But they’re being asked to participate in a very public event that everyone knows is ultimately about that act. Marriage is inherently tied to sexual activity. Consider that a Catholic marriage isn’t even considered valid until the sex act has occurred. When you participate in a marriage, you most certainly are making a public declaration that you approve of what is going to follow.
Where did you find language stating that the purpose of giving benefits to married couples is to encourage them to have children? I have never seen that language. Plus, gay people are completely capable of raising children, which would still fit in with your stated purpose of the benefits.
Baking a cake is not participating.
The blatant disregard for facts happens when you worship at the altar of liberalism.But you DO have equal application of the law. You are restricted in whom you may marry in exactly the same ways I am. I am not allowed to marry anyone I please. Not my father, aunt, brother, cousin, a person of the same sex, or any person of the opposite sex who is already legally married. You and I are absolutely equal in the application of law.
The legal benefits you want–well, see above. You have every right to claim them by marriage under the same exact restrictions by which I must live. If you want to legally declare someone next of kin, do so with a legal document.
By the way, what are those 1,100 federal benefits? I went to a site someone linked that claimed to list them all, and it was a very short list. Nowhere near 1,100.
And yet…it’s the one we hear about over and over…and over…and over.
Being black is not a moral issue, is it? Being black is not a lifestyle that often leads to sexually transmitted diseases. Are you aware that many black people are offended by and sick to death of their skin color being equated to a sexual act?Or are liberals only concerned about other people’s feelings when it suits them?
Likewise for being Catholic or Jewish. History, religion, health statistics…they all highlight that homosexual activity is not only immoral, but harmful both to the individual and eventually to society, the more prevalent it becomes.
In addition, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it’s perfectly legal for someone to refuse to participate in a Catholic wedding. So be it. There are plenty of bakers and photographers.
It gets really old, this willful ignoring of facts. Tell me how many florists have refused service because a person is gay. Florists have been serving gay people for as long as florists have existed. The difference is the demand to very publicly act in a way that condones that exact behavior. I rather trust that if someone walked into a Catholic florist and said, “Hey, I want you to decorate my bedroom in celebration of the fact that I’m going to use contraception tonight” you might see the same thing.
If a KKK member walked in and wanted flowers for a banquet celebrating the anniversary of a great cross-burning or lynching–I think you’d see the same thing.
Seriously, Seanny–are you really incapable of seeing the difference between baking a birthday cake for a person, and baking a cake specifically celebrating, condoning, approving, and applauding a specific behavior that every religion throughout history has taken moral exception to?? Are you telling me you really can’t see that?
Person. Behavior. Nobody cares about providing services to any person. We have a right not to be involved in promoting, applauding, approving, or supporting, in any way, behaviors.
Well said.
You really have a misunderstanding why many of the benefits exist and their history, as well as psychological evidence that two gay parents is really no better than living in a single parent home.
Yes it is.
Not to derail even further, but some of the beliefs listed on here are not true, and others are grossly exaggerated. If you’d like to discuss Gnosticism, feel free to email me or post in the Ask a Gnostic thread under the Non-Catholic Religions forum.
I can link to many studies that disagree about the “psychological evidence” if you’d like, but it’s way off topic. And my question still stands, where is there legal language stating that the pupose of marriage benefits is to encourage couples to have children? If that were true, then why are they still given to straight couples who adopt, or couples that are beyond child bearing age when they marry?
No… it’s not.
How can you talk to me about “willful ignorance of facts” in the same post where you claim that there is equal application of the law? Also, another fact you ignore, is that there are more states in which you can marry your first cousin than there are in which you can marry someone of the same sex.
If you are really curious, read all of the laws that grant benefits (federal tax code, social security, GI Bill, Affordable Care Act, immigration law etc…)
Just because a trait isn’t a visible one, like skin color, does not make it fair game for those who would discriminate. In fact, religion is protected and it’s not visibly discernable, and in some cases it is a moral issue. Honestly, I don’t care that you hurt my feelings, as long as you don’t hurt my liberties.Being black is not a moral issue, is it? Being black is not a lifestyle that often leads to sexually transmitted diseases. Are you aware that many black people are offended by and sick to death of their skin color being equated to a sexual act?
I’ve seen no evidence that homosexuality is harmful to society or to the individual. STDs, drug use, and religious intollerance are harmful to individuals, but those aren’t things that must come with homosexuality.
I can’t speak for all states, but here in California it is illegal.
I’m sure that you would see the same thing, but depending on the laws of the state where it happened, you would see the same response as well.
Flour, water, sugar, eggs, bake, decorate, give to customer. The steps are the exact same. They make the exact same cakes for everyone else. I mean, I guess they probably spend more time on the wedding cake than they do the birthday cake, but no, I don’t see it as participating in the wedding. It makes about as much sense as claiming that the company that manufactured the wine glasses is participating in the wedding as well.
Because those are the exception to the biological obviousness of male + female = children. For same-sex couples, it is obvious on the face of things that there will be no children born of this union.
To take an extreme example: Would a baker who is a veteran of the fighting in Afghanistan be within his rights to refuse to bake a cake celebrating the birthday of Osama bin Ladin? We’re not talking about something over which a person truly has no control - such as skin color - which is morally neutral. We’re talking about a behavior that is - to the Church and the vast majority of Christian denominations - an obvious, grave, public sin. Why should we be forced to participate in it, even at the level of producing a product whose only purpose is to celebrate that sin?
In my opinion, that’s not a valid argument, either it’s meant to encourage them to have children or not. There is a biological obviousness to male + female - ovaries= no children as well. And why do the children have to be born into the union to achieve the same effect? They don’t. There are plenty of children in the fostercare system who need loving families.
I have no idea. I suppose it would depend on the laws in that state, but I’m not a lawyer. I can only speak to the opinions I’ve read in cases that have actually happened. But, if it does happen, I assure you I will observe the situation with great interest!
“No shoes, no shirt, no service.”
I repeat, Seanny–you and I are bound by the exact same restrictions.
.
I don’t think most people care about SSA itself. That’s between you and God. What most people object to is behaviors. SSA may be called a trait. Homosexual acts are not traits. They are behaviors. Forcing other people’s children to be exposed to homosexuality is a behavior. Forcing others to provide flowers for a ‘wedding’ that is clearly celebrating homosexual ACTS is a behavior.
There’s plenty of evidence out there. Studies showing that gay men are generally far more promiscuous, having hundreds, even thousands of partners, compared to, what, half a dozen to a dozen for the average straight man. Studies showing the average gay man has a significantly shorter lifespan than the average heterosexual man. There are those who grew up with gay parents now speaking out about what it’s like to grow up with a revolving door of men coming in and out of their lives. This is not good for children. Obviously it doesn’t happen in every gay-headed household, but it’s much more common there.
The wine glasses were made en masse and sent out to stores. The cake is being made very specifically for the purpose of celebrating a ‘marriage’ that is clearly integrally tied to homosexual sex. I guess that’s ultimately the answer, is to claim that you ‘can’t see’ how baking a cake for a wedding and sticking two men on top has anything to do with that wedding or homosexuality. At a certain point, it only sounds foolish to claim there’s no connection.
The question was, would a veteran be within his rights to refuse to bake a cake celebrating Osama bin Laden? I asked earlier, would a baker be within his rights to refuse to bake a cake for the KKK to celebrate a lynching?
That is the kind of question that really brings out the ideal of what freedoms of association are all about.
Again, you’re citing the rare, broken exception as an excuse. Can you show what the purpose of these laws is, if not to provide financial stability to a couple which - by their very biological nature - are almost guaranteed to produce children? As far as adoption, most state agencies have a waiting list. Not for the children, but for the couples wishing to adopt. Do you really believe that it is in the child’s best interest to be deprived of either a mother or father simply because two men or two women have decided that they will throw off the shackles of biology and raise a child because they want to?
In zoos - highly artificial environments where the animals are placed under stresses seen nowhere in the wild. For all of the wild instances of “gay animals”, what is apparently never taken into consideration are possible alternative explanations which don’t involve anthropomorphism.
Would you support the veteran baker or not?
Okay, then I’ll put it a different way: The restrictions in the case of same-sex marriage bans are unreasonable, and are based purely on religious tenets.
I don’t have time, I’ll just trust Justice Kennedy… Supreme Court Justice seems like a pretty reputable title. But, if you find conclusive evidence that the Justice is lying, please share!
It doesn’t matter that they object to the acts… The acts come secondary to the trait. Restricting the act is unconstitutional in the US (Lawrence v Texas). Teaching children the reality that same-sex couples exist seems like common sense to me, just like teaching them that different religions exist. It fosters an ability for them to interact with fellow members of society when they get into the workforce. It is not the same as teaching them that they must condone it.
Did you ever think that this could be a symptom of the religious/societal intollerance that has been the norm for decades?
There is no more damage to the anal sphincter than there is to the vaginal wall, when a reasonable amount of precaution is taken. The muscles maintain tone, and are often strengthened.
Gay people will continue to be gay, as they have throughout history. Straight people will continue to have babies, as they have throughout history.
Well, we will just have to disagree, because to me it sounds foolish to keep insisting that making a cake is participating in a ceremony. I constantly prescribe plan b drugs, and treat STIs. That doesn’t mean that I condone the behavior of the patients, but I’m still obligated to provide them with care.
It honestly doesn’t hurt my feelings at all. Sometimes it’s frustrating to see elected officials blatantly ignore the Constitution that I go to work to protect and defend every day, but frustration can be dealt with. The very real pain that is caused is caused by the effects of not having the same rights. The same effects that caused the end of my four year relationship when my partner got stationed across the country because we weren’t recognized as a valid couple. But I honestly couldn’t care less what one’s opinions of my relationship are as long as they aren’t continuing to cause the tangible harm that inequality causes.
That’s another area we are going to have to disagree on. I know as a matter of faith that God loves me, and that he created me the way he intended, and that he intended me to love the way he made me.
Thank you for re-stating the questions I had. Many lawyers will tell you that corner cases make bad law.
This has been asserted here on CAF a dozen or more times, but nobody ever produced any persuasive evidence of it. Perhaps you will, and we can look at it.
No one here is making a religious argument. People here are making arguments from biology as well as the “soft sciences.”
There is nothing sinful about being Black or Catholic.