Gay marriage

[MadDogs]

Gay rights, by definition are defined by what you have sex with.

Which to some, who you CHOOSE to have sex with does not qualify as a “right”.

Bisexuals are born that way and they want to love people of both sexes.

Science can be a bit pesky here. While there are gay Byron’s and gay George’s, some gay Don’s and even some gay Gary’s; there is not any credible study that has identified any gay “gene”.

 

[MadDogs]

So what is the solution to the issue of religious freedoms vs the rights of others? Do the rights of one trump the other?

Let the market decide.

The government should not be in the business of marriages or forcing businesses to anything that violates their religious rights … especially when it does not involve a defined right that they are being forced to comply with.

The ones who are making news are doing so because they felt the need to make a scene about how their religious views play into it (again, not attacking their views, just the need to tell someone you disagree with their lifestyle when there are other easier ways out of it).

You may not per se be attacking their “views” but you are attacking them and you are revising history. You really think the baker or the florist wanted to be in federal court with seven digit legal fees?

Finally, i don't buy the whole 'baking a cake' as being part of the wedding.

And you have been around weddings for “ten years”? Really? Like “around” as in “around” the same zip code “around”? The plaintiff obviously did “buy in” as to the cake being part of the wedding.

Ministers i can understand, but that then makes me wonder why you'd want someone at your wedding who didn't want to be there to support and celebration your marriage.

That was one of the opinions in the dissent in that it will erode religious freedom. As to “why” would someone would want someone at their wedding who is not supportive is probably no different than many in laws wanting to be at some weddings … except they typically don’t see a pay check or have the notoriety of their name on case going to the Supreme Court.

 

[MadDogs]

Do I have a bit of intolerance against religions? Absolutely.

Had you just stated that earlier this thread would have been a lot shorter.

It may be funny to the lesser informed …

You know, anyone who says as you did that secularist are against same sex marriage because of religious beliefs probably should not be commenting on “lesser informed”.

To point and your admitted bias aside, you have stated repeatedly that religion is the basis for all that are opposed to same sex marriage. That anyone and everyone who does not support same sex marriage are doing such out of their religious beliefs …including secularists (which again was brilliant). The American College of Pediatrics objection was not due to religious beliefs, was it? Even if someone is an atheist who thinks LGBT folks are “icky” as S4F said that they must be doing so for religious reasons?

Trying to blame religion for all the bias is fallacious at best and at the least defies common sense.

Don't see how I was playing the "race card."

When you say as you did in (Post 339) …

The "Black" culture shows a significant amount of ignorance in terms of why they keep it on the "down low." That's christian upbringing through and through and it weighs heavily upon their culture, this is NOT breakthrough information to say the least. It's the same with several other demographics.

In your moment of “critical thought” (“LAWL”) you managed to call an entire race “ignorant” and condemn a religion for daring to stand by their beliefs. Mighty white of you Gm. You didn’t have to say you had intolerance against people that believe differently than you. The prejudice that you admitted to is pretty obvious.

That case was made long before I was alive, has nothing to do with me, it's just history. Anyone that says different is just another "man" looking the other way when the priests are molesting children.

That comment makes as much sense as had you finished your “critical thought” with … “Anyone that says different is a communist that hates mom and apple pie”.

Given your previous comments relating bias to same sex unions as entirely religion drive, to say that the “case was made” before you were alive is either a capitulation by you … and/or a “case” of you whizzing backwards.

Cute rhetoric that would make any liberal proud for sure.

Calling me liberal may be the most amusing thing you have said. In fact, that anyone has said about me. And Lurker had some good lines too. Your deflection aside, try to stay focused for a bit longer.

You have repeatedly stated throughout this thread that religion is the basis for all people being against same sex unions/marriages. That is simply not true.

There are two plausible explanations to your claim that all objections to same sex unions are faith based. One, is that you can only speak in absolutes and the world as you see it is an Aristotelian dichotomy of “it is or it aint”. I don’t believe that is true because that would make you a moron and you are not a moron.

The other explanation to your comments such as that the “black culture” is driven by “ignorance” and that all bias against same sex marriages is driven by religion is that your opinions are driven by prejudices towards people who have different beliefs and/or are a different color than you. And (again) you made this absolutely clear in post #378 when you stated,

Do I have a bit of intolerance against religions? Absolutely.

You are agreeing with Webster’s definition of a “bigot”.

I want to stress to you is that this is not a personal attack directed at you but is an explanation as to why you posted what you did. Example … Byron called me a “bigot” without any validation to substantiate or illustrate such behavior. That is shrill name calling which is a personal attack (but likely the best he can do). But in your case, you actually admitted your bias.

To which, kudos. You admitted something that the other bigoted alpha hotels on this thread lack the integrity to do.

Not a personal attack … but an example of a special kind of sad.

 

[JD8]

I'm fine with the religious bigot label, granted per the Webster's definition of bigot, you're no better by any means. Don't worry, I won't cry about a personal attack, so call it what it is and don't worry about trying to justify it. When people have no argument they have to resort to ad hom. Reading several of your posts.... you start loosing an argument and that's what you immediately resort to. I'm pretty sure it's no secret around here. When someone becomes insecure about their opinion, they have to lash out at everyone else, like you've done here, and will continue to do I'm sure.

The insistence on the race card is hilarious as I made no reference an entire culture, but YOUR definition of "down low" and why it happens. If you want to keep misrepresenting what I said then I will take it as a submission. Not the first time I've had someone mislabel me because of their own insecure convictions. Usually goes silent upon introducing close friends and some family. LAWL?

Finally, back to the point at hand. I've asked you for some reference throughout this thread. That means proof if you missed it. Now you've twisted and turned this into absolutes because you and I both know you don't have any significant examples of which you speak. Your so called atheists denouncing gay marriage in any sort of numbers? It should be easy to find. In which you still don't understand the bigger picture, this isn't about the possibility of an infinitely small minority existence of philosophy, in which I'm sorry to kick that crutch out from under you. No matter what you say, you still can't prove that religion isn't by far, the major driving force for hate against gay marriage. It's ok.... just accept it and move on. Taking pot shots at me won't change this.

 

[donner]

Let the market decide.

The government should not be in the business of marriages or forcing businesses to anything that violates their religious rights … especially when it does not involve a defined right that they are being forced to comply with.

we agree the government shouldn't be in the marriage business, as has been said several times.

You may not per se be attacking their “views” but you are attacking them and you are revising history. You really think the baker or the florist wanted to be in federal court with seven digit legal fees?

I never said they 'wanted' to be in federal court, but they clearly wanted to tell the customer that they disagreed with their lifestyle. That was my point. There are numerous ways to avoiding doing business with someone that don't involve stating anything about the couple's lifestyle. So yes, i am not commenting on the baker's views, but on the way they went about handling the situation.

And you have been around weddings for “ten years”? Really? Like “around” as in “around” the same zip code “around”? The plaintiff obviously did “buy in” as to the cake being part of the wedding.

10 years in the wedding photography business, both as a photographer and studio manager (even played wedding planner once or twice). And not always in the same zip code as the wedding since much of my job is now done over the phone and internet I probably talk to 1-2 brides a day during my work week

I've stated very clearly a few times that i don't agree with the plaintiffs actions here, but not because of the 'religious freedom' argument that businesses that are open to the public want to proclaim. That said, the cake is part of the wedding for the couple, but the person who bakes it is generally not. Just as the guy who sold the gun is not part of the crime, but the gun itself is involved.

That was one of the opinions in the dissent in that it will erode religious freedom. As to “why” would someone would want someone at their wedding who is not supportive is probably no different than many in laws wanting to be at some weddings … except they typically don’t see a pay check or have the notoriety of their name on case going to the Supreme Court.

I'm not exactly sure of your comparison to inviting family to a wedding as being the same as a minister who does not want to marry the couple. I've known many brides who have to invite family because they consider that the polite thing to do or because another family member (grandma or mom, for example) expect it. I don't think i've ever had a client force a vendor (which some ministers are if they are being paid) to be part of the wedding. In fact, it's more typical to fire vendors who are difficult to work with than it is forcing them to be a part of the wedding.

 

[MadDogs]

I'm fine with the religious bigot label …

And again I will give you props for admitting that you are bias and prejudice against those that have different beliefs than you.

… granted per the Webster's definition of bigot, you're no better by any means.

Don’t you think you could have a better reply than something that is a grade down from, “I am rubber you are glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you”? So explain how am I a “bigot”? Maybe you can have a study session with Bryon and S4F? Or is it because I pointed out your comments fall into that definition and have biased your view on religion?

Reading several of your posts....

Had you read any of them you would have understood that my point was that for you to say ALL bias against same sex marriage is based on religious beliefs as you repeatedly have stated. Go back and read my posts to this starting 29 June.

The insistence on the race card is hilarious as I made no reference an entire culture, but YOUR definition of "down low" and why it happens.

Not so much. Again …

The "Black" culture shows a significant amount of ignorance in terms of why they keep it on the "down low." That's christian upbringing through and through and it weighs heavily upon their culture, this is NOT breakthrough information to say the least. It's the same with several other demographics.

Either you are a racial bigot or you cannot construct a paragraph very well. Or both.

Finally, back to the point at hand … No matter what you say, you still can't prove that religion isn't by far, the major driving force for hate against gay marriage. … Your so called atheists denouncing gay marriage in any sort of numbers?

Thank you for admitting that you are capitulating. Had you read my posts from the very beginning you would see that was my point. On the flip side, you repeatedly stated that religion is the reason for all bias against same sex marriage. That (again) is the point I was making.

 

[MadDogs]

So yes, i am not commenting on the baker's views, but on the way they went about handling the situation.

Understood that you were not commenting to their views. You said they were making a scene for their religious views. The point is that they didn’t make the scene but the lawyers for the plaintiffs that did.

 

[JD8]

And again I will give you props for admitting that you are bias and prejudice against those that have different beliefs than you.

I'm only biased towards those that would persecute others, or feel they need to tell others what to do. You'll never see me outside a church on sunday telling folks what to believe, or telling them they shouldn't be able to attend. If you believe this to be a "bigot" well.... that's your problem. LAWL.

Don’t you think you could have a better reply than something that is a grade down from, “I am rubber you are glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you”? So explain how am I a “bigot”? Maybe you can have a study session with Bryon and S4F? Or is it because I pointed out your comments fall into that definition and have biased your view on religion?

You feel that you haven't exhibited any "intolerance?"

Either you are a racial bigot or you cannot construct a paragraph very well. Or both.

Kind of hard to be a racist when I agree with so many anthropologists in terms of an absence of true race. Eh, if that's your crutch then so be it. I DO find it typical that those that are quickest to throw out a race card are the ones you have worry about. Emotional people see what they want to se though.

Thank you for admitting that you are capitulating. Had you read my posts from the very beginning you would see that was my point. On the flip side, you repeatedly stated that religion is the reason for all bias against same sex marriage. That (again) is the point I was making.

It's easy to have a "point" when it's a unicorn nobody has ever seen. You go on clicking those heels there Dorothy... and maybe... just maybe.... an aethiest will show up with his big anti-gay banner.

 

[MadDogs]

I'm only biased towards those that would persecute others, or feel they need to tell others what to do. You'll never see me outside a church on sunday telling folks what to believe, or telling them they shouldn't be able to attend. If you believe this to be a "bigot" well.... that's your problem. LAWL.

I believe you. Actually, if you think about it I am agreeing with you when you said you have “intolerance against religions”. It’s rather obvious by your posts. And I don’t think you would stand out in front of a church and try to lecture people on your bias.

You feel that you haven't exhibited any "intolerance?"

Can you share where by definition I have exhibited any “bigotry”? Secondly why would you rationalize your behavior with someone else’s?

Kind of hard to be a racist when I agree with so many anthropologists in terms of an absence of true race.

Again, when you called the “black culture” ignorant that may not get you a white robe and cone-head hat but it was somewhere between ignorant and racist.

Do you remember the movie, “A Fish Called Wanda”? There was a scene where Kevin Kline’s character was defending his “intelligence” when he was called an “ape” by Jaime Lee Curtis’ character, “Wanda”. He stated that “apes don’t read philosophy” and “Wanda” replied that they do, but they just “don’t understand it”. That kind of fits here.

And just when I thought you saw the light …

It's easy to have a "point" when it's a unicorn nobody has ever seen. You go on clicking those heels there Dorothy... and maybe... just maybe.... an aethiest will show up with his big anti-gay banner.

Again, logic be damned. There is no atheist that is against same sex marriages? Tell me “Otto” … did you ever try to do a basic web search on that? No atheist huh … or is that “LAWL”? Let me guess, do you want to go back to your (brilliant) point that a secularist is against same sex marriages because of religious beliefs? Priceless.

 

[MaddSkillz]

I'd like to hear other reasons against gay marriage that don't stem from religion? Most everything I've ever read on FB or other forums that is against it is rooted in ancient myth.