Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

[Sparko]

I actually can read, Sparko, but you are missing my point. The baker is changing his rules about the type of cake he will or will not sell strictly based on the sex (i.e., same) of the couple. If the couple had been opposite sex, there would have been no issue.

see below.

As best I can tell, if the proprietor was aware that the cake was use by a same-sex couple, they would decline the service.

If that were the case (which I also think it is) then you have just admitted he was not discriminating against the customers (who in the example are a heterosexual couple) but the event.

[mossrose]

It is immoral -

Isaiah 5:20

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness;
Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

[seer]

if the rules change because the sex of the marrying couple changes, then there is a bigotry problem. It is immoral - and (hopefully) illegal.

See this is the problem Carp, you recently went on and on about your deeply cherished moral beliefs, yet you reduce these deeply held Christian beliefs to mere bigotry. Not only that but they are immoral and you would see them as illegal. All based on an opinion that is relative, one you would not have held fifty years ago. Pure nonsense...

[Sparko]

And here is the nature of the disagreement. There is no "kind of marriage." A marriage is a marriage. It can be between people of different races or the same race. It can be between people of the same ethnicity or different ethnicities. It can be between people of different religions or the same religions. Now it can be between people of the same sex, or people of different sexes. The marriage is unchanged. Only the participants change.

You already said you were against some forms of marriage like incestual, bestial, or pedophile. So even you recognize there are different kinds of marriage and that people can believe some kinds are immoral.

And I have already responded to the "artwork" question. If you look at cakes (do a search online) you will find that cakes seldom have any written text, and if they do, they are generic words like "love." The only issue real issue here is that they might put two plastic male figures instead of a male and a female.

the cake in this case was a rainbow cake with two grooms on it. It is not about the "text" it is about using his talents to decorate a cake celebrating gay marriage. Which this obviously was.

[Sparko]

See this is the problem Carp, you recently went on and on about your deeply cherished moral beliefs, yet you reduce these deeply held Christian beliefs to mere bigotry. Not only that but they are immoral and you would see them as illegal. All based on an opinion that is relative, one you would not have held fifty years ago. Pure nonsense...

Yeah when it comes down to it, it seems that Carpe thinks that morality isn't so relative after all.

[carpedm9587]

See this is the problem Carp, you recently went on and on about your deeply cherished moral beliefs, yet you reduce these deeply held Christian beliefs to mere bigotry. Not only that but they are immoral and you would see them as illegal. All based on an opinion that is relative, one you would not have held fifty years ago. Pure nonsense...

Yes, I do. When religion is used to defend prejudice and bigotry, it is inappropriate. The religion does not protect the position from being immoral. It was immoral when people defended slavery on the basis of religion, and it is immoral when people reject same sex couples or homosexuals on the basis of religion.

As for what might have happened 50 years ago, it's irrelevant. We could do that all day and ultimately say nothing. I could claim that 300 years ago you probably would have defended the inquisition. 150 years ago you probably would have defended slavery. 700 years ago you probably would have defended the crusades. All of those were defended on religious grounds, and today they are (mostly) rejected, also on religious grounds. The fact is I do not know that you would have defended any of those things back then, and you don't know what my position would have been 50 years ago. It's a red herring.

[carpedm9587]

[QUOTE=Sparko;539961]You already said you were against some forms of marriage like incestual, bestial, or pedophile. So even you recognize there are different kinds of marriage and that people can believe some kinds are immoral.

I am actually not against incestual marriage. That is a cultural norm and a health issue. I find it repugnant, but I do not see a moral content. I said the same thing about bestiality. Pedophilia is about the immaturity of one partner. It is a form of rape.

the cake in this case was a rainbow cake with two grooms on it. It is not about the "text" it is about using his talents to decorate a cake celebrating gay marriage. Which this obviously was.

Absolutely - and it was rejected on the basis that the two people marrying were the same sex. So the rules changes based on sex. Inappropriate.

[carpedm9587]

Yeah when it comes down to it, it seems that Carpe thinks that morality isn't so relative after all.

I speak out of my moral framework - as we all do. And we all think the way we assess morality is how everyone should be assessing morality. That does not make morality any less relative. If we thought the way someone else assessed a moral issue was "better" than ours, we would adopt that moral position instead.

[carpedm9587]

Isaiah 5:20

I don't do bible verses.

[carpedm9587]

see below.

If that were the case (which I also think it is) then you have just admitted he was not discriminating against the customers (who in the example are a heterosexual couple) but the event.

The discrimination is against the couple marrying. Your example is analogous to the racist restaurateur who sells food to a white person oblivious to the fact that it is ultimately for a black person. It doesn't make them less racist.

[oxmixmudd]

And here is the nature of the disagreement. There is no "kind of marriage." A marriage is a marriage. It can be between people of different races or the same race. It can be between people of the same ethnicity or different ethnicities. It can be between people of different religions or the same religions. Now it can be between people of the same sex, or people of different sexes. The marriage is unchanged. Only the participants change.

And I have already responded to the "artwork" question. If you look at cakes (do a search online) you will find that cakes seldom have any written text, and if they do, they are generic words like "love." The only issue real issue here is that they might put two plastic male figures instead of a male and a female.

I come back to the same observation I made before: if the rules change because the sex of the marrying couple changes, then there is a bigotry problem. It is immoral - and (hopefully) illegal.

That there is 'only one type of marriage' is a moral judgement on your part, which you can't impose unilaterally on everyone else, and more importantly, is simply not true. Alternate definitions of marriage are a fairly new thing in the English speaking countries of the world. And more obviously, since we are talking about three distinct types of marriage, the historical heterosexual marriage, the 'same-sex' marriage which alters the historical definition of marriage and EXTENDS the concept to include members of the same sex, and the 'open marriage', which again alters the historical definition of marriage by removing the exclusivity and fidelity requirements and EXTENDS the concept to include couples that openly invite additional sexual partners to participate in the marriage, clearly there are, in fact, multiple definitions of marriage.

And further you are evading the issue. In my example, the rules did not change because of the 'sex of the marrying couple', and yet the moral dilemma still exists. The issue is the type of celebration for which the cake makers are being asked to produce a cake.

And consider this: Do you suppose that if a gay couple came to the baker and they where participants in Reform Judaism (openly accepting of LGBT couples) and asked the bakers to make a cake celebrating their adopted child's bat-mitzvah - that they would have refused? I can almost guarantee you they would not have.

The issue is the type of celebration the cake is destined for and the moral violation the celebration itself represents for the business owners, not the race, religion, sexual orientation etc of the customers.


Jim

[mossrose]

I don't do bible verses.

No kidding. Maybe that's why your moral compass is skewed.

[seer]

Yes, I do. When religion is used to defend prejudice and bigotry, it is inappropriate.

That is merely your opinion. Who cares? I think you are deeply immoral for defending homosexual behavior and marriage. And a religious bigot...

The religion does not protect the position from being immoral. It was immoral when people defended slavery on the basis of religion, and it is immoral when people reject same sex couples or homosexuals on the basis of religion.

Again, this is no more than prattle...

As for what might have happened 50 years ago, it's irrelevant. We could do that all day and ultimately say nothing. I could claim that 300 years ago you probably would have defended the inquisition. 150 years ago you probably would have defended slavery. 700 years ago you probably would have defended the crusades. All of those were defended on religious grounds, and today they are (mostly) rejected, also on religious grounds. The fact is I do not know that you would have defended any of those things back then, and you don't know what my position would have been 50 years ago. It's a red herring.

If that is the case then no moral opinion has any meaning. The only thing that matters is who has enough power to force their opinion on society.

[carpedm9587]

That there is 'only one type of marriage' is a moral judgement on your part, which you can't impose unilaterally on everyone else, and more importantly, is simply not true.

So yes to the first part - it is a moral judgment. Everyone imposes their moral framework on everyone else. The position of the Christian right is "homosexual sex is immoral." They believe it is immoral for everyone everywhere to to everyone everywhere. I don't see a difference. As for the "not true," we disagree on that.

Alternate definitions of marriage are a fairly new thing in the English speaking countries of the world. And more obviously, since we are talking about three distinct types of marriage, the historical heterosexual marriage, the 'same-sex' marriage which alters the historical definition of marriage and EXTENDS the concept to include members of the same sex, and the 'open marriage', which again alters the historical definition of marriage by removing the exclusivity and fidelity requirements and EXTENDS the concept to include couples that openly invite additional sexual partners to participate in the marriage, clearly there are, in fact, multiple definitions of marriage.

All of them have to do with who is married - not what "being married" is.

And further you are evading the issue. In my example, the rules did not change because of the 'sex of the marrying couple', and yet the moral dilemma still exists. The issue is the type of celebration for which the cake makers are being asked to produce a cake.

The issue is that the two people marrying share the same sexual equipment.

[I]And consider this: Do you suppose that if a gay couple came to the baker and they where participants in Reform Judaism (openly accepting of LGBT couples) and asked the bakers to make a cake celebrating their adopted child's bat-mitzvah - that they would have refused? I can almost guarantee you they would not have.

I have no idea, and I try not to speculate. If they did, they would be wrong. If they did not, they would be fine.

The issue is the type of celebration the cake is destined for and the moral violation the celebration itself represents for the business owners, not the race, religion, sexual orientation etc of the customers.

Jim

This is simply not the case. The only difference is the sex of the two people marrying.

[Sparko]

You already said you were against some forms of marriage like incestual, bestial, or pedophile. So even you recognize there are different kinds of marriage and that people can believe some kinds are immoral.

I am actually not against incestual marriage. That is a cultural norm and a health issue. I find it repugnant, but I do not see a moral content. I said the same thing about bestiality. Pedophilia is about the immaturity of one partner. It is a form of rape.

The point remains carpe. you seem to have morals and values that you expect everyone else to agree with and at the same time you claim to be a moral relativist.

Absolutely - and it was rejected on the basis that the two people marrying were the same sex. So the rules changes based on sex. Inappropriate.

No it wasn't. You just keep trying to twist it and say it is because you have it in your mind that is what happened. Even to the point of doing it to a hypothetical. If the gay couple was not even the client then there is no way he could be discriminating against them or their sexual orientation. We have a heterosexual couple wanting to buy a gay wedding cake. The baker refused not because of the couple but because of the message. He would also have refused a heterosexual who wanted to buy a divorce cake. He said so. Or an adultery cake. It is the message he is being asked to portray.