RI, DE, and soon MN?

[nehalem256]

So you would be OK with it if someone's religion said avoid black people. So in your happy little world that business would be able to refuse to serve black people? Replace religious objection to sexual orientation with religious objection to race and tell me if you still feel the same way.

Show me one person who believes that black people should not be able to eat. That is what would be equivalent to believing that SSM should not exist. Of course no one really believes that black people should not be able to eat, they simply don't want to service them at their restaurant. This is an essential difference. It is the difference in discriminating against a person and discriminating against an event.

I previously stated after a long period of thought that if a florist thought inter-racial marriage should not exist they should be free to not provide services to such an event.

 

[brycejones]

I previously stated after a long period of thought that if a florist thought inter-racial marriage should not exist they should be free to not provide services to such an event.

I'll give you points for consistency at least. But I disagree with you.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

No it is vastly different. It is more like say a catering company that would have no problem providing catering to a Democratic Party rally, but would not service a Neo-Nazi rally.

No, it's nothing like that, because political affiliation is not a protected class in the state of Washington and sexual orientation is. Your continued inability to understand how anti-discrimination law works is cute and all, but it also means that trying to talk to you about said policies is utterly pointless. Or, to use an analogy that makes absolutely no sense (and thus should be right up your alley), it's like trying to give a pine tree CPR.

 

[werepossum]

This is precisely my point. Liberals have made it illegal to discriminate against marriages that liberals support, but it is still legal to discriminate against marriages liberals do not support.

Liberals have previously claimed to be tolerant, and to think it is wrong to force your definition of marriage onto others. My point is they have been revealed as massive hypocrites. What they meant is it was wrong to have a non-liberal view of marriage, and now that they legalized their view they intent to stamp out dissent.

And your example of a man and a seven year old is interesting. I believe discrimination based on age is prohibited in Washington. So therefore discrimination against a marriage between a man and a 7 year old should be just as illegal as discriminating against a SSM. But I think everyone knows that the AG would not sue in such a case.

Discrimination based on age does not prohibit protecting minors, only those of age. As far as forcing someone's definition on others, this is intrinsic in everything government does. In Tennessee, we force our traditional definition of marriage onto gays, even if their Christian church supports gay marriage. The only way to avoid this is to have government get completely out of the marriage business and refuse to recognize marriage at all. That is attractive to my libertarian side, but it would also mean losing government protections. A much better plan is to simply ensure that government has the least amount of power practical and that when it must discriminate, it must show a good and valid reason why that discrimination is necessary, with the courts to protect against the tyranny of the majority. (Although I'd like to think that Americans' innate sense of fairness and justice would be the first line of defense against the tyranny of the majority, I'm not seeing a lot of evidence of that. The power of government is as attractive to us as it is to our politicians.)

 

[nehalem256]

No, it's nothing like that, because political affiliation is not a protected class in the state of Washington and sexual orientation is. Your continued inability to understand how anti-discrimination law works is cute and all, but it also means that trying to talk to you about said policies is utterly pointless. Or, to use an analogy that makes absolutely no sense (and thus should be right up your alley), it's like trying to give a pine tree CPR.

Actually I understand exactly how they work. They make it so it is wrong to discriminate against liberal allies. I believe I stated exactly that. Liberals pass a law making dissent against their position illegal and then thump their chests pretending there is a higher purpose other than serving liberal interests.

 

[nehalem256]

Discrimination based on age does not prohibit protecting minors, only those of age. As far as forcing someone's definition on others, this is intrinsic in everything government does. In Tennessee, we force our traditional definition of marriage onto gays, even if their Christian church supports gay marriage. The only way to avoid this is to have government get completely out of the marriage business and refuse to recognize marriage at all. That is attractive to my libertarian side, but it would also mean losing government protections. A much better plan is to simply ensure that government has the least amount of power practical and that when it must discriminate, it must show a good and valid reason why that discrimination is necessary, with the courts to protect against the tyranny of the majority. (Although I'd like to think that Americans' innate sense of fairness and justice would be the first line of defense against the tyranny of the majority, I'm not seeing a lot of evidence of that. The power of government is as attractive to us as it is to our politicians.)

This is just perpetuating the idea that marriage is solely a religious institution. Marriage is about pro-creation, not religion. I believe I addressed this in a previous thread:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34927156&postcount=145

Sorry. I am 100% correct. What liberals call "marriage" is fundamentally completely different than marriage.

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/marriage-procreation-and-historical-amnesia/


:hmm: Seem pretty clear that the fundamental link between marriage and pro-creation was known for centuries. If you are defining a relationship that is not about pro-creation its seems pretty clear that it is not marriage.

Not only that but even you seem to like drawing a line between relationships that involve sex, and those that do not:

I am simply drawing a line between relationships where sex can result in procreation and those in which sex is little more than masturbation.

See the linked NYT article or the original post the quotes particularly interesting parts of the article.

Fundamentally Same-sex "marriage" is not marriage. What we are running into is another instance of a liberal-English dictionary problem. When liberals use the word marriage they don't actually mean marriage, but rather a completely different institution.

As another example consider the definition of marriage as given by the Catholic Church:

The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3V.HTM

If you ignore the religious dressings I think this is a fair definition of traditional marriage even as understood from a secular perspective. The liberal definition of marriage rejects essentially all the fundamental tenets of traditional marriage. There is no reason to call liberal "marriage" marriage other than the fact that they want the same benefits for their non-marital union.

 

[werepossum]

This is just perpetuating the idea that marriage is solely a religious institution. Marriage is about pro-creation, not religion. I believe I addressed this in a previous thread:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=34927156&postcount=145


See the linked NYT article or the original post the quotes particularly interesting parts of the article.

Fundamentally Same-sex "marriage" is not marriage. What we are running into is another instance of a liberal-English dictionary problem. When liberals use the word marriage they don't actually mean marriage, but rather a completely different institution.

As another example consider the definition of marriage as given by the Catholic Church:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3V.HTM

If you ignore the religious dressings I think this is a fair definition of traditional marriage even as understood from a secular perspective. The liberal definition of marriage rejects essentially all the fundamental tenets of traditional marriage. There is no reason to call liberal "marriage" marriage other than the fact that they want the same benefits for their non-marital union.

I do not believe that marriage is about procreation. A majority of black babies, and a near-majority of white and Hispanic babies, are now born out of wedlock because government makes it not only practical but beneficial to do so. Meanwhile, many hetero couples do not have children, whether by preference or due to age. Our across-the-street neighbors are childless by choice, whereas her gay cousin and his partner have two children. If our societal intent is to base marriage on procreation, we're thus making a dog's breakfast of it.

Going back to at least early medieval times, non-free or partially-free women past child-bearing age were often married off to single men of like age. Obviously no procreation was going to happen, but societal stability was still increased.

 

[nehalem256]

I do not believe that marriage is about procreation. A majority of black babies, and a near-majority of white and Hispanic babies, are now born out of wedlock because government makes it not only practical but beneficial to do so.

And is it conservatives or liberals who are the primary driver of this?

I think if anything that is further support for my thesis that liberals do not believe in marriage.

Meanwhile, many hetero couples do not have children, whether by preference or due to age. Our across-the-street neighbors are childless by choice, whereas her gay cousin and his partner have two children. If our societal intent is to base marriage on procreation, we're thus making a dog's breakfast of it.

For obvious reasons this is a very modern phenomena. And I have previously stated that couples that do not want children should not get married. And in fact I don't know why you would want to.

Going back to at least early medieval times, non-free or partially-free women past child-bearing age were often married off to single men of like age. Obviously no procreation was going to happen, but societal stability was still increased.

Given life expectancy I hardly think this is true.

And I doubt it was for societal stability. I would bet the 2 reasons would be

(1) To keep the old men going after younger women. This would arguably mean that the purpose of such a marriage was still pro-creation: in that it was keeping old men from pro-creating with younger women.

(2) The fact that women were considered to need a man to take care of them.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Actually I understand exactly how they work. They make it so it is wrong to discriminate against liberal allies. I believe I stated exactly that. Liberals pass a law making dissent against their position illegal and then thump their chests pretending there is a higher purpose other than serving liberal interests.

No, you don't. The discrimination laws go both ways. It's illegal (in Washington) for a business to discriminate against gays. It is ALSO illegal for that business to discriminate against heterosexuals. A business can't be white-only, but it also can't be black-only or Chinese-only or Eskimo-only or whatever. A business can't discriminate against people based on age, regardless if that age group skews liberal (young) or conservative (old). A business can't discriminate against Christian conservatives anymore than it can against atheists. Anti-discrimination laws aren't the government pushing a liberal agenda, they are the government pushing an anti-bigotry agenda; just because your bigotry seems to be singled out doesn't mean the big bad liberal government is oppressing you. If you were on the completely opposite end of the spectrum and wanted to have a business that refused to trade with men or Christians or white people, the government would come down on you under these exact same "liberal" laws.

 

[nehalem256]

No, you don't. The discrimination laws go both ways. It's illegal (in Washington) for a business to discriminate against gays. It is ALSO illegal for that business to discriminate against heterosexuals. A business can't be white-only, but it also can't be black-only or Chinese-only or Eskimo-only or whatever. A business can't discriminate against people based on age, regardless if that age group skews liberal (young) or conservative (old). A business can't discriminate against Christian conservatives anymore than it can against atheists. Anti-discrimination laws aren't the government pushing a liberal agenda, they are the government pushing an anti-bigotry agenda; just because your bigotry seems to be singled out doesn't mean the big bad liberal government is oppressing you. If you were on the completely opposite end of the spectrum and wanted to have a business that refused to trade with men or Christians or white people, the government would come down on you under these exact same "liberal" laws.

Opposing same-sex "marriage" is not bigotry.

Wanting to shut down small businesses that do not support it IS bigotry.

The liberal agenda is pushing bigotry.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Opposing same-sex "marriage" is not bigotry.

Wanting to shut down small businesses that do not support it IS bigotry.

The liberal agenda is pushing bigotry.

By that standard wanting to shut down white's-only diners was bigotry. And maybe you think it is. But you'd be hard-pressed to find many people to agree with that sentiment today. Societal standards change over time. You're welcome to not change with them; that doesn't mean society became bigoted, it means you failed to keep pace with society.

 

[nehalem256]

By that standard wanting to shut down white's-only diners was bigotry. And maybe you think it is. But you'd be hard-pressed to find many people to agree with that sentiment today. Societal standards change over time. You're welcome to not change with them; that doesn't mean society became bigoted, it means you failed to keep pace with society.

Sounds like you are making my point. And again you do realize that the florist in question did sell to homosexuals right? The equivalent would not be having a single-race diner, but having your diner refuse service to a White Power Rally.

All liberals have to do is say that anyone who disagrees with them is a bigot. And then they can feel warm-fuzzies for stamping out dissent.

And the definition of bigotry does not change over time.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Sounds like you are making my point. And again you do realize that the florist in question did sell to homosexuals right? The equivalent would not be having a single-race diner, but having your diner refuse service to a White Power Rally.

You've brought up this example before, but it's not applicable under the current definition of discrimination laws. A white power rally is protected by the first amendment under the right to freedom of speech and peaceable assembly, but they are not a protected group as far as discrimination law is concerned. If you want to go with an applicable example (for the florist in Washington), if the florist was willing to provide services for non-denominational weddings but refused to provide flowers for church weddings, she would be violating the same anti-discrimination laws (as creed is a protected class in Washington). A business owner has to do business under the laws of the state they operate in, and by Washington law, she was discriminating against a protected class.

 

[nehalem256]

You've brought up this example before, but it's not applicable under the current definition of discrimination laws. A white power rally is protected by the first amendment under the right to freedom of speech and peaceable assembly, but they are not a protected group as far as discrimination law is concerned.

The concept of a "protected group" is a BS. Either discrimination is wrong or it is not.

You are saying it is wrong when liberals say it is. Which is exactly my point.

And the point of my example is to illustrate the difference between discrimination against a group and an event.

If you want to go with an applicable example (for the florist in Washington), if the florist was willing to provide services for non-denominational weddings but refused to provide flowers for church weddings, she would be violating the same anti-discrimination laws (as creed is a protected class in Washington).

Except she was not discriminating against homosexuals. She was discriminating against same-sex weddings. She would have equally discriminated against 2 heterosexual men getting married. And she had in the past demonstrated she would sell to homosexuals.

And even if you think it technically meets discrimination criteria. I do not think you can argue it is within the spirit of the law (such as preventing people from firing homosexuals). The case is nothing more than the Washington AG stretching the law to squash dissent against SSM.

A business owner has to do business under the laws of the state they operate in, and by Washington law, she was discriminating against a protected class.

And if you pass and interpret laws to outlaw people who dissent from your viewpoint having businesses you are a bigot. Passing a bigoted law does not make you not a bigot.

 

[werepossum]

And is it conservatives or liberals who are the primary driver of this?

I think if anything that is further support for my thesis that liberals do not believe in marriage.

For obvious reasons this is a very modern phenomena. And I have previously stated that couples that do not want children should not get married. And in fact I don't know why you would want to.

Given life expectancy I hardly think this is true.

And I doubt it was for societal stability. I would bet the 2 reasons would be

(1) To keep the old men going after younger women. This would arguably mean that the purpose of such a marriage was still pro-creation: in that it was keeping old men from pro-creating with younger women.

(2) The fact that women were considered to need a man to take care of them.

As far as liberals not believing in marriage, I think it's more accurate to say that liberals do not believe in marriage being a necessity, although with the feminazis and liberals' general insistence that married couples be taxed more heavily than unmarried couples one could make at least a superficial argument for liberals not believing in marriage. However, many liberals also have marriages which are loving and stable, which argues against liberals not believing in marriage as a general rule.

As far as medieval practices and life expectancies, feel free to research it. Life expectancy was short, but some people did live to reasonably advanced ages. Women usually had higher mortality rates during their child-bearing years, but after menopause (not uncommonly in their thirties or early forties) had lower mortality rates. And people were not necessarily considered old in their forties. Enguerrand de Coucy for instance was wounded and captured leading troops in battle at age 59 in the 14th century.

 

[nehalem256]

As far as liberals not believing in marriage, I think it's more accurate to say that liberals do not believe in marriage being a necessity, although with the feminazis and liberals' general insistence that married couples be taxed more heavily than unmarried couples one could make at least a superficial argument for liberals not believing in marriage. However, many liberals also have marriages which are loving and stable, which argues against liberals not believing in marriage as a general rule.

I think its fair to say that the liberal idea of "marriage" is entirely different from the traditional idea of marriage. So different that we should not even be using the same word to refer to the 2 ideas.

I mean I have heard social liberals say that the idea of traditional marriage is absurd. It seems silly for them to then use the word marriage to refer to an institution that they then do not find absurd. The only logical reason I can see them doing so is that there is no other way they could marital benefits for their non-marital relationships.

 

[AstroManLuca]

I think its fair to say that the liberal idea of "marriage" is entirely different from the traditional idea of marriage. So different that we should not even be using the same word to refer to the 2 ideas.

No, it's not fair to say that. I'd consider myself liberal and I see marriage as an agreement between two people who love each other to spend the rest of their lives together. Unless you consider "the traditional idea of marriage" to be something totally different from that.

If anything, liberals are less hung up on the details - like traditional marriage meaning 1 man and 1 woman, or that it must necessarily revolve around procreation (many couples get married who are infertile or who just don't desire children). But the basic idea behind it is love and a mutual desire for lifelong companionship either way. That's why we see same-sex marriage as such an important cause - it's allowing people who love each other and want to commit to each other the opportunity to have the same thing that different-sex couples have had forever.

 

[nehalem256]

No, it's not fair to say that. I'd consider myself liberal and I see marriage as an agreement between two people who love each other to spend the rest of their lives together. Unless you consider "the traditional idea of marriage" to be something totally different from that.

The traditional idea is very different. And your stated idea of marriage does not reflect the liberal idea of marriage given their acceptance and support of no-fault divorce.

If anything, liberals are less hung up on the details - like traditional marriage meaning 1 man and 1 woman, or that it must necessarily revolve around procreation (many couples get married who are infertile or who just don't desire children). But the basic idea behind it is love and a mutual desire for lifelong companionship either way. That's why we see same-sex marriage as such an important cause -

That has absolutely nothing to do with why marriage exists. Marriage exists because of procreation. If people reproduced asexually with a fully formed person budding off of them their would never have been the idea of marriage.

it's allowing people who love each other and want to commit to each other the opportunity to have the same thing that different-sex couples have had forever.

Which is entirely silly. People can love each other and have lifelong companionship without government or societal recognition of their relationship.

And again I don't know why you bring up lifelong since liberals do not believe marriage is a lifelong union.

 

[jagec]

And again I don't know why you bring up lifelong since liberals do not believe marriage is a lifelong union.

Really? The stats show the opposite.

 

[nehalem256]

Really? The stats show the opposite.

So only liberals live in blue states and only conservatives live in red states?

But it sounds like you are trying to make excuses. The liberal view on marriage is that no-fault divorce is acceptable. At most all you can show is that when liberals make it socially acceptable to behave in a self-serving manner that Republicans will take advantage of it too.

 

[sportage]

The MN star newspaper had links to live coverage of the SS marriage debate in the MN senate. I was impressed how level headed and common sensed most of these politicians were. Naturally, most republicans were against passing SS marriage. The final tally listed each and their vote. Most all republicans listed, and next to their name "N". And for democrats "Y". Which made me wonder WTF is wrong with republicans anyway??

I know darn well most republicans could care less if the two guys next door hold a marriage license. For it is of absolutely no concern to anyone except the two married people involved.
Just the same as with YOUR, or anyone else's marriage. No one had to "approve" that most private part of your life, now did they?
And if others totally unknown to you were to stick their big nose in your private business, I truly doubt you would just sit there unconcerned.

But getting back to the MN senate, as to marriage and religion, one senator summed it up case closed.
What he said was, when two people wish to apply for a marriage license what is the first requirement? Visiting city hall for that application.
Not your church!
Not your religious organization!
Not your place of worship!
You visit a government institution for your marriage license.

And there you have it. In plane simple terms.
The separation between church and state.
And it is the state that hands out that marriage license. PERIOD!!! Case closed.

 

[nehalem256]

The MN star newspaper had links to live coverage of the SS marriage debate in the MN senate. I was impressed how level headed and common sensed most of these politicians were. Naturally, most republicans were against passing SS marriage. The final tally listed each and their vote. Most all republicans listed, and next to their name "N". And for democrats "Y". Which made me wonder WTF is wrong with republicans anyway??

I know darn well most republicans could care less if the two guys next door hold a marriage license. For it is of absolutely no concern to anyone except the two married people involved.
Just the same as with YOUR, or anyone else's marriage. No one had to "approve" that most private part of your life, now did they?
And if others totally unknown to you were to stick their big nose in your private business, I truly doubt you would just sit there unconcerned.

Um once again we have a liberal showing they have no conception of what marriage is. Marriage is specifically about having society approve of your relationship.

In fact ironically below you admit that. That is why you having to visit City Hall for an application. You don't think the county clerk has to stamp an approval on marriage applications?

If you don't want the government involved in your private business the very last thing you should do is get married.

But getting back to the MN senate, as to marriage and religion, one senator summed it up case closed.
What he said was, when two people wish to apply for a marriage license what is the first requirement? Visiting city hall for that application.
Not your church!
Not your religious organization!
Not your place of worship!
You visit a government institution for your marriage license.

And there you have it. In plane simple terms.
The separation between church and state.
And it is the state that hands out that marriage license. PERIOD!!! Case closed.

That would be true assuming that non-Christian countries support SSM.

Funny that countries such as Japan, China, Vietnam, etc do not support SSM isn't it? Maybe they are being secretly controlled by the Christian Taliban???????

Or maybe the idea that marriage being between a man and a woman originating from the bible is full of shit?

EDIT: see http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/marriage-procreation-and-historical-amnesia/ for further information on the historical basis of marriage.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

So only liberals live in blue states and only conservatives live in red states?

So, wait a minute, your contention is that liberals treat marriage as a "meh, what the hell" kind of union and conservatives treat it as a "til God kills at least one of us" union, right? I mean, how else is the sentence "liberals do not believe marriage is a lifelong union" to be interpreted? And then you're confronted with statistics that show that conservative states have the highest rates of divorce and liberal states have the lowest and you shift the goalposts to "Well, obviously all the liberals in those conservative states get divorced, probably in the exact same ceremony in which they get married, while conservatives get divorced exactly never because LIBERALS"...

So... yeah.

 

[nehalem256]

So, wait a minute, your contention is that liberals treat marriage as a "meh, what the hell" kind of union and conservatives treat it as a "til God kills at least one of us" union, right? I mean, how else is the sentence "liberals do not believe marriage is a lifelong union" to be interpreted? And then you're confronted with statistics that show that conservative states have the highest rates of divorce and liberal states have the lowest and you shift the goalposts to "Well, obviously all the liberals in those conservative states get divorced, probably in the exact same ceremony in which they get married, while conservatives get divorced exactly never because LIBERALS"...

So... yeah.

(1) The article did not establish that it was conservatives or liberals who were getting divorced. Liberals like to pull this "everyone in a blue state is a Democrat" BS a lot. Ironically this makes one of the Koch brothers a Democrat.

(2) You appear to be confusing what the conservative view on marriage is with how individuals will act. Especially in a culture which states that the liberal view on marriage is acceptable. People are selfish. This is why Obama's cabinet had problems with "tax cheats" and John Kerry registers his yacht out of state. It doesn't suddenly mean that Democrats are going to start advocating for lower taxes.

 

[zsdersw]

It doesn't suddenly mean that Democrats are going to start advocating for lower taxes.

That would be as surprising as Republicans starting to advocate for huge spending cuts in areas of the budget they view as sacrosanct.