Legal marriage

[Ganondagan]

Why did you respond to me twice, just to be petty and snarky? I made a valid point that's been discussed in prior threads.

And just look at your last sentence...you obviously are not grasping the distinctions I made (whether you agree with them or not, there are differences.) But this is off-topic. I'm happy to discuss it in a separate thread tho.

There are no differences. You realize, I hope. that the cakemaker didn't refuse to make a cake for the gay couple, he refused to put their message, which he consdered sacreligious, on the cake. He offered to make the cake for them so they could put their own message on it. They didn't want that...they wanted to punish a Christian man.

 

[Lursa]

There are no differences. You realize, I hope. that the cakemaker didn't refuse to make a cake for the gay couple, he refused to put their message, which he consdered sacreligious, on the cake. He offered to make the cake for them so they could put their own message on it. They didn't want that...they wanted to punish a Christian man.

There are...you refused to respond directly to what I wrote. Yes "messages" are personal...a swastika also sends a message.

It's very different from refusing to serve gay people. THis isnt rocket-science.

 

[Koala]

Ahhh, this again. Traditional families have included polygamy and mixed generation families in cultures as well. For millennia.

There's no non-religious studies that show SS families are less successful in rearing children. If there are, please present some links.



And why should society be "shaped" to focus on hetero families when that would be minimizing (for no reason) SS families? SS families arent going anywhere...why exclude /minimize them from social recognition and support?

Hetero orientation means nothing when there is abuse, neglect, divorce, etc. Single parenting also happens, intentionally or by misfortune. The only keys to raising healthy well-adjusted kids is love and attention. Gay parents, single parents, adoptive parents, hetero parents are all as capable...or not...of providing this.

Ahh this again. I try to talk about a broad level, and you immediately counter me with the exceptions.
Of course when you talk about societal rules, there are always exceptions.
Anyhow, my point was, lets be honest about what we are arguing about -- which is the definition of the BROAD societal norm for the MODEL of FAMILY UNIT. Not the the exceptions, and not the hard and fast rule.
Like you said, single parent families exist, and can certainly be healthy. But most normal people who are being honest, including single parents themselves, would say it is a bit more challenging, all other things being equal. The best, optimum situation would be a multi-parent household. ANd yes, there are studies to prove that. THe key is, ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL. REPEAT THAT LAST SENTENCE IN YOUR HEAD.
So ofcourse, mutli-parent heterosexual home where there is abuse, alcohol, drug use by parents, no love, whatever is the issue -- is not preferable to a homosexual multiparent home or a single family home. OF COURSE.


I didnt say every single culture through all millennia. Why do we have play these dumb games every time. I said, in GENERAL, looking throughout human history, the GENERAL, most consistet idea of a traditional family unit structure. OF COURSE THERE ARE Exceptions.
Second, what does mixed generation family unit have to do with anything. Are those mixed generation family units ONLY found amongst heterosexual marriages? No? Then wwhat is your point>
Third, what does polygamy have to do with anything? Polygamous marriages are still traditional family unit marriages, but those are more likely to be multiple families, usually, than one family living under one roof (I know Mormons are an exception, but in general Mormons are genearally an exception, i.e. they do not define the general American ideals or even Christian American ideals).

 

[Lursa]

Ahh this again. I try to talk about a broad level, and you immediately counter me with the exceptions.

What are the exceptions? SSM and the data showing their comparable success in raising families is not an "exception."

SS couples arent exceptions, they were the focus of the conversation.

"All things being equal"...where have you found any differences in the data?

Of course when you talk about societal rules, there are always exceptions.
Anyhow, my point was, lets be honest about what we are arguing about -- which is the definition of the BROAD societal norm for the MODEL of FAMILY UNIT. Not the the exceptions, and not the hard and fast rule.
Like you said, single parent families exist, and can certainly be healthy. But most normal people who are being honest, including single parents themselves, would say it is a bit more challenging, all other things being equal. The best, optimum situation would be a multi-parent household. ANd yes, there are studies to prove that. THe key is, ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL. REPEAT THAT LAST SENTENCE IN YOUR HEAD.
So ofcourse, mutli-parent heterosexual home where there is abuse, alcohol, drug use by parents, no love, whatever is the issue -- is not preferable to a homosexual multiparent home or a single family home. OF COURSE.


I didnt say every single culture through all millennia. Why do we have play these dumb games every time. I said, in GENERAL, looking throughout human history, the GENERAL, most consistet idea of a traditional family unit structure. OF COURSE THERE ARE Exceptions.
Second, what does mixed generation family unit have to do with anything. Are those mixed generation family units ONLY found amongst heterosexual marriages? No? Then wwhat is your point>
Third, what does polygamy have to do with anything? Polygamous marriages are still traditional family unit marriages, but those are more likely to be multiple families, usually, than one family living under one roof (I know Mormons are an exception, but in general Mormons are genearally an exception, i.e. they do not define the general American ideals or even Christian American ideals).

I'm sorry that including COMMON family structures such as single parents and adoptive parents thru you off. Please feel free to focus on SS couples raising families.

 

[maquiscat]

I don't - why would you say I do ?

He does seem to ask that of anyone who doesn't answer exactly as he wants them to.

 

[Ganondagan]

There are...you refused to respond directly to what I wrote. Yes "messages" are personal...a swastika also sends a message.

It's very different from refusing to serve gay people. THis isnt rocket-science.

That may be true for you...get that...you. It is definately not true for others, most of us by far, I will argue.

 

[Lursa]

That may be true for you...get that...you. It is definately not true for others, most of us by far, I will argue.

It's not me, it's about the actual meaning of words

There is a foundational difference...that you seem incapable of understanding.

 

[maquiscat]

yes

yes

no, its what I believe, and it solves this entire fight/arguments over gays being married and atheists and polygamists and all that

I've thought about it for years and it makes the best sense - licenses should be available to everyone equally and fairly - fishing licenses, driving .... and civil unions

Don't make/keep marriage as a Govt thing, give it back to the church. Civil unions are what would be legal for everyone, Separate Church and State

It won't happen - but it would make sense

I know I said it last time, but I will put it here again, mostly for those who come after to read and ponder. I had to ask because the line, "separate Church and State, right ?" is often used sarcastically by some when their view is the opposite. The only issue I have with your argument is that the idea of "give it back to the church" implies that it was solely the church's to begin with, when in truth the actual origin is lost to history. While I don't agree with your specific position here, as far as label use goes, I would say that for such, it be phrased as "leave it to the religious and social aspects to bicker about." And for all that I do not think that the label "marriage" should be removed from the legal institution, I do agree that it could be, as long as it is universal across the board, which is something that you have said as well.

 

[maquiscat]

It is ceremonial fluff that carries no actual weight.

For you. For others it carries a lot of weight, even if that weight is not legal in nature. And not just for the couple, or more, in question. My mother showed me how much weight my polygamous marriage held for her, when she intentionally mentioned, "...your other wife."

 

[maquiscat]

You hate freedom. You'd make everyone not a straight white male Christian into second class citizens if you could, I think.

I oppose @hecatmoggie on many points of this discussion, but he has been consistent in that he supports, as a legal entity, interracial and same sex marriage, and would even welcome related and poly marriages in the legal system. His main gripe has been about the label use within law, not the potential variations within law.

 

[maquiscat]

so this really IS about gays getting marriages and forcing the church to recognize them ???

So that would be a strawman argument since no one, especially here, has made that assertion. Please don't pick up on the bad habits of certain others.

 

[maquiscat]

I'm pretty sure that churches aren't being forced to recognize civil marriages. But religious, mostly Christian, men and women are forced to provide services and products for things that are against their beliefs. We all know about the cake and pizza makers that anti-Christians and judges who back them up trying to shut down Christian run businesses. This, to me is unConstitutional. The Constitution blocks government from discrimination, not private citizens.

This is a misrepresentation, although I am willing to accept that you are not doing so intentionally. From multiple cases, there came two basic principles, of which both sides have people trying to make it as if only the one they approve of, or the one they want to demonize, happened. The courts ruled that a business can not discriminate against people based on things like sexual orientation, or skin color, or any of the protected statuses. The courts also ruled that a business can not be forced to create content, including on physical items they sell, that goes against their personal or religious beliefs. Putting it in real world terms, a bakery can not refuse to sell a cake, not even a wedding cake, because they learned that the cake would be used in a same sex wedding, or some other event that goes against their beliefs. This applies to all items already created as well as items to be created that do not have any specific content on them. However, that bakery can not be forced to put onto a wedding, or any other type, cake, "Congratulations, Betty and Lisa", or anything else that goes against their beliefs. The still have to sell them the blank general cake, wedding or otherwise, but they don't have to apply the specific content. Another example that came up in a case, was a web site hosting business. The business can not refuse to sell hosting space on their servers, nor any general service that does not involve creating content, but they can refuse to create specific content at their discretion.

 

[maquiscat]

Don't try that crap. It was entirely about religious discrimination.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATESSyllabusMASTERPIECE CAKESHOP, LTD., ET AL. v.COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION ET AL.CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADONo. 16–111. Argued December 5, 2017—Decided June 4, 2018
Held: The Commission’s actions in this case violated the Free Exercise Clause. Pp. 9–18.(a) The laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civil rights, but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.
Still, the delicate question of when the free exercise of his religion must yield to anotherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself would not be a factor in the balance the State sought to reach. That requirement,however, was not met here. When the Colorado CivilRights Commission considered this case, it did not do so with the religious neutrality that the Constitutionrequires. Given all these considerations, it is proper to hold that what ever the outcome of some future controversy involving facts similar to these, the Commission’s actions here violated the Free Exercise Clause; and its order must be set aside.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

False premise. That case did not show whether or not those of religious beliefs can or can not be forced to provide product/services, or forced to create or not create specific content. It showed that the defendant did not receive a neutral hearing and judgement. IOW, the results of an impartial hearing could end up the same, but it would have to be an impartial hearing in order for the ruling to be valid.

 

[maquiscat]

it is by far the most reasonable solution

Subjective value

Its the societal recognition they are going after, not just the legal one.

I won't argue that there are not some out there that fit this description, but for the most part, proponents simply want the legal aspect. What they fight over is when someone tries to bring an "alternative" in the form of "civil union" but fails to provide all the same legal rights, benefits and protections. More often than not it's a fight against the effort for opponents to be able to go, "since yours isn't a marriage, we don't have to do this thing that we are legally required to do for those with a marriage."

As I said earlier, marriage evolved as both a societal and religious function, as well as a legal one.

And as such, all three forms are entitled to make use of the label. All three forms can co-exist in any combination, but no one form is dependant on the other for its existence.

As our society has become less and less religious, the legal and social functions have taken over the religious in terms of importance. So when a solution is given that sort of takes out the legal aspects of marriage and gives it to civil unions, what remains is the social aspects. In search of being

Was this last a thought that wasn't finished or something that you decided to not use, but failed to realize you didn't delete it all?

 

[maquiscat]

and religious function could be left to churches.

How about left to the religions? By saying churches, you make an implication, intended or not, that only the Christian religion matters in this matter.

Obviously, there are other people that believe that a traditional family, capable of producing without "outside help", is the most healthy environment for rearing of children -- which would preclude homosexual marriages.

It also precludes marriages with at least one sterile spouse, for whatever reason, especially based on the "outside help" aspect. It's one of the reason why I often point out that the criteria of being able to produce children by SSM opponents does more harm to heterosexual marriages than homosexual ones.

I think if we are more honest about the core difference in what constitutes a health family unit best equipped to raise children -- then we could have a more honest discussion. THe traditional view has thousands of years of societal experience to back it up as some evidence. Almost all societies in human history have viewed the instituion of heterosexual marriage as the fundamental core to a healthy family unit that is best for rearing children.

Historically false. Societies across history and cultures have long had other structures, all of which they have deem best for them. It could range from fostering, to extended families all living together, to polygyny and/or polyandry, to village raising. Heterosexual acts, of course, bring about the children, but the raising of the children has had multiple methods historically.

Of course there are exceptions, but I dont think this view is terribly unreasonable. Of course, there are some homosexual couples that are very committed and want and feel they are ready to raise children. Their beliefs cant be totally discounted either, the question is the degree to which that belief should shape what is considered the default position of society.

We certainly could look at marriage, even in a legal sense, to be about the raising of children. But if we do that, we have to be equally applying it across the board. Which means if we were to deny it based on the inability to have children, then we would have to apply it to infertile couples as well as those beyond child bearing years.

 

[maquiscat]

Third, what does polygamy have to do with anything? Polygamous marriages are still traditional family unit marriages, but those are more likely to be multiple families, usually, than one family living under one roof

Would you please expand on this? I am not sure what you are getting at here, both in terms of "traditional family unit marriages" and "more likely to be multiple families, usually, than one family living under one roof ".

 

[Ganondagan]

It's not me, it's about the actual meaning of words

There is a foundational difference...that you seem incapable of understanding.

I understand what you're saying and there absolutely are not foundational differences, at least in this case. "Designing" a wedding cake - what the gay couple asked for - is a request for a Christian man to use his creative expression for celebration of a same sex wedding, something he strongly opposed for religious beliefs.

The case was decided on the basis that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission acted with hostility toward religion.

 

[maquiscat]

The case was decided on the basis that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission acted with hostility toward religion.

Not true. The actions of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission caused the case to be sent back and to be decided upon in an impartial manner. The results could have been the same, or they could have been what they were. But the Commission having bias in the case was not a factor in the final decision of the case.

 

[Lursa]

I understand what you're saying and there absolutely are not foundational differences, at least in this case. "Designing" a wedding cake - what the gay couple asked for - is a request for a Christian man to use his creative expression for celebration of a same sex wedding, something he strongly opposed for religious beliefs.

The case was decided on the basis that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission acted with hostility toward religion.

No...'designing,' 'creating' (rather than mechanical building) a message is different than serving someone.

Again...words are important. And that case was decided on the former.

There are other aspects to the 1A than separation of church and state. It's a multi-dimensional amendment.

 

[Ganondagan]

Not true. The actions of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission caused the case to be sent back and to be decided upon in an impartial manner. The results could have been the same, or they could have been what they were. But the Commission having bias in the case was not a factor in the final decision of the case.

Are you referring to MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP, LTD., ET AL. v.COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION ET AL.CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO decided in 2018?

 

[Ganondagan]

No...'designing,' 'creating' (rather than mechanical building) a message is different than serving someone.

Again...words are important. And that case was decided on the former.

There are other aspects to the 1A than separation of church and state. It's a multi-dimensional amendment.

Have you reviewed the Supreme Court decision?

 

[Lursa]

Have you reviewed the Supreme Court decision?

Have you recognized the distinction yet?

 

[maquiscat]

Are you referring to MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP, LTD., ET AL. v.COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION ET AL.CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO decided in 2018?

Yes. SCOTUS ruled not that the ruling itself was incorrect, but that the case was not ruled upon by the Commission in a neutral manner. They, SCOTUS, did not rule on the broader issues such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion and their intersection of anti-discrimination because of that lack of neutrality by the Commission. In fact, Kennedy specifically stated that he would have been inclined to rule in the Commission's favor if they had maintained their religious neutrality.

In my review of the details, I do not believe that the case has ever been actually resolved. SCOTUS certainly didn't do it, as many legal analysts describe the decision as "punting the issue down the road", or something to that affect. It should be noted that while Phillips, the owner, effectively won that case (even without the issue actually being decided), he did lose a later case. A key difference between the cases, is that the one brought by Mr.'s Craig and Mullins was for a cake with specific SSM content on it, and the cake for the case he lost, was over a simple two color cake. Which only further highlights, that only actual content can be protected as religious held belief.

 

[Ganondagan]

Have you recognized the distinction yet?

You mean this comment.."No...'designing,' 'creating' (rather than mechanical building) a message is different than serving someone."

You're wrong about designing a wedding cake is just serving someone. In fact creating a wedding is in fact creative expression is precisely Phillips, the cake baker in the Masterpiece Cake case, argued that throughout the legal proceedings. Also, the same year that Supreme Court case was decided a Superior Court judge in California decided quite differently than you belief

Wedding cake is an 'artistic expression' that baker may deny to same-sex couple, California judge rules​

Wedding cake is an 'artistic expression' that baker may deny to same-sex couple, California judge rules

Forcing a baker to provide a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage over her religious objections violates her right to free speech, a California judge has ruled.

www.sltrib.com

"A wedding cake is not just a cake in a Free Speech analysis," wrote Superior Court Judge David R. Lampe in a decision late Monday. "It is an artistic expression by the person making it that is to be used traditionally as a centerpiece in the celebration of a marriage. There could not be a greater form of expressive conduct," he said.

 

[CLAX1911]

Inspired by something outside the forum, I have a question for those who think that the government should not be involved in marriage.

I have a question for you? What is marriage? Is it a holy Union between two people that have the potential to procreate? If it is, it should be exclusive.

Or is it a civil contract between two or more people regardless of sex? If it's a civil contract what the hell is the government involved in it for? If I get a business loan I don't need to ask Mommy for permission. If I contact to do some labor I don't have to ask Mommy government for that either.

Do you think that we would be better off without those legal rights and benefits?

Why is the government giving out benefits based on who you contact with? If you are in a sacred union that is the foundation of society it's justifiable. But if you want to share property with your **** buddy why do you need government recognition and benefits?

Are there any that you think should remain, and if so, how would you ensure that those married got them?

It depends on what marriage is. The principal for which society is built upon or joint ownership