HoosierGuy Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 We live in a better society because of laws that make businesses usable/open to handicap people, for instance people in wheel chairs. Is that so wrong? No, it's not wrong. It's a good thing. So I think laws and rulings that support gay people who want to get married are similar to those handicap laws. It will benefit society as a whole. No, I'm not calling gay people handicap. I'm only using handicap laws as an example. It will benefit all of society. What I would have told the owners of the cake shop - stop complaining and go buy a cheap plastic gay statue to put on the cake and be done with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finrock Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 Good Afternoon HoosierGuy. I hope you're doing well! :)So I think laws and rulings that support gay people who want to get married are similar to those handicap laws. It will benefit society as a whole. No, I'm not calling gay people handicap.How does same-sex marriage benefit society as a whole?-Finrock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 (edited) We live in a better society because of laws that make businesses usable/open to handicap people, for instance people in wheel chairs. Is that so wrong? No, it's not wrong. It's a good thing. So I think laws and rulings that support gay people who want to get married are similar to those handicap laws. It will benefit society as a whole. No, I'm not calling gay people handicap. I'm only using handicap laws as an example. It will benefit all of society. What I would have told the owners of the cake shop - stop complaining and go buy a cheap plastic gay statue to put on the cake and be done with it.Then the issue here is not that bakeries HAVE TO serve anybody.The issue here is - IS SEXUAL ORIENTATION A PROTECTED CLASS?Because - I don't know of any organization/group/religion that says using a wheelchair because you are handicapped goes against their moral principles.You can tell a business to put a gay statue. The business doesn't have to do it just because you told them to if they don't want to. Your rights end where the bakery's begin. Edited January 23, 2014 by anatess Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 The issue here is - IS SEXUAL ORIENTATION A PROTECTED CLASS?Or, perhaps, SHOULD sexual orientation be a protected class. The problem with attempting to make it protected is that there can be no sure way to validate someone's sexual orientation. Anyone claiming an orientation suddenly, magically, IS that orientation. How can we possibly make something that is just a "say-so" issue a protected class? I can't be black just because I say I'm black. I can't be disabled just because I say I'm disabled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarginOfError Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 Or, perhaps, SHOULD sexual orientation be a protected class. The problem with attempting to make it protected is that there can be no sure way to validate someone's sexual orientation. Anyone claiming an orientation suddenly, magically, IS that orientation. How can we possibly make something that is just a "say-so" issue a protected class? I can't be black just because I say I'm black. I can't be disabled just because I say I'm disabled.I don't think that really holds as an example. Religion is a protected class, and you can't validate a person's religion. If I say I'm muslim, then I'm muslim. So if religion is a "say-so" issue that is a protected class, why not sexual orientation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 I don't think that really holds as an example. Religion is a protected class, and you can't validate a person's religion. If I say I'm muslim, then I'm muslim. So if religion is a "say-so" issue that is a protected class, why not sexual orientation?Yeah...I was going to say something about religion. And I agree that it does put a hole in my thought. I would content, personally, that religion should be it's own right and not a protected "class", based on my thought. But you are correct. Religion, legally speaking, IS indeed a protected class. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 I don't remember prohibition helping things either.Really? Prohibitions against rape and murder do not actually help control rape and murder?Do you also believe that legalizing abortion has not directly led to millions of murdered children? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlimac Posted January 23, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 Then the issue here is not that bakeries HAVE TO serve anybody.The issue here is - IS SEXUAL ORIENTATION A PROTECTED CLASS?Because - I don't know of any organization/group/religion that says using a wheelchair because you are handicapped goes against their moral principles.You can tell a business to put a gay statue. The business doesn't have to do it just because you told them to if they don't want to. Your rights end where the bakery's begin.I thought that sexual orientation already was a protected class. At least it is in Oregon, New Mexico and Colorado where these complaints are being ruled on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yjacket Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 (edited) Really? Prohibitions against rape and murder do not actually help control rape and murder?Do you also believe that legalizing abortion has not directly led to millions of murdered children?Hi Vort :-).If prohibition against rape and murder worked we wouldn't have rape and murder.But we do; and I can tell you if some bad guy comes up to me with and tries to kill me, I won't be thinking . . . golly I wish we had more laws against rape and murder!!If I'm not well protected, I'll be thinking "dang it" I knew I should have brought my concealed weapon with me this time!The real prohibition against rape and murder has nothing to do with laws, it has to do with the fact that if you try to rape someone you are very likely to get killed yourself.The notion that if we didn't have laws against xyz we would descend into chaos is pure rhetoric. There are a million things that people do every do that don't have any laws associated with them and things work out pretty well.Laws should be there to enact a punishment for violations against life, liberty, and property, not to reshape society. If you've ever visited a jail you'll see how much good some laws are really doing as a significant portion of jail population is for non-violent crimes. Edited January 23, 2014 by yjacket Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 If prohibition against rape and murder worked we wouldn't have rape and murder.Logic....breakdown.... Since when does "works" have to mean "eliminated"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yjacket Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 (edited) Logic....breakdown.... Since when does "works" have to mean "eliminated"?Good point.I think of it on a sliding scale. One can curb human behavior depending on how much money, manpower, and resources one wants to put into it.For example rape/murder. If there is a cop on every street-corner, rape/murder would surely drop but it would not be eliminated, but it would be lower than it is now. But in order to have a cop on every street corner requires valuable time, money and manpower. Those resources could be better allocated in a different fashion.So yes, prohibition can achieve a drop in activity in the thing prohibited, but at what cost?Which is why when people point to Prohibition "working" they only understand half the problem. It "worked" but at what cost? Al-capone and a lot of other gangs profited greatly from Prohibition.That's why laws shouldn't be enacted to mold human behavior, laws should be enacted as punishments against behavior that infringe on life, liberty, and property. Because once individuals accept that the law should mold human behavior then it is a matter or degree, i.e. how many resources do I need to put into enforcing xyz law to achieve the desired outcome? Edited January 23, 2014 by yjacket Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yjacket Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 Logic....breakdown.... Well the logic breakdown on the other side is: if we didn't have laws against murder and rape, murder and rape would be everywhere!One only has to go into the ghetto neighborhoods of the US to see that bit of logical breakdown ;-). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 Those resources could be better allocated in a different fashion.A matter of opinion and debate. You are certainly free to your positions in these regards. I'm not saying I even disagree. But it is not a forgone, self-evident point.That's why laws shouldn't be enacted to mold human behavior, laws should be enacted as punishments against behavior that infringe on life, liberty, and property. It's the liberty thing that gets sticky. What does and doesn't infringe on liberty is kind of the point of the debate. My position is that the homosexual agenda is the greatest threat to our liberty in modern times. Not baking a cake by way of discrimination is a pittance compared to the threat to liberty at hand.I can agree that there is discrimination and injustice in turning someone away because of their sexual orientation. I cannot agree that we should force someone, against their religious conviction, to do something. Religious liberty trumps cake buying rights, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 Well the logic breakdown on the other side is: if we didn't have laws against murder and rape, murder and rape would be everywhere!Hmm. Seems to me that the logic breakdown is that because not having a law against murder and rape wouldn't cause murder and rape to abound means that we shouldn't have laws against murder and rape.Prohibition of something is not really about whether it works or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 I thought that sexual orientation already was a protected class. At least it is in Oregon, New Mexico and Colorado where these complaints are being ruled on.It is not a protected class under the Civil Rights Act or Americans with Disabilities Act.Gender is, but sexual orientation isn't.Now, there are certain states that specifically include sexual orientation in non-discrimination language for certain things like Housing. But it's not a sweeping Class Protection. Make sense?Okay, JAG will probably correct me on this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yjacket Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 Prohibition of something is not really about whether it works or not.I agree with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yjacket Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 (edited) A matter of opinion and debate. You are certainly free to your positions in these regards. I'm not saying I even disagree. But it is not a forgone, self-evident point.I agree. For example if there is 1 cop in town and 100 murders, then the solution is to increase the cops, not to stop the murders but to prosecute the murderers. The point being is that in allocating resources to enforcing a particular law(s), one cannot task them to enforce n number of additional law(s). Basically time and resources are finite and choosing wisely where to allocate those resources is important. The more laws created, the more manpower and resources needed to enforce those laws. The manpower is drawn from the labor pool and the resources drawn from the people. The manpower that is now enforcing laws, could have been employed doing something else and the monetary resources could have been employed doing something else. There is a cost, both seen and unseen to enforcing laws.It's the liberty thing that gets sticky. What does and doesn't infringe on liberty is kind of the point of the debate. My position is that the homosexual agenda is the greatest threat to our liberty in modern times. It can get sticky, if one doesn't understand their own philosophical base. Unfortunately, I think many people see liberty very myopically. Basically, as long as I can do whatever I want I have liberty, but I don't like it that this person does xyz so I'm for laws that prohibit them from doing xyz. So it ends up being liberty for me, and as long as everyone else agrees with me then it's liberty for them too, but if they disagree with me then they should be prohibited from doing xyz and tough for them.I've explained it before, but liberty is simply an extension of property rights, which is simply an extension of self, which is an extension of life. Ultimately, the question comes down to who owns me?Not baking a cake by way of discrimination is a pittance compared to the threat to liberty at hand.I can agree that there is discrimination and injustice in turning someone away because of their sexual orientation. I cannot agree that we should force someone, against their religious conviction, to do something. Religious liberty trumps cake buying rights, IMO.I agree, except it doesn't have anything to do with religious liberty. It has everything to do with property rights and true liberty-I can think and act however I please as long as I do not harm someone else. Just because there is discrimination or something is "injust" doesn't mean that there should be a law against it. Edited January 23, 2014 by yjacket Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 Ultimately, the question comes down to who owns me?Obama?I agree, except it doesn't have anything to do with religious liberty.Agree to disagree? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yjacket Posted January 23, 2014 Report Share Posted January 23, 2014 Obama?Agree to disagree?Lol . . . coming soon to a theater new you. Off-topic, but I found out today that the development of the ObamaCare website cost more than the development of the iPhone! Yeah!Sure; I can easily see how someone can view it as a religious freedom issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierGuy Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 Good Afternoon HoosierGuy. I hope you're doing well! :)How does same-sex marriage benefit society as a whole?-Finrock Maybe it does benefit, maybe it doesn't. But how in the world does it hurt? It doesn't. Let them get married and be done with it. It's not like they are forcing you to have a same-sex marriage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlimac Posted January 24, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 (edited) Maybe it does benefit, maybe it doesn't. But how in the world does it hurt? It doesn't. Let them get married and be done with it. It's not like they are forcing you to have a same-sex marriage.I can think of plenty of ways it hurts society but every single one of those ways I mention are categorically denied or craftily skirted around by the LGBT community and even many LDS members. Basically, it will affect the youngest generation in negative ways and the results won't be seen for many years down the road. I had a conversation today with some people about how it hurts kids. Someone brought up an article she had read about Rosie O'Donnell's children that she adopted into her lesbian marriage. Or I should say companionship. This went on long before same gender marriage. The oldest ones have recently expressed anger about not having a father and how they never had the chance to grow up in a normal family. One boy has gone off to military school (not a bad thing but the motivation was because he never learned how to be a man from a father) and another to some reformation camp. It has the potential to really hurt children emotionally.I also heard today on conservative radio station about a case where a lesbian couple put an ad out on craigslist or some such internet sight for a sperm donor. They did a deal with some guy and somehow ( turkey baster?) conceived a child. The man thought he had signed his parental rights away. He never wanted to be a father. He was just trying to make some money. These lesbians have been on welfare. Now the state ( don't know which state) is trying to get money from the alleged "father" of this child for child support repayments. Apparently the state found some loophole in the deal- some obscure law that says the procedure has to be attended by a medical doctor for the guy to not have any legal connection to the child. And the poor child in all this. Who's my daddy? Why don't I have a daddy? I want to live with my dad. And when the child has to learn about human reproduction? Well son, we, uh... did it differently. I'm sure that's all going to be really good for the child's mental stability.See- in just two examples, you can see the potential for society to get even more messed up than it already is. Edited January 24, 2014 by carlimac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierGuy Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 I also heard today on conservative radio station... I listen to conservative radio sometimes and it's awfully hateful. I don't think it's wise to base opinions on such hateful broadcasting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crash Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 I listen to conservative radio sometimes and it's awfully hateful. I don't think it's wise to base opinions on such hateful broadcasting.And what conservative radio programs are you listening to? Have you ever watched MSNBC? Night and day difference in civility there. I know of more conservatives who have friendly discussions with liberals than the other way around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 Honestly, "liberals" are the least tolerant people I know. And I live in Seattle, a liberal city famous for politeness. Lefties from out-of-state are often the very definition of intolerant, hateful bigots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notquiteperfect Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 Maybe it does benefit, maybe it doesn't. But how in the world does it hurt? It doesn't. Let them get married and be done with it. It's not like they are forcing you to have a same-sex marriage.Well, looking to the Old Testament - would you rather live during Noah's time (drown in a flood) or Enoch's (be translated)? The difference was how well people did at living according to God's laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.