Spine Doner List

[MicroBalrog]

Your "preferences" aside, if the state grants "marriage" licenses to homosexual couples, will the force of the state be used against companies that refuse to provide "marital benefits" to homosexuals that have a government license (or other companies that similarly refuse to service homosexual unions)? Yes or no?

It might. In a European welfare state you would be completely right, but America is not a European welfare state.

Also, a ban on discrimination of homosexuals by, say, restaurants is not the same (although also wrong) as an attempt to force churches to marry gay people.
This is in the same way in which there exist various (immoral and unconstitutional) limits on discrimination by private people, but they do not regularly apply to churches.

But, again, what you state will happen is not necessarily a foregone conclusion, just like gun registration does not always lead to confiscation. Just as gun registration may lead to confiscation, or it may be repealed altogether (like in Canada).

[makattak]

It might. In a European welfare state you would be completely right, but America is not a European welfare state.

Also, a ban on discrimination of homosexuals by, say, restaurants is not the same (although also wrong) as an attempt to force churches to marry gay people.
This is in the same way in which there exist various (immoral and unconstitutional) limits on discrimination by private people, but they do not regularly apply to churches.

But, again, what you state will happen is not necessarily a foregone conclusion, just like gun registration does not always lead to confiscation. Just as gun registration may lead to confiscation, or it may be repealed altogether (like in Canada).

Alright, then what about the photographer in New Mexico sued for declining to photograph a gay wedding. It does not even yet have legal imprimatur, but she is being sued for her religious convictions?

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/357084.aspx

Or does the First Amendment only apply to churches? "You can believe what you want, just keep it hidden away in a church. You can't bring that stuff out in public!"

[Fly320s]

Alright, then what about the photographer in New Mexico sued for declining to photograph a gay wedding. It does not even yet have legal imprimatur, but she is being sued for her religious convictions?

Sorry, leaped before I looked. Disregard.

OK, I read the article.  I am surprised, but not shocked, that the photographer lost the case. 

This brings up the question: Who can businesses legally discriminate against?  As far as I'm concerned, a private business can discriminate against whoever they want. The government, on the other hand, must treat everyone equally under the law. So, in this case, the photographer can decline to work for the gay couple, but the government should recognize their marriage since NM allows for it.

[griz]

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/357084.aspx

The other ones didn't seem to apply because if hate speech was illegal in this country then Fred Phelps would have been locked up several times over.  But this one surprised me.  Public accommodation?  That's pretty tricky, good point.

[cordex]

As far as I'm concerned, a private business can discriminate against whoever they want. The government, on the other hand, must treat everyone equally under the law. So, in this case, the photographer can decline to work for the gay couple, but the government should recognize their marriage since NM allows for it.

That's definitely the way it should work.

[makattak]

Sorry, leaped before I looked. Disregard.

OK, I read the article.  I am surprised, but not shocked, that the photographer lost the case. 

This brings up the question: Who can businesses legally discriminate against?  As far as I'm concerned, a private business can discriminate against whoever they want. The government, on the other hand, must treat everyone equally under the law. So, in this case, the photographer can decline to work for the gay couple, but the government should recognize their marriage since NM allows for it.

As far as I am concerned, I would rather businesses discriminate as they wish, that whole "freedom of association" right should include whom you want in your business.

However, as that is not the way our government currently works, gay marriage will be used as a bludgeon against religious people who have objections to their lifestyle. Your "freedom" position is hollow as this unenumerated "right" that you want to grant to homosexuals will be used (and this is part of the goal of most homosexual "marriage" supporters) to limit the religious freedom of Christians (and others who object to homosexuality.)

[roo_ster]

However, as that is not the way our government currently works, gay marriage will be used as a bludgeon against religious people who have objections to their lifestyle. Your "freedom" position is hollow as this unenumerated "right" that you want to grant to homosexuals will be used (and this is part of the goal of most homosexual "marriage" supporters) to limit the religious freedom of Christians (and others who object to homosexuality.)

That is fine with the folks who hate the Christians more than they love liberty and who would like to expand gov't whilst simultaneously limiting freedom of association, freedom of speech, and religious liberty.  "Libertarian" some call themselves.

And just goes to show that the dying of Christianity in a country pretty much coincides with a slide toward statism and loss of the real liberties (which are replaced with a mess of pottage).  All one has to do is read a little history to see it plain as day.

Not to worry, the godless non-marriage hucksters will join the icky Christians soon after we're slapped down by the agents of gov't for expressing our religious convictions.  Because it will be used as a precedent for further encroachments on liberty.

[MicroBalrog]

Alright, then what about the photographer in New Mexico sued for declining to photograph a gay wedding. It does not even yet have legal imprimatur, but she is being sued for her religious convictions?

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/357084.aspx

The plural of anecdote does not make data, does it?

Or does the First Amendment only apply to churches? "You can believe what you want, just keep it hidden away in a church. You can't bring that stuff out in public!"

So do you agree with me that we should not have any laws regarding discriminations, and employers should be able to fire people for carrying guns, or having them in their cars, or being Christians, or being black?

If and when we abolish these things I will happily agree with you. But in the context in which conservatives - indeed some of the very conservatives posting in this thread endorse these laws: sauce, goose, gander.

[De Selby]

What is essence?

What is authority?

Pretending not to understand basic concepts; where would the irrational marriage movement be without it?!

See, I noticed there that you didn't explain why we all have to accept your assertion about marriage.

We all understand the concept - the problem for you is that half the country does not share your view about what is the "essence of marriage.".  You're going to have to explain why your assertion matters more than any other.

[Ron]

See, I noticed there that you didn't explain why we all have to accept your assertion about marriage.

We all understand the concept - the problem for you is that half the country does not share your view about what is the "essence of marriage.".  You're going to have to explain why your assertion matters more than any other.

For hundreds of years in the west we have built up a jurisprudence around the legal meaning of marriage that revolved around man + woman and generally their offspring.

Deciding by fiat to shoehorn same sex couplings into thousands of years of cultural understanding of what marriage is and somehow attempt to make the legal system constructed around normal heterosexual relationships try and apply to something that is not the same is just plain crazy.

Words have meaning.

The gay agenda acknowledges this by insisting that there is no difference between gay relationships and normal relationships. That is why they insist on usurping the institution of marriage. They are looking for societal approval and acceptance. They don't want to be considered different, despite the obvious.

[RoadKingLarry]

For hundreds of years in the west we have built up a jurisprudence around the legal meaning of marriage that revolved around man + woman and generally their offspring.

Also for hundreds of years in the west we had a jurisprudence accepting slavery. And until 1967 interracial marriage was illegal in many states as well as condemned by the church as a sin against god.  That didn't make it right though.

[roo_ster]

Also for hundreds of years in the west we had a jurisprudence accepting slavery. And until 1967 interracial marriage was illegal in many states as well as condemned by the church as a sin against god.  That didn't make it right though.

And that analogy is accurate because gov't not recognizing a relationship which will have no issue and thus diminished significance is the equivalent of racial discrimination & slavery?   I think you need a new moral compass, 'cause yours is broke.

Also, maybe you ought to put that question to the folks who were legally discriminated against a few decades back and whose ancestors were slaves?  When they did in 2008 in California, the vast majority of black folks did not agree with your formulation.

[MicroBalrog]

And that analogy is accurate because gov't not recognizing a relationship which will have no issue and thus diminished significance is the equivalent of racial discrimination & slavery?   I think you need a new moral compass, 'cause yours is broke.

Also, maybe you ought to put that question to the folks who were legally discriminated against a few decades back and whose ancestors were slaves?  When they did in 2008 in California, the vast majority of black folks did not agree with your formulation.

Why is it relevant that their ancestors were slaves?

Having your ancestors experienced slavery - indeed having experienced incredible suffering yourself - does not make you an inviolable moral authority.

[De Selby]

For hundreds of years in the west we have built up a jurisprudence around the legal meaning of marriage that revolved around man + woman and generally their offspring.

Deciding by fiat to shoehorn same sex couplings into thousands of years of cultural understanding of what marriage is and somehow attempt to make the legal system constructed around normal heterosexual relationships try and apply to something that is not the same is just plain crazy.

Words have meaning.

The gay agenda acknowledges this by insisting that there is no difference between gay relationships and normal relationships. That is why they insist on usurping the institution of marriage. They are looking for societal approval and acceptance. They don't want to be considered different, despite the obvious.

Uh, what is it that makes applying the laws of marriage to same sex couples shoe horning???  Seriously, how is saying, as the law already does, that two people together will have a series of legal entitlements with regard to each other, create a problem if you don't specify the sex of the two people?

[makattak]

Uh, what is it that makes applying the laws of marriage to same sex couples polygamists shoe horning???  Seriously, how is saying, as the law already does, that two any people together will have a series of legal entitlements with regard to each other, create a problem if you don't specify the sex number of the two people?

Equally valid argument.

If you aren't opposed to polygamy, polyamory, or line marriages (as I know Micro is not), you aren't a hypocrit. Otherwise, if it is no problem to ignore the sex of persons involved in a marriage, under what logical and legal reasoning can you deny a greater number of persons in a marriage.

At least with polygamy, we have a significant amount of history for the legality of such marriages AND they still provide the likelihood (strong likelihood) of producing progeny. Homosexual "marriages" have neither of those arguments in favor.

[De Selby]

Yeah, so favoring progeny is your standard?  That's very different from saying the administration of gay marriages is too different to fit into the law.   Indeed, it'd seem to be no different from managing a childless couple.   And how does recognizing gay marriage have any effect on progeny?   Do you honestly beleive that gay folk will choose to marry straight solely because of the law, or do you want to stigmatize gay people into portending they're straight?    Without it being a part of a campaign to demonize and shame gays, I can't see any rational relationship at all between outlawing same sex marriage and proving reading child birth.

I agree with your point about polygamy, by the way - why should we be telling people they can't enter plural relationships??? 

[makattak]

Yeah, so favoring progeny is your standard?  That's very different from saying the administration of gay marriages is too different to fit into the law.   Indeed, it'd seem to be no different from managing a childless couple.   And how does recognizing gay marriage have any effect on progeny?   Do you honestly beleive that gay folk will choose to marry straight solely because of the law, or do you want to stigmatize gay people into portending they're straight?    Without it being a part of a campaign to demonize and shame gays, I can't see any rational relationship at all between outlawing same sex marriage and proving reading child birth.

I agree with your point about polygamy, by the way - why should we be telling people they can't enter plural relationships???  

My argument, if you happen to have read this thread is that the purpose of gay marriage is to use the force of government as a bludgeon (see if you can find those exact words, already, multiple times in this thread) against those who do not freely grant them social approbation.

My argument, FURTHER, is that monogamous, heterosexual couples that have made a lifetime committment (which was foolishly weakened with "no-fault divorce) provide externalities to society that the government wishes to encourage. Among these is progeny and the most beneficial environment for raising children. That some heterosexual couples choose not to raise children or are unable to raise them is sad, but the invasion of privacy necessary to determine such information is not only unconstitutional, it likely costs far more to collect than the "savings" of not granting them the same benefits.

Homosexual couplings cannot provide those externalities, so there is no reason to grant them those benefits especially when the purpose of government sanction is to attack religious liberty.

[Fly320s]

especially when the purpose of government sanction is to attack religious liberty.

I still don't understand how allowing gay marriage is an attack on religious liberty.  Can you expound on that?

[makattak]

I still don't understand how allowing gay marriage is an attack on religious liberty.  Can you expound on that?

Companies will be sued for choosing not to offer benefits to gay couples. Religious service organizations will be sued (or driven out of their ministry) for refusing to adopt a baby to a gay couple. Religous contractors will be sued for choosing not to bake a cake or photograph gay "wedding" ceremonies. Churches will be sued for choosing not to rent their building out to homosexual couples for their "weddings".

And I can safely make these predictions because other than the first statement, every single one of these have already happened before the government sanctions gay "marriage".

As for the requirement to offer the same benefits to gay couples, is there any doubt that a similar administration to the one currently in office that is forcing religious charities to offer abortofacients to their employees in contravention of their religious beliefs would even blink about forcing companies to treat gay couples the same way as straight couples?

This isn't a difficult concept: it is already happening.

[White Horseradish]

Once again, polygamy is brought up as part of the slippery slope.

Can someone coherently explain to me why it is somehow presented as a bad thing? It certainly can and often does produce children. The environment is beneficial to them as there are more people in close proximity to take care of them. It is traditional, having been practiced for thousands of years. It's in the Bible. Heck, in this economy it probably makes financial sense. What's wrong with it? Besides the difficulty of finding another woman that would put up with you and the whole multiple mother-in-law thing, that is.

[makattak]

Once again, polygamy is brought up as part of the slippery slope.

Can someone coherently explain to me why it is somehow presented as a bad thing? It certainly can and often does produce children. The environment is beneficial to them as there are more people in close proximity to take care of them. It is traditional, having been practiced for thousands of years. It's in the Bible. Heck, in this economy it probably makes financial sense. What's wrong with it? Besides the difficulty of finding another woman that would put up with you and the whole multiple mother-in-law thing, that is.

The West rejected polygamy for many reasons, one of the most important is that polygamist families are not as stable as monogamous. (Not that they break up but that tensions and rivalries between wives and their progeny are almost a given, human nature being what it is.)

However, my point was not slippery slope but logic. If the sex of the persons in a marriage is unimportant, then why is the number. As I said before, if you, like Micro, believe that polygamy is just as acceptable as gay "marriage" then you have no logical flaw.

I will also note for you that polygamy is actively BANNED in this country, not unsanctioned as gay "marriage" is.

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

Once again, polygamy is brought up as part of the slippery slope.

Can someone coherently explain to me why it is somehow presented as a bad thing? It certainly can and often does produce children. The environment is beneficial to them as there are more people in close proximity to take care of them. It is traditional, having been practiced for thousands of years. It's in the Bible. Heck, in this economy it probably makes financial sense. What's wrong with it? Besides the difficulty of finding another woman that would put up with you and the whole multiple mother-in-law thing, that is.

Problems like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_boys_(Mormon_fundamentalism)
A bunch of disaffected young men make great revolution fodder. Gang fodder, too. Smart governments ban the practice to minimize these problems.

[roo_ster]

Problems like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_boys_(Mormon_fundamentalism)
A bunch of disaffected young men make great revolution fodder. Gang fodder, too. Smart governments ban the practice to minimize these problems.

And China is looking at a generation or two where girls were selectively aborted, severely skewing the sex ratios.  Usually, this leads to capital-T trouble, like revolution, wars, etc.

[roo_ster]

Why is it relevant that their ancestors were slaves?

Having your ancestors experienced slavery - indeed having experienced incredible suffering yourself - does not make you an inviolable moral authority.

RKL brought up the faulty analogy, not I.  Talk to him about it.  

But, if RKL thinks the analogy is somehow cogent, how is asking those who, in living memory, lived through segregation (and might have known grandparents who were slaves) not cogent?

IMO, equating the two is perverse.

[cordex]

As I said before, if you, like Micro, believe that polygamy is just as acceptable as gay "marriage" then you have no logical flaw.

I have no problem with it being legal for any number of people to enter into whatever kind of mutually agreeable romantic, sexual or financial agreement they like and call it marriage if they so choose.

I do, however, have a problem with the government stepping into the situation and attempting to force business, churches, etc. to recognize such agreements.