Hate speech at Georgetown?

[muwarrior69]

Has the LGBTQ community demanded that churches opposed to gay marriage conduct such marriages anyway?

No.  So you have made a false equivalence.

https://www.adflegal.org/detailspages/press-release-details/massachusetts-churches-file-suit-to-challenge-law-forcing-them-to-speak-act-contrary-to-their-faith

[TinyTimsLittleBrother]

Proponents of traditional marriage oppose same-sex marriage not because they hate gays or want to deny them human dignity; they do so because they believe marriage is not a social construct, but a reality based in the order of nature which cannot be redefined.

That is a religious viewpoint. 

However when a secular government grants rights based on marriage, denying that right to people based on sexual orientation is discriminatory. 

It's not hard.  Churches can claim whatever religious viewpoint on marriage and act accordingly. 

[TinyTimsLittleBrother]

https://www.adflegal.org/detailspages/press-release-details/massachusetts-churches-file-suit-to-challenge-law-forcing-them-to-speak-act-contrary-to-their-faith

I'm sorry, where does this say that they are forcing churches to conduct gay marriages???

[Lighthouse 84]

I still question whether the LGBTQ community would have as much of an issue, or at least be as vocal about it, if another religious, non-Catholic university group espoused their beliefs on marriage and they were different than the LGBTQ’s desire to have marriage include same sex.  I could be wrong but I think if a group at Zaytuna College or BYU expressed their view of marriage as being traditionally Muslim or Mormon, respectively, it may not get the same play as Catholics.

[TinyTimsLittleBrother]

Has this group done anything but express an opinion that aligns with the accepted tenets of a major religion?  I read the article and the blog post, and I don't see anything about attacking LGBTQ people, lobbying for a change in legislation to reduce their legal rights , or otherwise engaging in hateful speech or actions.

I don't agree with what they stand for, but so far, I don't see any evidence that they are a hate group.

I would agree.

[TinyTimsLittleBrother]

I still question whether the LGBTQ community would have as much of an issue, or at least be as vocal about it, if another religious, non-Catholic university group espoused their beliefs on marriage and they were different than the LGBTQ’s desire to have marriage include same sex.  I could be wrong but I think if a group at Zaytuna College or BYU expressed their view of marriage as being traditionally Muslim or Mormon, respectively, it may not get the same play as Catholics.

This isn't a religious group.  Their mission statement does not mention religion at all.

"In a society where dating and courtship are largely forgotten, structures of marriage and family are eroding, traditional understandings of gender complementarity are distant concepts, the use of pornography is prevalent, and sexual assault is rampant, Love Saxa exists to promote healthy relationships on campus through cultivating a proper understanding of sex, gender, marriage, and family among Georgetown students. Many Georgetown students lack a space to discuss their experiences of the harmful effects of a distorted view of human sexuality and the human person. Through programs consisting of discussions, lectures, and campaigns, we hope to increase awareness of the benefits of sexual integrity, healthy dating relationships, and the primacy of marriage (understood as a monogamous and permanent union between a man and a woman) as a central pillar of society."

[Pakuni]

I don't really want to get too involved here, but are they imposing Catholic teaching on people who willfully attended a Catholic University?  Shouldn't that be at least a little expected?  Wouldn't one be ignorant to think that they would attend a Catholic school and completely avoid Catholic teaching?

Either I'm badly misunderstanding your point or you're badly misunderstanding mine.
When I speak of them imposing Catholic teaching on others, I mean requiring others to live their lives according to Catholic doctrine ... in this instance, not having a same-sex marriage. That's a far cry from merely voicing Catholic teaching, which may be how you're reading "impose" here.
They should feel welcome to state that their faith prohibits them from engaging in same-sex relationships, including marriage. And, of course, they should live that way if that's what they believe. That's not hate speech.
But it's not their place to say their faith means nobody can have a same-sex marriage. That may not be hate speech, but it's pretty rude and sorta un-American.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I still question whether the LGBTQ community would have as much of an issue, or at least be as vocal about it, if another religious, non-Catholic university group espoused their beliefs on marriage and they were different than the LGBTQ’s desire to have marriage include same sex.  I could be wrong but I think if a group at Zaytuna College or BYU expressed their view of marriage as being traditionally Muslim or Mormon, respectively, it may not get the same play as Catholics.

Having worked at the University of Utah, I can tell you that LGBTQ individuals don't like BYU's stance on marriage either. You won't see as many protests however because they shut down free sppech with an iron fist over in Provo. While I don't know if any has protested at a Muslim University, I have seen protests about Islam's treatment of women so their beliefs are not immune from criticism and activism. I really don't think Catholics are special in this regard. They might be the most targeted simply because they are the most powerful religion in the world.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

This isn't a religious group.  Their mission statement does not mention religion at all.

"In a society where dating and courtship are largely forgotten, structures of marriage and family are eroding, traditional understandings of gender complementarity are distant concepts, the use of pornography is prevalent, and sexual assault is rampant, Love Saxa exists to promote healthy relationships on campus through cultivating a proper understanding of sex, gender, marriage, and family among Georgetown students. Many Georgetown students lack a space to discuss their experiences of the harmful effects of a distorted view of human sexuality and the human person. Through programs consisting of discussions, lectures, and campaigns, we hope to increase awareness of the benefits of sexual integrity, healthy dating relationships, and the primacy of marriage (understood as a monogamous and permanent union between a man and a woman) as a central pillar of society."

While I don't want to judge by a cover....I would be very skeptical of what a "healthy relationship" looks like to a member of a group with this mission statement. And while I'm not ready to call them a hate group, the fact their mission statement specifically mentions that LGBT individuals shouldn't be allowed to marry, I'm getting closer to that line.

[rocket surgeon]

i believe the evolution of the term "hate group" has become the new buzz word for disagreeing with others political position.  it seems to be thrown around quite randomly, like the "R" word in order to essentially try to censor or minimalize opposing groups.  but what is the significance of creating such "groups" and/or calling then out as such?  from what i've seen and read, and you can scratch your head, ponder, scratch your head some more and then duhhhh-follow the money.  note the southern poverty law center-they wield a lot of power over what is hate.  AND, they have A LOT of cash on hand.  what's that all about?   

  how does this pertain to the discussion at hand-"hate speech at georgetown"? 

    well, no one wants to be labeled a "hater" and it's not due to hurt feelings or anything.  it's become quite the lucrative business however.  one of the best ways to understand what or who is a hater, is to identify the ones who claim to be "lovers"? the southern poverty law center for example.  just by the very fact that the arbiters of who is a hate group or not issue the "label" does that not make them a hate group themselves?  following the golden rule-he who has the gold, makes the rules. oh, by the way, the southern poverty law center is flush with cash. 

   

[tower912]

Wow.  Nice tangent, rs.  Anyway, not that it matters, but my opinion is this.  From an equal protection perspective, civil unions must be allowed.  From a religious freedom perspective, you can't force the religions to recognize them or perform the ceremony.    These two notions are in conflict.  For me, when in doubt, I default to compassion. 

[buckchuckler]

While I don't want to judge by a cover....I would be very skeptical of what a "healthy relationship" looks like to a member of a group with this mission statement. And while I'm not ready to call them a hate group, the fact their mission statement specifically mentions that LGBT individuals shouldn't be allowed to marry, I'm getting closer to that line.

Maybe I am missing it, but where does it say that?

[buckchuckler]

Wow.  Nice tangent, rs.  Anyway, not that it matters, but my opinion is this.  From an equal protection perspective, civil unions must be allowed.  From a religious freedom perspective, you can't force the religions to recognize them or perform the ceremony.    These two notions are in conflict.  For me, when in doubt, I default to compassion.

Yes sir.

[mu03eng]

Wow.  Nice tangent, rs.  Anyway, not that it matters, but my opinion is this.  From an equal protection perspective, civil unions must be allowed.  From a religious freedom perspective, you can't force the religions to recognize them or perform the ceremony.    These two notions are in conflict.  For me, when in doubt, I default to compassion.

I'm confused as to why the notions are in conflict. If we called government marriage a civil union for all couples regardless of gender, sex, or race and a religious-based recognition of the union of two souls in whatever combination a religion wants to recognize as marriage there is no conflict whatsoever. Government marriage is a social construct that grew out of the religious concept but is now a completely different entity. The government grants rights and privileges to couples it recognizes as "married" and so the government can't restrict access to those rights and privileges based on gender, sex, or race. However that has nothing to do with a religious marriage which is ceremonial in nature other than a license (which requires no religion to acquire) and as such the government has no ability to dictate or control what that religion believes/empowers.

We have to decouple these two concepts because it gives a "logic ladder" for those that oppose gay rights to connect the abilities of gay couples to seek rights under a government institution to a persons right to practice their religion without government intervention. I also think we need to change the words we use, in this case we are using marriage in two completely different contexts which creates part of the issue as well.

Side note for those (not you Tower) who make the argument that gays shouldn't marry because that's not what marriage is per religious belief. You are 100% entitled to that belief and to practice your belief, but I am also 100% entitled to my belief that it is a bigoted position and will not stand the test of time.

[Galway Eagle]

I'm confused as to why the notions are in conflict. If we called government marriage a civil union for all couples regardless of gender, sex, or race and a religious-based recognition of the union of two souls in whatever combination a religion wants to recognize as marriage there is no conflict whatsoever. Government marriage is a social construct that grew out of the religious concept but is now a completely different entity. The government grants rights and privileges to couples it recognizes as "married" and so the government can't restrict access to those rights and privileges based on gender, sex, or race. However that has nothing to do with a religious marriage which is ceremonial in nature other than a license (which requires no religion to acquire) and as such the government has no ability to dictate or control what that religion believes/empowers.

We have to decouple these two concepts because it gives a "logic ladder" for those that oppose gay rights to connect the abilities of gay couples to seek rights under a government institution to a persons right to practice their religion without government intervention. I also think we need to change the words we use, in this case we are using marriage in two completely different contexts which creates part of the issue as well.

Side note for those (not you Tower) who make the argument that gays shouldn't marry because that's not what marriage is per religious belief. You are 100% entitled to that belief and to practice your belief, but I am also 100% entitled to my belief that it is a bigoted position and will not stand the test of time.

Changing words to accommodate the needs of those who are offended seems like it’d be a bit PC and lord knows Rocket, 69 and others hate that crowd and wouldn’t want to be lumped in with them.

[tower912]

I'm confused as to why the notions are in conflict. If we called government marriage a civil union for all couples regardless of gender, sex, or race and a religious-based recognition of the union of two souls in whatever combination a religion wants to recognize as marriage there is no conflict whatsoever. Government marriage is a social construct that grew out of the religious concept but is now a completely different entity. The government grants rights and privileges to couples it recognizes as "married" and so the government can't restrict access to those rights and privileges based on gender, sex, or race. However that has nothing to do with a religious marriage which is ceremonial in nature other than a license (which requires no religion to acquire) and as such the government has no ability to dictate or control what that religion believes/empowers.

We have to decouple these two concepts because it gives a "logic ladder" for those that oppose gay rights to connect the abilities of gay couples to seek rights under a government institution to a persons right to practice their religion without government intervention. I also think we need to change the words we use, in this case we are using marriage in two completely different contexts which creates part of the issue as well.

Side note for those (not you Tower) who make the argument that gays shouldn't marry because that's not what marriage is per religious belief. You are 100% entitled to that belief and to practice your belief, but I am also 100% entitled to my belief that it is a bigoted position and will not stand the test of time.

I think we are in agreement. 

[B. McBannerson]

And yet "christians" wonder why people are leaving churches in droves.

Could be Kaepernik's fault.

People have been leaving churches in droves for thirty years.  Sexual assault by priests, how the church handled it, hypocrisy in unlimited volumes is but one of many reasons.

[mu03eng]

Changing words to accommodate the needs of those who are offended seems like it’d be a bit PC and lord knows Rocket, 69 and others hate that crowd and wouldn’t want to be lumped in with them.

I know this is satire, but I would that it's not PC simply because these are literally two different concepts we should call them two different things.

I will give the "PC bull$hit" crowd something, all the PC crap is distorting our abilities to communicate with one another.

[Galway Eagle]

I know this is satire, but I would that it's not PC simply because these are literally two different concepts we should call them two different things.

I will give the "PC bull$hit" crowd something, all the PC crap is distorting our abilities to communicate with one another.

I’m so triggered by this

[B. McBannerson]

I know this is satire, but I would that it's not PC simply because these are literally two different concepts we should call them two different things.

I will give the "PC bull$hit" crowd something, all the PC crap is distorting our abilities to communicate with one another.

PC has not allowed people to communicate frankly and directly any longer.  Tragic impact to the fabric of communication of human beings.  People live in fear of what they can and cannot say, and that shuts down communication.

[rocket surgeon]

I know this is satire, but I would that it's not PC simply because these are literally two different concepts we should call them two different things.

I will give the "PC bull$hit" crowd something, all the PC crap is distorting our abilities to communicate with one another.

well stated!  everything is peeled apart, dissected, pulled, pushed, "lawyerized", spun, until they get the meaning they want. 

my point about the "hate groups" is where did that come from?  what is it's real purpose?  first you label something, make it a negative term, then let the attacks begin.  it has become a whole new occupation.  i guess they've got to find something for all those fill in the blank "studies" eyn'a?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Maybe I am missing it, but where does it say that?

 "marriage (understood as a monogamous and permanent union between a man and a woman)"

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

well stated!  everything is peeled apart, dissected, pulled, pushed, "lawyerized", spun, until they get the meaning they want. 

my point about the "hate groups" is where did that come from?  what is it's real purpose?  first you label something, make it a negative term, then let the attacks begin.  it has become a whole new occupation.  i guess they've got to find something for all those fill in the blank "studies" eyn'a?

The definition of a hate group is very simple,  IMHO.  If the main tenet/purpose or one of the main tenets of a group is to encourage violence or limit the rights of or decrease the value of an individual based on a specific identity such as race,  gender,  ethnicity,  sexual orientation,  religion,  etc

[Eldon]

I'm confused as to why the notions are in conflict. If we called government marriage a civil union for all couples regardless of gender, sex, or race and a religious-based recognition of the union of two souls in whatever combination a religion wants to recognize as marriage there is no conflict whatsoever. Government marriage is a social construct that grew out of the religious concept but is now a completely different entity. The government grants rights and privileges to couples it recognizes as "married" and so the government can't restrict access to those rights and privileges based on gender, sex, or race. However that has nothing to do with a religious marriage which is ceremonial in nature other than a license (which requires no religion to acquire) and as such the government has no ability to dictate or control what that religion believes/empowers.

We have to decouple these two concepts because it gives a "logic ladder" for those that oppose gay rights to connect the abilities of gay couples to seek rights under a government institution to a persons right to practice their religion without government intervention. I also think we need to change the words we use, in this case we are using marriage in two completely different contexts which creates part of the issue as well.

Side note for those (not you Tower) who make the argument that gays shouldn't marry because that's not what marriage is per religious belief. You are 100% entitled to that belief and to practice your belief, but I am also 100% entitled to my belief that it is a bigoted position and will not stand the test of time.

Indeed, there are some old-school Catholics who do not recognize the validity (read: sacramental) of a Protestant marriage.

[buckchuckler]

"marriage (understood as a monogamous and permanent union between a man and a woman)"

Doesn't say they shouldn't be allowed to marry.  The group belives in the primacy of man-woman marriage to society. 

It seems like man-woman marriage is still important to society.  That's how I am reading it.  Maybe I'm wrong or naive,  but saying they believe in the primacy of marriage defined that way is not saying that no others shoud be able to.