Coggins7 wrote:Iagree that religions have, and should have the right, to hold "moral" views viz homosexuality. But I think that in doing so, and to the extent these views run contrary to that of society, they areappropriately criticized. You can dress bigotry up in religious garb all you want, but it's still bigotry.
There is no argument here about the right of the rest of society to criticize such views (your implication that the rest of society is radically out of harmony with LDS teachings in this area is a little rubbery, at best, however, even when theism of some kind is taken out of the equation). And please don't play Scratch's games. If you cannot tell the difference between principled criticism of a lifestyle or behavior from a religious and philosophical perspective, and plane bigotry, your ability to contribute anything of substance to the marketplace of ideas will be essential disabled. RM: I've experienced a lot of folks who think THEY can differentiate between X & Y 'fairly' and would find it impossible to think THEMSELVES bigots... So i respectfully suggest 'that' comment added nothing of substance... as possibly mine doesn't either...If you think that there is no longer any subjugation of homosexuals in our society, you are in for a rude awakening. There remain several sub-groups (not all religious) in which homosexuality is anything but open or tolerated. See, for example, the recent book by former NBA player John Ameche.
I see no reason why open homosexuality should be tolerated in the Basketball locker room, or in a military group shower, or in some other venues. Basketball teams, are, indeed, private businesses, and can hire and fire whom they please, based upon the prime directive of the business, which is, in the case of pro sports, to win games. If homosexuality sabotages that directive (and it most certainly, if open, could do just that), then so be it. This is still a free country, even for heteros. RM: IF anyone sabotages the objective of any business, profit or otherwise, they would be subject to disciplinary action. Gender/sexuality is irrelevant. Just cause must legitimize any punitive reaction, as the protection against prejudice and discrimination. Protection not available a few scant years ago in NA. Employers and land-lords had to answer to no one. Is this as you would have it??
Not sure IF i understand what you're implying by "... group shower..."??? Are you suggesting public-orgy-stuff??? Seems a bit similar to the ideas of a Red-neck friend of mine who, "wouldn't allow HIS wife to work!" (Currently a BP) Surely you don't think goes on!!??
The question as I see it is whether we, that is secular society, ought to allow religious concepts of "sin" to intrude on public policies.
What you are essentially implying here, is that people of religious faith have no right to express themselves in the public square vis-a-vis the ballot box or the referendum. RM: Religious folks, such as Spong & other Progressives are expressing themselves; just differently than other religious folks such as yourself. In other words, you want to relegate conservative religious people to the very same subjugated, second class status you claim homosexuals presently labor under. What do you mean that we are a secular society? RM: Society is a composite in which secular influence is very often the psitive force that moves us forward... In some official capacity? There's nothing about that in the constitution, Declaration, or other founding documents of the country. RM: This is a bigger issue than a USA one... Informally, we may be, but as to professed religious belief, we are, as a nation, far more religious than anywhere in Western Europe. There is no "secular society" to which religious people must defer, at least, not in the founding documents. RM: How many amendments to the original? A couple of good ones???
I say "no way in hell." If one wants to try to convince me that society rightly denies rights and priviledges to homosexuals, citing the Bible or religious dogma will not do the trick. I am also unpersuaded by theoretical arguments viz the effect on general morality, respect for marriage, or impact on the family.
Then you have the right to speak, vote, and agitate for your views, but not to deny those who disagree with you a place within the body politic.More, even if there is some empirical evidence supporting discrimination against gays, it better be pretty damned conslusive and material (statisically signficiant but trivial results are not sufficient) to justify witholding rights and privileges from an entire group of people who are doing absolutely nothing to hurt anyone else.
Pure leftwing bluster, for the most part. Homosexuals are not discriminated against except in rare circumstances (and sometimes, not even in those) where your precious democratic masses finally say "no" to the continual carrying of water for the homosexual lifestyle and its various appendages.
In any case, how do you know that homosexuals should not be discriminated against, at least in some circumstances? Do you want an open and very effeminate homosexual teaching your grade school children? RM: What about a wimpish, effeminate or a bully macho hetero?? Stereo-typing!! Do you want him as a Boy Scout leader? RM: If he's an honest, moral camping/outdoors type...Why not?? Homosexuality, as with other sexual fetishes, is still quite rare among the general population (one to three percent of the population, perhaps somewhat higher, declared? ), and indeed, perhaps much rarer than some other popular heterosexual practices. Can not the majority in a free society set demarcation lines for rare and idiosyncratic behaviors, RM: I think you might not appreciate that "Freedom" in democracy is to be enjoyed by "Minorities" too... especially behaviors encompassing such a sacred and powerful human capacity as sexual expression, such that they can at least protect their children, their military, and the right of free association from colonization and corruption by what they consider to be alien and undesirable ideologies and practices. RM: I find your fear of homosexuals to be most irrational and in fact counter productive to bringing to pass morality--beyond Old Testament superstition, fear and ignorance--and a fullness of life as taught by Jesus in the "Two New Commandment"...
Or is the society you envision no longer a free one...at least for those who disagree with you?
It is one on its way to Freedom. Still with ideologies and philosophies to be modified by humane understanding and compassion... Warm regards, Roger