[Draft] Limiting Religious Discrimination Exemptions

[Catgirl Harems]

OOC: Sorry for being so slow to respond

I'm pretty sure that the OP wants us to infer that the Catholic Church (largest sect of Christianity, which is the largest religion in the world) would be illegal in member state...

OOC: Did you read the clarifies clause?

So let's force churches to marry transgender lesbian couples. OK.

IC: "Of course, any person should be able to marry wherever, and to whomever, they see fit. Churches should not get to decide who does and doesn't deserve to take part in their practices."

This may be something like "Hey, religious people, it's a discrimination that you reject me just because I eat pork while you don't. Eat pork, it's not so bad. (aka Let's export pork to Middle East)"

OOC: Did you even read the draft? That's so completely out of scope. Eating pork is something that an individual can change about themselves, being a member of the LGBT community is something that an individual can not change. Therefore, additional protections around it must be made.

This proposal treats all religions equally, but unlike people, religions are not equal, some are more discriminating than others. Saying that Islam should accept women as equal members of society, or to acknowledge that a rape isn't a damage to a man's possession, but rather a damage to the person being raped, is good. However, restricting religions from saying that having sex with a person of the same sex and making up various genders is not the way how people are supposed to live and behave, is more authoritarian rather than liberating. By doing this you will grant great liberties to the LGBTQI+etc. minority, but you will also severely restrain the liberties of religious people, who are a vast majority.

OOC: The proposal has to treat all religions equally, otherwise I would be able to hear the "REEEEEEEEEEEE WHAT ABOUT MY RELIGION" from everyone. Your two examples are exactly the same, limiting what a religious institution can say in order to prevent harm. Telling a religious institution that they can't deny rights to LGBT people is the same amount of "authoritarian" as telling them to not hate women.

If you care enough to want a religious ceremony then you should care enough to follow that religion's moral code. If you believe that there must be some supernatural principle worthy of worship, but you can't bring yourself to follow a specific religion's moral code, then look for a different religion whose teachings are more to your liking."

IC: So basically "if you're LGBT you don't get to pick which religion you want to be part of, you have to pick the one for LGBT members only?" That's exactly why this proposal is needed. It's not theophobia to say that churches, and other religious institutions must accept members even if the prospective member is gay or trans.

OOC: Hey it's cool to see you here! Your guide really helped me out on this!

[Catgirl Harems]

“In advance, I like this proposal.”

[*] Orders member nations to impose the same sanctions, or punishments, for actions that deny rights, or privileges, based on sexuality or gender identity, on religious institutions as are imposed on any other entity for such actions, within the confines of past resolutions on the subject. The reason religious-based discrimination wasn’t included in DRSGM was that it needs to be addressed in a different way, yet all you’ve done here is treat it exactly the same.[/list]

OOC: Do you have any specific ideas about what could be done here?

[Kyoki Chudoku]

This proposal treats all religions equally, but unlike people, religions are not equal, some are more discriminating than others. Saying that Islam should accept women as equal members of society, or to acknowledge that a rape isn't a damage to a man's possession, but rather a damage to the person being raped, is good. However, restricting religions from saying that having sex with a person of the same sex and making up various genders is not the way how people are supposed to live and behave, is more authoritarian rather than liberating. By doing this you will grant great liberties to the LGBTQI+etc. minority, but you will also severely restrain the liberties of religious people, who are a vast majority. And what about the so called "discrimination based on gender"? Well, telling obese or anorectic people that they aren't healthy isn't a discrimination based on weight, so why confronting transvestites with the fact that they are a little wrong in their heads and that the way they act is in contradiction to the dogma of the local religion should be perceived as a form of discrimination? Last, but not least, the definition of religion in this proposal is so broad, that it would also count cults and perhaps even NSDAP as religions.

”If various world governments have their freedoms in these areas restricted by the World Assembly, for what reason are religious organisations alone granted particular exemption from such protocol? Because they imply immortal consequences? For me, the consequences within life are far greater than anything which might come beyond it, which I don’t think there is anyway. All you really need to answer that question about local dogma is the replace the term “local religion” with the term “nation” and you can see why I object to such reasoning.”

"Blatant theophobia, again?"
*<sighs>*
"Look, it's simple enough, if you don't want to follow a major tenet in a religion's moral code -- which many of that religion's members might believe to have been decreed by a deity, and thus not changeable by mortals -- then don't claim membership in that religion. If you care enough to want a religious ceremony then you should care enough to follow that religion's moral code. If you believe that there must be some supernatural principle worthy of worship, but you can't bring yourself to follow a specific religion's moral code, then look for a different religion whose teachings are more to your liking."

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

”Many individuals are effectively born into a religion. While they have the option to change their beliefs, that usually depends a lot on their life experiences, how restrictive their past religion was, and so on. And once more, if you want my perspective on why religious organisations should not be granted any special exemption, consider how these statements appear when referring to nations. It’s effectively saying that if you don’t like discrimination somewhere, go somewhere else. If a nation were to, say, suppress the rights of a certain group, it would be condemned. If a religion does so, why should it be considered acceptable? Look, I’m no fan of the massive restrictions this organisation places on leaders and their decisions, but that’s the cost of being a part of the World Assembly. I think that if these restrictions are gonna exist, religious groups shouldn’t get special exemption for it. I mean, theocracies still have to follow all the rules, don’t they? Why shouldn’t a...whatever these religious groups are called, not have to follow the same standard? Because they don’t like it? Yeah, some nations don’t like it, they still have to do it.”

[Reploid Productions]

so why confronting transvestites with the fact that they are a little wrong in their heads and that the way they act is in contradiction to the dogma of the local religion should be perceived as a form of discrimination?

You can argue against LGBTQ+ without the needlessly trollish "trans people are mentally ill" flavoring. Do so. And give the site rules a quick review while you're at it.

[Marxist Germany]

so why confronting transvestites with the fact that they are a little wrong in their heads and that the way they act is in contradiction to the dogma of the local religion should be perceived as a form of discrimination?

You can argue against LGBTQ+ without the needlessly trollish "trans people are mentally ill" flavoring. Do so. And give the site rules a quick review while you're at it.

OOC:Someone angered a site admin, yikes!

[Kenmoria]

“In advance, I like this proposal.”

OOC: Do you have any specific ideas about what could be done here?

(OOC: I think illegalising discrimination by religious groups as discrimination by secular groups is illegalised is fully correct, but the idea of having equal punishments doesn’t fit well with me. I suggest forcing member nations to have whatever penalty is necessary to force religious groups into compliance with this legislation, up to a limit of that which is given to secular groups.)

[Old Hope]

"Blatant theophobia, again?"
*<sighs>*
"Look, it's simple enough, if you don't want to follow a major tenet in a religion's moral code -- which many of that religion's members might believe to have been decreed by a deity, and thus not changeable by mortals -- then don't claim membership in that religion. If you care enough to want a religious ceremony then you should care enough to follow that religion's moral code. If you believe that there must be some supernatural principle worthy of worship, but you can't bring yourself to follow a specific religion's moral code, then look for a different religion whose teachings are more to your liking."

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

”Many individuals are effectively born into a religion. While they have the option to change their beliefs, that usually depends a lot on their life experiences, how restrictive their past religion was, and so on. And once more, if you want my perspective on why religious organisations should not be granted any special exemption, consider how these statements appear when referring to nations. It’s effectively saying that if you don’t like discrimination somewhere, go somewhere else. If a nation were to, say, suppress the rights of a certain group, it would be condemned. If a religion does so, why should it be considered acceptable? Look, I’m no fan of the massive restrictions this organisation places on leaders and their decisions, but that’s the cost of being a part of the World Assembly. I think that if these restrictions are gonna exist, religious groups shouldn’t get special exemption for it. I mean, theocracies still have to follow all the rules, don’t they? Why shouldn’t a...whatever these religious groups are called, not have to follow the same standard? Because they don’t like it? Yeah, some nations don’t like it, they still have to do it.”

This is not a good comparison. Nations can leave the World Assembly.
Religious groups are not nations. Many are international and not bound to a specific nation, and if there is a core nation then it is usually not in the World Assembly and can thus not be threatened into compliance. In the worst case you just drive the World Assembly branches of that religion into the underground(e.g. illegality); which becomes a gigantic problem for a member state with a significant religious population - did you ever try to imprison 10% of the inhabitants of your state? Maybe 50%? More? That's the problem. The exemptions aren't made out of thin air-they have good reasoning behind them.

[Kyoki Chudoku]

”Many individuals are effectively born into a religion. While they have the option to change their beliefs, that usually depends a lot on their life experiences, how restrictive their past religion was, and so on. And once more, if you want my perspective on why religious organisations should not be granted any special exemption, consider how these statements appear when referring to nations. It’s effectively saying that if you don’t like discrimination somewhere, go somewhere else. If a nation were to, say, suppress the rights of a certain group, it would be condemned. If a religion does so, why should it be considered acceptable? Look, I’m no fan of the massive restrictions this organisation places on leaders and their decisions, but that’s the cost of being a part of the World Assembly. I think that if these restrictions are gonna exist, religious groups shouldn’t get special exemption for it. I mean, theocracies still have to follow all the rules, don’t they? Why shouldn’t a...whatever these religious groups are called, not have to follow the same standard? Because they don’t like it? Yeah, some nations don’t like it, they still have to do it.”

This is not a good comparison. Nations can leave the World Assembly.
Religious groups are not nations. Many are international and not bound to a specific nation, and if there is a core nation then it is usually not in the World Assembly and can thus not be threatened into compliance. In the worst case you just drive the World Assembly branches of that religion into the underground(e.g. illegality); which becomes a gigantic problem for a member state with a significant religious population - did you ever try to imprison 10% of the inhabitants of your state? Maybe 50%? More? That's the problem. The exemptions aren't made out of thin air-they have good reasoning behind them.

”It’s true that religions are international. I may have overlooked that a little, since we don’t get or want a whole lot of it here. We have unfortunate circumstances in that our most prominent religion is effectively a cult around a person who wants nothing more than to eliminate every last one of those followers. And many Chudokurens are against religion after seeing the crazed fanaticism of the Tengos we fought. I personally really struggle to understand why religions should be treated differently to any other non-government organisation. I get that it’s gonna be a complicated and difficult topic for many nations. Let’s take misogyny as an example. From what I know- not much, honestly- some religions have a lot of a misogynistic angle to ‘em. Take one of the extreme examples of that, one of those accursed ones where people are treated as nothing but property. Obviously we don’t allow nations or organisations to do that sort of thing, right? And I don’t think many people are comfortable with letting religions do it either, or so I hope. But when you get to less extreme examples, you see that it’s discriminatory and vile for most organisations to do it, but fine for religious organisations to. In Kyoki Chudoku at least, we don’t give ‘em any special exemptions from anything. If that’s against a law or somethin’, point it out to me, but otherwise...it’s what we’re doin’. And maybe that’s enough for us. We don’t have any major issues from it. But other nations might, and I guess that’s fair enough. I’m still supporting this, though.”

[Wallenburg]

There is no contradiction here. #457 merely clarifies that its mandates do not apply to religious organizations. This has no effect on the mandates of CoCR. Another example please.

OOC: And the next resolution of this nature that comes with a clause 5 that merely clarifies that it's non discrimination mandates do not apply to say, white supremacist organizations, will have no effect on the mandates of CoCR either, right?

Yes. That is how World Assembly resolutions work.

Attempting to rationalize away the very evident problems, because the result in one case is more palatable to you than in the other, doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist.

I have not defended GA #457's religious exemption. I have merely pointed out that the draft here does not contradict #457 or #35. Don't put words in my mouth, buddy.

[Arasi Luvasa]

This is not a good comparison. Nations can leave the World Assembly.
Religious groups are not nations. Many are international and not bound to a specific nation, and if there is a core nation then it is usually not in the World Assembly and can thus not be threatened into compliance. In the worst case you just drive the World Assembly branches of that religion into the underground(e.g. illegality); which becomes a gigantic problem for a member state with a significant religious population - did you ever try to imprison 10% of the inhabitants of your state? Maybe 50%? More? That's the problem. The exemptions aren't made out of thin air-they have good reasoning behind them.

”It’s true that religions are international. I may have overlooked that a little, since we don’t get or want a whole lot of it here. We have unfortunate circumstances in that our most prominent religion is effectively a cult around a person who wants nothing more than to eliminate every last one of those followers. And many Chudokurens are against religion after seeing the crazed fanaticism of the Tengos we fought. I personally really struggle to understand why religions should be treated differently to any other non-government organisation. I get that it’s gonna be a complicated and difficult topic for many nations. Let’s take misogyny as an example. From what I know- not much, honestly- some religions have a lot of a misogynistic angle to ‘em. Take one of the extreme examples of that, one of those accursed ones where people are treated as nothing but property. Obviously we don’t allow nations or organisations to do that sort of thing, right? And I don’t think many people are comfortable with letting religions do it either, or so I hope. But when you get to less extreme examples, you see that it’s discriminatory and vile for most organisations to do it, but fine for religious organisations to. In Kyoki Chudoku at least, we don’t give ‘em any special exemptions from anything. If that’s against a law or somethin’, point it out to me, but otherwise...it’s what we’re doin’. And maybe that’s enough for us. We don’t have any major issues from it. But other nations might, and I guess that’s fair enough. I’m still supporting this, though.”

"In that case, you are looking at religion as a business. Part of the product that religions are selling is their moral code, Christianity as an example is also not opposed to homosexuals, only the practice of homosexual sex or marriage. This is part of the value system that the Church is built upon. It is also often a core tenet of the community. Regardless I would compare this to instructing a soda company that they cannot sell any beverage with sugar, sure they still have options but you are essentially destroying the organisation in the process.

Regardless, the primary problem with this trash masquerading as a proposal is that it focuses on the symptom rather than the issue. Another ambassador has tried to argue that this measure is necessary because homosexual children in very religious households may be driven to suicide. How exactly may I ask is this measure going to lessen that? If anything it will exacerbate the problem. Those parents will still hold those views and likely be more grounded in them as the worldly laws will be viewed as a test of faith. If you really wish to help people, stop attempting to do it with a chainsaw when a scalpel is required.

Mandating that all nations, where even remotely relevant within the world assembly, should begin programs attempting to humanise homosexuality. Further one can even mandate that religious leaders have monthly or weakly dialogues with prominent and ordinary homosexuals, if possible it could even be arranged that one of these individuals comes from within their faith. That individual's identity must, of course, be protected. This non-aggressive measure is far more likely to promote actual healthy change. If I shared your views entirely, I would compare this proposal to an attempt to cover a festering wound with a mere bandage. If this is an issue, it is clearly a systemic and thus there is no easy solution that will make the problem go away. Passing this resolution then attempting the dialogues is also foolish, it rarely is as easy to change a person's perspective when you started the dialogue by attacking them. Yes, you could view them... us as having attacked first but realistically that was mostly the actions of our ancestors. Honestly, if you want to address this issue it will have to be through social change and not some foolish attempt that will harden the hearts of those you wish to help."

[Old Hope]

This is not a good comparison. Nations can leave the World Assembly.
Religious groups are not nations. Many are international and not bound to a specific nation, and if there is a core nation then it is usually not in the World Assembly and can thus not be threatened into compliance. In the worst case you just drive the World Assembly branches of that religion into the underground(e.g. illegality); which becomes a gigantic problem for a member state with a significant religious population - did you ever try to imprison 10% of the inhabitants of your state? Maybe 50%? More? That's the problem. The exemptions aren't made out of thin air-they have good reasoning behind them.

”It’s true that religions are international. I may have overlooked that a little, since we don’t get or want a whole lot of it here. We have unfortunate circumstances in that our most prominent religion is effectively a cult around a person who wants nothing more than to eliminate every last one of those followers. And many Chudokurens are against religion after seeing the crazed fanaticism of the Tengos we fought. I personally really struggle to understand why religions should be treated differently to any other non-government organisation. I get that it’s gonna be a complicated and difficult topic for many nations. Let’s take misogyny as an example. From what I know- not much, honestly- some religions have a lot of a misogynistic angle to ‘em. Take one of the extreme examples of that, one of those accursed ones where people are treated as nothing but property. Obviously we don’t allow nations or organisations to do that sort of thing, right? And I don’t think many people are comfortable with letting religions do it either, or so I hope. But when you get to less extreme examples, you see that it’s discriminatory and vile for most organisations to do it, but fine for religious organisations to. In Kyoki Chudoku at least, we don’t give ‘em any special exemptions from anything. If that’s against a law or somethin’, point it out to me, but otherwise...it’s what we’re doin’. And maybe that’s enough for us. We don’t have any major issues from it. But other nations might, and I guess that’s fair enough. I’m still supporting this, though.”

Well, we do think that it is reasonable for religious organizations to refuse to hire people for positions of religious guidance who evidently do not follow the teachings of the religion - whatever those are.

[Tinfect]

OOC:
I don't have the patience to argue with homophobia masquerading as 'moderation' and 'religious freedom' anymore. It comes down to a simple reality; Human Rights are Non-Negotiable. Any position that rejects the recognition of Human Rights, be they on grounds of 'moving too quickly', or 'right to discriminate', or any other absurdist nonsense, is homophobic. There is no in between. There is no 'disagreeing'. You're either on the side of Human Rights, or you're not, and in the latter case, your opinion is neither needed nor wanted.

[Old Hope]

”It’s true that religions are international. I may have overlooked that a little, since we don’t get or want a whole lot of it here. We have unfortunate circumstances in that our most prominent religion is effectively a cult around a person who wants nothing more than to eliminate every last one of those followers. And many Chudokurens are against religion after seeing the crazed fanaticism of the Tengos we fought. I personally really struggle to understand why religions should be treated differently to any other non-government organisation. I get that it’s gonna be a complicated and difficult topic for many nations. Let’s take misogyny as an example. From what I know- not much, honestly- some religions have a lot of a misogynistic angle to ‘em. Take one of the extreme examples of that, one of those accursed ones where people are treated as nothing but property. Obviously we don’t allow nations or organisations to do that sort of thing, right? And I don’t think many people are comfortable with letting religions do it either, or so I hope. But when you get to less extreme examples, you see that it’s discriminatory and vile for most organisations to do it, but fine for religious organisations to. In Kyoki Chudoku at least, we don’t give ‘em any special exemptions from anything. If that’s against a law or somethin’, point it out to me, but otherwise...it’s what we’re doin’. And maybe that’s enough for us. We don’t have any major issues from it. But other nations might, and I guess that’s fair enough. I’m still supporting this, though.”

"In that case, you are looking at religion as a business. Part of the product that religions are selling is their moral code, Christianity as an example is also not opposed to homosexuals, only the practice of homosexual sex or marriage. This is part of the value system that the Church is built upon. It is also often a core tenet of the community. Regardless I would compare this to instructing a soda company that they cannot sell any beverage with sugar, sure they still have options but you are essentially destroying the organisation in the process.

Regardless, the primary problem with this trash masquerading as a proposal is that it focuses on the symptom rather than the issue. Another ambassador has tried to argue that this measure is necessary because homosexual children in very religious households may be driven to suicide. How exactly may I ask is this measure going to lessen that? If anything it will exacerbate the problem. Those parents will still hold those views and likely be more grounded in them as the worldly laws will be viewed as a test of faith. If you really wish to help people, stop attempting to do it with a chainsaw when a scalpel is required.

Mandating that all nations, where even remotely relevant within the world assembly, should begin programs attempting to humanise homosexuality. Further one can even mandate that religious leaders have monthly or weakly dialogues with prominent and ordinary homosexuals, if possible it could even be arranged that one of these individuals comes from within their faith. That individual's identity must, of course, be protected. This non-aggressive measure is far more likely to promote actual healthy change. If I shared your views entirely, I would compare this proposal to an attempt to cover a festering wound with a mere bandage. If this is an issue, it is clearly a systemic and thus there is no easy solution that will make the problem go away. Passing this resolution then attempting the dialogues is also foolish, it rarely is as easy to change a person's perspective when you started the dialogue by attacking them. Yes, you could view them... us as having attacked first but realistically that was mostly the actions of our ancestors. Honestly, if you want to address this issue it will have to be through social change and not some foolish attempt that will harden the hearts of those you wish to help."

OOC: If you want to hear a real-world case where people wished something - that was not religion - to be banned which had huge support in the population:
The Prohibition
It didn't end well.
This resolution comes pretty close to a violation of the Ideological Ban rule.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC:
I don't have the patience to argue with homophobia masquerading as 'moderation' and 'religious freedom' anymore. It comes down to a simple reality; Human Rights are Non-Negotiable. Any position that rejects the recognition of Human Rights, be they on grounds of 'moving too quickly', or 'right to discriminate', or any other absurdist nonsense, is homophobic. There is no in between. There is no 'disagreeing'. You're either on the side of Human Rights, or you're not, and in the latter case, your opinion is neither needed nor wanted.

OOC: What if your religion is based on homophobia? I.e. An entire religion just for homophobia

[Tinfect]

This resolution comes pretty close to a violation of the Ideological Ban rule.

OOC:
This is completely wrong.

OOC: What if your religion is based on homophobia? I.e. An entire religion just for homophobia

OOC:
And what if my religion is based on beating homophobes to death with bricks and baseball bats?

If you want to have a conversation based on absurdities, take it to NSG.

[Arasi Luvasa]

OOC:

Here is South Africa there was a similar issue during the Apartheid era. The Apartheid government attempted to outlaw witch-hunts, it had absolutely no effect. Yes there are some cases where things need to be done in law, but one needs to look at the situation to determine how.

OOC:
I don't have the patience to argue with homophobia masquerading as 'moderation' and 'religious freedom' anymore. It comes down to a simple reality; Human Rights are Non-Negotiable. Any position that rejects the recognition of Human Rights, be they on grounds of 'moving too quickly', or 'right to discriminate', or any other absurdist nonsense, is homophobic. There is no in between. There is no 'disagreeing'. You're either on the side of Human Rights, or you're not, and in the latter case, your opinion is neither needed nor wanted.

IRL I believe religious expression is a human right. Disdain for homosexuality and discrimination within a religious structure is, therefore, a human right IRL. Sorry to break it to you but bigotry is bigotry, either way, it is flung. I should not have to deal with your bigotry or degradation of my religion any more than you should have to deal with homophobia. Honestly, I am beginning to sympathise more with the Westboro Baptist Church because of your attitude towards religion. There are plenty of Churches that welcome homosexuals, why do you get to demand that everyone else bow down to your whims while YOU DENY THEM EVEN THE SLIGHTEST OUNCE OF RESPECT FOR THEIR DEEPLY HELD BELIEFS when those aren't directed out at anyone save those who choose to engage. Instead of 'live and let live', you have turned the battle into 'give me everything I want and screw you'. If you want to be treated with respect as a human being for your protected characteristics, offer that same respect to others for their protected characteristics. A Church is primarily an organisation of God, Christians view it as a house essentially (it is called the house of God). I believe one is still allowed to kick another out of their house without needing to justify why, or the servants of said individual. So in closing, if you don't like bigotry then stop being a bigot yourself.

This resolution comes pretty close to a violation of the Ideological Ban rule.

OOC:
This is completely wrong.

OOC: What if your religion is based on homophobia? I.e. An entire religion just for homophobia

OOC:
And what if my religion is based on beating homophobes to death with bricks and baseball bats?

If you want to have a conversation based on absurdities, take it to NSG.

As long as you are not physically attacking them (or otherwise infringing on their rights, including their right to religious expression), by all means.

[Tinfect]

OOC:
Here is South Africa there was a similar issue during the Apartheid era. The Apartheid government attempted to outlaw witch-hunts, it had absolutely no effect. Yes there are some cases where things need to be done in law, but one needs to look at the situation to determine how.

OOC:
So what you're saying is that this legislation doesn't go far enough? If that's your problem, I'm sure the Author would be willing to put some stipulations regarding education programs for religious authorities, and at public institutions.

IRL I believe religious expression is a human right.

You're goddamn right it is. But discrimination isn't. Your religion can go on just fine once it cuts out the discrimination. Again, white supremacists don't get to continue enslaving black people.

Disdain for homosexuality and discrimination within a religious structure is, therefore, a human right IRL.

I'm not telling you to rip out the bible passages that say stone gays to death, that's frankly a matter of 'buyer beware'. But religion cannot be an excuse for discrimination. I will not have anyone treat me as subhuman with the defense that it's okay because they truly faithfully believe that GOD wants them to treat me as subhuman.

Sorry to break it to you but bigotry is bigotry, either way, it is flung. I should not have to deal with your bigotry or degradation of my religion any more than you should have to deal with homophobia. Honestly, I am beginning to sympathise more with the Westboro Baptist Church because of your attitude towards religion.

Well, at least we know which side you're on now. See you in hell.

[Arasi Luvasa]

Tinefect, I am very much pro-gay rights. I am also at the same time very pro-religious rights. My Church does not allow female servers, I disagree with that but I still believe that there should be a place for Christians who hold that value to worship. You are clearly bigoted against anyone who doesn't bow down to your whims, it is not enough that you are accommodated in society but every group must welcome you regardless of their value system. Also, your comparison is insulting, homosexual individuals are excluded in Churches where their values do not match those of the Church (again, would you like a homophobe joining an lgbt group because they like the atmosphere aside from the sexual orientation of the other individuals). Christians are not lynching homosexuals, they are asking that practising homosexuals remain away. Honestly, they should be doing the same for anyone who re-married, but that is another issue.

OOC:
So what you're saying is that this legislation doesn't go far enough? If that's your problem, I'm sure the Author would be willing to put some stipulations regarding education programs for religious authorities, and at public institutions.

I addressed this already. Once this is in place, you have effectively neutered any benefit that may have been received from the program. You placed the group on the defensive, attempting to change their perspective has now become monumentally more difficult. The problem you are tackling is a social one, it requires acting through a route other than regulating against the practice. Patience is sometimes important, rushing headlong to fix the symptom can cause the actual problem to worsen still, and then it will be more difficult to fix that problem than if you took the time to diagnose the problem rather than just slapping a bandaid on every single wound.

Well, at least we know which side you're on now. See you in hell.

You do realise that means I still find them loathsome right? I am beginning to sympathise because people like you cannot seem to just let people live their lives and practice their faith. There are options for you if you are gay and Christian, you should not have the right to demand an entire culture change itself for you. My grandfather, when his Church did not follow the same moral codes, went to go find a new Church. Homosexuals can do the same, they should not be treated as more than any other Christians (who are equally expected to follow Christian doctrine).

[Falcania]

Christians are not lynching homosexuals

((Some of us are. And we shouldn't be, and we shouldn't pretend that it doesn't happen in God's name.))

[Arasi Luvasa]

Yes, I know. I disagree with it vehemently, but again that would only get worse with legislation like this. Putting a group under the mentality that their way of life is under attack will lead to more undesirable outcomes, not less. As I said, this resolution attempts to place a plaster of a festering wound, it does not bother to deal with the actual problem because that is far more complicated and cannot be dealt with by making more laws.

[American Pere Housh]

OOC: Just because I disagree with homosexuality doesn't mean I hate them. Phobe or Phobia means fear not hate.

OOC:
Homophobia uses the term in the same sense as Hydrophobia, not Arachnophobia.

Oh, and, uh, yes, 'disagreeing' with someone's sexuality is hatred, sorry, that's the reality of it. You don't get to 'disagree' with someone's existence. You don't get to 'disagree' that a gay couple should be allowed to get Married and still absolve yourself of bigotry.

If getting people to respect human rights means 'forcing' it on them, than you're goddamn right I'll force it on them. Human-Fucking-Rights are non-negotiable, period. You don't get to 'opt-out' of respecting them.

Thats very funny that disagreeing with homosexuality is hatred. Me disagreeing with you is called freedom of speech which is guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. If the Founding Fathers were alive today, they very disappointed in how divided our country is. I never said I was for or against gay marriage. You sound very triggered, do you need a safe space?

[Tinfect]

Thats very funny that disagreeing with homosexuality is hatred.

It's really not. You don't get to 'disagree' with someone's existence and still somehow absolve yourself of bigotry.

Me disagreeing with you is called freedom of speech which is guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. If the Founding Fathers were alive today, they very disappointed in how divided our country is.

The founders of the US were a bunch of racist colonizing fucks who deserve to be remembered solely as such. I'd be very much happy to hear that the bastards would be disappointed, it'd mean we actually made some fucking progress around here.

I never said I was for or against gay marriage. You sound very triggered, do you need a safe space?

You "disagree" with us. It's pretty easy to guess your stance on gay marriage.

And, frankly, the fact that you intentionally misuse those terms like that, tells me all I need, or want, to know about you.

[American Pere Housh]

Thats very funny that disagreeing with homosexuality is hatred.

It's really not. You don't get to 'disagree' with someone's existence and still somehow absolve yourself of bigotry.

Me disagreeing with you is called freedom of speech which is guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. If the Founding Fathers were alive today, they very disappointed in how divided our country is.

The founders of the US were a bunch of racist colonizing fucks who deserve to be remembered solely as such. I'd be very much happy to hear that the bastards would be disappointed, it'd mean we actually made some fucking progress around here.

I never said I was for or against gay marriage. You sound very triggered, do you need a safe space?

You "disagree" with us. It's pretty easy to guess your stance on gay marriage.

And, frankly, the fact that you intentionally misuse those terms like that, tells me all I need, or want, to know about you.

If you hate America so much, then leave. Calling George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and the other founding fathers racists is wrong. You say I'm hateful when it is you that is full of hate.

[Reploid Productions]

NSG is thataway, folks. And while we're at it, from the FAQ regarding "freedom of speech":

>It's free speech, so I can post whatever I like here, right?

Ahahahaha! Hahaha! Free speech! No, it's not. I run this web site, see, so you have to play by my rules. It's like my own Father Knows Best state.

[American Pere Housh]

NSG is thataway, folks. And while we're at it, from the FAQ regarding "freedom of speech":

>It's free speech, so I can post whatever I like here, right?

Ahahahaha! Hahaha! Free speech! No, it's not. I run this web site, see, so you have to play by my rules. It's like my own Father Knows Best state.

Then She needs to stop accusing me of being hateful when she doesn't know me.