Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

[Cow Poke]

Homosexual sex is no more or less a "perversion" than heterosexual sex.

In some situations, yes.

Love is love.

So, if I love my neighbor's wife, and I'm already married, that's one thing...

Sex is sex.

But if I have sex with my neighbor's wife, and I'm already married, that's totally different. They are most certainly NOT the same thing.

I'm going to ignore rest of your post because it's just crass.

[carpedm9587]

It is a behavior. It is a choice. It is not discriminating against a person if you don't want to participate in celebrating their behavior. If you don't like people who go around wearing leather and spanking each other you don't have to make a cake with whips and chains on it. Same principal. You can't refuse to sell them a cake but you don't have to decorate it for them.

You are trying to shoehorn discrimination where there is none. A baker doesn't have to make a cake celebrating adultery either if he doesn't want to, despite adultery being legal in all 50 states.

You may call it "a behavior" as much as you wish, it does not change the fact that it is both. Heterosexuality is an orientation. I think you know (assuming you are) that your internal inclination is to be attracted to members of the opposite sex. That inclination dictates who you engage with intimately, and who you are most likely to fall in love with (a woman). The same is true for a homosexual, except they are attracted to someone who is of the same sex. To say, "it's OK to be gay, just not to act gay" is unacceptable. You would not accept "it's OK to be heterosexual, just don't have sex with someone of the opposite sex." Homosexuals have no reason to accept this distinction either.

S&M is a preference about style of sex. It is not rooted in the nature of the other person - so the cases are not analogous.

Sparko - you keep choosing things that are solely rooted in what people choose and try to align them with something that is both a choice (the actions) and an orientation. The parallels simply don't work.

[Sparko]

All Nazis, yes. That is voluntary membership into an organization with a repugnant/immoral political message (pro-racism). Gays - no. That is involuntary membership in a class that has no repugnant/immoral; political message (except to those who use their religion as a basis for discrimination).

Again, Gay marriage is voluntary too. That is the point you missed. Until recently it was even outlawed just like incest is today. When it was outlawed it did not stop homosexuals from being homosexual. Nobody accused bakers of discriminating against gays. And now that it is legal, it is still not discrimination against being gay, just in creating artwork that celebrates a sin. Like I said, a Christian would also not make a cake celebrating adultery, robbing banks, rape, satanism, or beating your wife.

[carpedm9587]

Ya know, that's kinda really picking of nit, Carpe... it's like you want to run a kindergarten class. I don't recall anybody ever making such a (being polite here) 'unusual' limitation.

I find them tedious, CP. If you (or anyone else) cannot exchange without the childishness, then take it elsewhere. Now and then it's nice to have adult conversations, focusing on the issues and not the rest of what passes for "civil discourse" on TWeb. Generally, I just ignore them. Now and then, a "safe space" is nice.

[carpedm9587]

using your redefinition, then the bible must be outlawed because it teaches that homosexuality is a sin. Which if you tried it would be breaking the first amendment.

I don't outlaw books. Anyone can write a book about anything they want. As long as no one is being required to buy it, I don't see a problem.

[carpedm9587]

In some situations, yes.

Not in any situation that parallels heterosexual sex. Sex is not rendered moral or immoral by the sex of the participants.

So, if I love my neighbor's wife, and I'm already married, that's one thing...

But if I have sex with my neighbor's wife, and I'm already married, that's totally different. They are most certainly NOT the same thing.

The morality in that situation arises from the breach of trust, not from the sex itself. If both couples, for example were in an open marriage and agreed that this was the type of exchange they want, there is no moral problem. If I have promised fidelity and then I am sneaking around to have sex with others, there is a breach of trust.

I'm going to ignore rest of your post because it's just crass.

Apparently to you.

[Cow Poke]

I don't outlaw books. Anyone can write a book about anything they want. As long as no one is being required to buy it, I don't see a problem.

Pastors preaching that homosexuality is a sin - should they be fined? Regulated? Caused to forfeit their Church's tax exempt status?

[carpedm9587]

Again, Gay marriage is voluntary too. That is the point you missed. Until recently it was even outlawed just like incest is today. When it was outlawed it did not stop homosexuals from being homosexual. Nobody accused bakers of discriminating against gays. And now that it is legal, it is still not discrimination against being gay, just in creating artwork that celebrates a sin. Like I said, a Christian would also not make a cake celebrating adultery, robbing banks, rape, satanism, or beating your wife.

All marriage is voluntary. I have already addressed this. The reason the cake is being rejected is not "because you're getting married." It is "because you two people are the same sex and you're getting married." The first part of that is the problem. The rejection is not about marriage - it's about same-sex couples marrying.

[Sparko]

You may call it "a behavior" as much as you wish, it does not change the fact that it is both. Heterosexuality is an orientation. I think you know (assuming you are) that your internal inclination is to be attracted to members of the opposite sex. That inclination dictates who you engage with intimately, and who you are most likely to fall in love with (a woman). The same is true for a homosexual, except they are attracted to someone who is of the same sex. To say, "it's OK to be gay, just not to act gay" is unacceptable. You would not accept "it's OK to be heterosexual, just don't have sex with someone of the opposite sex." Homosexuals have no reason to accept this distinction either.

S&M is a preference about style of sex. It is not rooted in the nature of the other person - so the cases are not analogous.

Sparko - you keep choosing things that are solely rooted in what people choose and try to align them with something that is both a choice (the actions) and an orientation. The parallels simply don't work.

We have people who are gay who choose not to have gay sex or gay marriage, so it is a choice and a behavior as much as any sexual behavior or marriage is. If it were not then you would not be able to arrest people for something like rape because they could just argue that they could not help themselves. We also have people who are gay who choose to live a heterosexual lifestyle, get married and have children. We have someone like that here on tweb.

And if you want to argue that just having a specific orientation makes it somehow "OK" and it is more than just a choice and behavior, then you have to accept pedophilia as being OK too.

S&M is a behavioral choice. So is homosexuality. The examples are equivalent no matter how much you want to nitpick them apart.

[Sparko]

I don't outlaw books. Anyone can write a book about anything they want. As long as no one is being required to buy it, I don't see a problem.

OK then then Christianity must be outlawed because it reads the bible that teaches that homosexuality is a sin. Same result: you would be breaking the first amendment using your redefinition.

[carpedm9587]

Pastors preaching that homosexuality is a sin - should they be fined? Regulated? Caused to forfeit their Church's tax exempt status?

What a church does behind its own doors is their business. A church can bar women, black people, gay people, etc. Freedom of religion provides for that. I would find it repugnant if they did any of those things, but our country says, "you may practice your religion freely." Note that this has limits to. If your religion believes in human sacrifice, then society (in the form of the government) is going to step in and say "no." But many immoral positions are taken and practiced by many churches and are covered by both freedom of religion and freedom of speech (e.g., Westboro Baptist).

Personally, however, I do not think ANY church should have tax exempt status. It is too wide open a door for anyone to create any kind of religion and dodge taxes, which is happening all over the place. The basis for tax exemption should be whether or not the organization operates for a profit.

[Cow Poke]

What a church does behind its own doors is their business.

Not exactly, as we've seen in our own area.

[carpedm9587]

We have people who are gay who choose not to have gay sex or gay marriage, so it is a choice and a behavior as much as any sexual behavior or marriage is.

Anyone can chooose NOT to have sex, Sparko. That doesn't say anything.

If it were not then you would not be able to arrest people for something like rape because they could just argue that they could not help themselves. We also have people who are gay who choose to live a heterosexual lifestyle, get married and have children. We have someone like that here on tweb.

Rape is immoral because of its forced nature. Someone who "cannot help themselves" in this context would be classified as having a mental problem and might be legally innocent of rape, but would be incarcerated for the protection of the society.

And if you want to argue that just having a specific orientation makes it somehow "OK" and it is more than just a choice and behavior, then you have to accept pedophilia as being OK too.

No - I don't - because pedophilia involves children - so it is also a form of rape.

S&M is a behavioral choice. So is homosexuality. The examples are equivalent no matter how much you want to nitpick them apart.

There is no evidence that S&M is a "sexual orientation." It is nothing more than a sexual preference, akin to liking one position or one form of sexual exchange over another. Homosexuality is a demonstrated sexual orientation - like heterosexuality. Both types of people can also makes choices about action. So the point is homosexuality is not ONLY about action. It is also about sexual orientation. S&M is ONLY about action.

[carpedm9587]

OK then then Christianity must be outlawed because it reads the bible that teaches that homosexuality is a sin. Same result: you would be breaking the first amendment using your redefinition.

Sparko, you're not making any sense. No one is "outlawed" for reading a book. You're not making any more sense here than you did in the other thread discussing polling accuracy.

[Sparko]

All marriage is voluntary. I have already addressed this. The reason the cake is being rejected is not "because you're getting married." It is "because you two people are the same sex and you're getting married." The first part of that is the problem. The rejection is not about marriage - it's about same-sex couples marrying.

Why do you keep repeating this? That is false. The baker clearly did not refuse the customers because of their being gay. He offered to sell them the cake and materials. He just refused to create the decoration for them because he disagrees with the message of gay marriage because of his religious beliefs. He also said he would not have any problem making them any other baked goods like a birthday cake.