In response to another thread: "Gay Marriage"

[Paprika]

An advantage given to whites while being denied to blacks is arguably a moral wrong, and unquestionably a legal wrong, and that is exactly as it should be/

My view allows for blacks to discriminate against any race, or any group against any other group. By no means do I support racial discrimination, but (under my view) the freedom to do that is necessary for a greater freedom to be protected. Others are free to disagree.

[Paprika]

Outis: I don't mind discussing the validity of my views, but could we also return to the original topic? Does legalising same-sex marriage negatively impact Christians? I believe I have sufficiently shown that some Christians will be affected.

[Cow Poke]

Last I checked, a flower shop (the example Mrs. Mossrose brought up) is commerce. Renting a public venue is commerce. You and I have already discussed the difference between "renting a public venue" and "renting a hall for religious purposes."

DO you have a problem with any of these statements?

You started this thread - In response to another thread: "Gay Marriage" - that thread being about CHRISTIANS not attending "gay weddings".
From THAT, you appear to set up the false premise that Christians seem to be in the habit of "renting their halls" for "commerce".

Those Churches who opposed Gay Marriage are likely NOT the ones that are "renting their halls" for "commerce".

Do you have a problem with THAT statement?

[Outis]

My view allows for blacks to discriminate against any race, or any group against any other group.

My view says that racial discrimination is wrong. Period. The freedom to discriminate (in commerce) based on race is not a "freedom" that needs to be protected.

[Outis]

I believe I have sufficiently shown that some Christians will be affected.

And I believe that I have sufficiently shown that Christians will be affected only by removing their exclusive privilege. Is exclusive privilege what you are arguing for?

[Cow Poke]

My view says that racial discrimination is wrong. Period. The freedom to discriminate (in commerce) based on race is not a "freedom" that needs to be protected.

So, to make this germane to your argument, you have to conclude that Churches are "engaged in commerce" when they allow people to use their facilities for weddings? Therefore, they forfeit their right to decide what kind of ceremonies are held therein?

[Outis]

You started this thread - In response to another thread: "Gay Marriage" - that thread being about CHRISTIANS not attending "gay weddings".
From THAT, you appear to set up the false premise that Christians seem to be in the habit of "renting their halls" for "commerce".

Some do. If you don't, you're not bit. If you're not bit, stop whining.

[OU812]

You keep comparing homosexuality to race.

Common leftist tactic.

[Paprika]

And I believe that I have sufficiently shown that Christians will be affected only by removing their exclusive privilege. Is exclusive privilege what you are arguing for?

Only you seem to perceive some special privilege for Christians. But exclusive privilege or not, I'm glad you agree that Christians will be affected.

[Spartacus]

All of which is utterly irrelevant to American law, Mr. Spartacus--just as the anti-miscegenation laws being "historical anomalies" are irrelevant.

The relevant issue here is thus: does the prohibition of marriage equality violate the US Constitution? Starting with Romer v. Evans in 1996, through Bishop v. Oklahoma in 2014, the courts are starting to take the opinion that it does. While the decision has not been finalized yet and is still under appeal, this is one of those situations where one does not need a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing.

The other arguments you present are irrelevant, because they will not be used as part of the decision making process by the justices.

Actually, in his opinion in US. v. Windsor, Justice Scalia made reference to a book that makes very similar arguments to the ones I'm making, and Justice Kennedy argued that the only reason a person could oppose same-sex marriages is an irrational "animus." The point I'm making is not far off from the one Scalia referenced and Kennedy apparently failed to understand: an argument in favor of public policy recognizing the uniqueness of man-woman marriage can be made on entirely rational and secular grounds.

In any case, it's quite clear that the arguments I present are relevant to the decisions of the judges. This is at least the 3rd time you've tried to dismiss my argument as irrelevant. First you said it was religious, then that it called same-sex relationships inferior, and now that the Supreme Court wouldn't consider this line of reasoning. Each time, you've been wrong. Although you keep calling me "Mr. Spartacus," I'm honestly not feeling particularly respected here, since you evidently haven't taken the time to engage with and understand the argument I'm trying to make: you only read until you find an excuse (legitimate or not) to dismiss me.

[Outis]

Only you seem to perceive some special privilege for Christians. But exclusive privilege or not, I'm glad you agree that Christians will be affected.

It's not only me, Paprika. And frankly, if exclusive privilege exists, and is indeed removed, this is a good thing. No group should have exclusive privilege under US law.

[Darth Executor]

Well, then, Paprika, I think you need to reconsider your position.

Incorporation allows a business to shield its owners from personal bankruptcy when the business falls apart.

Sounds like an invitation for reckless individuals to gamble with retards' money and jeopardize the economy in the process. Oh...

Businesses are further shielded from unfair competition by regulation of their marketplaces to prevent say, being undersold by businesses taking advantage of child labor or cutting costs via neglecting the health and safety of their employees.

Tell that to manufacturing companies stupid enough to still hire western workers while the smart ones outsource all their labor to third world sweat shops. Or flood native market with desperate third worlders. And this is going to expand from manual labor to most middle class jobs, of which very few are a strict necessity. The increasingly useless shield is primarily for the average citizen, not for business.

Businesses are provided tax advantages in the acquisition and disposal of their capital goods via depreciation.

This is only an "advantage" in the sense that the money taken from them benefits them more than it would in an even more sub-optimal (for them) scenario. In real life successful businesses, without a government, would probably spend their money a lot more effectively than what they get through taxation.

There's a long list of things we, as a society, do to support our businesses, and we do so with the expectation that society, as a whole, will benefit from their commerce.

Not just white society, independent of the religious beliefs of their owners; and not just heterosexual society, either. An advantage given to whites while being denied to blacks is arguably a moral wrong, and unquestionably a legal wrong, and that is exactly as it should be. IM-and the Supreme Court of our land's-HO.

As ever, Jesse

Nobody is asking for special advantages. The subject was one of slavery (feel free to twist yourself into a pretzel explaining how shutting down somebody's business if they refuse to work for you isn't "really" slavery). There is nothing special about being black or gay that entitles you to have people work for you, particularly when it comes to trivial nonsense like wedding cakes. If gay bakers don't want to sell wedding cakes to Christians I wouldn't give a crap.

De minimis non curat lex

If you cause a national incident and get the law involved to force someone to sell you a cake then you've just made a far better anti-gay argument than I could ever come up with*.


*Not really, but it's still pretty good.

[Paprika]

It's not only me, Paprika. And frankly, if exclusive privilege exists, and is indeed removed, this is a good thing. No group should have exclusive privilege under US law.

Mind demonstrating that exclusive privilege exists? That is, that a privilege exists for Christians that non-Christians do not have.

[Spartacus]

Dear Spartacus,

Yeah, that's pretty wall-o-texty.

And the "teleologically distinct" bit was kinda over the top.

Like CP said, college has ruined me. In any case, I appreciate the fact that you took the time to read my post carefully.

But the copper vs. steel analogy was perfect, because it's exactly what needs to be rebutted. Nobody's asking anyone to replace steel with copper here. That is, there's no question of asking straights to marry gays instead of other straights, thus replacing steel with copper. But if the fact a gay marriage doesn't provide a mother and father relationship to offspring is reason to discriminate against their ability to marry, then what's to become of adoption? What's to become of marriages and re-marriages with offspring from previous partners?

The metal analogy does and doesn't work, because those in favor of redefining marriage aren't so much in favor as calling copper steel as saying that they're all metals anyway. Love makes a marriage, just like certain chemical qualities make an element a metal. The point I want to make is that marriage, among other types of loving relationships, has particular qualities and is uniquely suited to certain necessary societal functions.

What's to become of naturally infertile heterosexual couples?

That last makes up about ten percent of the heterosexually married population. Gays, not so much. And those gays interested in marriage, even less. There should be some caution here, or you could quickly find yourself in the position of chopping off your foot to take care of a hangnail. Marriage does more things than just provide for children: biological, adopted, or more irregularly or informally acquired. It allows adults to take care of each other at the most local level possible, one-on-one, with the clear secular advantage of removing that responsibility from the less localized institutions of city, state, and national governments, with the associated advantages to their taxpayers.

In their book What is Marriage, Girgis, George, and Anderson use a sports analogy that fits a bit better, at least with respect to the infertility point, which I will partly borrow and partly extend: a baseball team is still a baseball team even if they don't score any runs, just as a marriage is still a marriage even if they don't produce children. As long as they follow the rules of baseball and fill the necessary roles in the team, they're still a baseball team.

The problem comes when we lose our understanding of baseball as "a" sport and start thinking of it as "the" sport, such that any other form of athleticism is really just an inferior form of baseball-- or, in the terms of the debate at hand, when marriage goes from a particular kind of relationship that, by its nature, demands certain dedication and attention, to "the relationship that matters most between adults". It's as if a child says that he wants to be a baseball player, and when you ask him what position he wants to play, answers, "goalie!" It's not that there's anything wrong with goalies, it's just that if you put a goalie in baseball, it would cease to be baseball, just as it ceases to be a marriage when you try to involve two men or two women instead of a man and a woman.

And last, as far as refusing to attend a gay marriage ... what are y'all thinking? It's bound to be fabulous!

As ever, Jesse

It's this attitude that's going to make me feel guilty if it turns out I didn't address your points properly.

[Cow Poke]

Some do. If you don't, you're not bit.

So who IS?

If you're not bit, stop whining.

Just trying to get you to make some consistent sense, bro.