In response to another thread: "Gay Marriage"

[Paprika]

Whoa!

And dayum!

Yes, it was badly expressed and I have edited it. I meant to say that under the American law, I don't think there should be any legal objection to a business saying "We don't serve blacks" for sincere religious reasons.

[Outis]

If discrimination against LGBT people is also historically anomalous with respect to world history, then the question becomes whether societies that have managed to accept LGBT people have also held man-woman marriage to be a uniquely valuable institution.

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.

[Outis]

Yes, it was badly expressed. I meant to say that under the American law, I don't think there should be any legal objection to a business saying "We don't serve blacks" for sincere religious reasons.

The law, and the courts, disagree with you.

[Juvenal]

There is a type of relationship, only possible between one man and one woman, which is not only internally coherent but which has been entirely essential to the foundation of western civilization for more than 2,000 years. The relationship between a man and woman who come together in a permanent union in order to provide a home for any children their sexual union may produce is clearly different from a loving relationship between any two (or more) adults: the first type of relationship is ordered toward making sure that father and mother are both present in the lives of their children, who are of course the future of the society; the latter is ordered toward the happiness of the participants. Calling these two substantively and teleologically distinct types of relationships by the same name is intellectually incoherent.

Let us say that American copper manufacturers decide that their product is regarded as inferior to the product of steel manufacturers, and that this is unfair: they are both, after all, metal manufacturers, and it's not fair that steel manufacturers get lucrative contracts to provide girders for buildings and copper manufacturers do not. They petition the government to allow them to sell their copper products as steel.

This situation is, of course, absurd: steel and copper are not interchangeable, and, as useful as they both are for their own respective purposes, forcing people to regard them as equivalent results in shoddy construction jobs all around. Marriage as an institution has a fundamentally different purpose from the sorts of relationship possible between persons of the same sex; marriage, as the environment in which children are most frequently and reliably prepared for life as citizens by being raised by their own biological parents, is not interchangeable with a relationship between persons of the same sex, no matter how loving or fulfilling. There is an obvious and qualitative difference, just as there is between copper and steel.

You're not enlightened, my friend. You're as much a product of your own time and its biases as those who opposed mixed-race marriages: both positions are historically anomalous, and I have little doubt that, within my lifetime, society as a whole will recognize that accepting people of all sorts of sexual attractions does not in any way require us to redefine an institution whose purpose remains unique and indispensable, and in fact that imposing the sorts of expectations that only make sense in the context of a heterosexual union ordered toward the begetting and rearing of children tends to grate on those whose motivation is mutual satisfaction. When we have expanded the term "marriage" to include any relationship between any number of consenting adults that can be dissolved for any reason or at any time, we will find that we still need a name for the institution that permanently binds a man and woman together as husband and wife so that they will be present as father and mother to any children they may produce together, and that this particular kind of arrangement is important enough to society to warrant special protection.

Dear Spartacus,

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

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

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?

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.

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

[Paprika]

The law, and the courts, disagree with you.

Sure. Yet I can express my viewpoint that there should be this freedom, even though under this freedom some would act in a way I believe is undesirable.

[Outis]

Sure. Yet I can express my viewpoint that there should be this freedom, even though under this freedom some would act in a way I believe is undesirable.

A white racist objects to serving a black person, based on sincere religious belief. You find that undesirable.

A Christian objects to serving a homosexual person, based on sincere religious belief. You find that acceptable.

There is no difference in the eyes of the law. There is also no difference logically. Bigotry is bigotry.

[Paprika]

A white racist objects to serving a black person, based on sincere religious belief. You find that undesirable.

A Christian objects to serving a homosexual person, based on sincere religious belief. You find that acceptable.

I find it acceptable that a Christian refuses to provide services for homosexual marriages; I have not spoken about serving a homosexual person in general.

There is no difference in the eyes of the law.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to bring up here. There is no difference between how KKK hate speech and non-hate speech are treated by American law: both are protected.

[Outis]

I find it acceptable that a Christian refuses to provide services for homosexual marriages; I have not spoken about serving a homosexual person in general.

Ah, so to you, it is acceptable that Christians in commerce have privileges (namely, the privilege of ignoring civil rights laws) that other groups do not.

The KKK also identify as Christians. They want to refuse to provide services for mixed-race marriages.

There is no difference.

[mossrose]

You keep comparing homosexuality to race.

They are not comparable.

As you said to me earlier, apples to oranges.

I was born with my particular skin colour.

I choose to live a particular sexual lifestyle.

[Juvenal]

Yes, it was badly expressed. I meant to say that under the American law, I don't think there should be any legal objection to a business saying "We don't serve blacks" for sincere religious reasons.

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

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

[Juvenal]

Let's hear it folks!

What was the date you chose to become heterosexual?

[Outis]

You keep comparing homosexuality to race.

They are not comparable.

As you said to me earlier, apples to oranges.

I was born with my particular skin colour.

I choose to live a particular sexual lifestyle.

You did not choose to live a particular sexual identity or orientation.

And if you want to speak of choices, and that it is acceptable to discriminate based on a person's chosen lifestyle, then of course you would have no objections to businesses that discriminate based on religion. After all, religion is also a choice.

[mossrose]

You did not choose to live a particular sexual identity or orientation.

And if you want to speak of choices, and that it is acceptable to discriminate based on a person's chosen lifestyle, then of course you would have no objections to businesses that discriminate based on religion. After all, religion is also a choice.

Homosexuality is a choice. And since we will never agree on that, you are free to continue here with your bigotry against believers without me.

[Paprika]

Ah, so to you, it is acceptable that Christians in commerce have privileges (namely, the privilege of ignoring civil rights laws) that other groups do not.

I think "that there should be this freedom, even though under this freedom some would act in a way I believe is undesirable."

[Outis]

Homosexuality is a choice. And since we will never agree on that, you are free to continue here with your bigotry against believers without me.

Keep believing that, Mossrose. It's a lie, but if it makes you comfortable, be welcome to it.