Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    2:18 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:18,933
Points:817,705
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jun 3, 2014 9:36:39 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posts:15,680
Points:529,485
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Sep 22, 2014 10:11:04 AM

"That's because I'm not "parroting religious dogma"."

I think we have finally discovered that denial is the root of your misconceptions!

As evidenced below;

"Since nothing was proven by your side, why should I pursue it?"

The 'ol stick my head back in the ground routine. Denial at its best (worst?).
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,901
Points:2,755,150
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Sep 22, 2014 12:40:33 AM

gas_too_high - "That's because I'm not 'parroting religious dogma'."

As I recall, your original arguments, years ago, were based on the idea that homosexuality was an abomination, as defined by catholic doctrine. Nothing seems to have changed, except that you've found ways to rationalize the same beliefs.

"I developed arguments for traditional marriage on my own, and later discovered that organized groups like the National Organization for Marriage use the same ones as well."

As I recall, you only tried developing those "arguments for traditional marriage" when you figured out that your religious arguments couldn't get any traction. Which appears to be the case with such groups as the National Organization for Marriage as well.

"And I invoke common sense and reason, not religious tenets. That fact that most religions agree, simply means they follow common sense and reason as well."

Except that none of your arguments agree with "common sense and reason".

"The only side that brings up religion, is yours. That is telling, as you seek to discredit my arguments by those references, instead of refuting them."

Actually, we do both.

""Except that there is no provable genetic component (despite many attempts to locate one) to SSA. Even you believe that SSA is a developmental issue in utero, not a genetic issue. Gender is genetic at the chromosome level."

There doesn't need to be a genetic component for something to be innate. And only physical gender is purely genetic. Almost everything else about gender is a combination of genetic and environment.

"Typical distortion. Maybe you should ask for clarification, rather than jumping to a strawman conclusion. Gender is both a physical and psychological characteristic. The physical part is obvious, but neither "determines" the other."

In which case, your whole idea of gender models doesn't track with reality, since those psychological characteristics vary all over the place in both genders. Again, what you consider a proper gender is merely an average, not an absolute.

"You have not demonstrated, and cannot demonstrate, that the question is irrelevant. Nor have you answered it. It is relevant because the structure of our genitalia, and the bodily function they fulfill, is important."

In some senses, yes, they are important. In the context of the social construct of marriage, they're secondary, at best.

As evidenced by the fact that you have no problem with heterosexuals getting married who cannot engage in coitus.

You haven't actually made any attempt to show that they are as important as you make them out to be. The whole question is just another desperate attempt to rationalize your dogma about homosexuality.

"What "social value"? Raising children with either a father or mother missing? Your position, not mine, is dogma. My position is common sense."

Your position doesn't agree with any of the actual science out there, but is based strictly on dogma. "Common sense" is often just a euphemism for dogma.

"Actually, your dogma requires you to ignore and dismiss the study with the largest sample size, the one that contradicts that dogma."

You mean the one that didn't consider children raised in a same-sex household at all, but, apparently, found that parents who were hiding their true sexuality to try to fit in made less than optimal parents.

Yet you appear to think that the best thing for homosexuals to do is to try to deny their sexuality, enter into a fake heterosexual marriage and raise disturbed children.
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,194
Points:3,825,055
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Sep 19, 2014 8:21:12 PM

Amazing how many forum topics have been derailed by the same tired arguments from the same source.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:14,824
Points:2,477,695
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Sep 19, 2014 8:05:06 PM

GTH: "The resemblance is only superficial, because, while you declare homosexuality"innate," you ignore what is truly innate -- gender, and the differences between a man and a woman that outfit them to raising children -- together."

rjhenn: "And there you go with the dogma about innate gender-based differences, which are, at best, based on averages, not individuals."

gas_too_high - "And yet, you call same-sex attraction "innate" to those who possess it. You even admit to a "continuum" which is a fancy way of saying "variation." So what you reject for gender, you accept uncritically for same-sex attraction."

rjhenn: "Your comparison is invalid because SSA is one end of a single characteristic, sexual orientation. The gender-related characteristics you insist on are multiple characteristics, different for each individual."

Except that there is no provable genetic component (despite many attempts to locate one) to SSA. Even you believe that SSA is a developmental issue in utero, not a genetic issue. Gender is genetic at the chromosome level.

"Your idea of gender models tries to treat us as if physical gender completely determines our entire psychology, when it's simply one influence."

Typical distortion. Maybe you should ask for clarification, rather than jumping to a strawman conclusion. Gender is both a physical and psychological characteristic. The physical part is obvious, but neither "determines" the other.

GTH: "If my view were truly "unsupportable, then you wouldn't be afraid to answer. As it is, you seem to realize that giving an answer would prove you wrong -- something you seem (here and elsewhere) afraid to admit."

rjhenn: "Your view is unsupportable, as evidenced by the fact that you keep posing completely irrelevant questions, such as "which sexual act is normal: one where the genitals fit together, or one where they do not?"

You have not demonstrated, and cannot demonstrate, that the question is irrelevant. Nor have you answered it. It is relevant because the structure of our genitalia, and the bodily function they fulfill, is important.

"The question has nothing to do with the social value of SSM. It's only an attempt to force your religious dogma into the argument."

What "social value"? Raising children with either a father or mother missing? Your position, not mine, is dogma. My position is common sense.

"Since all of the available data says that parenting effectiveness has no relation to parental sexual orientation, you're the one throwing children under the bus to satisfy your dogma."

Actually, your dogma requires you to ignore and dismiss the study with the largest sample size, the one that contradicts that dogma.

GTH

[Edited by: gas_too_high at 9/19/2014 8:10:19 PM EST]
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:14,824
Points:2,477,695
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Sep 19, 2014 8:01:40 PM

weaselspit: "Please explain how you are thinking for yourself when you are only parroting religious dogma?"

That's because I'm not "parroting religious dogma". I developed arguments for traditional marriage on my own, and later discovered that organized groups like the National Organization for Marriage use the same ones as well.

And I invoke common sense and reason, not religious tenets. That fact that most religions agree, simply means they follow common sense and reason as well.

The only side that brings up religion, is yours. That is telling, as you seek to discredit my arguments by those references, instead of refuting them.

"Interesting that you dropped the conversation regarding how actions by people like yourself can negatively impact the subject of your disdain (to the point of suicide)."

Since nothing was proven by your side, why should I pursue it?

GTH

[Edited by: gas_too_high at 9/19/2014 8:02:25 PM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,901
Points:2,755,150
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Sep 19, 2014 12:57:31 PM

gas_too_high - "And yet, you call same-sex attraction "innate" to those who possess it. You even admit to a "continuum" which is a fancy way of saying "variation." So what you reject for gender, you accept uncritically for same-sex attraction."

Your comparison is invalid because SSA is one end of a single characteristic, sexual orientation. The gender-related characteristics you insist on are multiple characteristics, different for each individual.

You're even distorting the entire argument by, again, ignoring the distinction between individuals and groups.

"The contradiction is not escaped by calling gender "primarily physical" (I guess you are admitting that SSA is psychological). We humans are both mind and body, not merely minds that happen to inhabit bodies like a suit of clothes."

And nothing but strawmen again. Your idea of gender models tries to treat us as if physical gender completely determines our entire psychology, when it's simply one influence. SSA, in most cases, appears to be based on brain chemistry, a result of conditions in the womb and fixed at birth.

"If my view were truly "unsupportable, then you wouldn't be afraid to answer. As it is, you seem to realize that giving an answer would prove you wrong -- something you seem (here and elsewhere) afraid to admit."

Your view is unsupportable, as evidenced by the fact that you keep posing completely irrelevant questions, such as "which sexual act is normal: one where the genitals fit together, or one where they do not?"

The question has nothing to do with the social value of SSM. It's only an attempt to force your religious dogma into the argument.

"And you have no hesitation to throw children under the "same-sex marriage" bus in the process."

Since all of the available data says that parenting effectiveness has no relation to parental sexual orientation, you're the one throwing children under the bus to satisfy your dogma.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,680
Points:529,485
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Sep 19, 2014 9:50:10 AM

"But I least I can think for myself -- unlike you and others, who follow the PC herd."

Please explain how you are thinking for yourself when you are only parroting religious dogma? Seems like those who are shedding these outdated and bigoted views are the ones who are starting to think for themselves.

Interesting that you dropped the conversation regarding how actions by people like yourself can negatively impact the subject of your disdain (to the point of suicide).

Too much reality?
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:14,824
Points:2,477,695
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Sep 19, 2014 7:06:28 AM

rjhenn: "But, again, you're ignoring the fact that same-sex unions fulfill all of the social functions of traditional marriages, including raising children and caring for each other."

GTH: "The resemblance is only superficial, because, while you declare homosexuality"innate," you ignore what is truly innate -- gender, and the differences between a man and a woman that outfit them to raising children -- together."

rjhenn: "And there you go with the dogma about innate gender-based differences, which are, at best, based on averages, not individuals."

And yet, you call same-sex attraction "innate" to those who possess it. You even admit to a "continuum" which is a fancy way of saying "variation." So what you reject for gender, you accept uncritically for same-sex attraction.

The contradiction is not escaped by calling gender "primarily physical" (I guess you are admitting that SSA is psychological). We humans are both mind and body, not merely minds that happen to inhabit bodies like a suit of clothes.

You make the same error here:

GTH: "So tell me, which sexual act is normal: one where the genitals fit together, or one where they do not?"

rjhenn: 'Why does it matter? Do you think that homosexuals are the only ones who practice "abnormal" sex?'

GTH: "Still avoiding direct questions. What's your answer?"

rjhenn: 'No, I'm pointing out that the question is irrelevant, without any practical purpose, other than attempting to promote an unsupportable point of view.'

If my view were truly "unsupportable, then you wouldn't be afraid to answer. As it is, you seem to realize that giving an answer would prove you wrong -- something you seem (here and elsewhere) afraid to admit.

And you have no hesitation to throw children under the "same-sex marriage" bus in the process.

GTH



[Edited by: gas_too_high at 9/19/2014 7:07:07 AM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,901
Points:2,755,150
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Sep 19, 2014 12:56:45 AM

EZExit - "--Wow, if your following statement is elaborating..."

No, that wasn't it. Try: "But, again, you're ignoring the fact that same-sex unions fulfill all of the social functions of traditional marriages, including raising children and caring for each other. IOW, they are just like 'traditional' marriages that don't, or can't, procreate, that you have no objection to."

"--Do you know what "elaborate" means? It certainly would at least be a sentence or two, not a smug generalization in the form of a brief phrase... :)"

Do you bother to actually read what you're commenting on?

"Anyway, I let y'all get back to trying to force that round peg of "behavior choice" into that square hole of "genetic properties"."

Sounds like you're talking about GTH.
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:15,700
Points:2,265,660
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Sep 19, 2014 12:45:01 AM

RJHenn: <<<"I did elaborate, but you can't let go of your dogma long enough to think about it.">>>

--Wow, if your following statement is elaborating...

RJHenn: <<<"Again, not in any way that's really significant in this context.">>>

If you had been brief, would your reply have simply been:

"Again"?

--Do you know what "elaborate" means? It certainly would at least be a sentence or two, not a smug generalization in the form of a brief phrase... :)

Anyway, I let y'all get back to trying to force that round peg of "behavior choice" into that square hole of "genetic properties".

[Edited by: EZExit at 9/19/2014 12:46:47 AM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,901
Points:2,755,150
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Sep 19, 2014 12:30:27 AM

gas_too_high - "IOW, in your opinion, since you can't elaborate."

I did elaborate, but you can't let go of your dogma long enough to think about it.

"The resemblance is only superficial, because, while you declare homosexuality"innate," you ignore what is truly innate -- gender, and the differences between a man and a woman that outfit them to raising children -- together."

And there you go with the dogma about innate gender-based differences, which are, at best, based on averages, not individuals.

"Unless you actually want to outlaw those marriages (which most would consider intrusive), this is not a valid objection, but yet another strawman."

Your failure to push for outlawing those marriages because of the same differences you object to in SSM undermines your argument about treating things "differently, in accordance with their differences".

"Since that defines the relationship, how can that be avoided? That obsession is not mine, but yours."

How does the type of sex involved "define the relationship"? Does marriage require sex, even 'traditional' marriage? You've already admitted that it doesn't require procreation (see above).

"Normal, in your opinion."

And in the opinion of the vast majority of psychologists, psychiatrists and biologists, to name a few.

"How can you consider SSA "innate" but not gender? That's not rational."

Because sexual attraction is a normal human characteristic, usually determined by birth, thus "innate", that exists on a continuum, ranging from completely heterosexual to completely homosexual, and everything in between, with the mean well towards the heterosexual side. Gender is primarily physical. You are either physically male or physically female, with rare exceptions. There are other human characteristics, some physical, some psychological, that we tend to associate with one gender or the other, but that's based on there being different means for each gender, while the range of those characteristics is much the same for either gender.

That means, as I've stated many times, that for any characteristic that you consider gender-based, you can find men who are more female than the average woman and women who are more male than the average man.

"Still avoiding direct questions."

No, I'm pointing out that the question is irrelevant, without any practical purpose, other than attempting to promote an unsupportable point of view.

"Among other things, the fact that my arguments are rational, not dogmatic -- unlike your position."

My position is based on reality and science. Yours appears to be based on itself, and not much else.

"That is the opposite of telling someone they would be better off leaving the homosexual lifestyle."

Particularly when you can't give them a coherent reason why they would be better off.

Other than "that's my opinion, and I'm right".
Profile Pic
BuzzLOL
Champion Author Toledo

Posts:4,317
Points:54,145
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Sep 18, 2014 10:00:01 PM

.
< Lokodo is the Minister of Ethics in Uganda who wants homosexuality a criminal offense punished by execution. But he too says that he is not a ‘hater’ of homosexuals. He too says that he just wants to “help them return to a “normal” life”." >

. What could be wrong with wanting to send homosexics off to the religics' beloved heaven?
.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:14,824
Points:2,477,695
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Sep 18, 2014 9:41:40 PM

GTH: "Besides trying to make me evil. your snide answer inflates my importance. I don't spend time telling practicing homosexuals to change their lifestyle. Nor would anything I say, drive anyone to suicide. Really, now.

Nor would I even try to tell someone to their face, they should change their lifestyle."

weaselspit: "Which is telling. Most people can't say questionable things to the face of those whom are the subject. "

OR, rather politically incorrect things, that are unlikely to be accepted, unless that person and I were close friends.

Would you tell a casual acquaintance that he should quit smoking? Quite likely, since it is politically correct to do so, and no one is likely to take offense. That is the opposite of telling someone they would be better off leaving the homosexual lifestyle. I don't like being told "where to go" any more than anyone else.

But I least I can think for myself -- unlike you and others, who follow the PC herd.

GTH
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:14,824
Points:2,477,695
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Sep 18, 2014 9:40:35 PM

gas_too_high - "Procreation demonstrates that one can treat same-sex unions differently from marriage, because the 2 are **different**."

rjhenn: "Again, not in any way that's really significant in this context."

IOW, in your opinion, since you can't elaborate.

GTH: "And when things are treated differently, in accordance with their differences, there is no discrimination."

rjhenn: "But, again, you're ignoring the fact that same-sex unions fulfill all of the social functions of traditional marriages, including raising children and caring for each other."

The resemblance is only superficial, because, while you declare homosexuality"innate," you ignore what is truly innate -- gender, and the differences between a man and a woman that outfit them to raising children -- together.

"IOW, they are just like 'traditional' marriages that don't, or can't, procreate, that you have no objection to."

Unless you actually want to outlaw those marriages (which most would consider intrusive), this is not a valid objection, but yet another strawman.

GTH: "That, of course, does not mean people are being treated differently, when they freely choose different "things" called lifestyles."

rjhenn: "And, again, you're obsessed with the type of sex that might be involved in the relationship."

Since that defines the relationship, how can that be avoided? That obsession is not mine, but yours.

"You object to the normal variation of same-sex attraction."

Normal, in your opinion.

"You think that there is some absolute difference, besides the purely physical, between men and women, as evidenced by your insistence on gender role modeling."

Because there is. How can you consider SSA "innate" but not gender? That's not rational.

GTH: "So tell me, which sexual act is normal: one where the genitals fit together, or one where they do not?"

rjhenn: 'Why does it matter? Do you think that homosexuals are the only ones who practice "abnormal" sex?'

Still avoiding direct questions. What's your answer?

GTH: "But apparently, you would rather continue down the river "denial" and call me a "hater" for refusing to join you."

rjhenn: "What am I denying, other than your dogmatic arguments?"

Among other things, the fact that my arguments are rational, not dogmatic -- unlike your position.

GTH
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:4,891
Points:702,250
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Sep 18, 2014 6:23:56 PM

GTH (as quoted by rjhenn) "And when things are treated differently, in accordance with their differences, there is no discrimination."

By that “reasoning” then women should be treated differently than men because they are obviously different.

By the same token, people of African descent are obviously ‘different’ than people of say Asian descent. If we used your logic as above, you would be saying that it’s not discrimination to treat them differently too because of their differences.

GTH "That, of course, does not mean people are being treated differently, when they freely choose different "things" called lifestyles."

You freely choose to be a Catholic. Therefore does that mean that it’s okay for us to treat you differently than we do Hindus because of your “freely chosen religion and lifestyle”?

rjhenn “And, again, you're obsessed with the type of sex that might be involved in the relationship.”

He also ignores the fact that many heterosexuals have the exact same sort of sex as homosexuals do. Heteros don’t just have penile/vaginal sex all the time you know.

GTH "So tell me, which sexual act is normal: one where the genitals fit together, or one where they do not?"

rjhenn “Why does it matter? Do you think that homosexuals are the only ones who practice "abnormal" sex?”

Apparently he does. Wouldn’t he be surprised if he met a few other “normal” people?

GTH "That attitude is no different, than the attitude of wanting to help someone trapped in alcoholism or substance abuse, if I could."

Sure it is. Somebody trapped in alcoholism or substance abuse generally would like to get out of it.

"But apparently, you would rather continue down the river "denial" and call me a "hater" for refusing to join you."

Strange then that Simon Lokodo says the exact same things you do. He even uses the exact same words and the exact same arguments as you do, and denies that he is a “hater”.

Lokodo is the Minister of Ethics in Uganda who wants homosexuality a criminal offense punished by execution. But he too says that he is not a ‘hater’ of homosexuals. He too says that he just wants to “help them return to a “normal” life”.
Profile Pic
El_Gato_Negro
Champion Author Miami

Posts:3,637
Points:723,215
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Sep 18, 2014 3:51:21 PM

Is not gas_too_high the one who keeps saying that procreation is the main reason for marriage?



[Edited by: El_Gato_Negro at 9/18/2014 3:52:40 PM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,901
Points:2,755,150
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Sep 18, 2014 3:22:15 PM

Troller_Diesel - "Still making up your own facts, I see..."

Still denying reality, I see.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,901
Points:2,755,150
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Sep 18, 2014 3:14:55 PM

gas_too_high - "Procreation demonstrates that one can treat same-sex unions differently from marriage, because the 2 are **different**."

Again, not in any way that's really significant in this context.

"And when things are treated differently, in accordance with their differences, there is no discrimination."

But, again, you're ignoring the fact that same-sex unions fulfill all of the social functions of traditional marriages, including raising children and caring for each other. IOW, they are just like 'traditional' marriages that don't, or can't, procreate, that you have no objection to.

"That, of course, does not mean people are being treated differently, when they freely choose different "things" called lifestyles."

And, again, you're obsessed with the type of sex that might be involved in the relationship.

"Once again, you set up strawmen instead of taking the time to discern what I really believe. Otherwise, you would recognize that my calling out a single variation as non-normative means tia tI recognize no normal variations."

You object to the normal variation of same-sex attraction. You think that there is some absolute difference, besides the purely physical, between men and women, as evidenced by your insistence on gender role modeling.

Even your use of the term "non-normative" indicates that you are trying to hold everyone to your idea of an ideal standard, without considering reality.

So it hardly seems like a strawman.

"How shallow and superficial of you."

Which describes all of your arguments against SSM.

"So tell me, which sexual act is normal: one where the genitals fit together, or one where they do not?"

Why does it matter? Do you think that homosexuals are the only ones who practice "abnormal" sex?

"That attitude is no different, than the attitude of wanting to help someone trapped in alcoholism or substance abuse, if I could."

Except that there doesn't seem to be any harm done by SSA, which is quite different from alcohol or substance addiction. The only reason for "wanting to help" them is because you don't approve of the "lifestyle", not any actual need they have.

"But apparently, you would rather continue down the river "denial" and call me a "hater" for refusing to join you."

What am I denying, other than your dogmatic arguments?
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,680
Points:529,485
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Sep 18, 2014 2:02:14 PM

"Nor would anything I say, drive anyone to suicide. Really, now."

Which again only shows your ignorance on the subject, as well as the impact such attitudes have on those who are subject to them.

"Nor would I even try to tell someone to their face, they should change their lifestyle."

Which is telling. Most people can't say questionable things to the face of those whom are the subject.
Profile Pic
Troller_Diesel
Champion Author Denver

Posts:1,661
Points:14,185
Joined:Jun 2014
Message Posted: Sep 18, 2014 9:32:02 AM

rjhenn: "Yet young gays are bullied much more often than hetero teens. Up to 9 out of 10 LGBT teens report being bullied at school within the past year because of their sexual orientation."

Still making up your own facts, I see...

Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:14,824
Points:2,477,695
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Sep 18, 2014 8:46:03 AM

GTH: "Yet I never referred to procreation as the 'sole purpose of marriage.'"

rjhenn: "But it does appear to be the sole reason you have for discriminating against SSM."

Procreation demonstrates that one can treat same-sex unions differently from marriage, because the 2 are **different**.

And when things are treated differently, in accordance with their differences, there is no discrimination.

That, of course, does not mean people are being treated differently, when they freely choose different "things" called lifestyles.

Of course, the sense of denial of those differences runs deep among practicing homosexuals, and their (well meaning but unthinking) supporters.

"Of course, your entire argument against the homosexual 'lifestyle' is based on the idea that all people are the same, and that all men are the same and all women are the same, and any variation is "unnatural".

Once again, you set up strawmen instead of taking the time to discern what I really believe. Otherwise, you would recognize that my calling out a single variation as non-normative means tia tI recognize no normal variations.

How shallow and superficial of you.

So tell me, which sexual act is normal: one where the genitals fit together, or one where they do not?

"But the attitudes you apparently approve of do just that."

That attitude is no different, than the attitude of wanting to help someone trapped in alcoholism or substance abuse, if I could.

But apparently, you would rather continue down the river "denial" and call me a "hater" for refusing to join you.

GTH


[Edited by: gas_too_high at 9/18/2014 8:47:19 AM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,901
Points:2,755,150
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Sep 18, 2014 2:01:03 AM

gas_too_high - "...bullying is nothing new, even though the "gay rights" advocates would portray it as such, and has never been limited to those with SSA or in the lifestyle."

Yet young gays are bullied much more often than hetero teens. Up to 9 out of 10 LGBT teens report being bullied at school within the past year because of their sexual orientation.

"Yet I never referred to procreation as the 'sole purpose of marriage.'"

But it does appear to be the sole reason you have for discriminating against SSM.

"The main (by no means the sole) purpose of marriage as far as society is concerned, is the raising of children by their parents (especially the fathers). So much for your strawman."

And, once again, you're back to either claiming that adoption shouldn't be allowed, because adoptive parents are not the biological parents, or that there's some rigid difference between the sexes. Of course, your entire argument against the homosexual 'lifestyle' is based on the idea that all people are the same, and that all men are the same and all women are the same, and any variation is "unnatural".

Which goes completely against both commons sense and science.

"Besides trying to make me evil. your snide answer inflates my importance. I don't spend time telling practicing homosexuals to change their lifestyle. Nor would anything I say, drive anyone to suicide. Really, now."

But the attitudes you apparently approve of do just that.

"That would be compassionate, even if many would want to, in effect condemn them to that lifestyle."

And, right there, with that use of the word "condemn", you prove that we're right about you.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:14,824
Points:2,477,695
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Sep 17, 2014 9:53:04 PM

zimcity: "Bullying of gay youth leads to higher suicide rates"

Interesting link. But it omitted one crucial comparison -- to the general non-SSA teen and young adult population. And bullying is nothing new, even though the "gay rights" advocates would portray it as such, and has never been limited to those with SSA or in the lifestyle.

rjhenn: "Yet you keep coming back to procreation as the only reason to deny calling same-sex unions "marriages". So, hardly a strawman."

Yet I never referred to procreation as the "sole purpose of marriage." The main (by no means the sole) purpose of marriage as far as society is concerned, is the raising of children by their parents (especially the fathers). So much for your strawman.

GTH: "If you think that wrong, you tell me why the suicide rate among homosexuals, amid the society most friendly to them in the world, is so high."

weaselspit: "I would suggest looking in the mirror. The answer should become apparent."

Besides trying to make me evil. your snide answer inflates my importance. I don't spend time telling practicing homosexuals to change their lifestyle. Nor would anything I say, drive anyone to suicide. Really, now.

Nor would I even try to tell someone to their face, they should change their lifestyle. Rather, if any of the handful of distant acquaintances in the lifestyle, confided in me they were dissatisfied with it, I of course would help and encourage them. That would be compassionate, even if many would want to, in effect condemn them to that lifestyle.

GTH



[Edited by: gas_too_high at 9/17/2014 9:55:02 PM EST]
Profile Pic
El_Gato_Negro
Champion Author Miami

Posts:3,637
Points:723,215
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Sep 17, 2014 12:27:19 PM

.

[Edited by: El_Gato_Negro at 9/17/2014 12:35:07 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,680
Points:529,485
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Sep 17, 2014 9:00:37 AM

"If you think that wrong, you tell me why the suicide rate among homosexuals, amid the society most friendly to them in the world, is so high."

I would suggest looking in the mirror. The answer should become apparent.
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:22,826
Points:2,934,545
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Sep 17, 2014 8:54:14 AM

So, TD, perhaps you'd like to read about earlier work of Judge Posner, before he changed his mind about gay marriage?

needed to tinyurl it.



[Edited by: sgm4law at 9/17/2014 8:55:19 AM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,901
Points:2,755,150
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Sep 17, 2014 2:08:21 AM

gas_too_high - "Who said that? Not I. That strawman makes what follows, irrelevant."

Yet you keep coming back to procreation as the only reason to deny calling same-sex unions "marriages". So, hardly a strawman.

"Another unsupported post that merely indcates your opinion."

So you've never heard of the divorce rate approaching 50%, or of deadbeat dads, or the many other 'opinions' that demonstrate how wrong you are.

"Who said other lifestyles were "not allowed"? The point is, they are different, so they can be treated differently. And they are freely chosen, so there is no issue of "equal protection"."

However, they serve pretty much the same purposes as far as society is concerned, so there's no real justification for treating them differently, and plenty of reason to treat them the same, including the children they raise. That makes it an issue of "equal protection".

"If you contest that point, please be sure to account for how a freely chosen lifestyle establishes rights, if you can."

Clearly, you believe that marriage establishes rights. Is marriage freely chosen?

"I am convinced that, in many cases not realizing it, what practicing homosexuals, choosing to follow the attraction that fights against their human nature, really want, is the normality they attribute to marriage, which really is opposed by their lifestyle."

How can their SSA fight "against their human nature", when it's part of their nature? Indeed, it seems that entering into a heterosexual marriage would, in many cases, be fighting against their human nature.

"If you think that wrong, you tell me why the suicide rate among homosexuals, amid the society most friendly to them in the world, is so high."

Because they still can't get married, thus are still looked down upon. And, as some here demonstrate, are still hated.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,901
Points:2,755,150
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Sep 17, 2014 2:05:56 AM

Troller_Diesel - "Well, sgm4law, reading your further post about the judge, it's apparent that he's just another fruits-and-nuts moonbat ignorant liberal.

Offspring of cousins have less genetic risk than previously thought"

Which only demonstrates that you didn't understand what Posner was saying.

Or perhaps that you're "just another fruits-and-nuts moonbat ignorant" extremist.
Profile Pic
Zimcity
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:70,408
Points:4,207,710
Joined:Aug 2001
Message Posted: Sep 17, 2014 12:07:17 AM

"If you think that wrong, you tell me why the suicide rate among homosexuals, amid the society most friendly to them in the world, is so high."

All signs point to the bullying homosexuals have experienced and the lack of acceptance of them as people, by homophobes such as yourself. Clearly, you do not consider them or their behavior "normal" and seek to degrade and otherwise "bully" homosexuals into behavior you find acceptable due to your bigotry.

Bullying of gay youth leads to higher suicide rates

A 2009 survey* of more than 7,000 LGBT middle and high school students aged 13–21 years found that in the past year, because of their sexual orientation—

Eight of ten students had been verbally harassed at school;
Four of ten had been physically harassed at school;
Six of ten felt unsafe at school; and
One of five had been the victim of a physical assault at school



Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:14,824
Points:2,477,695
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Sep 16, 2014 9:51:50 PM

GTHL "sgm4law, respect for the person is possible despite their condition. In any case, marriage, which my definition is with the opposite gender, is not truly what practicing homosexuals want -- even if it's what they *think* they want."

Davewalk: "So you know what homosexuals want more accurately than they do. How incredibly arrogant and condescending."

Not at all. When practicing homosexuals say they want marriage, first of all, they don't use the word properly, so they really want marriage redefinition. But why do they want to redefine a heterosexual institution, instead of establishing one of their own?

I am convinced that, in many cases not realizing it, what practicing homosexuals, choosing to follow the attraction that fights against their human nature, really want, is the normality they attribute to marriage, which really is opposed by their lifestyle.

If you think that wrong, you tell me why the suicide rate among homosexuals, amid the society most friendly to them in the world, is so high.

GTH

[Edited by: gas_too_high at 9/16/2014 9:52:22 PM EST]
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:14,824
Points:2,477,695
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Sep 16, 2014 9:34:14 PM

Not every federal judge wants to redefine marriage.

GTH

[Edited by: gas_too_high at 9/16/2014 9:35:21 PM EST]
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:14,824
Points:2,477,695
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Sep 16, 2014 9:28:27 PM

gas_too_high - "Thank you for proving my point again. You are being so fixated on procreation as unimportant, you refuse to get why it is. Without procreation, there would be no reason to bind a man and woman together in marriage, not if sex is simply a pleasurable activity."

rjhenn: "True, sex is a pleasurable activity because that helps ensure procreation, but neither sex nor procreation is the sole purpose of marriage...."

Who said that? Not I. That strawman makes what follows, irrelevant.

GTH: "But because they can procreate, marriage ensures they raise their children."

rjhenn: "Not hardly. Again, you're insisting that the ideal must be the reality. IOW, your emotional attachment to the ideal of marriage overrides your reason."

Another unsupported post that merely indcates your opinion.

GTH: "Everyone chooses their own behavior, their own lifestyle."

rjhenn: "But, apparently, we're only supposed to allow the ones that you approve of."

Who said other lifestyles were "not allowed"? The point is, they are different, so they can be treated differently. And they are freely chosen, so there is no issue of "equal protection".

If you contest that point, please be sure to account for how a freely chosen lifestyle establishes rights, if you can.

GTH
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,194
Points:3,825,055
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Sep 16, 2014 8:27:35 PM

Today doctors, psychiatrists, and psychologists all agree that not only is homosexuality not an illness, but there is no proven method to relieve a person of his or her sexual orientation (nor is there any reason to attempt it).

What quackery has been tried or proposed?
Riding a bicycle, exorcism, electroshock, prostitution, hypnosis, even fetal intervention.
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,194
Points:3,825,055
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Sep 16, 2014 8:13:05 PM

"Those with SSA who want to find treatment CAN find treatment."

And a good many "treatments" have been trligion-based total failures, eidiculous concepts, or simply scams that no more cure homosexuality than they cure red hair or being Asian. If one finds happiness in a gay partner, why would one want to be "treated"?

"It’s obvious that the inability to procreate is NOT GTH’s real reason for denying marriage to homosexuals or else he would also deny it to 80 year old widows, paraplegics, people with fertility problems and people who just have no intention of having children, ever."
Thst has been obvious for a LONG time, hasn't it?
Profile Pic
Troller_Diesel
Champion Author Denver

Posts:1,661
Points:14,185
Joined:Jun 2014
Message Posted: Sep 16, 2014 7:07:54 PM

Well, sgm4law, reading your further post about the judge, it's apparent that he's just another fruits-and-nuts moonbat ignorant liberal.

Offspring of cousins have less genetic risk than previously thought

So, apparently, liberal bleating morons have made it onto the Appeals Courts...

Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:4,891
Points:702,250
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Sep 16, 2014 4:38:26 PM

GTH (as quoted by rjhenn) "Even if SSA is inherent, even natural, still same-sex unions have zero procreative potential. Therefore they do not form the basis of a family..”

He keeps saying that gays and lesbians can’t get married because they can’t procreate, but he consistently ignore that there are many heterosexuals who very obviously can’t procreate either, and yet he has no problem with them getting married.

Talk about inconsistency.

It’s obvious that the inability to procreate is NOT GTH’s real reason for denying marriage to homosexuals or else he would also deny it to 80 year old widows, paraplegics, people with fertility problems and people who just have no intention of having children, ever.

"And there is much evidence that SSA is not innate. The consensus among psychologists and psychiatrists, up until 1973, was that SSA was an illness that required treatment. That "consensus among psychologists and psychiatrists" wasn't based on science, but on dogma that homosexuality couldn't possibly be normal."

Wow, so either GTH thinks that there has been nothing learned in psychology or psychiatry for the last 40 years, or else he thinks that he knows more than all the psychologists and psychiatrists in the country in order to determine that they were politically pressured into fudging all their research for the last 40 years. That’s quite the conspiracy theory.

"As we have seen, the APA's decision to delist homosexuality from its diagnostic manual, the DSM, had nothing to do with any scientific study, and everything to do with advocacy, with politics."

Well of course it had nothing to do with any scientific study – if you totally ignore all the scientific studies that have been done since about 1970 as GTH does.

"Even now, those with SSA who can find treatment, find they have lead normal lives outside of the homosexual lifestyle, either in a celibate single life, or in some cases, married. I know of 2 such people with SA who have married and have children."

Those with SSA who want to find treatment CAN find treatment. Any who aren’t in treatment aren’t there because they don’t want to be ‘treated’.

Strange then, isn’t it, that most who have SSA aren’t in treatment.

As for those who have married, did they get married (to somebody of the opposite sex) because society or their religion said that was what they had to do or did they get married because they “decided” that they were suddenly interested in the opposite sex instead?

Or perhaps, they were actually closer to being bisexual before and not homosexual on the continuity that rjhen has been pointing out?

"We may disagree. but that doesn't mean there are no arguments for my position. See above."

rjhenn “None of which appear to be based on facts or logic, but on your emotional reaction to homosexuality.”

Or on his religious teachings?

"I an unconvinced that calling same-sex unions "marriages" will benefit the relative handful of children. And doing so, will result in other children being placed in such unions, when they might be adopted or raised by opposite sex married couples."

Adoptive children are already being placed in same sex families. Denying their adoptive parents marriage won’t change that. So if the children are already with same sex adoptive couples, stopping those couples from marrying does indeed harm the children.

"And it is false compassion, not to allow ready access to therapy, to anyone with SSA who wishes to live other than the homosexual lifestyle."

How does allowing same sex couples to marry prevent them from having access to therapy? I’m sure anybody who wants therapy would still be allowed to have therapy even if they could get married.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:15,680
Points:529,485
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Sep 16, 2014 2:06:19 PM

"So you (GTH) know what homosexuals want more accurately than they do. How incredibly arrogant and condescending."

Precisely!
Profile Pic
Davewalk
All-Star Author Los Angeles

Posts:989
Points:2,389,330
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Sep 16, 2014 1:27:47 PM

GTH: <<In any case, marriage, which my definition is with the opposite gender, is not truly what practicing homosexuals want -- even if it's what they *think* they want.>>

So you know what homosexuals want more accurately than they do. How incredibly arrogant and condescending.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,901
Points:2,755,150
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Sep 16, 2014 1:05:08 PM

Troller_Diesel - "Is this the same American Psychiatric Society that used to define homosexuality as a mental illness?"

Yes, they used to be emotional about homosexuality, until they applied logic and reason to the actual facts.

"Even a Freshman college student taking Critical Thinking 101 understands (or should) that 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'"

Of course, you left out "despite extensive efforts to find it". Funny, there's no evidence for your PoV, despite decades of desperate attempts to manufacture it. Yet your beliefs are unassailable.

"And if this partner of their choice were their daughter? Mother? Or multiple partners?"

Already covered. For example, we're talking about legal marriage as a "committed monogamous union".
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:22,826
Points:2,934,545
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Sep 16, 2014 10:28:28 AM

Or how about the empirical evidence of the effectiveness of the law "protecting" marriage:

"In 1997, the year of the enactment, 33 percent of births in Indiana were to unmarried women; in 2012 (the latest year for which we have statistics) the percentage was 43 percent. The corresponding figures for Wisconsin are 28 percent and 37 percent and for the nation as a whole 32 percent and 41 percent. … There is no indication that these states’ laws, ostensibly aimed at channeling procreation into marriage, have had any such effect."
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:22,826
Points:2,934,545
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Sep 16, 2014 10:27:22 AM

More from Judge Posner:

"If the state’s only interest in allowing marriage is to protect children, why has it gone out of its way to permit marriage of first cousins only after they are provably infertile? The state must think marriage valuable for something other than just procreation—that even non-procreative couples benefit from marriage. And among non-procreative couples, those that raise children, such as same-sex couples with adopted children, gain more from marriage than those who do not raise children, such as elderly cousins; elderly persons rarely adopt."

"Indiana has thus invented an insidious form of discrimination: favoring first cousins, provided they are not of the same sex, over homosexuals. Elderly first cousins are permitted to marry because they can’t produce children; homosexuals are forbidden to marry because they can’t produce children. The state’s argument that a marriage of first cousins who are past child-bearing age provides a “model [of] family life for younger, potentially procreative men and women” is impossible to take seriously."

An aside: Yes, TD, all of the world's scientific bodies are out to get conservative ideas. Hope you're homeschooling your children so they don't get exposed to thinking or science outside of your approved "ideas."
Profile Pic
Troller_Diesel
Champion Author Denver

Posts:1,661
Points:14,185
Joined:Jun 2014
Message Posted: Sep 16, 2014 10:26:51 AM

sgm4law: "For people who of a different sexuality than me I have respect, and wish for them to have equal treatment under the law to marry the partner of their choice."

And if this partner of their choice were their daughter? Mother? Or multiple partners?

After all, an Australian judge has already ruled incest isn't a crime...

Funny how liberals always want to claim there "is no slippery slope" when, in fact, liberalism IS a slippery slope...

Profile Pic
Troller_Diesel
Champion Author Denver

Posts:1,661
Points:14,185
Joined:Jun 2014
Message Posted: Sep 16, 2014 10:24:18 AM

Is this the same American Psychiatric Society that used to define homosexuality as a mental illness?

"That homosexual orientation is not a choice is further suggested by the absence of evidence..."

Even a Freshman college student taking Critical Thinking 101 understands (or should) that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

Indeed, that's just common sense. Or should be. Given the evidence of his lack of common sense, dare I ask? Is the Judge an Ivy League Law School Grad?

Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:22,826
Points:2,934,545
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Sep 16, 2014 10:04:56 AM

Just a little snippet from Judge Posner's opinion in the 7th Circuit case, striking down more anti-marriage-equality laws:

And there is little doubt that sexual orientation, the ground of the discrimination, is an immutable (and probably an innate, in the sense of in-born) characteristic rather than a choice. Wisely, neither Indiana nor Wisconsin argues otherwise. The American Psychological Association has said that “most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.” APA, “Answers to Your Questions: For a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality” 2 (2008), www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation.pdf (visited Sept. 2, 2014, as were the other websites cited in this opinion); see also Gregory M. Herek et al., “Demographic, Psychological, and Social Characteristics of Self–Identified Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Adults in a U.S. Probability Sample,” 7 Sexuality Research and Social Policy 176, 188 (2010) (“combining respondents who said they’d had a small amount of choice with those reporting no choice, 95% of gay men and 84% of lesbians could be characterized as perceiving that they had little or no choice about their sexual orientation”). That homosexual orientation is not a choice is further suggested by the absence of evidence (despite extensive efforts to find it) that psychotherapy is effective in altering sexual orientation in general and homosexual orientation in particular. APA, “Answers to Your Questions,” supra, at 3; Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation 35–41 (2009)."

Baskin v. Bogan

[Edited by: sgm4law at 9/16/2014 10:06:07 AM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,901
Points:2,755,150
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Sep 16, 2014 2:56:27 AM

gas_too_high - "Thank you for proving my point again. You are being so fixated on procreation as unimportant, you refuse to get why it is. Without procreation, there would be no reason to bind a man and woman together in marriage, not if sex is simply a pleasurable activity."

True, sex is a pleasurable activity because that helps ensure procreation, but neither sex nor procreation is the sole purpose of marriage. If they were, then 80-year-olds wouldn't get married, and neither would people who, for whatever reason, can't engage in sex. Yet they do, and you don't object to that.

"But because they can procreate, marriage ensures they raise their children."

Not hardly. Again, you're insisting that the ideal must be the reality. IOW, your emotional attachment to the ideal of marriage overrides your reason.

"They may not choose SSA, but, like alcoholics, they choose their behavior in response to it. And SSA is nowhere as hard to overcome as an alcohol's compulsion to drink."

Perhaps that's because it's not harmful, except when exposed to people like you.

"Everyone chooses their own behavior, their own lifestyle."

But, apparently, we're only supposed to allow the ones that you approve of.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:27,901
Points:2,755,150
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Sep 16, 2014 2:50:24 AM

gas_too_high - "sgm, I have no doubt you wish to show compassion to people with SSA and respect their dignity. Yet, you unnecessarily combine the condition of SSA with those possessing it. You would never do so with alcoholism, which is one reason I draw that comparison."

Which makes no sense, unless your premise is that there's something wrong with or harmful about homosexual behavior.

"Even if SSA is inherent, even natural, still same-sex unions have zero procreative potential. Therefore they do not form the basis of a family, in the same way that opposite sex couples united in marriage do. Saying so, in and of itself, takes away nothing from any dignity that anyone, "gay" or "Straight", has."

Procreation is not necessary for the formation of a family. The evidence is all around you.

"And there is much evidence that SSA is not innate. The consensus among psychologists and psychiatrists, up until 1973, was that SSA was an illness that required treatment."

That "consensus among psychologists and psychiatrists" wasn't based on science, but on dogma that homosexuality couldn't possibly be normal. Much like your attitude.

"As we have seen, the APA's decision to delist homosexuality from its diagnostic manual, the DSM, had nothing to do with any scientific study, and everything to do with advocacy, with politics."

Actually, there were studies that prompted the removal of SSA from the DSM. They've been pointed out before. You just choose to ignore them.

"Even now, those with SSA who can find treatment, find they have lead normal lives outside of the homosexual lifestyle, either in a celibate single life, or in some cases, married. I know of 2 such people with SA who have married and have children."

And why should they be celibate? As for being married, much of that is going to depend on just how homosexual they truly are. As, again, previously noted, sexual attraction isn't binary. You can be completely heterosexual, completely homosexual, bisexual, or any degree in between. It's also going to depend on whether or not they want to be married, and why.

"We may disagree. but that doesn't mean there are no arguments for my position. See above."

None of which appear to be based on facts or logic, but on your emotional reaction to homosexuality.

"I an unconvinced that calling same-sex unions "marriages" will benefit the relative handful of children. And doing so, will result in other children being placed in such unions, when they might be adopted or raised by opposite sex married couples."

Or raised in a succession of foster families.

"And it is false compassion, not to allow ready access to therapy, to anyone with SSA who wishes to live other than the homosexual lifestyle."

Which appears to be yet another strawman.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:14,824
Points:2,477,695
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Sep 15, 2014 9:58:07 PM

sgm4law, respect for the person is possible despite their condition. In any case, marriage, which my definition is with the opposite gender, is not truly what practicing homosexuals want -- even if it's what they *think* they want.

GTH
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:14,824
Points:2,477,695
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Sep 15, 2014 9:53:54 PM

gas_too_high - "Thank you for proving my point, for this and other statements, about fixation. I dare you to tell any woman who has given birth, that procreation is 'insignificant.'"

rjhenn: "Thank you for proving my point. You're switching contexts, apparently because you know your original argument fails. Procreation, in the context of the social value of marriage, is much less significant than raising healthy and well-adjusted children."

Thank you for proving my point again. You are being so fixated on procreation as unimportant, you refuse to get why it is. Without procreation, there would be no reason to bind a man and woman together in marriage, not if sex is simply a pleasurable activity.

But because they can procreate, marriage ensures they raise their children.

And if I had a dollar every time I reminded you, I would be rich.

weaselspit: "I don't think I have ever heard of somebody 'coming out of the closet' and 'choosing' to be an alcoholic."

GTH: "They do, however, choose to drink."

weasel: "Completely false. Alcoholics don't 'choose' to drink - hence the basic problem with your inane comparison."

SE3.5: "They do. Every waking moment they choose to not have a drink or to have a drink. To deny "the choice" is to return to the abyss."

Well stated and absolutely correct.

weasel: "They don't choose to have a drink in the same sense that you choose what shirt you wish to wear... They must constantly choose to not have a drink due to their disease..."

That is still a choice, albeit an extraordinarily difficult one.

"...whereas in keeping with the context of this thread, homosexual's don't choose to be gay, just like alcoholics don't choose to be alcoholics."

They may not choose SSA, but, like alcoholics, they choose their behavior in response to it. And SSA is nowhere as hard to overcome as an alcohol's compulsion to drink.

Everyone chooses their own behavior, their own lifestyle.

GTH

[Edited by: gas_too_high at 9/15/2014 9:54:22 PM EST]
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:22,826
Points:2,934,545
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Sep 15, 2014 9:47:11 PM

"sgm, I have no doubt you wish to show compassion to people with SSA and respect their dignity."

No. Not compassion; that would be for an alcoholic. For people who of a different sexuality than me I have respect, and wish for them to have equal treatment under the law to marry the partner of their choice.

Compassion is the wrong word.

[Edited by: sgm4law at 9/15/2014 9:48:32 PM EST]
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:14,824
Points:2,477,695
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Sep 15, 2014 9:33:42 PM

sgm4law: 'For the billionth time, you people who are against equal treatment of gay couples cannot and do not accept the basic premise of what is getting to be a majority of the population: that SSA is inherent and unchanging, not to be compared with a mental disease or deviant problem. You just don't agree."

sgm, I have no doubt you wish to show compassion to people with SSA and respect their dignity. Yet, you unnecessarily combine the condition of SSA with those possessing it. You would never do so with alcoholism, which is one reason I draw that comparison.

Even if SSA is inherent, even natural, still same-sex unions have zero procreative potential. Therefore they do not form the basis of a family, in the same way that opposite sex couples united in marriage do. Saying so, in and of itself, takes away nothing from any dignity that anyone, "gay" or "Straight", has.

And there is much evidence that SSA is not innate. The consensus among psychologists and psychiatrists, up until 1973, was that SSA was an illness that required treatment. And many were treated successfully. As we have seen, the APA's decision to delist homosexuality from its diagnostic manual, the DSM, had nothing to do with any scientific study, and everything to do with advocacy, with politics.

Even now, those with SSA who can find treatment, find they have lead normal lives outside of the homosexual lifestyle, either in a celibate single life, or in some cases, married. I know of 2 such people with SA who have married and have children.

"So all the arguments in these threads boils down to: "Is not!" "Is so!" to a certain extent."

We may disagree. but that doesn't mean there are no arguments for my position. See above.

"Perhaps you could reach more levels of tolerance for those gay couples who have children, since their children suffer the brunt of denial of benefits of marriage to their parents. They already are in these families, so denial of their reality is no help, just useless, unwarranted meanness of spirit."

I an unconvinced that calling same-sex unions "marriages" will benefit the relative handful of children. And doing so, will result in other children being placed in such unions, when they might be adopted or raised by opposite sex married couples.

And it is false compassion, not to allow ready access to therapy, to anyone with SSA who wishes to live other than the homosexual lifestyle.

GTH
Post a reply Back to Topics