Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

[seer]

They were concerned about equal Constitutional rights for all citizens.

Right, like the business owners right to serve whom he will, or not. There is nothing in the Constitution that suggests otherwise. If you think there is please reference it.

[Cow Poke]

They were concerned about equal Constitutional rights for all citizens.

Your torturing of the statutes does not go unnoticed.

[carpedm9587]

I think you want to be supreme emperor of the galaxy.

I prefer "your exaltedness"

You seem to want to limit it to "members of that religion", when the agency itself does not make such limitations.

Actually, I said nothing about "wanting" to limit it to anything. I was simply noting that, if an agency is following religious precepts, they have every right to do so if they are operating within the bounds of their religion. So I would have no objection to a catholic adoption agency helping catholic parents find babies of catholic birth mothers according to catholic moral norms. That is an intra-faith issue that government/law has no business intruding on, IMO.

There is an expression in religion known as 'of like faith and order', which can be pretty flexible. It doesn't mean, for example, that a Catholic organization would only adopt to members of the Catholic church, but may well include members of the catholic church, as well.

I'm familiar. I think you mistook my post to be a negative one. I was actually attempting to point to a context where I felt there is a validity to following this moral norm, even though I find the norm itself odious. Frankly, I would have to defend the choice of a faith to force black people to sit at the back of the church if that was part of their religious creed, though I would find that odious as well. What happens within a church is between the church membership, especially since church membership is a voluntary thing and it is protected by the first amendment. There are limits, of course. A church cannot practice child sacrifice within its doors, even if it IS part of their religion. But barring gross harm, religion is protected from government intrusion in this country.

[Cow Poke]

...Frankly, I would have to defend the choice of a faith to force black people to sit at the back of the church if that was part of their religious creed, though I would find that odious as well.

But that's not actually a biblical teaching - it's a perversion.

What happens within a church is between the church membership, especially since church membership is a voluntary thing and it is protected by the first amendment. There are limits, of course. A church cannot practice child sacrifice within its doors, even if it IS part of their religion. But barring gross harm, religion is protected from government intrusion in this country.

Yeah, I'm particularly cautious about limiting religious liberty because that sword cuts both ways.

[carpedm9587]

We are back where we started. You believe the denial of the cake is selective, you believe it is based on who the people are. I believe the denial is universal. They will not make a cake for that purpose for anyone.

To be more precise, I believe both. I believe the second part, "they will not make a cake for that purpose for anyone," is true and it is an attempt to get around the claim of prejudice/bigotry by baking the prejudice/bigotry into the "rule" and then claiming it applies to everyone. I have shown parallels multiple times. It's akin to claiming, "the rule 'blacks at the back of the bus, everyone else at the front' applies to everyone, so it's not racist."

What you are saying is that to refuse to make a cake for a same-sex marriage is to discriminate against gay people.

...if you are not refusing to make it for heterosexual couples.

That there is no freedom to chose what sort of cake will be made in that case. I disagree with that assessment. I believe they can or at least should be able to choose not to make such a cake. In your world, If I put a sign that says "I decorate cakes" in my shop window, then no matter who walks in the door, no matter what sort of decoration they request, I must create it for them.

No - I have not said that. I have said that if I put that sign up in my window, I cannot discriminate whom I provide the service to on the basis of membership in an immutable class (skin color, etc.).

In my world that is tyranny. I can decline a person my service if what they ask me to create is offensive to me.

Yes, I mostly agree with your exception, so I am not being tyrannical. But if your "offense" is rooted in bigotry/racism/prejudice based on membership in an immutable class, that is not permitted (or should not be). You cannot refuse it because the person is black. You cannot refuse it because the person is a woman. You cannot refuse it because the person is homosexual.

What that means is that I would support a cake shop's right to refuse to make a mixed race cake. But not because I think that is a good way to be. On the contrary, I would exercise my right not to give that shop my business from that day forward. That is how it should work. If I was about to marry a women of another race and the shop keeper said he didn't make mixed race wedding cakes, I'd move on. I would not sue him or her. But I would tell my friends what happened. And they and I would all vote with our feet and take our business elsewhere. That cake maker has the right to choose what they will make. And I and others like me have the right to choose who to give our business.

Jim

You would be free to make these choices, Jim. No one says you have to fight to be treated equally or to ensure others are treated equally. Many of us, however, do not feel the same way. We feel we have an obligation to push prejudice and bigotry out of our government, our marketplace, and our society. We will do so with our feet and our wallets. We will do so with our protests. We will find any tool of the legal system we can use to say, "not in our society." If it makes us fascists to say, "we will not tolerate bigotry/prejudice in our society anymore," then so be it. I'm sure we'll also be called bigots and prejudicial because we do not embrace bigoted and prejudicial people or concepts. But I think I want to note, if everyone had taken your approach during the civil rights era of the 1960s and 1970s, there would have been no civil rights marches, and there would have been no MLK. We would still have "white only" restaurants, "white only" bathrooms, and "white only" taxi services. Sometimes - a thing is just wrong. It needs to be fought against.

[carpedm9587]

Carp, the point is your use of "state of being." And the fact that it is ambiguous. Why is an innate inclination towards prejudice and racism any less a "state of being" than homosexual inclinations?

Wow. You are going to use an article that says that we are wired for "group think" to defend prejudice and bigotry? So, like Jim, I suppose you would then have to use that same argument to says we should be defending white supremacy? Seer, we have a body of evidence from biology and psychology that shows that sexual orientation has roots in both physiology and psychology. Further, the entire anti-gay thing simply makes no sense. What does it harm you if two men love each other and wish to be married? Who is being harmed when two women love one another. How is differentiating couples by what they have (or don't have) between their legs any different then differentiating them on the basis of the color of their skin?

The only difference I see is that you are willing to subjectively justify homosexual behavior because of their "state of being" while at the same time throwing the racist under the bus for his "state of being." In other words, again, one's "state of being" tells us nothing about the morality or immorality of the behaviors that follow.

And your last sentence is exactly my point. "State of being" cannot be used to claim something is "immoral" any more than it can be claimed to be "moral." Indeed, my claim from the outset has been that using "state of being" to make a moral claim is itself an immoral action. So it appears we agree...though I suspect that was not what you intended.

[carpedm9587]

But that's not actually a biblical teaching - it's a perversion.

It was a hypothetical, CP. It was not intended to suggest most churches practice racism. Many DO practice genderism (e.g., women cannot be priests in the catholic church). I find the position reprehensible, but I would defend the right of the Catholic church to make that decision internally. It is for the membership of that church to fight such issues out.

Yeah, I'm particularly cautious about limiting religious liberty because that sword cuts both ways.

I have no idea what this means...

[Cow Poke]

It was a hypothetical, CP. It was not intended to suggest most churches practice racism.

No need to get snarky - it's a fact that racism was part of Christianity, and was defended (wrongly, in my opinion) with the "Cain doctrine" or some such. (The Mormons, in particular, took this to a new level with their denigration of blacks)

Many DO practice genderism (e.g., women cannot be priests in the catholic church). I find the position reprehensible, but I would defend the right of the Catholic church to make that decision internally. It is for the membership of that church to fight such issues out.

We practice genderism in my house - when there's a noise in the middle of the night, I'm the one to get up to investigate.

[seer]

Wow. You are going to use an article that says that we are wired for "group think" to defend prejudice and bigotry? So, like Jim, I suppose you would then have to use that same argument to says we should be defending white supremacy? Seer, we have a body of evidence from biology and psychology that shows that sexual orientation has roots in both physiology and psychology. Further, the entire anti-gay thing simply makes no sense. What does it harm you if two men love each other and wish to be married? Who is being harmed when two women love one another. How is differentiating couples by what they have (or don't have) between their legs any different then differentiating them on the basis of the color of their skin?

Not the point Carp, it is not whether one finds more harm in white supremacy or gay marriage (that is a subjective determination). It is your appeal to the "state of being." There is more and more evidence that racist tendencies are in fact innate characteristics, and that "state of being" is a problem for you. In other words, "state of being" tells us nothing about the morality or immorality of the following acts based on those characteristics. We have to go somewhere else to decide that.

And your last sentence is exactly my point. "State of being" cannot be used to claim something is "immoral" any more than it can be claimed to be "moral." Indeed, my claim from the outset has been that using "state of being" to make a moral claim is itself an immoral action. So it appears we agree...though I suspect that was not what you intended.

Then why were you appealing to the whole "state of being" thing in the first place?

[carpedm9587]

No need to get snarky -

I'm sorry you received it that way. My post was not intended to be snarky, but to clarify that I was not accusing churches of racism. The catholic/woman thing would probably have been a better choice, in hindsight, because it actually exists.

it's a fact that racism was part of Christianity, and was defended (wrongly, in my opinion) with the "Cain doctrine" or some such. (The Mormons, in particular, took this to a new level with their denigration of blacks)

Most (all?) human organizations, and religions are not exempt, have done some combination of good and bad things. Even Mussolini was credited with making the trains run on time. And even Christianity, as you correctly note, has perpetuated some horrible things (as well as a lot of good). I hope, someday, all churches will see their position on homosexuals in the same light as they now see their position on racism: "wow, I cannot believe we did that - it was so wrong."

We practice genderism in my house - when there's a noise in the middle of the night, I'm the one to get up to investigate.

I cannot say we have a lot of it here. We don't have a lot of noises, so I don't get to be the "manly protector." For the rest, it depends on who has what skill. Turns out my wife sucks at laundry, and I suck (intentionally ) at dishes. Works out well...

[carpedm9587]

Not the point Carp, it is not whether one finds more harm in white supremacy or gay marriage (that is a subjective determination). It is your appeal to the "state of being." There is more and more evidence that racist tendencies are in fact innate characteristics, and that "state of being" is a problem for you. In other words, "state of being" tells us nothing about the morality or immorality of the following acts based on those characteristics. We have to go somewhere else to decide that.

Then why were you appealing to the whole "state of being" thing in the first place?

Seer, I have the distinct impression you are not aware that you have made my point for me. I have been arguing, from the outset, that differentiating people on the basis of their state of being is improper - is immoral. State of being tells us nothing about the morality or immorality of an act. We cannot say "that act is moral" because the people involved have state of being X or Y, but "that act is immoral" because the people involved have state of being X and X (or the reverse). So we cannot say "this sex is moral because both people are white, but that sex is immoral because one person is white and the other black." And we cannot say "this sex is moral because one person is a woman and one is a man, but that sex is immoral because both people are men." To make such judgments is itself an immoral act because we are trying to paint people into moral boxes on nothing other than their state of their being.

All along, I have been saying, "state of being" is not a basis for determining morality or immorality. And you just agreed with me.

There is an irony to that...

[seer]

Seer, I have the distinct impression you are not aware that you have made my point for me. I have been arguing, from the outset, that differentiating people on the basis of their state of being is improper - is immoral. State of being tells us nothing about the morality or immorality of an act. We cannot say "that act is moral" because the people involved have state of being X or Y, but "that act is immoral" because the people involved have state of being X and X (or the reverse). So we cannot say "this sex is moral because both people are white, but that sex is immoral because one person is white and the other black." And we cannot say "this sex is moral because one person is a woman and one is a man, but that sex is immoral because both people are men." To make such judgments is itself an immoral act because we are trying to paint people into moral boxes on nothing other than their state of their being.

But no one on my side was arguing that a "state of being" was in itself moral or immoral. We were arguing about actual behaviors. Pointing to a possible "state of being" adds nothing to the discussion. But let me ask you Carp, is a man's innate racist mindset immoral? Even if he never acts on those tendencies?

[oxmixmudd]

They were concerned about equal Constitutional rights for all citizens.

correct. Nowhere in the constitution does it say a business that creates specialty items must create them in whatever form the customer requires. As businessman, a person is allowed to refuse business if it is not in their skillset, if just if they don't want to make that particular thing. What they can't do is refuse to create something they would otherwise create on account of the person race, sex, religion, etc. And now the classic list has been extended to include sexual orientation. A debate over whether sexual orientation should be part of the list is academic at this point. It is part of the law.

However, the case we've been debating presents a situation where the right of refusal over a personal moral issue collides with 'sexual orientation'. And it presents a fundamentally different sort of problem than the issues associated with race, which is the most common alternate that has been used for comparison. The religious morality of Judeo Christian religions, which where primary in driving the moral ideals of embodied in the constitution, generally promote a lack of differentiation between peoples. Especially the Christian faith. Even in the issue of women's rights, the scripture teaches that "in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female". So in the end, most of the people in this nation recognize the general goodness, the fact it is the good and loving thing to do, to treat all people equally.

But this situation pits personal, sexual moral standards as defined by the moral dictates of those same Judeo-Chirsitian religion, where the explicit consequences of violation of the religious morals are in fact Hell itself, against the idea we should treat all people fairly and equally. So regardless of how we interpret those scriptures, in the end a large number of people believe that same-sex acts are in fact immoral. And same-sex marriage then represents a perversion of marriage, not merely an 'extension of a nice thing to same-sex people'. This is not as simple as recognizing the underlying moral principles that should override cultural prejudice as it was the case with racial discrimination. Anyone raised in a Christian environment was already primed to be able to accept those changes.

Not so this issue.

It is not too hard to find agreement on the issue of hostility towards same-sex peoples. Christians are to love everyone. We are to love even our direct enemies. We are NEVER to return evil for evil. So there is in fact no religious justification for a Christian to be hostile to anyone. Period. We can appeal easily to that.

But not so the issue of whether or not same-sex acts are moral. That is different. Completely different. That is an issue of personal sexual morality. And while many would not feel it their place to tell someone else what they can or can't do in that arena, they still believe it is immoral to act on same-sex attraction, and will not participate in or offer any operational support for, or participate in anything that attempts to say those acts are not immoral.

So this case pits personal morality against potential discrimination. And it is thus complicated. You and Carpe's attempts to simplify it are just that - lazy simplifications to make dealing with a complex problem easier. It's a cop out. It's just so much easier to denigrate and despise Christians that feel same-sex acts are evil than to realize it just isn't that simple. Often these are good people who would probably allow themselves to be grossly inconvenienced to help a same-sex (or any) person in real need. I have known so many of these people that can only be characterized by love. And who, in spite of their belief same-sex acts are wrong and opposition to same-sex marriage itself, would not hesitate for one second to help such a person out of a nasty problem.

But the moral issue still remains. And I come down on the side that when such a moral conflict exists, it is wrong to force the person thus conflicted to create something that directly violates their moral convictions. It is evil to do so.

And even if you believe it is wrong to believe same-sex acts are wrong - as someone said a few posts ago: two wrongs don't make a right. If a person forces another person to participate in something they feel is morally wrong (and creating a work of art to celebrate such a thing does exactly that) then that person is doing something evil.

More to the point. It would be wrong to extend laws against discrimination to the point they demand a person create artwork or specialty items that directly violate their moral convictions if it is their business to create artwork or specialty items that potentially could be used in that way.



Jim

[carpedm9587]

But no one on my side was arguing that a "state of being" was in itself moral or immoral. We were arguing about actual behaviors. Pointing to a possible "state of being" adds nothing to the discussion. But let me ask you Carp, is a man's innate racist mindset immoral? Even if he never acts on those tendencies?

Actually, you are and simply not acknowledging it. As I noted in my previous post. You are essentially saying "that act is immoral because the two people involved are of the same sex." There is no other basis for calling homosexual intimacy "immoral" other than the sex of the two people involved. That is "state of being" used to make a moral determination.

[carpedm9587]

correct. Nowhere in the constitution does it say a business that creates specialty items must create them in whatever form the customer requires. As businessman, a person is allowed to refuse business if it is not in their skillset, if just if they don't want to make that particular thing. What they can't do is refuse to create something they would otherwise create on account of the person race, sex, religion, etc. And now the classic list has been extended to include sexual orientation. A debate over whether sexual orientation should be part of the list is academic at this point. It is part of the law.

However, the case we've been debating presents a situation where the right of refusal over a personal moral issue collides with 'sexual orientation'. And it presents a fundamentally different sort of problem than the issues associated with race, which is the most common alternate that has been used for comparison. The religious morality of Judeo Christian religions, which where primary in driving the moral ideals of embodied in the constitution, generally promote a lack of differentiation between peoples. Especially the Christian faith. Even in the issue of women's rights, the scripture teaches that "in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female". So in the end, most of the people in this nation recognize the general goodness, the fact it is the good and loving thing to do, to treat all people equally.

But this situation pits personal, sexual moral standards as defined by the moral dictates of those same Judeo-Chirsitian religion, where the explicit consequences of violation of the religious morals are in fact Hell itself, against the idea we should treat all people fairly and equally. So regardless of how we interpret those scriptures, in the end a large number of people believe that same-sex acts are in fact immoral. And same-sex marriage then represents a perversion of marriage, not merely an 'extension of a nice thing to same-sex people'. This is not as simple as recognizing the underlying moral principles that should override cultural prejudice as it was the case with racial discrimination. Anyone raised in a Christian environment was already primed to be able to accept those changes.

Not so this issue.

It is not too hard to find agreement on the issue of hostility towards same-sex peoples. Christians are to love everyone. We are to love even our direct enemies. We are NEVER to return evil for evil. So there is in fact no religious justification for a Christian to be hostile to anyone. Period. We can appeal easily to that.

But not so the issue of whether or not same-sex acts are moral. That is different. Completely different. That is an issue of personal sexual morality. And while many would not feel it their place to tell someone else what they can or can't do in that arena, they still believe it is immoral to act on same-sex attraction, and will not participate in or offer any operational support for, or participate in anything that attempts to say those acts are not immoral.

So this case pits personal morality against potential discrimination. And it is thus complicated. You and Carpe's attempts to simplify it are just that - lazy simplifications to make dealing with a complex problem easier. It's a cop out. It's just so much easier to denigrate and despise Christians that feel same-sex acts are evil than to realize it just isn't that simple. Often these are good people who would probably allow themselves to be grossly inconvenienced to help a same-sex (or any) person in real need. I have known so many of these people that can only be characterized by love. And who, in spite of their belief same-sex acts are wrong and opposition to same-sex marriage itself, would not hesitate for one second to help such a person out of a nasty problem.

But the moral issue still remains. And I come down on the side that when such a moral conflict exists, it is wrong to force the person thus conflicted to create something that directly violates their moral convictions. It is evil to do so.

And even if you believe it is wrong to believe same-sex acts are wrong - as someone said a few posts ago: two wrongs don't make a right. If a person forces another person to participate in something they feel is morally wrong (and creating a work of art to celebrate such a thing does exactly that) then that person is doing something evil.

More to the point. It would be wrong to extend laws against discrimination to the point they demand a person create artwork or specialty items that directly violate their moral convictions if it is their business to create artwork or specialty items that potentially could be used in that way.

Jim

And the rest of us are telling you that this position is itself an immoral one because it defines "immorality" on the basis of "state of being." It is not even necessarily sexual orientation. ANY sex between two people who are of the same sex is automatically immoral for no other reason than they are the same sex.

We used to hear that sex between two black people was immoral too, and from a lot of churches as well. Then the churches that took this position found a way to say, "you know, we had that wrong." This one is tougher, because the anti-homosexual passages of the bible are far more explicit and less open to interpretation. So fundamentalists who believe the bible can be (or should be) interpreted "literally" are going to have a real hard time with this one.

We'll have to see what happens, ultimately. But religious view or no, those of us who see the injustice of the position/attitude will take a stand against it with every tool at our disposal. History tells us that society tends towards identifying, fighting, and isolating bigotry/prejudice, though it sometimes takes a while to make those wheels turn. I am hopeful we are just at the starting point of this turn.