SCOTUS and Gay Marriage

[Count 'Bility]

Another thing that just got me was this was a case where the gal's honesty is what's going to bite her in the ass. All she had to say was "i'm too busy and I'm low on staff right now. Sorry". And that's the other thing here. We're so hellbent on enforcing some things but yet allow so many ways around them.

 

That's like saying this guy, who told the cops he was drunk when he crashed his car, got in worse trouble because we're so hellbent on enforcing "some things."

 

I have zero sympathy for people like this. This woman is doubly stupid for being a bigot and for being stupid enough to admit she's a bigot.

drunk driving isnt one of those things.

 

Yes. She is stupid. This is a bad case for me to argue my beliefs on, because I do disagree with her. I never shouldve commented on it to begin with because you've got me on a backpeddle some here, and that it obvious. But where I work, we have a sign that says "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". Now, we're not gonna refuse service to someone for being gay or black or methodist or even an engineer. But we have that right, obviously for more reasonable situations. I think we can all agree on that right, correct? And that if she'd a just said "I'm too busy, I cannot help you with this" this story would not be in the news, and we would not be discussing it, right?

[Conga3]

Marriage is not a fad to be cut to shape according to social whim. The father of modern anthropology, Claude Levi-Strauss, called marriage “a social institution with a biological foundation”. Marriage throughout history is society’s effort to reinforce this biological reality: male, female, offspring. All our ceremonies and laws exist to buttress nature – helping bind a man to his mate for the sake of social stability and for the sake of the child they might create.

 

When ever I hear the offspring argument I immediately consider polygamy vs. monogamy.

 

While it's "biological" to mate with the opposite sex, create offspring and families...

 

...it's even more "biological" to pair off and practice monogamy.

 

Simply creating offspring with marriage without monogamy is polygamy, and that has typically been shunned in society under normal circumstances. (when gender ratios are close to even)

 

Marriage is much more than a reflection of the natural inclination to create offspring -- you can do that with many wives -- it's more a societal recognition of a pair practicing monogamy. Marriage enforces it within the pair themselves and helps to dissuade others who have not paired off from interfering - kinda.

 

Not all heterosexual pairings result in offspring - yet we don't nullify the marriage when they don't - because procreation ISN'T it's primary function/purpose.

 

Instead, marriage serves as a social tool to assist us with our natural inclination towards monogamy.

 

Homosexual couples share this tendency towards monogamy, and society should allow them they use of the same tool.

 

Things are just easier in pairs of two, just ask the Navy Seals.

 

---

 

After monogamy -- then comes families.

 

Once a pairing is solidified in marriage, it's been customary to rear children. No argument procreation is somewhat important to society.

 

A stable household/family unit is critical to raise children to adulthood - pass down knowledge/skills - provide support and security - and eventually go full circle and have your children look after you in your old age.

 

---

 

Long story short, monogamy trumps procreation any day ending in 'y' when considering "natural" reasons for society to provide/promote/enforce marriage.

 

Had our society been nullifying marriages when pairings failed to result in offspring (and I'm sure in human history this has been customary in some societies), then I would accept the offspring argument for restricting marriage to heterosexual couples.

[sd'sker]

i was just at a restaurant with a sign that said "we reserve the right to refuse service" and it made me think of ollie's barbecue in birmingham, alabama.

[Conga3]

Washington Florist Who Denied Service to Gay Couple Over Her ‘Relationship with Jesus’ Sued by the State

http://gawker.com/59...ed-by-the-state

While I dont agree with her reasoning, it is her business. She can provide or refuse service to anyone for any reason whatsoever. She has that right. Go find a different florist then.

 

 

Or is this not America anymore?

 

Close. She has the right to refuse service to anyone.

 

She doesn't have the right to break laws.

 

Had she refused service by stating some innocuous reason - or none at all - she'd be fine.

 

This is still America! A country of laws, not men. The AG can only go after her because she broke a law in discriminating against a customer based on sexual orientation.

 

Had she been smart and simply said he was too ugly to buy her flowers, she would be in the clear.

 

But alas, bigotry and stupidity are so often found sharing the same bed.

[Landlord]

Marriage is not a fad to be cut to shape according to social whim. The father of modern anthropology, Claude Levi-Strauss, called marriage “a social institution with a biological foundation”. Marriage throughout history is society’s effort to reinforce this biological reality: male, female, offspring. All our ceremonies and laws exist to buttress nature – helping bind a man to his mate for the sake of social stability and for the sake of the child they might create.

 

When ever I hear the offspring argument I immediately consider polygamy vs. monogamy.

 

While it's "biological" to mate with the opposite sex, create offspring and families...

 

...it's even more "biological" to pair off and practice monogamy.

 

Simply creating offspring with marriage without monogamy is polygamy, and that has typically been shunned in society under normal circumstances. (when gender ratios are close to even)

 

Marriage is much more than a reflection of the natural inclination to create offspring -- you can do that with many wives -- it's more a societal recognition of a pair practicing monogamy. Marriage enforces it within the pair themselves and helps to dissuade others who have not paired off from interfering - kinda.

 

Not all heterosexual pairings result in offspring - yet we don't nullify the marriage when they don't - because procreation ISN'T it's primary function/purpose.

 

Instead, marriage serves as a social tool to assist us with our natural inclination towards monogamy.

 

Homosexual couples share this tendency towards monogamy, and society should allow them they use of the same tool.

 

Things are just easier in pairs of two, just ask the Navy Seals.

 

---

 

After monogamy -- then comes families.

 

Once a pairing is solidified in marriage, it's been customary to rear children. No argument procreation is somewhat important to society.

 

A stable household/family unit is critical to raise children to adulthood - pass down knowledge/skills - provide support and security - and eventually go full circle and have your children look after you in your old age.

 

---

 

Long story short, monogamy trumps procreation any day ending in 'y' when considering "natural" reasons for society to provide/promote/enforce marriage.

 

Had our society been nullifying marriages when pairings failed to result in offspring (and I'm sure in human history this has been customary in some societies), then I would accept the offspring argument for restricting marriage to heterosexual couples.

 

 

Okay, so lets look at things biologically and ignore culture for a second.

 

Monogamy is a natural inclination with the way we are biologically wired, yeah? And then, usually, but not always, that results in, but is not entirely centered around, procreation. Then how do we jump to having homosexual monogamous couples end up with children? I mean, at some point, you have to jump to the conclusion that it's not natural, it's not biologically natural. The only reason it's considered okay is based on social conditioning - a value system embedded in our culture.

 

Who's to say that the value system is correct? Who is to say that it isn't? Majority?

[Conga3]

Marriage is not a fad to be cut to shape according to social whim. The father of modern anthropology, Claude Levi-Strauss, called marriage “a social institution with a biological foundation”. Marriage throughout history is society’s effort to reinforce this biological reality: male, female, offspring. All our ceremonies and laws exist to buttress nature – helping bind a man to his mate for the sake of social stability and for the sake of the child they might create.

 

When ever I hear the offspring argument I immediately consider polygamy vs. monogamy.

 

While it's "biological" to mate with the opposite sex, create offspring and families...

 

...it's even more "biological" to pair off and practice monogamy.

 

Simply creating offspring with marriage without monogamy is polygamy, and that has typically been shunned in society under normal circumstances. (when gender ratios are close to even)

 

Marriage is much more than a reflection of the natural inclination to create offspring -- you can do that with many wives -- it's more a societal recognition of a pair practicing monogamy. Marriage enforces it within the pair themselves and helps to dissuade others who have not paired off from interfering - kinda.

 

Not all heterosexual pairings result in offspring - yet we don't nullify the marriage when they don't - because procreation ISN'T it's primary function/purpose.

 

Instead, marriage serves as a social tool to assist us with our natural inclination towards monogamy.

 

Homosexual couples share this tendency towards monogamy, and society should allow them they use of the same tool.

 

Things are just easier in pairs of two, just ask the Navy Seals.

 

---

 

After monogamy -- then comes families.

 

Once a pairing is solidified in marriage, it's been customary to rear children. No argument procreation is somewhat important to society.

 

A stable household/family unit is critical to raise children to adulthood - pass down knowledge/skills - provide support and security - and eventually go full circle and have your children look after you in your old age.

 

---

 

Long story short, monogamy trumps procreation any day ending in 'y' when considering "natural" reasons for society to provide/promote/enforce marriage.

 

Had our society been nullifying marriages when pairings failed to result in offspring (and I'm sure in human history this has been customary in some societies), then I would accept the offspring argument for restricting marriage to heterosexual couples.

 

 

Okay, so lets look at things biologically and ignore culture for a second.

 

Monogamy is a natural inclination with the way we are biologically wired, yeah? And then, usually, but not always, that results in, but is not entirely centered around, procreation. Then how do we jump to having homosexual monogamous couples end up with children? I mean, at some point, you have to jump to the conclusion that it's not natural, it's not biologically natural. The only reason it's considered okay is based on social conditioning - a value system embedded in our culture.

 

Who's to say that the value system is correct? Who is to say that it isn't? Majority?

Luckily for us, Mother Nature is an abstract concept and not a fat woman running around beating us with her rolling pin.

 

It's up to us to determine what is best for us, she's not here to tell us what is what. And "natural" can be interpreted many different ways.

 

Homosexuals can't create their own children due to the lack of variety with their genitals.

Infertile heterosexuals can create their own children due to malfunctioning genitals.

 

So.. since we've got extra babies lying around because teenagers are horny...let's hand them out to these nice folks that have created childless families.

 

We don't consider DNA matches between parent and child to be relevant...

We don't even consider race matches between parent and child to be relevant...

 

What we consider important is love and stability.

 

Someone wanting a child and able to create a stable life for them.

 

Stability and love comes from monogamy and marriage.

 

---

 

The only caveat is homosexuals lack a gender role model that heterosexuals can provide, and why I think they win the "tiebreaker"...but only by a slim margin - since role models can come from so many other sources that aren't your parents.

[strigori]

Say a town has 2 grocery stores, and both decide they will no longer sell product to gays.

 

Say a state has 1,000 lunch counters, but you can't eat at it because your skin is the wrong color. The geography can - and has - gotten big enough that it literally forces entire classes of people to live in abject poverty because they cannot get a loan, they can barely run a functioning business, they can't get the tools/supplies they need to run a basic family farm.

 

We learned these lessons, as a nation, just less than 50 years ago. But I can see that our society isn't reinforcing what we've learned. And those who forget history... etc. etc.

Those who seek to discriminate are still tending to be those in power, they have just gotten more savvy on the way they manage to do it.

[strigori]

Marriage is not a fad to be cut to shape according to social whim. The father of modern anthropology, Claude Levi-Strauss, called marriage “a social institution with a biological foundation”. Marriage throughout history is society’s effort to reinforce this biological reality: male, female, offspring. All our ceremonies and laws exist to buttress nature – helping bind a man to his mate for the sake of social stability and for the sake of the child they might create.

 

When ever I hear the offspring argument I immediately consider polygamy vs. monogamy.

 

While it's "biological" to mate with the opposite sex, create offspring and families...

 

...it's even more "biological" to pair off and practice monogamy.

 

Simply creating offspring with marriage without monogamy is polygamy, and that has typically been shunned in society under normal circumstances. (when gender ratios are close to even)

 

Marriage is much more than a reflection of the natural inclination to create offspring -- you can do that with many wives -- it's more a societal recognition of a pair practicing monogamy. Marriage enforces it within the pair themselves and helps to dissuade others who have not paired off from interfering - kinda.

 

Not all heterosexual pairings result in offspring - yet we don't nullify the marriage when they don't - because procreation ISN'T it's primary function/purpose.

 

Instead, marriage serves as a social tool to assist us with our natural inclination towards monogamy.

 

Homosexual couples share this tendency towards monogamy, and society should allow them they use of the same tool.

 

Things are just easier in pairs of two, just ask the Navy Seals.

 

---

 

After monogamy -- then comes families.

 

Once a pairing is solidified in marriage, it's been customary to rear children. No argument procreation is somewhat important to society.

 

A stable household/family unit is critical to raise children to adulthood - pass down knowledge/skills - provide support and security - and eventually go full circle and have your children look after you in your old age.

 

---

 

Long story short, monogamy trumps procreation any day ending in 'y' when considering "natural" reasons for society to provide/promote/enforce marriage.

 

Had our society been nullifying marriages when pairings failed to result in offspring (and I'm sure in human history this has been customary in some societies), then I would accept the offspring argument for restricting marriage to heterosexual couples.

 

 

Okay, so lets look at things biologically and ignore culture for a second.

 

Monogamy is a natural inclination with the way we are biologically wired, yeah? And then, usually, but not always, that results in, but is not entirely centered around, procreation. Then how do we jump to having homosexual monogamous couples end up with children? I mean, at some point, you have to jump to the conclusion that it's not natural, it's not biologically natural. The only reason it's considered okay is based on social conditioning - a value system embedded in our culture.

 

Who's to say that the value system is correct? Who is to say that it isn't? Majority?

Darwin would beg to argue with your claim to monogamy being the natural inclination.

 

Gays can, and do, still have kids. Lesbians can easily go to a sperm bank, or find a willing 'donor' and there are thousands of men who have fathered children before coming out of the closet. And they are as likely to be good parents as straight parents are.

 

Value systems change. We used to have value systems that said owning slaves was OK, and that slaves were only 3/5 of a person. We had value systems that said segregation was the way it was supposed to be. That interracial marriage was an abomination. Times change.

[Moiraine]

Men and women are different. It's just true. Equal, but different. I don't think there's any getting around the truth that both roles are incredibly important in raising children to be self-aware and confident and secure in their identity.

 

I can't agree here. I didn't really have an adult male in my life until I was old enough to date one and I never felt any lack.

[Count 'Bility]

Washington Florist Who Denied Service to Gay Couple Over Her ‘Relationship with Jesus’ Sued by the State

http://gawker.com/59...ed-by-the-state

While I dont agree with her reasoning, it is her business. She can provide or refuse service to anyone for any reason whatsoever. She has that right. Go find a different florist then.

 

 

Or is this not America anymore?

 

Close. She has the right to refuse service to anyone.

 

She doesn't have the right to break laws.

 

Had she refused service by stating some innocuous reason - or none at all - she'd be fine.

 

This is still America! A country of laws, not men. The AG can only go after her because she broke a law in discriminating against a customer based on sexual orientation.

 

Had she been smart and simply said he was too ugly to buy her flowers, she would be in the clear.

 

But alas, bigotry and stupidity are so often found sharing the same bed.

Yes. And I concede to agree with you on everything you said, as well as Knapp. As I also state here.....

 

 

drunk driving isnt one of those things.

 

Yes. She is stupid. This is a bad case for me to argue my beliefs on, because I do disagree with her. I never shouldve commented on it to begin with because you've got me on a backpeddle some here, and that it obvious. But where I work, we have a sign that says "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". Now, we're not gonna refuse service to someone for being gay or black or methodist or even an engineer. But we have that right, obviously for more reasonable situations. I think we can all agree on that right, correct? And that if she'd a just said "I'm too busy, I cannot help you with this" this story would not be in the news, and we would not be discussing it, right?

This was a example to base my "right to refuse service" belief on.

 

Dun?

 

I'm dun.

 

This is why I need to quit commenting on stuff in the politics forum. I know what I think. I'm just very bad at expressing it.

[Conga3]

This was a example to base my "right to refuse service" belief on.

 

Dun?

 

I'm dun.

 

This is why I need to quit commenting on stuff in the politics forum. I know what I think. I'm just very bad at expressing it.

I think that is why many of us are here. I know it's why I'm here. Practice. Mental exercise.

 

This is a great place to discuss politics and religion and practice expressing yourself in a way other folks will properly interpret your full meaning. I don't know about you, but things can get heated and uncomfortable discussing these topics with friends and family. It's much safer here.

 

--

 

And sorry to pile on -- not my intention. I read the old posts like yours and wanted to chime in before I caught up with everything that posted - when in fact you and knapplc already said pretty much the same thing.

[Landlord]

I can't agree here. I didn't really have an adult male in my life until I was old enough to date one and I never felt any lack.

 

 

Not to discredit your opinion or thoughts in any way, Moiraine, but I grew up without a father also. He was gone long before I was born. I never felt a lack either, but the last 4-5 years I've been understanding and uncovering a lot of ways that I have been scarred by that. They weren't ever conscious or felt, but they've certainly existed, in profound ways, and I'm still healing from those things.

[knapplc]

I can't agree here. I didn't really have an adult male in my life until I was old enough to date one and I never felt any lack.

 

 

Not to discredit your opinion or thoughts in any way, Moiraine, but I grew up without a father also. He was gone long before I was born. I never felt a lack either, but the last 4-5 years I've been understanding and uncovering a lot of ways that I have been scarred by that. They weren't ever conscious or felt, but they've certainly existed, in profound ways, and I'm still healing from those things.

 

 

This helps explain the ponies.

[carlfense]

It's 2013. We shouldn't have to be explaining this.

 

 

What "freedom" is the shop owner losing by serving customers? Isn't that why she opened her shop? Public Accommodations laws simply mean that she has to treat everyone the same - although in the case of your HIV example, disability isn't covered by PA laws, so she can kick that man out of her shop if she chooses. The law isn't perfect.

 

But let's take this to ridiculous extremes to prove a point, because that's what we do on the internet. It's her shop. It's her prerogative how she runs it, right? This is your premise, so I want to be clear here. In that premise, does she have the right to:

 

Sell a customer tulips but call them roses and charge rose prices?

Hide portions of her income from the IRS?

Fudge her scale (presuming she sells something by weight) so that "1 pound" is actually 9/10s of a pound?

Smuggle flowers in from outside America's borders, bypassing inspections?

Add new plumbing or wiring to her premises without having them inspected?

 

 

These are all things that people feel are their "rights," depending on the person. All would violate some law or other, but "it's her shop," so she should be allowed to do as she pleases, right?

 

And if you feel that she shouldn't be allowed to do any or all of those things... why are those rights OK to take away from her, but it's her "right" to turn people away based on sexual preference?

You're right.

[TGHusker]

This was a example to base my "right to refuse service" belief on.

 

Dun?

 

I'm dun.

 

This is why I need to quit commenting on stuff in the politics forum. I know what I think. I'm just very bad at expressing it.

I think that is why many of us are here. I know it's why I'm here. Practice. Mental exercise.

 

This is a great place to discuss politics and religion and practice expressing yourself in a way other folks will properly interpret your full meaning. I don't know about you, but things can get heated and uncomfortable discussing these topics with friends and family. It's much safer here.

 

--

 

And sorry to pile on -- not my intention. I read the old posts like yours and wanted to chime in before I caught up with everything that posted - when in fact you and knapplc already said pretty much the same thing.

I agree. I find everyone here sharpens me and challenges me. Some people can frame an arguement better and I appreciate the intelligence behind the way they frame it. I know I'm not the sharpest stick in the bunch, so it is always good to hear other perspectives. I think we rarely move off of our deeply held core beliefs but it gives me understanding, tolerance and acceptance of the other person's perspective. I would say I have modify some of my views over the years based on discussions hear and on 'huskerpedia' (defunct- where I 1st got on political/religious forums.) Example: I have moved from being more of a 'neocon' (ra ra GWB invasion of Iraq) in perspective to what I would call more of a constitutional conservative/libertarian in my positions - except where those libertarian views disagree wt my strongly held religious beliefs such as on abortion. - right to life for the baby.

My faith perspective tells me that homosexuality practice is wrong - but it also tells me hetersexual adultry is wrong. However, though the acts be wrong, my faith tells me that they (those who practice the acts) are no diff than I - because I've done wrong as well - "He who is without sin, throw the 1st stone". So, again love and grace towards individuals is what is really important - for I am in need of the same love and grace. This is the personal side.

There is also the political side. Morality can be defined as what 50% + 1 in a society defines it to be. Ethics can be defined (as a simple definition) as what "ought to be" - based on natural law - the law written in every man's heart (Romans chapter 1). We ought to act in a certain way - Jesus summed it up in 2 commands - Love God with all of our heart, mind, soul and strength (deals with our pride, independance, & willfulness) and Love our neighbor as ourself (deals with our selfishness at the expense of others). This is the highest ideal - however, none of us fully live up to it. So, when I look at the political side of the issue: it is the battle to be in the 50% + 1 that defines societal morality. I recognize that we are now in a 'post-Christian' America. While the culture has been greatly influenced for the good by Christian principles, from a governing perspective the society has become much more diverse. In the 1980s the Moral Majority had great power because the swing to a more secular society had not fully occured. So, what is my response as a Christian? It is to still try to persuade from a Biblical perspective but yet embrace the fact that the Kingdom of God is not a political one. That the royal law is not to create a Christian America but to love, to care, and to show compassion as Christ would. While we don't give up the right or desire to persuade in the public arena, our infuence in this more secular society may more effectively be felt as we practice the 2 royal laws of love that Christ taught. Christians have lived in much more secular societies than the USA.