Consenting Adults

[noonereal]

That is a good point, and thanks for seeing both sides of the argument. I agree there is potential for unwanted consequences.

Tbh I don't know the solution. It's a complicated issue which needs a lot of open discussion. The point is that it's obsolete to say that what two consenting adults do is none of my business...I wish it wasn't, but unfortunately the State can and will make it my business due to widespread pressure from the gay movement.

Is the state or gays making you sleep with a homosexual?

or, what are you talking about?

 

[Babykat]

THey said the same things about 'the women's movement' and 'the civil rights movement'. We/they all had to fight for equality in our society too.

But history regards such ignorant people very unkindly now, with good reason. It might be smart to learn from history.

I don’t know what you do for a living. But let’s say you own your own bakery. It’s been in your family for years. One day this pregnant woman comes in and she wants you to make a cake for the party after her abortion. According to new laws passed no one can refuse service for any reason. So now your forced to help some celebrate murder of a child. If we remove the right of the individual to discriminate this could become a very real situation. Individual persons should have the right to discriminate. Organization should not have the right to discriminate. Discrimination against any group is wrong for any reason. At what point do we cross the line between from supporting equal rights for one group to discriminating against another. Is it right for me to force myself into a women’s bathroom because I identify as a female even though I have male genitals. At this point am I fighting for equality or am I forcing my well onto all the other females in the bathroom.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lursa]

I don’t know what you do for a living. But let’s say you own your own bakery. It’s been in your family for years. One day this pregnant woman comes in and she wants you to make a cake for the party after her abortion. According to new laws passed no one can refuse service for any reason. So now your forced to help some celebrate murder of a child. If we remove the right of the individual to discriminate this could become a very real situation. Individual persons should have the right to discriminate. Organization should not have the right to discriminate. Discrimination against any group is wrong for any reason. At what point do we cross the line between from supporting equal rights for one group to discriminating against another. Is it right for me to force myself into a women’s bathroom because I identify as a female even though I have male genitals. At this point am I fighting for equality or am I forcing my well onto all the other females in the bathroom.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So someone can decide not to serve someone with a MAGA hat on?

If you dont want to follow the laws for public businesses, no one forces you to open a public business.

 

[Crusader13]

THey said the same things about 'the women's movement' and 'the civil rights movement'. We/they all had to fight for equality in our society too.

But history regards such ignorant people very unkindly now, with good reason. It might be smart to learn from history.

No sorry its not the same thing. Refusing to serve blacks was from an intention of hate and feelings of superiority. Nobody has ever made that argument to justify refusal of service to gays.

Black people do not violate someone's religion. Gay people do (in fact they violate almost every religion). Whether you like it or not we have religious freedom in thile free world so therefore the religious obligation Christian have to not support homosexuality should be legally protected. You would not appreciate the government forcing you to abandon your beliefs, such as mandating that atheists have to attend Sunday Mass or pray. It is the same for Christians. They should not be forced to violate their beliefs.

 

[Lursa]

No sorry its not the same thing. Refusing to serve blacks was from an intention of hate and feelings of superiority. Nobody has ever made that argument to justify refusal of service to gays.

Black people do not violate someone's religion. Gay people do (in fact they violate almost every religion). Whether you like it or not we have religious freedom in thile free world so therefore the religious obligation Christian have to not support homosexuality should be legally protected. You would not appreciate the government forcing you to abandon your beliefs, such as mandating that atheists have to attend Sunday Mass or pray. It is the same for Christians. They should not be forced to violate their beliefs.

There were plenty of scriptures used....by legislators!...to try and fight segregation and interracial marriage, so you're wrong there. They definitely tried using religion to fight black civil rights.

Nobody asked you to support being gay or being black. You havent had to abandon a thing.

 

[Casper]

Proving consent is the tricky part.

Is it? I've never run into that issue, hummmm.

 

[Babykat]

So someone can decide not to serve someone with a MAGA hat on?

If you dont want to follow the laws for public businesses, no one forces you to open a public business.

So you would be perfectly happy to make a cake to help celebrate the death of a unborn child and spitting on the first amendment in the bill of rights is ok with you. If we weaken that part of the first amendment how much longer till the other parts of the first amendment mean nothing. Which include freedom of speech, press, and protest. Please don’t take me wrong. I agree with same sex marriage. I even fight for it. But there is a big difference between fighting for equal rights and appressing another persons rights. By the way the owner of a company can choose to refuse service to anyone. As of right now that’s law. But the employees of a company cannot refuse service. This means most businesses want refuse service. Because most owners of the company don’t work at point of sale.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lursa]

So you would be perfectly happy to make a cake to help celebrate the death of a unborn child and spitting on the first amendment in the bill of rights is ok with you. If we weaken that part of the first amendment how much longer till the other parts of the first amendment mean nothing. Which include freedom of speech, press, and protest. Please don’t take me wrong. I agree with same sex marriage. I even fight for it. But there is a big difference between fighting for equal rights and appressing another persons rights. By the way the owner of a company can choose to refuse service to anyone. As of right now that’s law. But the employees of a company cannot refuse service. This means most businesses want refuse service. Because most owners of the company don’t work at point of sale.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I used to be a park ranger...should I have been able to decide not to serve Muslims, gays, fornicators, blacks, Jews etc based on religous beliefs?

 

[kitsune]

Is the state or gays making you sleep with a homosexual?

or, what are you talking about?

It could be code for, "It annoys me that gays have (almost) the same legal rights that I do", or, "My gay jokes and derogatory slang are not as acceptable in polite society as they used to be", or, "It drives me crazy when gay couples walk around the place just like straight couples and you can't mock them as freely as you could in the old days.". Or maybe not. Just some possibilities.

 

[Babykat]

I used to be a park ranger...should I have been able to decide not to serve Muslims, gays, fornicators, blacks, Jews etc based on religous beliefs?

If you go up to one of my earlier post on this one thread. You will see I said that the government, housing market, and corporations or big business should not be allowed to discriminate. That means everyone would have equal access to employment, education, housing, and government funded programs and facilities. But if you take the right of the individual to discriminate against others you appress their freedom of religion, and freedom of speech. I have always noted the difference between big business and small family owned business. If a small business wants to discriminate that just means more money for the business that don’t. In the law there is also a destination between public businesses and private businesses. Public business being any business publicly traded. A private business is owned by an individual or a small group of business individuals and isn’t publicly traded. Each has its own set of laws that apply to them. Your not talking about giving everyone equal rights and opportunities. Your talked about taking rights away from one group so you can give rights to another group. That’s not fair either. There is a fine line between equal rights and opportunities for everyone and oppressing one group to give freedom to another.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Crusader13]

If you go up to one of my earlier post on this one thread. You will see I said that the government, housing market, and corporations or big business should not be allowed to discriminate. That means everyone would have equal access to employment, education, housing, and government funded programs and facilities. But if you take the right of the individual to discriminate against others you appress their freedom of religion, and freedom of speech. I have always noted the difference between big business and small family owned business. If a small business wants to discriminate that just means more money for the business that don’t. In the law there is also a destination between public businesses and private businesses. Public business being any business publicly traded. A private business is owned by an individual or a small group of business individuals and isn’t publicly traded. Each has its own set of laws that apply to them. Your not talking about giving everyone equal rights and opportunities. Your talked about taking rights away from one group so you can give rights to another group. That’s not fair either. There is a fine line between equal rights and opportunities for everyone and oppressing one group to give freedom to another.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The way employment and politics works today, big business discriminate more than anyone else. Google is selectively limiting their candidate pool to women and minorities, and should you dare have an opinion of a Conservative or religious origin you'll be out of a job by lunchtime. This is not equal opportunity.

 

[roguenuke]

Family is not a passing fad. We did not invent the family. It’s not a question of religion or social status: when you are born, you have a father and a mother. Life has a natural path, there are some things that should not be changed. And one of these is family.

Nature often changes family. Family in many cultures consists of far more than simply mother, father, and children. Family in this culture is many times not father, mother and their bio children. Family is a relative concept in all cultures since it can be used for just two people or hundreds, thousands even.

 

[KevinKohler]

Is it? I've never run into that issue, hummmm.

After the fact?


Yep, pretty tricky. Typically, no witnesses, no statements save that of the 2 involved.

 

[noonereal]

Why is that legal and moral concept so difficult for some people to grasp?

One or more consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want to with each other. They don't need my permission or that of anyone else.

This is poorly thought out.

One should be allowed to kill or maim another.

 

[noonereal]

If you're speaking of homosexuality, the issue most people have is with gay people getting married, not being in a relationship with each other. Nobody has ever called for homosexuality to be banned. What you do in your own sexual life is your own business. But when you want to get married, in an institution designed by society for society to foster the production of children, using many systems which rely on taxpayer money, yea sorry you need society's permission. You're not entitled to my money and support unless you earn it.

Gays don't pay tax?

 

[Casper]

Do you believe that villifying homosexuality is healthy for society as a whole?

After the fact?


Yep, pretty tricky. Typically, no witnesses, no statements save that of the 2 involved.

Nope, not even after the fact. Now in today's world that seems to be the new game plan.

 

[Babykat]

The way employment and politics works today, big business discriminate more than anyone else. Google is selectively limiting their candidate pool to women and minorities, and should you dare have an opinion of a Conservative or religious origin you'll be out of a job by lunchtime. This is not equal opportunity.

That’s the imbalance in equity I’m speaking about. Every individual should have the same rights. But there is a line between making everyone equal and oppressing one group to raise another group up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lursa]

If you go up to one of my earlier post on this one thread. You will see I said that the government, housing market, and corporations or big business should not be allowed to discriminate. That means everyone would have equal access to employment, education, housing, and government funded programs and facilities. But if you take the right of the individual to discriminate against others you appress their freedom of religion, and freedom of speech. I have always noted the difference between big business and small family owned business. If a small business wants to discriminate that just means more money for the business that don’t. In the law there is also a destination between public businesses and private businesses. Public business being any business publicly traded. A private business is owned by an individual or a small group of business individuals and isn’t publicly traded. Each has its own set of laws that apply to them. Your not talking about giving everyone equal rights and opportunities. Your talked about taking rights away from one group so you can give rights to another group. That’s not fair either. There is a fine line between equal rights and opportunities for everyone and oppressing one group to give freedom to another.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So then the stupid cow county clerk in KY shouldnt have been allowed to deny the gay couple a marriage license?

 

[Lursa]

Family is not a passing fad. We did not invent the family. It’s not a question of religion or social status: when you are born, you have a father and a mother. Life has a natural path, there are some things that should not be changed. And one of these is family.

So then couples should not be allowed to adopt kids or have step kids? Or not use surrogates or IFV etc to have kids?

If you answer is that they should, isnt that the opposite of what you just wrote?

 

[PirateMk1]

That's a lame ass argument. Heterosexual couples can have kids, therefore heterosexual marriage should be supported. The law isn't there to nit-pick at individual couples. It's simply there to foster for the largest contingent. The fact is most heterosexual marriages will bear children. Some heterosexual marriages involving old or infertile couples will also bear children. But no homosexual marriage will ever bear children.

Stopping infertile hetero couples from getting married presents massive complications. What you're suggesting is that we make everyone who wants to get married get tested first and sign a contract promising to have kids. That's not economically or logistically feasible. It's simply easier to go off the statistics and trust the odds which say that if you promote straight marriage, most of those marriages will bear children.

Thankfully we don't need to do this testing or calculation for gay couples. They will never have kids. We know this beyond a doubt, there's no question about it.

Why do we care if a gay couple wants the pleasures and headaches of marriage?

 

[PirateMk1]

If you go up to one of my earlier post on this one thread. You will see I said that the government, housing market, and corporations or big business should not be allowed to discriminate. That means everyone would have equal access to employment, education, housing, and government funded programs and facilities. But if you take the right of the individual to discriminate against others you appress their freedom of religion, and freedom of speech. I have always noted the difference between big business and small family owned business. If a small business wants to discriminate that just means more money for the business that don’t. In the law there is also a destination between public businesses and private businesses. Public business being any business publicly traded. A private business is owned by an individual or a small group of business individuals and isn’t publicly traded. Each has its own set of laws that apply to them. Your not talking about giving everyone equal rights and opportunities. Your talked about taking rights away from one group so you can give rights to another group. That’s not fair either. There is a fine line between equal rights and opportunities for everyone and oppressing one group to give freedom to another.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think the you want to discern business's that are individually owned and those that are inexistence because of government for purposes of assessing freedom and access issues. The best way would be differentiating sole proprietorships and unincorporated partnerships as being essentially the sole owners of a company that are liable for its running, and government issued limited liability companies that are incorporated or otherwise where the owners of said company have limited liability.

So what you could say is in exchange for the limited liability granted by the state, the public at large, the company in question has an obligation to serve in its entirety the public at large. A sole proprietorship, or partnership on the other hand having asked for no privileges also reserves their rights to do as they see fit.

I think that is the best way to cut this baby in half, which is to clarify what is pretty much already done.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Do you believe that villifying homosexuality is healthy for society as a whole?

So everyone who does not agree with that lifestyle is villifying homosexuality. I thought freedom of speech meant you could disagree and say why? I don't like it, I don't much care what two people do on their own but don't try to force me to support it.

 

[Deuce]

Back when we had standards, the argument was that certain activities degrade society as a whole. Of course that ship has already sailed.

*votes for a guy who has cheated on all three of his wives with various pornstars*

 

[Deuce]

So everyone who does not agree with that lifestyle is villifying homosexuality. I thought freedom of speech meant you could disagree and say why? I don't like it, I don't much care what two people do on their own but don't try to force me to support it.

Not everyone. But you are. “Force me to support it” is straight out of the bigot’s propaganda book. If you were really so uninterested in what two dudes do in the bedroom, you wouldn’t spend time on the internet ranting about how it degrades society.

 

[Babykat]

So then the stupid cow county clerk in KY shouldnt have been allowed to deny the gay couple a marriage license?

I agree 100% Government programs and institutions should see no color, race, gender identity, or sexual orientation. If you don’t want to give out marriage license to same sex marriages don’t work for clerks office. Just like if a Muslim doesn’t want to sell alcohol they don’t work at a place that sells it. There is a difference between personal responsibility and oppressing someone’s rights. Like if you don’t want your children to end up in a home that has beliefs contrary to yours. It is your personal responsibility to make arrangements for your children to end up with someone that you trust to teach them your beliefs Incase of your death. If you don’t make these arrangements then your children end up where they end up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk