Gay Marriage declared legal across the United States in Supreme Court ruling

[Shamitako]

The Bible was also used as one of the primary arguments against discrimination and slavery for equally long

And I think I already made it clear that I favor people's rights to bigotry but I'll restate it anyways

The difference between skin color and sexual orientation is that one is quite literally written on your skin. Thus in most scenarios they aren't actually comparable

[Deleted User]

The bible was used to justify discrimination against us for 400 years. Miss me with that shit. Fact of the matter is, segregation in all forms is fucked up and shouldn't be allowed.

The bible specifically? Or just those of the time who were followers? Correlation, or causation? That's what I'd like to know, if you can find me some verses from the bible that state that, I'd be willing to hear you out on this.

[Antilegend]

The bible specifically? Or just those of the time who were followers? Correlation, or causation? That's what I'd like to know, if you can find me some verses from the bible that state that, I'd be willing to hear you out on this.

A lot of Christians like to cherrypick the bible when the argument suits them. The popular bible verse that condemns homosexuality is in the book of Leviticus 18:22: ‘You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Though if you're interested in reading up on some of the other crazy shit going down in that part of the bible, have a look at this: http://hill-kleerup.org/blog/2012/06/13/76-things-banned-in-leviticus-and-their-penalties.html

Ironically, there's many more bible verses supporting people to embrace your fellow man and to not judge people, as there is only "one true judge". I'll be happy to link some if interested.

[Guest]

I figured I'd chime in on this. I'm English so I wasn't going to say anything, given that I do vaguely percieve other country's actions as not my business, because I'd hate to seem like some smug outsider who's offering opinions on things that don't effect them.

To be fair, it's naive to think what happens in other places of the world aren't going to affect you if you're not directly related to said place and it's actualy good to see "outsiders" giving a damn really. (I'm brazillian myself.)

The US is big and holds an important place in the world, it's not uncommon for other countires to follow it's lead in some matters, that's one of the reasons why it's important to be aware.

[Deleted User]

A lot of Christians like to cherrypick the bible when the argument suits them. The popular bible verse that condemns homosexuality is in the book of Leviticus 18:22: ‘You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Though if you're interested in reading up on some of the other crazy shit going down in that part of the bible, have a look at this: http://hill-kleerup.org/blog/2012/06/13/76-things-banned-in-leviticus-and-their-penalties.html

Ironically, there's many more bible verses supporting people to embrace your fellow man and to not judge people, as there is only "one true judge". I'll be happy to link some if interested.

I'm well aware of what's in Leviticus. It also states men should not shave, get tattoos or sell their land/real estate among other things.

That isn't what I asked about. I'm also aware that the bible is very convoluted and contrary often times scattered throughout. This has gone too far off topic now though, lets get back to the primary focus of this thread.

[Eviora]

No one is talking about forcing Churches to perform same sex marriages. We're talking about businesses.

As for your distinction between discriminating based on skin color and on sexual orientation, that's just special pleading. Even if your conception of Christian values doesn't discriminate based on skin color, it's easy to imagine a religion that does, and the government would have to provide freedom to ALL religions equally. This requires upholding criteria external to the religions themselves.

Also, no one is talking about forcing Christians to do business with anyone, just about upholding the law or what's ethical. If Christians don't want to provide service to gay people, that's fine. However, their self imposed restriction may cost them something. They may have to forsake the prospect of running a business at all. Notwithstanding, that is an option available to them. Therefore, they are not being forced.

I used to be Catholic, so I'll have to object to the idea that the Catholic Church would support refusing admission to gay students. I believe they would object only to homosexual acts. So let's instead consider a school run by religion X, which considers merely being gay to be evil. I would say if this school's purpose is in large part to educate its students about religion X, then it could be considered part of the Church of X, provided it satisfies all other legal criteria.

[Antilegend]

I'm well aware of what's in Leviticus. It also states men should not shave, get tattoos or sell their land/real estate among other things.

That isn't what I asked about. I'm also aware that the bible is very convoluted and contrary often times scattered throughout. This has gone too far off topic now though, lets get back to the primary focus of this thread.

Alright, I may have been mistaken originally, but it was difficult to determine if you were being rhetorical or not.

In today's news, Louisiana is refusing to recognize gay marriage until the 5th Circuit Court orders it to be so:

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/06/bobby_jindal_administration_sa_1.html

Parts of Alabama are refusing to issue marriage liscences to anybody, which includes heterosexual couuples, in defiance of the court ruling:

http://whnt.com/2015/06/26/some-probate-judges-resume-issuing-marriage-licenses-to-same-sex-couples-others-halt-licensing-altogether/

Edited June 27, 2015 by Antilegend

[Shamitako]

Also, no one is talking about forcing Christians to do business with anyone, just about upholding the law or what's ethical. If Christians don't want to provide service to gay people, that's fine. However, their self imposed restriction may cost them something.

Right, so we agree here. We just disagree on what level and I don't really see any way to change that so I'm going to drop it now

And... TBH I'm glad Alabama did that. Nobody can get married, that's fair. All it's going to do is bring attention to the issue (and upset a bunch of people who want to get married obvs) until they start allowing marriages again. Though in this case it will mostly be negative attention for all parties involved so there's that...

Things like this are the main reason I was against universally forcing states to accept homosexual marriages. But I figure they'll sort themselves out eventually so it's not the end of the world

[Deleted User]

No one is talking about forcing Churches to perform same sex marriages. We're talking about businesses.

As for your distinction between discriminating based on skin color and on sexual orientation, that's just special pleading. Even if your conception of Christian values doesn't discriminate based on skin color, it's easy to imagine a religion that does, and the government would have to provide freedom to ALL religions equally. This requires upholding criteria external to the religions themselves.

Also, no one is talking about forcing Christians to do business with anyone, just about upholding the law or what's ethical. If Christians don't want to provide service to gay people, that's fine. However, their self imposed restriction may cost them something. They may have to forsake the prospect of running a business at all. Notwithstanding, that is an option available to them. Therefore, they are not being forced.

I used to be Catholic, so I'll have to object to the idea that the Catholic Church would support refusing admission to gay students. I believe they would object only to homosexual acts. So let's instead consider a school run by religion X, which considers merely being gay to be evil. I would say if this school's purpose is in large part to educate its students about religion X, then it could be considered part of the Church of X, provided it satisfies all other legal criteria.

I know that, but the fact is the distinction between businesses and churches are different. One I absolutely know is a constitutionally protected right, the other I think is just more of a personal belief.

Fair enough. However that's all hypothetical for the time being. This situation currently at hand is real and what is the primary concern right now.

Um yes that's what the entire conversation as of late HAS been about. Is it ethical to force an individual to do business with someone when they do not wish to do so? It's their business, why should the government step in and be able to say "do this, or else". Not allowing people to run a business because of their religious beliefs and not wishing to do business with a homosexual couple or individual. Especially in the instance of a wedding cake, when a Christian does not believe in same sex marriage they're going to be forced to provide their services to create one of the focal points of a same sex marriage? That IS violating their religious freedom. Saying 'Well then you can't have your business anymore.' Is probably far more ludicrous, wrong, and outlandish than their desire to not serve a homosexual couple.

OK, you did state that the catholic church doesn't reject gay students, (I don't think this would always hold true, especially in certain parts of the country) but otherwise you seem to be echoing what I'd said.

[Abyssreaper99]

Alright, I may have been mistaken originally, but it was difficult to determine if you were being rhetorical or not.

In today's news, Louisiana is refusing to recognize gay marriage until the 5th Circuit Court orders it to be so:

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/06/bobby_jindal_administration_sa_1.html

Parts of Alabama are refusing to issue marriage liscences to anybody, which includes heterosexual couuples, in defiance of the court ruling:

http://whnt.com/2015/06/26/some-probate-judges-resume-issuing-marriage-licenses-to-same-sex-couples-others-halt-licensing-altogether/

These parts of Alabama need to get a grip. Stopping everyone from getting married just because some people in the state disagree with the law is just pathetic. Haters gonna hate but still, going to such extremes just to prevent a human right just to get their way is immoral. I can understand churches with not allowing this but this is too extreme. The business matter though is up to the business owners if they're private.

Edited June 27, 2015 by amazingmagicsam

[Eviora]

How do you know it's hypothetical? There could be a small minority of people whose religions require that they discriminate based on race. Their religion must be protected to the same extent as that of Christians.

There are plenty of things real (if old) religions practice that they are not allowed to do in the United States. For instance, anything requiring human sacrifice is very illegal, even if the sacrifices volunteer. The issue is the same in principle with "right to refusal", just less extreme. Christians should certainly be allowed to have businesses, but they'll have to run their businesses ethically. If they believe that the ethical behavior is actually an "abomination" or whatever, then they're free to excuse themselves from any position that requires the behavior of them. However, their religious beliefs are insufficient reason to violate the equal rights of others.The optimal solution for them would be to sell a cake (or whatever) to whoever wants one, and acknowledge that what's done with the cake is the responsibility of the buyer. If they believe that what's done with the cake is in part their responsibility then they should probably stop selling cakes, because it's not like the buyers are required to announce their intentions.

[Shamitako]

...Did you really just equate baking a cake to human sacrifice?

[Eviora]

No. In fact, I explicitly said the issue of baking a cake is less extreme. I was merely pointing out that "religious freedom" is not a license to do unethical or illegal things.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Eviora

[Deleted User]

How do you know it's hypothetical? There could be a small minority of people whose religions require that they discriminate based on race. Their religion must be protected to the same extent as that of Christians.

There are plenty of things real (if old) religions practice that they are not allowed to do in the United States. For instance, anything requiring human sacrifice is very illegal, even if the sacrifices volunteer. The issue is the same in principle with "right to refusal", just less extreme. Christians should certainly be allowed to have businesses, but they'll have to run their businesses ethically. If they believe that the ethical behavior is actually an "abomination" or whatever, then they're free to excuse themselves from any position that requires the behavior of them. However, their religious beliefs are insufficient reason to violate the equal rights of others.The optimal solution for them would be to sell a cake (or whatever) to whoever wants one, and acknowledge that what's done with the cake is the responsibility of the buyer. If they believe that what's done with the cake is in part their responsibility then they should probably stop selling cakes, because it's not like the buyers are required to announce their intentions.

You really just equated HUMAN SACRIFICE, to a private business choosing not to do serve someone for a foolish reason? Oh my goodness.......................

OK. Human sacrifice is unconstitutional I'M FAIRLY CERTAIN, because it's covered under murder. The government is not supposed to dictate how private businesses are and aren't run. That's been one of the foundations of this country since it's inception. The WEDDING Cake makes it clear what the intention is, or did you miss that detail. The fact that you think it's more acceptable to run a business into the ground than for the business owner to be an ass is astounding to me, really. It's quite simple to take your business elsewhere and find someone who would be more than happy to serve you, but you'd rather just see their whole lives ruined out of stubbornness of the customer? It may be in bad taste to be bigoted, but is it really unethical? Is it? Ethical is a very gray term that isn't quite as black and white as you say it is.

[Antilegend]

These parts of Alabama need to get a grip. Stopping everyone from getting married just because some people in the state disagree with the law is just pathetic. Haters gonna hate but still, going to such extremes just to prevent a human right just to get their way is immoral. I can understand churches with not allowing this but this is too extreme. The business matter though is up to the business owners if they're private.

Until the 5th circuit court rules it into effect, it seems both Louisiana and Alabama are going to wait until the last second to allow homosexual marriage. The court allows the "losing" side approximately three weeks to make the necessary adjustments to the newly added law. They've got the means to do it now... they're just choosing not to.

It's one last assault on the dignity of fellow human beings before being forced to bow to the inevitable. This is how small somebody can show themselves to be.

[Eviora]

@Solace

What does it matter if the cake is a wedding cake? It's not like the bakery is going to be doing the marrying. If the business is going to insist on taking responsibility for what the customer does with their cake that's *their* stubbornness. Only they can run their own business into the ground. The religious restrictions are self-imposed. You are giving far too little weight to the choices made by the business owner.

If businesses are widely allowed to discriminate, it may not always be easy to take your business elsewhere. If there are relatively few businesses providing the service in question in the customer's area and all of them are discriminating then it may be a substantial burden. You may try to write this situation off as merely hypothetical, but the hypothetical can easy become actual without the proper precautions.

And, by the way, yes, bigotry is unethical, at least when applied to aspects of a person outside of their control.

[Deleted User]

@Solace

What does it matter if the cake is a wedding cake? It's not like the bakery is going to be doing the marrying. If the business is going to insist on taking responsibility for what the customer does with their cake that's *their* stubbornness. Only they can run their own business into the ground. The religious restrictions are self-imposed. You are giving far too little weight to the choices made by the business owner.

If businesses are widely allowed to discriminate, it may not always be easy to take your business elsewhere. If there are relatively few businesses providing the service in question in the customer's area and all of them are discriminating then it may be a substantial burden. You may try to write this situation off as merely hypothetical, but the hypothetical can easy become actual without the proper precautions.

And, by the way, yes, bigotry is unethical, at least when applied to aspects of a person outside of their control.

That's the thing, it SHOULDN'T matter even if it's a wedding cake. We'll continue to argue in circles here with my view point being that private businesses should not be required to do business with anyone for whatever the reason may be. Where as you'll continue to feel that the business should have to do business with anyone, even if they do not want to, or else they can just crash and burn, ruining their lives and financial well being because they don't agree with something.

Forced tolerance, isn't true tolerance.

[Eviora]

It's not about tolerance. It's about equal treatment. We (probably) can't control what we believe, but we can control how we act.

However, I would appreciate it if you didn't construct a straw man concerning my views. It is my position that people should treat others equally in matters of business regardless of their views. I do not believe anyone should "crash and burn", I believe they should find a way of adapting and coexisting with others who are unlike themselves.

[Shamitako]

You outright said they should either be forced to bake the cake or not do business at all :/

[Maelstrom]

Precedence: Separate but Equal was ruled unconstitutional. So we have precedence of forcing tolerance by not allowing discrimination. JS

[Eviora]

You outright said they should either be forced to bake the cake or not do business at all :/

That is not the same as "crashing and burning". They could, for instance, refuse to include marriage related messages or decorations on all their cakes. Alternatively, they could hire someone who has no problem with selling cakes to gay people and have that person do the selling so that at no point they are knowingly selling cakes for a same-sex wedding. It's not too hard to come up with creative solutions unless you're being extremely stubborn, and in that case it's on you.

[Busti]

I appreciate the general consensus shown in this thread! You guys are awesome, which I am pleased to see reflected in the game too.

As a Dutch citizen, this discussion is a little alien to me. I've grown up in a community that accepts gay marriages, and this acceptance is the normal, right way to approach this matter.

That being said, I still took an effort to review the standpoint of the opposition. I had the misfortune of being preached in a Texan church against gay marriages and I've read your posts. In all my efforts, I've not seen a single valid point that opposes gay marriage, nor any valid argument to oppose the arguments laid forth by the proponents of gay marriage. I would like to illustrate:

- The arguments originating from the bible all are trivial. A marriage is a legal matter. As church and state are separated, the matter of gay marriage is related to society and the human rights;

- Speaking about human rights, anybody who opposes human rights wants to violate article 1, 2, 7, 16, 21, 22, in particular.

- The matter of opinion, as properly laid forth in this discussion, should be encouraged, as long as this does not lead to interference with the lifes of other people. By definition, if you exercise your opinion and belief to prevent gay marriage, what you accomplish is nothing short of oppression.

- A Texan pastor argued that marriage has never been defined, so the Supreme Court has no authority to redefine it. A similar argument is where only God can define marriage. A point of view that promotes to maintain a certain "status quo", is ignorant of the history of marriage. The church was not always involved in the marriage process. Monogamy, the right to divorce, etc., are concepts established well after Jesus was born. As such, they must have been debated, accepted, rejected or redefined.

- The argument that tolerance cannot be forced, and churches should not be forced to serve gay marriage, is also trivial. A state official has to abide by law and fulfill any marriage license that conforms to the law. Whether churches should or should not, is a different debate. There are enough alternatives to go to.

I notice my arguments draw many similarities to what Deadpool said.

I belief this list rather empties out the arguments I've seen that opponents have put forward. This thread is rather single-sided though, not enough people actually oppose gay marriage to have a thorough debate on the matter.

[Shamitako]

I don't think anyone (outside sort of Sparky) has actually argued against the right of homosexuals to marry here. The arguments here are more about how gay marriage should be handled (I mean, if I were arguing against it that'd be more than a bit hypocritical of me since I have every intention to marry my girlfriend)

[Antilegend]

I appreciate the general consensus shown in this thread! You guys are awesome, which I am pleased to see reflected in the game too.

As a Dutch citizen, this discussion is a little alien to me. I've grown up in a community that accepts gay marriages, and this acceptance is the normal, right way to approach this matter.

That's what the hope with a law like this passing is going to be. Gay marriage has been legal in the Netherlands since 2001, and it also seems to have the desired effect of a law passing: removal of the stigma in the Dutch culture. I'm Canadian, and homosexual marriage has been legal since 2005. There's next to no opposition these days, except mainly from the Baby Boom generation. I hope, as time passes, the opposition will become quieter in the United States.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Antilegend

[Deleted User]

- The argument that tolerance cannot be forced, and churches should not be forced to serve gay marriage, is also trivial. A state official has to abide by law and fulfill any marriage license that conforms to the law. Whether churches should or should not, is a different debate. There are enough alternatives to go to.

How is it trivial? Yes it may be legal now, but it's still going to be looked at with great negativity by many and until it isn't, the LGBT is going to continue to push and be/feel oppressed in some manner. Churches not being required to serve gay marriage is also FAR from trivial. Roughly 70% of United State citizens identify as Christian (About 220 Million people) If even just 10 percent of them feel this is wrong (many of which will be avid Church goers and even working for the church) that's 22 million people who very well could cause conflict WHEN a homosexual couple inevitably goes to one seeking to be wed. It's not a matter of IF but WHEN. Then it will be taken to court and largely publicized and argued once more if Church's should have the right to refusal. At which point there's no longer separation of Church and State and it's unconstitutional. There are alternatives, but at some point some homosexual couple is going to choose to go this route, and the aftermath won't be pleasant for any of the parties involved.