• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gay marriage, once inconceivable, now appears inevitable

Lursa said:
For all practical purposes (weather, discomfort, personal modesty, public health regulations) it would work fine and not be dangerous, lol. Please. And it's not killing people left and right in Scandinavia.

Where do you live that you think it would be an abrupt change? LOL Women walk around barely covered now and the argument can be...has been...made that that is more distracting as men will attempt to imagine what's covered.
Click to expand...

I live in the Bible Belt, in the South...
 
Lursa said:
Opinions like yours existed back then. It was a huge deal to allow blacks into white establishments. Now, in most civilized places in the US, it is not even questioned, it is the accepted norm in society. The religious? Just as outraged. The bigots? Just as outraged. Integration ended (most of) this.

It's not about choice, it's about discrimination. Something that as I wrote, holds a segment of people back in our society and by doing that...it harms society in general.

How would it be if people still told little girls that they werent 'acceptable' everywhere? That they couldnt do certain things, hold certain jobs? Sadly, people STILL do that to blacks and their statements show they still see it and feel the effects of it. You dont go around telling absolutely perfectly good people that they arent equal.
Click to expand...

You realize that the Pope didn't come out in opposition to blacks right? It wasn't like this was universal truth in the religious community that blacks were subhuman. Yes they were people who used religion as an excuse, but that's all it was, an excuse. And not one religious authorities would back up outside of the Jim Crow South.

And you are right that it's about discrimination, the problem is that you are okay with discriminating against one group (that being the religious one) while arguing for another group (gays).

Let me asking you a different question, had Blacks had (overall) the same education as Whites, would you still have an issue with Separate but Equal?
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Let me asking you a different question, had Blacks had (overall) the same education as Whites, would you still have an issue with Separate but Equal?
Click to expand...

Yes...because *why* were they kept separate?
 
Hamster Buddha said:
You realize that the Pope didn't come out in opposition to blacks right? It wasn't like this was universal truth in the religious community that blacks were subhuman. Yes they were people who used religion as an excuse, but that's all it was, an excuse. And not one religious authorities would back up outside of the Jim Crow South.

And you are right that it's about discrimination, the problem is that you are okay with discriminating against one group (that being the religious one) while arguing for another group (gays).
Click to expand...

It's not discrimination. They are free to practice their religion as they see fit. If they apply for a business license thru the state, then they must abide by that. If it infringes on their beliefs, they can not open that business. There's no 'right' to do so. They have to comply with lots of state regulations...lots of them are a PIA really and DO keep some people from opening businesses (overhead from employer taxes, keeping things up to health and environmental codes, etc).

For those that truly feel the need to live by their religious ideals, they can be part of a community like the Orthodox Jews or the Amish. A bunch of laws are different in those communities allowing them to live 'less oppressed' by others. (I said less, not completely. They are still in America).

The govt should still never encourage the perspective that some people are 'less.' That harms society.
 
Lursa said:
It's not discrimination. They are free to practice their religion as they see fit. If they apply for a business license thru the state, then they must abide by that. If it infringes on their beliefs, they can not open that business. There's no 'right' to do so. They have to comply with lots of state regulations...lots of them are a PIA really and DO keep some people from opening businesses (overhead from employer taxes, keeping things up to health and environmental codes, etc).

For those that truly feel the need to live by their religious ideals, they can be part of a community like the Orthodox Jews or the Amish. A bunch of laws are different in those communities allowing them to live 'less oppressed' by others. (I said less, not completely. They are still in America).

The govt should still never encourage the perspective that some people are 'less.' That harms society.
Click to expand...

Let's take this line of thought to it's conclusion/extreme. Do you think the Government should force Churches to conduct SSM? I would assume that the first amendment would apply here, and you would say no, but then again, they are open to the public are they not?
 
Paleocon said:
It is not necessary to prove God's existence to prove Hell's existence.

Those who commits grievous sins in their life, will naturally experience suffering in the afterlife, since they cannot be perfect.

Since this suffering would be eternal in character, it would involve the absolute despair which is indicated by damnation.
Click to expand...

imagesLRDHY1VY.jpg


jerk.jpg
 
Hamster Buddha said:
I understand that there are laws, I'm not talking about that. I mean, what is the moral/philosophical justification for those laws? I mean, we don't have a problem if these stores were private, and chose only to sell to certain individuals right? What is it about Public, that changes that?
Click to expand...

I couldn't care less about the supposed moral/philosophical justification of the laws. The laws are in place. People have to deal with the laws whether they agree with them or like them or not. I can have all the moral or philosophical disagreements I want with the local speed limits but if I speed, the cop has every right to pull me over and give me a ticket because I'm obligated to follow the law, whether I like it or not, or accept the legal consequences for violating the law.
 
Cephus said:
I couldn't care less about the supposed moral/philosophical justification of the laws. The laws are in place. People have to deal with the laws whether they agree with them or like them or not. I can have all the moral or philosophical disagreements I want with the local speed limits but if I speed, the cop has every right to pull me over and give me a ticket because I'm obligated to follow the law, whether I like it or not, or accept the legal consequences for violating the law.
Click to expand...

Had people of had the same view of Plessy vs. Ferguson, we probably would still have a segregated south.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Had people of had the same view of Plessy vs. Ferguson, we probably would still have a segregated south.
Click to expand...

The people changed the laws. Let me know when the legal requirements for equal treatment also change. Wishful thinking means jack squat.
 
Cephus said:
The people changed the laws. Let me know when the legal requirements for equal treatment also change. Wishful thinking means jack squat.
Click to expand...

The people didn't change anything. Brown v. Board of Education did that...
 
Hamster Buddha said:
The people didn't change anything. Brown v. Board of Education did that...
Click to expand...

Then let me know when the courts change something. Until something actually happens, people are still obligated to follow the existing laws.
 
Cephus said:
Then let me know when the courts change something. Until something actually happens, people are still obligated to follow the existing laws.
Click to expand...

Wait what were we talking about? *reads up*

Oh okay then. The reason I asked that was because I wanted more of a reason than to say "it's the law". Something like that which is so obviously the right thing to do (ending segregation that is), should have a better argument than "it's the law". I assumed when they were arguing Brown, that argument didn't seem to fly. As it applies to this case, we're basically the same thing (choosing to not do business with someone because their different), and it would seem to apply if you understand.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Wait what were we talking about? *reads up*

Oh okay then. The reason I asked that was because I wanted more of a reason than to say "it's the law". Something like that which is so obviously the right thing to do (ending segregation that is), should have a better argument than "it's the law". I assumed when they were arguing Brown, that argument didn't seem to fly. As it applies to this case, we're basically the same thing (choosing to not do business with someone because their different), and it would seem to apply if you understand.
Click to expand...

But that's really what it comes down to. It is the law. You follow the law or face the consequences. If you want to try to change the law, there are means to do so. Do so. Succeed or fail. Just saying that you can ignore the law because you have a moral problem with it is foolish.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Why is it wrong to choose who to serve or not? I assume we don't have issue with something that is NOT in public? Why the difference if we're okay in private?
Click to expand...
Because discriminating based on inherent characteristics violates the non-aggression principle.

Imagine there is a black man in a town of all white people. He is the only black man. Nobody can leave the town or go anywhere else. Now the entire town is racist and refuses to serve the black man. He cannot buy property. He cannot rent property. He cannot eat. He cannot work. He is shut out from society. In this scenario, is your answer really just "well, people can choose who to serve?"

Now if this man were a known thief and criminal, and because of that people were barring him from society, then it would be a different story. He was the initial aggressor, and must face the consequences. But that is not the case.

The issue is that each individual has a right to participate in a free market. Discrimination based on factors like race simply violates that right.
 
joG said:
Where is it in the Bible? Not that I do not believe that you can make religions to say anything you want. That is the same with political opinions and even science. The justification of the German extermination of the handicapped was scientifically argued. That is trivial. It is also the reason that the government should almost never be allowed to take sides in an ideological dispute like this one.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you missed the part where I typed "/end sarcasm."
 
Lakryte said:
Because discriminating based on inherent characteristics violates the non-aggression principle.

Imagine there is a black man in a town of all white people. He is the only black man. Nobody can leave the town or go anywhere else. Now the entire town is racist and refuses to serve the black man. He cannot buy property. He cannot rent property. He cannot eat. He cannot work. He is shut out from society. In this scenario, is your answer really just "well, people can choose who to serve?"

Now if this man were a known thief and criminal, and because of that people were barring him from society, then it would be a different story. He was the initial aggressor, and must face the consequences. But that is not the case.

The issue is that each individual has a right to participate in a free market. Discrimination based on factors like race simply violates that right.
Click to expand...

I'm definitely with you in that extreme, but is that really all we have on this argument? Worrying about extreme? In the case with the cake maker, I'm sure that there were other options the couple had. Instead of pursuing those, they decided to make a stink, and to me, that rubs me wrong. But I do appreciate the non-aggression principle, that's certainly something to work from.

One other question; how does this apply to Churches and Marriages. Should a Church be forced into carrying out SSM?

Cephus said:
But that's really what it comes down to. It is the law. You follow the law or face the consequences. If you want to try to change the law, there are means to do so. Do so. Succeed or fail. Just saying that you can ignore the law because you have a moral problem with it is foolish.
Click to expand...

You realize how many injustices wouldn't of been addressed if people just had that attitude? I'm not arguing that we should restart segregation, I just really haven't developed an argument on the topic which is what I was looking for.

Like the above.
 
Bigfoot 88 said:
The authoritarianism in your post is revolting.
Click to expand...

He's merely stating a fact, if gay marriage becomes the law of the land in all states. Just as it is in those states where gay marriage is legal.

Just like businesses have to hire minorities, whether they like it or not. It's just a factual statement. Nothing authoritarian about the statement. But the law IS King in our country, so I guess the law can be said to be authoritarian (except we can change laws).
 
Hamster Buddha said:
I'm definitely with you in that extreme, but is that really all we have on this argument? Worrying about extreme? In the case with the cake maker, I'm sure that there were other options the couple had. Instead of pursuing those, they decided to make a stink, and to me, that rubs me wrong. But I do appreciate the non-aggression principle, that's certainly something to work from.
Click to expand...
If you are with me in that extreme, then you cannot be against me in the other cases. That is the only consistent position. Otherwise, you are saying "well, if one person does this bad thing it should be legal, but if a bunch of people do it, then suddenly it is wrong." That is a fallacious position to hold.

One other question; how does this apply to Churches and Marriages. Should a Church be forced into carrying out SSM?
Click to expand...
I don't believe a church should be forced to carry out a SSM. But a church is not analogous to a bakery. The marriage license is also a creation of government, not the church, so it is government then must provide them equally. Anything the church does is purely ceremonial with regards to marriage. If not a single church in the town allowed the black man to get married, he could still get the marriage license and have all the benefits conferred by it.
 
Lakryte said:
If you are with me in that extreme, then you cannot be against me in the other cases. That is the only consistent position. Otherwise, you are saying "well, if one person does this bad thing it should be legal, but if a bunch of people do it, then suddenly it is wrong." That is a fallacious position to hold.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you, but I find myself considering the specifics in this case, instead of arguing the issue of discrimination as a whole. It would be analogous to a judge offering a limited opinion instead of a broader sweeping one. Let me say this, I'd feel more comfortable on your side of the fence had even one more cake maker said no to them because they were gay. Truth be told, I'm sure in this entire country there was at least one more bakery that would of said it, so in the end, I'll said with not discriminating.

Lakryte said:
I don't believe a church should be forced to carry out a SSM. But a church is not analogous to a bakery. The marriage license is also a creation of government, not the church, so it is government then must provide them equally. Anything the church does is purely ceremonial with regards to marriage. If not a single church in the town allowed the black man to get married, he could still get the marriage license and have all the benefits conferred by it.
Click to expand...

The reason I brought up churches is that this is where the line of thought has gone to in places like Denmark, where churches are forced to carry out weddings, despite their objections. The other thing to consider though is that, in this country, we have the Separation of Church and State, and for the State to make that sort of ruling would clearly violate that I would believe. As you said though, legally speaking, the church doesn't have to come into play for a couple to be "married", so I guess in the end it doesn't really matter. Though I do wonder if at some point, that will be a case to be brought up.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Let me say this, I'd feel more comfortable on your side of the fence had even one more cake maker said no to them because they were gay. Truth be told, I'm sure in this entire country there was at least one more bakery that would of said it, so in the end, I'll said with not discriminating.
Click to expand...
So going further down your slope, since there are other bakeries, this bakery would not have to follow other regs....like....sanitation.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
So going further down your slope, since there are other bakeries, this bakery would not have to follow other regs....like....sanitation.
Click to expand...

What? Have you even been following the other posts?

*Reads and sits on it*

What I was saying was that because I doubt this is the only (public) christian establishment (let alone bakery) that would discriminate against SS couples, I would side with not discriminating and issue the broad ruling. I was really more typing out my thoughts, then trying to be concise like over where we're talking about WW2. I can see how the writing styles would be confusing.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
What? Have you even been following the other posts?
Click to expand...
I'm reading your post, you are predicating your response with "if there had been one more act of discrimination against them, I would be more "comfortable" agreeing with calling it discrimination"

you are getting close to excusing it because it is isolated.

So going further down your slope, since there are other bakeries, this bakery would not have to follow other regs....like....sanitation.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
I don't disagree with you, but I find myself considering the specifics in this case, instead of arguing the issue of discrimination as a whole. It would be analogous to a judge offering a limited opinion instead of a broader sweeping one. Let me say this, I'd feel more comfortable on your side of the fence had even one more cake maker said no to them because they were gay. Truth be told, I'm sure in this entire country there was at least one more bakery that would of said it, so in the end, I'll said with not discriminating.
Click to expand...
I get what you are saying, and it was my position for quite some time. But the harm inflicted may be less if just one baker says no as opposed to 20, but a harm is committed nonetheless. To me, the area that is black and white is the extreme scenario I presented where everyone denies a black man service. I know with certainty that is wrong. I have not found an argument that can reconcile allowing some discrimination but not allowing everyone to discriminate.

The reason I brought up churches is that this is where the line of thought has gone to in places like Denmark, where churches are forced to carry out weddings, despite their objections. The other thing to consider though is that, in this country, we have the Separation of Church and State, and for the State to make that sort of ruling would clearly violate that I would believe. As you said though, legally speaking, the church doesn't have to come into play for a couple to be "married", so I guess in the end it doesn't really matter. Though I do wonder if at some point, that will be a case to be brought up.
Click to expand...
It might be, but I doubt it. Some churches still refuse to marry interracial couples, and nobody has forced them to change. If anything, the people who create the change our the members of the church who end up pressuring the church to change from the inside out.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I'm reading your post, you are predicating your response with "if there had been one more act of discrimination against them, I would be more "comfortable" agreeing with calling it discrimination"

you are getting close to excusing it because it is isolated.

So going further down your slope, since there are other bakeries, this bakery would not have to follow other regs....like....sanitation.
Click to expand...

Yes but then I said:

"Truth be told, I'm sure in this entire country there was at least one more bakery that would of said it, so in the end, I'll said with not discriminating."

In other words, where there's one person who discriminates, there's going to be others. And since it's not isolated, then it's something that must be stopped. But on the sanitation this, there's a public health risk there... choosing not to serve someone doesn't present a health risk.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Yes but then I said:

"Truth be told, I'm sure in this entire country there was at least one more bakery that would of said it, so in the end, I'll said with not discriminating."

In other words, where there's one person who discriminates, there's going to be others. And since it's not isolated, then it's something that must be stopped. But on the sanitation this, there's a public health risk there... choosing not to serve someone doesn't present a health risk.
Click to expand...
I did not say there is a health risk, that wasn't the analogy, the analogy is that if a business is excused for one reg, it can be excused for others.....THE SLIPPERY SLOPE.

And again, it was YOUR premise that "if it was just one, well...it isn't so bad....but since there are probably others,well we should do something....even though I am not entirely comfortable with that"..

That is, how can I say...um...""flimsy".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom