Christian Ministry Apologizes To LGBT Community And Halts Operations

reply to post by charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
Didn't we just go through this on the subject of the baker? His life has been affected.

It has been illegal for him to discriminate against gay people since 2008. That had nothing to do with gay marriage. It had to do with equal treatment under the law of all citizens. My question was: How does gay people marrying affect YOUR life? I'm not asking why the government is against it or why the baker is against it, I was asking how it affects YOU.

You arrive at that conclusion by first admitting it is not a right given in the Constitution...

Neither is voting. But it's a right, nonetheless. And if you want to call marriage a privilege, that's fine. Let's call it a privilege. But squirming around the issue with semantics is not fruitful for the discussion.

Since you use car buying later in your post, is driving a right or a privilege?

The semantics argument is irrelevant, charles. Call it a privilege, I'm fine with that. The 14th Amendment protects privileges. Would you support the government denying gay people the privilege of driving a car? It sounds like you would:

A contract can only be entered into when both parties are willing. The problem homosexuals are trying to overcome is that, in many places, the government is not willing.

So you would support discrimination if "the government" decided it was OK? Am I reading this right? If the government is not willing to enter into a contract with ... black people, that would be OK with you?

But the serious answer is that there have been some pieces of evidence indicating that it would be bad for society as a whole, and nothing significantly showing that society would be better, as a whole.

What pieces evidence?
What does straight marriage do that makes society better?
Since when is "making society better" a qualification for getting married?
Why must gay people meet this standard when no one else is required to?
If you can show that all marriages must pass a litmus test of making society better as a whole, then you might have an argument here, but there is no such thing, explicit or implied.

Again, What reason would YOU give for treating people differently because of whom they love?

Neither law or logic seems to support the arguments you've made.

I totally disagree. In fact, your arguments are just going in circles.

Thank you for taking the time to respond, however.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Dear Benevolent Heretic,

Thank you for trying to keep me to the point. Sometimes my mind has a straightforward argument, but it comes out of my fingers crooked. I hope you'll have the patience to allow me to try again.

My question was: How does gay people marrying affect YOUR life? I'm not asking why the government is against it or why the baker is against it, I was asking how it affects YOU.

My answer is, that it's an irrelevant question. How does it affect, me, Charles, personally and directly? I don't see that it does. But neither does incest, murder, theft, or any thing else you can name with possible exceptions for voting, traffic and tax laws. What difference does it make if it affects me, personally and directly?

Next, are the definitions for "right" and "privelege" mere semantics? I don't think so. The confusion may be occurring because I failed to give my understanding of those words. I see a right, as something fundamental, something that has a basis in the Constitution, at least somewhat. A privilege is something that's institued by a voting body that can create or destroy it whenever they want.

Relying on the 14th Amendment is not useful at all.

The Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is unique among constitutional provisions in that some scholars believe it was substantially read out of the Constitution in a 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court in the Slaughter-House Cases of 1873. The Clause has remained virtually dormant since, but in 2010 this clause was the basis for the fifth and deciding vote in the case of McDonald v. Chicago, regarding application of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution to the states.

en.wikipedia.org...

The clause reads, in part,

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

"Privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," has always been interpreted to mean the privileges which apply to the citizens of every state. These are found only in the Constitution and Court interpretations. Privileges, in this clause, has been taken to mean Constitutional rights. It no longer has any other particular meaning.

So you would support discrimination if "the government" decided it was OK? Am I reading this right? If the government is not willing to enter into a contract with ... black people, that would be OK with you?

No, it wouldn't. The Supreme Court has ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is Constitutional. Again, the reference to the Constitution.

What pieces evidence?

Regnerus, and others. As opposed to the 59 studies discarded for flaws such as non-random samples.

What does straight marriage do that makes society better?
Since when is "making society better" a qualification for getting married?

Married couples aren't better for their children when they provide stability and two role models of different sexes? (Throughout, we're talking about generalizations, not specific instances.)

Why must gay people meet this standard when no one else is required to?

You mean they can't? Then why give them extra benefits if they add nothing?

If you can show that all marriages must pass a litmus test of making society better as a whole, then you might have an argument here, but there is no such thing, explicit or implied.

ALL marriages? Don't be silly. Are ALL gay marriages faithful, non-abusive, or whatever? That's not a test anybody has or will propose.

Again, What reason would YOU give for treating people differently because of whom they love?

I'm curious, does my opinion decide the matter? Or, does it merely provide an opportunity for personal attacks?

Anyway, I hope my discussion was a little less curved this time, and that I answered your questions.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952

 

My question was: How does gay people marrying affect YOUR life? I'm not asking why the government is against it or why the baker is against it, I was asking how it affects YOU.

My answer is, that it's an irrelevant question. How does it affect, me, Charles, personally and directly? I don't see that it does. But neither does incest, murder, theft, or any thing else you can name with possible exceptions for voting, traffic and tax laws. What difference does it make if it affects me, personally and directly?

Hi Charles, I just wanted to reply to this, because you may not realise it, but you've just, perhaps inadvertently,come to see a point we have being try to make for a long time.

How does it affect, me, Charles, personally and directly? I don't see that it does.

Hallelujah! You have come to understand that 2 people marrying does not affect you personally (unless you are one of the 2 people actually marrying of course) This is a point we have tried to make over and over - gay marriage will not effect most of the community at all.

You go on to say neither do other serious crimes (unless you are a victim of course) However there is one crucial difference between say murder, rape, assualt, burglary et al and homosexual marriage. All of those crimes are the result of malevolent intent and actions. Gay marriage has no such intent or action.

So, why should it be outlawed?

reply to post by markosity1973

Dear markosity1973,

I'm sorry I missed such an opportunity to get a "haleluah" from you earlier. I don't think I've ever maintained that a particular couple will be affected directly by gay marriage. But I still don't see where that matters much.

Let me offer two lines of thought, the "direct harm," and the "why outlaw?"

As I pointed out, the Regnerus study is probably the best designed and executed studies available on the effects of parents of children when they reach 18. Is it perfect? No. But it is the best we've got. As such it is evidence, but not proof, that children of gay parents end up differently from children of straight parents. Lacking any contrary evidence of equal scientific rigor, and I've never seen any, it is not irrational to assert that gay marriage, on the whole, does not provide outcomes similar to straight marriage. That can be seen as an indirect harm to society.

Ok, not every gay couple wants kids, but if I get married I don't want them either. What some couples might or might not want should not be the deciding factor for a nation-wide law. "Hard cases make bad law."

"Malevolent intent and actions?" I'm not quite clear what that means in the real world. We have laws against animal abuse, incest, using drugs, not wearing a seat belt, and on and on against things that have no malevolent intent and actions. Why not this? (rhetorical)

So, why should it be outlawed?

I have two problems with this. One, gay marriage, or whatever relationship, is not going to be outlawed. There might be a state or two with anti-sodomy statutes, but I don't know of them. It's just a question of not getting recognized by the government for all the benefits received by different sex marriages. (My head just started to spin because of a thought that just crossed my mind. How do we deal with two transvestites? Above my pay grade.)

But, secondly, nobody is planning on doing anything at all (nationally, right now) about gay marriage. It won't be outlawed, it won't be anything. The cry going around is lets change it, let's do it differently. Doesn't that put some burden on those wanting change? Why should society change? I'm sure it would make some people happy, but how is society better off if we do change?

That's the question I haven't seen an answer to. I don't think it's an unreasonable one. Even two-faced politicians try to show the benefit when they introduce any bill. While they are not insignificant reasons, the only things I've seen so far is "It's fair," and "It will ease the emotional suffering of about 1% of the population."

I'm torn, my brain and my heart pull me in different directions. But when we're talking about laws and national policies making major changes, in a way which has been highly controversial, my brain steps in. Maybe I fell on my head as a child.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by markosity1973

Hi Charles,

I am going to keep this post as brief as possible as we getting far off topic. Perhaps it is best we start another thread on gay marriage so we can discuss it properly without hijacking another thread.

As I pointed out, the Regnerus study is probably the best designed and executed studies available on the effects of parents of children when they reach 18. Is it perfect? No. But it is the best we've got. As such it is evidence, but not proof, that children of gay parents end up differently from children of straight parents. Lacking any contrary evidence of equal scientific rigor, and I've never seen any, it is not irrational to assert that gay marriage, on the whole, does not provide outcomes similar to straight marriage. That can be seen as an indirect harm to society

I think this Regnerus study is worthy of further discussion on it's own. From a very brief skim read, I see a huge problem with the data sampling - they are obtaining data on the gay side a large % of kids from broken marriages where the father or mother comes out against kids from straight marriages that stay together. This will naturally skew the data and dirty the results as kids from a broken home, no matter what the sexuality of the parents are likely to come of worse than from a stable parents together forever home.

"Malevolent intent and actions?" I'm not quite clear what that means in the real world. We have laws against animal abuse, incest, using drugs, not wearing a seat belt, and on and on against things that have no malevolent intent and actions.

By malevolent intent and actions I mean actions or intentions that can or will cause harm either directly or indirectly. i.e don't wear a seatbelt and you stand a much greater chance of injury or even death in the event of a crash. i.e indirect malevolent action.

So, why should it be outlawed? I have two problems with this. One, gay marriage, or whatever relationship, is not going to be outlawed. There might be a state or two with anti-sodomy statutes, but I don't know of them. It's just a question of not getting recognized by the government for all the benefits received by different sex marriages. (My head just started to spin because of a thought that just crossed my mind. How do we deal with two transvestites? Above my pay grade.)

By outlaw, I more meant as in not lawful as in not allowed in most places yet. Two transvestites come under same sex marriage - so not so confusing when you think of gender, not gender identity.

But, secondly, nobody is planning on doing anything at all (nationally, right now) about gay marriage. It won't be outlawed, it won't be anything. The cry going around is lets change it, let's do it differently. Doesn't that put some burden on those wanting change? Why should society change? I'm sure it would make some people happy, but how is society better off if we do change?

This is the circular argument we always enter into - let's save it for the proper thread.

That's the question I haven't seen an answer to. I don't think it's an unreasonable one. Even two-faced politicians try to show the benefit when they introduce any bill. While they are not insignificant reasons, the only things I've seen so far is "It's fair," and "It will ease the emotional suffering of about 1% of the population."

If you think this is about easing emotional suffering then you are way off course from what we think. Our reasons are multiple but most simply;

Legal recognition and the associated benefits that go with it i.e. easier to obtain and cheaper health insurance (some states can still discriminate) easier to obtain finance because marriage is seen to be more stable by banks for some reason etc etc.

Emotional reasons - we are brought up to believe (well most of us anyway) that you grow up, you meet someone and fall in love then you marry them and head off into the sunset. It's just as much a desire in the gay population as it is in the straight.

Social reasons - The gay community has existed on the fringes of society for most of time. Therefore things like stable relationships and the like have not really had the chance to exist and develop. We in the gay community have been oft criticised for our hedonistic lifestyle, lack of morality and for having promiscuous sex lives. This is a chance for the gay community to make a change and head toward the centre / conservative side of morality. i.e. we are 'cleaning up our act' We need aspirations and goals, to aim for and hold up in our community so we can inspire the younger generations coming through to aim for a better lifestyle than we have lived.

reply to post by charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
I'm curious, does my opinion decide the matter? Or, does it merely provide an opportunity for personal attacks?

In the scheme of things, no, your opinion doesn't matter. I was curious on a personal level and I have enjoyed exploring your point of view. I believe communication of this sort is helpful in understanding others' (and clarifying our own) positions. If asking for your opinion and justifications seems like a personal attack to you, I assure you, that is not my intention and I will no longer pursue it.

Have a nice day, charles.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Dear Benevolent Heretic,

What reason would I give for treating people differently because of who they love?

By mind's first reaction to that question is flashing red lights, sirens, and "Danger! Danger, Will Robinson!" If Sally loves Peter instead of Alexander, it wouldn't matter. Unless of course, one is underaged, incompetent, a close relation, has a fatal communicable disease, or something similar. Also, depending on whether "love" includes or excludes sex.

See, that's the kind of mind I have to live with on a daily basis. I will appreciatively accept your sympathy.

If you're asking, at a personal level, why I would object to same sex marriage, my primary reason is that I don't believe it is good for society. It provides a less advantageous life for any children involved. It also imposes a financial cost on society without providing any corresponding benefit. (If same sex marriages get tax breaks, those breaks will have to be paid for.) It also changes marriage to mean "A relationship focused entirely on the two people involved with no other expectation than they'll really like each other for a while." Basically, marriage becomes a recognition of a Best Friends Forever relationship. It cheapens marriage and gets the government involved in even more places it needn't be.

Markosity1973 raises a good point. I may be contributing to this thread going off track. How can I help fix that?

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
It also changes marriage to mean "A relationship focused entirely on the two people involved with no other expectation than they'll really like each other for a while."

Many marriages are just that. It doesn't change marriage at all.
Not all marriages are happily ever after.
Not all marriages involve children.
Not all marriages involve love.
You can have your idea about what marriage is TO YOU, but it's different to each couple.

Marriage does not fit under an umbrella of definition. Each marriage is different.

I may be contributing to this thread going off track. How can I help fix that?

I understand your position and I feel our conversation is over. No offense. Your opinions on gay marriage don't matter one way or another, I was just curious about them, as I said before. I am finished talking about gay marriage in this thread. Thank you for your contributions.