Same Sex Marriage Thread - Part III

[BVS]

This is the first time in history the definition of marriage has been changed.

So you haven't read the Bible? Figures...

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

This is the first time in history the definition of marriage has been changed.

this is just wrong, sorry. in addition to the polygamy people have mentioned, interracial marriages used to be illegal in the states. so no, in recent decades, marriage has been redefined as between a man and woman of any race, not just a man and woman of the same race.

and regarding the bakery, i basically agree with what most have said: the bakery absolutely should legally be required to provide service to all clients. refusal to do so is discrimination, as the ruling judge said. i wouldn't want to give money to someone who i know disapproves of my marriage and who i had to legally force into baking my cake. this couple don't live in a small town. i'm sure this is more about proving a point of course. i just hope any negative publicity overrides any positive publicity.

 

[Galeongirl]

Wasn't marriage between old men and underage girls allowed at some point as well? So the definition must've changed as that is outlawed now.

 

[Irvine511]

Wasn't marriage between old men and underage girls allowed at some point as well? So the definition must've changed as that is outlawed now.

Loretta Lynn got married at 14.

Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old cousin.

he has been married 7 times.

 

[Galeongirl]

Wait what? It's not actually outlawed in the United States?

 

[Irvine511]

Wait what? It's not actually outlawed in the United States?

it is now. they changed the definition of marriage from what it was in the 1950s when grown men could marry children, despite the fact that this is true traditional marriage (when life was nasty, brutish, and short, as it has been for much of human history, got to get those girls pregnant ASAP so the species can survive).

age of consent varies from state to state, the youngest ages of consent are usually in the most conservative, religious states.

 

[Galeongirl]

Phew, lol that would've been a pretty big shock to me.

I think age of consent is either 16 or 18 here, but I don't think you're allowed to actually get married before 18. A sexual relationship between a person age 16 or over can be legal if the parents agree with it. THough if it's between a 16 and an 18 year old it usually isn't a problem. 16 and 60 though....

 

[PhilsFan]

Phew, lol that would've been a pretty big shock to me.

I think age of consent is either 16 or 18 here, but I don't think you're allowed to actually get married before 18. A sexual relationship between a person age 16 or over can be legal if the parents agree with it. THough if it's between a 16 and an 18 year old it usually isn't a problem. 16 and 60 though....

Our law in PA is, I believe, that the age of consent is 18 unless both parties are underage, in which case it is 16. Though if the person is 16 or 17 engaging with an adult (18+), I think it's a misdemeanor unless you're a teacher or priest (I believe the phrasing is "in a position of power").

 

[INDY500]

Again, Iron Horse, I ask you: give me a list of all the bad things that have happened since SSM became legal in Massachusetts 10 years ago.

Who said the earth was going to open up and swallow the population or whatever you expect to occur in ten years. But we could start with this; even though many people including yourself are sincere about SSM and the want for fairness in marriage, SSM is only one part of a larger agenda to the radical left. That agenda being making sex (gender) inconsequential and meaningless.

That is why any argument that men and women are different must be rejected despite its obviousness to the vast majority of the population. And that is why this is now the law in Massachusetts and California and will proceed after legalization of SSM in other states.

Transgender Access to Public School Bathrooms Now Required in MA by Commissioner - Massachusetts Family Institute

February 15, 2013
Massachusetts Commissioner of Education Mitchell Chester informed grade K-12 school principals that they must allow boys and girls of any age who self-identify as transgender to use the public school bathroom and locker room of their choosing—making it the first time in state history that boys would be allowed in girls bathrooms (and vice versa) at the student’s will.
The eleven page, single-spaced policy document, quietly implemented at the start of a three-day weekend and school vacation week, lays out a laundry list of far-reaching new rules related to ‘gender identity’ in public schools. Boys who ‘identify’ themselves as girls can now use the girls’ “restroom, locker room, and changing facility,” and vice versa. Principals are told to make it clear that students can use whatever restroom “corresponds to the student’s gender identity.” According to the document, “discomfort [ of the rest of the student body or from parents ] is not a reason to deny access to the transgender student.”

The new policy also impacts locker rooms and interscholastic athletics. All school teams will now essentially become coed, as students can play on whichever team they feel matches their gender identity. The policy even cites an example of a male student participating, as a girl, on an all-girls’ cheerleading squad.

Citing the specific language of the policy, Andrew Beckwith, attorney for Massachusetts Family Institute, warned that the definition of transgender “is extremely broad.” “If a male student tells his teacher he feels like a girl on the inside, the school has to treat him in every way as if he actually is a girl. School personnel may be forbidden from informing the parents of their child’s gender decisions, and students can even decide to be one gender at home and another at school.” Beckwith added that this requirement to ignore a basic truth of anatomy even extends to other students, as the policy states that referring to a transgendered student by their birth name or sex “should not be tolerated and can be grounds for student discipline.”

And of course who can forget this from Massachusetts two years ago:

“Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston,” Boston mayor Menino told the Boston Herald on Thursday. “You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against the population. We’re an open city, we’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion. That’s the Freedom Trail. That’s where it all started right here. And we’re not going to have a company, Chick-fil-A or whatever the hell the name is, on our Freedom Trail.”

Maybe you're cool with boys in girl's locker-rooms and totalitarian mayors "banning" national companies but some of us have yet to evolve on those issues. And they are a direct result of who is at the vanguard of the SSM movement.

 

[martha]

he has been married 7 sacred times.

Fixed.

 

[INDY500]

and regarding the bakery, I basically agree with what most have said: the bakery absolutely should legally be required to provide service to all clients. refusal to do so is discrimination, as the ruling judge said.

Reading the article would illuminate that he was not, and had not, discriminated against gays (he would gladly provide cakes for their birthdays or other celebrations) only their marriage cake was at issue because of his religious beliefs. Furthermore SSM is not even legal in Colorado.

And if you're so enamored with these types of laws should a baker who is Jewish be forced to provide cakes for a Nazi skinhead convention? Should clergy be required to perform SSM's if requested?

 

[PhilsFan]

Who said the earth was going to open up and swallow the population or whatever you expect to occur in ten years. But we could start with this; even though many people including yourself are sincere about SSM and the want for fairness in marriage, SSM is only one part of a larger agenda to the radical left. That agenda being making sex (gender) inconsequential and meaningless.

That is why any argument that men and women are different must be rejected despite its obviousness to the vast majority of the population. And that is why this is now the law in Massachusetts and California and will proceed after legalization of SSM in other states.

Maybe you're cool with boys in girl's locker-rooms and totalitarian mayors "banning" national companies but some of us have yet to evolve on those issues. And they are a direct result of who is at the vanguard of the SSM movement.

Oh my God. What are you even talking about?

This agenda is made up. Period. None of the rest of your post even remotely points to an agenda. You have no argument. At all.

Reading the article would illuminate that he was not, and had not, discriminated against gays (he would gladly provide cakes for their birthdays or other celebrations) only their marriage cake was at issue because of his religious beliefs. Furthermore SSM is not even legal in Colorado.

"He had not discriminated against gays, except for when he discriminated against gays."

And if you're so enamored with these types of laws should a baker who is Jewish be forced to provide cakes for a Nazi skinhead convention? Should clergy be required to perform SSM's if requested?

How is that the same thing? Nazism is a choice. Homosexuality is not. Jesus Christ.

These are two horrific posts when it comes to, you know, logic.

 

[ImOuttaControl]

How is that the same thing? Nazism is a choice. Homosexuality is not. Jesus Christ.

What about if a Jewish man opened a kosher restaurant and refused to serve pork or anything else unfit for consumption according to Jewish dietary laws? Bad business decision, yes, but he wants to live by his code of right and wrong. Should the government and/or a judge force him to serve it against his religious beliefs? Or should the patron that insists on eating pork just go across the road to the Famous Dave's order some delicious baby back ribs?

 

[PhilsFan]

What about if a Jewish man opened a kosher restaurant and refused to serve pork or anything else unfit for consumption according to Jewish dietary laws? Bad business decision, yes, but he wants to live by his code of right and wrong. Should the government and/or a judge force him to serve it against his religious beliefs? Or should the patron that insists on eating pork just go across the road to the Famous Dave's order some delicious baby back ribs?

What are you talking about? The government didn't force anyone to serve anything they don't already serve. The government is just saying you can't pick and choose your customers based on discrimination.

 

[ImOuttaControl]

What are you talking about? The government didn't force anyone to serve anything they don't already serve. The government is just saying you can't pick and choose your customers based on discrimination.

I know the 1st Amendment is a pretty big deal, and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution declares that in cases when federal and state law clash, the Constitution always is supreme. I have a feeling that this case will end up before the Supreme Court at some point.

 

[PhilsFan]

... Are you conceding that point and moving on to another one? I sincerely haven't a clue what you're on about.

 

[Irvine511]

Who said the earth was going to open up and swallow the population or whatever you expect to occur in ten years. But we could start with this; even though many people including yourself are sincere about SSM and the want for fairness in marriage, SSM is only one part of a larger agenda to the radical left. That agenda being making sex (gender) inconsequential and meaningless.

That is why any argument that men and women are different must be rejected despite its obviousness to the vast majority of the population. And that is why this is now the law in Massachusetts and California and will proceed after legalization of SSM in other states.

Transgender Access to Public School Bathrooms Now Required in MA by Commissioner - Massachusetts Family Institute


And of course who can forget this from Massachusetts two years ago:



Maybe you're cool with boys in girl's locker-rooms and totalitarian mayors "banning" national companies but some of us have yet to evolve on those issues. And they are a direct result of who is at the vanguard of the SSM movement.

well, at least you aren't blaming me for black poverty anymore.

but i'm confused -- do you think i'm transgendered?

 

[Irvine511]

Reading the article would illuminate that he was not, and had not, discriminated against gays (he would gladly provide cakes for their birthdays or other celebrations) only their marriage cake was at issue because of his religious beliefs. Furthermore SSM is not even legal in Colorado.

And if you're so enamored with these types of laws should a baker who is Jewish be forced to provide cakes for a Nazi skinhead convention? Should clergy be required to perform SSM's if requested?

What about if a Jewish man opened a kosher restaurant and refused to serve pork or anything else unfit for consumption according to Jewish dietary laws? Bad business decision, yes, but he wants to live by his code of right and wrong. Should the government and/or a judge force him to serve it against his religious beliefs? Or should the patron that insists on eating pork just go across the road to the Famous Dave's order some delicious baby back ribs?

so, for real: do you guys not understand how anti-discrimination laws work?

 

[Pearl]

What about if a Jewish man opened a kosher restaurant and refused to serve pork or anything else unfit for consumption according to Jewish dietary laws? Bad business decision, yes, but he wants to live by his code of right and wrong. Should the government and/or a judge force him to serve it against his religious beliefs? Or should the patron that insists on eating pork just go across the road to the Famous Dave's order some delicious baby back ribs?

The difference here is that the baker was refusing to make and sell food to one certain group. A Jewish man who opens a kosher restaurant is simply refusing to sell one certain food item to all groups. By what you're saying, anyone who opens a vegetarian restaurant is discriminating against meat eaters.

 

[Irvine511]

Reading the article would illuminate that he was not, and had not, discriminated against gays (he would gladly provide cakes for their birthdays or other celebrations) only their marriage cake was at issue because of his religious beliefs. Furthermore SSM is not even legal in Colorado.

And if you're so enamored with these types of laws should a baker who is Jewish be forced to provide cakes for a Nazi skinhead convention? Should clergy be required to perform SSM's if requested?

well, here's what the judge said about the Nazi comparison:

"Respondents argue that if they are compelled to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, then a black baker could not refuse to make a cake bearing a white-supremacist message for a member of the Aryan Nation; and an Islamic baker could not refuse to make a cake denigrating the Koran for the Westboro Baptist Church. However, neither of these fanciful hypothetical situations proves Respondents’ point. In both cases, it is the explicit, unmistakable, offensive message that the bakers are asked to put on the cake that gives rise to the bakers’ free speech right to refuse. That, however, is not the case here, where Respodnents refused to bake any cake for Complainants regardless of what was written on it or what it looked like. Respondents have no free speech right to refuse because they were only asked to bake a cake, not make a speech."

i will say that i think this is the first time in this thread that gays have been compared to Nazis. so good on you for that.

but let's take this wild, irresponsible comparison, only in the other direction.

should the baker be able to fire an employee for being gay? should a baker be able to beat his wife if she has an affair because the Bible tells him it's okay? is it okay for you to refuse to rent a hotel room to me and Memphis? do the religious get to pick and choose the laws they obey because they answer only to a higher power? should we acquit people who murder others engaging in deemed sinful behavior because the wages of sin are death and those sinners, by choosing to sin, have in effect chosen death, so the responsibility lies with the sinners?

it's happened.

talk about your slippery slopes.

in the public sphere everybody is equal before the law. that means, i have the right to service you volunteered to provide to the public at large.

the regulation of commerce is not a violation of free speech or religious expression.

just ask the people who wanted to sit at the Woolworth's lunch counter.

 

[Galeongirl]

Who said the earth was going to open up and swallow the population or whatever you expect to occur in ten years. But we could start with this; even though many people including yourself are sincere about SSM and the want for fairness in marriage, SSM is only one part of a larger agenda to the radical left. That agenda being making sex (gender) inconsequential and meaningless.

That is why any argument that men and women are different must be rejected despite its obviousness to the vast majority of the population. And that is why this is now the law in Massachusetts and California and will proceed after legalization of SSM in other states.

Transgender Access to Public School Bathrooms Now Required in MA by Commissioner - Massachusetts Family Institute


And of course who can forget this from Massachusetts two years ago:



Maybe you're cool with boys in girl's locker-rooms and totalitarian mayors "banning" national companies but some of us have yet to evolve on those issues. And they are a direct result of who is at the vanguard of the SSM movement.

Ehh, what does SSM have to do with transgender kids?


And SSM is not part of any specific political agenda or whatnot. It goes much further than political parties or taking sides, it's a matter of discrimination.

What about if a Jewish man opened a kosher restaurant and refused to serve pork or anything else unfit for consumption according to Jewish dietary laws? Bad business decision, yes, but he wants to live by his code of right and wrong. Should the government and/or a judge force him to serve it against his religious beliefs? Or should the patron that insists on eating pork just go across the road to the Famous Dave's order some delicious baby back ribs?

Eh, that's not discriminating anything, except the pigs maybe. I don't get the comparison. If a restaurant owner doesn't want to serve pork, he doesn't serve pork. He can serve whatever he wants, but he cannot discriminate between customers. If he doesn't want to serve black people or gays, he's discriminating against other human beings and therefore acting against the law. Imagine the outrage if a restaurant refused to serve black people..

 

[PhilsFan]

It's a narrative tool. Keep changing "civil rights" to "political agenda."

 

[LJT]

The transgender complaint is a bit off too. As far as I am aware female loos tend to be all cubicles and of those transgender people I know they are not exactly going to wander through a locker room naked but remain behind a curtain or a cubicle, unless you equate transgender people with sexual predators sneaking into toilets. Though at least in the UK, they are more likely to be the victim of a sexual assault than the rest of the general population.

How meaningful is your sex to anything, other than reproduction? Gender is different to your biological sex and the purpose of us on the left is not that it is meaningless or inconsequential, why else would transgender people get so rightfully upset at people treating them like shit for feeling like a different gender to their sex? Gender remains an important part of our identities hence the offence at those that belittle it.

Anyway as others have said this is bugger all to do with SSM and gender.

 

[digitize]

To play the devil's advocate a bit:

If you accept the premise that a family with a husband, wife, and kids is an ideal to be desired in America, as the best way of raising kids to inherit the country, SSM can fit into a wider narrative. Being pro-SSM is just one view of many that removes the aforementioned view of a family from its pedestal, from its position of being the core institution around which society should revolve. In a view where men and women are biologically assigned, generally speaking, somewhat different personality traits, and it is their duty to work together to unite those traits and raise a family (or their duty to themselves, or to God, to unite those traits as an ideal way to live even without children), acceptance of SSM, like normalization of being transgendered, can seem part of a wider narrative that makes what should be deemed sacred less so.

I don't agree with this, but, taking INDY's premises, I can see how there is a narrative here at work beyond that of human rights.

 

[anitram]

I don't agree with this, but, taking INDY's premises, I can see how there is a narrative here at work beyond that of human rights.

What I find interesting is the hypocrisy of actions coming out of that narrative. If you think the family is the ideal, why spend your time and legislative efforts to ban SSM (which seeks to create families, albeit not of the hetero variety) instead of banning divorce? Or banning single motherhood - should it be okay to be sexually active when not married, should fertility clinics treat single women, should sperm banks dispense sperm to single women, etc? Or criminalizing deadbeat dads?

The truth of the matter is that it is only SSM that brings out the sort of passion and vitriol from many of the fans of the "narrative", thus suggesting there is a lot more at play here than the relatively simple ideal which you described.

 

[Irvine511]

If you accept the premise that a family with a husband, wife, and kids is an ideal to be desired in America, as the best way of raising kids to inherit the country, SSM can fit into a wider narrative. Being pro-SSM is just one view of many that removes the aforementioned view of a family from its pedestal, from its position of being the core institution around which society should revolve. In a view where men and women are biologically assigned, generally speaking, somewhat different personality traits, and it is their duty to work together to unite those traits and raise a family (or their duty to themselves, or to God, to unite those traits as an ideal way to live even without children), acceptance of SSM, like normalization of being transgendered, can seem part of a wider narrative that makes what should be deemed sacred less so.

so we need to deliberately target gay people for discrimination in order to promote an ideal?

the denial of civil marriage rights to gay people accomplishes none of these goals.

 

[PhilsFan]

All this seems to go back to a fear that we're gonna put young boys in dresses or something. Same sex marriage, this "gender role" panic, transgender restroom controversies ... conservatives think the endgame is the feminizing of young boys. That's the fear.

 

[the iron horse]

This is part of what Irvine511 posted of the judge's ruling:
"Respondents have no free speech right to refuse because they were only asked to bake a cake, not make a speech."

I think the judge is wrong.

Is art considered free speech?

I have heard freedom of speech related to free expression of art all my life. All of us here have.

Indy500 posted that Mr. Phillips, the baker was ready to bake the couple cakes, muffins, cookies, or whatever.

It was when they specified what the cake was for and they wanted the plastic figures on top of the cake to be the same gender, that is when Phillips kindly told them that because of religious convictions he could not bake the cake.

Masterpiece Cakeshop is the name of his bakery and he has always considered his creations works of art. I think all of us here have also heard decorated edible food as works of art.

The couple instead of simply going up the street to another bakery(there are dozens in the city) were in a lawyer's office within an hour.

 

[BVS]

I think the judge is wrong.

You also thought the definition of marriage has never changed. Should we really trust your knowledge of the law?

 

[the iron horse]

You also thought the definition of marriage has never changed. Should we really trust your knowledge of the law?

I stand by my statement. I meant that the traditional view of marriage as being between persons of the opposite sex has been a long held understanding
throughout history.

I replied to your question.

Now could you reply to my question about art being a free expression of art and your thought on edible creative foods being an expression of art?

Thank you