Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

SCOTUS & gay wedding cakes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    And yet, it wasn't bigotry for the thousands of years that everyone in the world was against gay marriage. Then poof!
    So, what does this prove? " Everyone" was against interracial marriage and then "poof" in the United States it was made legal in 1967...despite the alleged biblical injunctions. The bible is awfully useful in justifying bigotry.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
      If that was his reason, then yes - it would be bigoted and he would be wrong to refuse the cake, for exactly that reason.



      No. You are free to put "gay" in front of wedding cake if you wish. You just can't use it as an excuse to discriminate. Treating a same-sex marriage as different from an opposite-sex marriage is an act of bigotry/prejudice because it is based in nothing but the sex of the two participants (genetics). The objection of the baker was to the same-sex couple marrying, hence his refusal to provide service to them. Refusing to provide service to a couple because of their sex is bigotry. Pure and simple. And he told me that was why he refused the service, so I am taking him at his word.
      But again, that is just your criteria and you are not even consistent in that!

      For instance, what would you say if the same baker refused to make a cake for a wedding between two brothers? Would he still be a bigot? Or even a brother and a sister? It would still come down to "genetics" right?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
        Yes, it is bigotry to me. It is bigotry to a growing (and now majority) segment of our population. You may not agree. I have pointed you to the inconsistency in your own moral framework. You reject bigotry on the basis of genetics in racial issues, but accept them in sexual issues. Whether or not you do something about that inconsistency is up to you. I tend to see inconsistency as an indicator of a problem. Perhaps you are different.
        Because I don't reject racism because of "genetics" - I would think it was wrong even if I didn't know what DNA was. And genetics determines a lot about a person, somethings we find it perfectly fine to discriminate against. We think it is OK to criminalize pedophilia, despite it probably having a genetic component. We criminalize various addictions which we know can be genetic. We outlaw close relatives from getting married, based solely on genetics. We put people in institutions despite their genetics causing them to be insane. Genetics isn't a get out of jail free card by any means.


        No, it wasn't. For for all of those years, there's was the dominant moral view and it permeated our laws and our cultures. That is just now being reversed.
        So again, it wasn't bigotry before, but it is now, if morals are indeed relative.

        For a moral relativist you seem quite insistent on arguing for an absolute moral viewpoint despite what people believe.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
          So, what does this prove? " Everyone" was against interracial marriage and then "poof" in the United States it was made legal in 1967...despite the alleged biblical injunctions. The bible is awfully useful in justifying bigotry.
          Well, if morality is objective, then it was always wrong, even when people didn't believe it was. However, if morals are not objective but are subjective or relative, then when everyone thought that interracial marriage was immoral, then it was immoral. And now that it is not immoral, it is not immoral.

          Same with gay marriage.

          Same with everything moral. Tomorrow pedophilia could be moral. right?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            But again, that is just your criteria and you are not even consistent in that!

            For instance, what would you say if the same baker refused to make a cake for a wedding between two brothers? Would he still be a bigot? Or even a brother and a sister? It would still come down to "genetics" right?
            I have spoken to my position on this one already. Personally, I have no strong feelings about sibling marriages. My cultural background goes , but the only moral implication I can find is that multiple generations of sibling marriages increases the risk of harm/deformity to future progeny. If a baker were refusing to support sibling marriages on that basis, there is no bigotry/discrimination involved.
            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              Because I don't reject racism because of "genetics" - I would think it was wrong even if I didn't know what DNA was. And genetics determines a lot about a person, somethings we find it perfectly fine to discriminate against.
              Curious - so why do you think racism is wrong?

              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              We think it is OK to criminalize pedophilia, despite it probably having a genetic component.
              It is not criminalized it because of the genetics, which is the basic point.

              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              We criminalize various addictions which we know can be genetic.
              It is not criminalized them because of the genetics, which is the basic point. And, frankly, I think it's ridiculous to criminalize a disease.

              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              We outlaw close relatives from getting married, based solely on genetics.
              No - not solely - it is based on cultural bias (which I reject) and potential long-term harm (which I accept).

              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              We put people in institutions despite their genetics causing them to be insane.
              Yes - a person is a danger to themselves or the larger society, they are institutionalized for the safety of all concerned. That's not a moral issue.

              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              Genetics isn't a get out of jail free card by any means.
              Nobody has claimed it is. The claim s that you cannot discriminate solely on the basis of genetics (without a just, related cause).

              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              So again, it wasn't bigotry before, but it is now, if morals are indeed relative.
              Morals are relative. It wasn't perceived as immoral then. It is perceived as immoral now. When we moralize, we apply our current moral framework to all actions, self/others, past/present/future. That's how it works.

              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              For a moral relativist you seem quite insistent on arguing for an absolute moral viewpoint despite what people believe.
              At no point have I argued for an absolute moral code...
              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

              Comment


              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                I have spoken to my position on this one already. Personally, I have no strong feelings about sibling marriages. My cultural background goes , but the only moral implication I can find is that multiple generations of sibling marriages increases the risk of harm/deformity to future progeny. If a baker were refusing to support sibling marriages on that basis, there is no bigotry/discrimination involved.
                See? you are inconsistent. The only reason siblings cannot marry is because they are closely related. Genetics! Which is your sole reason for saying the baker not baking a cake for a gay wedding is bigotry. Yet you don't find it to be bigotry in the case of incest.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  See? you are inconsistent. The only reason siblings cannot marry is because they are closely related. Genetics!

                  Which is your sole reason for saying the baker not baking a cake for a gay wedding is bigotry. Yet you don't find it to be bigotry in the case of incest.
                  No - it is the long-term consequences of combining those genetics in that way to future innocent life - not just having the genes.

                  The issue with the baker is that all that is required is to HAVE the genetics (i.e., the same genes). There is no inconsistency.
                  The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                  I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                    Curious - so why do you think racism is wrong?
                    It doesn't matter. I could say because I think Cherry tastes better than cement! Morals are personal preferences, remember?



                    It is not criminalized it because of the genetics, which is the basic point.
                    In the case of homosexual marriage, you are forcing it to be about the sex of the participants. Even though it could be either sex. It is a false discrimination on your part. That is what we have been saying. It is not about genetics. The genetics is just a parameter. The problem is that marriage is between a man and a woman. Any other combination is not a marriage to a Christian. Man and Man, woman and woman, man and chair, woman and dolphin. So you claiming it is solely about the gender is not true. Using your argument I could say the same thing about addiction: The common factor in drug abuse seems to be addiction. Which is genetic in nature. So if you are against drug users, then you are a bigot because of genetics! The same exact argument you are trying to use on gay weddings.




                    It is not criminalized them because of the genetics, which is the basic point. And, frankly, I think it's ridiculous to criminalize a disease.
                    see above.



                    No - not solely - it is based on cultural bias (which I reject) and potential long-term harm (which I accept).
                    See you can easily find "another reason" than "genetics" to oppose things you don't agree with. Yet when someone tries that with gay weddings, you will have none of it! Nope! It is purely genetic!

                    This is why nobody agrees with your argument here. Nobody. You are completely on your own with your argument based on "genetics"





                    Morals are relative. It wasn't perceived as immoral then. It is perceived as immoral now. When we moralize, we apply our current moral framework to all actions, self/others, past/present/future. That's how it works.



                    At no point have I argued for an absolute moral code...
                    You say you haven't but you do. You want to claim that being against gay marriage was always bigotry. The only way that works is if morals are objective in nature and certain things are right or wrong no matter what people believe.

                    The only difference is that you think YOU are the source of objective morality. Must be nice to be God.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                      No - it is the long-term consequences of combining those genetics in that way to future innocent life - not just having the genes.

                      The issue with the baker is that all that is required is to HAVE the genetics (i.e., the same genes). There is no inconsistency.
                      yes there is carp. Everyone sees it but you. Incestual marriage doesn't have to include children, especially between two brothers. It is all genetics!

                      You will always find an excuse to exclude "genetics" on anything you want to be against, and always force it to be only genetics when it comes to gay weddings because that is the only way your argument works. You are a complete hypocrite.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        yes there is carp. Everyone sees it but you. Incestual marriage doesn't have to include children, especially between two brothers. It is all genetics!
                        Actually, that's a good point I had not considered. You're right. other than the factor, I can think of no reason why brothers marrying is immoral. The same would be true of sisters, for that matter.

                        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        You will always find an excuse to exclude "genetics" on anything you want to be against, and always force it to be only genetics when it comes to gay weddings because that is the only way your argument works. You are a complete hypocrite.
                        Your opinion is duly noted...
                        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                          Actually, that's a good point I had not considered. You're right. other than the factor, I can think of no reason why brothers marrying is immoral. The same would be true of sisters, for that matter.
                          but is it bigotry to refuse to make a cake for them?
                          Your opinion is duly noted...
                          and shared by everyone else but you. and maybe Tassman. But for different reasons.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            It doesn't matter. I could say because I think Cherry tastes better than cement! Morals are personal preferences, remember?
                            Relative morality does not mean "it doesn't matter." And if I had answered a question this way, I'd be looking at pictures of handwaving, dodging, and all the other cute pictures so many of you folks seem to love so much.

                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            In the case of homosexual marriage, you are forcing it to be about the sex of the participants. Even though it could be either sex. It is a false discrimination on your part. That is what we have been saying. It is not about genetics. The genetics is just a parameter.
                            I'm actually not "forcing" anything. I have shown it to be true, and it is repeatedly ignored. So here it is, once again:

                            Person A and Person B want to get married and be intimate. Their marriage is legal. They are unrelated adults in love.

                            Is this marriage and intimacy moral? If you cannot tell, then what further information do you need to make that decision?

                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            The problem is that marriage is between a man and a woman.
                            Read your sentence carefully, Sparko. You just made my case. Last I checked, "man" and "woman" were genetically coded characteristics. When you require that specific combination of genes, you are basing your moral argument on genetics. Period.

                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            Any other combination is not a marriage to a Christian. Man and Man, woman and woman, man and chair, woman and dolphin. So you claiming it is solely about the gender is not true. Using your argument I could say the same thing about addiction: The common factor in drug abuse seems to be addiction. Which is genetic in nature. So if you are against drug users, then you are a bigot because of genetics! The same exact argument you are trying to use on gay weddings.
                            No - and I have responded to this in previous posts. I'll let those stand.

                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            see above.

                            See you can easily find "another reason" than "genetics" to oppose things you don't agree with. Yet when someone tries that with gay weddings, you will have none of it! Nope! It is purely genetic! This is why nobody agrees with your argument here. Nobody. You are completely on your own with your argument based on "genetics"
                            Last I checked, the number of people agreeing with a proposition did not determine it's truth.

                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            You say you haven't but you do. You want to claim that being against gay marriage was always bigotry.
                            It is.

                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            The only way that works is if morals are objective in nature and certain things are right or wrong no matter what people believe.
                            No. Already addressed. This betrays a basic misunderstanding of subjective/relative morality.

                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            The only difference is that you think YOU are the source of objective morality. Must be nice to be God.
                            I think I am the source of my subjective morality. There are no gods.
                            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                              So, what does this prove? " Everyone" was against interracial marriage and then "poof" in the United States it was made legal in 1967...despite the alleged biblical injunctions. The bible is awfully useful in justifying bigotry.
                              No - it is not. There is no 'Biblical injunction' against interracial marriages in any sort of general sense.

                              Again, the issue of same-sex marriage involves two conflicting elements. The freedom of religious exercise. And ostensibly the prohibition against discrimination.

                              1) same-sex actions, for the purpose of the religious element, fall under the same category as adultery, fornication, pedophilia, bestiality. Acting out a sexual desire is a choice, not a requirement.
                              2) same-sex attraction - for the purposes of this discussion - have been assumed to be an inherited characteristic like race or sex.


                              Nothing ANYWHERE states that a human being is obligated to act on a sexual attraction. In fact, we are all required by law NOT to act on a sexual attraction without the consent of the partner(s).

                              Religions EVERYWHERE prohibit certain kinds of sexual ACTIONS over an above what is legal. Our laws require we honor such prohibitions.


                              same-sex marriage is a ceremony that among other things sanctions same-sex actions between the married parties.

                              A religious person can't participate in a ceremony that sanctions sexual actions that are prohibited by their religion. Nor can the state (per the establishment clause) require they do so.

                              A religious person does not have to express ANY bigotry or discrimination against any person in following moral mandates against sexual ACTIONS. They need only be allowed not to participate or give implicit blessing to sexual actions that are against their religion's moral code.

                              To the point: the issue here are the actions that are the choices of the participants and the morality of a ceremony that attempts to sanction those actions, not the physical or genetic make up of the participants in the ceremony.

                              Jim
                              Last edited by oxmixmudd; 06-20-2018, 11:12 AM.
                              My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                              If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                              This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                                Relative morality does not mean "it doesn't matter." And if I had answered a question this way, I'd be looking at pictures of handwaving, dodging, and all the other cute pictures so many of you folks seem to love so much.



                                I'm actually not "forcing" anything. I have shown it to be true, and it is repeatedly ignored. So here it is, once again:

                                Person A and Person B want to get married and be intimate. Their marriage is legal. They are unrelated adults in love.

                                Is this marriage and intimacy moral? If you cannot tell, then what further information do you need to make that decision?



                                Read your sentence carefully, Sparko. You just made my case. Last I checked, "man" and "woman" were genetically coded characteristics. When you require that specific combination of genes, you are basing your moral argument on genetics. Period.



                                No - and I have responded to this in previous posts. I'll let those stand.



                                Last I checked, the number of people agreeing with a proposition did not determine it's truth.



                                It is.



                                No. Already addressed. This betrays a basic misunderstanding of subjective/relative morality.



                                I think I am the source of my subjective morality. There are no gods.
                                You mean your subjective morality that you expect everyone else to share or they are bigots?

                                Well I think you are an immoral sexual deviant. Why should anyone agree with your morality instead of mine? If morals are subjective then neither of us can claim to be "right"


                                ...and back to the first question about why it doesn't matter? Because no matter if your reason for thinking racism is wrong is because of genetics or you think that your pet schnauzer told you that it is so, doesn't matter to me or anyone else because your morality and the reasons you hold them are PERSONAL PREFERENCES as you keep telling us.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                185 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                417 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                88 responses
                                401 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X