Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    7:02 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:19,844
Points:840,690
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:29,083
Points:2,881,270
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 21, 2014 3:52:48 AM

gas_too_high - "Except that they weren't. My very first argument was simply that the genders are different, so how they match up makes a difference. I never mentioned religion, until others brought it into the discussion."

In this particular topic. You are, of course, ignoring the older topics that we've discussed this in over nearly the last decade.

"Not only do you have delusions of my being a form of Communist,"

The comparison of you to Communists is quite valid. They want everyone to be restricted to the average economically and you want everyone restricted to what you consider the average socially and psychologically, without regard to the realities of human biology and psychology.

Both are completely unrealistic.

"you misremember our old arguments."

You wish.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,623
Points:2,610,840
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 20, 2014 11:21:35 PM

GTH: "One of you many strawmen, that I only uphold marriage because of religion. You might as well say you reject the definition of marriage because you reject religion. Either way, religion is irrelevant."

rjhenn: "Except that, remember, I've been arguing this with you for years. And your initial arguments were all based on your religious beliefs."

Except that they weren't. My very first argument was simply that the genders are different, so how they match up makes a difference. I never mentioned religion, until others brought it into the discussion.

Not only do you have delusions of my being a form of Communist, you misremember our old arguments.

GTH
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,083
Points:2,881,270
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 20, 2014 3:59:40 AM

gas_too_high - "Except that the common denominator of all those marriage practices across all religions and societies has been that marriage has been between a man and a woman. That holds true even for societies that tolerated same-sex unions. Those were always distinct."

Not "always", but usually. That was most likely rooted in the need for a high birth rate to offset high levels of infant and maternal mortality, as well as almost constant warfare.

None of which applies in the modern world.

"One of you many strawmen, that I only uphold marriage because of religion. You might as well say you reject the definition of marriage because you reject religion. Either way, religion is irrelevant."

Except that, remember, I've been arguing this with you for years. And your initial arguments were all based on your religious beliefs. You've only developed supposedly non-religious arguments because your religious arguments were not well-received.

"And once again, you can't make a coherent argument (so you resort to incoherent ones)."

More projection.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,623
Points:2,610,840
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 19, 2014 11:25:49 PM

gas_too_high - "Again, the definition of marriage has the same relationship to religion as does the prohibition against murder. Yet, you denigrate one and only one of those 2 as a "religious definition" -- the one you do not approve of."

rjhennL "Except that virtually every society and every religion has or has had prohibitions against murder, while there have been multiple definitions of marriage, even within Judeo-Christian societies and religions."

Except that the common denominator of all those marriage practices across all religions and societies has been that marriage has been between a man and a woman. That holds true even for societies that tolerated same-sex unions. Those were always distinct.

"Yet the only one you're willing to accept is the one your religion currently accepts."

One of you many strawmen, that I only uphold marriage because of religion. You might as well say you reject the definition of marriage because you reject religion. Either way, religion is irrelevant.

And once again, you can't make a coherent argument (so you resort to incoherent ones).

GTH
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,083
Points:2,881,270
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 19, 2014 7:50:00 PM

EZExit - "--Fitting that square peg into a round hole is a son-of-a-gun for some people. Sometimes, you have to let them figure out for themselves that it will fit just fine if they find the square hole of the same size and shape. Of course there are those that will never figure it out..."

Except that it's really a round peg that you insist must be a square peg because you don't like the material it's made of.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,083
Points:2,881,270
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 19, 2014 7:49:44 PM

gas_too_high - "Again, the definition of marriage has the same relationship to religion as does the prohibition against murder. Yet, you denigrate one and only one of those 2 as a "religious definition" -- the one you do not approve of."

Except that virtually every society and every religion has or has had prohibitions against murder, while there have been multiple definitions of marriage, even within Judeo-Christian societies and religions.

Yet the only one you're willing to accept is the one your religion currently accepts.

"I see that 2 + 2 = 4 and a marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Both are true. Therefore, there is no need to change my "attitude," since I prefer truth over falsity."

More accurately, you prefer tradition over reality.
Profile Pic
Silverdog1
Champion Author British Columbia

Posts:18,950
Points:2,351,880
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Dec 19, 2014 3:47:59 AM

You're kidding, there are gay wedding cakes? Who would ever have thought that?

Well obviously the baker is to blame for it if indeed blame is to be attached. No doubt he's been making those cakes all along but it's only just been discovered that some are gay! How does he tell apart though -- which are and which aren't? Do ALL the cakes go in the closet or just those 'special' ones?

I doubt anyone would have been the wiser if he hadn't started putting the darned cakes in the closet to begin with. And now because he wants to stop making them, a court has ordered he must continue!

What a crazy world we live in.



[Edited by: Silverdog1 at 12/19/2014 3:49:44 AM EST]
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:16,657
Points:2,399,210
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 19, 2014 2:34:53 AM

GTH: <<<"I see that 2 + 2 = 4 and a marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Both are true. Therefore, there is no need to change my "attitude," since I prefer truth over falsity.">>>

--Fitting that square peg into a round hole is a son-of-a-gun for some people. Sometimes, you have to let them figure out for themselves that it will fit just fine if they find the square hole of the same size and shape. Of course there are those that will never figure it out...
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,623
Points:2,610,840
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 18, 2014 11:34:19 PM

weaselspit: "Which is where you are wrong. The basic definition is unchanged, how it is applied is what is changing."

The basic definition is "a union between a man and a woman." Clearly you want to change that. Since that fact is in itself neutral, not favoring either of our positions, why not admit it?

"Wrong again - the basic definition of marriage is not religious, but you and others would like to redefine it as such that it is the 'only' applicable, legal definition. "

Again, the definition of marriage has the same relationship to religion as does the prohibition against murder. Yet, you denigrate one and only one of those 2 as a "religious definition" -- the one you do not approve of.

GTH: "The only things relevant to our discussion that I see that has changed, are attitudes. Those are very changeable. The things I mentioned above, not so much."

weaselspit: "And hopefully yours will change someday as well. Some people only see what they want to see, that cannot be helped."

I see that 2 + 2 = 4 and a marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Both are true. Therefore, there is no need to change my "attitude," since I prefer truth over falsity.

Unlike, it seems, you. That must be why you call names and denigrate, instead of actually making arguments.

GTH
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,083
Points:2,881,270
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 18, 2014 7:33:52 PM

flyboyUT - "If its sauce for the goose shouldnt it be sauce for the gander too?"

There's a difference between supporting traditional marriage and attacking gay marriage, despite what some will tell you.

OTOH, I don't think that a baker, or anyone, should be required to produce something that he normally wouldn't produce or that actively promotes political causes that he opposes. That, of course, doesn't apply in the Colorado case because no one has yet produced any evidence that there was anything explicitly 'gay' about the wedding cake that was ordered.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,083
Points:2,881,270
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 18, 2014 7:29:48 PM

gas_too_high - "No, the "traditional" definition of marriage is based by reason and logic from understanding human nature, not religion. But just as religion echoes the moral prohibitions against murder, theft, etc. that are derived from reason, so does religion echo the definition of marriage."

No, the traditional western definition of marriage is based on traditions that came from religion. As often demonstrated here, an actual, as opposed to dogmatic, understanding of human nature supports SSM.

"That means that the definition of marriage is not based on religion -- but it does mean that an objection to changing it, can be based on religion, and thus protected by the First Amendment right of freedom of religious expression."

The objection, not any actions based on that objection.

"1973 happens to be the year my hardcopy dictionary was published. The point remains, there has been a push in the last 20 or so years to redefine marriage (first in popular usage as reflected by more current dictionaries, then legally) from that definition."

Just like everything else that is different today from 2,000 years ago, or whatever time period you want. For example, the OT allowed, even required, polygamy.

"IOW, you -- not I -- are trying to redefine marriage. That's a very simple point, and I would think a neutral one, but you can't admit even that."

If we're trying to "redefine marriage", tell us exactly how marriage will change for any past, present or future married couple.

"I agree, except the "basic definition" is the one you are trying to change."

The "basic definition" is "committed monogamous union". As explained many times, the sexes of the individuals involved are largely irrelevant.

"No, that applies to you, since I imagine you approve of the definition of murder, religious or otherwise; but not the defintiion of marriage, which you deingrate as 'religious.'"

The definition, and illegality, of murder has definite benefits for society. Extending the definition of marriage to same-sex couples also has definite benefits for society.

" Has the nature of procreation, of gender, of gender complementarity, or the optimum basis of families, changed?"

No, but our understanding of all of those has changed and improved.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:17,522
Points:583,285
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Dec 18, 2014 9:38:48 AM

"I agree, except the "basic definition" is the one you are trying to change."

Which is where you are wrong. The basic definition is unchanged, how it is applied is what is changing.

"No, that applies to you, since I imagine you approve of the definition of murder, religious or otherwise;"

Strawman alert.

"...but not the defintiion of marriage, which you deingrate as "religious.""

Wrong again - the basic definition of marriage is not religious, but you and others would like to redefine it as such that it is the 'only' applicable, legal definition.

"Has human nature changed?"

Not at all. Clearly, many still hate and fear the unknown.

"Has the nature of procreation...changed?"

You could make the case that it has. One need not have intercourse to procreate.

"...or the optimum basis of families, changed?"

It has. A stable, loving and supportive environment is more important than the simple gender of the adults raising the children. As has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions, SS couples meeting the above traits is a far better family environment for children to be raised than one with an abusive, but traditional, family basis.

"The only things relevant to our discussion that I see that has changed, are attitudes. Those are very changeable. The things I mentioned above, not so much."

And hopefully yours will change someday as well. Some people only see what they want to see, that cannot be helped.

[Edited by: Weaslespit at 12/18/2014 9:40:26 AM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,823
Points:1,600,805
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 17, 2014 6:41:21 PM

If its sauce for the goose shouldnt it be sauce for the gander too?
.
.
>>>Say that “Bestiality Is Wrong” or “Polygamy Is Wrong” and it’s not considered hate speech, but if you have the opinion that “Gay Marriage Is Wrong” the whole world jumps up and down screaming “racism” “bigotry” and “hatred”.

This is becoming the politically-correct norm, but no matter what one argues, this is suppressing free speech.

No one targeted pro-gay bakeries, but gay activists target Christian bakeries. “Support Gay Marriage” is one Christian bakery was sued for refusing to put that slogan on a cake for an event to support the gay agenda. Yet Christian bakeries that refuse to make pro-homosexual marriage cakes are getting sued left, right, and center. They get fined, they get death threats, and they lose their businesses. This experiment proves beyond doubt that the gay agenda is not just about their freedom to practice a sexual orientation, but the suppression of free speech.

To make our case we provided 3 video clips, the third one is a video showing homosexual activists in Ireland used the state to force a Christian bakery to make a cake with the slogan “Support Gay Marriage” for a pro-gay marriage event, but he refused which added a tremendous loss to his business. Several Christian bakeries were sued in the United States with several who lost their businesses and we said enough is enough.

So Shoebat.com decided to call some 13 prominent pro-gay bakers in a row. Each one denied us the right to have “Gay Marriage Is Wrong” on a cake and even used deviant insults and obscenities against us. One baker even said all sorts of profanities against Christians and ended the conversation by saying that she will make me a cookie with a large phallus on it.<<<
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,623
Points:2,610,840
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 17, 2014 4:55:05 PM

"That is because you are saying that only 'traditional' marriages count - why the addition of the term 'traditional' unless you are redefining the term marriage?"

I was being polite. I could have properly used the unqualified term.

"What the rest of us are trying to explain to you, and apparently failing, is that the basic definition should apply to all."

I agree, except the "basic definition" is the one you are trying to change.

"Just like the baker - trying to have your cake and eat it too. You can't have it both ways.."

No, that applies to you, since I imagine you approve of the definition of murder, religious or otherwise; but not the defintiion of marriage, which you deingrate as "religious."

"You do know that the world has changed a bit since then? Closing your eyes and picturing the past won't change the present."

Has human nature changed? Has the nature of procreation, of gender, of gender complementarity, or the optimum basis of families, changed?

The only things relevant to our discussion that I see that has changed, are attitudes. Those are very changeable. The things I mentioned above, not so much.

GTH

[Edited by: gas_too_high at 12/17/2014 4:55:35 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:17,522
Points:583,285
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Dec 17, 2014 4:43:50 PM

"That's a very simple point, and I would think a neutral one, but you can't admit even that."

That is because you are saying that only 'traditional' marriages count - why the addition of the term 'traditional' unless you are redefining the term marriage?

What the rest of us are trying to explain to you, and apparently failing, is that the basic definition should apply to all.

Like you say, a neutral point for most of us as it affects only those currently being discriminated against...

"That means that the definition of marriage is not based on religion -- but it does mean that an objection to changing it, can be based on religion, and thus protected by the First Amendment right of freedom of religious expression."

Just like the baker - trying to have your cake and eat it too. You can't have it both ways...

"1973 happens to be the year my hardcopy dictionary was published."

You do know that the world has changed a bit since then? Closing your eyes and picturing the past won't change the present.

[Edited by: Weaslespit at 12/17/2014 4:46:43 PM EST]
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,623
Points:2,610,840
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 17, 2014 4:36:43 PM

weaselspit: "There is only 'one' definition that limits marriage to a man and a woman, and that is the religious definition (hence the Baker thread you are posting in - or did you miss that? ;) )."

No, the "traditional" definition of marriage is based by reason and logic from understanding human nature, not religion. But just as religion echoes the moral prohibitions against murder, theft, etc. that are derived from reason, so does religion echo the definition of marriage.

That means that the definition of marriage is not based on religion -- but it does mean that an objection to changing it, can be based on religion, and thus protected by the First Amendment right of freedom of religious expression.

"More projecting - or is 1973 relevant?"

1973 happens to be the year my hardcopy dictionary was published. The point remains, there has been a push in the last 20 or so years to redefine marriage (first in popular usage as reflected by more current dictionaries, then legally) from that definition.

IOW, you -- not I -- are trying to redefine marriage. That's a very simple point, and I would think a neutral one, but you can't admit even that.

GTH
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:17,522
Points:583,285
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Dec 17, 2014 8:42:01 AM

"Strawman alert! (I said nothing about any "religious" definition)."

There is only 'one' definition that limits marriage to a man and a woman, and that is the religious definition (hence the Baker thread you are posting in - or did you miss that? ;) ).

"Both RJ and weasel are doing that -- desperately inserting strawmen that are not part of the argument for the definition of marriage."

More projecting - or is 1973 relevant? Talk about desperate...

Note you went on a tangent to try to discredit those who disagree with you, rather than debate the point made. Telling.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,083
Points:2,881,270
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 16, 2014 5:10:51 PM

gas_too_high - "No. But changing things just for the sake of change, especially a fundamental institution of society, is not a good idea."

But it's not being changed "just for the sake of change". It's being changed to conform more closely to reality and ethics. OTOH, your opposition is based entirely on opposition to change, especially change that you and your religion don't approve of.

"Strawman alert! (I said nothing about any "religious" definition)."

You don't have to. We all know....

"Both RJ and weasel are doing that -- desperately inserting strawmen that are not part of the argument for the definition of marriage. Another sign that they have no argument."

Can you point out just how they are strawmen?

Again, just pointing out the fallacies in your arguments.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,623
Points:2,610,840
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 16, 2014 4:36:33 PM

as_too_high - "Historically, marriage has been between a man and a woman. Period, full stop. Any objective person, even if they favor redefinition, would have to admit that they *are* advocating redefining marriage."

rjhenn: "Historically, there's nothing wrong with slavery."

GTH: "That is as irrelevant as it is desperate."

rjhenn: "It's completely relevant. Doesn't your argument rely on the premise that nothing can ever change?"

No. But changing things just for the sake of change, especially a fundamental institution of society, is not a good idea.

weaselspit: "Key word there - "legal". Not 'religious' definition, thus no impact to traditional marriages."

Strawman alert! (I said nothing about any "religious" definition).

EZExit: "No, you have missed the point, you take a lucid post that shows clearly the redefinition of marriage occurring within the past 20 years, exactly the argument that is being made, and interject a completely irrelevant and obviously quite desperate counterpoint."

Both RJ and weasel are doing that -- desperately inserting strawmen that are not part of the argument for the definition of marriage. Another sign that they have no argument.

GTH

[Edited by: gas_too_high at 12/16/2014 4:40:54 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:17,522
Points:583,285
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Dec 16, 2014 3:37:06 PM

"Society evolves. The law, eventually, does too. Change happens. You can scream about that all you want, but you can't stop it."

It doesn't appear that any amount feet-stomping or browbeating will change this reality either...

"...the legal definition of marriage..."

Key word there - "legal". Not 'religious' definition, thus no impact to traditional marriages.

The Baker could have referred to it as a Union celebration cake if it would have made him feel more comfortable, instead he chose to act like a close-minded bigot shaming the principles his religion was founded on.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,083
Points:2,881,270
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 16, 2014 1:37:26 PM

EZExit - "--No, you have missed the point, you take a lucid post that shows clearly the redefinition of marriage occurring within the past 20 years, exactly the argument that is being made, and interject a completely irrelevant and obviously quite desperate counterpoint."

You, too, are arguing that things can never change.

What GTH actually pointed out is that the definition of marriage has already changed, by being extended to another set of committed monogamous unions. Again, how does that affect any previous, current or future 'traditional' marriage?

All that's really happened is that the legal definition of marriage is following (as usual) society, where the meaning of marriage has shifted from man as dominant and breadwinner and woman as property, homemaker and child bearer to more equal partners in a committed relationship that may or may not raise children. That shift, not any conspiracy, has already redefined marriage.

Society evolves. The law, eventually, does too. Change happens. You can scream about that all you want, but you can't stop it.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,083
Points:2,881,270
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 16, 2014 1:30:09 PM

gas_too_high - "That is as irrelevant as it is desperate."

It's completely relevant. Doesn't your argument rely on the premise that nothing can ever change?

Yet things do change.

As demonstrated by history.
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,597
Points:3,843,490
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Dec 16, 2014 10:19:41 AM

1973?
Isn't that over yet? I could have sworn it was.

Or maybe Merriam Webster is the key? Here is the current edition.

Full Definition of MARRIAGE
1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>
b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock
c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

Here is the Merriam Webster student edition.

One entry found for marriage.
Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: primarystressmar-ij
Function: noun
1 a : the state of being married : WEDLOCK b : the legal relationship into which a man and a woman enter for the purpose of making a home and often raising a family c : a relationship between two people of the same sex that is like that of a traditional marriage

Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:16,657
Points:2,399,210
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 16, 2014 10:12:56 AM

RJHenn: <<<"And, as usual, you completely miss the point, which is that "historically" doesn't necessarily control the present. If it did, life would never have started in the first place.">>>

--No, you have missed the point, you take a lucid post that shows clearly the redefinition of marriage occurring within the past 20 years, exactly the argument that is being made, and interject a completely irrelevant and obviously quite desperate counterpoint.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:17,522
Points:583,285
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Dec 16, 2014 9:40:54 AM

"Let's dispense with definitions 2 and 3, since those are common uses by analogy of the word "marriage" and not part of the core definition."

Hence your problem - you want to redefine the word 'marriage' by eliminating definitions that don't support your narrative. Dogma has that effect on people. Most would refer to that as a form of indoctrination, hence your inability to see past religious dogma thus reinforcing your fear and hate of something you can't possibly fathom leading to prejudice and discrimination - which you feel is justified.

You are stuck on the religious institution rather than the meaning of what a marriage truly is. Pity.

"That is as irrelevant as it is desperate."

Which certainly served to highlight how irrelevant and desperate your previous comment was ti rjhenn. Just because something was done or accepted 'historically' doesn't mean it is always going to be right for all-time.

Speaking of desperately trying to hang on to something;

"That happens to be the definition listed in my 1973 edition Merriam Webster New Collegiate Dictionary."

Is there a reason why you only accept the '73 edition and not the current? I suppose you still use world maps and encyclopedias from '73 as well and consider all of that information to still be 100% relevant today???
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,623
Points:2,610,840
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 16, 2014 6:44:00 AM

gas_too_high - "Historically, marriage has been between a man and a woman. Period, full stop. Any objective person, even if they favor redefinition, would have to admit that they *are* advocating redefining marriage."

rjhenn: "Historically, there's nothing wrong with slavery."

That is as irrelevant as it is desperate.

EZExit: "The definition for slavery wasn't redefined or "extended", it was made illegal in this country. Back to the drawing board... no cigar for you!"

Right you are, yet again.

GTH
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,083
Points:2,881,270
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 16, 2014 3:26:53 AM

EZExit - "--The definition for slavery wasn't redefined or "extended", it was made illegal in this country. Back to the drawing board... no cigar for you!"

And, as usual, you completely miss the point, which is that "historically" doesn't necessarily control the present. If it did, life would never have started in the first place.

"--It is sure showing from his latest "posts"."

While yours continue to demonstrate just what?
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:16,657
Points:2,399,210
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 16, 2014 3:05:48 AM

RJHenn: <<<"Historically, there's nothing wrong with slavery. Try telling that to any court in the country.">>>

--The definition for slavery wasn't redefined or "extended", it was made illegal in this country. Back to the drawing board... no cigar for you!

GTH: <<<"That's basically what rjhenn did. It seems he has to discredit, demean and denigrate people who disagree with him, no matter how ridiculous it seems. (And boy has it gotten ridiculous).">>>

--It is sure showing from his latest "posts".
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,083
Points:2,881,270
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 16, 2014 2:33:59 AM

gas_too_high - "Historically, marriage has been between a man and a woman. Period, full stop. Any objective person, even if they favor redefinition, would have to admit that they *are* advocating redefining marriage."

Historically, there's nothing wrong with slavery. Try telling that to any court in the country.

And, again, no, we're not "redefining" marriage. We're just extending it in a way that will do no harm, will not affect any past, present or future "traditional" marriage, and will, most likely, actually be good for society.

"That's basically what rjhenn did. It seems he has to discredit, demean and denigrate people who disagree with him, no matter how ridiculous it seems. (And boy has it gotten ridiculous)."

You're projecting again. All I did was point out the parallels in your thought processes. Your reaction is, as expected, nothing but an attempt to "discredit, demean and denigrate", because you can't refute those parallels.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,623
Points:2,610,840
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 15, 2014 9:11:48 PM

weaselspit: "Full Definition of MARRIAGE:..."

Let's dispense with definitions 2 and 3, since those are common uses by analogy of the word "marriage" and not part of the core definition. And 1(b) and 1(c) are extensions of that core definition.

As far as definition 1(a) is concerned, 1(a)1 is the one that my 1973 dictionary, and any dictionary published before about 20-25 years ago, agrees with. Definition 1(a)2, which even refers to 1(a)a as a "traditional marriage" is the redefined version.

And not only do 13 states still not perform or recognize that definition, 30 states explicitly rejected it (most of them overturned by various appeals courts).

Historically, marriage has been between a man and a woman. Period, full stop. Any objective person, even if they favor redefinition, would have to admit that they *are* advocating redefining marriage.

EZExit: "Of course, on the other hand, I suppose you could have redefined a communist to be anyone that disagrees with you..."

That's basically what rjhenn did. It seems he has to discredit, demean and denigrate people who disagree with him, no matter how ridiculous it seems. (And boy has it gotten ridiculous).

GTH


[Edited by: gas_too_high at 12/15/2014 9:17:27 PM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,083
Points:2,881,270
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 15, 2014 7:02:17 PM

EZExit - "--Nah, it's more like there's no meat anymore to your statements,"

Unlike yours, which have never had much, if any, 'meat' to them.

"Of course, on the other hand, I suppose you could have redefined a communist to be anyone that disagrees with you, but as I have always been quite clear in this thread, I don't redefine things to suit my agenda."

Just pointing out the parallels between your beliefs and desires and those of Communists. No redefinition required.

And my only agendas are reason, reality and fairness.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:17,522
Points:583,285
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Dec 15, 2014 2:22:46 PM

"You mean, redefining marriage as something other than "a union of a man and a woman"?"

You seem only to refer to the religious definition which is extremely narrow and not applicable in the general sense - which you would like to redefine it as so as to make it applicable in the general sense instead of limited to the religious definition;

"Full Definition of MARRIAGE
1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>
b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock
c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2
: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3
: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>"

Note not every definition refers to a man and a woman.

So keep trying to redefine the term to suit your narrative...
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,623
Points:2,610,840
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 15, 2014 11:33:45 AM

weaselspit: "Besides your redefinition of 'marriage', which is the very crux of the issue at hand??"

You mean, redefining marriage as something other than "a union of a man and a woman"? That happens to be the definition listed in my 1973 edition Merriam Webster New Collegiate Dictionary.

Sure seems to me that you are the ones doing the redefining.

GTH
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:17,522
Points:583,285
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Dec 15, 2014 11:09:06 AM

"...but as I have always been quite clear in this thread, I don't redefine things to suit my agenda."

Besides your redefinition of 'marriage', which is the very crux of the issue at hand??
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:16,657
Points:2,399,210
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 15, 2014 10:33:24 AM

RJHenn: <<<"IOW, I'm exactly right, and you've got nothing to refute it.">>>

--Nah, it's more like there's no meat anymore to your statements, you could have replied that "the cow barks at the moon at midnight" and it wouldn't have been anymore counter-able. I guess I could have stated "Your momma wears army boots" back at you, but that ain't my style either.

Of course, on the other hand, I suppose you could have redefined a communist to be anyone that disagrees with you, but as I have always been quite clear in this thread, I don't redefine things to suit my agenda.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:17,522
Points:583,285
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Dec 15, 2014 8:28:28 AM

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

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.

Unfortunately, people vary, and quite widely. You just have a hard time with that concept."

Interesting insight...
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,083
Points:2,881,270
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 15, 2014 2:13:45 AM

gas_too_high - "...he clearly wants everyone to *have* the same opinions (his, of course).

The Master of Projection has projected himself 'round the bend."

While you demonstrate, yet again, that you are one of the Masters of Projection.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,083
Points:2,881,270
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 15, 2014 2:11:28 AM

EZExit - "--Damn, GTH! You actually got him to crack! :)"

IOW, I'm exactly right, and you've got nothing to refute it.
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,597
Points:3,843,490
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Dec 14, 2014 10:56:27 PM

"Or in this case, the DEEPER end!"

I bet the company down rhere will drive you crazy.
Profile Pic
AnotherOne
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:26,682
Points:790,505
Joined:Aug 2010
Message Posted: Dec 14, 2014 10:47:20 PM



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

Another liberal goes off the deep end.

Or in this case, the DEEPER end!

SMH

Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,623
Points:2,610,840
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 14, 2014 10:32:55 PM

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

EZExit: 'Damn, GTH! You actually got him to crack! :) '

I wasn't trying to! It just happened!

Our good buddy RJ is a few bricks shy of a load, a few pieces shy of a place setting, a few fries short of a happy meal, etc etc.

The ironic thing is, in accusing me of wanting everyone to *be* the same, he clearly wants everyone to *have* the same opinions (his, of course).

The Master of Projection has projected himself 'round the bend.

GTH
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:16,657
Points:2,399,210
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 14, 2014 2:04:19 PM

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

--Damn, GTH! You actually got him to crack! :)
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,083
Points:2,881,270
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 14, 2014 2:19:42 AM

gas_too_high - "IOW, you decline to back up your accusations, including that I called people with SSA "less than human," and similar ridiculous claims."

I never said that you called people with SSA "less than human". I said "as if". You wouldn't actually say that because it would drive away some who might otherwise support you.

Of course, it would attract others to your support.

But the way you denigrate their "lifestyle", their committed monogamous unions and their families, it's pretty clear how you really feel about them.

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

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.

Unfortunately, people vary, and quite widely. You just have a hard time with that concept.

[Edited by: rjhenn at 12/14/2014 2:22:43 AM EST]
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,623
Points:2,610,840
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 13, 2014 4:41:06 PM

gas_too_high - "No, you read your biasees into my posts. I have never called anyone 'less than human'"

rjhenn: "Not directly, at least not recently. But the way you do post about them makes it clear that that's how you regard them."

GTH" This is your big chance to prove me wrong. Repost where I said that, with datetime stamps."

rjhenn: "Anyone who's been following this topic at all has seen what you've posted."

IOW, you decline to back up your accusations, including that I called people with SSA "less than human," and similar ridiculous claims.

If you dishonestly make accusations, I wonder if I'm wasting my time trying to reason with you.

EZExit: "Nah, that isn't their style, they'll just re-define the argument and then counter on that."

I gotta admit, you called it.

GTH

[Edited by: gas_too_high at 12/13/2014 4:42:20 PM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,083
Points:2,881,270
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 13, 2014 2:26:52 AM

EZExit - "--Nah, that isn't their style, they'll just re-define the argument and then counter on that."

You mean like you usually do?
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,083
Points:2,881,270
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 13, 2014 2:26:10 AM

gas_too_high - "No, you read your biasees into my posts. I have never called anyone 'less than human'"

Not directly, at least not recently. But the way you do post about them makes it clear that that's how you regard them.

"Although I have consistently said that same-sex unions are different from marriages, that marriages are the best basis of families and that every child deserves both a mother and a father, I never said any of those things you claim."

Yet the only real difference between same-sex unions and marriages is the type of sex act that may or may not be involved. Since you approve of hetero marriages that don't procreate, that argument is moot. And since hetero partners can, and do, perform the same sex acts that you disapprove of in same-sex unions, that argument has nothing behind it as well.

You also deny that same-sex parents can do a decent job of parenting and that their children deserve the benefits from legal recognition of their parents' union. And that their families are real families.

"This is your big chance to prove me wrong. Repost where I said that, with datetime stamps."

Anyone who's been following this topic at all has seen what you've posted.
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:16,657
Points:2,399,210
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 12, 2014 9:41:30 PM

GTH: <<<"This is your big chance to prove me wrong. Repost where I said that, with datetime stamps.

That should be so easy -- if it's actually true.">>>

--Nah, that isn't their style, they'll just re-define the argument and then counter on that.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,623
Points:2,610,840
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 12, 2014 9:03:56 PM

GTH: "Again, you should read what I actually post, rather than reading in your dogmatic biases."

rjhenn: "I do read what you actually post, including your dogmatic biases. You just don't like it when I point out what you're actually saying."

No, you read your biasees into my posts. I have never called anyone "less than human"

I'm still waiting for you to quote my post, with datetimestamp, where I actually said that. If you don't do that, your deception adn disingenuousness will be exposed.

Or maybe you could do that weaselspit, since you approve of RJ's ad hominem attack against me. I guess both of you are incapable of real argument on this issue.

Here's another:

rjhenn: "You keep insisting that their committed monogamous unions aren't real committed monogamous unions, that their children aren't real children and their families aren't real families."

Although I have consistently said that same-sex unions are different from marriages, that marriages are the best basis of families and that every child deserves both a mother and a father, I never said any of those things you claim.

This is your big chance to prove me wrong. Repost where I said that, with datetime stamps.

That should be so easy -- if it's actually true.

GTH

[Edited by: gas_too_high at 12/12/2014 9:04:24 PM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,083
Points:2,881,270
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 12, 2014 7:43:37 PM

AnotherOne - "What is wrong with you people?!"

We actually think?

You should try it sometime. It's fun!

"Add hormones."

There are women with male hormone levels higher than the average male and males with female hormone levels higher than the average female. Just as there are women with female hormone levels lower than the average male and males with male hormone levels lower than the average female.

"Add strength."

And there are women stronger than the average male and men weaker than the average female.

"Add skeletal frame."

Ditto.

"Add breasts."

Ditto.

"Add beards."

Ditto.

"Add"

Ditto.

"Like everything else, liberals refuse to see what is right in front of their noses."

And, once again, you seem to be claiming to be a liberal.

"On NBC Nightly News just now, they reported that ADHD is often overlooked in girls since the symptoms are SO MUCH DIFFERENT than in boys."

Always, or just on average? Is there only one set of symptoms for ADHD in boys and one set for girls?

You seem to believe that everyone is defined by the average for their gender.

[Edited by: rjhenn at 12/12/2014 7:45:16 PM EST]
Profile Pic
AnotherOne
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:26,682
Points:790,505
Joined:Aug 2010
Message Posted: Dec 12, 2014 6:36:50 PM



rjhenn, oh just another side note.

On NBC Nightly News just now, they reported that ADHD is often overlooked in girls since the symptoms are SO MUCH DIFFERENT than in boys.

But other than that and everything else, you could NEVER tell a boy from a girl!

ROTFL

Profile Pic
AnotherOne
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:26,682
Points:790,505
Joined:Aug 2010
Message Posted: Dec 12, 2014 4:34:02 PM



rjhenny, "besides the physical reproductive system?"

Yeah.

That is NOTHING!

ROTFL

SMH

What is wrong with you people?!

Add hormones.

Add strength.

Add skeletal frame.

Add breasts.

Add beards.

Add

Add

Add

SMH

Like everything else, liberals refuse to see what is right in front of their noses.

Sick.



[Edited by: AnotherOne at 12/12/2014 4:34:53 PM EST]
Post a reply Back to Topics