Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes. A believe that his religious freedom trumps your need for a wedding cake. The dietary laws are far different than the list of sexual deviancy set out by God as abominations.
The issue is not whether or not the "vast majority" of people follow those rules or not. The "vast majority" of people in this country are not LGBTQQXYZ+++ either, yet the "vast majority" of Christians/Jews/Muslims who believe in biblical marriage are required by force of the state to abandon those strongly held beliefs for the sake of inconvenience of a couple based solely on their view that their relationship is entitled to legal protection.
Bakeries offer cakes, there are innumerable events that people engage bakers to make cakes for. By arguing about what kind of cake, you are avoiding the underlying question that was asked. Why can't you answer that question on it's face (based on the given facts) instead of deflecting?
I keep seeing variations of this. What does it mean?
It isn't only the couple in question who believe that their relationship is entitled to legal protection. In point of fact, their marriage is legally no different from the florist's, or your own. You want your relationship to have legal protection, don't you?
People who are mentally incompetent are not allowed to enter into contracts in order to protect them from being taken advantage of. They are unable to make an informed decision.
The same is true of minors. Eventually, most minors will become adults and then are free to enter into contracts as they choose.
Incestuous marriages I would guess were initially not allowed because of the high risk of deformity in offspring. Beyond that, familial relationships often begin when at least one party is an infant. If people view their family members as available for sexual relationships, does that not leave children at a considerable disadvantage? It does. Most victims of childhood sexual abuse are victimized by a family member. Do we really want to break down that cultural taboo, so that more children are sexually abused? Of course not.
Who determined that mentally incompetent individuals or minors are not eligible to enter into contracts? The same system that determined that individuals of the same sex are not eligible to enter into a contract for marriage? What makes one requirement wrong and the other two right? Society? Well, if society got one of the requirements wrong, who is to say that they didn't get other requirements wrong as well?
I don't want to break down any societal taboo, but there is a coalition of individuals who claim they have a guaranteed civil right to do so. What defense can there be to allowing for one group to break down a societal taboo and denying another equally vocal group from breaking down another societal taboo?
Who determines the morality of these taboos? On what basis? Culturally, and morally (see early sodomy laws) the US has deemed homosexuality a taboo, but a vocal minority has determined that it is not a cultural or moral taboo and should be embraces and treated equally by society. How can other vocal minorities be denied the same rights when they argue that societal taboos are based on ignorance or hatred and therefore must be overcome and embraced and treated equally by society?
The laws against incest and pedophilia and bestiality are just social/cultural constructs, likely based on the same reasoning as homosexuality. If those constructs no longer apply to homosexuality, you have no right to deny other relationships based on the culturally contrived arguments of minority or incapacity.
Nambla argues that pedophilia is a naturally occurring instinct that is inherent at birth and therefore should not be treated as a deviant behavior, but as a protected class of individuals that society has victimized due to ignorance and bigotry. Why should their arguments not have the same validity as arguments made by gays?
Who determines the moral equivalence or disparity of taboos if society was apparently so wrong about homosexuality and the basis for the cultural bias against homosexuality arises from the same place as the bias against pedophilia or bestiality or incest?
Age requirements have changed over time in the US. An argument has to be valid on its own merit. You cannot argue successfully that because gays can marry all other requirements must be changed. Sex between same sex adults is legal now, that does not mean you can now go have sex with a 5 year old.
If you want to go to extremes then your bringing in the Torah as rationale to ban same sex marriage you must also be pushing for your right to stone adulterers to death. That of course sounds silly but no sillier than your pedophile argument.
Arguments can be made that pedophiles are born with such desires and society holds a bias against ""intergenerational intimacy" because of ignorance and bigotry.
One of the founding activists of the gay movement went on to form NAMBLA and the bigoted and ignorant LBGT coalition shunned and cut all ties with NAMBLA when it was no longer politically beneficial to them.
If this was really all about marriage equality, then the LGBTQQ+++ coalition should stand for all people seeking societal approval of their relationships.
Who determined that mentally incompetent individuals or minors are not eligible to enter into contracts? The same system that determined that individuals of the same sex are not eligible to enter into a contract for marriage? What makes one requirement wrong and the other two right? Society? Well, if society got one of the requirements wrong, who is to say that they didn't get other requirements wrong as well?
I don't want to break down any societal taboo, but there is a coalition of individuals who claim they have a guaranteed civil right to do so. What defense can there be to allowing for one group to break down a societal taboo and denying another equally vocal group from breaking down another societal taboo?
Who determines the morality of these taboos? On what basis? Culturally, and morally (see early sodomy laws) the US has deemed homosexuality a taboo, but a vocal minority has determined that it is not a cultural or moral taboo and should be embraces and treated equally by society. How can other vocal minorities be denied the same rights when they argue that societal taboos are based on ignorance or hatred and therefore must be overcome and embraced and treated equally by society?
The laws against incest and pedophilia and bestiality are just social/cultural constructs, likely based on the same reasoning as homosexuality. If those constructs no longer apply to homosexuality, you have no right to deny other relationships based on the culturally contrived arguments of minority or incapacity.
Nambla argues that pedophilia is a naturally occurring instinct that is inherent at birth and therefore should not be treated as a deviant behavior, but as a protected class of individuals that society has victimized due to ignorance and bigotry. Why should their arguments not have the same validity as arguments made by gays?
Who determines the moral equivalence or disparity of taboos if society was apparently so wrong about homosexuality and the basis for the cultural bias against homosexuality arises from the same place as the bias against pedophilia or bestiality or incest?
Would you like to bring back the laws that made homosexual acts illegal? Would you be willing to arrest an imprisoned them? Would you like a return of slavery? Should the rights of women to vote be repealed
Society does change over time. The vast majority of your fellow anti gay group do eat pork and do not accept that those who work on the Sabbath should be stoned. Your immense dislikes of gays or lesbian is making you go deeper and deeper away from making a reasonable case for your point of view.
Arguments can be made that pedophiles are born with such desires and society holds a bias against ""intergenerational intimacy" because of ignorance and bigotry.
One of the founding activists of the gay movement went on to form NAMBLA and the bigoted and ignorant LBGT coalition shunned and cut all ties with NAMBLA when it was no longer politically beneficial to them.
If this was really all about marriage equality, then the LGBTQQ+++ coalition should stand for all people seeking societal approval of their relationships.
I see now why you hate gays, they don't support NAMBLA and you do.
Who determined that mentally incompetent individuals or minors are not eligible to enter into contracts? The same system that determined that individuals of the same sex are not eligible to enter into a contract for marriage? What makes one requirement wrong and the other two right? Society? Well, if society got one of the requirements wrong, who is to say that they didn't get other requirements wrong as well?
The restrictions on mentally incompetent individuals and minors is to protect them. The same is not true of gay marriage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by loriinwa
I don't want to break down any societal taboo, but there is a coalition of individuals who claim they have a guaranteed civil right to do so. What defense can there be to allowing for one group to break down a societal taboo and denying another equally vocal group from breaking down another societal taboo?
I think harm is a good yardstick. If breaking down a taboo harms someone, it's not a good idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by loriinwa
Who determines the morality of these taboos? On what basis? Culturally, and morally (see early sodomy laws) the US has deemed homosexuality a taboo, but a vocal minority has determined that it is not a cultural or moral taboo and should be embraces and treated equally by society. How can other vocal minorities be denied the same rights when they argue that societal taboos are based on ignorance or hatred and therefore must be overcome and embraced and treated equally by society?
I think individuals should determine morality, not government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by loriinwa
The laws against incest and pedophilia and bestiality are just social/cultural constructs, likely based on the same reasoning as homosexuality. If those constructs no longer apply to homosexuality, you have no right to deny other relationships based on the culturally contrived arguments of minority or incapacity.
Because incest and pedophilia involve children who cannot consent. Bestiality involves animals who cannot consent. Equating homosexual marriage, which involves consenting adults, to incest, pedophilia and/or bestiality is illogical. Equating marriage to a sex act is illogical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by loriinwa
Nambla argues that pedophilia is a naturally occurring instinct that is inherent at birth and therefore should not be treated as a deviant behavior, but as a protected class of individuals that society has victimized due to ignorance and bigotry. Why should their arguments not have the same validity as arguments made by gays?
Because Nambla involves children who cannot consent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by loriinwa
Who determines the moral equivalence or disparity of taboos if society was apparently so wrong about homosexuality and the basis for the cultural bias against homosexuality arises from the same place as the bias against pedophilia or bestiality or incest?
Individuals should decide for themselves what is moral.
Arguments can be made that pedophiles are born with such desires and society holds a bias against ""intergenerational intimacy" because of ignorance and bigotry.
It's irrelevant that they have a desire. Having a desire does not mean it's ok to force a sexual act on another person. Is anyone arguing that we should condone an adult male raping an adult female based on heterosexual marriage?
Quote:
Originally Posted by loriinwa
One of the founding activists of the gay movement went on to form NAMBLA and the bigoted and ignorant LBGT coalition shunned and cut all ties with NAMBLA when it was no longer politically beneficial to them.
That's because the LBGT coalition are not pedophiles who want to abuse children.
Quote:
Originally Posted by loriinwa
If this was really all about marriage equality, then the LGBTQQ+++ coalition should stand for all people seeking societal approval of their relationships.
Yes. A believe that his religious freedom trumps your need for a wedding cake. The dietary laws are far different than the list of sexual deviancy set out by God as abominations.
The issue is not whether or not the "vast majority" of people follow those rules or not. The "vast majority" of people in this country are not LGBTQQXYZ+++ either, yet the "vast majority" of Christians/Jews/Muslims who believe in biblical marriage are required by force of the state to abandon those strongly held beliefs for the sake of inconvenience of a couple based solely on their view that their relationship is entitled to legal protection.
Bakeries offer cakes, there are innumerable events that people engage bakers to make cakes for. By arguing about what kind of cake, you are avoiding the underlying question that was asked. Why can't you answer that question on it's face (based on the given facts) instead of deflecting?
The question HAS been answered - her "religious beliefs" are NOT an excuse for refusing service to a gay couple. Period paragraph.
The Bible is not an authoritative source. Not even for so-called Christians, who don't follow it, they pick and choose what they want to believe out of it. If they DID actually follow it, life would be a whole lot more brutal.
We would stone disobedient wives and children.
We would make war on our neighbors, following injunctions to kill all the men and enslave and rape all the young nubile women.
We would not mix threads of wool with threads of linen upon pain of death.
Women would still be chattel of their husbands, nor would be allowed to speak in church or to gain an education.
We would not eat pork, shellfish of any sort, camels (that's an easy one!) or rabbit, among other things. The one I find particularly confusing is the injunction not to eat any "fowl that crawl upon all fours". What the ???? Were the tribal elders on shrooms and hallucinating 4 legged ostriches the day they came up with that one?
We would not mix meat and dairy. So long to buttered rolls or sour cream on your potato with your steak.
We would kill a child who "curses" his or her father. One might suppose that this comes under section 1 above; however apparently disobedient children are so hated in the eyes of god that they warrant more than one death sentence. It's a good thing we don't allow people to impose this particular Biblical injunction, or we'd depopulate the entire Earth in nothing flat. No wonder the Bible emphasizes procreation to the extent that they do - you're going to have to regularly replace the children you've killed for disobedience, as well as the ones god made you eat because you defied him/her/it (Leviticus 26:27-30).
It goes on and on and on.
For those who say Leviticus and the entire Old Testament don't count - you are cherry picking. Cutting the entire Old Testament out actually cuts out the Ten Commandments - and the whole thing about gay-hating is one line in Leviticus. You can't have it both ways. Oh, except its RELIGION, and you (think) you can.
Well, you can't. You cannot impose your religious beliefs on the rest of us. If you want to believe gay people are going to hell, there's little I can do about it.
But if you want to ACT on that belief, there's a lot our society can do about it - and it has been, is being, and will continue to be done.
I cannot emphasize it enough. Your religious beliefs do not trump common decency. And hating people for being gay, or trying to refuse to serve them for being gay, is not a decent thing to do.
Fortunately for the rest of us, we don't have to rely on common decency to keep religious zealots in check. The law does that. Hence, fining the woman for getting on her religious high horse and refusing to sell flowers for a gay wedding.
Is that a clear enough answer for you?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
