Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by OriginalG1, Jul 11, 2015.

  1. OriginalG1

    OriginalG1 I need me some PIE!

    K'thir In General... is happy about the USA marriage laws.
    Baskitkase likes this.
  2. kagebunshn

    kagebunshn I need me some PIE!

    As is most of the rest of the country too. Not just us faeries.

    Its been 2 weeks already and nobody is marrying their dog, there is still no polygamy, and straight people still aren't being forced to get gay-married. Oh, and the rapture hasn't started.

    Not a good time to be a homophobic bakery owner, though.
  3. DarkJello

    DarkJello I need me some PIE!

    Are you talking about the "homophobic" bakery owners that served the gay couple for years, attended the wedding as invited guests, but were then sued because their religious belief is that only 1 man and 1 woman can be joined in marriage by God, so they did not want to make the cake??
  4. kagebunshn

    kagebunshn I need me some PIE!

    Darkjello, even though I think you are just trying to troll me, I'll bite.

    Get ur facts straight. They didn't go to the wedding. That was one of the running jokes talked about on the tv box on several news stations...'I don't believe in gay weddings!....Well, did they even invite you?' If they had, it would probably had made people much more sympathetic to their case, even though it would have actually destroyed their already weak legal defense from the start.

    I do love that you quote Martin Luther King in your sig though. Because SCOTUS directly compared their recent decision to Loving.

    All they needed to do to win their case was to show all the other kinds of 'sinners' they wouldn't sell baked goods to. It would have proven they had consistently practiced religious beliefs. Or they could have just pointed to the part of whatever religious text they followed and shown the judges the part that says 'Thou shalt not sell pastries to homosexuals.' Since they claimed to be faithful Christians, those things would be hard to prove because there are no actual references to gay people or homosexuals in any version of the Bible prior to the 1800s. Anyone making the claim there are has to quote the Old Testament, which was both explicitly intended to apply only to the Jews and also condemns people that eat shrimp and shave their facial hair, or wears cotton blend clothes.

    Maybe you want to tell me the story of Sodom and Gomorrah? My main takeaway from that story is that God tells a lie in it.
  5. DarkJello

    DarkJello I need me some PIE!


    There is more than one bakery being run out of business for "discrimination" against non-traditional marriage. "Discrimination" happens all the time. It is normal. I am saddened by the "sue first and sue often" culture that is growing like a cancer. A free market would resolve these matters better, IMO. Federalism > central gooberment.

    SCOTUS decision was outside the constitution. Feelings and such defined the majority. Judges should not rewrite the laws. Time will help us eval better. Just gots to wait.

    So you believe God exists, but he is a liar? Interesting.
  6. KPIC

    KPIC Devotee of the Blood Owl

    What was the lie?
  7. kagebunshn

    kagebunshn I need me some PIE!

    Yes, there are some bakeries, some flower shops, and some wedding photographers that want to pick and choose what kinds of couples they will sell their services to. I think that they should be allowed to do such things...all they need to do is prominently post the relevant religious text they are following, and spell out exactly which groups of people they do not wish to do business with. The free market only works if the customers are properly informed of who they are doing business with. The problem is these business owners want to pick and choose who they discriminate against(in other words, they just hate the gays). They are perfectly happy to take money from people who are divorced, or to the wedding of Catholics marrying non-catholics etc...they also don't want their other customers to know about it, because they know it will put them out of business. These particular businesses happen to be in areas where the population has agreed that certain kinds of discrimination are NOT normal, and have enacted legislation to make such actions illegal.

    I don't need to argue the Constitution to you...if the courts were not allowed to interpret the document, then black people would still only count as 3/5th of a person, and NO ONE would have the right to marry...most people think that idea is ludicrous....except apparently Mississippi. The only thing that actually matters is that there is now no longer any legal distinction between who can and can't form families based on what their genitals look like. Not in the USA, not anymore.

    I'll have to get back to you on the Lie. Apparently the text in my bible is not consistent with wikipedia, and the first few pages I looked at also had differing text and summaries. So I will have to dig a little deeper on that one. That is one of the problems when a book gets re-translated a thousand times.
  8. DarkJello

    DarkJello I need me some PIE!


    Why would they need to post the relevant religious text? Discriminating is a normal part of being alive, or of running a business. If the owner of a private business does not want to take the money of a particular person, that is her/his decision. If it is a poor decision, she/he will be punished economically by the free market. America used to have a free market. It worked just fine thank you. Now we have this super hampered, socialistic market. Crony capitalists love it. The rest of us are enduring the fail.


    "...they also don't want their other customers to know about it, because they know it will put them out of business."

    Free market will resolve these matters WITHOUT enriching politicians or corrupt lawyers. How? 1st Amendment. Less is more. Problem solved. Next?

    Blacks counting as 3/5ths of a person WEAKENED the political power of high slave owning states in the South. You think the South needed more power/influence?

    I advocated for civil unions, since my definition of marriage is traditional. Laws don't change the reality of marriage. Biology is real. Personally, I am glad that gay couples have legal protection in matters of employment, hospital care/decisions, taxes, property ownership, and probate. One cannot force another to be "good", so I believe that strategically all of this SCOTUS touchy feely subjectivity is another step in the wrong direction. Just like with the "tax is a tax but not a tax" Obamacare ruling by the SCOTUS. Cold, hard, logic should prevail. The oligarchy of 9 black robes is NOT going down a wise path, IMO.

    Finally, standing up for traditional marriage does NOT mean I hate gays. Some of my patients are gay, and coworkers, and family members, and neighbors. I have and will continue to declare my beliefs openly and honestly to anyone that asks, online or IRL. Most of the aforementioned gay folks I know are independents or republicans. They are fairly happy with the result, but wish it had occurred like Utah's solution. You don't often get things just how you want though. I am WAY more worried about the SCOTUS off in the weeds, than this 1 ruling. Big picture view.

  9. doubtofbuddha

    doubtofbuddha I need me some PIE!

    Is this really the right forum for this?
  10. darklord48

    darklord48 Forum Royalty

    I think it would have been better if the term Marriage was stricken from all government documents. To replace Marriage, government could use Coupled or something else. Each religion could decide what Marriage meant, and could perform ceremonies that had no impact on legal rights at all. You could choose to get married in any way allowed by the religion you chose. Meanwhile anyone that wanted the benefits allowed by the government would simply have to file the proper paperwork. This would apply to any two people that live together long enough, regardless of religion or religious ceremony. In my opinion, heterosexual couples, homosexual couples, long term roommates, siblings that live together, even single parent and adult child cohabiting long term could qualify.

    However I think there would have been a similar amount of uproar by religious groups saying that the government was persecuting them by removing traditional marriage from the legal definition.

    Where do you get the "traditional" definition of marriage? This is what The Bible has to say about it.

    DarkJello, Boozha and PurpleTop like this.
  11. darklord48

    darklord48 Forum Royalty

    @IMAGIRL would you split the off topic posts into a separate off topic thread?
    doubtofbuddha likes this.

    IMAGIRL Forum Royalty

  13. PurpleTop

    PurpleTop I need me some PIE!

    I agree with what @darklord48 said fullheartedly. Marriage in the eyes of religious sects is one thing, but at this point in history it also gives governmental benefits, but it is beyond silly to base said benefits on anything religious at all. All that does is create conflict. Religion needs to be something that in every way is separate than the government; the time for the church running the state is long behind us and we need to move forward in an ever advancing, technical world. If you are religious that's all good and fine, but don't you dare push that religion on me. In making laws based on religious beliefs, you are doing just that.
    Anima26 likes this.
  14. Ohmin

    Ohmin Forum Royalty

    They do not "need" to do anything of the sort. As a business owner, you are allowed to refuse to do business with anyone you do not wish to do business with (barring prior contracts and all that), and you do not need to justify or explain yourself (save to the customer should you later decide you want to do said business I suppose).

    There is absolutely no "need" legal or otherwise to state in advance whether or not you will do business with someone, particularly since it's entirely possible you can change your mind.

    Uh, yeah there are. Granted "Homosexual" isn't but that's also a recent terminology and the concept of "sexual orientation" didn't exist at the time of writing. There are plenty of references of men laying with men and so forth, both in the Old and the New Testaments.

    Certainly at least in the King James version, which was made in the 1600s at least, and considered still to be one of the definitive versions by many. Heck, it's present enough that someone thought to do this:

    (EDIT2: Sensor is no longer stupid! Note, I don't condone the tone of the article above, it was simply the first thing my search engine came up with, and I'm too lazy to go get another one.)

    Also of note, for what it's worth, it's not stated a sin for a man to love another man (if anything, that's encouraged, if not necessarily romantic love), just for them to have sex.

    Personally, I don't care. Everybody's got enough sins going on, sexual or otherwise. How a person would reconcile their sins with God (or not) is their own business so long as they don't try to injure people in the process. As a Christian, I would encourage people to try to get in touch with God (or have God get in touch with them, whatever), to repent their sins, etc., but I'm also not going to try and dictate how that relationship should look like for them, and I certainly won't try to tell God who should or should not be forgiven and for what (if anything). Likewise, beyond encouraging them to at least look at what the Bible says and such, I won't judge someone who follows another faith, short of them hurting people, which is most often a seperate matter.

    Also, I think that above verifying consent (to prevent fraud and all that) for the sake of medical rights (mostly visiting, but also determining procedure of health care in the absence of other family/ability to give consent) the State shouldn't have any involvement in Marriage, including tax breaks and other benefits. State involvement in Marriage was primarily for the sake of "anti-micegyny(sp?)" or whatever, to try and stave off inter-racial marriage... which I also don't care about and again believe the State should not be involved with. Heck, same for polygamy, provided all involved give informed and legal consent. It doesn't appeal to me but I don't care if others wish to pursue it.

    What I disagree with, is forcing your opinions and culture on others via rule of law, short of preventing them from harming innocents (I am not a fan of human sacrifice for example, or of religious or cultural practices which call for the death of a **** victim as still happens in some areas of the world, or many other such things) but even that is simply about preventing the actions themselves, not necessarily forcing them to change their minds about it. If someone doesn't want to bake a cake for your wedding, that's their prerogative, find another bakery. If a church or priest doesn't feel comfortable performing a ceremony for a given couple (regardless of reason) find a different place or priest. Being rejected and offended by that person(s) is not bringing you harm, and no one is stopping you from getting a cake or a priest (or a county judge or whatever) elsewhere.

    It's, generally speaking, okay to be offended. But if you try to make everyone conform to your way of thinking to avoid being offended, you become no different from those whom are offending you.

    I read a letter to the Editor in my local paper a few days back. The person was celebrating the taking down of the Confederate [Battle] Flag and the recent ruling on gay marriage and how those flags could be replaced by the Rainbow Flag. I understand their jubilation. Discussing this with a friend, we both came to the conclusion that you want to be tolerated, you should be tolerant of others. That an even greater sign of our society growing would be to have both flags flying together.

    But that's just my own view.

    On a related note, SCotUS protects our civil right to marriage, but not our human right to determine what if any medications we take as individuals? Then again the mainstay of the idea of Informed Consent regarding medication wasn't really put into place until after those rulings. Still, if anything bothers me about this, it is the inconsistency of SCotUS regarding how the 14th interacts with the 9th and 10th (or for that matter the 4th).

    But that is a topic for the other thread "On Politicians" I'd wager.
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2015
  15. Ohmin

    Ohmin Forum Royalty

    Seriously DOG, gay is not censored (good!) but ho-mo-sexuality still is? WHY???

    What is this insanity where the scientific term is considered somehow more demeaning or "dangerous" or whatever than the originally derogatory slang term?
    IMAGIRL likes this.
  16. kagebunshn

    kagebunshn I need me some PIE!

    It is always hard to figure out how to address people who think it is OK to have segregated lunch counters. It is illegal and has been for decades. It also happens to be morally repugnant.

    It wasn't all that long ago that the President of the USA's parents were not allowed to marry. Its a good thing times change. Then too, people tried to hide behind their religious beliefs. Love won then, as it did again recently.

    Businesses might want to refuse service to anyone, and they may even state their intent to do so. But they can't actually do it without violating certain laws.
  17. Ohmin

    Ohmin Forum Royalty


    That's not the same thing and you know it.

    It's only against the law if the reason for discrimination it is based on race or gender. You are free to refuse service to an individual for unspecified reasons. For example, they could refuse to provide service to that woman on the Planned Parenthood hidden camera video talking about harvesting and selling fetal organs (and I wouldn't blame them), but not because of her gender.

    While I couldn't say (observation points to several factors, including external ones), there are still many people who believe that sexual orientation is a choice rather than an inherent or ingrained physical trait such as race or (decreasingly so) gender. As such, they don't wish to support that "choice" as business owners. I don't care for such attitudes, as I said above I think people should deal with God (or not) as a personal matter of faith. But it's not my business. And I don't believe it's your business, or much of anyone else' business either. I also believe that as DarkPudding stated, that it can be self-correcting via social action (people not shopping at that store) without requiring legal action to force them to bake a cake for someone they don't want to.

    EDIT: To elaborate on whether it's choice or not, from my observation and general knowledge, sexual orientation is a combination of several factors:

    EDIT 2: This may push some boundaries on what is acceptable to post about even in off-topic. Please let me know if so, but I also believe it's important if we're going to discuss a topic like Marriage and sexuality in a larger sense. Otherwise, if the topic cannot be discussed properly, it's pointless to discuss it at all on this forum (which is perfectly understandable, it's your folks' forum and as I said, I'm not a fan of forcing a business to comply with my personal ideologies in most causes). Still, I'll at least put up a Spoiler nest.

    1. Genetics... there is a small number that are initially predisposed to a given orientation, though it is likely smaller than the current LGBT population.

    2. Internal choice.* One can choose to associate specific feelings and reactions with certain aspects of a person. For me personally, I've always been attracted to a woman's personality first and foremost, so while I might also find certain physical traits attractive by default, I could become attracted to an unattractive woman based on her personality, and because it's "her" I could get aroused by her body even if it's not "my type." This is on a micro-scale, but I'm certain it could be applied on a broader scale as well. If you associate certain things with "love" or "sex" you're more likely to think of such things when you see something similar in the future. Though personally I don't think anyone should try to force such an internal change on others via external social pressure.

    3. External chemicals. Various chemicals and drugs can have an affect on one's sexual appetites, especially those which disrupt natural hormone production and/or balance (and more especially pheromones and pheromone receptors). In truth, this is likely where the genetic predisposition comes in, with the genetic mutation causing a "natural" imbalance of hormones, rather than an "artificial" one via chemicals in the subjects environment. Of course, this can cause other sexual "deviation" in the subject aside from alternative gender attractions. Like with Internal Choice, I believe that intentionally trying to apply external chemicals to change someone like this against their will is wrong.

    4. General societal pressures. This is the least impactful on an individual scale of the 4, but it's still worth mentioning. Though minor in a general sense, it can impact someone's Internal Choice, and indirectly influence which External Chemicals they may be exposed to (by influencing products, production methods, and otherwise influencing the physical environments of people). A sort of "soft" but persistent impact on the environment certainly can have an impact on individuals.

    *It is also worth noting that I believe this and to an extent #4 to be the primary cause of those that find Bestiality or Necrophilia to be sexually stimulating. While it's possible that chemicals or mutations could mess up receptors to accept animal pheromones or something, I think it far, far more likely to predominantly if not completely be a psychological issue. Likewise with things like Scat or other such Fetish "deviations."
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2015
    Leadrz likes this.
  18. Boozha

    Boozha I need me some PIE!

    And vice versa the state is pushing onto religion by changing the definition of religiously connotated terms. So the change would benefit either side.
    Ohmin likes this.
  19. rodar

    rodar Well-Known Member

    To me marriage as a governmental institution only makes sense as a financial aid to people that take on the financial burden of children. Children are always a financial loss but they're also very necessary for (future) society as otherwise there is no society. Personally I don't agree with giving these benefits to anyone that hasn't have any children (including childless married hetero couples). If you don't have any children you can still make agreements/contracts with other adult person/people concerning heritage/wage distribution/pensions/house ownership etc. and if the law doesn't allow some of these things the law should be changed. Special tax exempts/rates etc. however should be only a right to parents. The sexual orientation of these parents gay/straigth/asexual would not be an issue.
    Boozha likes this.
  20. kagebunshn

    kagebunshn I need me some PIE!

    Rodar, I agree with you in principle. But the government can't even agree on what to name post offices right now. It isn't very practical to sue 50 different states with 1000 different lawsuits each to try and win each individual right separately. Not when there is a convenient vehicle right there that already includes them marriage.

    The whole reason the equality movement went for marriage in the first place was because of resource management. There are over 1000 rights an obligations attached to being married. Your proposal is to dissolve that institution, and make up a new one, then transfer all those rights and obligations to a way that will be applicable in all 50 states. The country has had Civil Unions and Domestic partnerships for decades in various places, and the only thing they all have in common is that no state treats them the same....even if they did, almost the entire rest of the world whole world uses the term what happens when you pull out your 'happy forever couple but not actually married' license in Canada?

    The childrearing question is a slippery slope argument...It is very delicate to craft laws that would target a couple based on whether or not they have children. On their face, most such laws are unconstitutional. I personally don't want to see our country go down the rabbit hole that China went down....restricting people's rights to breed or not ...a very scary notion.

Share This Page