Winchester Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 [quote name='kujo' timestamp='1338422065' post='2438221'] And that would make you guilty of discrimination and liable in civil court. [/quote] In other words, some thugs would violate your property rights. floopy the state.
Amory Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 [quote name='kujo' timestamp='1338421712' post='2438214'] I addressed it with roughly the same thought and evidential support as you did.[/quote] I will attempt to provide support (or at least reasoning) for my position now, if what I said above was insufficient. Each of us has a duty to encourage proper morality not only in himself but in society as a whole. Man is a social creature, and his individual wellbeing depends upon that of the society in which he lives. One vice that afflicts human societies is homosexual activity, particularly when done openly. Like other behaviors (both good and bad), the practice of this vice decreases when discouraged by society. Thus, individuals should choose to create and maintain a culture in which homosexual acts are stigmatized. One, fairly simple way to do this is refusing to hire those who consistently and openly engage in such behavior. Historical American culture (and other cultures, particularly early modern ones in the West) was rather successful at decreasing the prevalence of same-sex intercourse by deeming it socially unacceptable. [quote name='kujo' timestamp='1338421712' post='2438214'] And which "persuasion" are you referring to? A Catholic? A Republican? A straight male pursuing a Master's Degree in Political Science? An Irish-American? [/quote] I case it wasn't clear from the context of the thread, I was referring to the persuasion that supports the destigmatization of homosexual acts. [quote name='kujo' timestamp='1338422065' post='2438221'] And that would make you guilty of discrimination and liable in civil court. [/quote] That would depend upon the state and (to broaden the scope of this discussion) country.
4588686 Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 [quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1338415508' post='2438131'] Metaphysically right concepts can in fact be rationally demonstrated and defended, contrary to popular opinion after 1620. [/quote] If you have an argument that can be demonstrated through rational means that homosexuality is wrong I'd love to hear it.
4588686 Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1338422971' post='2438226'] In other words, some thugs would violate your property rights. floopy the state. [/quote] I don't see how property rights are a coherent idea outside of the context of a state.
Socrates Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 (edited) [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1338421041' post='2438200'] Not bigoted, not unjust. [size=5]"[color=#000000][font=Times]10. "Sexual orientation" does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. "Letter," No. 3) and evokes moral concern.[/font][/color] [color=#000000][font=Times]11. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.[/font][/color] [color=#000000][font=Times]12. Homosexual persons, as human persons, have the same rights as all persons including the right of not being treated in a manner which offends their personal dignity (cf. No. 10). Among other rights, all persons have the right to work, to housing, etc. [u]Nevertheless, these rights are not absolute. They can be legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct. [b]This is sometimes not only licit but obligatory.[/b] This would obtain moreover not only in the case of culpable behavior but even in the case of actions of the physically or mentally ill. Thus it is accepted that the state may restrict the exercise of rights, for example, in the case of contagious or mentally ill persons, in order to protect the common good."[/u][/font][/color] [color=#000000][font=Times]--[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfhomol.htm"]The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith[/url].[/font][/color][/size] [/quote] Hey bro, in Newchurch nobody gives a poo about the CDF, or other boring Dark Ages holdovers. Now it's all about following the Primacy of one's Conscience, popular opinion, and the Irresistible March of History. The fallible personal opinions of square old white guys like that Ratzinger cat are irrelevant. Today, we have more important people to look to for moral guidance and inspiration, like Lady Gaga. Time you got hip to it, brother. Edited May 31, 2012 by Socrates
kujo Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 [quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1338425004' post='2438255'] The fallible personal opinions of square old white guys like that Ratzinger cat are irrelevant. Today, we have more important people to look to for moral guidance and inspiration, like Lady Gaga. Time you got hip to it, brother. [/quote] Funny, I always figured you as a Bette Midler type. Duly noted.
kujo Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1338427677' post='2438280'] Bette Midler is a boring old biddy. [/quote] Yeah but "The Rose" is 2die4
Lil Red Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 [quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1338428697' post='2438300'] stop. just stop. [/quote] I agree.
Laudate_Dominum Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiS8YokFzeY"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiS8YokFzeY[/url]
Laudate_Dominum Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 It's my first time clicking this thread and I'm incapable of reading the 14 pages. I voted Yes (with a "sure, why not" tone), and Yes (with an "I guess" tone).
Laudate_Dominum Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 But for the record I'd much prefer the establishment of world peace and the invention of warp drive.
Vincent Vega Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 [quote]11. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example...in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.[/quote] I'm glad this document is not binding. In a Catholic state, I agree that homosexual teachers, coaches, and soldiers should be disallowed. In a secular state, I see no reason they should be disallowed anymore than adulterers or chronic masturbators.
KnightofChrist Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 [quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1338429453' post='2438312'] I'm glad this document is not binding. In a Catholic state, I agree that homosexual teachers, coaches, and soldiers should be disallowed. In a secular state, I see no reason they should be disallowed anymore than adulterers or chronic masturbators. [/quote] I'm sorry to disappoint you but it is binding and sometimes obligatory.
KnightofChrist Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 "[color=#000000][font=Times][size=5][background=rgb(247, 247, 247)]2. Homosexual persons, as human persons, have the same rights as all persons including the right of not being treated in a manner which offends their personal dignity (cf. No. 10). Among other rights, all persons have the right to work, to housing, etc. [/background][/size][/font][/color][u]Nevertheless, these rights are not absolute. They can be legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct. [/u][color=#ff0000][u][b]This is sometimes not only licit but obligatory[/b][/u][/color][u][b].[/b] This would obtain moreover not only in the case of culpable behavior but even in the case of actions of the physically or mentally ill. Thus it is accepted that the state may restrict the exercise of rights, for example, in the case of contagious or mentally ill persons, in order to protect the common good."[/u] [font=Times]--[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfhomol.htm"]The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith[/url]."[/font]
Laudate_Dominum Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 Didn't realize people were that worried about surprise buttsecks.
Vincent Vega Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1338430576' post='2438320'] I'm sorry to disappoint you but it is binding [/quote] Do you have a source for this? I'd like to know for sure, but it isn't easy to tell what is and isn't binding. For instance, this: [url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2ordin.htm"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2ordin.htm[/url] is binding, but it also is much more strongly worded at the end: [quote][color=#000000]Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. <Lk> 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.[/color][color=#000000] Invoking an abundance of divine assistance upon you, venerable Brothers, and upon all the faithful, I impart my Apostolic Blessing.[/color] [color=#000000]From the Vatican, on 22 May, the Solemnity of Pentecost, in the year 1994, the sixteenth of my Pontificate.[/color][/quote] This document has nothing nearly as grave sounding. Of course, that document is about an absolute teaching of the Church, and this one is about what jobs a gay person should have, so I can see why the gravity of one might be greater than of the other.
Amppax Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1338430639' post='2438322'] [b]"2. Homosexual persons, as human persons, have the same rights as all persons including the right of not being treated in a manner which offends their personal dignity (cf. No. 10). Among other rights, all persons have the right to work, to housing, etc.[/b] [/quote] This is the part that I see as important. They have a right to work. sweet, that's established, looks like we can answer US's question. [quote] Nevertheless, these rights are not absolute. They can be legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct.This is sometimes not only licit but obligatory. This would obtain moreover not only in the case of culpable behavior but even in the case of actions of the physically or mentally ill. Thus it is accepted that the state may restrict the exercise of rights, for example, in the case of contagious or mentally ill persons, in order to protect the common good." --[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfhomol.htm"]The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith[/url]." [/quote] Ok, their rights can be limited because of misconduct. I feel like just about everyone here would agree with this. However, it doesn't say that they HAVE to be. It does go on to say that sometimes, it is even mandatory to limit such rights. But the document is vague; it doesn't say that "if a person commits homosexual acts, they forfeit their right to a job". Granted, I haven't looked at the entire document, but based on this little section, I still don't see where this is absolute proof that your point is proven. I would wonder if they are talking of any disordered acts, or merely ones of a certain gravity. It doesn't seem clear to me that the Church's position would be that they should be automatically discriminated against in hiring. Maybe I'm reading wrong? Also, I'd like to apologize for laming up the thread earlier. KoC, you're right, just because Socrates responds one way, doesn't mean we should all respond in turn. And Socrates, I DO respect you position, and admire you zeal for the teaching of the Church, I just wish you didn't feel the need to be so unpleasant in displaying it.
qfnol31 Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 [quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1338433574' post='2438363'] This is the part that I see as important. They have a right to work. sweet, that's established, looks like we can answer US's question. Ok, their rights can be limited because of misconduct. I feel like just about everyone here would agree with this. However, it doesn't say that they HAVE to be. It does go on to say that sometimes, it is even mandatory to limit such rights. But the document is vague; it doesn't say that "if a person commits homosexual acts, they forfeit their right to a job". Granted, I haven't looked at the entire document, but based on this little section, I still don't see where this is absolute proof that your point is proven. I would wonder if they are talking of any disordered acts, or merely ones of a certain gravity. It doesn't seem clear to me that the Church's position would be that they should be automatically discriminated against in hiring. Maybe I'm reading wrong? Also, I'd like to apologize for laming up the thread earlier. KoC, you're right, just because Socrates responds one way, doesn't mean we should all respond in turn. And Socrates, I DO respect you position, and admire you zeal for the teaching of the Church, I just wish you didn't feel the need to be so unpleasant in displaying it. [/quote]I'm going to answer this with a question/analogy. Should a Catholic school hire a teacher/professor who constantly flaunts the authority of the Church? Should such a school be open to all points of view, regardless? If a university has that privilege, then does a high school have it as well? What about a middle school? An elementary school? My point is that at some point a person's (open) beliefs can cause harm and scandal for those over whom they have an influence. If an elementary school teacher (particularly in a Catholic school) lives an openly gay lifestyle and makes it known, then he could cause scandal to young children. It's very difficult to hear that the Church does not approve of homosexual sexual activities on the one hand and have a teacher who (implicitly or explicitly) disagrees on the other. Also, the document KoC has posted could also be extended to pedophiles. Pedophiles ought to be discriminated against when hiring. It's not a reflection of the person, but of his actions. That's what's at stake here and why discrimination can be licit. Discrimination based on a person's actions is not wrong in and of itself. It just can't be.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now