Are churches the “whites only” businesses of modern day?
Some of you may be old enough to remember and everyone else should have read about it, the businesses that used to have signs up that said, “Whites only”. It would appear the same stuff is happening only in this day in age it’s not whites, it’s gays.
For those of you not in the know, the Later Day Saints church (aka the Mormon Church) detained a gay couple and had them cited for trespassing after they refused to comply with the LDS’s rules.
So it’s like this… That church is private property. They have the right to tell people to leave. I don’t believe however that they have the right to “detain” anyone, nor have them cited for trespassing if their grounds are open to the general public. I believe they have the right to ask them to leave. In response the activists on the other side of the fence protested (on LDS property) with a “kiss-in” essentially rubbing it in the faces of the LDS Church. Does part of me snicker when I see this? Yes. Do I think gay people kissing in public is wrong? No. Do I think they have a right to protest how they did? Yes. Do I think they had the right to protest where they did? No. I say “no” because that’s private property. Bigoted as the LDS’s policies may be, it’s their right to have them on their property.
I’d also like to point out that I think this hurts the gay community’s cause in some ways. You’re not going to change anyone’s mind with stuff like this. This is basically a parent disapproving of a child’s act and the child rebels by rubbing that act in the parents’ face in a confrontational manner. I don’t think it gained them any ground by doing this.
Here’s the bigger question though…
Why do those of you who are religious fail to see that your beliefs are bigoted? Are you REALLY comfortable knowing that your “faith” excludes and segregates people in the same manner that businesses did with blacks a few decades ago? You might as well be protesting interracial marriage. Contrary to what you preach, your “faith” has caused you to NOT love your fellow man. To NOT turn the other cheek. Instead you sit in judgment over others.
The truly ironic thing is that most religions preach love above all else. Love thy fellow man.
… so long as he believes what you believe and lives the way you want him to live. It would appear as though God’s love is NOT unconditional. It’s truly sad.
Comments (24)
Many of the civil rights leaders do not like their struggles and hardships being hijacked by homosexuals trying to prove a point.
Martin Luther King's family and I agree.
Doesn't matter if they like it or not. A parallel can be drawn. How is the gay struggle for equality different than the black struggle for equality? As far as I can tell it's a good analogy for the point I'm making above. A private enterprise is discriminating against a particular group of people. How is this NOT like the "whites only" businesses of the previous era?
"No one is enslaving homosexuals… or making them sit in the back of the bus," Alveda King reportedly said. "Don't expect us or our children to approve of, promote or elevate sexual preference to civil rights status…What's next, civil rights on the basis of prostitution and pedophilia?"
Blacks had suffered the pernicious effects of slavery, Jim Crow, alcohol and drugs, AIDS, poverty, crime, police brutality and bad schools.
Homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else.
That is the problem, they want more.
They want special rights.
First, let's dispense with the arguments from authority and debate the issue at hand solely on the claims. Alveda King does not get to determine what is and what is not a civil rights issue.
So basically your argument is that since it's not "as bad" for gay people it's not really a civil rights issue.
Also, I hope that you're not making the claim that (or rather that Alveda is not making the claim) that being gay is equal to prostitution or pedophilia.
Also, what "special" rights are gays fighting for? In regards to this article, they're not fighting for any right. They're simply pointing out the bigotry of a church. As if anyone didn't think that the church would have bigoted views.
I was not disputing general point of your argument, which was the church detaining a couple for kissing is wrong. I agree with you. However, there is also the case where a large group of homosexuals invaded a church, disrupted a service. They where making out on the pulpit, couples went into the restroom to have sex. That is a disturbance and they need to be arrested.
I am disputing the use of the sacrifices and hardships others went through in the 50s for civil rights as a stepping stone for something else.
The claim is not that "homosexuals don't have it as bad". It is that they are two completely different grievances.
One group wanted everyone in society to have the same rights.
The second wants to change the rights.
Let them get a lawyer and set up whatever their state calls a civil union.
Let them live a long and healthy life with someone they love.
As to the first part, I agree. The people who disrupted the service and had sex in bathrooms should be arrested. We're in agreement there.
I don't believe that drawing a corollary between a civil rights movement 50 years ago and a civil rights movement today is "using the former as a stepping stone".
I think you're mistaken. BOTH groups want everyone in society to have the same rights. BOTH wanted to change the current laws.
What you're suggesting is a separate but equal institution. Why should they be separate? We've changed the laws regarding government sanctioned marriage many times before. Why should we NOT change it now?
Why should we change it?
Because 2% of the population wills it?
The other 98% of the population have no say?
They are not being discriminated against. They can live long and healthy lives together.
They can get any job. Eat in any restaurant.
They can hire a lawyer to ensure they have proper legal protection.
The only thing they cannot do is fundamentally change society.
And at 2% of said society, they shouldn't.
You can not vote on civil rights. Nor should you.
If we're going to appeal to authority, I think Alveda King would agree with ME on that issue.
What civil right is it?
Equal protection under the law?
What can they not do?
That was the point Alveda King was making when she brought up Prostitution and Pedophilia.
What equal protection is there for sitting at the front of the bus or the back of the bus. What can you not do at the back of the bus that you can do at the front?
It's the principle. It's society recognizing that they are not second class citizens, that they are people, the same as you and me. They should be afforded all the same rights and privileges afforded to other members of our society unless a reasonable secular argument can be put forth telling them why they can't.
You are right, these are members of our society.
Our society has decided a long long long long time ago that the only valid union is between one man and one woman.
When certain elements of this society tried to have one man and several women, it was stopped.
When certain elements of this society tried to have several men and women, it was stopped.
When certain elements of this society tried to have two men or two women, it was stopped.
Yes, at one time this society allowed only women to vote. We stopped that.
at one time this society only allowed whites to marry whites and blacks to marry blacks. We stopped that.
at one time this society only allowed white males to vote. We stopped that.
Also, I have yet to see your secular argument that gives any good reason why gays should not be allowed to marry.
I gave it, you don't want to hear it.
There are many secular laws which you don't like.
Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they are wrong.
They are put in place to keep our society as stable and dependable as possible.
Does society change, yes.
Does it change for the worse and the better, yes.
Has marriage ever changed… no.
There is no big conspiracy here, there is no disenfranchisement.
They are free to marry… just as long as it is someone of the opposite sex.
Different races, different cultures, different ages.. all of these can marry.
You said, "Marriage ever changed… no"
Sorry sir, you are incorrect. Marriage HAS changed. The laws regarding marriage HAVE changed.
"Anti-miscegenation laws, also known as miscegenation laws, were laws that banned interracial marriage and sometimes interracial sex between whites and members of other races. In the United States, interracial marriage, cohabitation and sex have since 1863 been termed "miscegenation." Contemporary usage of the term "miscegenation" is less frequent. In North America, laws against interracial marriage and interracial sex existed and were enforced in the Thirteen Colonies from the late seventeenth century onwards, and subsequently in several US states and US territories until 1967. Similar laws were also enforced in Nazi Germany, from 1935 until 1945, and in South Africa during the Apartheid era, from 1949 until 1985"
Again, I'm not seeing the argument. I see you asserting "There are many secular laws (that I don't like) that are in place to keep our society as stable as possible"
That's not an argument. That's stating that someone put laws in place and you don't think we should change them. I think we should.
I've listed the reasons as to why I think we should change them. We should change them for the same reason we changed the laws regarding marriage between mixed races.
Why should we not change the laws? Because it keeps society stable? How so?
I concede the point that marriage never changes.
Growing up post civil rights movement you forget that in their history black where seen as subhuman.
What laws would you have them replaced with?
"Any legal adult can marry… "
Finish that sentence.
… any other consenting adult."
and before you start in with polygamy, I'm not sure that I have a problem with that. I might have a moral problem with it, but off the top of my head I can't think of any secular reasons why that shouldn't be allowed.
So, a man can divorce his wife and marry is daughter as soon as she turns 17?
If no secular reason could be given and the only objection is my moral objection…
Yes.
Which nobody in a healthy society would want.
Shouldn't they decide to make a rule which would prevent such atrocities from happening?
Well… YOU call it an atrocity. I do to. I think it's sick. I'm sure 99.99999999% of people would agree with you. Again we can't put civil rights to a vote. However, one could make a secular argument that incest causes retard babies, which is bad for society.
However, marriage doesn't always produce children. Also, not being married doesn't prevent incest. Perhaps sex between fertile heterosexual relatives should be outlawed.
… but this is another argument.
I think we got to the crux of the argument and found ourselves on opposite sides.
You think that societies do not have a right to dictate laws based on morals.
I think they have a moral obligation to enforce such laws for the good of society.
We will have to agree to disagree.
"You think that societies do not have a right to dictate laws based on morals. "
EXACTLY
There is a concept of secular morality.