Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    10:23 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:20,043
Points:852,310
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
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,516
Points:2,925,480
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 26, 2015 1:27:45 AM

gas_too_high - "No, what I just said was, "That kind of virtual unanimity should not be *casually* or *lightly* tossed aside," which is clearly different from saying that it should not be changed *at all*. (But I guess that's one of your "meaningless distinctions" that you like to attribute to lawyers)."

Since there's nothing "casual" or "light" about the current discussion, and you've already demonstrated that you won't accept any evidence in favor of change, you're actually arguing that there should be no change.

"Except that, because of what I said above, you have the burden of proof, and a correspondingly large one. And the "benefits to children," from the small number of same-sex couples that happen to raise children (from the small number of same-sex couples that exist in any case), are far from obvious."

IOW, you're in denial.

"Which is different from how you originally stated what he said."

Not really. I just put it in a slightly different context.

"Bad parents do not invalidate a good family structure, any more than a good well meaning parent and same-sex partner validate a lacking family structure."

Except that you still can't actually demonstrate that there's anything significant lacking, while the current evidence is that, on average, both family structures do just as good a job.

Demonstrating that it's the parents, not just their sexual relationship, that makes a good family structure.

"Except that, since same-sex unions can legally exist, there is no effective barrier to showing how they can benefit society. Not having the legal benefits of marriage is not any substantial bar at all. Unmarried opposite-sex couples can and do raise children, without those benefits."

So you're admitting that they've already demonstrated that they deserve the legal benefits of marriage?

"You make it sound as if that's such a trivial thing. The ability, or lack thereof, of a type of sexual act to procreate, is far from trivial."

Actually, in the context of modern marriage, it is a trivial thing. As demonstrated by the large number of modern marriages that can't, won't or don't procreate.

Unless you believe, as you seem to, that sex is all that marriage is about.

"Rather, it's back to refusing to make a crucial distinction, instead of welding a person to a lifestyle based on their free choice. And back to denying reality (not that you ever stopped)."

Since you're the one demanding that a specific "lifestyle" (which you don't actually seem to want to define) makes a couple deserving only second-class status, and denying them and any children they may be raising the benefits of being legally married, apparently just because you insist that the word "marriage" has some religious significance that overrides the law and the Constitution, you appear to be the one denying reality.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,843
Points:2,653,255
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2015 8:05:02 PM

rjhenn: "And, again, you're arguing that things shouldn't change because things shouldn't change."

No, what I just said was, "That kind of virtual unanimity should not be *casually* or *lightly* tossed aside," which is clearly different from saying that it should not be changed *at all*. (But I guess that's one of your "meaningless distinctions" that you like to attribute to lawyers).

"Even though you can't point out any likely harm from doing so, while the benefits to children should be obvious."

Except that, because of what I said above, you have the burden of proof, and a correspondingly large one. And the "benefits to children," from the small number of same-sex couples that happen to raise children (from the small number of same-sex couples that exist in any case), are far from obvious.

rjhenn: "What [El_Gato_Negro] said was: "That would mean that couples where one is an alcoholic or a gambler or has a mental condition or maybe even a physical disability should not be allowed to marry either. They are obviously not the most secure or most stable couples."

Which is different from how you originally stated what he said. But again, no matter. Bad parents do not invalidate a good family structure, any more than a good well meaning parent and same-sex partner validate a lacking family structure.

GTH: "Which means you admit there is no Catch-22. Another fallacy exposed."

rjhenn: "No, what you want is for them to demonstrate the value of their being legally married, while not allowing them to be legally married so they can demonstrate the value (or at least the lack of any real drawbacks) of being legally married. Classic Catch-22."

Except that, since same-sex unions can legally exist, there is no effective barrier to showing how they can benefit society. Not having the legal benefits of marriage is not any substantial bar at all. Unmarried opposite-sex couples can and do raise children, without those benefits.

"You want to define marriage entirely by the type of sexual act that married couples can engage in. Your entire argument is based on that."

You make it sound as if that's such a trivial thing. The ability, or lack thereof, of a type of sexual act to procreate, is far from trivial.

rjhenn: ""The reason for the refusal was who and what the customers were. The purpose of the service was to bake a cake."

GTH: "Only to those who refuse to make the distinctions between persons and their freely chosen lifestyles."

rjnenn: 'And it's back to denigrating persons based on their "lifestyle".'

Rather, it's back to refusing to make a crucial distinction, instead of welding a person to a lifestyle based on their free choice. And back to denying reality (not that you ever stopped).

GTH
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,516
Points:2,925,480
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2015 12:00:18 AM

gas_too_high - "I know history, which testifies to the unanimity of the definition of marriage across times, places and peoples who agreed on practically nothing else (possibly excepting the "Tao," as we discussed elsewhere).

That kind of virtual unanimity should not be casually or lightly tossed aside, especially not at the urging of only a small population of people who want that definition tossed aside because of a freely made choice."

And, again, you're arguing that things shouldn't change because things shouldn't change. Even though you can't point out any likely harm from doing so, while the benefits to children should be obvious.

"Nowhere that I can see (after I un-ignored his trolling posts) did he say what you attribute to him. Not that it matters."

What he said was: "That would mean that couples where one is an alcoholic or a gambler or has a mental condition or maybe even a physical disability should not be allowed to marry either. They are obviously not the most secure or most stable couples."

"Which means you admit there is no Catch-22. Another fallacy exposed."

No, what you want is for them to demonstrate the value of their being legally married, while not allowing them to be legally married so they can demonstrate the value (or at least the lack of any real drawbacks) of being legally married. Classic Catch-22.

"As usual, when you can't refute something, you throw up a strawman. And you can't refute what I just said, and you didn't."

In fact, it's you who can't refute what I just said. You want to define marriage entirely by the type of sexual act that married couples can engage in. Your entire argument is based on that.

"I guess there is no distinction then between "equal protection" and "separate but equal.""

Except that, of course, "separate but equal", which is what you seem to be advocating (but without the "equal" part), is a denial of "equal protection".

"And this time, you try distraction to cover over a point you can't refute."

A good description of your statement about "no distinction then between "equal protection" and "separate but equal.""

"Only to those who refuse to make the distinctions between persons and their freely chosen lifestyles."

And it's back to denigrating persons based on their "lifestyle".

"That is, to those who deny reality."

You're still the one denying that marriage is more than just the act of coitus.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,843
Points:2,653,255
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 24, 2015 11:03:17 PM

gas_too_high - "Mine and a few billion others, from all times, races and cultures."

rjhenn: "So you know exactly what billions of others believe, and that is enough to make it reality?"

I know history, which testifies to the unanimity of the definition of marriage across times, places and peoples who agreed on practically nothing else (possibly excepting the "Tao," as we discussed elsewhere).

That kind of virtual unanimity should not be casually or lightly tossed aside, especially not at the urging of only a small population of people who want that definition tossed aside because of a freely made choice.

"Blackie. The Black Cat. El_Gato_Negro."

Nowhere that I can see (after I un-ignored his trolling posts) did he say what you attribute to him. Not that it matters.

GTH: "Then let those couples make their case, as society gains experience with those unions. But those benefits will still fall short of the benefits to society of marriage, because of the difference that makes all the difference."

rjhenn: "The actual evidence we've already got argues against your opinions. But you want to impose a Catch-22 situation on them, just because what they do in bed doesn't fit your dogma."

GTH: "What Catch-22? Same-sex unions are completely legal. Nothing prevents them from demonstrating their benefits to society -- if they have any."

rjhenn: "Which they've been doing. What you object to is acknowledging those benefits in any way."

Which means you admit there is no Catch-22. Another fallacy exposed.

GTH: "Says the one who denies the patently obvious. The biological function of sex *is* procreation, with pleasure merely a side effect. And yet you adamantly insist, with a straight face, that unions based on procreative sex are no different than unions based on a variant form of sex that is only about pleasure."

rjhenn: "And marriage has never been strictly about biology or sex, though you seem to want to reduce it to that."

As usual, when you can't refute something, you throw up a strawman. And you can't refute what I just said, and you didn't.

GTH: "The law bans discrimination based on who are the customers requesting service, but not based on the purpose of the service. The reason for the refusal was the latter, not the former. What part of that distinction eludes you."

rjhenn: "You sound like a lawyer, picking out meaningless distinctions to pad your bill."

I guess there is no distinction then between "equal protection" and "separate but equal."

And this time, you try distraction to cover over a point you can't refute.

"The reason for the refusal was who and what the customers were. The purpose of the service was to bake a cake."

Only to those who refuse to make the distinctions between persons and their freely chosen lifestyles.

That is, to those who deny reality.

GTH
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,516
Points:2,925,480
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 24, 2015 10:33:09 PM

EZExit - "--I wanted you to prove for me that you are inconsistent with your argument in this thread, and you didn't disappoint me."

As you consistently demonstrate, reality has little to do with your judgements on issues that conflict with your dogma.

"--It had to do with baking a cake for a gay wedding, with rainbow icing and a double groom topper."

As clearly demonstrated by the court proceedings, that's yet another set of 'facts' that only exists in your imagination.

"The baker also tried to accommodate them,"

Try reading your link again. That wasn't "them", that was "Yelp user Samantha S.".
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,516
Points:2,925,480
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 24, 2015 10:28:21 PM

gas_too_high - "Mine and a few billion others, from all times, races and cultures."

So you know exactly what billions of others believe, and that is enough to make it reality?

"Just what do you think you know that the vast majority of people that ever lived do not know?"

Lots of things. And hopefully something new every day.

"Who?"

Blackie. The Black Cat. El_Gato_Negro.

"What Catch-22? Same-sex unions are completely legal. Nothing prevents them from demonstrating their benefits to society -- if they have any."

Which they've been doing. What you object to is acknowledging those benefits in any way.

"Says the one who denies the patently obvious. The biological function of sex *is* procreation, with pleasure merely a side effect. And yet you adamantly insist, with a straight face, that unions based on procreative sex are no different than unions based on a variant form of sex that is only about pleasure."

And marriage has never been strictly about biology or sex, though you seem to want to reduce it to that.

"Psalms 14:1 comes to mind."

Which may be what motivates you. Of course, a statement that those who don't believe are bad, coming from a book for believers, is neither convincing nor other than expected.

"The law bans discrimination based on who are the customers requesting service, but not based on the purpose of the service. The reason for the refusal was the latter, not the former. What part of that distinction eludes you."

You sound like a lawyer, picking out meaningless distinctions to pad your bill. The reason for the refusal was who and what the customers were. The purpose of the service was to bake a cake.

"Had the same-sex couples asked for a birthday cake for one of them, and he refused, because they were "gay," then you would be correct. But that was not what happened."

He still only refused because they were gay.
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,780
Points:880,160
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Jan 24, 2015 9:14:52 AM

<<<"1. The blog make no mention at all of a double groom topper.">>>

EZExit “It was a wedding cake request, why would they request something otherwise?”

I agree that's what they probably WOULD have discussed if they'd got that far in the discussion.

But your blog does not say that they DID discuss it, just that they WANTED to have it.

That's not the same thing.

<<<"2. The blog mentions what they wanted for a cake, not what they discussed with the baker.">>>

EZExit “From the blog: <<<"But after bakery owner Jack Phillips listened to their request, they say, he refused it.">>>”

That still doesn't say that they asked for rainbow icing and a double groom topper. Their request was that they wanted a wedding cake. Again, it does not specifically say that they had got as far as discussing what they wanted that cake to look like.

You're reading into it what you want it to say, not what it actually says.

<<<"3. From the blog. ""It was the most awkward, surreal, very brief encounter," Mullins says." The "very brief" part would indicate they did not get very far in discussing the cake. Probably not beyond the fact that they were gay.">>>

EZExit “Also from the blog: <<<""We got up to leave, and to be totally honest, I said, 'F you and your homophobic cake shop.' And I may or may not have flipped him off."">>> (Sounds like the gay couple made it as brief as they wanted it to be).”

They had just been refused service for a legitimate request. Do you think they would have had success if they'd stayed longer and begged?

And it's reasonable that they were upset with the baker. Wouldn't YOU be if a store turned you away merely because they didn't like who you were?

Since you read into the blog what you want it to say, not what it does say, why didn't you think that maybe the baker had been rude in his refusal?

<<<"4. "Findings of Fact
The following facts are undisputed:"
The baker did not dispute the fact that the design was not discussed. That seems odd if he could have argued that it was the design he objected to.
Summation: The blog does not state that they discussed the design with the baker and the courts undisputed fact finding states that they did not.
I stand by my previous statement. ">>>

EZExit “--According to the complainants themselves immediately after the incident, they state otherwise.”

No. See above. According to the complainants blog it does NOT say otherwise. You're reading into the blog something it doesn't say.

EZExit “But I will admit that indeed it appears that the baker did not formally dispute this fact claimed by the ACLU on behalf of the complainants.”

Now why wouldn't he dispute it if it wasn't true? Especially when it's going to affect his business.

If somebody claimed something that wasn't true about me in a court of law, something that would affect my livilihood, I'd dispute it vigorously, wouldn't you?

So if the baker didn't dispute those statements of fact, don't you think that it implies that they were indeed the facts and not what you claim they are?
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:17,062
Points:2,442,750
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 24, 2015 2:08:54 AM

IammeCA: <<<"1. The blog make no mention at all of a double groom topper.">>>

--It was a wedding cake request, why would they request something otherwise?

<<<"2. The blog mentions what they wanted for a cake, not what they discussed with the baker.">>>

--From the blog: <<<"But after bakery owner Jack Phillips listened to their request, they say, he refused it.">>>

<<<"3. From the blog. ""It was the most awkward, surreal, very brief encounter," Mullins says." The "very brief" part would indicate they did not get very far in discussing the cake. Probably not beyond the fact that they were gay.">>>

--Also from the blog: <<<""We got up to leave, and to be totally honest, I said, 'F you and your homophobic cake shop.' And I may or may not have flipped him off."">>> (Sounds like the gay couple made it as brief as they wanted it to be).

<<<"4. "Findings of Fact
The following facts are undisputed:"
The baker did not dispute the fact that the design was not discussed. That seems odd if he could have argued that it was the design he objected to.

Summation: The blog does not state that they discussed the design with the baker and the courts undisputed fact finding states that they did not.

I stand by my previous statement. ">>>

--According to the complainants themselves immediately after the incident, they state otherwise. But I will admit that indeed it appears that the baker did not formally dispute this fact claimed by the ACLU on behalf of the complainants.

Profile Pic
IammeCA
All-Star Author Ventura

Posts:557
Points:188,525
Joined:Sep 2009
Message Posted: Jan 24, 2015 1:16:46 AM

1. The blog make no mention at all of a double groom topper.

2. The blog mentions what they wanted for a cake, not what they discussed with the baker.

3. From the blog. ""It was the most awkward, surreal, very brief encounter," Mullins says." The "very brief" part would indicate they did not get very far in discussing the cake. Probably not beyond the fact that they were gay.

4. "Findings of Fact
The following facts are undisputed:"
The baker did not dispute the fact that the design was not discussed. That seems odd if he could have argued that it was the design he objected to.

Summation: The blog does not state that they discussed the design with the baker and the courts undisputed fact finding states that they did not.

I stand by my previous statement.
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:17,062
Points:2,442,750
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 24, 2015 12:36:57 AM

IammeCA, look at the blog posted hours after the incident in question, with information furnished by the gay couple. It seems they caressed their charges to make them more palatable for hearing argument with the help of the ACLU when reading your link.

Note the description of the cake, and especially, read the last sentence of the following quote from the attached blog "press release" about when it was that the baker refused to serve them.<<<"Yesterday afternoon, 28-year-old Dave Mullins and 31-year-old Charlie Craig stopped by Lakewood's Masterpiece Cakeshop to order their wedding reception cake -- what they hoped would be a rainbow-layered masterpiece decked out in teal and red frosting (their ceremony colors). Although they'll be reciting their vows in Provincetown, Massachusetts, in September, the couple plans to celebrate with a reception for friends and family in Denver in October. But after bakery owner Jack Phillips listened to their request, they say, he refused it.">>>

Cakeshop refuses to bake a wedding cake for gay couple

The baker also tried to accommodate them, but they already had the controversy that they were looking for...

<<<"But Masterpiece did extend a different offer: 'They did say over the phone later, that if someone like me wanted a birthday cake, or something unlike a wedding cake, that they would take our order.'">>>



[Edited by: EZExit at 1/24/2015 12:41:49 AM EST]
Profile Pic
IammeCA
All-Star Author Ventura

Posts:557
Points:188,525
Joined:Sep 2009
Message Posted: Jan 24, 2015 12:20:04 AM

"It had to do with baking a cake for a gay wedding, with rainbow icing and a double groom topper."

That statement is flat out wrong.

From the court records. Top of page 3 under findings of fact.

"8. The whole conversation between Phillips and Complainants was very brief, with no discussion between the parties about what the cake would look like."
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:17,062
Points:2,442,750
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 23, 2015 11:53:57 PM

RJHenn: <<<"But they don't normally write offensive messages on their cakes. And, as IammeCA pointed out, this baker went out of her way to be accommodating, even though she didn't agree with the message. So this had nothing to do with who they were, and everything to do with the message they wanted on the cake. The customer wasn't refused service.">>>

--I wanted you to prove for me that you are inconsistent with your argument in this thread, and you didn't disappoint me.

<<<"OTOH, "the other Colorado baker" refused to do business with the couple simply because they were gay. It had everything to do with who they were, and nothing to do with any message, because the transaction never got that far.">>>

--It had to do with baking a cake for a gay wedding, with rainbow icing and a double groom topper.
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,810
Points:3,851,165
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Jan 23, 2015 9:41:40 PM

"the baker would be unable to discriminate against the anti-gay person" is not accurate, she would not put hate speech on the cake. It is a terrible idictment on society that a system exists that allows anybody to use the law to go after somebody who refuses to participate in hate.

[Edited by: rumbleseat at 1/23/2015 9:42:45 PM EST]
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,843
Points:2,653,255
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 23, 2015 8:37:14 PM

rjhenn: "And, again, it is only your opinion that stability requires a married "man and woman", instead of two women or two men."

Mine and a few billion others, from all times, races and cultures. Just what do you think you know that the vast majority of people that ever lived do not know?

"As Blackie pointed out..."

Who?

GTH: "Then let those couples make their case, as society gains experience with those unions. But those benefits will still fall short of the benefits to society of marriage, because of the difference that makes all the difference."

rjhenn: "The actual evidence we've already got argues against your opinions. But you want to impose a Catch-22 situation on them, just because what they do in bed doesn't fit your dogma."

What Catch-22? Same-sex unions are completely legal. Nothing prevents them from demonstrating their benefits to society -- if they have any.

"IOW, you still don't have a rational argument."

Says the one who denies the patently obvious. The biological function of sex *is* procreation, with pleasure merely a side effect. And yet you adamantly insist, with a straight face, that unions based on procreative sex are no different than unions based on a variant form of sex that is only about pleasure.

GTH: "I have indeed wondered what motivates you."

rjhenn: 'Try the "Tao"'.

Psalms 14:1 comes to mind.

"OTOH, "the other Colorado baker" refused to do business with the couple simply because they were gay. It had everything to do with who they were, and nothing to do with any message, because the transaction never got that far.

The law bans discrimination based on who are the customers requesting service, but not based on the purpose of the service. The reason for the refusal was the latter, not the former. What part of that distinction eludes you.

Had the same-sex couples asked for a birthday cake for one of them, and he refused, because they were "gay," then you would be correct. But that was not what happened.

GTH
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,516
Points:2,925,480
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 23, 2015 6:47:09 PM

EZExit - "--Not so fast, if RJHenn is consistent with his argument, he will state that the baker customarily writes messages on all other cakes too, so the baker would be unable to discriminate against the anti-gay person, and not write a message solely because they don't agree with who they are."

But they don't normally write offensive messages on their cakes. And, as TammeCA pointed out, this baker went out of her way to be accommodating, even though she didn't agree with the message. So this had nothing to do with who they were, and everything to do with the message they wanted on the cake. The customer wasn't refused service.

OTOH, "the other Colorado baker" refused to do business with the couple simply because they were gay. It had everything to do with who they were, and nothing to do with any message, because the transaction never got that far.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,516
Points:2,925,480
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 23, 2015 6:45:36 PM

gas_too_high - "Sure, and pouring a foundation with concrete footers is not the only way to build a house. But it is the most secure, just as a family founded on a married man and woman is the most stable."

And, again, it is only your opinion that stability requires a married "man and woman", instead of two women or two men. As Blackie pointed out, you'd have a hard time making that argument in any court that deals with domestic violence or broken families.

"Despite your denials."

Ditto.

"THen let those couples make their case, as society gains experience with those unions. But those benefits will still fall short of the benefits to society of marriage, because of the difference that makes all the difference."

The actual evidence we've already got argues against your opinions. But you want to impose a Catch-22 situation on them, just because what they do in bed doesn't fit your dogma.

"You tell me, since you do it so often."

Again, nothing but projection.

"Sure it is. Add Bill Clinton did not - have - sex - with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."

IOW, you still don't have a rational argument.

"I have indeed wondered what motivates you."

Try the "Tao". (Note: If you're going to use C.S. Lewis as an argument, you should actually read what he wrote first.)

"Amazing. The story doesn't say what the "hateful words about gays" were. Unless they were along the lines of "God Hates f**s," they may not have been truly hateful, that is, invective. But that baker is entitled to conscience rights, just as the other Colorado baker, the one approached by the same-sex couple, was."

Except that "the other Colorado baker" wasn't asked to do anything other than bake a cake. No messages, no special "pro-gay" design, just a cake. While, in this case, "According to Ms. Silva, Jack pulled out a piece of paper with the phrase “God hates gays” and anti-gay passages he said were from the Bible. Silva also said that Jack wanted her to draw two men holding hands with an “X” crossing them out."
Profile Pic
El_Gato_Negro
Champion Author Miami

Posts:4,288
Points:901,325
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Jan 23, 2015 9:36:58 AM

<<Lets see here now - one baker is sued because they wont do a progay cake and one is sued because they wont to an antigay cake.>> flyboyUT

<<Amazing. The story doesn't say what the "hateful words about gays" were.>> gas_too_high

Amazing. There has never been one article about this case that has said that the first cake was progay and yet gas_too_high picks up on the antigay part of flyboyUT's message but has no problem with the idea that the first cake was progay.

There does seem to be some discrimination going on.
Profile Pic
El_Gato_Negro
Champion Author Miami

Posts:4,288
Points:901,325
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Jan 23, 2015 9:33:18 AM

<<Sure, and pouring a foundation with concrete footers is not the only way to build a house. But it is the most secure, just as a family founded on a married man and woman is the most stable.>> gas_too_high

So the only ones who are allowed to get married are the ones who are the most stable?

That would mean that couples where one is an alcoholic or a gambler or has a mental condition or maybe even a physical disability should not be allowed to marry either. They are obviously not the most secure or most stable couples.

Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:17,062
Points:2,442,750
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 23, 2015 1:48:39 AM

IammeCA: <<<"The other baker offered to make the cake to specifications but would not write the hateful message on it. She even offered to give the client icing and a decorator bag so he could write it.">>>

--Not so fast, if RJHenn is consistent with his argument, he will state that the baker customarily writes messages on all other cakes too, so the baker would be unable to discriminate against the anti-gay person, and not write a message solely because they don't agree with who they are.

I am sure that he would also want this other baker to either attend sensitivity training, and be on a monitored probation for 6 months, or give up their business as well.

Am I right RJ? This should be good... :)
Profile Pic
IammeCA
All-Star Author Ventura

Posts:557
Points:188,525
Joined:Sep 2009
Message Posted: Jan 23, 2015 1:33:22 AM

"Lets see here now - one baker is sued because they wont do a progay cake and one is sued because they wont to an antigay cake."

There is a factual error in that statement and it makes all the difference in the world. The baker was NOT sued because he wouldn't make a pro-gay cake. The complaint (which someone linked below) clearly states that the baker turned the gay couple down before the cake design was even discussed.

The other baker offered to make the cake to specifications but would not write the hateful message on it. She even offered to give the client icing and a decorator bag so he could write it.

If the first baker had been asked to write something like "God blesses Gay Marriage" on the cake and he offered to do the cake but not the message I think the gay couple wouldn't have had a leg to stand on. (At least they shouldn't in my opinion.) But he refused to serve them because of who they are not what they wanted him to write.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,843
Points:2,653,255
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2015 10:29:04 PM

flyboyUT: "Lets see here now - one baker is sued because they wont do a progay cake and one is sued because they wont to an antigay cake. Seems bakers just cant win for losing. Maybe he public should let bakers run their business as they like --- ohhhhh something new --- leave people alone."

Amazing. The story doesn't say what the "hateful words about gays" were. Unless they were along the lines of "God Hates f**s," they may not have been truly hateful, that is, invective. But that baker is entitled to conscience rights, just as the other Colorado baker, the one approached by the same-sex couple, was.

teacher_tim, I haven't heard anyone recently claim the 10% figure. What I have heard recently is closer to the 1.6% figure you cite. Certainly that figure has been exaggerated.

GTH

[Edited by: gas_too_high at 1/22/2015 10:30:50 PM EST]
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,843
Points:2,653,255
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2015 10:27:47 PM

rjhenn: "But your preferred form of marriage is not the ONLY basis of a family."

Sure, and pouring a foundation with concrete footers is not the only way to build a house. But it is the most secure, just as a family founded on a married man and woman is the most stable.

Despite your denials.

"And there are other benefits to society from encouraging people to form mutually supportive and committed relationships."

THen let those couples make their case, as society gains experience with those unions. But those benefits will still fall short of the benefits to society of marriage, because of the difference that makes all the difference.

"Why do you insist on asking questions whose only intent is to obfuscate?"

You tell me, since you do it so often.

GTH: "And why do you insist on redefining the only institution that unites a child to its father and mother, into something radically different?"

rjhenn: "Because it's not radically different. It's a minor extension of the institution, completely in line with its significance to society."

Sure it is. Add Bill Clinton did not - have - sex - with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.

"So one is left to wonder what your real motivations are."

I have indeed wondered what motivates you.

GTH
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:20,043
Points:852,310
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2015 3:36:59 PM

"The survey taken by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention asked a simple question of 34,557 adults nationwide: “Which of the following best represents how you think of yourself?” The five possible answers were straight, lesbian/gay, bisexual, “something else” and “I don’t know the answer.” Transgenders, the “T” in LGBT, were not included.

The survey found that a mere 1.6 percent of the adult population self-identifies as “lesbian/gay,” and an even smaller 0.7 percent told interviewers they were bisexual. The bisexuals were outnumbered by the 1.1 percent who didn’t know, wouldn’t answer or said they were “something else.”

This result was far from the 10 percent that homosexual rights advocates have claimed since the 1970s. -- The Washington Times"

link to source
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,516
Points:2,925,480
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2015 3:28:03 PM

flyboyUT - "Lets see here now - one baker is sued because they wont do a progay cake and one is sued because they wont to an antigay cake."

The difference is that the one baker refused to do business with a couple just because they were gay. There was nothing, at least at the point where he refused, that was "progay" about the cake they wanted to order.

The other case explicitly involved an offensive message on the cake. You'll note that the baker didn't refuse to bake them the cake, just to put the offensive message on it.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,108
Points:603,285
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2015 1:04:08 PM

"gas_too_high - "Your denseness is more and more obviously deliberate obfuscation. You don't want to get it.""

I thought gth didn't insult or demean people?

Same inane fears and bigotry disguised as 'Freedom of Religion' - different day.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:29,224
Points:1,644,305
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2015 12:23:38 PM

Lets see here now - one baker is sued because they wont do a progay cake and one is sued because they wont to an antigay cake. Seems bakers just cant win for losing. Maybe he public should let bakers run their business as they like --- ohhhhh something new --- leave people alone.
.
.
>>>The case comes as Republicans in Colorado's Legislature talk about changing the state law requiring that businesses serve gays in the wake of a series of incidents where religious business owners rejected orders to celebrate gay weddings. Republican Sen. Kevin Lundberg said the new case shows a "clash of values" and argued Colorado's public accommodation law is not working.

"The state shouldn't come in and say to the individual businessman, 'You must violate your religious — and I'll say religious-slash-moral convictions. This baker (Silva), thought that was a violation of their moral convictions. The other baker, which we all know very well because of all the stories, clearly that was a violation of their religious convictions," Lundberg said.<<<

.
.
.
Hey I have this really different idea - lets tell the lawyers to stay out of the baking business.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,516
Points:2,925,480
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2015 12:09:20 PM

gas_too_high - "Your denseness is more and more obviously deliberate obfuscation. You don't want to get it."

Projection again.

"You are certainly intelligent enough to grasp the difference between the significance marriage has to a married couple, which certainly varies; and the significance of marriage to society. The latter has always been that marriage, which unites the only pairing of sexes that can procreate, forms the natural basis of a family, so society has a stake in encouraging the to remain together and raise their baby."

But your preferred form of marriage is not the ONLY basis of a family. Many same-sex couples form committed monogamous unions that serve the same "basis of a family" functions as traditional marriages.

Despite your denials.

And there are other benefits to society from encouraging people to form mutually supportive and committed relationships.

"It's certainly not that this hasn't been explained to you a few (dozen) times before."

Ditto. Why do you insist that some committed monogamous unions, and the families they form, don't deserve the same legal recognition as others?

"Why do you insist on obfuscation rather than answering questions?"

Why do you insist on asking questions whose only intent is to obfuscate?

"And why do you insist on redefining the only institution that unites a child to its father and mother, into something radically different?"

Because it's not radically different. It's a minor extension of the institution, completely in line with its significance to society.

"You are the Master of Projection, as you cruise down "Denial River."

And the Master of Obfuscation."

Says the one who argues from strawmen and misdirection. Your only argument is based on denying that same-sex couples can form families and raise children just as opposite-sex married couples do.

So one is left to wonder what your real motivations are.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,843
Points:2,653,255
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 21, 2015 11:06:09 PM

gas_too_high - "Marriage is between a man and a woman because only a man and a woman can perform the only form of sex -- coitus -- that can procreate. No same-sex couple can ever do that."

rjhenn: "Which isn't essential to modern marriages, which, increasingly, have other purposes and functions than simply making babies. Those are all purposes and functions that marriage has always had, it's just that the proportions are changing."

Your denseness is more and more obviously deliberate obfuscation. You don't want to get it. You are certainly intelligent enough to grasp the difference between the significance marriage has to a married couple, which certainly varies; and the significance of marriage to society. The latter has always been that marriage, which unites the only pairing of sexes that can procreate, forms the natural basis of a family, so society has a stake in encouraging the to remain together and raise their baby.

It's certainly not that this hasn't been explained to you a few (dozen) times before.

GTH: "Why do you hate marriage, that you want to redefine its special significance away?"

rjhenn: "Why do you insist that marriage has only one significant factor, instead of the multiple factors that make it "special"?"

Why do you insist on obfuscation rather than answering questions?

And why do you insist on redefining the only institution that unites a child to its father and mother, into something radically different?

"You only wish you have. But all you've really got is de(ni)al."

You are the Master of Projection, as you cruise down "Denial River."

And the Master of Obfuscation.

GTH
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,810
Points:3,851,165
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Jan 21, 2015 4:18:16 PM

gas_too_high said, again: "Marriage is between a man and a woman because only a man and a woman can perform the only form of sex -- coitus -- that can procreate."

It always seems to come back to the baby-making, yet male/female marriages that can't possibly result in children are seemingly okay because they can still think about having the kind of sex that creates children.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,516
Points:2,925,480
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 21, 2015 12:16:25 PM

gas_too_high - "Marriage is between a man and a woman because only a man and a woman can perform the only form of sex -- coitus -- that can procreate. No same-sex couple can ever do that."

Which isn't essential to modern marriages, which, increasingly, have other purposes and functions than simply making babies. Those are all purposes and functions that marriage has always had, it's just that the proportions are changing.

"That a married couple *can* engage in coitus, does not of course mean that they will necessarily procreate, or that they even intend to. (Feel free to make the argument that they should intend to have children, then you will agree with Catholics)."

You're the one, by insisting on procreation as the only significant function of marriage, who's arguing that every marriage should intend to have children. By your logic, all marriages should become null and void when the last child moves out, since their purpose has been fulfilled.

"Some will be infertile. Some will delay or avoid pregnancy and children. But they *can* engage in coitus. The rest is nobody else's business -- not yours, mine or the government's."

Actually, whether or not they can engage in coitus is "nobody else's business -- not yours, mine or the government's."

Which, again, is an argument against your position.

"That is a fundamental, non-trivial difference. (Not to mention, I have stated -- innumerable times -- the role that childless married couples can play, that same-sex couples cannot)."

Again, it is a trivial difference, because marriage fulfills many purposes and functions other than making babies. And the only roles you've mentioned are ones that same-sex couples can play just as well as childless married couples, once you state the "role" in terms that conform to reality.

"And because married couples can, and same-sex couples can't, marriage has a special significnce to society."

Marriage does have a special significance to society, but that significance is much wider than you seem to want to admit.

"Saying this, denigrates same-sex couples not at all. It is the reality of the lifestyle they chose, over the lifestyle they chose against. I do understand that SSA may have made their choice difficult. (I also understand the enormous pressure the "gay community" exerts over those with SSA to enter and remain in the lifestyle). Nevertheless, it remains a choice."

As does remaining in the heterosexual lifestyle. However, according to your favorite study, homosexuals who try to practice the heterosexual lifestyle tend to make below average parents, while the available evidence indicates that same-sex parents do about as well at raising children as hetero parents.

"Why do you hate marriage, that you want to redefine its special significance away?"

Why do you insist that marriage has only one significant factor, instead of the multiple factors that make it "special"? You're the one trying to reduce marriage to one sexual act.

"The rest of your nonsense, I'll have to deal with another time. (Oh wait -- I already have)."

You only wish you have. But all you've really got is de(ni)al.

[Edited by: rjhenn at 1/21/2015 12:18:56 PM EST]
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,843
Points:2,653,255
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 21, 2015 6:45:49 AM

GTH: "rjhenn has some misconceptions...Procreation, even the potential for procreation, is insignificant and makes no difference."

rjhenn: "Look at how many modern marriages don't, or can't, procreate, and yet you have no problem with them."

GTH: "Why should I? What purpose does your pedantism have, aside from being contrarian?"

rjhenn: "You mean reason and logic, don't you? And the purpose is to demonstrate that your obsession with procreation isn't relevant any more."

GTH: "So you think pointing out exceptions disproves a rule? But for same-sex couples, there is no procreation. No exceptions."

rjhenn: "Pointing out those exceptions points out that your "rule" isn't a rule, but a point of dogma that even you don't fully believe in."

You insist on being obtuse. I've explained before, but...

Marriage is between a man and a woman because only a man and a woman can perform the only form of sex -- coitus -- that can procreate. No same-sex couple can ever do that.

That a married couple *can* engage in coitus, does not of course mean that they will necessarily procreate, or that they even intend to. (Feel free to make the argument that they should intend to have children, then you will agree with Catholics). Some will be infertile. Some will delay or avoid pregnancy and children. But they *can* engage in coitus. The rest is nobody else's business -- not yours, mine or the government's.

Same-sex couples *cannot* *ever* engage in coitus -- *not* ever* -- that is, *NEVER*.

That is a fundamental, non-trivial difference. (Not to mention, I have stated -- innumerable times -- the role that childless married couples can play, that same-sex couples cannot).

And because married couples can, and same-sex couples can't, marriage has a special significnce to society.

Saying this, denigrates same-sex couples not at all. It is the reality of the lifestyle they chose, over the lifestyle they chose against. I do understand that SSA may have made their choice difficult. (I also understand the enormous pressure the "gay community" exerts over those with SSA to enter and remain in the lifestyle). Nevertheless, it remains a choice.

If you can't -- or won't -- understand that, then I have to wonder --

Why do you hate marriage, that you want to redefine its special significance away?

The rest of your nonsense, I'll have to deal with another time. (Oh wait -- I already have).

GTH

[Edited by: gas_too_high at 1/21/2015 6:46:46 AM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,516
Points:2,925,480
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 20, 2015 2:14:25 PM

gas_too_high - "So you think pointing out exceptions disproves a rule? But for same-sex couples, there is no procreation. No exceptions."

Pointing out those exceptions points out that your "rule" isn't a rule, but a point of dogma that even you don't fully believe in.

"Other than 5000 years of human experience, plus the study with the largest sample size of any study of its type."

Try actually reading that study. From the summary: "The sample included respondents that had lived in biologically-intact households, lived with cohabiting parents, adoptive, step, or single parents, with parents who had same-sex relationships, or with parents who remarried after divorce."

No mention at all of same-sex families. The closest thing mentioned, "parents who had same-sex relationships", mostly involved parents in traditional marriages who had relationships outside the marriage, which only demonstrates the damage done by your dogma. Only two of the study’s respondents actually lived with a lesbian couple for their entire childhoods.

"Against which, all you have are politically compromised studies with smaller samples."

They're "politically compromised" because you don't agree with them. You can't point out any actual fault with them other than that. And, as I pointed out, the Regnerus study had an infinitesimally small sample size.

"Except that same-sex parntners are not naturally the basis of families. Modeling that relationship to children has no value to them."

Which is pure dogma, therefore meaningless. What you're really saying is that modeling a loving and supportive relationship to children "has no value to them".

"Not with both partners, they don't. One partner with outside help is not the same."

Why not? The same happens with heterosexual couples. Do you object to that?

"For starters, don't misrepresent their argument. Marriage defenders don't call homosexual acts an "abomination"."

Most don't, any more. That's only because they discovered that such language drove potential supporters away.

"They, try being calm and rational. If you need threats and intimidation, you clearly don't have a good argument."

Which is why marriage 'defenders' stopped using threats and intimidation. They still don't have any good arguments, as you continue to demonstrate.

"Good thing Martin Luther King, whose birthday we celebrate today, didn't react that way."

And look where that got him.

"BTW, why is there no "gay" Martin Luther King? Don't the gay activists have the moral strength that the black civil rights marchers had?"

What makes you think there aren't any non-violent gay activists? Because none has been assassinated by extremists on the other side?

"It's almost as though the gay rights activists, including the marriage redefiners, are not acting out of moral principles at all."

We've already established that marriage 'defenders' aren't acting out of "moral principles". Unless you're returning to the argument that homosexuality is an "abomination"?

[Edited by: rjhenn at 1/20/2015 2:16:11 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,108
Points:603,285
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jan 20, 2015 9:39:19 AM

"Well it was great while it lasted, and I did note a large decrease in the amount of nonsense in this topic."

Yep, look like gth is back into full-nonsense mode again.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,843
Points:2,653,255
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 19, 2015 9:34:17 PM

gas_too_high - "Why should I? What purpose does your pedantism have, aside from being contrarian?"

rjhenn: "You mean reason and logic, don't you? And the purpose is to demonstrate that your obsession with procreation isn't relevant any more."

So you think pointing out exceptions disproves a rule? But for same-sex couples, there is no procreation. No exceptions.

"Again, you've got no evidence that families with a mother and father do any better at raising children than families with loving and supportive same-sex parents."

Other than 5000 years of human experience, plus the study with the largest sample size of any study of its type.

Against which, all you have are politically compromised studies with smaller samples.

"You also can't demonstrate that modeling "a marital relationship" requires opposite sex partners."

Except that same-sex parntners are not naturally the basis of families. Modeling that relationship to children has no value to them.

"And, with modern medical advances, some same-sex marriages do procreate."

Not with both partners, they don't. One partner with outside help is not the same.

GTH: "Not to mention that marriage redefiners have been extremely dogmatic, shouting down, harassing and retaliating against their opponents, instead of debating them."

rjhenn: "How do you debate with people whose entire argument consists of the idea that a harmless and natural behavior is an abomination?"

For starters, don't misrepresent their argument. Marriage defenders don't call homosexual acts an "abomination".

They, try being calm and rational. If you need threats and intimidation, you clearly don't have a good argument.

"Basically unfortunate reactions to centuries of discrimination and hate."

Good thing Martin Luther King, whose birthday we celebrate today, didn't react that way.

BTW, why is there no "gay" Martin Luther King? Don't the gay activists have the moral strength that the black civil rights marchers had?

It's almost as though the gay rights activists, including the marriage redefiners, are not acting out of moral principles at all.

GTH

[Edited by: gas_too_high at 1/19/2015 9:37:53 PM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,516
Points:2,925,480
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 19, 2015 8:30:30 PM

gas_too_high - "Why should I? What purpose does your pedantism have, aside from being contrarian?"

You mean reason and logic, don't you? And the purpose is to demonstrate that your obsession with procreation isn't relevant any more.

"Those marriages can still adopt, giving a child both and adoptive mother and father, as well as model a marital relationship to others. And some of those marriages may end up procreating. Same-sex unions can do none of those things."

Again, you've got no evidence that families with a mother and father do any better at raising children than families with loving and supportive same-sex parents. You also can't demonstrate that modeling "a marital relationship" requires opposite sex partners.

And, with modern medical advances, some same-sex marriages do procreate.

IOW, you've got nothing but dogma behind you.

"You mean, there are no differences, other than the difference that makes all the difference."

Again, your own attitude towards marriages that can't won't or don't procreate proves that procreation isn't "the difference that makes all the difference."

"And your use of the phrase: "There doesn't seem to be" just means that what followes is your opinion."

No, it means that neither you nor anyone else has, so far, been able to demonstrate any significant differences.

"Other than a same-sex union can never provide a child both an adoptive father and a mother."

The need for which, again, is based on your dogma, not reality.

"Except that you aren't debating "anyone." You're debating me and EZExit. Neither of us have relied on disapproval of homosexuality in our arguments. Your opinions to the contrary are just that -- your opinions, and likely a tactic to discredit our position."

Your entire argument against same-sex marriage is rooted in a disapproval of homosexuality and an apparent belief that there's something either magical or holy about the word "marriage".

"And you refuse to recognize the absurdity of your statement, regardless of whatever tortured comparison you are trying to make."

Nothing absurd about my statement. What's absurd is your insistence that everyone should conform to the average for their gender.

"Not to mention that marriage redefiners have been extremely dogmatic, shouting down, harassing and retaliating against their opponents, instead of debating them."

How do you debate with people whose entire argument consists of the idea that a harmless and natural behavior is an abomination?

"Just ask Brandon Eich. Or the owner of CHick-Fil-A."

Basically unfortunate reactions to centuries of discrimination and hate.

"Yes, it seems that marriage and families are coming in for a great deal of hate."

At least the marriages and families of same-sex partners.

[Edited by: rjhenn at 1/19/2015 8:31:10 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Zimcity
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:71,606
Points:4,368,535
Joined:Aug 2001
Message Posted: Jan 19, 2015 11:29:48 AM

"So I'll take a break from the nonsense in this topic."

Well it was great while it lasted, and I did note a large decrease in the amount of nonsense in this topic.
Profile Pic
El_Gato_Negro
Champion Author Miami

Posts:4,288
Points:901,325
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Jan 19, 2015 9:10:54 AM

Are gas_too_high's arguments so weak that he all ways has to make up his own definitions for words?

rjhenn pointing out the flaws and inconsistencies and contradictions in what gas_too_high says is not pedantism.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,843
Points:2,653,255
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 18, 2015 10:22:41 PM

Yes, it seems that marriage and families are coming in for a great deal of hate.

GTH
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,108
Points:603,285
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jan 18, 2015 10:17:25 PM

So much bigotry and hate and fear of the unknown.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,843
Points:2,653,255
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 18, 2015 9:04:27 PM

GTH: "rjhenn has some misconceptions...Procreation, even the potential for procreation, is insignificant and makes no difference."

rjhenn: "Look at how many modern marriages don't, or can't, procreate, and yet you have no problem with them."

Why should I? What purpose does your pedantism have, aside from being contrarian?

Those marriages can still adopt, giving a child both and adoptive mother and father, as well as model a marital relationship to others. And some of those marriages may end up procreating. Same-sex unions can do none of those things.

GTH: "rjhenn has some misconceptions...Opposite-sex unions and same-sex unions are basically the same."

rjhenn: "And, except for the ability to procreate through coitus with each other, there don't seem to be any other differences."

You mean, there are no differences, other than the difference that makes all the difference.

And your use of the phrase: "There doesn't seem to be" just means that what followes is your opinion.

"Additionally, there doesn't seem to be any significant difference between a same-sex couple raising children and an adoptive family raising children."

Other than a same-sex union can never provide a child both an adoptive father and a mother.

"That, of course, depends on how they disagree and how they view homosexuality. Since a dislike of homosexuality seems to be the only thing most of those "anyone"s have in common, and such a dislike is the basis for all of their arguments, it doesn't seem to be much of a stretch."

Except that you aren't debating "anyone." You're debating me and EZExit. Neither of us have relied on disapproval of homosexuality in our arguments. Your opinions to the contrary are just that -- your opinions, and likely a tactic to discredit our position.

GTH: "Anyone who thinks that marriage should not include same-sex unions is a "Communist." (As a longtime Reagan conservative, I find that particularly funny)."

rjhenn: "Again, you refuse to even consider what I was actually saying. The point being, of course, that you are just as dogmatic and demanding of conformity as any Communist."

And you refuse to recognize the absurdity of your statement, regardless of whatever tortured comparison you are trying to make. Not to mention that marriage redefiners have been extremely dogmatic, shouting down, harassing and retaliating against their opponents, instead of debating them.

Just ask Brandon Eich. Or the owner of CHick-Fil-A.

GTH

[Edited by: gas_too_high at 1/18/2015 9:04:50 PM EST]
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,810
Points:3,851,165
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Jan 18, 2015 7:14:59 PM

"So, isn't it really the LBGT community that must be forced to take sensitivity training, and learn to live with those who may not share their beliefs?"

In other words, go into the closet so others don't have to acknowledge their existence.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,516
Points:2,925,480
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 18, 2015 5:53:59 AM

gas_too_high - "rjhenn has some misconceptions:"

So I've got the misconceptions, but you're the one lacking the ability to demonstrate that they are misconceptions.

"Procreation, even the potential for procreation, is insignificant and makes no difference."

Look at how many modern marriages don't, or can't, procreate, and yet you have no problem with them. Look at how many children are raised by unions that otherwise don't procreate.

"Opposite-sex unions and same-sex unions are basically the same."

And, except for the ability to procreate through coitus with each other, there don't seem to be any other differences. Additionally, there doesn't seem to be any significant difference between a same-sex couple raising children and an adoptive family raising children.

"Anyone who disagrees in the slightest that "opposite-sex unions and same-sex unions are basically the same" thinks homosexuality is "dirty" and hates homosexuals."

That, of course, depends on how they disagree and how they view homosexuality. Since a dislike of homosexuality seems to be the only thing most of those "anyone"s have in common, and such a dislike is the basis for all of their arguments, it doesn't seem to be much of a stretch.

"Anyone who thinks that marriage should not include same-sex unions is a "Communist." (As a longtime Reagan conservative, I find that particularly funny)."

Again, you refuse to even consider what I was actually saying. The point being, of course, that you are just as dogmatic and demanding of conformity as any Communist.

Which is no surprise.
Profile Pic
RAB2010
All-Star Author Kalamazoo

Posts:707
Points:87,650
Joined:Mar 2010
Message Posted: Jan 17, 2015 8:47:51 PM

It does really seem rather backwards. After all, if the offended parties were remotely cognizant of the offenders' beliefs, and had any slight inclination of tolerance, this would not be happening.

So, isn't it really the LBGT community that must be forced to take sensitivity training, and learn to live with those who may not share their beliefs? Who is to say which belief system is correct or "right" by today's standards?

It is a glaring, stupendous, incompetent decision on the part of the court.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,843
Points:2,653,255
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 17, 2015 8:18:23 PM

I find it interesting that weaselspit is willing to admit that others make mistakes, but when I do, it really means I "hate gays." I must not be allowed to make mistakes.

I guess that means he is inviting me to hold him to that same high standard.

Better be careful then, in what you post, weasel.

GTH
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,843
Points:2,653,255
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 17, 2015 8:17:23 PM

rjhenn has some misconceptions:

Procreation, even the potential for procreation, is insignificant and makes no difference.

Opposite-sex unions and same-sex unions are basically the same.

This one, he shares with weaselspit:

Anyone who disagrees in the slightest that "opposite-sex unions and same-sex unions are basically the same" thinks homosexuality is "dirty" and hates homosexuals.

And my favorite:

Anyone who thinks that marriage should not include same-sex unions is a "Communist." (As a longtime Reagan conservative, I find that particularly funny).

GTH

[Edited by: gas_too_high at 1/17/2015 8:17:41 PM EST]
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,780
Points:880,160
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Jan 17, 2015 8:57:51 AM

Weaslespit "Mistakes happen - no biggie."

Yes, they do.

It's funny though that it happened so soon after he chastised EGN for making a spelling mistake.

However, I still think GTH's only mistake was in typing what he was actually thinking instead of what he wanted us to see. GTH's 'mistake' doesn't look like just a typo.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,108
Points:603,285
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jan 16, 2015 8:48:20 AM

"It is somewhat interesting in itself that you call out the labeling without actually responding to it with any substance."

It was an interesting insight, what else would you have liked me to say so as to garner your approval?

SMH

"Nevertheless, I apologize for lumping you in with RJ's poor point of counterargument."

Mistakes happen - no biggie.
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:17,062
Points:2,442,750
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 15, 2015 6:09:38 PM

Weasel: <<<"Weasle never said that...">>>

Weasel actual response: <<<"Interesting insight...">>>

--I looked again, and you're right, I apologize.

Of course you never argued against RJ's observation, nor did you ignore it, you simply replied "Interesting insight...". It is somewhat interesting in itself that you call out the labeling without actually responding to it with any substance. Nevertheless, I apologize for lumping you in with RJ's poor point of counterargument.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:18,108
Points:603,285
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Jan 15, 2015 1:45:28 PM

"Weasel replies: <<<"Oh, not in the economic sense, but in the social and psychological sense. You want everyone restricted to the completely average socially and psychologically, just as Communists wanted everyone to be equal economically.">>>"

Oops. Weasle never said that...

More "sloppy thinking"?

ROTFLOL
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,516
Points:2,925,480
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 15, 2015 1:34:34 PM

EZExit - "--Pretty black and white to me, you get backed into a corner with the inability for cogent argument, start labeling the opposing viewpoints, then develop amnesia. :)"

You might try actually attributing the quotes properly. Your "Weasel replies" was part of my original statement, not a reply.

IOW, you and GTH share the same mindset as Communists, just in different areas. The both of you, and Communists, want everyone restricted to what you think they should be. In your case, that's to the average for their gender both socially and psychologically. For Communists, it's economically.

If you paid attention, your arguments might begin to qualify as "cogent".

[Edited by: rjhenn at 1/15/2015 1:35:24 PM EST]
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:17,062
Points:2,442,750
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 15, 2015 11:39:06 AM

Weasel: <<<"Still not sure where that communist part came from...">>>

**********************************

RJHenn: <<<"I had an insight recently about you, and EZ and some others who oppose SSM. You're actually Communists.">>>

Weasel replies: <<<"Oh, not in the economic sense, but in the social and psychological sense. You want everyone restricted to the completely average socially and psychologically, just as Communists wanted everyone to be equal economically.">>>

--Pretty black and white to me, you get backed into a corner with the inability for cogent argument, start labeling the opposing viewpoints, then develop amnesia. :)

Post a reply Back to Topics