Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

[Cow Poke]

Not according to the civil rights act and the equal opportunity employment act which is what I was referring to. That is what is used to determine discrimination cases such as between businesses and customers or employees.

The protected classes are:

Race.
Color.
Religion or creed.
National origin or ancestry.
Sex.
Age.
Physical or mental disability.
Veteran status.
Genetic information.
Citizenship.

stay tuned...

[Sparko]

stay tuned...

Yeah they will probably try to change it. But then what is to stop pedophiles from claiming to be a protected class because of their sexual orientation? Or people who want to sleep with dolphins? or cars?

[carpedm9587]

So is gay marriage.

Gay marriage is elective.

All marriage is elective. The reason for rejecting the customer is solely on the basis that two same-sex people are the ones engaging in the union - so it is about the sexual orientation, not the marriage. That is the point.

And it is a chosen lifestyle just like being a racist Nazi is. Homosexuality is not a protected class like race or creed or age or sex is. So in fact, a Nazi who's religion says that blacks are not human actually has MORE rights under the civil rights laws than a gay person does when it comes to forcing someone to bake a cake for them.

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation just like heterosexuality. So if you reverse it for a moment, you'll see the problem. Imagine that you went into a store to buy something, and you were told you could not because you are heterosexual. Would you find that an acceptable state of affairs?

[carpedm9587]

Ok - we are going to have a very hard time getting anywhere, because once again you are bringing assumptions about what my points are about that simply are not there.

It's not clear to me which points I introduced that were not explicitly or implicitly in your post.

First, I am married. I have 4 biological Children. I've been married almost 40 years. Do you suppose that marriage would have survived if I thought marriage was only about breeding?

Doubtful. But I can only respond to what you say. When your post is all about procreation, you leave the impression that you are defending heterosexual marriage and dismissing homosexual marriage because the former is open to procreation and the latter is not.

But if marriage was only about personal bonding, do you suppose that hetero-sexual marriage would be nearly universal and same-sex unions almost non-existent?

I did not say it was "only" about bonding - I said both are aspects of marriage. I will note, however, that bonding is preeminent. I know of many marriages without children. I know of no successful marriages without bonding/love.

I'll ask you what I asked Beagle: What is you explanation for that simple fact. Why is hetero-sexual marriage nearly universal across all cultures and same-sex unions (as a supported, sanctioned construct) are almost non-existent.

Jim

I have responded to this, somewhere. First, homosexuality has a significantly smaller incidence rate than heterosexuality. Depending on who's numbers you believe, homosexuals represent between 3 and 10% of the total population. So heterosexual marriage is naturally going to dominate. Homosexuality has also long been consider "immoral" by most of the major religions, and since people bring their religions into government roles, most laws in most countries have forbidden it. Even today, there are a large number of countries that still prohibit it. In the countries that have permitted it, the incidence is climbing to approach the distribution you would expect given the population reality.

If we go back to what made homosexuality immoral for so many, we have to point to the Abrahamic religions. Buddhism has no such prohibitions, IIRC. So why is it in the Abrahamic religions? All of the Abrahamic religions root to a common source: a nomadic tribe that arose in the ANE 3-4 millenia ago. As a small tribe, it is reasonable to think the cultural structure would emphasize procreation. So the early tribe allowed for multiple wives for a man, and had strong prohibitions against not only homosexuality, anything that could be interpreted as wasting a man's seed." Population is no longer an issue for these religions, but the prohibitions are deeply embedded in the holy books of all of these faiths.

Michel

[DesertBerean]

Not according to the civil rights act and the equal opportunity employment act which is what I was referring to. That is what is used to determine discrimination cases such as between businesses and customers or employees.

The protected classes are:

Race.
Color.
Religion or creed.
National origin or ancestry.
Sex.
Age.
Physical or mental disability.
Veteran status.
Genetic information.
Citizenship.

Ah. Thanks.

[seer]

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation just like heterosexuality. So if you reverse it for a moment, you'll see the problem. Imagine that you went into a store to buy something, and you were told you could not because you are heterosexual. Would you find that an acceptable state of affairs?

I would have no problem with it. Again, I have no right to the labor of that store owner. Of course he probably would go broke if he didn't serve straights...

[carpedm9587]

What you are saying is that I don't have a voice even though I'm increasingly pouring more and more of my hard earned money into the system.

What I am saying is that no one has the right to impose their religious beliefs on others.

And of course I have every right to affect the system according to my beliefs, religious or not. There is nothing inherent in secular beliefs that make them more correct or better than religious beliefs. Basically what you are telling me is that because the majority is accepting or not accepting of a specific behavior I need to shut up and eat it. Good thing Martin Luther King Jr didn't follow your advice.

No - but I am saying that you approaches for how you respond to it have limits. You can put your son in a private school. You can home school. You can more carefully vet the courses with your son before he signs up for them. You can also negotiate with the school to have your son absent on those days for "religious reasons." Indeed, I know many parents who have raised religious objections to content and the teachers have bent over backwards to help accommodate the student. What you can not do is force the curriculum to be what you want it to be because of your religious beliefs.

Yep, Constitutionally. Morally I would have a problem with it.

Then you and I don't see the Constitution in the same terms, and I would not want to live in a country where your view predominated. Anti-discrimination laws have a long history and have been repeatedly been upheld by the courts (all the way to SCOTUS) on Constitutional grounds.

As for the moral issue - that is just going to get us into a quagmire. Let's just say I find your moral code on this subject to be internally inconsistent.

[carpedm9587]

Not according to the civil rights act and the equal opportunity employment act which is what I was referring to. That is what is used to determine discrimination cases such as between businesses and customers or employees.

The protected classes are:

Race.
Color.
Religion or creed.
National origin or ancestry.
Sex.
Age.
Physical or mental disability.
Veteran status.
Genetic information.
Citizenship.

The basis for the SCOTUS decisions were the equal protection and due process clauses.

[Sparko]

All marriage is elective. The reason for rejecting the customer is solely on the basis that two same-sex people are the ones engaging in the union - so it is about the sexual orientation, not the marriage. That is the point.

We reject marriage between siblings, between adults and children, between multiple people, between people and animals.
And again, sexual orientation is not a protected class.

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation just like heterosexuality. So if you reverse it for a moment, you'll see the problem. Imagine that you went into a store to buy something, and you were told you could not because you are heterosexual. Would you find that an acceptable state of affairs?

I don't think you should be able to not sell someone something standard if they are gay. But when it comes to something that requires personal involvement to create, basically a piece of commissioned art, then they should be able to refuse anyone they wish if it violates their principals or if they simply don't want to do it. Try going to a portrait artist and demand they paint a picture of your cat. They can refuse if they want. You can't force them to paint your cat. No matter if you are black, white, gay, or a nazi. But you could walk into a store and nobody should be able to refuse to sell you a painting that is already made and sitting on the shelf.

[carpedm9587]

Yeah they will probably try to change it. But then what is to stop pedophiles from claiming to be a protected class because of their sexual orientation? Or people who want to sleep with dolphins? or cars?

These are oft-cited arguments based in FUD. Pedophiles are not a "sexual orientation." They target a protected class by virtue of their developmental stage, so they have no basis for claiming "protected status." As for dolphins...if you can catch one, knock yourself out.

I'd stay away from the cars, however, unless you are reasonably sure the tailpipe is cool...

[carpedm9587]

I would have no problem with it. Again, I have no right to the labor of that store owner. Of course he probably would go broke if he didn't serve straights...

No one is claiming a "right" to someone's labor. What they are claiming is that someone who publicly offers their labor cannot discriminate as to who can access that service on the basis of gender, race, etc., unless there is something about the service that is intrinsically linked to that group. So a gynecologist is not discriminating, because a man has no need for the service. A hairstylist that specializes in afros is not discriminating because white people (in general) cannot grow an afro.

The "right to labor" is a bit of a canard.

[seer]

What I am saying is that no one has the right to impose their religious beliefs on others.

But you have the right to impose your beliefs on others? And remember I was not asking for religion to be taught, but that you don't impose your immoral views on my child.

No - but I am saying that you approaches for how you respond to it have limits. You can put your son in a private school. You can home school. You can more carefully vet the courses with your son before he signs up for them. You can also negotiate with the school to have your son absent on those days for "religious reasons." Indeed, I know many parents who have raised religious objections to content and the teachers have bent over backwards to help accommodate the student. What you can not do is force the curriculum to be what you want it to be because of your religious beliefs.

Except in my case that was not an option. There is no reason in the world why homsexuality needs to be brought up in the first place, any more than bestiality.

Then you and I don't see the Constitution in the same terms, and I would not want to live in a country where your view predominated. Anti-discrimination laws have a long history and have been repeatedly been upheld by the courts (all the way to SCOTUS) on Constitutional grounds.

Show me where the Constitution it even suggests, that I as a business owner, has to by law, serve those I choose not to? Not what leftist courts invented but what the Constitution actually says. Where is that principle? I can show you the principle of free association. I will be waiting Carp...

As for the moral issue - that is just going to get us into a quagmire. Let's just say I find your moral code on this subject to be internally inconsistent.

Really? Exactly where is it inconsistent?

[seer]

No one is claiming a "right" to someone's labor. What they are claiming is that someone who publicly offers their labor cannot discriminate as to who can access that service on the basis of gender, race, etc., unless there is something about the service that is intrinsically linked to that group. So a gynecologist is not discriminating, because a man has no need for the service. A hairstylist that specializes in afros is not discriminating because white people (in general) cannot grow an afro.

The "right to labor" is a bit of a canard.

No it is not a canard Carp, it is a fact. That because I hang my shingle out I then can be forced, by law, to serve those I prefer not to. That is forced labor. No matter how you cut it, and that is not a Constitutional principle. It goes against a man's freedom to associate with whom he will, in business.

[carpedm9587]

We reject marriage between siblings,

Genetic harm...

between adults and children,

Already answered

between multiple people,

I see no reason for this.

between people and animals.

I see no reason for this either. It's but I don't see why the law has anything to say about it.

And again, sexual orientation is not a protected class.

Yet. However, the courts have turned to the equal protection and due process clauses to support their positions.

I don't think you should be able to not sell someone something standard if they are gay. But when it comes to something that requires personal involvement to create, basically a piece of commissioned art, then they should be able to refuse anyone they wish if it violates their principals or if they simply don't want to do it.

IMO, your delineation is arbitrary. If you sell a good or offer a service, you cannot discriminate.

Try going to a portrait artist and demand they paint a picture of your cat. They can refuse if they want. You can't force them to paint your cat. No matter if you are black, white, gay, or a nazi. But you could walk into a store and nobody should be able to refuse to sell you a painting that is already made and sitting on the shelf.

The question is what the artist does for work. An artist can refuse to paint a cat if they are refusing to paint cats for all people. They cannot only paint cats of white people and refuse to do it for black people. That is what I was saying about the cakes. Bake something else. But if you bake wedding cakes, you have to bake them for anyone that wants them. Likewise, if you paint cats, you have to paint them for anyone that wants them (barring capacity or other business-related issues).

[Cow Poke]

We reject marriage between siblings, between adults and children, between multiple people, between people and animals. ...

I see no reason for this either. It's but I don't see why the law has anything to say about it.

This one surprises me a little - that you don't see a need to protect animals from sexual abuse by humans.