Gay marriage, once inconceivable, now appears inevitable

1750Texan said:

Where does that nugget of wisdom come from?

Click to expand...

Applied and reformulated sociology.

1750Texan said:

Too bad our Constitution kinda requires that the government take a side on ideological disputes...

Click to expand...

And I thought it said that citizens should be free to express their political and religious beliefs. One of the most important ways of expressing religious belief is, you know, not to do things that you consider forbidden by the Religion. Why, we did not even make contentious objectors defend the country. And you think helping a lesbian marry should be forced on these contentious objectors? I think that anyone demanding that has a very odd set of priorities.

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 once you get that business license, you're now serving the public and have to follow a different set of requirements. You have to follow health laws, food preparation laws, etc., something you don't really have to do in your own kitchen.

joG said:

Bigots will believe anything that the peer group requires.

Click to expand...

Then that does not legitimize a religious belief that would deny gays service anymore than a religious belief against denying blacks or women service.

Agreed?

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...

It actually doesn't say that they have to be black.

Bible verses about slavery

Leviticus 25:44-46 ESV / 310 helpful votes

As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.

Exodus 21:20-21 ESV / 213 helpful votes

“When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

Ephesians 6:5 ESV / 181 helpful votes

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ,

Click to expand...

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...

Doesnt have to be in the Bible, it just has to be interpreted as such by Christians (if we are using Christianity as an example).

"For Senator Bilbo, however, racism was more that just an ideology, it was a sincerely held religious belief. In a book entitled Take Your Choice: Separation or Mongrelization, Bilbo wrote that “[p]urity of race is a gift of God . . . . And God, in his infinite wisdom, has so ordained it that when man destroys his racial purity, it can never be redeemed.” Allowing “the blood of the races [to] mix,” according to Bilbo, was a direct attack on the “Divine plan of God.” There “is every reason to believe that miscengenation and amalgamation are sins of man in direct defiance to the will of God.”"

"In 1901, Georgia Gov. Allen Candler defended unequal public schooling for African Americans on the grounds that “God made them negroes and we cannot by education make them white folks.” After the Supreme Court ordered public schools integrated in Brown v. Board of Education, many segregationists cited their own faith as justification for official racism. Ross Barnett won Mississippi’s governorship in a landslide in 1960 after claiming that “the good Lord was the original segregationist.” Senator Harry Byrd of Virginia relied on passages from Genesis, Leviticus and Matthew when he spoke out against the civil rights law banning employment discrimination and whites-only lunch counters on the Senate floor."

When 'Religious Liberty' Was Used To Justify Racism Instead Of Homophobia | ThinkProgress

Lursa said:

Then that does not legitimize a religious belief that would deny gays service anymore than a religious belief against denying blacks or women service.

Agreed?

Click to expand...

It only requires that believers not be forced to participate in what they conscientiously object to participating in. And it is a real bigot that thinks they should be forced to conform.

joG said:

It only requires that believers not be forced to participate in what they conscientiously object to participating in. And it is a real bigot that thinks they should be forced to conform.

Click to expand...

So then you support racists excluding races they hate and misogynists excluding women from their businesses?

Lursa said:

Doesnt have to be in the Bible, it just has to be interpreted as such by Christians (if we are using Christianity as an example).

"For Senator Bilbo, however, racism was more that just an ideology, it was a sincerely held religious belief. In a book entitled Take Your Choice: Separation or Mongrelization, Bilbo wrote that “[p]urity of race is a gift of God . . . . And God, in his infinite wisdom, has so ordained it that when man destroys his racial purity, it can never be redeemed.” Allowing “the blood of the races [to] mix,” according to Bilbo, was a direct attack on the “Divine plan of God.” There “is every reason to believe that miscengenation and amalgamation are sins of man in direct defiance to the will of God.”"

"In 1901, Georgia Gov. Allen Candler defended unequal public schooling for African Americans on the grounds that “God made them negroes and we cannot by education make them white folks.” After the Supreme Court ordered public schools integrated in Brown v. Board of Education, many segregationists cited their own faith as justification for official racism. Ross Barnett won Mississippi’s governorship in a landslide in 1960 after claiming that “the good Lord was the original segregationist.” Senator Harry Byrd of Virginia relied on passages from Genesis, Leviticus and Matthew when he spoke out against the civil rights law banning employment discrimination and whites-only lunch counters on the Senate floor."

When 'Religious Liberty' Was Used To Justify Racism Instead Of Homophobia | ThinkProgress

Click to expand...

And what do you want to say? Of course scriptures are interpreted. So? You are just trying to be difficult or something. Anyone knows it has to be a prick that forces a conscientious objector act against his beliefs, where all the prick has to do is throw her party in another venue. That kind of person is disgusting. And to demand the state get involved in suppression of religious or political opinion in so naive of the resultant dangers one can hardly believe it.

Cephus said:

Because once you get that business license, you're now serving the public and have to follow a different set of requirements. You have to follow health laws, food preparation laws, etc., something you don't really have to do in your own kitchen.

Click to expand...

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?

Lursa said:

So then you support racists excluding races they hate and misogynists excluding women from their businesses?

Click to expand...

And you support forcing others to do things that they don't want to, just because you have decided it's right? It works both ways...

joG said:

It only requires that believers not be forced to participate in what they conscientiously object to participating in. And it is a real bigot that thinks they should be forced to conform.

Click to expand...

Funny thing is I don't remember the same type of outrage years ago when it was Muslim's that didn't want to serve those simply carrying alchohol or service to disabled people because they had service dogs with them.



>>>>

joG said:

It only requires that believers not be forced to participate in what they conscientiously object to participating in. And it is a real bigot that thinks they should be forced to conform.

Click to expand...

Like wearing clothing? Naturists believe in being nude, so why are they not allowed to practice their religion/deeply held beliefs in any place they wish, including their personal businesses open to the public or just in public?

There is even Christian Naturism.

Christian naturism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

joG said:

And what do you want to say? Of course scriptures are interpreted. So? You are just trying to be difficult or something. Anyone knows it has to be a prick that forces a conscientious objector act against his beliefs, where all the prick has to do is throw her party in another venue. That kind of person is disgusting. And to demand the state get involved in suppression of religious or political opinion in so naive of the resultant dangers one can hardly believe it.

Click to expand...

Not at all. We were discussing people objecting to serving gays because of their religious beliefs and some people consider that a legitimate argument.

I am pointing out that that has been tried before and NOT held to be a legitimate argument in the prevention of discrimination.

Calling people that call out racists and others that hate (and religious people hate all the time...that is disgusting and makes all in my religion look bad)...pricks is just silly and a real straw to be grasping.

Being right often not easy or popular. A little name-calling doesnt change it.

Edit: It's also funny how once I gave you clear examples, you chose to say they didnt mean anything relevant and then went on the defensive.

roguenuke said:

Like wearing clothing? Naturists believe in being nude, so why are they not allowed to practice their religion/deeply held beliefs in any place they wish, including their personal businesses open to the public or just in public?

There is even Christian Naturism.

Christian naturism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

Are you really comparing the possibility of say, two gays holding hands, to people running around naked?

Hamster Buddha said:

And you support forcing others to do things that they don't want to, just because you have decided it's right? It works both ways...

Click to expand...

We have laws against discrimination...I didnt decide they were right but I support them. (And yes I do agree with them)

People have to do things they dont want to all the time. Like pay their taxes.

Hamster Buddha said:

Are you really comparing the possibility of say, two gays holding hands, to people running around naked?

Click to expand...

What's wrong with people running around naked? I dont want to see it and there is a public health component to be considered but I dont see anything 'morally' wrong with being naked in public.

Lursa said:

Not at all. We were discussing people objecting to serving gays because of their religious beliefs and some people consider that a legitimate argument.

I am pointing out that that has been tried before and NOT held to be a legitimate argument in the prevention of discrimination.

Calling people that call out racists and others that hate (and religious people hate all the time...that is disgusting and makes all in my religion look bad)...pricks is just silly and a real straw to be grasping.

Being right often not easy or popular. A little name-calling doesnt change it.

Click to expand...

In some ways, this argument reminds me of the Abortion debate. In both cases, we are talking about trumping one group of persons rights (religious objectors in this debate, women/unborn fetuses (depending on which side and your views) in the abortion debate). I understand why religious people would be upset because all they are saying is that their rights are being trumped by another group, and basically their beliefs don't matter. It's not about hate whatsoever. On the flip side, no one is forcing SSM couples from going to a particular cake establishment, they can always choose to go to someone else.

In reality, at this moment, only one group is really being "forced" into doing something, and that's not the SSM side.

Lursa said:

What's wrong with people running around naked? I dont want to see it and there is a public health component to be considered but I dont see anything 'morally' wrong with being naked in public.

Click to expand...

Same thing wrong with people making out/having sex in public. It's disruptive to society. But more than that, I'll guarantee you that people are going to stop and look, and near roads, this can cause accidents. I think if society was more comfortable with the nude form, it wouldn't be an issue, but at this point in our development, there's a public safety risk.

Lursa said:

We have laws against discrimination...I didnt decide they were right but I support them. (And yes I do agree with them)

People have to do things they dont want to all the time. Like pay their taxes.

Click to expand...

One could easily argue that religious people are being discriminated against here, in that there feelings and concerned are disregarded for another groups. Also, I believe that relying on what the current law of the land is a terrible idea... (see Plessy v. Ferguson)

Hamster Buddha said:

Are you really comparing the possibility of say, two gays holding hands, to people running around naked?

Click to expand...

I am saying that if someone is going to claim that a deeply held belief is that important to ensure it is upheld, that should include all beliefs, not just those that some or even the majority agree with. There is nothing really wrong with people running around naked beyond some sanitation issues, just as there is nothing wrong with two people of the same sex holding hands or kissing or getting married even.

Hamster Buddha said:

Same thing wrong with people making out/having sex in public. It's disruptive to society. But more than that, I'll guarantee you that people are going to stop and look, and near roads, this can cause accidents. I think if society was more comfortable with the nude form, it wouldn't be an issue, but at this point in our development, there's a public safety risk.

Click to expand...

Nah, that would end fairly quickly, the disruption. Look at mini skirts. Women walking around in bikini tops. People making out in public. Men holding hands (this is actually done in the mid-East, as well as men dancing together, but it's straight men. Acceptable). People would...and just IMO should...become more comfortable with the human form. And still many (most?) would not do so. I know I wouldnt. And there are logical issues of comfort that would prevent it alot too.

Lots of things can cause disruptions that are one-offs too and are not against the law.

There is a public health risk in nudity in many situations and that would have to be addressed and would prevent some of it too.

One could easily argue that religious people are being discriminated against here, in that there feelings and concerned are disregarded for another groups. Also, I believe that relying on what the current law of the land is a terrible idea... (see Plessy v. Ferguson)[/QUOTE]

Well, I provided a link and examples of why people's religious views are not justification for racism, so do you agree with the laws that overturned Jim Crow? And religious views also were used to discriminate against women for centuries.

THe public good is served by not allowing such discrimination. Disenfranchising a contributing demographic from our society does not 'help' society. It creates classes, friction, fewer opportunities for those demographics.

Hamster Buddha said:

In some ways, this argument reminds me of the Abortion debate. In both cases, we are talking about trumping one group of persons rights (religious objectors in this debate, women/unborn fetuses (depending on which side and your views) in the abortion debate). I understand why religious people would be upset because all they are saying is that their rights are being trumped by another group, and basically their beliefs don't matter. It's not about hate whatsoever. On the flip side, no one is forcing SSM couples from going to a particular cake establishment, they can always choose to go to someone else.

In reality, at this moment, only one group is really being "forced" into doing something, and that's not the SSM side.

Click to expand...

The requirements for opening a business are very clear. No one is forced to do so if they dont like the terms. If they have a religious belief that women are unclean (orthodox Jews) are they allowed to refuse women service? I have see this discrimination first hand btw, in NYC. Not completely parallel...I was providing the service (teaching) and was asked to leave and be replaced by a man. It was legal but such beliefs exist.

Lursa said:

Nah, that would end fairly quickly, the disruption. Look at mini skirts. Women walking around in bikini tops. People making out in public. Men holding hands (this is actually done in the mid-East, as well as men dancing together, but it's straight men. Acceptable). People would...and just IMO should...become more comfortable with the human form. And still many (most?) would not do so. I know I wouldnt. And there are logical issues of comfort that would prevent it alot too.

Lots of things can cause disruptions that are one-offs too and are not against the law.

There is a public health risk in nudity in many situations and that would have to be addressed and would prevent some of it too.

Click to expand...

We're not talking about an incremental change where a few inches comes off every other year from the mini skirt, we're talking full nudity. That's not something that people would settle into quickly. The whole reason it's taken us a century to go from this:



to this:



It's taken us almost two thousand years to return to this point from where we were in antiquity:



And by the way, the only reason the two piece bikini got it's chance was due to fabric shortage in post-war era. Without that caveat, who knows how long we would of had to wait for the bikini to make a return.

Think of it like this: how many times have you been past the scene of an accident? Despite the fact that we've seen them multiple times, there is always people that will slow down at the scene of an accident to get a peek at what occurred. Same would happened whenever someone ran into a nude person in public for AT LEAST the first couple of times. That would end up causing a lot of accidents to say the least.

Bottom line, we aren't Rome. American society is far, far more conservative than Rome ever was. And thus is why it wouldn't work.

Lursa said:

Well, I provided a link and examples of why people's religious views are not justification for racism, so do you agree with the laws that overturned Jim Crow? And religious views also were used to discriminate against women for centuries.

THe public good is served by not allowing such discrimination. Disenfranchising a contributing demographic from our society does not 'help' society. It creates classes, friction, fewer opportunities for those demographics.

Click to expand...

Is our only option to base our laws on the absolutes, or worst case scenario? With Jim Crow, there wasn't another option for blacks in the south. Blacks owned businesses were few and far between, so they literally were second class citizens. But that's not the same scale that we're talking about with the cakes thing. Honestly what are we talking about? A couple of cake businesses? It's hardly like this was an epidemic of businesses turning away gays. In this case, the SSM couples had other choices. And that's the difference from the Jim Crow South is that for Blacks, there were no other choices for them. There is only one group that is being forced to do something they don't want, and that's not the discriminated party.

Separate but Equal could of worked, if the people carrying out such laws weren't as bigoted as they were. I guess you could argue though that if they weren't bigoted to begin with, they wouldn't of needed those laws to begin with.

Hamster Buddha said:

We're not talking about an incremental change where a few inches comes off every other year from the mini skirt, we're talking full nudity. That's not something that people would settle into quickly. The whole reason it's taken us a century to go from this:


And by the way, the only reason the two piece bikini got it's chance was due to fabric shortage in post-war era. Without that caveat, who knows how long we would of had to wait for the bikini to make a return.

Think of it like this: how many times have you been past the scene of an accident? Despite the fact that we've seen them multiple times, there is always people that will slow down at the scene of an accident to get a peek at what occurred. Same would happened whenever someone ran into a nude person in public for AT LEAST the first couple of times. That would end up causing a lot of accidents to say the least.

Bottom line, we aren't Rome. American society is far, far more conservative than Rome ever was. And thus is why it wouldn't work.

Click to expand...

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.

Hamster Buddha said:

Is our only option to base our laws on the absolutes, or worst case scenario? With Jim Crow, there wasn't another option for blacks in the south. Blacks owned businesses were few and far between, so they literally were second class citizens. But that's not the same scale that we're talking about with the cakes thing. Honestly what are we talking about? A couple of cake businesses? It's hardly like this was an epidemic of businesses turning away gays. In this case, the SSM couples had other choices. And that's the difference from the Jim Crow South is that for Blacks, there were no other choices for them. There is only one group that is being forced to do something they don't want, and that's not the discriminated party.

Separate but Equal could of worked, if the people carrying out such laws weren't as bigoted as they were. I guess you could argue though that if they weren't bigoted to begin with, they wouldn't of needed those laws to begin with.

Click to expand...

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.