^^Saying the current “gay movement” is a trend implies the sentiment will shift back one day. Instead, I think we’re looking at a secular shift. I assume you wouldn’t call the civil rights movement a trend would you? This is similar.
^I was just making sure, but you seem to be doing it again. I’m reading your statement as “without religion people would be free to perform horrible experiments on humans a la the nazis.” If that’s what you’re saying, you’re insane, literally batshit crazy. I’m hoping I am misunderstanding your sentiment.
That’s not what I’m saying about scientific inquiry. I think I made it pretty clear that religion provides a higher degree of moral rigidity. This is because there is a baseline standard. Granted, this standard is open to interpretation and it sometimes sways significantly, the standard is still there. Without religion (specifically Christianity), morality is far more flexible; arguably endlessly flexible. So the likelihood of “horrible experiments” (by today’s standards) eventually becoming acceptable becomes much more likely. For example, some more extreme pro-abortion groups are starting to accept the idea of portpartum abortion (i.e. infanticide). I’ve seen enough social change in my life to believe that this could plausibly be a real social movement years down the road.
Regardng the current “gay movement”… Are you seriously comparing this MTV-trumped up movement to the Civil Rights Movement? There’s no comparison. The former is all about compelling society to accept “alternative lifestyles” as mainstream whereas the latter was all about ending state-sponsored segregation and oppression. Gays haven’t had any lesser rights in the United States since the Civil Rights Movement…
You’re basically wrong about everything, but I’m lazy so I’ll just pick this last part to dissect. Gays can get fired from their job for being gay, no other reason has to be given. Everything else is protected - race, religion, sex, ethnicity - all covered and protected. Not being gay though. Or, how about how gay men still can’t donate blood? Not technically a right, but it’s definitely discriminatory.
How about one of the few true entitlements? The right of every citizen to pursue happiness. For most people this includes getting married. Do gay people deserve an equal chance at happiness? I think so.
And now so do many Americans (let’s not forget we’re behind the rest of the world on these issues). All of those injustices, among others, are being corrected. If it is a trend, I guess we’ll see all these recent changes unravel in a few years. Let me know how that works out for you.
Sure, though we’d have to identify what those core beliefs are since, I have a feeling, you ask 10 Christians and you’ll get 10 different answers. But, there’s plenty of historical precedent for setting aside outdated laws/sins/whathaveyou. That’s what I’m talking about.
So, since gays don’t have equal rights, that means that they can be fired for their race, religion, sex, or ethnicity. Right?..Right? And can’t someone be fired for being straight by a gay boss?
I have yet to see a single “right” that applies to heterosexuals that does not apply to homosexuals equally.
^Not disagreeing with you, Sweep. And I’m a big proponent of gay rights in the political and economical realms. But this (at least originally) was a discussion of religion, and I don’t believe that the church should bend rules or “welcome them into its fold”. Being a fairly devout Christian who actually attends services regularly, I disagree strongly with the idea that they should be ordained or otherwise treated as ministers/clergy.
Wait… So you can’t get fired for being a heterosexual? Are you sure about that? Can you cite the relevant law?
Regardless, *you* are incorrect. The laws on the books apply equally to homosexuals and heterosexuals. You’re saying that you want to afford homosexuals *additional* rights and/or protections. And your request is completely unreasonable because, on average, homosexuals have higher incomes than heterosexuals. There’s hardly even a case for discrimination.
Contrast that with the 1950’s which saw numerous laws specifically targeting non-whites on the books. There has been no such issue with homosexuals.
I should also add here that even though I think homosexuality is a sin, I don’t think it’s the most evil of all sins. There are plenty of others that are more destructive (greed, anger, and pride being chief among them). This just happens to gain the most notoriety.
Yeah, and that’s totally fine. You have the ability to go to a church that fits your beliefs. But, many of the most successful churches these days are ones that are good at recruiting younger members. That means, generally, being more progressive. You don’t want gay people preaching to you? Cool. But, you shouldn’t be against them preaching to people that don’t have a problem with it. That’s their choice.
Those “additional” rights were afforded to peoples that were being discriminated against. There’s not really a lot of instances of someone getting fired for being straight. There are plenty of examples of gay people being fired for being gay.
Oh, and you want a law that specifically targets gays? How about sodomy being illegal in several states? That was designed specifically to target gay men.
That’s not exactly right. Those laws were established as part of a multi-decade effort to undo the laws that previously required employers to discriminate. But now you have entered into a second complaint. You’re claiming that homosexuality should be protected by heterosexuality should not. I’m pretty sure that quite a few heterosexuals have been fired for being a little too heterosexual among coworkers. In your world, employers can’t apply that same standard to homosexuals.
The sodomy laws also applied to straight men sodomizing women (i.e. equal application of the law). The latter was probably much more prevalent than the former and as I understand was rarely if ever applied to either gay or straight men.
Gay men are much less likely to get fired today for reasons other than being gay because employers know that they will be sued to oblivion and back. If anything, heterosexuals are at an extreme disadvantage, here.
That’s kinda like saying that blacks have an advantage over whites because they can take advantage of affirmative action.
Chris Rock said it best when he asked a room full of white people if they’d be willing to trade places with him. None of them would, even though he was a millionaire.
That’s the entire point. In 33 states an employer can go up to an employee and say “you’re fired for being gay” and there’s no recourse available to the terminated (ex)employee. They can’t sue.
Edit: Since we’re being pendantic - they can sue, since anyone can sue anyone, but they won’t/can’t win.