"Semck - if you are of voting age and you are denied a vote In your country your rights are being violated. The people who were to deny you the vote could not say 'well he can go and vote somewhere else' a denial of rights, is a denial of rights"

Well for one thing, they'd be wrong. Typically there's only one place you can vote, in the US. Having problems with our analogies again, are we?

There's also the fact that my voting is a (legal, not human) right that I exercise, and it does not entail coercing somebody else.

What you're asking is for the ability to force another human being to stand up and perform a ceremony that he believes it is morally wrong for him to participate in. Absolutely shocking. You have no regard at all for the human rights of others, only your own.

"The fact that other religions or states welcome gays doesn't make the C of E any less discrimatory."

I already agreed they were discriminatory. As I've pointed out, discrimination and denial of human rights are different things. You don't seem to be able to grasp that but, again, it's true whether you grasp it or not. The Church of England in this case is discriminating based on its religious beliefs, but without even arguably preventing anybody from exercising their human rights.

@ Nigee

A gift for you! Just been chatting to a friend with a head for politics, and he pointed me in the direction of this....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4810898.stm

This was a bit more extreme as the Labour rebels defied a whip instead of it being a free vote, but it shows it happens.

"In defense of fasces (I can;t believe I'm doing this), government should not be involved in family or marriage at all."
I'm disappointed in you Druagnar, we agree on a lot more then you care to admit.

@Maniac,

From the Universal Declaration that YOU are quoting:

" Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

See that part about manifesting his belief in practice and observance in community with others?

That's the one you don't mind running over roughshod.

@ Octavious - I'd never knock a tryer so thanks, but in that article the Labour still had a 222 majority in favour.
However I'm genuinely interested in what Cameron has done today, it could make for an interesting few months ahead.

@ Nigee

Not sure your point. It was a bill that only passed because the Tories voted for it instead of against. A majority of Labour MPs supported it, yes, but the size of the revolt against the Labour whip made it a far more significant event than a free vote such as this.

It really won't make a jot of difference to Cameron's position. He's acting exactly as the party expects him to act. The only people he's upset are the ones who can't stand him anyway.

@Draug: "And yes, I believe very much that poligamy is perfectly fine provided all parties agree to the union of many as one (plus the aforementioned legal ability to enter in to a contract)."

what if polygamy is culturally expected and in fact the parties are coerced into the union?

Or divorce is culturally denied, by your church, community and family. Should the government offer no protection or option for a disobedient, raped, and beaten wife to leave her husband?

Because the point of government having a say in things like this is to protect rights which we consider culturally important, and not allowing sub-cultures damage individuals.

Sure we could create a state based around the family rather than the individual. With family rights and freedoms, but no individual rights and freedoms. And there would be no reason to complain about such a thing... but that is not the kind of state I imagine you would like to live in - so I don't think you're explaining your position very well.

Still, what is to stop a father marrying his daughters, a 'family' where everyone has been brainwashed into thinking it is normal. Infact not being aware that there is any alternative choice.

@Draug: "And yes, I believe very much that poligamy is perfectly fine provided all parties agree to the union of many as one (plus the aforementioned legal ability to enter in to a contract)."

what if polygamy is culturally expected

I just posted a link to a satire on this subject in a new thread. Didn't see that there already was a discussion ongoing.

Explain the gay marriage debate like I'm an alien whose race has seven genders (from Reddit.com):

http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeIAmA/comments/17u14o/explain_the_gay_marriage_debate_like_im_an_alien/c88ysj6

Dang, Semck just walks in, drops his pants, shows everybody his huge e-dong, and proceeds to rape the entire discussion.

Well played sir, and it's awful nice to be on the same side of a discussion as you for once.

@ora - What exactly do you mean? I believe relationships of all types are fine (remember the aforementioned legally accountable requirements for all participants) no matter what combination, one on one same sex, one on one different sex, many wives one husband, many husbands one wife, many wives many husbands, all husbands, all wives, whatever. What I don't believe is that any church should be obligated to conduct a ceremony their religion finds offensive and a sin.

As far as the coercion... Marriage in general can be coercion. We are talking about voluntary, truly voluntary, willing participants, not coerced due to culture. That is the same thing as rape.

And orry I didn't include that in the first response. I was reading the responses backward so saw your shorter post about polygamy and culture (sans the coercion) first.

And ora, you are picking nits there. Man and woman doesn't preclude father daughter. Doesn't preclude prearranged marriages, doesn't preclude anything except same sex, polygamy, bestiality, inanimate objects, and maybe (depending on definition of man or woman) the mentally retarded and children.

I saw on Law and Order once some guys got in trouble for banging a retarded chick. I don't see the problem. She was kinda hot and totally willing. Is there an IQ level required to consent?

@Maniac - "Draugnar - just remind me can schools in the US refuse to enrol a black student? The not-for--profit argument doesn't stand much scrutiny"

Private schools *not* receiving zero tax payer dollars, yes. They have to do it by finding other reasons, but they can do it just as a bar can deny patronage. You keep failing in your analogies by trying to compare a private organization which receives no public funds at all with either public organizations or organizations that receive public funds. Why is that?

@YJ - Technically, yes. If it were real life and she was found to be legally incapable of entering into a contract, then she is of a child-like mind and it becomes statutory rape.

@Fasces - we agree on a lot of basic concepts, just not how we should go about implementing them. :-)

@semck- I'm not seeking to prevent any C of E member from doing anything. If the C of E married a gay couple tomorrow it wouldn't affect existing members who are still allowed to get married as heterosexuals. They can still believe that gay marriage is wrong and in any interpretation of the bible they like. Their are some gay C of E members who would like to get married. What about their rights to religious observance?

Let me ask you and others a hypothetical question. If a church believed in forced marriages would the right to freedom of religion come before a person's right to choose who they marry.

Draugnar - re schools. I'd settle for the C of E not being able to deny gay marriages and for them to ty and come up with some other excuse.

Once again you go the coercion route. Maniac - forcing someone to do something is simply wrong. Whether it be forcing the church, the bride of Christ, to perform a ceremony acknowledging something as legitimate that they believe is a sin or forcing someone to marry someone else. It is still coercion and is wrong. How do you not see that coercion is wrong? Killing someone is forcing them to leave the physical existence. It is a form.of coercion. What the church is doing to you is not coercion. It would be if the CoE had it's way with all those other churches, but as long as there are alternatives, it ceases to be coercion (unless the alternative is another form.of coercion like pick the Joker was fond of doing in Dark Knight).

Just as a bit of background, particularly to those who think my arguements are stupid, ridiculous, idiotic and that I'm trolling. Read the case of Gary Mcfarlane. In this case Gary a christen was employed by a marriage guidance organisation to provide sex therapy. He objected to giving advice to same sex couples. He was dismissed. The case went to the European court of human rights as he claimed his right to manifest his religious beliefs had been infringed. He lost he case. The court ruled that religious beliefs could not in this case be used to deny others access to a service because of their sexual orientation. Obviously the ECHR is consistent with the Universal declaration of Human rights. The ECHR does give national governments discretion to decide how competing rights should be balanced. If the UK government decided tomorrow that all churches in the UK had to offer marriages, funerals etc to all people regardless of sexual orientation then such a decision would be consistent with ECHR and UDHR. This doesn't mean that I'm not stupid, of course, but it does mean my stupidity is shared by some human rights experts.

Maniac,

" I'm not seeking to prevent any C of E member from doing anything."

You're seeking to force C of E clergy to perform ceremonies that violate their consciences.

"If a church believed in forced marriages would the right to freedom of religion come before a person's right to choose who they marry."

It's a good question. The answer is no, because somebody's right doesn't enable them to force somebody else to do something in violation of their rights -- which is exactly what you're trying to do. So your position is exactly analogous to that of the church in your hypothetical.

"This doesn't mean that I'm not stupid, of course, but it does mean my stupidity is shared by some human rights experts."

No it doesn't. It means you just can't distinguish this case from that, even though there's a distinction.

Mr. McFarlane's employer was in the business of giving sex therapy to couples. His employer, a private organization, felt that he could not perform his job (which was not related to religion) because of his religious objections, so they fired him. Of note, the government here did not force anybody to do anything -- it was a private employer that made its own policy decision.

On the other hand, if a CoE priest were forced, against church beliefs, to perform gay marriages, then it would be interfering directly with a group whose PURPOSE is religious, making their religious leaders act against their own religious beliefs. It would, in short, be the _government_ forcing the pastor, the entire purpose of whose job is to lead religious observance, to violate that religious observance.

So whereas the first case has nothing to do with the government coercing anybody to do anything (against his conscience or otherwise), the second case involves the government coercing a religious organization to violate its own beliefs about its faith and practice. Thus, the first case does not involve government violation of human rights, whereas the second case is all about that.

So, another analogy fail. And please -- don't put your own bad reasoning in the mouths of European human rights experts.

Draugnar - I know coercion sucks, why did those nobles force king John to sign Magna Carta? Why did Eisenhower send federal troops to little rock? Some people who wish to deny rights need to be coerced. If you town banned veterans walking down Maine street they may need coercion to see error of their ways.

To force the _government_ to stop violating federal anti-discrimination law with its public institutions. Just because the government can't discriminate does not mean a religious body can't.

Boy, you are the ultimate bad analogy source in this thread.

(The last was in answer to the question: "Why did Eisenhower send federal troops to little rock?")

Semck - and what about the case of Lillian Ladele a christen registrar working for a council who refused to perform civil partnership on the basis that it contradicted her beliefs? Again the ECHR ruled against her. She isn't forced to continue being a registrar, but if she wanted to continue to provide services she had to offer them to couples regardless of sexual orientation.

You say I'm forcing people to conduct services against their conscience. I'm not I'm merely saying if you want to perform services you should offer them to everyone or not at all. The C of E would have a choice, continue conducting marriages but make them available to everyone regardless of orientation, or stop performing marriages. Members of the C of E would still be able to get married elsewhere, I think you said earlier that this would mean there is no discrimination.

Maniac,

"and what about the case of Lillian Ladele a christen registrar working for a council who refused to perform civil partnership on the basis that it contradicted her beliefs?"

That's an even easier case. Very obviously she couldn't perform her job. Her job, notice, was not a religious one. It was not to facilitate the religious observances of anybody. It was just to issue wedding licenses, and she wouldn't do all the ones that her employer needed her to.

Now please quit with all of the analogies.

"You say I'm forcing people to conduct services against their conscience. I'm not I'm merely saying if you want to perform services you should offer them to everyone or not at all. The C of E would have a choice, continue conducting marriages but make them available to everyone regardless of orientation, or stop performing marriages."

The CoE's religious beliefs require it to perform marriages for heterosexual couples. So you're offering the church the option of either not performing marriages (which would violate their right to practice their religious beliefs) or performing gay marriages (which would violate their right to practice their religious beliefs). You're doing this because you consider unacceptable the option of allowing the CoE not to perform gay marriages, but to perform heterosexual marriages (which violates nobody's rights at all).

I've been over this enough times now. I've made logical arguments, which you've never responded to. I've explained why nobody's rights are being violated, and I've explained the difference between violation of rights and belief-based descrimination. You have never addressed these points, only responded with bad analogies and irrelevant stories that boil down to red herrings.

I understand that you're really angry at organizations that you see as discriminating against gay people. But that justifies neither trampling the human rights of others nor engaging in the continuous, exclusive use of bad reasoning. I'm done in this thread, unless and until you provide actual argumentation (note: I don't mean another easily distinguishable newspaper story about people working non-religious jobs, nor do I mean another easily distinguishable incident from US or European history).

Incidentally, your remark earlier suggests that I called you stupid. I did call your argument that, I think, and I've referred to its shortcomings several more times. I think I also said something like, you "can't see the difference" between two things, which wasn't really justified (I was irritated). But I just wanted to say -- I don't consider you stupid, and I'm not calling you stupid. I've seen you enough in other contexts to know that. But your argumentation in this context IS very bad. I won't speculate why that may be. But I did want to distinguish my remarks.

Otherwise, I stand by all my above remarks, including my intention not to re-engage in this argument till you can serve up something more relevant.

@semck - my point is that Gary Mcfarlane and Lillian Ladele both thought their rights were being trampled upon and they were wrong.

I've been trying to point out that the ECHR and UDHR present problems for the C of E. once gay marriage is approved, as it was last night, a C of E member will try to get married in church, (maybe by a sympathetic minister) and the challenge will be difficult to defend. Don't take my word for it the C of E briefing to MPs states that "We retain serious doubts about whether the proffered legal protection for churches and faiths from discrimination claims would prove durable"