Christian, I put them on the side of goodness, rightness, righteousness, light and love. Anybody can be there, if they want to. I've met and known christians with homosexual inclinations. Again, I do not fear them or dislike them. And, in fact, I've found most gay people that I've talked to far, far more receptive to theism and christianity than fundamentalist-atheists. The enemy wears sheep's clothing. The enemy is not a sheep, though!

Precisely what makes gay marriage anti Christian? Just because something is not in agreement with Christianity does not make it anti Christian.

Even if it was anti Christian why should that be reason to stop it? Why should Christianity be given a special place of being protected from everything it doesn't like while everyone else lives by Christian rules they don't like?

I didn't realise gays marrying needed to affect Christians beliefs in any way, Do Christians suddenly have to marry people of the same sex too now? are you no longer allowed to be in a heterosexual marriage?

Other people having equal rights is not anti Christian, its fair. Just because Christians believe something does not mean the rest of us should have to be forced to live our lives in accordance with those beliefs.

If two gay people marry what actual effect does this have on you precisely?

Majority votes are not necessarily democratic.

The classic case is when the majory limits the democratic expression of the minority. There are many other examples however, where the effects are more subtle.

I feel this line of thought has always been a strawman. That if you are against gay marriage it means that you are only concerned with the implications it will have on you directly, and if you cannot see those implications, the objection is unwarranted.

I'd like to respectively offer a different perspective, since I know this subject is very sensitive.

Whether right or wrong, if gay marriage is accepted and hence homosexuality accepted, it will change the culture. This is something that is largely ignored. When gay marriage becomes widespread and accepted as the norm, society will look very different than it did some decades ago. It will touch every aspect and sub-culture, from literature to religion to the media. We can see examples of this today, as homosexuality has become more common.

Now, regardless of whether or not you believe this to be trivial, or if you believe the change to be worth it for the minority of people that are gay, or even if you believe that every area of change is actually a positive one, it is irrelevant to the fact that change will occur. Some people believe that this change is a negative one, and do not wish to see the culture shift to the left in this way. You can support gay marriage whole heartedly, but I think it's disingenuous to claim that this will not change anything, and is only helping to bring equality, and the only objection someone may have is that they "don't like gay people" and are bigoted.

The same argument goes for legalizing drugs. It changes the culture, whether positive or negative, whether your like it or not, there is a shift over time, and is something that should be taken into account.

Peter Hitchens speaks about this with great insight, I recommend him highly.

I appreciate the attempt to offer your view and I understand where you are coming from to a degree however I feel you miss the point of my post. What I was taking issue with from Doggs post was that he seemed to be referring to gay marriage being legalised as anti Christian as if people having the right to live their life equal to others somehow was specifically aimed to be against Christianity rather than it just being a different way of life that can be had and that doesn't have to be a massive impact to Christians. They will still be able to marry woman its not like legalising gay marriage will make heterosexual marriage illegal or weird in any way.


What are the big impacts that you expect to happen if homosexuals are accepted as people and treated equally? What negative impacts on your life do you envisage coming from a change in culture to a more accepting culture from a more close minded one?

Do you think interracial marriage (or marriage between social classes or women being free to chose who they marry or any of the other numerous changes there have been to culture generally or marriage specifically) and acceptance of blacks was a bad thing? that also changed culture (In a bigger way than accepting gays will I suspect). Just because something means that culture will change is not by itself a reason to oppose it unless you can give a reason why the change is bad when it seems that the change will be so simple and positive as saying any two consenting adults who wish to can marry each other and enjoy all the legal benefits that comes with (one partner having rights when one dies for example) whatever their gender (or race or social status or etc etc etc).

Is there a real societal reason why gay people should be denied the rights available to straight people? or is the argument simply 'change is scary and I dont like it so those people over there who are different to me should continue to be treated like second class citizens'?

In the end anyone who thinks gays marrying is wrong is still free to think that even if its legal, the law doesn't dictate they have to like it after all.

Culture always changes. The states in the US can vote down LBGT anti-discrimination acts to their heart's content. And in doing so they are active parts in changing culture themselves.

Opposing something on the grounds that it might change culture is analogous to opposing something on the grounds that it might cause movement of mass. You need to specifiy what changes and what it changes to, just like you in the latter example must specify what moves and where.

Kermit,

You gave me a lot to address here. For starters, Christianity will be affected because the left directly oppose them. Most of those in favour of gay marriage directly oppose Christianity because they stand for different and often opposite things.

As for the change, it's inevitable. Again, you don't have to believe it's bad, that is subjective, it could be considered good, but it is change and not everyone will appreciate it. I don't want to be offensive, it's not my aim here. A dismantling and rebuilding of the common nuclear family to include same-sex couples will change the culture we live in, even if it's simply having children shown that homosexuality should be celebrated, it's a change. Even if it's simply a more sexually-open culture, it's a change. A culture where gay-marriage is accepted and considered the norm will naturally be different to a culture where homosexuality is not even discussed.

I'm not really trying to argue against homosexuality, I'm only offering an objection that is not focused on, or skewed to look like simple bigotry.

Change is subjective. I can give you a list of changes, and it will amount to nothing. The fact that there is change should be enough to show that there are other reasons why people prefer to not have an openly-gay culture.

Taking the marijuana laws as an example, if you allow people to legally buy marijuana, it is directly telling children that marijuana is acceptable. It doesn't matter whether it is or not, if you do not believe it is acceptable, you would rather keep marijuana illegal.

You have still not offered any reason that a certain section of the populace should be treated as second class citizens and denied the rights given to everyone else past "change is scary to some people and they wont like it".

I suspect the 'nuclear family' or 2 parents and 2.5 kids is already a myth and not the majority (or certainly not an overwhelming one). What about gay marriage requires a dismantling and rebuilding of it? There are already families with parents of the same sex and it seems the only affect it has on the children is that they are more accepting of people that are different to them

What about gay marriage stops any given christian from living their own life as a christian with christian values and keeping themselves to a standard they see fit? Why can the two sets not coexist? Yes many that agree with 10% of our population not being treated as inferior are often in opposition on this topic with the official stance of religions, this is because the religions have set themselves against these issues its as easy to call a religion anti gay as it is to call gay marriage anti Christian, Why should being anti christian be a downside for gay marraige and not being anti gay not be a downside for christianity?

Why should christianity be given a privileged that because it doesn't like something that thing shouldnt be allowed?

I would class anti-christian as a law for example that banned churches or outlawed christianity. Something being pro something that some christians disagree with does not by default make it anti christian.

A culture that accepts women as equal and able to vote is different to the one that preceded it, a culture that accepts blacks/asians/etc as equal and worthy of the same rights is different to the one that preceded it, a culture that prohibits slaves is different to the one that preceded it, a culture that denies an upper class the right to treat people of the lower class however they please is different to one that proceded it, a culture that denies local lords the right of prima nocta is different to one that preceded it, A culture that includes access to the internet is different to one that preceded it, a culture that has access to TV/Radio/newspapers/books/etc is different to the ones they preceded.

If you can't show why the change will be negative to culture overall why should anyone care that some people will not like the change? There were people against all the changes above should we have listened to them and blocked the changes?

Change happens all the time and you have so far given absolutely no reason for us to oppose change by default.

I am afraid to say that so far you have not offered any objection to christianity that is free from bigotry as essentially all you have said is "we shouldnt let gays be considered normal because some people dont like gays and they wouldnt like the change that stops gays being seen as icky and wrong"

I'll read/reply this tomorrow, just so you're not waiting since we were answering in real-time.

I support gay marriage precisely because it means change and hopefully will expedite further change, what people opposing gay marriage have to do is demonstrate why that change is bad, they generally don't outside of what it means to the institution of marriage and by default everyone currently married.

No, change is not subjective. The only people who do not experience societal changes are hermits. The perception of change is subjective, not that change occurs. In your marijuana example you do exactly what I said you had to do. You are describing the change and proposing an effect.

You did not do this in the LBGT example, you merely stated that it would cause an effect and that society would change, therefore we had to be careful. That is not really a good argument (to the extent that it hardly is an argument).

So surely using marijuana as an example whether it is acceptable or not should be based on whether or not it being acceptable is a harm to society overall. this is obviously a contested area (so perhaps a good analogy) some say legalising marijuana would lead to people doing more of other drugs as marijuana would be a gateway. Others say that legalising it would generate tax revenue and allow safe places to sell it that protect from exposure to dealers that would push harder drugs. The fors and againsts then get weighed up and a choice made (in theory at least).

For example if marijuana is safer than alcohol should both not be either legal or illegal? there are reasons behind people supporting or opposing the change they do not oppose legalisation just because they dont want things to change ever, they oppose it because they dont want that particular change for various reasons

You seem to want to say that opposing change is the reason people oppose gay marriage but in reality people oppose the change or support it for reasons not simply because they are opposed to change itself.
Without specifically showing why it would be a negative change to treat gay people equally saying that it involves a change is no reason to oppose it in itself.

I shall look forward to it

I would rather have your considered responses than a rushed one. I am genuinely curious if you can support your current position that gay marriage can be opposed purely on the grounds that is involves societal change without having to show that change is negative when it actually seems very positive.

Have yourself a great day

I know we agree on being pro gay marriage but i'm curious to ask if you see any weight at all to it affecting 'the institution of marriage' and if it actually has any impact at all on anyone that is currently married?

I am married (for the second time) and I cant see any way that two men or two woman getting married has any impact on the marriage of me and my wife. I have always thought this was a rather bad argument that doesnt hold up to inspection.