Christian anti-SSM jeweler threatened after making rings for lesbian couple

[mossrose]

It isn't about tax benefits, as the situation has proven in Canada for a couple of decades now.

It is about a burning desire to have a horrendous lifestyle accepted and approved of by everyone, particularly those who have faith-based objections to that lifestyle. It is about a desire to have their sin legitimized, and those who refuse to accept it de-legitimized.

They just want to couch it in terms that the general public politically-correct sheep will go along with.

As a Christian I refuse to legitimize any same-gender anything, just as I refuse to legitimize any heterosexual activity outside of a monogamous marriage. It is sin. Has always been sin. Will always be sin, no matter what those who participate in it claim.

Frankly, if the state says sodomites can marry, I don't much care, because the state has watered down everything that Christans stand for, and if sodomites want a piece of paper, who cares?

But DON'T try to force me to deny my faith in the process.

[Darth Ovious]

The worst and most hurtful thing anyone has ever tried to do, the thing that most diminishes the dignity of the targeted group, is to deny them a piece of paper that gives them certain tax benefits?

In reality this is where I think we have gone wrong. It's a secular state who issues marriage certificates now. As Christians we believe that marriage is in the eyes of God and he is the authority on it. I think the Church should think about withdrawing from handing them out to begin with now. Perhaps churches should just have a ceremonial marriage only and if people want a certificate then they get it separately from the state.

As far am I am concerned the states involvement in marriage is only so they can extract money from people. They extract a fee for the certificate and then also in divorce courts they extract money from one party to give to the other all the while taking their own cut. Gay people are complaining that they oppressed because they are not allowed to walk into this trap of money extraction forced by the state. They'll soon learn that state marriage is not like Biblical marriage. They will soon learn that marriage by the state is an act of oppression and they will not want it like the secular community is increasingly not wanting it either.

[Sam]

The worst and most hurtful thing anyone has ever tried to do, the thing that most diminishes the dignity of the targeted group, is to deny them a piece of paper that gives them certain tax benefits?

The sort of language you employ is going to be used again-- is already being used-- with reference to incest and polygamy, and when those campaigns gain more steam, what will your counterargument be? How could you possibly stand against the weight of your own words about how there is nothing more hurtful, nothing that effects a more fundamental diminishment of their status as humans than denying them marriage?

But let's set that aside for a moment and think about how the rhetoric you use also gives a warrant to the people who issue these threats, anonymous and otherwise. If there's nothing more hurtful than denying someone the right to marry, then effectively denying someone the right to participate in the economic or social life of their country, telling them that they don't belong in civilized society-- that becomes somehow acceptable despite the fact that denying someone their right to participate at all in the public square is, in fact, far more dehumanizing than denying them tax benefits.

If I'm reading this right, you're reducing marriage to "a piece of paper that gives them certain tax benefits." I'm sure that the RCC, Dreher, and the advocates of same-sex marriage see the right to marry as far more than just that. So the Dreher argument cannot, on the one hand, use the minimalist interpretation marriage ("It's only a piece of paper!") to pooh-pooh the importance of being married (and therefore the level of harm done to those who are denied the institution) and, on the other hand, hold a much stronger interpretation of marriage ("It's a sacrament" / "It's essential to the Republic", etc.) as reasons to deny the institution to others.

[Sam]

In reality this is where I think we have gone wrong. It's a secular state who issues marriage certificates now. As Christians we believe that marriage is in the eyes of God and he is the authority on it. I think the Church should think about withdrawing from handing them out to begin with now. Perhaps churches should just have a ceremonial marriage only and if people want a certificate then they get it separately from the state.

As far am I am concerned the states involvement in marriage is only so they can extract money from people. They extract a fee for the certificate and then also in divorce courts they extract money from one party to give to the other all the while taking their own cut. Gay people are complaining that they oppressed because they are not allowed to walk into this trap of money extraction forced by the state. They'll soon learn that state marriage is not like Biblical marriage. They will soon learn that marriage by the state is an act of oppression and they will not want it like the secular community is increasingly not wanting it either.

Marriage generally reduces one's financial obligations to the State.

[Bill the Cat]

If I'm reading this right, you're reducing marriage to "a piece of paper that gives them certain tax benefits."

From the government's standpoint, that is all that it is.

I'm sure that the RCC, Dreher, and the advocates of same-sex marriage see the right to marry as far more than just that.

No, they see MARRIAGE as more than that.

So the Dreher argument cannot, on the one hand, use the minimalist interpretation marriage ("It's only a piece of paper!") to pooh-pooh the importance of being married (and therefore the level of harm done to those who are denied the institution) and, on the other hand, hold a much stronger interpretation of marriage ("It's a sacrament" / "It's essential to the Republic", etc.) as reasons to deny the institution to others.

Sure it can. When we understand that marriage is both a secular and a religious construct, and that sometimes those constructs intercept and others they don't, both situations are plausible and supportable.

[Sam]

From the government's standpoint, that is all that it is.



No, they see MARRIAGE as more than that.



Sure it can. When we understand that marriage is both a secular and a religious construct, and that sometimes those constructs intercept and others they don't, both situations are plausible and supportable.

No, sorry — the structure of the argument is "Marriage is only a piece of paper to the STATE and so it isn't really hurtful to YOU if WE refuse your right to marry." That argument only holds so long as the same definition of marriage is being used between the STATE, YOU, and WE parties. Otherwise, it's a strawman argument, since neither the YOU or WE parties are reducing the term "marriage" to "a piece of paper that provides certain tax benefits."

[Paprika]

I encourage you to think over this analogy because I honestly think that people who are against same-sex marriage simply don't realize how inherently hurtful such a position is towards gay people. It's hard to find a more personal and hurtful place to threaten people and be nasty to them than in their relationships - people's marriages are really really important to them and to try and take away someone's marriage is about as personal and as hurtful as it gets.

In many places gay marriages still do not exist, and you can't take away what doesn't exist.

[Bill the Cat]

No, sorry — the structure of the argument is "Marriage is only a piece of paper to the STATE and so it isn't really hurtful to YOU if WE refuse your right to marry."

That is so reductionist that it stinks. The structure of the argument is "Marriage is only a piece of paper to the STATE and you of the same sex don't meet the qualifications for that paper." It is not hurtful in any meaningful way (from the state's POV) because it does not deny them the right to be together.

That argument only holds so long as the same definition of marriage is being used between the YOU and WE parties.

It is from the state's POV. Or at least it WAS. Before it became about feelings.

Otherwise, it's a strawman argument, since neither the YOU or WE parties are reducing the term "marriage" to "a piece of paper that provides certain tax benefits."

Good thing it isn't a strawman.

[Sam]

That is so reductionist that it stinks. The structure of the argument is "Marriage is only a piece of paper to the STATE and you of the same sex don't meet the qualifications for that paper." It is not hurtful in any meaningful way (from the state's POV) because it does not deny them the right to be together.

even sacramental. So when the argument changes to:

The worst and most hurtful thing anyone has ever tried to do, the thing that most diminishes the dignity of the targeted group, is to deny them a piece of paper that gives them certain tax benefits?

extremelyonly denying them a scrap of paper and some tax benefits.

I agree that there's a reductionist sleight-of-hand going on. It just ain't coming from me.

[Bill the Cat]

No, that's not the structure of the argument — either from Dreher's point of view or (if I've been reading him right) Spartacus' point of view. The argument is that marriage is very important, very meaningful and even sacramental.

From the Church's point of view, which Dreher was speaking from. Christians who understand that there is a government piece to it.

So when the argument changes to:



I think there are some shenanigans afoot.

Spart seems to be saying that the piece of paper is all these couples lack in receiving "equal" recognition by the state.

Starlight is agreeing with Dreher et al. that marriage is intrinsically meaningful — extremely meaningful, in fact — and that opposition to someone's right to marry is therefore extremely hurtful.

But I see no argument on WHY from either him or you. WHY is it intrinsically meaningful, especially devoid of a religious context.

Spartacus, while (I believe) agreeing with the meaningfulness of marriage (to the point of agreeing, I'm sure, that it is sacramental!), turns around and argues that the ban on same-sex marriage is only denying them a scrap of paper and some tax benefits.

Correct. It is not denying them the ability to date, stand before a willing clergy member of their choice and recite vows, cohabitate, raise children brought in to the relationship through various non-biological means, etc.

I agree that there's a reductionist sleight-of-hand going on. It just ain't coming from me.

To quote Dr. Evil... riiiiight...

[Sam]

From the Church's point of view, which Dreher was speaking from. Christians who understand that there is a government piece to it.

Spart seems to be saying that the piece of paper is all these couples lack in receiving "equal" recognition by the state.

But I see no argument on WHY from either him or you. WHY is it intrinsically meaningful, especially devoid of a religious context.

Correct. It is not denying them the ability to date, stand before a willing clergy member of their choice and recite vows, cohabitate, raise children brought in to the relationship through various non-biological means, etc.

To quote Dr. Evil... riiiiight...

Spart was responding to Starlight's assertion that denying same-sex couples the right to marry is hurtful. Therefore, Spart should be operating from the framework of marriage that Starlight is using to assign meaning. However, Spart appears to have substituted whatever meaning Starlight ascribes to marriage in favor of a definition that reduces marriage to only

[Darth Ovious]

Marriage generally reduces one's financial obligations to the State.

And what about the other party you need to pay for after divorce? The one who extracts 50% of your wealth and earnings. They claim giving up a career to look after the kids but then after the divorce keep the kids anyway and live on child support and alimony provided by the other party, all the while the courts take their cut in it. Your link doesn't discuss that part. It only discusses the savings from the tax benefits. It doesn't discuss the fee for a marriage license, the cost for a wedding and the debt that puts you into and it doesn't discuss money taken by lawyers in the divorce process. Then of course when you're single again afterwards you'll be paying the higher taxes again anyway.

[Sam]

And what about the other party you need to pay for after divorce? The one who extracts 50% of your wealth and earnings. They claim giving up a career to look after the kids but then after the divorce keep the kids anyway and live on child support and alimony provided by the other party, all the while the courts take their cut in it. Your link doesn't discuss that part. It only discusses the savings from the tax benefits. It doesn't discuss the fee for a marriage license, the cost for a wedding and the debt that puts you into and it doesn't discuss money taken by lawyers in the divorce process. Then of course when you're single again afterwards you'll be paying the higher taxes again anyway.

Unless one treats divorce as a necessary element of any given marriage, that doesn't play into the difference between the tax burden of a single individual and a married individual. The tax value of marriage stays the same even if some marriages end in divorce.

I know weddings are expensive but since individuals will save potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years by marrying, I think you'd need some pretty expensive weddings to offset the cost.

[Darth Ovious]

Unless one treats divorce as a necessary element of any given marriage, that doesn't play into the difference between the tax burden of a single individual and a married individual. The tax value of marriage stays the same even if some marriages end in divorce.

Except divorce is not something you can control since the other party could be the one to initiate it. So it is a 50% risk of happening and so should be considered.

I know weddings are expensive but since individuals will save potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years by marrying, I think you'd need some pretty expensive weddings to offset the cost.

Unless of course you get divorced before those savings are made.

[Bill the Cat]

Spart was responding to Starlight's assertion that denying same-sex couples the right to marry is hurtful. Therefore, Spart should be operating from the framework of marriage that Starlight is using to assign meaning. However, Spart appears to have substituted whatever meaning Starlight ascribes to marriage in favor of a definition that reduces marriage to only being a piece of paper regarding tax benefits.

It's Starlight who is reciting a different meaning of marriage. It has always in this country meant a husband and a wife. That's the framework we are arguing from. Changing that definition requires reducing it to government recognition.

IF Dreher and Spart are ascribing great meaning to the concept of marriage, THEN they both need to operate under that concept of marriage unless someone tacitly or explicitly uses a different concept.

And removing the sex of the participants IS a different concept.

Starlight didn't do that: he also appears to ascribe great meaning to the concept of marriage.

Which is different from the meaning of the general concept throughout American history.

The "why" is irrelevant to the concept of "hurtfulness" — these same-sex couples could value marriage for cultural or religious value, just as Spart and Dreher do.

Then they would have to realize that their values were in fact different.

It's a sham to pretend that the societal or cultural acceptance of a couple/family are irrelevant to the health and development of that couple/family.

No it isn't.

You might as well be arguing that interracial marriage should have stayed banned in Virginia because the Loving family could still "stand before a willing clergy member of their choice and recite vows, cohabitate, raise children brought in to the relationship through various non-biological means, etc."

Actually, no they couldn't. The Virginia statute forbade them to cohabitate or to raise any children together.

If cultural acceptance wasn't important to both the family and the society involved, there would be no reason to oppose a secular government's decision to include same-sex couples in the legal concept of marriage other than tax benefits ... and that just has not been the rallying cry of same-sex marriage opponents ever.

Because that's not the end goal. Just getting the paper isn't enough, or there would have been no Lakewood bakery case or Arlene's Flowers case... although the paper is the current target. They want the paper, but they want th destroy the opposing viewpoint in the process.