Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    10:57 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Baker forced to make gay wedding cakes, undergo sensitivity training, after losing lawsuit Back to Topics
teacher_tim
Champion Author
Maryland

Posts:20,372
Points:860,530
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jun 3, 2014 9:36:39 PM

"A family owned bakery has been ordered to make wedding cakes for gay couples and guarantee that its staff be given comprehensive training on Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws after the state’s Civil Rights Commission determined the Christian baker violated the law by refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, in Lakewood, Colorado was directed to change his store policies immediately and force his staff to attend the training sessions. For the next two years, Phillips will also be required to submit quarterly reports to the commission to confirm that he has not turned away customers based on their sexual orientation.
*******************************
Nicolle Martin, an attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom, called the ruling Orwellian and said they are considering an appeal.

“They are turning people of faith into religious refugees,” Martin told me. “Is this the society that we want to live in – where people of faith are driven out of business?”

Martin said it was “truly frightening” that Phillips will be forced to submit quarterly reports to the government disclosing whether he turned away any wedding cake business.
“There will be some reporting requirements so that Jack can demonstrate that he doesn’t exercise his belief system anymore – that he has divested himself of his beliefs,” she said.
He will also be required to create new policies and procedures for his staff.

“We consider this reporting to be aimed at rehabilitating Jack so that he has the right thoughts,” Martin said. “That’s offensive to everything America stands for.”

Phillips, who is celebrating his 40th year in business this week, told me he’s not going to create any new policies.

“My old ones are pretty adequate as far as I’m concerned,” he said. “I don’t plan on giving up my faith and changing because of that.”
link to source
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:16,072
Points:2,699,140
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2015 8:52:45 PM

GTH: 'Can you tell me why a baker refusing to allow his business to recognize same-sex unions as "marriages" is in any way, shape or form, discriminatory against sexual orientation as a protected class?'

weaselspit: "Many have tried, but when you don't listen, what is the point of repeating ones self? "

There is a difference between listening (which I do) and agreeing (which I don't).

Your position, as I understand it, is that the baker was motivated, not by his beliefs about the definition of marriage, but prejudice against homosexuals. That is, like rjhenn, you believe that to homosexuals (that is, anyone with same-sex attraction), same-sex unions are completely normal and therefore must be treated as though they are marriages, and anything less is discriminatory.

Do I understand your position correctly?

GTH
El_Gato_Negro
Champion Author Miami

Posts:4,494
Points:948,375
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2015 10:52:07 AM

gas_too_high says:

<<you seem so unable to defend your position, so you resort to cheap retorts to cover yourself. rjhenn at least made an attempt (even if they were weak attempts).

You and he share one thing. You both project.>>

: which contains at least 5 direct insults aimed at specific named individuals, yet somehow he finds a vague reference to people in general a personal insult to him.

Can you say <<double standard>>? or <<hypocrite>>?
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,799
Points:610,605
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2015 10:10:37 AM

"Can you tell me why a baker refusing to allow his business to recognize same-sex unions as "marriages" is in any way, shape or form, discriminatory against sexual orientation as a protected class?"

Many have tried, but when you don't listen, what is the point of repeating ones self?
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:16,072
Points:2,699,140
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2015 9:49:45 PM

More insults in lieu of arguments based on facts and reason.

Let me help you out weasel. Can you tell me why a baker refusing to allow his business to recognize same-sex unions as "marriages" is in any way, shape or form, discriminatory against sexual orientation as a protected class?

GTH
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,799
Points:610,605
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2015 12:53:32 PM

"<<I sleep very well, thank you.>>

People with no conscience and no compassion for others often find it easy to sleep well."

Indeed.
El_Gato_Negro
Champion Author Miami

Posts:4,494
Points:948,375
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2015 9:03:39 AM

And gas_too_high is so unable to defend his position that he resorts to redefining the subject to some thing he thinks he can win.

<<Exactly backwards. The definition of marriage, not the orientation of the couple, was the issue.>> gas_too_high

The issue was not the definition of marriage. It was that the baker discriminated against certain people because of his beliefs.

gas_too_high does not seem to even remember what he was talking about before.

<<I sleep very well, thank you.>>

People with no conscience and no compassion for others often find it easy to sleep well.


[Edited by: El_Gato_Negro at 3/4/2015 9:04:46 AM EST]
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,799
Points:610,605
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2015 8:47:11 AM

"And you seem so unable to defend your position, so you resort to cheap retorts to cover yourself."

Projecting yet again.

gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:16,072
Points:2,699,140
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 3, 2015 9:38:28 PM

weaselspit: "Specifically in this case, marriage was not the choice that was in question but rather sexuality."

GTH: "Exactly backwards. The definition of marriage, not the orientation of the couple, was the issue."

weasel: "Keep telling yourself that if that helps you to justify your discrimination so that you can sleep at night..."

I sleep very well, thank you. And you seem so unable to defend your position, so you resort to cheap retorts to cover yourself. rjhenn at least made an attempt (even if they were weak attempts).

You and he share one thing. You both project.

GTH
El_Gato_Negro
Champion Author Miami

Posts:4,494
Points:948,375
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Mar 3, 2015 5:22:04 PM

And you can not get a much freer choice in America than to choose what religion to believe in.
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,799
Points:610,605
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 3, 2015 3:13:34 PM

"Exactly backwards. The definition of marriage, not the orientation of the couple, was the issue."

Keep telling yourself that if that helps you to justify your discrimination so that you can sleep at night...

"No, the Colorado baker (as the Washington florist and grandma) was being discriminated against."

See above.

"In both cases, First Amedment rights were being violated."

Not according to your own words;

"Everyone can have their free choice. (And of course, the Constitution, properly interpreted, guarantees no one protection from the consequences of their free choices)."
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:16,072
Points:2,699,140
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 2, 2015 8:57:09 PM

weaselspit: "Specifically in this case, marriage was not the choice that was in question but rather sexuality."

Exactly backwards. The definition of marriage, not the orientation of the couple, was the issue.

"And the law, unfortunately for your empty and ever-shifting (when not repeating) arguments was very clear in this matter. The CO Baker discriminated - period."

No, the Colorado baker (as the Washington florist and grandma) was being discriminated against. In both cases, First Amedment rights were being violated.

Sooner or later, someone who can get legal defense funds, will contest such treatment. Then we will see what happens.

And it seems now you are backing away from this statement: "The Constitution, properly interpreted, guarantees no one protection from the consequences of their free choices."

Note the phrase "properly interpreted". Your and RJ's interpretation, elevates a presumed implicit "right" over an explicit Constitutional right. That cannot be "proper interpretation".

GTH
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,799
Points:610,605
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 2, 2015 10:03:27 AM

"So then, those same-sex couples who attempt "marriage" especially those who move to, or live in, jurisdictions that do not recognize such "marriages" or attempt business dealings with those individuals who do not recognize, for religious or other reasons, will reap teh consequences fo their free choice."

Hence the reason the laws are starting to change regarding SSM... The consequences are arbitrary and in many cases SSC's legally married still are discriminated against (reaping your consequences), so your point is invalid.

Specifically in this case, marriage was not the choice that was in question but rather sexuality. And the law, unfortunately for your empty and ever-shifting (when not repeating) arguments was very clear in this matter. The CO Baker discriminated - period.
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:16,072
Points:2,699,140
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 1, 2015 4:05:49 PM

So then, those same-sex couples who attempt "marriage" especially those who move to, or live in, jurisdictions that do not recognize such "marriages" or attempt business dealings with those individuals who do not recognize, for religious or other reasons, will reap teh consequences fo their free choice.

Sounds like you're on board with that.

After all, you have agreed to this statement:

"The Constitution, properly interpreted, guarantees no one protection from the consequences of their free choices."

GTH
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,799
Points:610,605
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 1, 2015 10:40:23 AM

"The Constitution clearly protects certain free choiscs explicitly enumerated: freedom of religious exercise, free speech, freedom of the press and freedom to petition for redress of grievances. Those are clear."

This statement addresses nothing of which you stated previously;

"Everyone can have their free choice. (And of course, the Constitution, properly interpreted, guarantees no one protection from the consequences of their free choices)."

Bottom-line. Sorry kiddo.
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:16,072
Points:2,699,140
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 28, 2015 7:49:41 PM

The Constitution clearly protects certain free choiscs explicitly enumerated: freedom of religious exercise, free speech, freedom of the press and freedom to petition for redress of grievances. Those are clear.

However, it has been asserted that the 14th Amendment "equal protection" clause what is, in effect, a free choice of sexual lifestyles, to the extreme of shielding certain of those choices from their inherent consequences. That is, a same-sex couple does not meet the definition of marriage; therefore the definition must be changed. This so-called "right" is not enumerated anywhere in the Constitution.

Illogically, such a "right" is privileged over an enumerated Constitutional right: freedom of religious exercise.

When I point this out, some here have a hissy fit and accuse of of "backtracking".

SMH

GTH

[Edited by: gas_too_high at 2/28/2015 7:50:59 PM EST]
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,799
Points:610,605
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Feb 28, 2015 9:34:43 AM

"His particular free choices had an explicit Constitutional protection, which the same-sex couple lacked. Nice try."

ROTFLOL!!!!!

You very clearly said this;

"Everyone can have their free choice. (And of course, the Constitution, properly interpreted, guarantees no one protection from the consequences of their free choices)."

Yet now you are once again found to have contradicted yourself, so more backtracking. You are making this too easy...
KatmanDo
Champion Author Detroit

Posts:16,047
Points:3,377,460
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 28, 2015 12:02:45 AM

"The most adamant homophobes often turn out to be hiding their own homosexuality. "

Oftentimes they only manage to hide it from themselves. Others tend to see right through such ruses. Perhaps Marcus Bachmann can help them with their strong, persistent urges.
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:16,072
Points:2,699,140
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 27, 2015 9:02:05 PM

GTH: "No one other than you both would say a widow raising her children who turns to an aunt for child rearing assistance, is in any way denying the importance of a father as well as a mother."

weaselspit: "If there is no father, the father figure is being denied. YOU made this ridiculous assertion, and you are still trying to backpedal from it."

No, I simply assumed that you would exercise common sense. I was mistaken. My bad.

GTH: "Everyone can have their free choice. (And of course, the Constitution, properly interpreted, guarantees no one protection from the consequences of their free choices)."

weasel: "Which bears the question, why are you even posting in this thread then? The CO baker made his free choice and had to pay the consequences..."

His particular free choices had an explicit Constitutional protection, which the same-sex couple lacked. Nice try.

"I'm glad you made this point, I don't want to see any more discussion from you regarding how the baker's Constitutional rights were violated. "

Then you shouldn't be discussing how the same-sex couples "rights" were violated (but I know you will anyway).

GTH
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:16,072
Points:2,699,140
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 27, 2015 8:59:05 PM

gas_too_high - "I full well remember where this started. I'm just curious as to whether you are willing to quote enough of the exchange to continue this, or whether you are arguing about patriarchy and despotism just for the sake of arguing."

rjhenn: "You're the one who brought it up as part of your failed attempt to use Reynolds v. U.S. to bolster your argument. All you accomplished was to further undermine it."

Hardly. The thrust of Reynolds is that society has an interest in the definition of marriage, and that interest can override the rights of individuals, even an explicitly granted Constitutional right such as freedom of religious exercise. (And your supposed "right" based on your reading of the Equal Protection clause, requires interpretation. Therefore, it is weaker than an explicit right). Therefore, society can define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, for the benefit of society.

"[The baker's] 'reason' doesn't make sense..."

We all know it makes no sense to you, but that's irrelevant.

GTH: "Except that your question was itself a strawman, much like "Have you stopped beating your wife?"."

rjhenn: "Hardly, though your response does show that it hit home. My question is the direct result of your bringing up Reynolds v. U.S., since that was the core finding."

Your original question was: "Do you have a rational argument for your belief that the Constitution protects law-breaking and anti-Christian behavior by "religious believers"?"

That presumes they actually broke the law. But that only applies if the law is Constitutional and Constitutionally applied. In this case, it was clearly not. And it was the opposite of anti-Christian.

Since your question presumed 2 things that were not true, it was a strawman.

GTH: "Not everything that exists at birth, not even everything that has a genetic basis (which SSA does not anyway), can properly be called "innate"; that is, a normal part of human nature."

rjhenn: "So you believe that only perfection, according to your standards, is allowable?"

Another strawman. "Perfect" and "normal" have different meanings.

"And perfectly natural outcomes cannot qualify as innate, simply because you say so."

No, because human nature says so.

"And, again, you're using your own definition of "innate", even though homosexuality is demonstrably "a normal part of human nature"."

I'm using "innate" accurately, not superficially. ANd if homosexuality were normal, the genetalia would accomodate it, and homosexuals would not have a higher than normal suicide rate (or AIDS rate).

"And the higher suicide rate among practicing homosexuals is most likely due to the continuing prejudice they face, including the rejection of SSM and strict adherence to religious dogma, instead of Christ's teachings of love and forgiveness."

You have some proof of that? (Contradictory statement about religions passed over without comment).

GTH: "Second, there was some success in treating SSA and helping such patients get married and lead normal family lives, before the APA caved to political pressure."

rjhenn: 'Sorry, but "pray the gay away" therapies...'

Another strawman. I was referring to treatment by credentialed psychological professionals, not ministers.

"And the only reason you bring up "political pressure" is because you refuse to accept the science."

I refuse to accept politicized results masquerading as science.

GTH: "If SSA were truly innate and normal to those who have it, they would be readily comfortable with "who they are" and accept the lifestyle and its consequences, regardless of what others think. Including what you think, since you devalue any relationship that can't be called "marriage," unless you can pretend that it is a marriage."

rjhenn: "IOW, your opinion is that they should be satisfied with "separate, but not equal, second class" status for themselves and their families, again, just because you say so."

"Second class" is your term, not mine. If anyone with SSA is dissatisfied with the lifestyle, they can seek to choose a different one and attempt to overcome their SSA. But you want to lock them into what you clearly believe to be a "second class" existence.

So just who is compassionate here?

"So who here is opposing us with reason, instead of their own 'infallible' opinions?"

I present facts and logic for my position. You present -- your opinion.

GTH

[Edited by: gas_too_high at 2/27/2015 9:00:56 PM EST]
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:6,032
Points:927,210
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Feb 27, 2015 10:39:25 AM

rumbleseat "Still really hung up on the gay sex act, you sound just like teenage straight boys hung up on boobs."

Except as you find out after graduation that a few of those teenage boys weren't so hung up on boobs in reality but were just trying to make it seem like they were so that their peers wouldn't guess that they weren't so straight after all.

The most adamant homophobes often turn out to be hiding their own homosexuality.
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:6,032
Points:927,210
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Feb 27, 2015 10:18:41 AM

GTH (as quoted by rjhenn) “"Second, there was some success in treating SSA and helping such patients get married and lead normal family lives, before the APA caved to political pressure.”

What a crock!

Science doesn't cave to political pressure. That's a fiction that GTH has made up to fit with his preconceived notions that homosexuals “choose” to be attracted to the same sex.

The reason that the APA changed its stance was because of many, many peer-reviewed studies that showed without question that homosexuality IS innate to some individuals and that the sort of conversion therapies you're talking about do far more harm than they do good, if they do any good at all.

The sister of a friend of mine has gone through a therapy like you describe to “cure” her of being a lesbian. She's now become extremely unhappy and self-destructive. She's abandoned almost all of her friends and lives a very unhappy, solitary life. Her sister is very worried that she's on the edge of killing herself either accidentally or perhaps intentionally.

Another gay man I know got married to a woman because of pressure from people like GTH. The marriage was a dismal failure and they got divorced – leaving his wife to care for two children.

Now he's gotten married (legally no matter what GTH claims) to another man and they're very happy together. Much happier than he was with his female wife. She's also gotten remarried and appears to be much happier with a man who's actually interested in her as a woman.
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:26,057
Points:3,860,885
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Feb 27, 2015 10:15:23 AM

"First of all, SSA is not necessarily conducive to happiness, since it induces an attraction"
Opposite sex attraction sure doesn't guarantee happiness, either, or divorce courts wouldn't be so busy.

"untimately (sic) a sex act not in accordance with anatomy, to say nothing of human nature."
Still really hung up on the gay sex act, you sound just like teenage straight boys hung up on boobs.
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:6,032
Points:927,210
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Feb 27, 2015 10:04:21 AM

rjhenn “Nothing is "necessarily" conducive to happiness. And the higher suicide rate among practicing homosexuals is most likely due to the continuing prejudice they face, including the rejection of SSM and strict adherence to religious dogma, instead of Christ's teachings of love and forgiveness.”

Indeed.

I just watched a TV documentary on Alan Turing last night. I also saw the movie “The Imitation Game” about Alan Turing when it was released.

In both the reason for Turing's suicide was very clearly the result of the prejudice and persecution he endured because of his homosexuality.

The world lost possibly the greatest mind ever in computing thanks to attitudes like GTH's
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:6,032
Points:927,210
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Feb 27, 2015 9:56:12 AM

GTH (as quoted by rjhenn) "First of all, SSA is not necessarily conducive to happiness, since it induces an attraction and untimately a sex act not in accordance with anatomy, to say nothing of human nature. The higher suicide rate of practicing homosexuals bears that out."

Heterosexuality is also not necessarily conducive to happiness. Or do you deny that there are abusive and unhappy heterosexual marriages?

People are happy not because their genitals fit with each other the way you think they should. If that was true then every heterosexual marriage would be terrific and there would never be any divorces. That is obviously not true and therefore your contention is false.
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,799
Points:610,605
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Feb 27, 2015 9:07:27 AM

"Everyone can have their free choice. (And of course, the Constitution, properly interpreted, guarantees no one protection from the consequences of their free choices)."

Which bears the question, why are you even posting in this thread then? The CO baker made his free choice and had to pay the consequences...

I'm glad you made this point, I don't want to see any more discussion from you regarding how the baker's Constitutional rights were violated.
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,799
Points:610,605
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Feb 27, 2015 8:59:32 AM

"No one other than you both would say a widow raising her children who turns to an aunt for child rearing assistance, is in any way denying the importance of a father as well as a mother."

If there is no father, the father figure is being denied. YOU made this ridiculous assertion, and you are still trying to backpedal from it.

"But as you redefiners make abundantly clear, your arguments are not about reason, but about twisting reason to suit your biases (and in some cases, showing vitriol on anyone who dares oppose you with reason)."

And yet more projecting. Par for the course from gth.
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,746
Points:2,963,520
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 27, 2015 12:47:10 AM

gas_too_high - "I full well remember where this started. I'm just curious as to whether you are willing to quote enough of the exchange to continue this, or whether you are arguing about patriarchy and despotism just for the sake of arguing."

You're the one who brought it up as part of your failed attempt to use Reynolds v. U.S. to bolster your argument. All you accomplished was to further undermine it.

"Yet you offer no proof for this oft-repeated assertion. (Your usual rebuttal that there is "no rational reason" other than discrimination says quite a bit about your mental blind spots, but nothing about the baker, who was clear about the reason for his actions)."

His 'reason' doesn't make sense, since no one asked him to approve of anything, just to bake and sell a cake.

Unless you, and he, believe that a wedding cake is what legitimizes a marriage.

"Except that your question was itself a strawan, much like "Have you stopped beating your wife?"."

Hardly, though your response does show that it hit home. My question is the direct result of your bringing up Reynolds v. U.S., since that was the core finding.

"Because it is clearly a defect, not in accord with human nature, since it drastically shortens the baby's life expectancy (absent surgery). Not everything that exists at birth, not even everything that has a genetic basis (which SSA does not anyway), can properly be called "innate"; that is, a normal part of human nature."

So you believe that only perfection, according to your standards, is allowable? And perfectly natural outcomes cannot qualify as innate, simply because you say so. And, again, you're using your own definition of "innate", even though homosexuality is demonstrably "a normal part of human nature".

You keep accusing me of mistaking my opinion for truth, but you demonstrate that much more consistently than I ever do.

"First of all, SSA is not necessarily conducive to happiness, since it induces an attraction and untimately a sex act not in accordance with anatomy, to say nothing of human nature. The higher suicide rate of practicing homosexuals bears that out."

Nothing is "necessarily" conducive to happiness. And the higher suicide rate among practicing homosexuals is most likely due to the continuing prejudice they face, including the rejection of SSM and strict adherence to religious dogma, instead of Christ's teachings of love and forgiveness.

"Second, there was some success in treating SSA and helping such patients get married and lead normal family lives, before the APA caved to political pressure."

Sorry, but "pray the gay away" therapies that result in " depression, suicidal ideation and attempts, hyper-vigilance of gender-deviant mannerisms, social isolation, fear of being a child abuser and poor self-esteem" are not only not helping, but lack any actual evidence that they do any good. And the only reason you bring up "political pressure" is because you refuse to accept the science.

"But if someone still wishes to seek happiness with a same-sex partner, he or she is free to do so. Such a lifestyle of course has nothing to do with marriage and family."

Again, in your infallible opinion.

"If SSA were truly innate and normal to those who have it, they would be readily comfortable with "who they are" and accept the lifestyle and its consequences, regardless of what others think. Including what you think, since you devalue any relationship that can't be called "marriage," unless you can pretend that it is a marriage."

IOW, your opinion is that they should be satisfied with "separate, but not equal, second class" status for themselves and their families, again, just because you say so.

"But as you redefiners make abundantly clear, your arguments are not about reason, but about twisting reason to suit your biases (and in some cases, showing vitriol on anyone who dares oppose you with reason)."

So who here is opposing us with reason, instead of their own 'infallible' opinions?

[Edited by: rjhenn at 2/27/2015 12:50:54 AM EST]
KatmanDo
Champion Author Detroit

Posts:16,047
Points:3,377,460
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 27, 2015 12:11:26 AM

"the Constitution, properly interpreted, guarantees no one protection from the consequences of their free choices"

Isn't that the truth! I have to chuckle whenever I come across protestors clamoring because someone shot off their mouth and then had to live with the consequences. Obviously, some are of the misconception that "Freedom of speech" means freedom from adverse consequences. Only in their fantasy lives.
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:16,072
Points:2,699,140
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 26, 2015 9:09:43 PM

GTH: "The only thing clearer than my statement was your willful misinterpretation. Just how does a widow seeking help raising her children, pretend that her children don't deserve both a mother and a father?"

rjhenn: "Pretty obvious. If she's seeking that help from an aunt, then she's not trying to provide a father for them. Obviously, she doesn't think that a 'father' is more important than a loving and supportive parent of either sex."

No one other than you both would say a widow raising her children who turns to an aunt for child rearing assistance, is in any way denying the importance of a father as well as a mother. I certainly would not say that, and nothing I said could reasonably be taken to say that. (Reasonably, a male relative might not be available, and remarrying to provide a stepfather is a major decision beyond the children's welfare. But a lesbian couple raising a child, especially when seeking to have both of them declared "mothers" legally, is a far different story).

But as you redefiners make abundantly clear, your arguments are not about reason, but about twisting reason to suit your biases (and in some cases, showing vitriol on anyone who dares oppose you with reason).

GTH
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:16,072
Points:2,699,140
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 26, 2015 8:23:42 PM

katmando: "I haven't seen anything which requires same-sex partners to be gay in order to now get married."

weaselspit: "They even made a movie about it already; I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry"

Other than the misuse of the word "marriage", that is correct. THere is no bar to anyone who so desires, entering a same-sex union, whether masquerading as "marriage" or as a purely private contractual or even informal arrangement.

By the same token, there is no bar from anyone regardless of having or not having SSA, from marrying a person of the opposite sex.

The "equal protection" that RJ claims to want, thereby exists. Everyone can have their free choice. (And of course, the Constitution, properly interpreted, guarantees no one protection from the consequences of their free choices).

GTH
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:16,072
Points:2,699,140
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 26, 2015 8:18:09 PM

gas_too_high - "Do you even remember where this exchange started, or do you just robotically reply to everything I say?"

rjhenn: "Apparently you don't recall where this started."

I full well remember where this started. I'm just curious as to whether you are willing to quote enough of the exchange to continue this, or whether you are arguing about patriarchy and despotism just for the sake of arguing.

rjhenn: "Yet the baker's offense had nothing to with "recognizing same-sex unions as marriages", but was simply about refusing to do business with someone because of their sexual orientation."

Yet you offer no proof for this oft-repeated assertion. (Your usual rebuttal that there is "no rational reason" other than discrimination says quite a bit about your mental blind spots, but nothing about the baker, who was clear about the reason for his actions).

GTH: "Do you have real arguments or just strawmen?"

rjhenn: "Yes, which is why I asked the question."

Except that your question was itself a strawan, much like "Have you stopped beating your wife?".

"Why isn't a hole in a baby's heart wall innate?"

Because it is clearly a defect, not in accord with human nature, since it drastically shortens the baby's life expectancy (absent surgery). Not everything that exists at birth, not even everything that has a genetic basis (which SSA does not anyway), can properly be called "innate"; that is, a normal part of human nature.

GTH: "But in any case, no one has to yield to a same-sex attraction by seeking a same-sex union. Some SSA individuals have married (the oppsoite sex) and even had children. Others have remained single, as have countless non-SSA persons throughout history."

rjhenn: "Yet you still have provided no reason why someone with a same-sex attraction shouldn't seek happiness by forming a union with someone they love. You seem to think that they should be sentenced to a lifetime of loneliness."

First of all, SSA is not necessarily conducive to happiness, since it induces an attraction and untimately a sex act not in accordance with anatomy, to say nothing of human nature. The higher suicide rate of practicing homosexuals bears that out.

Second, there was some success in treating SSA and helping such patients get married and lead normal family lives, before the APA caved to political pressure. (Some still offer that therapy today, even at the risk of being ostracized professionally). It is actually more compassionate to offer that help to those with SSA, than to pretend otherwise and try to deceive such people.

But if someone still wishes to seek happiness with a same-sex partner, he or she is free to do so. Such a lifestyle of course has nothing to do with marriage and family.

If SSA were truly innate and normal to those who have it, they would be readily comfortable with "who they are" and accept the lifestyle and its consequences, regardless of what others think. Including what you think, since you devalue any relationship that can't be called "marriage," unless you can pretend that it is a marriage.

GTH
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,799
Points:610,605
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Feb 26, 2015 9:19:14 AM

gth>>> "The only thing clearer than my statement was your willful misinterpretation. Just how does a widow seeking help raising her children, pretend that her children don't deserve both a mother and a father?"

rjhenn>>> "Pretty obvious. If she's seeking that help from an aunt, then she's not trying to provide a father for them. Obviously, she doesn't think that a 'father' is more important than a loving and supportive parent of either sex."

Thank-you rjhenn for showing that my point was a simple one, although I expect further deflection, rather than admission.
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,799
Points:610,605
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Feb 26, 2015 9:17:54 AM

"I haven't seen anything which requires same-sex partners to be gay in order to now get married."

They even made a movie about it already;

I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry

LOL
KatmanDo
Champion Author Detroit

Posts:16,047
Points:3,377,460
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 25, 2015 11:28:19 PM

"those GBs against extending civil marriage to homosexuals"

I haven't seen anything which requires same-sex partners to be gay in order to now get married. The obvious implication in recent court rulings, however, does seem to be that primarily only gays would choose to have a same-sex spouse.
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,746
Points:2,963,520
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 25, 2015 11:06:32 PM

gas_too_high - "Do you even remember where this exchange started, or do you just robotically reply to everything I say?"

Apparently you don't recall where this started.

"Ironically, the bakers didn't break the law, since Colorado law says nothing (as far as anyone has said) about recognizing same-sex unions as marriages. The so-called "civil rights commission" deemed that as discrimination against homosexuals, but that does not follow, since the definition of marriage is a separate matter from sexual orientation."

Yet the baker's offense had nothing to with "recognizing same-sex unions as marriages", but was simply about refusing to do business with someone because of their sexual orientation.

"Do you have real arguments or just strawmen?"

Yes, which is why I asked the question. Obviously, all you've got are strawmen, which is why you dodged that particular question.

"Which does not make such "innate," any more than a hold in a baby's heart wall is "innate."

Why isn't a hole in a baby's heart wall innate? The baby can't do anything about it. It takes a major technological interference to do anything about it.

Similarly, sexual orientation, as best as we can tell at present, and in most cases, is not something the individual can do anything about and there's no known way to change it, again in most cases.

"But in any case, no one has to yield to a same-sex attraction by seeking a same-sex union. Some SSA individuals have married (the oppsoite sex) and even had children. Others have remained single, as have countless non-SSA persons throughout history."

Yet you still have provided no reason why someone with a same-sex attraction shouldn't seek happiness by forming a union with someone they love. You seem to think that they should be sentenced to a lifetime of loneliness.

As for "Some SSA individuals have married (the oppsoite sex) and even had children", isn't that exactly the situation your favorite study found was bad for those children?

"In short, SSA does not compel choices. So, unless you are prepared to argue that any person's choice has to have "equal protection" from different outcomes, you have no argument."

Yet there's no reason, in this case, why that particular choice should lead to different outcomes, from a legal standpoint.

"YOu seem to have a talent for twisting evidence presented to you."

You mean of untwisting it, of course.

"Twisting the rationale for the *potential* for procreation, which I have explained many times."

So, basically, you're (still) saying that appearances outweigh substance.

"The saying "There are none so blind as those who will not see" describes you well."

More projection from The Master.

"The only thing clearer than my statement was your willful misinterpretation. Just how does a widow seeking help raising her children, pretend that her children don't deserve both a mother and a father?"

Pretty obvious. If she's seeking that help from an aunt, then she's not trying to provide a father for them. Obviously, she doesn't think that a 'father' is more important than a loving and supportive parent of either sex.
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:16,072
Points:2,699,140
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 25, 2015 10:22:44 PM

Speaking of the blind:

GTH: "Single parents (whether assisted by relatives or not) often do great work in raising children. I've known some myself. That doesn't mean the father isn't missed, as those single moms would readily tell you (if you were willing to listen)."

weaselspit: 'No-no, you were quite clear here; "Every child deserves a mother and a father. Every one. The "lie" is pretending anything to the contrary." EVERY ONE. So stop lying - either every child deserves a mother AND a father, as you very clearly spelled out here in black-and-white, or you assertion was simply false.'

The only thing clearer than my statement was your willful misinterpretation. Just how does a widow seeking help raising her children, pretend that her children don't deserve both a mother and a father?

"I expect you will continue to backtrack from this previous comment."

Not in the least. Your willful misinterpretation does not disprove my comment.

It only illustrates your contempt for anyone who disagrees with you in this matter.

GTH
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:16,072
Points:2,699,140
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 25, 2015 10:16:56 PM

gas_too_high - "Much less so than the Islamic world, which has been polygamous (and patriarchal and despotic) for all of its existence."

rjhenn: "Yet it hasn't been around as long as the monogamous, and supposedly Christian, West."

Do you even remember where this exchange started, or do you just robotically reply to everything I say?

"If SSM is legal, then religious believers can believe what they want, but they cannot use those beliefs to justify breaking the law."

Ironically, the bakers didn't break the law, since Colorado law says nothing (as far as anyone has said) about recognizing same-sex unions as marriages. The so-called "civil rights commission" deemed that as discrimination against homosexuals, but that does not follow, since the definition of marriage is a separate matter from sexual orientation.

rjhenn: "Do you have a rational argument for your belief that the Constitution protects law-breaking and anti-Christian behavior by "religious believers"?"

Do you have real arguments or just strawmen?

GTH: '"Equal protection" applies to what people are, not what they choose,"'

rjhenn: "And, once again, you refuse to face reality. Sexual orientation, according to the best available evidence, is not chosen, but is, in most cases, determined before birth."

Which does not make such "innate," any more than a hold in a baby's heart wall is "innate." But in any case, no one has to yield to a same-sex attraction by seeking a same-sex union. Some SSA individuals have married (the oppsoite sex) and even had children. Others have remained single, as have countless non-SSA persons throughout history.

In short, SSA does not compel choices. So, unless you are prepared to argue that any person's choice has to have "equal protection" from different outcomes, you have no argument.

"As Reynolds v. United States concluded, the First Amendment doesn't give anyone license to ignore the law."

YOu seem to have a talent for twisting evidence presented to you.

Speaking of which:

rjhenn: "...while it it quite clear that laws against SSM are discriminatory."

GTH: "Other than the rationale for marriage that rhymes with "nation"."

rjhenn: "Which, clearly, does not explain many modern marriages."

Twisting the rationale for the *potential* for procreation, which I have explained many times.

The saying "There are none so blind as those who will not see" describes you well.

GTH
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:6,032
Points:927,210
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Feb 25, 2015 8:42:53 AM

Has anybody noticed how those GBs against extending civil marriage to homosexuals have tried to brush the episode of the doctor refusing to treat the child of a lesbian couple under the carpet?

Could it be because they recognize that a doctor doing so is an indefensible breach of medical ethics, and they know that the two cases are similar enough that if they lose the doctor one it will cut the legs out from under the baker one?

Of course legally they've lost the baker one already, but they're just too stubborn to admit it.
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,799
Points:610,605
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Feb 24, 2015 11:40:27 PM

"Your incredible bias seems to exclude common sense, which I (apparently incorrectly in your case) assumed."

More projecting.

"Single parents (whether assisted by relatives or not) often do great work in raising children. I've known some myself. That doesn't mean the father isn't missed, as those single moms would readily tell you (if you were willing to listen)."

No-no, you were quite clear here;

"Every child deserves a mother and a father. Every one. The "lie" is pretending anything to the contrary."

EVERY ONE. So stop lying - either every child deserves a mother AND a father, as you very clearly spelled out here in black-and-white, or you assertion was simply false.

You let us know which one you want to continue to support... I expect you will continue to backtrack from this previous comment.

"And again, the aunt is not replacing the father as a second "mother" "

No? Is she just a maid? A surrogate Sister? Or is your incredible bias seemingly excluding common sense? ;)

[Edited by: Weaslespit at 2/24/2015 11:40:50 PM EST]
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,746
Points:2,963,520
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 24, 2015 11:28:24 PM

gas_too_high - "Much less so than the Islamic world, which has been polygamous (and patriarchal and despotic) for all of its existence."

Yet it hasn't been around as long as the monogamous, and supposedly Christian, West.

"But not within the power of government to override the beliefs of religious believers, not in the US, not under the Constitution and its First Amendment."

If SSM is legal, then religious believers can believe what they want, but they cannot use those beliefs to justify breaking the law.

"Rather, you have no rational arguments how the Constitution protects freely made sexual lifestyle choices. You simply repeat your mantra of 'equal protection.'"

Which is the constitutional principle involved.

Do you have a rational argument for your belief that the Constitution protects law-breaking and anti-Christian behavior by "religious believers"?

"Equal protection" applies to what people are, not what they choose,"

And, once again, you refuse to face reality. Sexual orientation, according to the best available evidence, is not chosen, but is, in most cases, determined before birth.

"Other than pointing to the First Amendment, you mean?"

As Reynolds v. United States concluded, the First Amendment doesn't give anyone license to ignore the law.

"Other than the rationale for marriage that rhymes with "nation"."

Which, clearly, does not explain many modern marriages.

Yet you aren't demanding that marriages that don't procreate be annulled.

"Or rather, your opinion, which you consistently mistake for truth."

More projection from the Master.
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:16,072
Points:2,699,140
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 24, 2015 11:01:05 PM

rjhenn: 'Despite Western Civilization's rejection of polygamy, the "patriarchal principle" and "stationary despotism" were the norm until just a couple of hundred years ago.'

Much less so than the Islamic world, which has been polygamous (and patriarchal and despotic) for all of its existence.

"Which also means that the form of marriage, including SSM, "is within the legitimate scope of the power of every civil government to determine"."

But not within the power of government to override the beliefs of religious believers, not in the US, not under the Constitution and its First Amendment.

GTH: "That guarantee is not affected, certainly not by a free choice not itself explicitly protected in the Constitution (as is religion), much less by a freely chosen sexual lifestyle."

rjhenn: "Except that it is affected, particularly since you continue to have no rational arguments against it, just prejudice."

Rather, you have no rational arguments how the Constitution protects freely made sexual lifestyle choices. You simply repeat your mantra of "equal protection."

"Equal protection" applies to what people are, not what they choose, unless what they choose ex explicitly named, (that, BTW is a "rational argument" whose rationality is not affected by hyour disagreement or refusel to recognie it).

GTH: "If the law is discriminatory, or enforced in a discriminatory manner, yes it is."

rjhenn: "Again, something you have been unable to demonstrate..."

Other than pointing to the First Amendment, you mean?

"...while it it quite clear that laws against SSM are discriminatory."

Other than the rationale for marriage that rhymes with "nation".

rjhenn, in another topic: "I'm devoted to truth."

Or rather, your opinion, which you consistently mistake for truth.

GTH

[Edited by: gas_too_high at 2/24/2015 11:10:00 PM EST]
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,746
Points:2,963,520
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 24, 2015 10:39:50 PM

gas_too_high _ "Professor, Lieber says, polygamy leads to the patriarchal principle, and which, when applied to large communities, fetters the people in stationary despotism, while that principle cannot long exist in connection with monogamy."

Well, history proves that wrong. Despite Western Civilization's rejection of polygamy, the "patriarchal principle" and "stationary despotism" were the norm until just a couple of hundred years ago. And the battle against both continues, as evidenced by your opposition to SSM.

"but there cannot be a doubt that, unless restricted by some form of constitution, it is within the legitimate scope of the power of every civil government to determine whether polygamy or monogamy shall be the law of social life under its dominion."

Which also means that the form of marriage, including SSM, "is within the legitimate scope of the power of every civil government to determine".

"That rationale answers your questions (not that you were seriously asking, of course)."

Nor do they actually answer my questions, as demonstrated above.

"That guarantee is not affected, certainly not by a free choice not itself explicitly protected in the Constitution (as is religion), much less by a freely chosen sexual lifestyle."

Except that it is affected, particularly since you continue to have no rational arguments against it, just prejudice.

"If the law is discriminatory, or enforced in a discriminatory manner, yes it is."

Again, something you have been unable to demonstrate, while it it quite clear that laws against SSM are discriminatory.

"A psychological condition that induces action not in accord with human nature as evidenced by human anatomy and physiology is not "innate"."

Another opinion of yours that doesn't agree with reality.

"And which of your parents was "not important"? You continually duck that question, leading me to conclude that, deep down, you don't really believe that."

I "duck" it because it's just another attempt to divert from the actual discussion with irrelevant nonsense.

"In fact, you are unlikely to consider any facts that lessens your self-righteousness. ANd anyone that does, you call a 'liar"."

Says the Master of Projection.

"And again, the aunt is not replacing the father as a second "mother" nor modeling a same-sex relationship (other than a sister relationship)."

A "sister relationship" is not the heterosexual relationship that you insist is necessary.
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:16,072
Points:2,699,140
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 24, 2015 9:46:36 PM

"According to you it doesn't matter. 2 people of the same sex cannot (should not) raise a child, a child needs a mother and a father. Sexual orientation doesn't even come into play according to your rigid guidelines."

Your incredible bias seems to exclude common sense, which I (apparently incorrectly in your case) assumed.

"Do you not understand the term 'widow'?"

OK, my bad. I overlooked that. That kind of situation happens, no one is to blame and everyone makes do. Single parents (whether assisted by relatives or not) often do great work in raising children. I've known some myself. That doesn't mean the father isn't missed, as those single moms would readily tell you (if you were willing to listen).

And again, the aunt is not replacing the father as a second "mother" nor modeling a same-sex relationship (other than a sister relationship). And an outside father figure, perhaps ultimately a new father or stepfather, is not thereby excluded. That makes this case radically different than 2 "mothers".

(And since I have to explain it to you, no, the widow is not obligated to remarry, just to do the best she can for her child, as any mother would do).

GTH
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,799
Points:610,605
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Feb 24, 2015 9:30:17 PM

"And important details are left out. How did the child "lose" his father? Is he dead? Did he abandon the family? If divorced, does he have visitaion rights? Was he abusive? Or was he just pushed out?"

Talk about a strawman... According to you it doesn't matter. 2 people of the same sex cannot (should not) raise a child, a child needs a mother and a father. Sexual orientation doesn't even come into play according to your rigid guidelines.

"IOW, your scenario doesn't tell us if the father is completely out of the picture or not, or if he should be or not."

Do you not understand the term 'widow'? Hello?

"In fact, you are unlikely to consider any facts that lessens your self-righteousness."

More projecting.

[Edited by: Weaslespit at 2/24/2015 9:30:52 PM EST]
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:16,072
Points:2,699,140
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 24, 2015 8:51:30 PM

GTH: "When children are legally assigned 2 "parents" of the same sex, they are deprived of even the chance of either a mother or a father."

weaselspit: "So what happens if a child loses his father and an Aunt comes to live with the widow to help? Is that also a toxic household since the widow didn't remarry just so that her child could have a father?"

"Toxic" is your strawman of a word, not mine. And important details are left out. How did the child "lose" his father? Is he dead? Did he abandon the family? If divorced, does he have visitaion rights? Was he abusive? Or was he just pushed out?

IOW, your scenario doesn't tell us if the father is completely out of the picture or not, or if he should be or not. Nor in any case is the aunt likely to pretend to be a second "mother" of the child. And you don't -- or likely won't -- understand the difference between a child that has 2 same-sex "parents," and a child that has a father that is no longer at home, but still in the picture (not ideal, but not the same thing at all).

In fact, you are unlikely to consider any facts that lessens your self-righteousness. ANd anyone that does, you call a 'liar".

GTH
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:16,072
Points:2,699,140
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 24, 2015 8:50:39 PM

rjhenn: 'I don' see anything [in the Reynolds SCOTUS decision] that explains "why polygamy has not been tolerated in the Western world, and society's interest in banning it." The closest I see is "Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe", which does nothing to explain why. What I do see is: "Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law"...'

You should have kept reading. You would have seen this:

" Upon it society may be said to be built, and out of its fruits spring social relations and social obligations and duties, with which government is necessarily required to deal. In fact, according as monogamous or polygamous marriages are allowed, do we find the principles on which the government of [98 U.S. 145, 166] the people, to a greater or less extent, rests. Professor, Lieber says, polygamy leads to the patriarchal principle, and which, when applied to large communities, fetters the people in stationary despotism, while that principle cannot long exist in connection with monogamy. Chancellor Kent observes that this remark is equally striking and profound. 2 Kent, Com. 81, note (e). An exceptional colony of polygamists under an exceptional leadership may sometimes exist for a time without appearing to disturb the social condition of the people who surround it; but there cannot be a doubt that, unless restricted by some form of constitution, it is within the legitimate scope of the power of every civil government to determine whether polygamy or monogamy shall be the law of social life under its dominion."

That rationale answers your questions (not that you were seriously asking, of course).

"Apparently you didn't read the decision, see above yourself."

LOL, proof positive that you are still the Master of Projection!

GTH: "While justifying the government's compelling interest in defining marriage as between a man and a woman."

rjhenn: 'And why does that override the explicit constitutional guarantee of "equal protection"?

That guarantee is not affected, certainly not by a free choice not itself explicitly protected in the Constitution (as is religion), much less by a freely chosen sexual lifestyle.

"Is it discrimination to be required to obey the law?"

If the law is discriminatory, or enforced in a discriminatory manner, yes it is.

GTH: "But anyone could leave the lifestyle, find a willing member of the opposite sex, and marry them. No discrimination at all."

rjhenn: "Except for the fact that they'd be acting against their innate nature."

A psychological condition that induces action not in accord with human nature as evidenced by human anatomy and physiology is not "innate".

GTH: "Every child deserves a mother and a father. Every one. The "lie" is pretending anything to the contrary."

rjhenn: "Every child deserves loving and supportive parents. The sex of those parents doesn't seem to be important."

And which of your parents was "not important"? You continually duck that question, leading me to conclude that, deep down, you don't really believe that.

GTH
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,799
Points:610,605
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Feb 24, 2015 9:43:14 AM

"While religious believers, who (unlike sam-sex lifestyle practitioners, have explicit Constitutional guantees of freedom) do get discriminated against."

Only in your mind. More false outrage that you can't force your beliefs unto others.

"When children are legally assigned 2 "parents" of the same sex, they are deprived of even the chance of either a mother or a father."

So what happens if a child loses his father and an Aunt comes to live with the widow to help? Is that also a toxic household since the widow didn't remarry just so that her child could have a father?

It doesn't even have to come down to sexuality - your opinion carries zero water. Hence it is a lie, which you have bought into hook, line and sinker.
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,746
Points:2,963,520
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 24, 2015 1:58:28 AM

gas_too_high - "While the Reynolds decision is not explicitly couched in the case law as I described (federal courts only rarely dealt with religious freedom cases before the 20th century, so that case law had not been worked out), it conforms well to those criteria. Specifically, there are several paragraphs in the decision treating specifically as to why polygamy has not been tolerated in the Western world, and society's interest in banning it."

I don' see anything that explains "why polygamy has not been tolerated in the Western world, and society's interest in banning it." The closest I see is "Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe", which does nothing to explain why.

What I do see is: "Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law." and "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices."

"Reading the decision blows away your arguments, not mine. See above. Better yet, read the decision."

Apparently you didn't read the decision, see above yourself.

"Yes, that's your oft-repeated strawman, but not the reality -- unless the SCOTUS justices who decided Reynolds were wrong. If society has an interest in bannng polygamy, it certainly has an interest in defining marriage as between a man and a woman."

Except that none of your arguments against SSM hold water. Again, as mentioned in Reynolds, marriage is a civil contract, regulated by law.

"Mostly because the federal government was, for the most part, sensitive to the objections of certain religious groups to military service."

Which, still, supports me rather than you.

"If that's true, it sounds like you would have approved."

Irrelevant, as usual.

"While justifying the government's compelling interest in defining marriage as between a man and a woman."

Since you have failed to demonstrate any social advantage to so restricting marriage, where, exactly, is this "compelling interest"?

And why does that override the explicit constitutional guarantee of "equal protection"?

"Since I have not advocated banning same-sex unions, that is not true. Is there something magic in the word "marriage" that those in the homosexual lifestyle crave?"

No, you simply advocate keeping same-sex unions, if allowed at all, separate, but inferior. Including any children those unions might be raising.

And what's "magic" isn't the word "marriage", but the legal status and rights that go along with it.

"While religious believers, who (unlike sam-sex lifestyle practitioners, have explicit Constitutional guantees of freedom) do get discriminated against."

Is it discrimination to be required to obey the law?

"And same-sex practicioners are not even discriminated against. Rather, they freely choose something that is not marriage."

It's marriage if the law says it's marriage.

"But anyone could lieave hte lifestyle, find a willing memver of the opposite sex, and marry them. No discrimination at all."

Except for the fact that they'd be acting against their innate nature.

"When children are legally assigned 2 "parents" of the same sex, they are deprived of even the chance of either a mother or a father."

And you still can't support your belief that both a mother and a father are required for a child to grow up healthy and well-adjusted.

"Every child deserves a mother and a father. Every one. The "lie" is pretending anything to the contrary."

Every child deserves loving and supportive parents. The sex of those parents doesn't seem to be important.
KatmanDo
Champion Author Detroit

Posts:16,047
Points:3,377,460
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 23, 2015 11:58:20 PM

""...hurting children..."
Mixed with a flat-out lie. Somebody is showing his true colors now as that sounds like quite a bigoted comment - if not simply ignorant. "

I sincerely believe that such true colors have been obvious for quite some time, so they're hardly a revelation now. Willful ignorance seems to be a religion with quite a few.

[Edited by: KatmanDo at 2/23/2015 11:59:13 PM EST]
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:16,072
Points:2,699,140
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 23, 2015 9:24:54 PM

GTH: "Funny, when people make choices, it's only religious believers who get to "reap what they sow." People freely choosing same-sex lifestyles not only are shielded from "reaping what they sow,"

weaselspit: "Nope, they simply don't get to be discriminated against."

While religious believers, who (unlike sam-sex lifestyle practitioners, have explicit Constitutional guantees of freedom) do get discriminated against.

And same-sex practicioners are not even discriminated against. Rather, they freely choose something that is not marriage. But anyone could lieave hte lifestyle, find a willing memver of the opposite sex, and marry them. No discrimination at all.

GTH: "People freely choosing same-sex lifestyles not only are shielded from "reaping what they sow," they get to redefine marriage, hurting children..."

wesel: "Mixed with a flat-out lie."

When children are legally assigned 2 "parents" of the same sex, they are deprived of even the chance of either a mother or a father.

Every child deserves a mother and a father. Every one. The "lie" is pretending anything to the contrary.

GTH
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:16,072
Points:2,699,140
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Feb 23, 2015 9:11:12 PM

gas_too_high - "Not just for that reason. SCOTUS has struck down religious doctrines that impact society, as in the Reynolds decision striking down Mormon polygamy in the Utah Territory in the 19th century. But case law requires that overriding religious doctrines in favor of laws receive the strictest possible scrutiny, that a compelling state interest be served, and that the least restrictive measures be employed to accomplish that interest. Suppressing polygamy (which, BTW, upheld the definition of marriage you want to change), met those requirements."

rjhenn: "Actually, no. The Reynolds decision was based on the idea that religious duty was not a defense to a criminal indictment, in that case, bigamy. The Court believed the First Amendment forbade Congress from legislating against religious belief, but allowed it to legislate against action that flowed from that belief."

While the Reynolds decision is not explicitly couched in the case law as I described (federal courts only rarely dealt with religious freedom cases before the 20th century, so that case law had not been worked out), it conforms well to those criteria. Specifically, there are several paragraphs in the decision treating specifically as to why polygamy has not been tolerated in the Western world, and society's interest in banning it.

"IOW, it blows away your arguments about religious beliefs being a defense against prosecution for illegal acts, like discrimination."

Reading the decision blows away your arguments, not mine. See above. Better yet, read the decision.

GTH: "There is no compelling state interest served by redefining marriage, and in the vast majority of the 37 states where redefinition is legal, the local legislature did not so decide, just a court."

rjhenn: "Based largely on guarantees of "equal protection" in the 14th Amendment. That, and the benefits to families and children are a sufficient compelling state interest."

Yes, that's your oft-repeated strawman, but not the reality -- unless the SCOTUS justices who decided Reynolds were wrong. If society has an interest in bannng polygamy, it certainly has an interest in defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

rjhenn: "Since marriage is a civil institution, as far as the legal system is concerned, and same-sex marriage is a minor extension of that civil institution, religion clearly is irrelevant."

GTH: "I guess that, when the draft was in effect, religious pacifists should not have been allowed to be exempted from military service. After all, since the military is a civil institution, religion clearly is irrelevant."

"Conscientious Objector status wasn't based on 1st Amendment grounds, but on laws that specifically provided for such status."

Mostly because the federal government was, for the most part, sensitive to the objections of certain religious groups to military service.

"For much of U.S. history COs went to prison."

If that's true, it sounds like you would have approved.

GTH: "And between religious believers and same-sex lifestyle practitioners, guess which have explicit Constitutional rights?"

rjhenn: "Again, Reynolds v. U.S. put limits on those rights."

While justifying the government's compelling interest in defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

"You're on the side pushing young homosexuals into suicide or a lifetime of trying to be something they're not."

Since I have not advocated banning same-sex unions, that is not true. Is there something magic in the word "marriage" that those in the homosexual lifestyle crave?

GTH
Post a reply Back to Topics