Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

[seer]

Moral positions simply cannot be defended using "that's the way nature intended it," especially when nature is not a conscious force and cannot have an "intention."

Unless God designed human nature and human sexuality to function in a particular way. But as far as nature alone - children are only produced by a man and a woman.

[oxmixmudd]

I've already responded to this, Jim. Your injection of "supremacy" breaks your rigorous symbolic breakdown, for the reasons I've already cited. You are changing one of the symbols midstream and then claiming it is still valid. It's simply not.

No, it does not. If you look at the breakdown, I do not 'change' anything 'mid-stream', you just refuse to admit the obvious. I can't force you to admit the obvious. But I can repeat the obvious so that others can see how stubborn you are being.

type of person:[white | same-sex]
type of event: [ white supremacist rally | same-sex marriage]

You think 'supremacy' changes things, but it does not.

A white supremacist rally is for people that believe in white supremacy
A sames-sex marriage if for people that believe in same-sex marriage.

In both cases, the event is for a type of person that believes in or supports the type of event. I know you don't want them to be equivalent, but there just isn't any logical leg for you to stand on here.

Other potential equivalent characterizations:


same-sex marriage is an idea that applies to same-sex people

white supremacy is an idea that applies to white poeple

----

A person can be white. But only a white person can be a white supremacist.

A person can be same-sex. But only a same-sex person can be in a same-sex marriage.

----

ETA: I messed up myself here based on the grammar issues; This should be:

A person can be white. But only a white person would participate in a white supremacist rally

A person can be same-sex. But only a same-sex person can be in a same -sex marriage.

Here the remaining difference actually unfolds from the fact a marriage is a ceremony that confers a lasting permanent state on the two primary participants, a rally does not.
If there is any legal difference to be found then, I guess it would be related to that element.

A person can be white and can attend a white supremacist rally

A person can be same-sex and can attend a same-sex wedding.

A person can believe white supremacy is wrong

A person can believe same-sex marriage is wrong.

Some white people believe white supremacy is wrong

Some same-sex people believe same-sex marriage is wrong

and so on.

Being "white" is a matter of being. Being a "white supremacist" is not.

you left out the equivalence:

Being "same-sex" is a matter of being. Being a person that supports "same-sex marriage" is not.

Notice that the change in grammar is due to lack of a valid 'ist' form of the word marriage. But we could say them equivalently just by making one (the meaning of such a word is obvious and semantically equivalent):

Being "same-sex" is a matter of being. Being a 'same-sex marriagist" is not.


You're whole argument effectively centers around the fact we don't have the word 'marriagist' in our language. Probably because the historically nearly universal definition of marriage being only between a man and a women didn't require it. We didn't need this sort of descriptive vocabulary for marriage because marriage was for the most part a unique term specifying only one kind of union. With the addition of such a word, the equivalence of the situation is obvious. You are dancing around grammatically different ways of saying the same thing. It is sort of like saying that 'gray' and 'grey' are fundamentally different because one word is spelled with the letter 'a' and the other word is spelled with the letter 'e'.




Jim

[Pluto]

That is actually quite correct. To tell a person that their action is immoral on the basis of what they are is immoral. There is no distinction between telling two people they cannot be sexually intimate because they both have penises and telling two people they cannot be sexually intimate because they have different color skin. In both cases, the morality is tracing to a physical attribute - membership in a class - about which the individuals have no choice. An action can be immoral if it objectifies - if it harms - if it forces, but it cannot be immoral simply because the person has Physical Characteristic A.



The MOST moral act, IMO, is for the baker to offer their cake service to all couples legally marrying. If they cannot see fit to do that, then their next option is to simply stop offering that specific service to anyone (as they said several times they would do). I;m not sure if that is "from the baker's perspective." No one is requiring the baker to make cakes. What IS being required is that they make the cakes without prejudice.

Unfortunately, 'from the baker's perspective' was the most important part of my question, and your response, while useful, was most definitely not from the baker's perspective.

From your perspective, you require that the baker either: be willing to make gay wedding cakes(and thus behave morally in your view), or to quit making wedding cakes.(I'm assuming the most minimal alteration to the baker's behavior is permitted in this case, since he has no problem making other cakes for gay folks. If you wish to make the requirement more stringent(stop baking cakes altogether?), please tell me.)

For this question, I am mostly concerned with the first part, the 'be willing to make gay wedding cakes' part. I wish for you to tell me what acceding to this request means for the baker in question. To make this a bit clearer in what I'm looking for, you must consider why the baker is refusing to make the cake, and the implications of reversing on that.

It should be obvious that I have a particular answer in mind for this. To lay this out on the table, my end goal is to help you understand the full import of what you are asking and thus able to determine secondary affect of what your requests are likely to be. Obviously, I'd prefer you to reverse on this point, but even if you do not, you will have a better understanding of the topic. I have not requested you to reconsider your moral stance on homosexuality, nor will I do so for this discussion(Which is why I'm ignoring all comments pertaining to it.). I am focusing on something else. Unfortunately, I suspect, either due to a lack of clarity on my part or the fast moving nature of this thread(I'm already 6+ pages behind!), not slow-walking this would be uninteresting and useless. So please humor me on this point.

[Cow Poke]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]27792[/ATTACH]
And Health Care, Large Sugary
Drinks, Wearing Fur, SUVs etc...

EGGzackly!

[firstfloor]

It is not simply the structure. Each element is equivalent. IOW, if there was a monetary amount in my alternate scenario, It would be the same monetary amount. Every person arguing for the plaintiffs have claimed race and same-sex orientation are equivalent in terms of the potential for discrimination. Certainly the request for a cake and the type of business are identical, the fact the owners had strong moral objections to the celebration is obvious, and finally each cake targets a stpecific type of celebration. I even point out that there are people in each group that would have moral abjections to the celebration. AFAICT, They are equivalent in every way that matters legally. The only difference is your specific alignment to the morality of the bakers. Perhaps a jury would be swayed one way or the other on each case, that would depend on their alignment with the morality of the bakers and or the plaintiffs. That is also a bit irrelevant as regards the academic discussion of what kind of case this is, specifically what the likely driver is for the bakers, is it discrimination against the plaintiffs, or is it their commitment to a moral code without any specific desire to deprive the plaintiffs of their services based on who the plaintiffs are.

I am surprised you would say both cases are about discrimination - BUT - that is a consistent assessment. You are applying the same yardstick to both cases and as a result, since they are equivalent,they should 'measure' out the same.

Jim

It could be both or it could be more complicated than that. It could be that a person uses an approved moral position in order to discriminate against someone they do not like. It could be that they lie about their moral code. Any real case is likely to be more complicated than you seem to assume.

If you use those limited scenarios and equivalences to make decisions you are quite likely to be mistaken.

[oxmixmudd]

It could be both or it could be more complicated than that. It could be that a person uses an approved moral position in order to discriminate against someone they do not like. It could be that they lie about their moral code. Any real case is likely to be more complicated than you seem to assume.

If you use those limited scenarios and equivalences to make decisions you are quite likely to be mistaken.

How do you propose to tell the difference? And does the law care? This is the sort of thing that shady people get away with all the time. They do something really bad or nasty, but they also know they are within the law. It is almost impossible to prevent that. The issue is the overarching basic principle. Which you seem to get, and in which case you've sided with discrimination as being what they both are about, whereas I side with the issue of an artisan being forced to create that which is in conflict with their morals - which I see as Tyranny. I think we all agree Tyranny must be avoided at all costs. That is what this nation was formed to avoid. And that is why I used the alternate example I did. No-one (except perhaps some form or new-nazi/white supremacist) would want to see an African-American owned business forced to make a cake for a white supremacist rally, or a Jewish Deli owner have to cater a Neo-Nazi dinner? Wouldn't that push your advantageous use of the law to the max? Can't you just see a bunch of Prejudiced white folk realizing that all they have to do to put the African-American baker down the street out of business is hire him to bake a specialty designer cake for their white's only event and then when he refuses sue him for discrimination?

This particular suit would set a precedent I don't think we really want set if it goes as (you think) you'd like to see it go.


Jim

[Starlight]

Unless God designed human nature and human sexuality to function in a particular way. But as far as nature alone - children are only produced by a man and a woman.

There are plenty of species where reproduction is asexual. And there is an interesting lizard species where reproduction is sexual but the females don't need the males to give birth. And there are species where the members are hermaphrodite or transsexual. Nature is full of variety and methods of reproduction have changed in it over time. If God's behind evolution/creation of the different animals, he's clearly not fussed on reproductive methods - whatever gets the job done appears to be fine with him. If humans through our science or culture expand our own methods of reproduction to include other methods found in nature among other species, that would seem to just be one more kind of evolution.

[seer]

There are plenty of species where reproduction is asexual.

We were speaking in the context of human nature, and that requires a man and a woman. We are not lizards.

[Starlight]

We were speaking in the context of human nature, and that requires a man and a woman. We are not lizards.

Human nature can change, and did according to evolution. God didn't give us wings, but we can fly. We used to be naked but we made clothes. We once were hunter gatherers but now live in cities. Things change. And there is huge variety in nature among various species in reproduction. Either your God is fine with all those different methods of reproduction or he didn't create all those animal species.

[carpedm9587]

Chesterton said, before you tear down a wall be sure you know why it was built in the first place. My moral sense is grounded in three thousand years of history, that largely informed western culture for a thousand years.

"We've always done it that way" is not an argument that impresses me Seer. And while Christianity has some moral views I admire (and share) like all human endeavors, Christianity has been to source of atrocities and immoral positions and actions over the years as well. No human society has ever been devoid of such things, to my knowledge.

Which we are attempting to over throw, in the span of a few decades.

Overthrow? No. Adjust? Yes.

In other words, you have no idea what that wall was holding back, or the consequences that will follow. Human rights in the United States are grounded on God, ideals largely gleaned from Christian writers like Locke and Blackstone.

You will find no mention of god anywhere in our constitution, Seer, AFAIK.

You have no such grounding apart from the whims of the majority. Feckless, which in short order can turn against your moral beliefs.

And I am not grounded in the "whims of the majority either." I also am grounded in thousands of years of human history and culture. I just am not grounded solely in Christianity. Neither is Buddhism. Neither is Taoism. Neither is Confucianism. Hinduism. All of those religions predate Christianity by half a millennium.

And BTW - my place and timing of birth is not an accident of nature, that is the result of God's sovereign will. A billion years before the first ocean waves billowed, God chose me, and ensured that I would be placed where I could hear and respond to the Gospel. And since I am a Christian, I know your side, the side of the Devil, will win these worldly skirmishes. After all, as Scriptures tells us, the whole world lies in wickedness, and you Carp are doing your part to add to the darkness. But the day will come...

Since you are talking to an atheist, I cannot say I am all that impressed with these claims, Seer. I'm sure you see yourself as very special, and chosen before time for the role you play. That is part of the incredible arrogance of Christianity.

[carpedm9587]

Unless God designed human nature and human sexuality to function in a particular way. But as far as nature alone - children are only produced by a man and a woman.

You're talking to an atheist, Seer, so before I can accept your first sentence, you'll have to demonstrate that such a god exists. Otherwise...

As for children - your statement is true (for now) about human children. We appear to be close to being able to transcend that limitation as well, but that is irrelevant. That biological offspring come from male/female couplings says nothing about the morality/immorality of same-sex couplings. It just tells us how this species procreates.

[carpedm9587]

No, it does not. If you look at the breakdown, I do not 'change' anything 'mid-stream', you just refuse to admit the obvious. I can't force you to admit the obvious. But I can repeat the obvious so that others can see how stubborn you are being.

type of person:[white | same-sex]
type of event: [ white supremacist rally | same-sex marriage]

You think 'supremacy' changes things, but it does not.

A white supremacist rally is for people that believe in white supremacy
A sames-sex marriage if for people that believe in same-sex marriage.

In both cases, the event is for a type of person that believes in or supports the type of event. I know you don't want them to be equivalent, but there just isn't any logical leg for you to stand on here.

Other potential equivalent characterizations:

same-sex marriage is an idea that applies to same-sex people

white supremacy is an idea that applies to white poeple

----

A person can be white. But only a white person can be a white supremacist.

A person can be same-sex. But only a same-sex person can be in a same-sex marriage.

----

ETA: I messed up myself here based on the grammar issues; This should be:

A person can be white. But only a white person would participate in a white supremacist rally

A person can be same-sex. But only a same-sex person can be in a same -sex marriage.

Here the remaining difference actually unfolds from the fact a marriage is a ceremony that confers a lasting permanent state on the two primary participants, a rally does not.
If there is any legal difference to be found then, I guess it would be related to that element.

A person can be white and can attend a white supremacist rally

A person can be same-sex and can attend a same-sex wedding.

A person can believe white supremacy is wrong

A person can believe same-sex marriage is wrong.

Some white people believe white supremacy is wrong

Some same-sex people believe same-sex marriage is wrong

and so on.





you left out the equivalence:

Being "same-sex" is a matter of being. Being a person that supports "same-sex marriage" is not.

Notice that the change in grammar is due to lack of a valid 'ist' form of the word marriage. But we could say them equivalently just by making one (the meaning of such a word is obvious and semantically equivalent):

Being "same-sex" is a matter of being. Being a 'same-sex marriagist" is not.


You're whole argument effectively centers around the fact we don't have the word 'marriagist' in our language. Probably because the historically nearly universal definition of marriage being only between a man and a women didn't require it. We didn't need this sort of descriptive vocabulary for marriage because marriage was for the most part a unique term specifying only one kind of union. With the addition of such a word, the equivalence of the situation is obvious. You are dancing around grammatically different ways of saying the same thing. It is sort of like saying that 'gray' and 'grey' are fundamentally different because one word is spelled with the letter 'a' and the other word is spelled with the letter 'e'.

Jim

Jim - I've bolded the relevant portions. It's not true that "only a white person would participate at a white supremacist rally." Anyone can believe that whites are supreme. It is true that it is usually whites. It is true that it is mostly whites. It may even be true that no other race has ever participated in such a rally. But it is NOT true that only white people can be white supremacists. A black person could believe the white race is superior. A Latino person could believe the white race is superior. Indeed, one of the tragedies of racism is that the denigrated races sometimes (often) actually buy into the racist mindset, and see themselves as less. So the proscription is against a racist mindset - not a race.

Likewise a same sex ceremony can be attended by anyone, but the marriage celebrates the union of two people with the same sex. It is based on the genitalia of the two people involved. Only same-sex people can be in a same-sex marriage. It is about who/what they are, not who/what they believe. Indeed, it's not even really about sexual orientation (necessarily). It's about the fact that the two people have like genitalia.

You cannot get away from this. One is about a racist philosophy - the other is about the sex of the participants in the event.

I've said it several times now, and shown you where the logic breaks down. When you shift from "white" to "white supremacist," you shift the argument.

[carpedm9587]

Unfortunately, 'from the baker's perspective' was the most important part of my question, and your response, while useful, was most definitely not from the baker's perspective.

From your perspective, you require that the baker either: be willing to make gay wedding cakes(and thus behave morally in your view), or to quit making wedding cakes.(I'm assuming the most minimal alteration to the baker's behavior is permitted in this case, since he has no problem making other cakes for gay folks. If you wish to make the requirement more stringent(stop baking cakes altogether?), please tell me.)

All that is required is for the same service to be offered to all classes of people without discrimination.

For this question, I am mostly concerned with the first part, the 'be willing to make gay wedding cakes' part. I wish for you to tell me what acceding to this request means for the baker in question. To make this a bit clearer in what I'm looking for, you must consider why the baker is refusing to make the cake, and the implications of reversing on that.

The baker has said they are refusing to make the cake because they do not wish to participate in an event that celebrates something they consider immoral: same sex marriages. Although I believe their position to be immoral, no one is asking them to reverse their moral position.

It should be obvious that I have a particular answer in mind for this. To lay this out on the table, my end goal is to help you understand the full import of what you are asking and thus able to determine secondary affect of what your requests are likely to be. Obviously, I'd prefer you to reverse on this point, but even if you do not, you will have a better understanding of the topic. I have not requested you to reconsider your moral stance on homosexuality, nor will I do so for this discussion(Which is why I'm ignoring all comments pertaining to it.). I am focusing on something else. Unfortunately, I suspect, either due to a lack of clarity on my part or the fast moving nature of this thread(I'm already 6+ pages behind!), not slow-walking this would be uninteresting and useless. So please humor me on this point.

I honestly do not know what it is you are looking for, beyond what I have said.

[Psychic Missile]

That is ONLY assuming that the homosexual couple is the only choice, and that's just nutty.

They are an additional home a child could go to. Your argument that anti-gay adoption agencies should exist so that the most homeless children are adopted as reasonably possible is undermined by your argument that gay parents should have limited choices in agencies. The latter prevents the former.

That's like asking 'does the mere existence of a car dealership necessarily result in more cars being sold?" WADR, it's kind of a dumb question.

Not at all. At a certain point, there is such a thing as too many car dealerships. For your argument for "as many agencies as possible" to work, there would need to be a bunch of parents looking to adopt whose needs are not being met by currently available agencies.

Apparently, you've never tried to adopt a baby. The process is long and tedious, and most prospective parents I've known have checked multiple options. Why wouldn't a gay couple be more comfortable working with a gay-friendly agency? Why is it the pro-gay crowd has to be so controlling and manipulating? Why not allow CHOICE?

A gay couple would of course be more comfortable working with a gay-friendly agency. Wouldn't it be nice, then, for all agencies to be gay-friendly, so that gay parents can check out all those option that those parents you've known have? Why is the anti-gay crowd so controlling and manipulating about who they adopt to? Why not allow gay parents choice?

[Psychic Missile]

I'm sorry, in this political climate even if there were studies that demonstrate the superiority of straight parents (like nature and God intended) no one would have the guts to publish. They would be pilloried.

Cow Poke linked to a study in Post 437 that is one such study.