Question About Civil Rights

Uriah_Betrayed · #1 May 2, '12, 12:24 am

I would like to ask a Catholic smarter than I this question. Exactly why is the gay rights movement not comparable to the Civil Rights movement of Blacks and other minorities?

You talk about this issue and inevitably gay activists will compare it to this and quite frankly I can't think of a response. Mainly because the USA is a godless society, so by those rules gays should be allowed to have civil marriages and whatever other demands they seem to whine constantly about.

Seira · #2 May 2, '12, 2:25 am

In all honesty I don't see the difference between the two. Regardless of the color of your skin or if your gay or straight nobody should be bullied, hurt, or treated as a 2nd class citizen.

LeafByNiggle · #3 May 2, '12, 2:45 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uriah_Betrayed

I would like to ask a Catholic smarter than I this question. Exactly why is the gay rights movement not comparable to the Civil Rights movement of Blacks and other minorities?

You talk about this issue and inevitably gay activists will compare it to this and quite frankly I can't think of a response. Mainly because the USA is a godless society, so by those rules gays should be allowed to have civil marriages and whatever other demands they seem to whine constantly about.

It depends on what aspect of the gay rights movement you are talking about. When it comes to being bullied or hurt or being denied a job or a house or service at a restaurant, just for being gay, then it is a civil rights issue and those rights should be upheld. But when it comes to gay marriage then they are asking for a right that no one else has - the right to marry someone of the same sex. They try to equate gay marriage with straight marriage when in fact it would not be a marriage at all. Asking for it to be called a marriage is asking for an extension of the definition of the term beyond what it means. It is similar to wanting a 3-way marriage of three people and wanting to call that a marriage. It would not be a marriage because the number 2 is an integral part of what marriage means. And the fact of those two being of the opposite sex is also an integral part of what marriage means. The extension of the meaning of marriage to encompass pairs of the same sex is about as reasonable as the extension of marriage to encompass three people instead of two. It is something different. Gay people have exactly the same civil rights as straight people. That is, they have the right to enter into a marriage - a real marriage between a man and a woman. What they want to enter into is not a marriage. So they are not asking for the same rights as everyone else has. They are asking for some new right that is only superficially related to a right that others have. Once you see that what they are asking for is fundamentally different from what others have then you can see that it is not a civil rights issue.

Uriah_Betrayed · #4 May 2, '12, 2:53 am

Quote:

When it comes to being bullied or hurt or being denied a job or a house or service at a restaurant, just for being gay

Just to respond to this, but don't Catholics want to be allowed to deny gays a house or service? Mainly in examples where a gay related activity like say a party is going to happen and a Catholic who owns a rent-a-room denies service on religious grounds?

Aeden · #5 May 2, '12, 3:10 am

I'd imagine that many do want to be able to deny homosexuals the right to attend mass in their churches. That is because homosexuality is a sin and is forbidden in many places in the Bible.

LeafByNiggle · #6 May 2, '12, 3:15 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aeden

I'd imagine that many do want to be able to deny homosexuals the right to attend mass in their churches. That is because homosexuality is a sin and is forbidden in many places in the Bible.

If mass was only for the sinless then the church would be empty.

LeafByNiggle · #7 May 2, '12, 3:20 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uriah_Betrayed

Just to respond to this, but don't Catholics want to be allowed to deny gays a house or service? Mainly in examples where a gay related activity like say a party is going to happen and a Catholic who owns a rent-a-room denies service on religious grounds?

Allowing someone to have a party should be judged on the same basis whether gay or straight. Are they noisy? Disruptive? We should not assume to know the answer to these questions just by knowing the sexual orientation of the person having the party.

agnes therese · #8 May 2, '12, 3:32 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uriah_Betrayed

Just to respond to this, but don't Catholics want to be allowed to deny gays a house or service? Mainly in examples where a gay related activity like say a party is going to happen and a Catholic who owns a rent-a-room denies service on religious grounds?

There are people of various religious denominations (and probably some of no denomination) who want to be allowed to deny people housing, jobs, etc. based on their sexual orientation -- not necessarily actions, either, just orientation. Please don't say it's just Catholics.

The sticky part comes when Person A wants something that person B perceives as being against their rights.

Uriah_Betrayed · #9 May 2, '12, 3:37 am

Quote:

There are people of various religious denominations (and probably some of no denomination) who want to be allowed to deny people housing, jobs, etc. based on their sexual orientation -- not necessarily actions, either, just orientation. Please don't say it's just Catholics.

The sticky part comes when Person A wants something that person B perceives as being against their rights.

I realize that, I only say Catholic because 1. I'm a Catholic (of course a pathetic one of very little faith) and 2. I don't really care about what other denominations want, I simply want to know what is acceptable thoughts among my own fellow Catholics.

So is the answer Catholics should fight for the right to deny service to obvious open sinners?

bmullins · #10 May 2, '12, 4:39 am

The answer should be: everyone has the same rights, regardless of anything. The problem becomes when we elevate one person above another, which is what we are attempting to do. There is no need for 'gay rights', because they are already people and have the same rights you and I have. If they are being discriminated against, they have the same rights as you and I do to sue for that discrimination. We don't need to elevate one group of people based on their lifestyle above another.

**JRKH** · #11 May 2, '12, 6:02 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uriah_Betrayed

I realize that, I only say Catholic because 1. I'm a Catholic (of course a pathetic one of very little faith) and 2. I don't really care about what other denominations want, I simply want to know what is acceptable thoughts among my own fellow Catholics.

So is the answer Catholics should fight for the right to deny service to obvious open sinners?

People who are involved in service industries need to provide appropriate services to those who need them regardless of orientation.
That said, there also needs to be a recognition of a right to association - especially in "private" organizations.
For instance, a public restaurant should not deny a gay group the use of their facility for a dinner party. In this case the gay group has a legitimate expectancy of equal treatment.
In the case of private organizations such as clubs, church communities etc...the gay person or group (and here I'm referring to openly and actively homosexual) has no legitimate expectancy of equal treatment or acceptance. The private group should have the right to establish whatever rules they see fit since membership/participation in the group is entirely optional.

Just my 2 cents on the matter.

Peace
James

mitex · #12 May 2, '12, 12:20 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeafByNiggle

If mass was only for the sinless then the church would be empty.

Bravo! Way to stick it to the legalism!

sw85 · #13 May 2, '12, 2:02 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uriah_Betrayed

I would like to ask a Catholic smarter than I this question. Exactly why is the gay rights movement not comparable to the Civil Rights movement of Blacks and other minorities?

You talk about this issue and inevitably gay activists will compare it to this and quite frankly I can't think of a response. Mainly because the USA is a godless society, so by those rules gays should be allowed to have civil marriages and whatever other demands they seem to whine constantly about.

Well, the main issue is that marriage is not in fact a "civil right," much less one to which gays are entitled. Marriage is a natural right to which the polity attaches its endorsement. It's not up to the state to change, and by nature, it's not a union to which two people of the same sex can be admitted.

Voting, by contrast, is a civil right. I don't much care for the comparison because I don't like democracy, so I have no problem denying people the "right" to vote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeafByNiggle

When it comes to being bullied or hurt or being denied a job or a house or service at a restaurant, just for being gay, then it is a civil rights issue and those rights should be upheld.

Wait, "civil rights" require that, for instance, a Catholic bookstore must be compelled to hire a known, indiscreet, and unrepentant pervert? If this is true, do you really think such an arrangement is worth defending?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aeden

I'd imagine that many do want to be able to deny homosexuals the right to attend mass in their churches. That is because homosexuality is a sin and is forbidden in many places in the Bible.

I don't know anyone, anywhere who has ever advocated this.

mitex · #14 May 2, '12, 2:08 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by sw85

Well, the main issue is that marriage is not in fact a "civil right," much less one to which gays are entitled. Marriage is a natural right to which the polity attaches its endorsement. It's not up to the state to change, and by nature, it's not a union to which two people of the same sex can be admitted.

Voting, by contrast, is a civil right. I don't much care for the comparison because I don't like democracy, so I have no problem denying people the "right" to vote.

Wait, "civil rights" require that, for instance, a Catholic bookstore must be compelled to hire a known, indiscreet, and unrepentant pervert? If this is true, do you really think such an arrangement is worth defending?

I don't know anyone, anywhere who has ever advocated this.

Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they're sexually active. I am gay and celibate. Would you fire me SW if you found I was both gay and celibate? Because if you did that is discrimination which the Church condemns in the Catechism.

LeafByNiggle · #15 May 2, '12, 5:23 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by sw85

Wait, "civil rights" require that, for instance, a Catholic bookstore must be compelled to hire a known, indiscreet, and unrepentant pervert? If this is true, do you really think such an arrangement is worth defending?

Maybe not in that scenario. But for jobs like plumbers, software developers, dental hygienists, cab drivers, bankers, mechanics, sales clerks, truck drivers, landscapers, lawyers, police, graphics designers, electricians, pilots, real estate agents, and hundreds of other jobs, then yes, that civil right is worth defending. Now if someone is "indiscreet" about their sexual activity, whether gay or straight, that can be grounds for denying someone a job. Denying a gay person a job on those grounds would not be a violation of their civil rights.