SCOTUS & gay wedding cakes

[Cow Poke]

I'm sorry you don't like the facts I've simply laid out Carpe. But All I've done is discuss the very real differences between a M/F marriage and a M/M or F/F marriage. These differences are real. They exist. And they can't be white-washed away by wishful thinking that it's 'all the same'. It isn't all the same. It never has been and likely never will be.

Jim

And, with that.....

WHEREAS it appears that we all seem to be repeating the same things over and over; and

WHEREAS everybody has staked out their claims and will obviously not be budging; and

WHEREAS the case keeps getting skewed as a case of "who the customer is" in spite of the facts of the case which center on the cake artist's deeply held religious beliefs and artistic license; and

WHEREAS those arguing this is about bigotry have every right to be wrong; and

WHEREAS I have other things to do; and

WHEREAS this isn't accomplishing anything constructive;

Therefore, be it RESOLVED that hereby disengages, leaving it up to you kids to slog on; and

Be it further RESLOVED that is unsubscribing to this thread.

I'm outta here, folks! Have a fantastic day!!!

[Sparko]

You denounce as bigotry/prejudice a practice based on genetics in one context, and accept it in another.

where did I do that? I am saying that he is not discriminating against anyone for their genetics.

So why do you keep responding?

I see you have moved back to the Cuisenart method of post chopping. Please stop doing that.

I would expect you to do so if my moral framework were not aligned with yours. That's how morals work.

is it? Morals work by being imposed upon people who disagree with them? So Christians are supposed to force our views upon you? Is that how morals work, by intolerance? Good to know.

Would you stand for it? I seriously doubt it.

Of course I would.

Complete BS. You would be screaming intolerance and fascism, etc.

I might now agree with you - but I would listen to your argument, as I have done here. Then I would assess my own framework to see if it needs adjusting and would adjust it if your argument was compelling, and not adjust it if your argument was not.

That is not me imposing my morals on you, That is you listening to me and changing your mind. Completely different. You want to impose your morality on the world while at the same time claiming morals are just relative preferences. You are completely inconsistent.

Yet you want to impose your morality on the baker and insist that YOUR moral views are what counts.

That's what everyone does. The baker wants to impose his moral framework. You want to impose yours. The "Christian church" wants to impose theirs. The Nazis want to impose theirs. That's how morality works.

Not everyone here is claiming to be a moral relativist like you are, though, are they?

I'm completely fine with him refusing to make ANY cake - so long as that refusal is not made differently on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, etc. of the client.

You said you supported him not making any cakes that were immoral, yet you refuse to let him decide what is moral or immoral for himself, while expecting to be able to determine morality for yourself. Relative morality seems to be fine as long as everyone else's matches yours, but when it doesn't then you seem to expect everyone to conform to your view instead of their own morally relative view. And you spend an inordinate amount of time trying to convince us that YOUR morality is "right" while claiming there is no such thing as "right" and "wrong"

Such speculations are pointless. I'll deny. You'll insist. I cannot prove to you what I would or would not do, and you cannot prove I would or would not do it. It's pointless speculation.

Not pointless or speculation. We can see you reacting right now, insisting that your view is the correct one when anything doesn't fit your idea of right and wrong. You believe in objective morality all right, you simply think that YOUR morality is the objective one.

Nope.

But I Do think you don't actually understand what moral relativity/subjectivism is all about.

Oh I don't know. Let's take a vote. Anyone here think I don't know what moral relativity is about? How about those who think Carpe doesn't?
Or at least is a complete hypocrite.

[Sparko]

I didn't. You were the one asking about Halloween cakes.

Sparko - your arguments are kind of descending into...well...absurdity.

Are you really that clueless or is this just another one of the times you want to play dumb?

Both cakes represent EVENTS not people.

He doesn't just refuse halloween cakes for witches or satanists.
He refuses to make cakes for halloween for anyone. I bet you could even get him to make a big pumpkin cake to celebrate harvest. But not Halloween.
He refuses to make cakes for gay weddings for anyone. Not just gay couples but anyone. We could send CP into his shop and ask for a cake for a gay wedding and he would refuse.

[carpedm9587]

First of all - thanks for responding. I'll respond to the various observations you've made point by point.

I said in my first post on the issue of limiting the of cakes it would be a compromise for this specific baker. He would have to be willing to sell a cake with non-specific symbology to a customer for a same-sex wedding. But I think that is what he actually did. He was refusing to make them a specialty cake. And although I think it ridiculous to force a fellow to make a specialty item for any one about anything, you haven't yet caught on to the problems that would create. In this case specifically, to only way that colorado could be fair would be to force the other bakers to make the hate filled cakes or to let this baker refuse to make the same-sex specialty cake.

No - and for all of the reasons I've already listed, so I'm not going to waste time listing them again. See my previous posts.

No we do not agree that discrimination is happening. And you should be smart enough to realize that given your claimed math background. Arguing that M/F marriages are fundamentally different from M/M or F/F marriages is orthogonal to whether or not there is discrimination happening in this case.

That is the heart of our disagreement then. When you state that we have 3 types of marriage: MM, MF, and FF, and it is OK to exclude two of them from having access to basic services on no other basis than the sex of the participants, discrimination is happening. I've outlined this several times and shown how the position is inconsistent. If it is OK to assign moral value on the basis of genetic identity, then no basis remains for saying "it is immoral for a black man to marry a white woman." That too is morality determined by genetic identity. You cannot do it in the one and reject it in the other. It is inconsistent.

I am not arguing 'It has always been this way'.

Jim, you statement was: "As I have said multiple time - marriage - historically - is a societal construct whose primary purpose is to provide a context in which to create and raise children." When you insert, and emphasize with en-dashes - the term "historically," the interpretation is "because we've always done it this way." If that is not what you intended, I accept that. I assume you can understand my confusion.

I am saying M/F unions NATURALLY produce children, and that a society - to be successful - has to provide cultural supports for families if children are to be raised to be productive members of the society/civilization. This is the way things ARE. This is what IS. The types of cultural supports that are created vary a good bit culture to culture. But the commitment of marriage makes the children the responsibility of the parents and encourages both parents to raise the children properly and in a way that is productive to the society.

M/F couples can produce children without any other intervention. There is no question about this. That it is relevant is in question. Couples who cannot "naturally" have children still marry. Couples who cannot have children adopt. Society can provide cultural support for all of these families. Nothing you are saying here in any way obviates same-sex couples or families headed by same-sex couples.

They are unnatural in the sense that sexual pleasure and sexual responses encourage sexual unions and thus create more members of the species. Gratifying sexual urges between two men or two women will not produce children.

Again - you are assuming (and have no shown) that sex is only about procreation. Sex with my wife is not "unnatural" because we can no longer reproduce. Sex between couples that does not result in pregnancy is not "unnatural." You are making statements without substantiation, Jim. Sex remains perfectly natural, even when there is no possibility for procreation. Indeed, there are many sex acts a couple can engage in that have zero chance of procreation. None of them is "unnatural" except that you seem to want to arbitrarily define them as such.

No - it is not a tangent. For a child to know who they are they will often need to know who their natural parents are. It helps them understand why they are who they are. It happens naturally in a M/F marriage where the marriage partners are the physical parents.

No. You're simply wrong, Jim. Who we are genetically is certainly part of "who we are." Trust me, I know. We could have used more information about the genetic heritage of our children as we struggled to deal with medical issues. But genetics is not all that we are. Nature and nurture, remember? Genetics is nature. My wife and I are nurture. Trust me, although children care about the nature part, the nurture part dominates their lives. You seem to want to place all of the emphasis on the former, and ignore the latter.

That is nice. If they didn't know who their biological parents were, they would want to know. And part of understanding who they are requires they know who their biological parents are. Your reply doesn't negate that fact.

At no point did I suggest it did. I simply reject your implication that this aspect dominates, to the exclusion of all else. You seem to want to take this route in order to dismiss any form of parenting except parenting by so-called "natural" biological parents. Unfortunately, your attempt to use this approach to dismiss gay couples likewise dismisses all adoptive parents.

Your refusal to acknowledge the point does not mean it fails logically. You have not shown any failure or inaccuracy to this point in anything I've said. You've just said you don't accept the argument as valid. Anyone one can say "That argument is not valid". You would need to actually mount a counter argument to show what is wrong with the points I've made for your claim of failure to be supported.

Jim - nature is replete with examples of homosexuality. An appeal to "nature" simply fails on that reality alone. It also fails when you try to label any parenting relationship that is not about the biological parents as "unnatural." I think I can safely speak for adoptive parents everywhere - your statements are pretty divorced from reality. If I were the kind of person who was insulted easily, I'd be insulted. You dismiss adoptive parents with a flip of the hand and little thought.

I have witnessed many adopted children of my friends go on the search to know who their physical father and mother are. You can't dismiss the need to know who we are genetically. Your children have that directly. Many do not. Your offense however at what is simply a real and acknowledge need of adopted children is misplaced. It simply is. You've met that need with your children - which is great. But when a child is adopted and has no understanding of who their parents were, they often develop an almost overwhelming urge to understand who they are/where. This is simply a fact.

No one is questioning that children want to know everything about themselves - including their genetic heritage. Since that genetic heritage is also important for medical issues, it's to be encouraged. What you have not done, Jim, is establish why this reality in any way eliminates gay couples. Your argument appears to go down a path that would make adoption by ANY couple equally immoral. I would reject that assertion as unfounded.

I'm sorry you don't like the facts I've simply laid out Carpe. But All I've done is discuss the very real differences between a M/F marriage and a M/M or F/F marriage. These differences are real. They exist. And they can't be white-washed away by wishful thinking that it's 'all the same'. It isn't all the same. It never has been and likely never will be.

Jim

Jim - what you've done is make some fairly obvious assertions (kids want to know their genetic heritage), and then somehow you seem to think you've made a case against same-sex marriage. I'm not seeing an argument here.

Yes - kids want to know their genetic heritage
Yes - who gave birth to a child is important in many respects.

So how do you go from that to "same-sex marriage is immoral?"

[carpedm9587]

you had no trouble in Oxmix's analogy, did you?

I cannot say I understand what this refers to.

Of course they can be separated. One is the people, the other is the thing the people are doing. You can support your cousin, but not that he is robbing banks. See? easy.

And the heterosexual couple are also "getting married" and "having sex." Since we have the exact same actions being done by two different groups, the only difference is the groups themselves. See?

Just pointing out the failure of your analogy. You want to force it to be about "genetics" and the people when it is clearly about the event.

I have shown where this fails multiple times. I'll refer you to those posts.

he won't make divorce cakes either.

And if he won't make divorce cakes for all people - no problem.

Or halloween cakes,

And if he won't make halloween cakes for all people - no problem.

or anti-american cakes.

And if he won't make anti-american cakes for all people - no problem.

This fact is what convinced the supreme court that he was NOT discriminating against the people, but was in fact holding to his religious principals.

The court was fairly clear that its ruling was about the blatant disrespect and discrimination the Colorado Civil Rights group was showing. After looking at the facts, I agree with them. That doesn't change the underlying issue, which the court did NOT rule on, and explicitly said so.

Who are you to say differently?

Just me...

[carpedm9587]

see here you want to force it to be about "gay couples" so you try to say "it's just a wedding cake and he makes wedding cakes for other people, so it is discrimination" - yet when we talked about halloween cakes you didn't say "well he makes cakes for other holidays so he is a bigot for not making halloween cakes"

Why on earth would anyone expect him to make a cake for all holidays if he makes one for Halloween? Choose your business - provide it equally for all people - no problem. If you want to make April Fool cakes and not Memorial Day cakes - no problem - as long as you do it equally for all people.

The event is the distinction in both cases. Yet you refuse to acknowledge it.

Since it's not about the event...


ETA: Look, Sparko...the event is "a wedding." You want to make it "a gay wedding" so you can say "we're not discriminating, because we won't do "a gay wedding" for anyone. The discrimination happened when you put the word "gay" or "same-sex" before "wedding" and then used it as an excuse not to provide service. That makes the discrimination based solely on the sex of the two people marrying.

[carpedm9587]

And, with that.....

WHEREAS it appears that we all seem to be repeating the same things over and over; and

WHEREAS everybody has staked out their claims and will obviously not be budging; and

WHEREAS the case keeps getting skewed as a case of "who the customer is" in spite of the facts of the case which center on the cake artist's deeply held religious beliefs and artistic license; and

WHEREAS those arguing this is about bigotry have every right to be wrong; and

WHEREAS I have other things to do; and

WHEREAS this isn't accomplishing anything constructive;

Therefore, be it RESOLVED that hereby disengages, leaving it up to you kids to slog on; and

Be it further RESLOVED that is unsubscribing to this thread.

I'm outta here, folks! Have a fantastic day!!!

You do know most people regret such statements, right...?

[JimL]

you had no trouble in Oxmix's analogy, did you? Of course they can be separated. One is the people, the other is the thing the people are doing. You can support your cousin, but not that he is robbing banks. See? easy.


Just pointing out the failure of your analogy. You want to force it to be about "genetics" and the people when it is clearly about the event.

he won't make divorce cakes either. Or halloween cakes, or anti-american cakes. This fact is what convinced the supreme court that he was NOT discriminating against the people, but was in fact holding to his religious principals. Who are you to say differently?

It's fine if he chooses not to make divorce cakes or halloween cakes Sparko, BECAUSE IT ISN'T ABOUT THE EVENT. But if he did choose to make divorce cakes or halloween cakes he would have to sell them to everyone alike so as not to discriminate against the people taking part in the event, whomever they may be.

[oxmixmudd]

First of all - thanks for responding. I'll respond to the various observations you've made point by point.


That is the heart of our disagreement then. When you state that we have 3 types of marriage: MM, MF, and FF, and it is OK to exclude two of them from having access to basic services on no other basis than the sex of the participants, discrimination is happening. I've outlined this several times and shown how the position is inconsistent. If it is OK to assign moral value on the basis of genetic identity, then no basis remains for saying "it is immoral for a black man to marry a white woman." That too is morality determined by genetic identity. You cannot do it in the one and reject it in the other. It is inconsistent.

My argument is that the three types of marriage are fundamentally different things. M/F unions first and foremost is a union that is consistent with the fact that the species reproduces by a sexual union - that it is the only type of marriage that has the potential to produce children using the natural equipment God gave them so to speak. Further, that at its most fundamental core, that is what a marriage is all about. Marriage is the societal construct wherein families are created and a huge part of that process is the natural production of children. Two people marry, they have kids, those kids marry and have kids and before you know it you have 50 to 100 people all genetically very closely related. To say that is not significant, or that MM or FF 'marriages' are the equivalent of that is idiocy. That sort of large family construct exists only out of and as a part of M/F marriages. And it is the backbone of our society and our culture.

Jim, you statement was: "As I have said multiple time - marriage - historically - is a societal construct whose primary purpose is to provide a context in which to create and raise children." When you insert, and emphasize with en-dashes - the term "historically," the interpretation is "because we've always done it this way." If that is not what you intended, I accept that. I assume you can understand my confusion.

The weight of history is not as simplistic an argument as 'we've always done it this way' any more than the complaints about what Trump is doing to diplomacy are merely complaints that boil down to 'we've always done it this way. When you make such boorish simplifications it is really beneath you carpe. Do you not understand that value of history, of the respect for a technique or approach to a problem that has survived the test of time? But I digress.

The point is that this is why marriage developed, what it does, why it is what is it (prior to modern attempts to redefine it), not to say 'this is what we've always done'.

M/F couples can produce children without any other intervention. There is no question about this.

how about that!

That it is relevant is in question.

It is the Elephant in the room Carpe. That you could pretend it is not relevant is ... well ... amazing.

Couples who cannot "naturally" have children still marry. Couples who cannot have children adopt. Society can provide cultural support for all of these families. Nothing you are saying here in any way obviates same-sex couples or families headed by same-sex couples.

An exception that does not diminish the significant difference between M/F unions and M/M and F/F unions. A M/F union that is infertile is still an M/F marriage. Children adopted by them still have a male and female role model as parents. They still function as a M/F marriage.

Again - you are assuming (and have no shown) that sex is only about procreation.

No - I'm not carpe. Or course I haven't shown that sex is only about procreation, I haven't assumed it or tried to prove it. So go back and re-read my post and see if you can figure out what I WAS actually saying.

Sex with my wife is not "unnatural" because we can no longer reproduce.
Sex between couples that does not result in pregnancy is not "unnatural." You are making statements without substantiation, Jim. Sex remains perfectly natural, even when there is no possibility for procreation. Indeed, there are many sex acts a couple can engage in that have zero chance of procreation. None of them is "unnatural" except that you seem to want to arbitrarily define them as such.

you are off in the weeds carpe. M/F unions have the natural potential to produce children. M/M and F/F unions do not. And that defines a huge difference between them. A M/F marriage is therefore not the same thing as a M/M or F/F marriage.

No. You're simply wrong, Jim. Who we are genetically is certainly part of "who we are." Trust me, I know. We could have used more information about the genetic heritage of our children as we struggled to deal with medical issues. But genetics is not all that we are. Nature and nurture, remember? Genetics is nature. My wife and I are nurture. Trust me, although children care about the nature part, the nurture part dominates their lives. You seem to want to place all of the emphasis on the former, and ignore the latter.

No - this is not ALL or NOTHING carpe. But understanding who we are genetially is an important PART of understanding who we are. My point is that in a M/F union that produces children (the vast majority) those children NATURALLY get BOTH a genetic and a cultural understanding of who they are. That is something that is DIFFERENT from M/M or F/F unions where ALL children they rear will have to look elsewhere for an understanding of who they are genetically. Their parents will not both be their genetic ancestors. And most of the time BOTH parents will not be their genetic ancestors.

At no point did I suggest it did. I simply reject your implication that this aspect dominates, to the exclusion of all else. You seem to want to take this route in order to dismiss any form of parenting except parenting by so-called "natural" biological parents. Unfortunately, your attempt to use this approach to dismiss gay couples likewise dismisses all adoptive parents.

The issues I raise do not have to dominate to the exclusion of all else for them to be

1) significant
2) of sufficient importance as to make any attempt at claiming equivalence between M/F marriage and M/M:F/F marriages fail

Jim - nature is replete with examples of homosexuality. An appeal to "nature" simply fails on that reality alone. It also fails when you try to label any parenting relationship that is not about the biological parents as "unnatural." I think I can safely speak for adoptive parents everywhere - your statements are pretty divorced from reality. If I were the kind of person who was insulted easily, I'd be insulted. You dismiss adoptive parents with a flip of the hand and little thought.

Don't be absurd. I'm not dismissing adoptive parents at all. You're way to sensitive on that issue. I'm saying M/F marriages are not the same as M/M or F/F marriages.

My appeal to what is natural is the appeal to how children are naturally created and what marriage is about, what it is for, why it develops almost universally in cultures. Sexual intercourse is what produces children. And that simply can't happen between two men or two women. And marriage primarily exists to ensure that the children produced by that one sexual act are cared for and guided into adulthood and become productive members of the society into which they were born (and typically also about the care of those parents as they age by the children and grandchildren)

No one is questioning that children want to know everything about themselves - including their genetic heritage. Since that genetic heritage is also important for medical issues, it's to be encouraged. What you have not done, Jim, is establish why this reality in any way eliminates gay couples. Your argument appears to go down a path that would make adoption by ANY couple equally immoral. I would reject that assertion as unfounded.

You haven't understood my points very well at all if you try to make them go down that path. And how many times do I have to keep repeating what the point of my argument is? Over and over and over!! It is maddening.

I am showing that M/F unions are not the same as M/M and F/F unions. When you claim I'm trying to prove something more than what I am actually proving you create a strawman. And you make discussion unnecessarily difficult. Pay attention please.

Jim - what you've done is make some fairly obvious assertions (kids want to know their genetic heritage), and then somehow you seem to think you've made a case against same-sex marriage. I'm not seeing an argument here.

Yes - kids want to know their genetic heritage
Yes - who gave birth to a child is important in many respects.

So how do you go from that to "same-sex marriage is immoral?"

No Carpe. I have NOT tried to make a case against same-sex marriage. I have made the case that you can't treat as EQUIVALENT M/F marriages and M/M,F/F marriages.

Again - PLEASE PAY ATTENTION!


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

It's fine if he chooses not to make divorce cakes or halloween cakes Sparko, BECAUSE IT ISN'T ABOUT THE EVENT. But if he did choose to make divorce cakes or halloween cakes he would have to sell them to everyone alike so as not to discriminate against the people taking part in the event, whomever they may be.

But it is ALL about the event. A same sex marriage is NOT a marriage in the traditional sense, in the historical sense. It is something we've created recently. And it is contrary to many peoples religious beliefs.

So if I chose not to make cakes that celebrate and/or become a symbol of a same-sex marriage, that is a choice about what sort of product I will produce, not a choice about who I will sell my products to.

If I will sell any product I produce to any patron, I do not discriminate.

What products I chose to produce is up to me and not the government, or you.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

ETA: Look, Sparko...the event is "a wedding." You want to make it "a gay wedding" so you can say "we're not discriminating, because we won't do "a gay wedding" for anyone. The discrimination happened when you put the word "gay" or "same-sex" before "wedding" and then used it as an excuse not to provide service. That makes the discrimination based solely on the sex of the two people marrying.

Sorry - but it is not an excuse. A wedding is the celebration of the marriage of a man and a women. A same-sex wedding is the celebration of a 'marriage' of a man and man, or a women and women. They are not the same. The symbology is different. The participants are different. The capacity to produce children is completely different. The former has been around more that 5 millenia. The latter has only spotty representation historically, and has only within the last 20 years become recognized within modern culture. Many religious officials refuse to do same-sex wedding ceremonies, whereas virtually none refuse to do traditional marriage ceremonies unless they do no marriages at all. traditional weddings do not violate the religious beliefs of anyone. Whereas same-sex weddings violate the religious beliefs of a large segment of the population.

They simply are NOT the same. You can't claim 'a wedding is a wedding'. It simply is not true.


Jim

[Starlight]

A same sex marriage is NOT a marriage in the traditional sense, in the historical sense. It is something we've created recently.

Please stop repeating this falsehood. Plenty of historical cultures on all continents have had same-sex marriages, including native American cultures. I get that much of US history has been about native american genocide but try not to downplay their cultures too much please...

Your modern Christian idealized version of marriage is simply not the historical reality of it.

A wedding is the celebration of the marriage of a man and a women

Nope. Not historically among different cultures. Not by law now in the US. In your imagination only. Funnily enough us non-Christians have no particular interest in adhering to your idealistic Christian conception of what you personally think marriage should be or what you personally think other people's marriages should be like.

Whereas same-sex weddings violate the religious beliefs of a large segment of the population.

So religions teach horrible things and cause people to do awful things? Yep, I can agree with that.

[oxmixmudd]

Please stop repeating this falsehood. Plenty of historical cultures on all continents have had same-sex marriages, including native American cultures. I get that much of US history has been about native american genocide but try not to downplay their cultures too much please...

Your modern Christian idealized version of marriage is simply not the historical reality of it.

Nope. Not historically among different cultures. Not by law now in the US. In your imagination only. Funnily enough us non-Christians have no particular interest in adhering to your idealistic Christian conception of what you personally think marriage should be or what you personally think other people's marriages should be like.

So religions teach horrible things and cause people to do awful things? Yep, I can agree with that.

As we saw in the video Sparko posted, the horrible things and hatred is only flowing in one direction in this case. I do not hate same sex people. I do not ever do horrible things to anyone.. This baker doesn't hate them either. He believes a same sex marriage is wrong, a violation of God's intent for marriage. That is not nor does it need to translate to any sort of hatred or any sort of horrible action.

However, you can see from the response of the local gay community towards the baker true hatred in all its glorious colors. Continuous foul phone calls, death threats. Yep, that is hatred all right.

I may think contraception is wrong. But I don't have to hate the people that use it. I may think getting drunk is wrong. But I don't have to hate the people that get drunk.

Your response right now seems a hop skip and a jump from hatred towards christians and Christian faith. You seem here to be willing to paint us as haters. But to believe a moral standard does not imply hatred.

In fact, Christ requires the Christian love his enemies. So even if christian teaching is that a same sex acts are sinful, no true follower of Christ can ever be acting in his faith and show any actual hatred for any gay person.

The opposite is not true, is it. You feel quite free to hate Christians who believe same sex marriage is wrong. Don't you.,

Jim

[carpedm9587]

My argument is that the three types of marriage are fundamentally different things. M/F unions first and foremost is a union that is consistent with the fact that the species reproduces by a sexual union - that it is the only type of marriage that has the potential to produce children using the natural equipment God gave them so to speak. Further, that at its most fundamental core, that is what a marriage is all about. Marriage is the societal construct wherein families are created and a huge part of that process is the natural production of children. Two people marry, they have kids, those kids marry and have kids and before you know it you have 50 to 100 people all genetically very closely related. To say that is not significant, or that MM or FF 'marriages' are the equivalent of that is idiocy. That sort of large family construct exists only out of and as a part of M/F marriages. And it is the backbone of our society and our culture.

The weight of history is not as simplistic an argument as 'we've always done it this way' any more than the complaints about what Trump is doing to diplomacy are merely complaints that boil down to 'we've always done it this way. When you make such boorish simplifications it is really beneath you carpe. Do you not understand that value of history, of the respect for a technique or approach to a problem that has survived the test of time? But I digress.

The point is that this is why marriage developed, what it does, why it is what is it (prior to modern attempts to redefine it), not to say 'this is what we've always done'.

how about that!

It is the Elephant in the room Carpe. That you could pretend it is not relevant is ... well ... amazing.

An exception that does not diminish the significant difference between M/F unions and M/M and F/F unions. A M/F union that is infertile is still an M/F marriage. Children adopted by them still have a male and female role model as parents. They still function as a M/F marriage.

No - I'm not carpe. Or course I haven't shown that sex is only about procreation, I haven't assumed it or tried to prove it. So go back and re-read my post and see if you can figure out what I WAS actually saying.

you are off in the weeds carpe. M/F unions have the natural potential to produce children. M/M and F/F unions do not. And that defines a huge difference between them. A M/F marriage is therefore not the same thing as a M/M or F/F marriage.

No - this is not ALL or NOTHING carpe. But understanding who we are genetially is an important PART of understanding who we are. My point is that in a M/F union that produces children (the vast majority) those children NATURALLY get BOTH a genetic and a cultural understanding of who they are. That is something that is DIFFERENT from M/M or F/F unions where ALL children they rear will have to look elsewhere for an understanding of who they are genetically. Their parents will not both be their genetic ancestors. And most of the time BOTH parents will not be their genetic ancestors.

The issues I raise do not have to dominate to the exclusion of all else for them to be

1) significant
2) of sufficient importance as to make any attempt at claiming equivalence between M/F marriage and M/M:F/F marriages fail

Don't be absurd. I'm not dismissing adoptive parents at all. You're way to sensitive on that issue. I'm saying M/F marriages are not the same as M/M or F/F marriages.

My appeal to what is natural is the appeal to how children are naturally created and what marriage is about, what it is for, why it develops almost universally in cultures. Sexual intercourse is what produces children. And that simply can't happen between two men or two women. And marriage primarily exists to ensure that the children produced by that one sexual act are cared for and guided into adulthood and become productive members of the society into which they were born (and typically also about the care of those parents as they age by the children and grandchildren)

You haven't understood my points very well at all if you try to make them go down that path. And how many times do I have to keep repeating what the point of my argument is? Over and over and over!! It is maddening.

I am showing that M/F unions are not the same as M/M and F/F unions. When you claim I'm trying to prove something more than what I am actually proving you create a strawman. And you make discussion unnecessarily difficult. Pay attention please.

No Carpe. I have NOT tried to make a case against same-sex marriage. I have made the case that you can't treat as EQUIVALENT M/F marriages and M/M,F/F marriages.

Again - PLEASE PAY ATTENTION!

Jim

So, I have read through all of this, a couple of times. As best I can tell, your entire argument is: MM and FF and MF are different kinds of marriage.

I agree - by definition. The three "types" of marriage differ in terms of the sexual genetics of the participants. No question they are different. So too are BB, BW, and WW marriages (Black/White). They differ by the race of the participants. So too are MJ, MM, and JJ marriages (Methodist, Jewish). So to are FF, IF, and II marriages (infertile/fertile). So too are EF, FF, and EE marriages (English/French). Marriages can differ in many ways with many resulting consequences. For the MM/FM/FF marriages, the primary difference is the sex of the participants, which impacts how children are produced and raised. An FM marriage can produce children by the sex of the participants in the marriage if both participants are fertile. An MM or FF cannot. You will note the IF, FF, and II couples differ in exactly the same way. The FF family can have children in all other ways (adoption, insemination, surrogacy, etc.). The MM family is limited to adoption and surrogacy. In both the MM and FF families, at least one participant will not be the biological parent of the child.

All of this is stipulated to. If that was your point, then I have never actually disagreed with you, and this discussion appears to be much ado about nothing. I was under the impression you were trying to argue for the immorality of the same-sex marriage. Your use of "natural" and your insistence on marriage being primarily about children left me with that impression. Apparently I was mistaken.

I do still believe your use of "natural" and your insistence that "marriage is about children" without reflecting the other things marriage is about are problematic - but they appear to be irrelevant to the argument, so it is not an issue.

[Sparko]

I cannot say I understand what this refers to.



And the heterosexual couple are also "getting married" and "having sex." Since we have the exact same actions being done by two different groups, the only difference is the groups themselves. See?



I have shown where this fails multiple times. I'll refer you to those posts.



And if he won't make divorce cakes for all people - no problem.



And if he won't make halloween cakes for all people - no problem.



And if he won't make anti-american cakes for all people - no problem.

see? You understand and agree on every type of cake except the gay wedding cake. It is no different. He doesn't agree with the event being celebrated. He doesn't sell cakes celebrating halloween, antiAmericanism, or gay weddings. No matter who orders the cakes. He also said he has refused to make cakes condemning LBGT.

You are inconsistent.

The court was fairly clear that its ruling was about the blatant disrespect and discrimination the Colorado Civil Rights group was showing. After looking at the facts, I agree with them. That doesn't change the underlying issue, which the court did NOT rule on, and explicitly said so.

They did publish that Phillips WAS an artist, that his cakes were art and that an artist has the right to control who he creates art for.

----
Accordingly, Phillips’ creation of custom wedding cakes is expressive. The use of his artistic talents to create a well-recognized symbol that celebrates the beginning of a marriage clearly communicates a message—certainly more so than nude dancing, Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U. S. 560, 565–566 (1991), or flying a plain red flag, Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359, 369 (1931).3 Byforcing Phillips to create custom wedding cakes for same-sex weddings, Colorado’s public-accommodations law “alter[s] the expressive content” of his message. Hurley, 515 U. S., at 572. The meaning of expressive conduct, this Court has explained, depends on “the context in which it occur[s].” Johnson, 491 U. S., at 405. Forcing Phillips to make custom wedding cakes for same-sex marriages requires him to, at the very least, acknowledge that same-sex weddings are “weddings” and suggest that they should be celebrated—the precise message he believes his faith forbids. The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from requiring Phillips to “bear witness to [these] fact[s],” Hurley, 515 U. S., at 574, or to “affir[m] . . . a belief with which [he] disagrees,” id., at 573. --Opinion of THOMAS, J.