Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    11:34 AM

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:19,618
Points:831,850
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
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:17,062
Points:565,825
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Nov 21, 2014 10:42:18 AM

"Ib the case of a kesbian couple who used a sperm bank, that isn't necessarily so."

Exactly - not hard to disprove his baseless assertion there.

"Sounds so simple when you totally disregard the mental well-being of the chikd."

My point as well. Very simple concept, I should think.
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,446
Points:3,837,135
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Nov 21, 2014 10:20:23 AM

"there is at least one parent outside that household."

Ib the case of a kesbian couple who used a sperm bank, that isn't necessarily so.

"That parent should step in to replace the custodial parent"

Sounds so simple when you totally disregard the mental well-being of the chikd.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:17,062
Points:565,825
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Nov 21, 2014 9:47:05 AM

"Face it, if you are unable to make a coherent argument without bringing race into it, you're grasping at straw."

Which is why there was no defense for what the baker did and why it was upheld that he violated CO law. The defense was a strawman - selling a 'wedding cake' to be used in a reception in no way means that the person selling the cake is recognizing any random controversial variable one wishes to tie to the wedding (same sex, interracial, known physical abuser, Seminloes fan, etc).
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:17,062
Points:565,825
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Nov 21, 2014 9:42:05 AM

"You don't get sarcasm, do you? The point of which is you -- not I -- are redefining marriage."

You don't get facts, do you? Marriage is what it is, it is you -- not I -- who is attempting to redefine the term so that it only applies as you would have it from a religious POV.

"There have been some since ancient Greece, over 2000 years ago, that knew the world was round."

And they were roundly criticized, if not ostracized, for pointing out that the conventional wisdom was wrong. Somebody just helped prove my point...

"So go on if you like. Make yourself look sillier."

More condescending posts - what happened to your altruistic complaints?

"That's what a healthcare power of attorney can do."

Why A Power Of Attorney Is No Substitute For Marriage When A Loved One Is In The Hospital

"Every child has 2 parents. For a child raised in a same-sex union household, there is at least one parent outside that household. That parent should step in to replace the custodial parent, not the custodial parent's partner, If there is no other alternative, there is legal guardianship."

Wrong. Clearly you have no idea what gay couple face regarding this subject either. Each State's laws vary with FL, for example, being the most homophobic.

Like I said - even in your 'ideal scenario' where a biological parent steps in, the child is not guaranteed in every situation to even know that person, so it is fair to remove the child from the only home he has potentially ever known and placed with a potential stranger because of a technicality? Shameful.

"A same-sex couple doesn't have to pay the "marriage penalty" tax that dual earning married couples do"

A SS couple will pay more in taxes than a married couple - it is a simple fact to show. When you do your income taxes this year run you and your wife filing jointly and then do each of you individually. Let me know what you find out.

"He refused to provide a service which could be reasonably interpreted as recognizing a same-sex union as a "marriage" in violation of his religious beliefs (and local law at that time)."

Providing a service in no way can be interpreted as recognizing how an object sold will be utilized outside of those who wish to misinterpret based on bias. It is clear where you stand here...

"And, despite the tortured theories of rjhenn, there is no Constitutional protection of sexual lifestyles. But there is, of free exercise of religion."

Strange, the Declaration of Independence clearly indicates the pursuit of happiness as an unalienable right which is sacred and undeniable...
Profile Pic
Zimcity
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:71,000
Points:4,290,785
Joined:Aug 2001
Message Posted: Nov 21, 2014 9:15:02 AM

" Face it, if you are unable to make a coherent argument without bringing race into it, you're grasping at straw."

Yes you clearly are unable to make coherent arguments EZExit.
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:16,299
Points:2,354,960
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Nov 21, 2014 9:11:58 AM

RJHenn: <<<"And the use of the "redefinition of marriage" terminology is the actual strawman. Tell us, how will extending the legal status of marriage to same-sex committed monogamous unions do anything except strengthen marriage?">>>

--Yeah, extended definition... like my previous point that calling anything that walks on four legs covered in fur a dog...

<<<"Like I said, it opens up a whole legal can of worms, such as inheritance, divorce, etc.">>>

--Our point well taken...

<<<"Look up "analogy". The opposition to SSM is similar in character to the opposition to civil rights, and to interracial marriage.">>>

--No, one is based on a human trait, and one is based on a human behavior.

<<<"And "special protection based on one's behavior" is another strawman.">>>

--I got you stumped with that one I see... I am still waiting for my special protection to be able to sell shine like a legitimate liquor distributor, because I choose to operate a small still in my basement.

[Edited by: EZExit at 11/21/2014 9:15:35 AM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,726
Points:2,839,620
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Nov 21, 2014 2:03:40 AM

EZExit - "--Holy cow, here comes the straw, I have yet to see GTH condemn homosexuality, nor have any of the other regular posters to this thread. The only condemnation is the redefinition of marriage. You're slipping with your counterargument."

This isn't the first time GTH and I have argued this. Way back when, his arguments were mostly based on the idea that homosexuality was immoral. He's gotten a bit more sophisticated (in several meanings of the word) since then.

And the use of the "redefinition of marriage" terminology is the actual strawman. Tell us, how will extending the legal status of marriage to same-sex committed monogamous unions do anything except strengthen marriage?

"--I don't see why you would have a problem with polygamy, unless you are not completely comfortable with the arguments you utilize here."

Like I said, it opens up a whole legal can of worms, such as inheritance, divorce, etc.

"--More straw, there has been no argument here in opposition to interracial marriage, rather, simply the redefining of marriage and granting of special protection based on one's behavior. Face it, if you are unable to make a coherent argument without bringing race into it, you're grasping at straw."

Look up "analogy". The opposition to SSM is similar in character to the opposition to civil rights, and to interracial marriage.

And "special protection based on one's behavior" is another strawman.
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:16,299
Points:2,354,960
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Nov 21, 2014 1:42:41 AM

RJHenn: <<<"Tell that to those who tried to use religion to justify their opposition to interracial marriage.">>>

--More straw, there has been no argument here in opposition to interracial marriage, rather, simply the redefining of marriage and granting of special protection based on one's behavior. Face it, if you are unable to make a coherent argument without bringing race into it, you're grasping at straw.
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:16,299
Points:2,354,960
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Nov 21, 2014 1:37:18 AM

RJHenn: <<<"Of course not, because your dogma says that homosexuality is wrong, thus SSM is an abomination. While the reality is that SSM is virtually the same as traditional marriage, differing only in that it's a bit more difficult for them to produce the children they may, or may not, raise. Just as the marriages you approve of may or may not raise children.">>>

--Holy cow, here comes the straw, I have yet to see GTH condemn homosexuality, nor have any of the other regular posters to this thread. The only condemnation is the redefinition of marriage. You're slipping with your counterargument.

<<<"Actually, I don't have a problem with the concept of polygamy. I just don't think our legal system is up to the job of dealing with it. Simply extending the legal definition of marriage to include SSM shouldn't have any legal consequences, since the two are identical in every way that matters to the law.">>>

--I don't see why you would have a problem with polygamy, unless you are not completely comfortable with the arguments you utilize here.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,726
Points:2,839,620
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Nov 21, 2014 1:19:29 AM

gas_too_high - "The point of which is you -- not I -- are redefining marriage."

IOW, simply doing the rational thing and extending it to include SSM.

"But before maybe 25 years ago, no society, no culture -- ever -- equated marriages between a man and a woman, with same-sex unions. That even applies to societies that tolerated homosexuality and same-sex unions, like ancient Greece and Rome."

They've been pointed out to you before. For example, American Indian two-spirit people.

"That's what a healthcare power of attorney can do."

So why should they have to get a lawyer to get the same rights that a married couple has automatically?

"And same-sex unions can dissolve their unions without going to court or paying lawyers."

So there is one advantage?

"If we are now talking about the baker, he did not refuse service based on the gender of the couple. He refused to provide a service which could be reasonably interpreted as recognizing a same-sex union as a "marriage" in violation of his religious beliefs (and local law at that time)."

Except that we've carefully refuted all of that argument many times, such as the fact that baking or selling a cake does not mean recognition of what the cake is used to celebrate, and that a cake has no religious significance.

"And, despite the tortured theories of rjhenn, there is no Constitutional protection of sexual lifestyles."

And this has nothing to do with your "lifestyles" argument, but strictly with equal protection.

"But there is, of free exercise of religion."

Tell that to those who tried to use religion to justify their opposition to interracial marriage.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,726
Points:2,839,620
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Nov 21, 2014 1:16:19 AM

gas_too_high - "No, I see no reason not to shield the individuals from the outcome of their free choices."

Of course not, because your dogma says that homosexuality is wrong, thus SSM is an abomination. While the reality is that SSM is virtually the same as traditional marriage, differing only in that it's a bit more difficult for them to produce the children they may, or may not, raise. Just as the marriages you approve of may or may not raise children.

"Which they have -- unless "equal protection" includes guaranteeing the same outcome regardless of free choices."

No, they don't have equal protection. One free choice is legally treated differently from another free choice, even though there's no valid reason, indeed, no reason at all, except for prejudice, for doing so.

"If you believe otherwise, then you must believe that everyone should have the same economic outcome, regardless of whether or not they freely choose to work, and what work they freely choose to do. In other words, that "right" leads to radical socialism."

Which is nothing but another strawman argument, since "economic outcome" has nothing to do with it.

"No more so than legally assigning a child 2 "fathers" or 2 "mothers," which is what you want."

Exactly how does it matter, legally, if a child has a father and a mother, or 2 same-sex parents?

"IOW, you approve of same-sex marriage definition, but don't approve of polygamy. Sorry, but if you assert a Constitutional "right," the outcome is not up to your approval. When you open Pandora's box, you don't know what will fly out."

Actually, I don't have a problem with the concept of polygamy. I just don't think our legal system is up to the job of dealing with it. Simply extending the legal definition of marriage to include SSM shouldn't have any legal consequences, since the two are identical in every way that matters to the law.

[Edited by: rjhenn at 11/21/2014 1:16:57 AM EST]
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,446
Points:3,837,135
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Nov 20, 2014 9:42:45 PM

Polygamy and same sex marriage are totally different concepts, continuing to flog polygamy as the next step is tiresome, and smacks of the same fear-mongering mindset that equates homosexuals with child molesters.

[Edited by: rumbleseat at 11/20/2014 9:43:10 PM EST]
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,364
Points:2,566,710
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Nov 20, 2014 9:24:58 PM

weaselspit: "Which is why he can't seem to (or is otherwise unwilling) grasp the fact that it is actually he who is trying to radically redefine the term 'marriage' by narrowing it to fit only in the strictest Christian context..."

GTH: 'Gee, I never realized that same-sex marriages were commonly accepted. I guess I missed hearing about that, growing up. That must have happened, for the definition of marriage now to be "narrowed".'

weasel: "Gee, given that harsh discrimination against homosexuality in general was commonly accepted, there was never a threat to your 'definition'..."

You don't get sarcasm, do you? The point of which is you -- not I -- are redefining marriage.

"...it was just 'known' that a marriage was between a man and a woman, just like is was 'known' that the world was flat or that it was 'known' that the sun revolved around the Earth (need I go on?)."

You have no idea what you're talking about. There have been some since ancient Greece, over 2000 years ago, that knew the world was round. And we have known for 500 years that the earth revolves around the sun.

But before maybe 25 years ago, no society, no culture -- ever -- equated marriages between a man and a woman, with same-sex unions. That even applies to societies that tolerated homosexuality and same-sex unions, like ancient Greece and Rome.

So go on if you like. Make yourself look sillier.

"There is no reason why a same-sex couple shouldn't be able to make medical decisions for their partner (for example) just because of their gender."

That's what a healthcare power of attorney can do.

"There is no reason why a child who has grown-up in a same-sex household should be taken into foster care simply because the same-sex partner is unable to establish custodial rights just because of their gender."

Every child has 2 parents. For a child raised in a same-sex union household, there is at least one parent outside that household. That parent should step in to replace the custodial parent, not the custodial parent's partner, If there is no other alternative, there is legal guardianship.

"There is no reason why a same sex couple should have to pay more in taxes just because of their gender."

A same-sex couple doesn't have to pay the "marriage penalty" tax that dual earning married couples do. And same-sex unions can dissolve their unions without going to court or paying lawyers.

"There is no reason why a place of commerce should refuse to serve somebody simply because of their gender."

If we are now talking about the baker, he did not refuse service based on the gender of the couple. He refused to provide a service which could be reasonably interpreted as recognizing a same-sex union as a "marriage" in violation of his religious beliefs (and local law at that time).

And, despite the tortured theories of rjhenn, there is no Constitutional protection of sexual lifestyles. But there is, of free exercise of religion.

GTH
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,715
Points:333,290
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Nov 20, 2014 1:42:20 PM

"Polygamous unions are a legal nightmare"

I think that is because our society has tried so hard to eradicate any trace polygamy and enforce serial monogamy on everyone that its been turned into a legal nightmare intentionally and an inadvertently turned into easy way to milk the system.

If people want to do it, I say go for it. Its not as if it every completely stopped happening.
I wouldn't recommend it.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:17,062
Points:565,825
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Nov 20, 2014 1:12:08 PM

More fear mongering;

"IOW, you approve of same-sex marriage definition, but don't approve of polygamy. Sorry, but if you assert a Constitutional "right," the outcome is not up to your approval. When you open Pandora's box, you don't know what will fly out."

"In other words, that "right" leads to radical socialism."
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,364
Points:2,566,710
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Nov 20, 2014 12:57:09 PM

gas_too_high - "Yet that's the only way your statements are not complete nonsense, since "equal protection" is only guaranteed to *individuals*, who are only in union because they *choose* to be and could have *chosen* differently."

rjhenn: 'Just as those who are in "marriages" are only in them because they choose to be and could have chosen differently. But you want those individuals to be treated differently from the individuals who choose to be in SSMs, just because their choice is one you approve of.'

No, I see no reason not to shield the individuals from the outcome of their free choices.

"Yet the Constitution guarantees "equal protection"..."

Which they have -- unless "equal protection" includes guaranteeing the same outcome regardless of free choices. If you believe otherwise, then you must believe that everyone should have the same economic outcome, regardless of whether or not they freely choose to work, and what work they freely choose to do. In other words, that "right" leads to radical socialism.

As well as...

GTH: "That you would protect gender-nonspecific monogamous unions only, and not polygamous unions, is arbitrary and makes no sense -- except that it evidently is your dogma."

rjhenn: "Sure it makes sense. Polygamous unions are a legal nightmare..."

No more so than legally assigning a child 2 "fathers" or 2 "mothers," which is what you want.

"...and don't seem to have any advantages over monogamous unions."

IOW, you approve of same-sex marriage definition, but don't approve of polygamy. Sorry, but if you assert a Constitutional "right," the outcome is not up to your approval. When you open Pandora's box, you don't know what will fly out.

GTH
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,726
Points:2,839,620
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Nov 20, 2014 12:30:11 PM

El Gato: "Is not fear-mongering one of the standard tactics of the religious right?"

EZExit: "--I know exactly what you mean, kind of like the sky is falling technique used by the progressive left regarding so-called "man caused global warming"?"

Fear-mongering is typically used by all sorts of extremists.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:17,062
Points:565,825
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Nov 20, 2014 12:04:40 PM

"--I know exactly what you mean, kind of like the sky is falling technique used by the progressive left regarding so-called "man caused global warming"?"

True...
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:16,299
Points:2,354,960
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Nov 20, 2014 11:17:07 AM

El Gato: <<<"Is not fear-mongering one of the standard tactics of the religious right?">>>

--I know exactly what you mean, kind of like the sky is falling technique used by the progressive left regarding so-called "man caused global warming"?

[Edited by: EZExit at 11/20/2014 11:17:37 AM EST]
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,372
Points:791,430
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Nov 20, 2014 11:03:56 AM

LOL. Delusions are another of their stock in trade.
Profile Pic
El_Gato_Negro
Champion Author Miami

Posts:3,951
Points:812,475
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Nov 20, 2014 10:06:03 AM

<<But go ahead, pretend that this is an assault on 'religion' to keep the right stirred-up and in a delusional frenzy.>>

Is not fear-mongering one of the standard tactics of the religious right?

[Edited by: El_Gato_Negro at 11/20/2014 10:06:39 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:17,062
Points:565,825
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Nov 20, 2014 8:58:16 AM

"Gee, I never realized that same-sex marriages were commonly accepted. I guess I missed hearing about that, growing up. That must have happened, for the definition of marriage now to be "narrowed"."

Gee, given that harsh discrimination against homosexuality in general was commonly accepted, there was never a threat to your 'definition' - it was just 'known' that a marriage was between a man and a woman, just like is was 'known' that the world was flat or that it was 'known' that the sun revolved around the Earth (need I go on?). Unfortunately, the definition can no longer be restricted by those holding onto the past, refusing to see what is in front of them out of fear of the unknown. It is time to expand civil liberties for all to enjoy.

There is no reason why a same-sex couple shouldn't be able to make medical decisions for their partner (for example) just because of their gender. There is no reason why a child who has grown-up in a same-sex household should be taken into foster care simply because the same-sex partner is unable to establish custodial rights just because of their gender. There is no reason why a same sex couple should have to pay more in taxes just because of their gender. There is no reason why a place of commerce should refuse to serve somebody simply because of their gender.

But go ahead, pretend that this is an assault on 'religion' to keep the right stirred-up and in a delusional frenzy.

SMH
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,726
Points:2,839,620
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Nov 20, 2014 1:07:08 AM

gas_too_high - "Yet that's the only way your statements are not complete nonsense, since "equal protection" is only guaranteed to *individuals*, who are only in union because they *choose* to be and could have *chosen* differently."

Just as those who are in "marriages" are only in them because they choose to be and could have chosen differently. But you want those individuals to be treated differently from the individuals who choose to be in SSMs, just because their choice is one you approve of.

"The ony free choices protected by the COnstitution are those explicitly identified, such as freedom of speech and religious exercise. not the choicne of "committed monogamous unions"."

Yet the Constitution guarantees "equal protection", which you want to deny them.

"That you would protect gender-nonspecific monogamous unions only, and not polygamous unions, is arbitarary and makes no sense -- except that it evidently is your dogma."

Sure it makes sense. Polygamous unions are a legal nightmare, and don't seem to have any advantages over monogamous unions. Reason enough to stick with simplicity.

"And for the definition of marriage."

As far as it being a committed monogamous union, yes. But your restrictions are like the old requirement that someone walk ahead of a automobile swinging a lantern, so it wouldn't scare the horses.

"As they are, given their choices. And the only outcome of choosing a same-sex union over a more conventional lifestyle is a lack of legal recognition and not receving *some* benefits. But they can live in their unions without interference and even receive approval from others in their lifestyle."

Which means that they are not provided with constitutionally guaranteed equal protection of the law. And, again, "separate, but [not] equal".

"For making a free choice to give up the status and benefits of marriage, they don't seem to be suffering at all."

Except for minor things like being treated legally as second-class citizens.

"Except they are."

In your inversion of reality.

"Give it up, RJ. You're not getting away with your inversion of reality."

Funny, you don't seem to have any effective arguments on your side.

"The issue is whether or not marriage should be redefined to include same-sex unions"

Good of you, though, to finally admit that that's all it is. Not the world-shaking reformation you usually insist upon.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,364
Points:2,566,710
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Nov 19, 2014 10:23:48 PM

Speaking of inversion of reality...

weaselspit: "Which is why he can't seem to (or is otherwise unwilling) grasp the fact that it is actually he who is trying to radically redefine the term 'marriage' by narrowing it to fit only in the strictest Christian context..."

Gee, I never realized that same-sex marriages were commonly accepted. I guess I missed hearing about that, growing up. That must have happened, for the definition of marriage now to be "narrowed".

LOL!

"What a shame that people think that their opinions on a subject like this should govern how others be required to act in their own personal lives... "

Who has been prevented from entering into a same-sex union, just because it falls outside the definition of marriage? Now, you are flattering me. I don't have, and don't want, that power.

The issue is whether or not marriage should be redefined to include same-sex unions, not whether or not same-sex unions should be allowed to exist. No one is contesting that.

To believe otherwise, is delusional.

GTH
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,364
Points:2,566,710
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Nov 19, 2014 10:13:35 PM

GTH: "No matter how much you want to pretend otherwise, marriages and same-sex unions are *different*. That doesn't mean that same-sex union are necessarily bad, but they are not important to society as a basis for families, in the way that marriages are important. And if you want to use your illogical logic to justify same-sex marriage redefinition, then not only is socialism mandated by the Constitution, then so is polygamy."

rjhenn: 'Which is more complete nonsense. Again, you're twisting the argument to "outcomes", which is not what it's about.'

Yet that's the only way your statements are not complete nonsense, since "equal protection" is only guaranteed to *individuals*, who are only in union because they *choose* to be and could have *chosen* differently.

The ony free choices protected by the COnstitution are those explicitly identified, such as freedom of speech and religious exercise. not the choicne of "committed monogamous unions".

"And the basic concept of "committed monogamous union" would exclude polygamy."

That you would protect gender-nonspecific monogamous unions only, and not polygamous unions, is arbitarary and makes no sense -- except that it evidently is your dogma.

GTH: "And definition of marriage is no more religious than are prohibitions against murder and stealing."

rjhenn: "There are practical reasons for prohibitions against murder and stealing."

And for the definition of marriage.

GTH: "It seems that decisions to redefine marriage, are made out of a desperate need for the affirmation that is perceived to be conferred by the word, "marriage". (Else, it would be readily recognized that same-sex unions are different from marriage)."

rjhenn: "No, it's based on the basic human need to be treated like everyone else."

As they are, given their choices. And the only outcome of choosing a same-sex union over a more conventional lifestyle is a lack of legal recognition and not receving *some* benefits. But they can live in their unions without interference and even receive approval from others in their lifestyle.

For making a free choice to give up the status and benefits of marriage, they don't seem to be suffering at all.

rjhenn: "Since same-sex unions are not significantly different from "marriage"..."

Except they are.

Give it up, RJ. You're not getting away with your inversion of reality.

GTH
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:17,062
Points:565,825
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Nov 19, 2014 8:25:48 AM

"I've seen studies of identical twins where one, but not the other, has SSA. That seems to disprove a genetic link"

Called it;

"I doubt he will be exposed to this recent study - and even if he were, he would find reasons to continue protecting his bubble of reality..."
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:17,062
Points:565,825
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Nov 19, 2014 8:24:22 AM

"Considering that extending the legal status of marriage to same-sex committed monogamous unions wouldn't affect anything except those unions, calling it a "radical redefinition" is clearly irrational, thus also probably religious."

Which is why he can't seem to (or is otherwise unwilling) grasp the fact that it is actually he who is trying to radically redefine the term 'marriage' by narrowing it to fit only in the strictest Christian context (not even all religions share that narrow view so one can't even blame it on religion in general - it is a subgroup that is championing the crusade here or hate, fear and intolerance).

What a shame that people think that their opinions on a subject like this should govern how others be required to act in their own personal lives...
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,726
Points:2,839,620
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Nov 19, 2014 2:23:13 AM

gas_too_high - "I've seen studies of identical twins where one, but not the other, has SSA. That seems to disprove a genetic link."

It would tend to disprove a genetic _cause_, but not a genetic _link_. There's also the high probability that gender attraction is determined by multiple causes, some innate and immutable and some not so much.

"If some, but not all brothers, and not all identical twin brothers, exhibit SSA, that points to family dysfunction, not genetics."

Or variations in fetal development, possibly in combination with genetic-based tendencies.

"Your fellow redefiner (probably either Babetruth or rumbleseat) clearly has no idea of what religion is, and is not."

Or he's just reporting what he sees, and you just can't admit it.

"And definition of marriage is no more religious than are prohibitions against murder and stealing."

There are practical reasons for prohibitions against murder and stealing. You've repeatedly demonstrated that your "definition of marriage" is not based on practical reasons, but on religious dogma.

"It seems that decisions to redefine marriage, are made out of a desperate need for the affirmation that is perceived to be conferred by the word, "marriage". (Else, it would be readily recognized that same-sex unions are different from marriage)."

No, it's based on the basic human need to be treated like everyone else. Since same-sex unions are not significantly different from "marriage", there's no point in treating one as inferior to the other.

"Such people should be helped, not deceived. That would seem to be the loving thing to do."

Unless they're not the ones who actually need to be 'helped'.

"Coming from someone who advocates a radical redefinition that itself is almost a mockery, that is hugely ironic."

Considering that extending the legal status of marriage to same-sex committed monogamous unions wouldn't affect anything except those unions, calling it a "radical redefinition" is clearly irrational, thus also probably religious.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,726
Points:2,839,620
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Nov 19, 2014 2:17:17 AM

gas_too_high - "Funny, but they don't. You are in denial, deep denial, thanks to your dogma."

And all you've got is denial of reality.

"What kind of prejudice do *you* have, to deny a child both a father and a mother?"

I want children to have loving and supportive parents. What sexes those parents are means less than the attitude they have towards their children. Why do you still focus on your imaginary gender models?

"Merely a reminder that what the law recognizes, does not itself determine waht is right and wrong. In the case of marriage, redefinition by state law simply creates a legal fiction, not unlike the onetime legal fiction that one person could be "owned" by another."

IOW, "marriage" is a holy word, beyond the reach of secular law.

"Of persons. Not "committed monogamous unions". Therefore, no Constitutional issue."

Again, what should be obvious: those committed monogamous unions are made up of persons. And treating one group of them differently from another group of them, for no good reason, is denying those persons equal protection.

"Except the union in question is fundamentally different from the only form of union that can unite a child to its mother and father. Anyone's opinion of the type of sex involved is immaterial."

Except that the type of sex involved is your only argument for a "fundamental difference".

"No matter how much you want to pretend otherwise, marriages and same-sex unions are *different*. That doesn't mean that same-sex union are necessarily bad, but they are not important to society as a basis for families, in the way that marriages are important."

Which is complete nonsense. Same-sex couples can and do raise children, which is far more important to society than simply procreating. Same-sex couples can also model loving and supportive relationships, which, again, is more important to society than just pumping out children.

In every way that actually matters to society, there's no actual difference between "marriages", as you use the word, and same-sex unions.

Again, all you've got is denial of reality.

"And if you want to use your illogical logic to justify same-sex marriage redefinition, then not only is socialism mandated by the Constitution, then so is polygamy."

Which is more complete nonsense. Again, you're twisting the argument to "outcomes", which is not what it's about. And the basic concept of "committed monogamous union" would exclude polygamy.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,364
Points:2,566,710
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Nov 18, 2014 9:36:53 PM

quoted by weaselspit: "Large study of gay brothers suggests genetic link for homosexuality"

I've seen studies of identical twins where one, but not the other, has SSA. That seems to disprove a genetic link.

If some, but not all brothers, and not all identical twin brothers, exhibit SSA, that points to family dysfunction, not genetics.

weaselspit: "I read that yesterday as well. Since it appears gth has added me to his ignore list...."

I haven't. Don't flatter yourself.

quoted by weasel: "It's as if they want to live their lives in perpetual fear. Fear of God. Fear of learning how the universe really works. Fear of being exposed to facts that threaten their fear of God."

Your fellow redefiner (probably either Babetruth or rumbleseat) clearly has no idea of what religion is, and is not. (Actually, that sounds like BT).

And definition of marriage is no more religious than are prohibitions against murder and stealing.

weasel: "Too many decisions are made out of fear, rather than love. "

It seems that decisions to redefine marriage, are made out of a desperate need for the affirmation that is perceived to be conferred by the word, "marriage". (Else, it would be readily recognized that same-sex unions are different from marriage). Such people should be helped, not deceived. That would seem to be the loving thing to do.

quoted by weasel: "Such people make a mockery out of the word 'marriage'."

Coming from someone who advocates a radical redefinition that itself is almost a mockery, that is hugely ironic.

GTH
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,364
Points:2,566,710
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Nov 18, 2014 9:16:25 PM

gas_too_high - "Actually, childless marriages closely resemble, not "mimic" marriages that procreate children."

rjhenn: "Funny, so do same-sex marriages, at least in the ways that actually matter to society."

Funny, but they don't. You are in denial, deep denial, thanks to your dogma.

GTH: "I don't deny that status to any marriage that can supply a parentless child with a father and a mother. Why do you want to deny them that status?"

rjhenn: "Why do you insist, based on nothing but prejudice, that both a mother and a father are necessary?"

What kind of prejudice do *you* have, to deny a child both a father and a mother?

rjhenn: "...and legally are marriages in an increasing number of states."

GTH: "Some states used to allow people to own other people. Slavery is every bit as much (or little) a part of human nature as same-sex 'marriage.'"

rjhenn: "Desperate diversion."

Merely a reminder that what the law recognizes, does not itself determine waht is right and wrong. In the case of marriage, redefinition by state law simply creates a legal fiction, not unlike the onetime legal fiction that one person could be "owned" by another.

rjhenn: "Treating one such committed monogamous union differently under the law than another such union, without any justification, clearly denies the individuals in one of those unions "the equal protection of the laws."

GTH: 'Clearly, it doesn't -- not unless you think "equal protection" means that individuals are to be "protected" from the outcomes of their free choices. That means, among many other things, that the Constitution mandates socialism -- the same outcome to individual economic choices.'

rjhenn: 'We're not talking about "outcomes", but about "equal protection".

Of persons. Not "committed monogamous unions". Therefore, no Constitutional issue.

"In this case, that means not having the law discriminate against one form of committed monogamous union just because some people don't like the form of sex that might be involved.'"

Except the union in question is fundamentally different from the only form of union that can unite a child to its mother and father. Anyone's opinion of the type of sex involved is immaterial.

No matter how much you want to pretend otherwise, marriages and same-sex unions are *different*. That doesn't mean that same-sex union are necessarily bad, but they are not important to society as a basis for families, in the way that marriages are important.

And if you want to use your illogical logic to justify same-sex marriage redefinition, then not only is socialism mandated by the Constitution, then so is polygamy.

GTH



[Edited by: gas_too_high at 11/18/2014 9:20:13 PM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,726
Points:2,839,620
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Nov 18, 2014 7:59:59 PM

gas_too_high - "Actually, childless marriages closely resemble, not "mimic" marriages that procreate children."

Funny, so do same-sex marriages, at least in the ways that actually matter to society.

"I don't deny that status to any marriage that can supply a parentless child with a father and a mother. Why do you want to deny them that status?"

Why do you insist, based on nothing but prejudice, that both a mother and a father are necessary?

"As to same-sex unions, they cannot do that. Not ever. Never."

Yet, despite that, many of them do just as good a job of raising healthy children as traditional marriages do. So, what do you have against children?

"Except they can't provide a child with a father and a mother, and model a procreative marriage."

Actually, they can model a procreative marriage, in the sense of modeling a caring relationship that may also raise children.

You know, the things about marriage that matter the most.

"Some states used to allow people to own other people. Slavery is every bit as much (or little) a part of human nature as same-sex 'marriage.'"

Desperate diversion.

"Two persons who freely chose that union, and could have chosen differently. In the case of a same-sex union between 2 people with SSA, their choice is every bit as free, probably more free, than the choice of a substance addict to use their substance -- a choice we encourage them to make differently."

Strange, exactly the same logic applies to a traditional marriage.

"Clearly, it doesn't -- not unless you think "equal protection" means that individuals are to be "protected" from the outcomes of their free choices. That means, among many other things, that the Constitution mandates socialism -- the same outcome to individual economic choices."

We're not talking about "outcomes", but about "equal protection". In this case, that means not having the law discriminate against one form of committed monogamous union just because some people don't like the form of sex that might be involved. While arguing that another form of committed monogamous union should be elevated just because of the type of sex that _might_ be involved.

"Why? There is no rationale to that statement. If SSA is not innate (which it isn't) or if same-sex unions are freely chosen (which they are), you have no basis for an equal protection claim. You need to lay out your logical basis -- if you have one."

And that basis is that marriage is also freely chosen, so why allow the law to discriminate against another form of committed monogamous union that has the same social benefits?
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:17,062
Points:565,825
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Nov 18, 2014 1:14:14 PM

"Such people make a mockery out of the word 'marriage'. (And I'm not necessarily talking about Manson)"

Nice.
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,372
Points:791,430
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Nov 18, 2014 1:08:03 PM

Yeah, but they're happy to call it a "marriage" because there's the "potential" for procreation. ROTFL

Such people make a mockery out of the word 'marriage'. (And I'm not necessarily talking about Manson)
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,446
Points:3,837,135
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Nov 18, 2014 12:58:08 PM

Guess the marriage traditionalists will be happy to hear Charles Manson is going to marry a 26 year old! No gay marriage for that insane mass murderer!
Mind you, no procreation either! He isn't eligible for conjugal visits!
What a strange world.

[Edited by: rumbleseat at 11/18/2014 12:58:34 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:17,062
Points:565,825
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Nov 18, 2014 9:41:37 AM

"It's as if they want to live their lives in perpetual fear. Fear of God. Fear of learning how the universe really works. Fear of being exposed to facts that threaten their fear of God."

Absolutely. They should watch Jim Carrey's commencement speech from this past Spring.... Too many decisions are made out of fear, rather than love.
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,372
Points:791,430
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Nov 18, 2014 9:39:05 AM

Don't you mean his bubble of unreality?

GTH, and indeed most believers, have to create such a bubble to prevent their being exposed to the truth.

It's as if they want to live their lives in perpetual fear. Fear of God. Fear of learning how the universe really works. Fear of being exposed to facts that threaten their fear of God.

I wonder if most conspiracy theorists are also believers.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:17,062
Points:565,825
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Nov 18, 2014 9:31:55 AM

"Large study of gay brothers suggests genetic link for homosexuality"

I read that yesterday as well. Since it appears gth has added me to his ignore list, I doubt he will be exposed to this recent study - and even if he were, he would find reasons to continue protecting his bubble of reality...
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,364
Points:2,566,710
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Nov 17, 2014 8:43:57 PM

gas_too_high - "You have swerved, unintentionally, into the truth, or a small piece of it. Any union involving a man and a woman that cannot procreate, is only so for relatively superficial reasons -- age, health, etc. A same-sex union is fundamentally unable to procreate, since it lacks both genders."

rjhenn: 'Yet you regard those marriages that are only "for relatively superficial reasons" as legitimate marriages, just because they mimic the procreative marriages that you approve of.'

Actually, childless marriages closely resemble, not "mimic" marriages that procreate children.

"So why deny the legal status of marriage to unions that mimic your approved marriages in less superficial ways, like actually raising children?"

I don't deny that status to any marriage that can supply a parentless child with a father and a mother. Why do you want to deny them that status?

As to same-sex unions, they cannot do that. Not ever. Never.

GTH: "As for same-sex unions (which of course are not marriages), I don't denigrate them. I simply call them what they are, and refuse to call them what they are not, so that others are not confused as to what marriage is, and is not."

rjhenn: "Yet they fulfill all of the essential functions of a marriage..."

Except they can't provide a child with a father and a mother, and model a procreative marriage.

"...and legally are marriages in an increasing number of states."

Some states used to allow people to own other people. Slavery is every bit as much (or little) a part of human nature as same-sex "marriage."

GTH: "That clause applies to individual "persons" not groups and certainly not "committed monogamous unions". You would have to demonstrate that providing equal protection of individual persons requires treating sexual unions, entered into freely, the same. Even notwithstanding the little matter one only one type can procreate, you can't do that. That's why other redefiners tie the persons in same-sex unions to SSA as innate, and therefore to same-sex unions, to meet 14th Amendment requirements."

rjhenn: "Funny, a committed monogamous union consists of two individual persons."

Two persons who freely chose that union, and could have chosen differently. In the case of a same-sex union between 2 people with SSA, their choice is every bit as free, probably more free, than the choice of a substance addict to use their substance -- a choice we encourage them to make differently.

"Treating one such committed monogamous union differently under the law than another such union, without any justification, clearly denies the individuals in one of those unions "the equal protection of the laws."

Clearly, it doesn't -- not unless you think "equal protection" means that individuals are to be "protected" from the outcomes of their free choices. That means, among many other things, that the Constitution mandates socialism -- the same outcome to individual economic choices.

'That doesn't depend on SSA being innate, nor is it invalidated by any "free choice".'

Why? There is no rationale to that statement. If SSA is not innate (which it isn't) or if same-sex unions are freely chosen (which they are), you have no basis for an equal protection claim. You need to lay out your logical basis -- if you have one.

GTH
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,372
Points:791,430
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Nov 17, 2014 3:26:50 PM

Large study of gay brothers suggests genetic link for homosexuality

"CHICAGO - A large study of gay brothers adds to evidence that genes influence men's chances of being homosexual, but the results aren't strong enough to prove it.

Some scientists believe several genes might affect sexual orientation. Researchers who led the new study of nearly 800 gay brothers say their results bolster previous evidence pointing to genes on the X chromosome.

They also found evidence of influence from a gene or genes on a different chromosome. But the study doesn't identify which of hundreds of genes located in either place might be involved."

So much for it being a "false premise" that SSA is innate.

But of course the anti-homosexuals will deny it and stick to their dogma.



[Edited by: BabeTruth at 11/17/2014 3:36:16 PM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,726
Points:2,839,620
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Nov 17, 2014 2:26:34 AM

gas_too_high - "You have swerved, unintentionally, into the truth, or a small piece of it. Any union involving a man and a woman that cannot procreate, is only so for relatively superficial reasons -- age, health, etc. A same-sex union is fundamentally unable to procreate, since it lacks both genders."

Yet you regard those marriages that are only "for relatively superficial reasons" as legitimate marriages, just because they mimic the procreative marriages that you approve of. So why deny the legal status of marriage to unions that mimic your approved marriages in less superficial ways, like actually raising children?

"The only such marriages I can think of would be where the man and woman practice non-coital sex. I have never inquired into such marriages."

Yet you do "inquire into" SSMs, apparently only because they practice "non-coital sex".

"As for same-sex unions (which of course are not marriages), I don't denigrate them. I simply call them what they are, and refuse to call them what they are not, so that others are not confused as to what marriage is, and is not."

Yet they fulfill all of the essential functions of a marriage, and legally are marriages in an increasing number of states. All you are left with is attempting to 'defend' an unnecessarily restrictive definition of a word, to no real purpose.

"I'm surprised you quote that passage, since that supports my position, not yours."

No, it doesn't, since he didn't study children who were raised in same-sex households. Thus he can't say that there is any difference between children who "spend their entire childhood with their married mother and father" and those who are raised by loving and supportive same-sex parents.

"If you dismiss Regnerus, you are still left with a proposition for which *you* have the burden of proof, and which you would have the same difficulty proving as the one Regnerus ran into -- the prevalence of broken families among children now raised by same-sex couples."

No, his actual problem is that the policies that you favor result in homosexuals attempting to deny their nature by hiding in a fake heterosexual marriage, which often results in broken families. Again, he didn't study children actually raised by same-sex couples.

"That clause applies to individual "persons" not groups and certainly not "committed monogamous unions". You would have to demonstrate that providing equal protection of individual persons requires treating sexual unions, entered into freely, the same. Even notwithstanding the little matter one only one type can procreate, you can't do that. That's why other redefiners tie the persons in same-sex unions to SSA as innate, and therefore to same-sex unions, to meet 14th Amendment requirements."

Funny, a committed monogamous union consists of two individual persons. Treating one such committed monogamous union differently under the law than another such union, without any justification, clearly denies the individuals in one of those unions "the equal protection of the laws."

That doesn't depend on SSA being innate, nor is it invalidated by any "free choice". And, since many such unions that cannot, do not, or will not procreate are treated equally with those that do, procreation is not a justification.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,364
Points:2,566,710
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Nov 16, 2014 8:46:56 PM

rjhenn: "Not so subtle, and completely irrelevant, since you approve of marriages that can't, don't or won't procreate, but simply look superficially as if they could procreate."

You have swerved, unintentionally, into the truth, or a small piece of it. Any union involving a man and a woman that cannot procreate, is only so for relatively superficial reasons -- age, health, etc. A same-sex union is fundamentally unable to procreate, since it lacks both genders.

rjhenn: "While you denigrate marriages that actually do raise children, just because they involve sexual acts that you don't approve of."

The only such marriages I can think of would be where the man and woman practice non-coital sex. I have never inquired into such marriages.

As for same-sex unions (which of course are not marriages), I don't denigrate them. I simply call them what they are, and refuse to call them what they are not, so that others are not confused as to what marriage is, and is not.

rjhenn: 'What Regnerus said was that his study “clearly reveals that children appear most apt to succeed well as adults—on multiple counts and across a variety of domains—when they spend their entire childhood with their married mother and father.”'

I'm surprised you quote that passage, since that supports my position, not yours.

"Yet he didn't study children who were raised in same-sex households, but only some who were raised by one or more parents who, at one time or another, had a same-sex experience or relationship. In fact, even of the children from families where one parent had a same-sex experience or relationship, all but 2 came from broken families."

Which he openly admitted. But even if you exaggerate the difficulty he had into getting a representative sample, that doesn't solve your problem. If you dismiss Regnerus, you are still left with a proposition for which *you* have the burden of proof, and which you would have the same difficulty proving as the one Regnerus ran into -- the prevalence of broken families among children now raised by same-sex couples.

GTH: "Since protecting the individual from the outcome of their free choice is not necessary to providing them "equal protection," that is not required by the 14th Amendment."

rjhenn: "But giving one form of committed monogamous union special legal status, while denying that same status to other committed monogamous unions, is a violation of "equal protection". Particularly when both of them are the result of free choice."

The "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment (Section 1, quoted in pertinent part):

"No State shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

That clause applies to individual "persons" not groups and certainly not "committed monogamous unions". You would have to demonstrate that providing equal protection of individual persons requires treating sexual unions, entered into freely, the same. Even notwithstanding the little matter one only one type can procreate, you can't do that. That's why other redefiners tie the persons in same-sex unions to SSA as innate, and therefore to same-sex unions, to meet 14th Amendment requirements.

Even if they share your false premise that SSA is innate, they understand the Constitution better than you do.

GTH



[Edited by: gas_too_high at 11/16/2014 8:48:01 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:17,062
Points:565,825
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Nov 16, 2014 4:02:05 PM

Unfortunately the right is continuing to try to redefine 'marriage' as a religious-only institute in the ever-narrowing definition game.

What a shame that religion - which preaches patience, love and tolerance - would be the source of so much hate when all that is looking to be done is to extend civil liberties, not religious ones, to those who wish to marry of the same gender.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,726
Points:2,839,620
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Nov 16, 2014 2:09:11 AM

gas_too_high - "Which is not the issue here, since no discrimination of persons is involved, only (if "discrimination" even applies") against a union that was represented as a "marriage," contrary to Colorado law in force at that time."

And, since they weren't getting married in Colorado, Colorado law about the marriage is irrelevant. OTOH, Colorado law about discrimination is quite relevant, and it seems pretty clear that they were being discriminated against because of who they were as individuals.

"A law which violated the Constitution."

In your opinion. Which doesn't mean any more, legally, than my opinion. Unless and until SCOTUS takes it up and makes a decision, it's all just opinions.

"Actually he had a third -- to challenge the law in court, appealing to the Supreme Court if necessary. But, even if a legal defense fund paid the enormous costs, it would take time and detract from his running his business. And, there is no guarantee that SCOTUs would enforce the Constitution, depending on how Justice Kennedy happens to feel at any given time."

Os perhaps he was simply afraid that SCOTUS _would_ enforce the Constitution.

"Since race, unlike gender, is unimportant to marriage, Jim Crow laws are irrelevant to this issue."

Since gender is actually just as unimportant to either committed monogamous unions or raising children as race is, Jim Crow laws are quite relevant.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,726
Points:2,839,620
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Nov 16, 2014 2:02:56 AM

gas_too_high - "Except that actually my premise is that procreation (which is the consequence of a sexual union between a man) necesitates the commitment called "marriage" so that those procreated children are raised by their mother and father.

A subtle but important distinction, which you are either blinded to by your dogma or else you refuse to admit out of obstinance, because it is completely irrelevant to same-sex unions."

Not so subtle, and completely irrelevant, since you approve of marriages that can't, don't or won't procreate, but simply look superficially as if they could procreate. While you denigrate marriages that actually do raise children, just because they involve sexual acts that you don't approve of.

"Which has nothing to do with the issue of the definition of marriage."

Actually, it has everything to do with it, since it undermines your own argument.

"Which I have explained, and which you have rejected as not confroming with "common sense" (your dogma)."

Which you have attempted to support with even more nonsense.

"Which is best done by the father and mother that procreated those children, or same-sex substitutes if necessary. Settling for same-sex parents is neither necessary nor advisable -- unless and until such a momentous change has been conclusively proven otherwise."

Which is based on your dogma, not the existing experience, evidence and scientific studies, all of which say otherwise.

"I have read enough to know that although Mark Regnerus was upfront about the limitations of his study, he did't say that. Rather, that is your interpretation, heavliy filtered through hyour dogma."

What Regnerus said was that his study “clearly reveals that children appear most apt to succeed well as adults—on multiple counts and across a variety of domains—when they spend their entire childhood with their married mother and father.”

Yet he didn't study children who were raised in same-sex households, but only some who were raised by one or more parents who, at one time or another, had a same-sex experience or relationship. In fact, even of the children from families where one parent had a same-sex experience or relationship, all but 2 came from broken families.

Again, it appears to be pressure from such as you to force homosexuals into heterosexual marriages that are likely to fail that harms children.

"Which is also filtered through your dogma."

Of course, what you keep referring to as my dogma is reason and facts, while your dogma is tradition and religion.

"IOW, you have nothing. My definition is the way most peope would understand the term "innate"."

IOW, you're using your own definition, not the dictionary definition of "existing in one from birth" or " existing in, belonging to, or determined by factors present in an individual from birth : native, inborn". Of course, you can't use the dictionary definition, because it's incompatible with your arguments using the term.

"Meaning, it contradicts your dogma."

No, meaning it's not relevant. We're not talking about your fantasy of protecting a "sexual lifestyle", we're talking about treating some committed monogamous unions the same as to legal status as other committed monogamous unions, when the only real difference between them, from society's standpoint, is the relative sexes of the individuals involved.

"Since protecting the individual from the outcome of their free choice is not necessary to providing them "equal protection," that is not required by the 14th Amendment."

But giving one form of committed monogamous union special legal status, while denying that same status to other committed monogamous unions, is a violation of "equal protection". Particularly when both of them are the result of free choice.

"They inherently have that status, because they have no importance to society beyond the individuals involved."

So the children they raise don't exist? And heterosexual marriages that don't raise children do have "importance to society beyond the individuals involved"?

"That seems to be the one thing rjhenn can't do."

Well, as long as you can't stop posting your nonsense, someone's got to present facts and reason. Otherwise we're stuck with the victory of ignorance and prejudice because "good men do nothing".
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,446
Points:3,837,135
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Nov 14, 2014 9:21:34 PM

"Unfortunately, the left continues to redefine the protected classes in order to redefine marriage."

How does it become redefinition to protect the class "adult human"? That is what we are talking about. It is not right to classify some as lesser beings to justify discrimination, that smacks of the illegal discrimination against lower castes in India.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,364
Points:2,566,710
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Nov 14, 2014 8:59:40 PM

EZExit - "--Speak for yourself, the baker's issue is being forced to enter a contract to produce a custom product against his will."

rjhenn: "Which, as pointed out previously, is not an actual issue, having been the norm since at least the Civil Rights Act."

Which is not the issue here, since no discrimination of persons is involved, only (if "discrimination" even applies") against a union that was represented as a "marriage," contrary to Colorado law in force at that time.

EZExit: "--He was "forced" to give up part of his business, because of not wanting to enter into an agreement with them."

rjhenn: 'No, he was "forced" to obey the law.'

A law which violated the Constitution.

"That left him with two choices - stop discriminating or stop selling wedding cakes."

Actually he had a third -- to challenge the law in court, appealing to the Supreme Court if necessary. But, even if a legal defense fund paid the enormous costs, it would take time and detract from his running his business. And, there is no guarantee that SCOTUs would enforce the Constitution, depending on how Justice Kennedy happens to feel at any given time.

EZExit: "--Come on, how many times have you and RJHenn introduced Jim Crow laws into this discussion trying to make it a valid counterargument? At least be honest with yourself..."

rjhenn: "We are. That's why we introduce Jim Crow laws. Because they're relevant."

Since race, unlike gender, is unimportant to marriage, Jim Crow laws are irrelevant to this issue.

GTH
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,364
Points:2,566,710
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Nov 14, 2014 8:58:26 PM

gas_too_high - "The fact remains, that the gender difference, or lack thereof, of a couple calling their union a marriage, will tell you if they have any possibility of being able to procreate or not"

rjhenn: "Which is only relevant if you believe in your premise that procreation is the primary purpose of marriage..."

Except that actually my premise is that procreation (which is the consequence of a sexual union between a man) necesitates the commitment called "marriage" so that those procreated children are raised by their mother and father.

A subtle but important distinction, which you are either blinded to by your dogma or else you refuse to admit out of obstinance, because it is completely irrelevant to same-sex unions.

"And your approval of marriages..."

Which has nothing to do with the issue of the definition of marriage.

"...that can't, won't or don't procreate undermines your argument that procreation is the sole determinant of the validity, or lack thereof, of a marriage.

Which I have explained, and which you have rejected as not confroming with "common sense" (your dogma).

"And, again, you just demonstrated that raising children is a more important function of marriage than procreation is."

Which is best done by the father and mother that procreated those children, or same-sex substitutes if necessary. Settling for same-sex parents is neither necessary nor advisable -- unless and until such a momentous change has been conclusively proven otherwise.

'As far as Regnerus goes, even he has admitted that his study had nothing to do with children raised by same-sex parents."

I have read enough to know that although Mark Regnerus was upfront about the limitations of his study, he did't say that. Rather, that is your interpretation, heavliy filtered through hyour dogma.

"In fact, if you actually read the study, what it appears to show is that homosexuals who are coerced into a traditional marriage, in order to try and hide their SSA and live your 'normal' life, tend to make poor parents."

Which is also filtered through your dogma.

GTH: "There is is the matter is SSA supposedly being "innate". Maybe you are unable to distinguish between normal innate conditions and clearly defective or non-normative conditions that happen to be present at birth, but I and others sure can."

rjhenn: "IOW, you are, once again, using your own definitions of words."

IOW, you have nothing. My definition is the way most peope would understand the term "innate".

GTH: "The Constitution does not protect free choice, other than those explicitly stated like freeom of speech and religion. It certainly does not protect freedom of sexual lifestyle, else SCOTUS would not have upheld the overturning of Mormon polygamy in the 19th century."

rjhenn: "None of which is relevant."

Meaning, it contradicts your dogma.

'What should be protected is "equal protection", as applied to the free choice known as marriage.'

Since protecting the individual from the outcome of their free choice is not necessary to providing them "equal protection," that is not required by the 14th Amendment.

"...there doesn't seem to be any valid reason to give [same-sex unions] second-class status under the law."

They inherently have that status, because they have no importance to society beyond the individuals involved.

GTH: "Otherwise, don't waste any more of our time. Just agree to disagree, and be done."

rjhenn: [silence]

That seems to be the one thing rjhenn can't do.

GTH
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,372
Points:791,430
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Nov 14, 2014 4:27:23 PM

EZExit “He was "forced" to give up part of his business, because of not wanting to enter into an agreement with them.”

No. Again you’re wrong. He was not “forced: to give up his business. That was a choice he freely made on his own. He didn’t want to sell to everybody, he wanted to discriminate between heterosexuals and homosexuals and only sell to the heteros.

“Correct, ALL cakes are custom, all cakes are contracted.”

Yes, so you can’t say that the cake the gay couple was asking for was different because ALL wedding cakes are different.
Yet the baker chooses to make some and not others depending not on any difference in the cakes but differences in the customers. That’s discrimination.

<<<"So show us exactly HOW this wedding cake would have been different?">>>

EZExit “It was a cake that he had never made before.”

He had never made any wedding cake like any other wedding cake before it either so your point is invalid.

<<<"I guess you didn’t bother to look up discrete manufacturing, did you? It figures.">>>

EZExit “I am familiar with "discrete manufacturing", it has no bearing to this discussion,..”

Then you’re admitting that your contention that the wedding cake for the homosexual couple was no different than making a wedding cake for a heterosexual couple.

EZExit “.. other than his ability to ramp up or ramp down his operation depending on the number of wedding cake contracts he accepts.”

No, that’s not what discrete manufacturing is all about.

<<<"And you haven’t bothered to figure out the definition of “redefine” as opposed to “extend” either.">>>

EZExit “And once again, I am also unwilling to extend the word "dog" to hamsters..”

That’s not what “extend” means.

EZExit “However, I'll admit that you could redefine hamsters to be dogs if you extend the definition of Canidae.”

Are you implying that you don’t think homosexuals are human?

EZExit “Come on, how many times have you and RJHenn introduced Jim Crow laws into this discussion trying to make it a valid counterargument? At least be honest with yourself...”

Making a comparison between how blacks were treated is not the same as “making homosexual marriage "black"”.

If they were, then making a wedding cake for homosexuals would be making a wedding cake for heterosexuals. You seem to want to have it both ways.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,726
Points:2,839,620
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Nov 14, 2014 4:11:12 PM

EZExit - "--Speak for yourself, the baker's issue is being forced to enter a contract to produce a custom product against his will."

Which, as pointed out previously, is not an actual issue, having been the norm since at least the Civil Rights Act.

"Unfortunately, the left continues to redefine the protected classes in order to redefine marriage."

Extending the definition of marriage to include functionally-equivalent committed monogamous unions has nothing to do with any "protected classes".

"They are doing this by making homosexual marriage "black" first, then applying some racial seasoning, and then topping it off with a marriage redefinition topper."

Which is only a crude attempt to ignore the actual parallels between discrimination based on race and discrimination based on sexual identity.

"--He was "forced" to give up part of his business, because of not wanting to enter into an agreement with them."

No, he was "forced" to obey the law. That left him with two choices - stop discriminating or stop selling wedding cakes.

"--It was a cake that he had never made before."

He'd never made a wedding cake before? I thought that was part of his business.

"--Come on, how many times have you and RJHenn introduced Jim Crow laws into this discussion trying to make it a valid counterargument? At least be honest with yourself..."

We are. That's why we introduce Jim Crow laws. Because they're relevant.
Post a reply Back to Topics