[W:3596] Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage

[Lisa]

Marriage of such is very new. Even Lot's daughters were married to men (husbands) in Sodom --- though that society had become engrossed in sexual behavior of the worst kind. And even the husbands of Lots' daughters (though warned) died in the destruction of the cities of the plain. All societies regarded marriage as the means to create an heir (usually the eldest male, but not always). Two gay men cannot sexually produce an offspring within the confines of their own sexual frivolity.

If your goal is to create offspring, then you don't need to be married to do that.

What is claimed to have happened in the Bible is not relevant to US secular law.

 

[LittleNipper]

The state cannot force any religion to marry anyone, even if they are white Christian, heterosexual, and members of the religion in question because a religious ritual such as marriage is not a secular right. Obergfell v. Hodges only mandated that anyone couple, heteros or LGBT, can take part in a civil marriage that is recognized by the government. What religions do is outside of the scope of the Constitution, until they violate secular law. Before the LGBT marriage decision, many religions would have a religious union commitment ceremony that conveyed no secular civil rights.

In the case of the cake bakers and others, a person's religious beliefs do not exempt them from obeying secular law such as the public accommodation protections of any state or the federal government. If our religious beliefs exempted us from obeying secular law then anyone could do anything they wanted and they would only have to claim that their religious beliefs supersede the Constitution and as such, they cannot be held accountable for their actions. It would be religious anarchy, with people creating their own religions as a way to legitimize their actions. It is obvious that cannot be permitted to happen on the Constitution and our laws would be void.

Freedom of religion and expression are also a part of our Constitutional rights. A bakery is not a public institution in that it acquires no payment or support from the governmental. It pays taxes. It could be argued that say public schools do because they are funded by the government; however, that is also why some communities are slowly converting to private institutions as a means to circumvent governmental manipulation and propaganda.

 

[LittleNipper]

If your goal is to create offspring, then you don't need to be married to do that.

What is claimed to have happened in the Bible is not relevant to US secular law.

No, one doesn't need to be married to sire a baby; however, the infant would not have a legal right to any inheritance and unfortunately would be at one time labelled a bastard. Children born to a married couple would ALWAYS take precedence over one claiming to be an illegitimate sibling. Yes, I do believe that the FATHER would morally owe some recompense; however, it was not required. And while Ishmael was Abraham's first born and GOD did extend HIS promises to both Ishmael and Isaac (read the Genesis account)--- Isaac was the only legitimate heir.

 

[LittleNipper]

I cannot imagine that a Jewish bakery would be required to decorate a cake with a Swastika, or that a "gay" owned bakery would have to decorate a cake with the Lines from Genesis 19:4 & 5 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.". Yet, one's values and opinions being insulted or assaulted seem not to matter if one is a true Christian disciple of Christ. That simply doesn't make sense.

 

[Lisa]

Freedom of religion and expression are also a part of our Constitutional rights. A bakery is not a public institution in that it acquires no payment or support from the governmental.

A bakery is a public business when it opens its doors to the general public. The owner opened it voluntary and as such agreed to obey all relevant laws. His religious beliefs or his religious expression are in no way lessened because he has to serve all people equally. His customers are not concerned with his religious beliefs. He has the very same religious expression as everyone else does. He can close the door, he can make it a private business or he can stop making wedding cakes if he so chooses. The very same law applies to racists after the 1964 Civil Rights act when they tried to claim that their religious beliefs exempted them from serving black and interracial customers. The SCOTUS wasn't impressed with their religious bigotry when they ruled unanimously in the Newman v. Piggie Park decision.

It pays taxes. It could be argued that say public schools do because they are funded by the government; however, that is also why some communities are slowly converting to private institutions as a means to circumvent governmental manipulation and propaganda.

Those taxes do not exempt them from the law.
charter schools have been a failure in educating children to be productive citizens because they put net profit above effective education. Teaching facts instead of religious and partisan beliefs is not propaganda.

 

[Lisa]

I cannot imagine that a Jewish bakery would be required to decorate a cake with a Swastika, or that a "gay" owned bakery would have to decorate a cake with the Lines from Genesis 19:4 & 5 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.". Yet, one's values and opinions being insulted or assaulted seem not to matter if one is a true Christian disciple of Christ. That simply doesn't make sense.

How is a wedding cake a threat to someone's religious beliefs? Their customers aren't being asked to be liked or for the religious owner to agree with their relationship.
If your religious beliefs are threatened by 2 lbs of buttercream then you have bigger problems than your customers. Your beliefs are weak and you are projecting that weakness on to others.

 

[maquiscat]

Marriage of such is very new. Even Lot's daughters were married to men (husbands) in Sodom --- though that society had become engrossed in sexual behavior of the worst kind. And even the husbands of Lots's daughters (though warned) died in the destruction of the cities of the plain. All societies regarded marriage as the means to create an heir (usually the eldest male, but not always). Two gay men cannot sexually produce an offspring within the confines of their own sexual frivolity.

First off history shows you wrong, but if you look only to those societies that only had heterosexual marriage then you will only see heterosexual marriage in history.

That said, current modern society no longer sees marriage as the means to an heir, assuming one even wants one. Many today purposefully spends their lives, both married and not, not producing offspring. Furthermore, many have children without marriage and raise them quite well. In addition civil marriage has nothing to do with sex, children or even love (of course until recently, historically speaking, marriage never did have anything to do with love). Since these things are not required of civil marriage, they are also not limiters.

Sure your God may require such things, but not all follow your God. And while you may think a theocracy would be best (and I use "may" because I don't assume you do feel this way), just remember that the religion or religious variant might not be yours. If you don't want someone to tell you how to worship and live your life, then you can't be a hypocrite and try to force others to do so.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[maquiscat]

however, the infant would not have a legal right to any inheritance

Not true anymore. Wills are the ultimate in deciding inheritance, and through such, a bastard offspring can receive all over the product of a marriage. If no will is present, then the inheritance is divided up.among the offspring (assuming no surviving spouse), regardless of source, as long as their birth certificate reflects the parents.

Children born to a married couple would ALWAYS take precedence over one claiming to be an illegitimate sibling.

Again, not anymore. A bastard that bears both mother's and father's name on their birth certificate is a legitimate recipient of the estate unless a will says otherwise.


Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[maquiscat]

A bakery is a public business when it opens its doors to the general public. The owner opened it voluntary and as such agreed to obey all relevant laws. His religious beliefs or his religious expression are in no way lessened because he has to serve all people equally. His customers are not concerned with his religious beliefs. He has the very same religious expression as everyone else does. He can close the door, he can make it a private business or he can stop making wedding cakes if he so chooses. The very same law applies to racists after the 1964 Civil Rights act when they tried to claim that their religious beliefs exempted them from serving black and interracial customers. The SCOTUS wasn't impressed with their religious bigotry when they ruled unanimously in the Newman v. Piggie Park decision.


Those taxes do not exempt them from the law.
charter schools have been a failure in educating children to be productive citizens because they put net profit above effective education. Teaching facts instead of religious and partisan beliefs is not propaganda.

To both: this is a different topic, albeit related, from that of same sex marriage. It is one worthy of its own thread and has been done as such before. Can we please return to the topic at hand, and leave the issue of business, private vs public, and religion to those thread and not further hijack this one. I will be happy to weigh in on the topic. I just don't want to thread jack any more than we have.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[Lisa]

To both: this is a different topic, albeit related, from that of same-sex marriage. It is one worthy of its own thread and has been done as such before. Can we please return to the topic at hand, and leave the issue of business, private vs public, and religion to that thread and not further hijack this one. I will be happy to weigh in on the topic. I just don't want to thread jack any more than we have.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

LittleNipper broached the subject of bakeries/businesses in #2477 so I addressed it. I will gladly do as requested, but it wasn't my decision to mention the subject.

 

[maquiscat]

LittleNipper broached the subject of bakeries/businesses in #2477 so I addressed it. I will gladly do as requested, but it wasn't my decision to mention the subject.

I understand that, and apologies if you felt I blamed you as the start. Also, just to CYA, I am not a mod so this is def just a request. I can't make you two stop.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[CLAX1911]

How is a wedding cake a threat to someone's religious beliefs?
Their customers aren't being asked to be liked or for the religious owner to agree with their relationship.

well wedding cakes are typically very custom, and if you are asking someone to make or produce something they disagree with you are compelling speech. Even if it is a wedding cake for a lesbian couple.

If your religious beliefs are threatened by 2 lbs of buttercream then you have bigger problems than your customers. Your beliefs are weak and you are projecting that weakness on to others.

Some people have stupid beliefs, I don't disagree with you there.

 

[Lisa]

well wedding cakes are typically very custom, and if you are asking someone to make or produce something they disagree with you are compelling speech. Even if it is a wedding cake for a lesbian couple.

How is a wedding cake compelling speech?

There would have to be something written on it for there is be speech and that is not common on wedding cakes. The couple is not being asked to be liked or to have the baker approve of their relationship. They are only required to serve them as they would any other couple seeking a wedding cake. Your arguments would allow him to deny to serve anyone who isn't a member of his church because he could claim that he was being forced to approve of other religious beliefs. A wedding cake is not religious nor is it part of a religious ceremony. It is 10lbs of butter, eggs, flour, sugar, baking powder, salt, and vanilla extract.

Maurice Bessinger made a similar argument in 1970 when he refused to serve black and interracial customers at his racist BBQ joint. He said that his Baptist religious views forbid him to condone race-mixing and that the races were to be kept separate. If the SCOTUS rules in support of your idea then every bigot can claim that they are not required to treat others as equals in business, so we would have a whites-only business, hetero-only businesses, Christian-only business, no Jews permitted, etc. He can do what he wants in his private life, even if it means that he wears a sheet. He can dress as Jesus or the pope as he makes the cake if he wants to, but he still needs to wear a hairnet and gloves.

It is long past time for people to grow up and treat others as they want to be treated. Jesus taught the same thing in Luke 6:31 and Matthew 7:12, so it is almost impossible for him to claim that it is a sincere religious belief when his savior taught him to do otherwise.

 

[CLAX1911]

How is a wedding cake compelling speech?

if it's custom made and you want the baker to say something they don't agree with that's how.

There would have to be something written on it for there is be speech and that is not common on wedding cakes.

No, for something to be protected under free speech it doesn't have to be strictly written word. It can be any form of expression. This is basic stuff.

The couple is not being asked to be liked or to have the baker approve of their relationship. They are only required to serve them as they would any other couple seeking a wedding cake.

the absolutely are not required to serve anybody. The state should not be allowed to compel you to serve somebody.

Your arguments would allow him to deny to serve anyone who isn't a member of his church because he could claim that he was being forced to approve of other religious beliefs.

yeah there's businesses that operate that way.

A wedding cake is not religious nor is it part of a religious ceremony. It is 10lbs of butter, eggs, flour, sugar, baking powder, salt, and vanilla extract.

so when someone tells you they don't want to make a cake for your event go somewhere else or make your own. It's just 10 lb of butter flour and sugar we don't need to make Federal cases about it.

The point is it wasn't about the cake.

Maurice Bessinger made a similar argument in 1970 when he refused to serve black and interracial customers at his racist BBQ joint. He said that his Baptist religious views forbid him to condone race-mixing and that the races were to be kept separate. If the SCOTUS rules in support of your idea then every bigot can claim that they are not required to treat others as equals in business,

people aren't treated equally in business. Take for instance when I went to buy a pickup truck all I could afford was a used one they treated me on equally to the guy that was buying a brand new Porsche. Because I'm not an equal customer.

so we would have a whites-only business, hetero-only businesses, Christian-only business, no Jews permitted, etc. He can do what he wants in his private life, even if it means that he wears a sheet. He can dress as Jesus or the pope as he makes the cake if he wants to, but he still needs to wear a hairnet and gloves.

are nuts and gloves are for human health and safety. Forcing a baker II make a cake for a ceremony he doesn't want to make a cake for is not.

It is long past time for people to grow up and treat others as they want to be treated. Jesus taught the same thing in Luke 6:31 and Matthew 7:12, so it is almost impossible for him to claim that it is a sincere religious belief when his savior taught him to do otherwise.

People have different views. I think when you compel someone to perform a task they do not wish to perform without it being absolutely necessary to health and safety, that's dangerous to liberty.

Liberty means some people are assholes. I would rather live with a few assholes and have liberty.

 

[Rickeroo]

You keep coming back to this idea that sex is part of the legal marriage institution. And while indeed many who obtain a legal marriage have sex, there is no requirement to do so. Therefore, a consanguineous couple should be able to obtain the legal status purely for the benefits. Especially since any non-consanguineous couple can obtain it purely for the benefits without engaging in sex.

The inbreeding argument fails completely simply because sex can occur without the legal institution of marriage. What evidence is there that a consanguineous couple is more likely to engage in sex if married, than if not married?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

Agree. Part of the difficulty here is the different meanings people assign to the term "marriage". If a marriage license at the state or federal level confers the right to have sex, then unlicensed sex must be illegal. Therefore, it can't possibly confer that right. I think the best way to eliminate confusion is to term legal marriage as a "civil 2 person corporation", or something to that effect.

No two people, no matter the blood relation, should be barred from entering into that corporation, as long as they are of age to sign a contract and pay the fee.

 

[Lisa]

if it's custom made and you want the baker to say something they don't agree with that's how.

The baker isn't saying anything. he is baking a cake and being paid well for it.

the absolutely are not required to serve anybody. The state should not be allowed to compel you to serve somebody.

The public accommodation protections of the 1964 Civil Rights Act says that you are incorrect. A business that is open to and serves the public are required by law to serve anyone who walks into their establishment equally regardless of race creed color sex/gender or disability. The state of Colorado, among other states and cities, have added gender identity and sexual orientation to this list.
This idea has been upheld by the SCOTUS.

How can they rationally claim it is a sincere religious belief they are protecting if they have to ignore the black letter law teachings of their own religion to act in this way?

These people are not Christians but instead, are cherry-picking the 1200+pages of the Bible for ideas and passages that support their bigotry in a way to hide their hatred and discrimination behind the protected religious freedoms of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
They can be sheet-wearing a'holes in their private life but when they choose to open a business that serves the public then they must obey the laws that are part of their business license. They can close the business, change their business plan or make it private if the laws are a problem for them because they do not have the right to ignore the law because of their religious beliefs.

 

[CLAX1911]

The baker isn't saying anything. he is baking a cake and being paid well for it.

again protected speech does not pertain only to written or spoken word. It applies to just about any form of expression.

The public accommodation protections of the 1964 Civil Rights Act says that you are incorrect. A business that is open to and serves the public are required by law to serve anyone who walks into their establishment equally regardless of race creed color sex/gender or disability.

and as far as I know they didn't discriminate on the basis of sex race Creed color so forth. Zig discriminated on the basis of it's being a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding that is not included in the Civil Rights act.

The state of Colorado, among other states and cities, have added gender identity and sexual orientation to this list.

and if you can go into these bakeries in order a cake celebrating a birthday of a gay person or transgender person or the graduation of a gay or transgendered person they are not discriminating on the basis sexual orientation or identity.

How can they rationally claim it is a sincere religious belief they are protecting if they have to ignore the black letter law teachings of their own religion to act in this way?

I don't care about people's religions. I made no claim about sincerity.

These people are not Christians but instead, are cherry-picking the 1200+pages of the Bible for ideas and passages that support their bigotry in a way to hide their hatred and discrimination behind the protected religious freedoms of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

I don't think the government or really anybody should be getting into defining what religious beliefs are legitimate or not seems like a violation of the first amendment to me.

They can be sheet-wearing a'holes in their private life but when they choose to open a business that serves the public then they must obey the laws that are part of their business license.

I don't think they violated any laws. even if there is a law against discrimination against people based on sexual orientation they didn't violate that law. because if you're gay and you order a birthday cake or a graduation cake they're not discriminating against you on the basis of your sexual orientation.

They can close the business, change their business plan or make it private if the laws are a problem for them because they do not have the right to ignore the law because of their religious beliefs.

again I don't think they were violating the law and in two cases in the country the scotus agrees

 

[Rich2018]

With the recent news from Brunei about imposing the death penalty on gays and adulterers, I've been wondering just what is the justification fo opposing gay marriage. Why do some people really hate homosexuals, whether male or female?

Here's a list of arguments against same sex marriage that I found on the internets:

2. It requires a new definition of marriage
3. Not the same as laws that prohibited mixed race marriages
4. Marriage is meant to increase population
5. Infringes upon some peoples' religion freedom
6. Rights are granted by God and He doesn't like gay marriage
7. Morality comes from God and He doesn't like the gays
8. Acceptance of gay marriage will lead to incest and paedophilia
9. Homosexuals are unhealthy – that whole AIDS thing, you know.
10. Allowing gay marriage will cause societal collapse, as other immoral behaviour becomes more accepted.

There are no good, non-religious arguments against gay marriage.

 

[Rich2018]

if it's custom made and you want the baker to say something they don't agree with that's how...

That's not their words so it's not compelling speech

If they thought it might be seen as so, a simple disclaimer would suffice.

...the state should not be allowed to compel you to serve somebody....

So a racist bar owner shouldn't be compelled the serve blacks?
Roll back civil rights?

yeah there's businesses that operate that way. so when someone tells you they don't want to make a cake for your event go somewhere else or make your own. It's just 10 lb of butter flour and sugar we don't need to make Federal cases about it.

The point is it wasn't about the cake...

Yeah a black person 21 years old or older can always find another bar.

... people aren't treated equally in business. Take for instance when I went to buy a pickup truck all I could afford was a used one they treated me on equally to the guy that was buying a brand new Porsche. Because I'm not an equal customer...

Yes they are - or should be

If you're buying an $80,000 car, expect the seller to spend more time with you than if you're buying a $4,000 truck

Why do you even think this is worth mentioning?

...are nuts and gloves are for human health and safety. Forcing a baker II make a cake for a ceremony he doesn't want to make a cake for is not...

Yes it is for reasons mentioned above.

...I think when you compel someone to perform a task they do not wish to perform without it being absolutely necessary to health and safety, that's dangerous to liberty....

So you could argue that serving a black man a beer was a task you did not want to perform and it wasn't essential to health and safety

Can a US marine refuse as task he/she doesn't wish to perform?
Oh well you say, they shouldn't have joined marines, neither should the baker open a public shop.

...liberty means some people are assholes. I would rather live with a few assholes and have liberty.

Clearly racists too.

 

[maquiscat]

This is the arguments against same sex marriage thread, not the arguments over what religious rights a business has thread. Reel it in guys! The cakes are a red herring here !

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[CLAX1911]

That's not their words so it's not compelling speech

If they thought it might be seen as so, a simple disclaimer would suffice.

if they're making a cake and this cake says something you were compelling them to say something. So this is false.

So a racist bar owner shouldn't be compelled the serve blacks?
Roll back civil rights?

why would you want to be served by someone who hates you?

Yeah a black person 21 years old or older can always find another bar.

that's hardly comparable. We aren't talking about discriminating against demographic. Just discriminating against a particular ceremony.

Yes they are - or should be

If you're buying an $80,000 car, expect the seller to spend more time with you than if you're buying a $4,000 truck

you're contradicting yourself if and $80,000 car in a $4,000 car are unequal by definition. And if you can afford one but not the other you are not equal to someone who can both.

Why do you even think this is worth mentioning?

make a point about things being unequal. You seem to grasp that they are unequal.

Yes it is for reasons mentioned above.

health and safety compliance is to prevent foodborne pathogens. What foodborne pathogens will you get if a certain Baker doesn't make your wedding cake?

So you could argue that serving a black man a beer was a task you did not want to perform and it wasn't essential to health and safety

I believe bars can refuse to serve anyone they want for any reason they want.

Can a US marine refuse as task he/she doesn't wish to perform?
Oh well you say, they shouldn't have joined marines, neither should the baker open a public shop.

so let me get this straight correct me if I'm wrong opening a bakery is signing a four-year contract with the United States government? Please tell me I got that wrong because that makes no kind of sense

Clearly racists too.

I don't believe in punishing thought crimes so if there's a few idiots out there that think One race is inferior or Superior to another I could care less. I don't want to see the psychic police force running around busting people for wrong think.

A few racist is the price you pay for having liberty

 

[CLAX1911]

This is the arguments against same sex marriage thread, not the arguments over what religious rights a business has thread. Reel it in guys! The cakes are a red herring here !

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

I believe this plays a role in it. one of the arguments against same-sex marriage is that it will be used to disparage businesses who refuse to serve same sex weddings.

 

[CLAX1911]

There are no good, non-religious arguments against gay marriage.

No Religious augment is good either. First amendment being what it is.

 

[dixon01767]

So what exactly is the difference between same-sex marriage and incestuous marriage? Are you aware of that?

One is a marriage between two people of the same sex and the other is between two closely related people. Do you have a point or just stupid questions?

 

[dixon01767]

There are known biological problems that occur from the offspring of incest marriage.

49 states have criminal laws that prohibit sexual relations between the closely related. I was discussing the closely related getting married, NOT having sex.