Two Dudes on a Cake: further discussion of gay rights

This is a forum for discussing philosophical theories of government and social structure. It is not a venue for partisan rants or plugging favored candidates.

Re: Two Dudes on a Cake: further discussion of gay rights

Postby Daktoria on July 21st, 2015, 7:39 pm 

CanadysPeak » July 20th, 2015, 10:09 pm wrote:
Most of the anti-discrimination stuff happens at the state level. I keep hearing this stuff about a Black baker being forced to make a KKK cake. In what state is the KKK a protected class? And, if you were a KKK member, would you really eat the cake you had forced a Black baker to make (see The Help for guidance)?


Just an aside, the history of slavery doesn't have to do with state rights. It has to do with religion. For example, when Mexico declared independence from Spain, its constitution made Roman Catholicism the official State religion of Mexico. Along with this, it illegalized slavery in keeping up with the Sublimus Dei dogma of the Catholic church.

Protestants wanted to continue having slaves, so after moving to Texas, they later declared independence to continue having slaves.

As for eating cake, Napoleon actually reinstituted slavery in (Catholic) France after the Ancien Regime was dethroned and after slavery was previously illegalized throughout France's colonies. Slavery was illegalized again in France in 1815.

In fact, the Quebec Act of 1774 partially accommodated this where Great Britain reestablished the tradition of French Civil Law throughout Quebec after the French lost the French and Indian War. By no surprise, Quebec's slave population merely numbered in the hundreds.

Likewise by no surprise, the KKK is adamantly anti-Catholic.
Daktoria
 


Re: Two Dudes on a Cake: further discussion of gay rights

Postby Daktoria on July 21st, 2015, 7:55 pm 

Also, the Catholic Church actually believes in decentralized rule while supporting anti-slavery. It's called subsidiarity.
Daktoria
 


Re: Two Dudes on a Cake: further discussion of gay rights

Postby CanadysPeak on July 21st, 2015, 9:17 pm 

Daktoria » Tue Jul 21, 2015 7:39 pm wrote:
CanadysPeak » July 20th, 2015, 10:09 pm wrote:
Most of the anti-discrimination stuff happens at the state level. I keep hearing this stuff about a Black baker being forced to make a KKK cake. In what state is the KKK a protected class? And, if you were a KKK member, would you really eat the cake you had forced a Black baker to make (see The Help for guidance)?


Just an aside, the history of slavery doesn't have to do with state rights. It has to do with religion. For example, when Mexico declared independence from Spain, its constitution made Roman Catholicism the official State religion of Mexico. Along with this, it illegalized slavery in keeping up with the Sublimus Dei dogma of the Catholic church.

Protestants wanted to continue having slaves, so after moving to Texas, they later declared independence to continue having slaves.

As for eating cake, Napoleon actually reinstituted slavery in (Catholic) France after the Ancien Regime was dethroned and after slavery was previously illegalized throughout France's colonies. Slavery was illegalized again in France in 1815.

In fact, the Quebec Act of 1774 partially accommodated this where Great Britain reestablished the tradition of French Civil Law throughout Quebec after the French lost the French and Indian War. By no surprise, Quebec's slave population merely numbered in the hundreds.

Likewise by no surprise, the KKK is adamantly anti-Catholic.


You do know that I was not writing about slavery, don't you?
CanadysPeak
 


Re: Two Dudes on a Cake: further discussion of gay rights

Postby Daktoria on July 21st, 2015, 9:26 pm 

I do know you were talking about blacks, discrimination, and state rights.

It was implied.
Daktoria
 


Re: Two Dudes on a Cake: further discussion of gay rights

Postby CanadysPeak on July 21st, 2015, 10:27 pm 

Daktoria » Tue Jul 21, 2015 9:26 pm wrote:I do know you were talking about blacks, discrimination, and state rights.

It was implied.


I must apologize for thinking earlier that you were defending racism. It is clear now that you were not. You were simply rambling on about things about which you know absolutely nothing. Cheers.
CanadysPeak
 


Re: Two Dudes on a Cake: further discussion of gay rights

Postby Daktoria on July 21st, 2015, 10:37 pm 

CanadysPeak » July 21st, 2015, 9:27 pm wrote:
Daktoria » Tue Jul 21, 2015 9:26 pm wrote:I do know you were talking about blacks, discrimination, and state rights.

It was implied.


I must apologize for thinking earlier that you were defending racism. It is clear now that you were not. You were simply rambling on about things about which you know absolutely nothing. Cheers.


Most Westerners, especially Americans, don't know much about racism. They interpret it as all about their own Civil War and nothing else.

Unfortunately for them, there's a lot more to that issue, and prejudice in general, than their own corner of the world.
Daktoria
 


Re: Two Dudes on a Cake: further discussion of gay rights

Postby Sircoth on July 22nd, 2015, 6:44 am 

Braininvat » July 21st, 2015, 4:40 pm wrote:
Sircoth » July 21st, 2015, 11:46 am wrote:
Braininvat » July 21st, 2015, 12:39 pm wrote:Sircoth, you're absolutely right! No one should be attacking ANYONE whose conscience forbids them to serve a customer. Man, I sure hope that black folks don't catch wind of that kind of reprehensible forcing and start going after people who won't serve them pie and coffee down at Earl's Cafe. Next thing you know, they will want to share drinking fountains with us. (shudder)

You know, if you have nothing substantive to say it's much better to keep silent than post meaningless, snarky crap.


Hee, hee. This conspicuous show of irritation (versus responding to my point) from the guy who branded NetiNeti and myself as letting emotions hinder our arguments.

Game, set, match.

Thanks for playing.

Hardly irritation given the way I've been crushing progressives like you left, right and centre in the three threads; you need to control your projection.

But I'll concede disdain - which however didn't interfere with my reasoning capacities as there was nothing of substance there to respond to.

My point, in case you missed it, is that we don't get to pick and choose fair treatment of others on the basis of private belief rather than the law of the land. Mormons who haven't read the latest found tablet don't get to refuse black folks at the lunch counter. And, in spite of their conscience, driven by venerable cornerstones of Mormon society, they still need to fix that lunch. That the Brown family might want to scrape off that suspicious looking mayo (or find a friendlier sandwich artist) is another
practical matter, one adroitly covered by Paul, et al.

Except that this isn't about refusing service to gays, but refusing a specific service to all comers. So all will be equally refused that particular service. Try again.
Sircoth
 


Re: Two Dudes on a Cake: further discussion of gay rights

Postby Sircoth on July 22nd, 2015, 7:17 am 

Daktoria » July 21st, 2015, 6:17 pm wrote: People aren't supposed to get married to celebrate their love. They get married to express their public recognition of raising children in case they bring them into the world. There are plenty of straight people who shouldn't get married either.

Amen. Marriage is to promote procreation, and once the child is born, to give it a secure family in which to be raised. These key aspect has served societies well, not only contemporary ones but those in the distant past.

But throughout the West feminism has done its best to destroy and marginalise marriage, and it has done so to a remarkable degree. And what is sown is reaped: direct harmful consequences include the millions killed by their mothers, the normalisation of single parenthood, high rates of divorce (that are only ameliorated because much fewer people are marrying) while the mass immigration to compensate for declining birth rates promises ethnic conflict, maybe even civil war in time to come.
Sircoth
 


Re: Two Dudes on a Cake: further discussion of gay rights

Postby TheVat on July 22nd, 2015, 9:00 am 

So you are a troll. Well, at least it's out in the open now.

...and my Mormon analogy stands. No gay topped cakes IS refusing service to a specific group of customers. Your cheap trick fooled no one.

We don't serve lunch to black folks. We don't serve gay cakes to gay folks. (Or straight wedding planners serving as proxy for the gay couple) (closing the loophole for sophistry for you) It's discrimination, however you want to distract us from that.
User avatar
TheVat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 7133
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Two Dudes on a Cake: further discussion of gay rights

Postby Daktoria on July 22nd, 2015, 9:49 am 

Sircoth » July 22nd, 2015, 6:17 am wrote:
Daktoria » July 21st, 2015, 6:17 pm wrote: People aren't supposed to get married to celebrate their love. They get married to express their public recognition of raising children in case they bring them into the world. There are plenty of straight people who shouldn't get married either.

Amen. Marriage is to promote procreation, and once the child is born, to give it a secure family in which to be raised. These key aspect has served societies well, not only contemporary ones but those in the distant past.

But throughout the West feminism has done its best to destroy and marginalise marriage, and it has done so to a remarkable degree. And what is sown is reaped: direct harmful consequences include the millions killed by their mothers, the normalisation of single parenthood, high rates of divorce (that are only ameliorated because much fewer people are marrying) while the mass immigration to compensate for declining birth rates promises ethnic conflict, maybe even civil war in time to come.


To be fair, this really has nothing to do with Judeo-Christian tradition or the West. Marriage has existed since paleolithic times to ensure the responsibility and sustainability of clans, villages, and tribes such that people take care of the kids they bring into the world. It wasn't about encouraging childraising, but just securing it.

Feminism is a problem, but feminism isn't what started it. There are lots of aristocratically elitist conservatives who are obsessed with social status in their pursuit of getting married just as well. Heck, many feminists opposed marriage in opposition to this aristocratic elitism. Only some feminists are obsessed with the chaotic deconstruction of society for the fun of it.

Also, anyone who knows feminism knows that it's a racist ideology. In fact, ethnic minorities disproportionately get abortions compared to whites:

https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/11/3/gpr110302.html

The reasoning for feminism's racism has to do with its externalist, evidentalist, emotivist, coherentist nature. It judges people for what they are, not who they are. It judges people based on how they're felt about, not thought about. It judges people not for their internal sense of self, but for how they connect among others.
Daktoria
 


Re: Two Dudes on a Cake: further discussion of gay rights

Postby Daktoria on July 22nd, 2015, 9:56 am 

Braininvat » July 22nd, 2015, 8:00 am wrote:So you are a troll. Well, at least it's out in the open now.

...and my Mormon analogy stands. No gay topped cakes IS refusing service to a specific group of customers. Your cheap trick fooled no one.

We don't serve lunch to black folks. We don't serve gay cakes to gay folks. (Or straight wedding planners serving as proxy for the gay couple) (closing the loophole for sophistry for you) It's discrimination, however you want to distract us from that.


It's not discrimination. Discrimination is when you tell people they have less legal rights than another. Business and law are not the same thing.
Daktoria
 


Re: Two Dudes on a Cake: further discussion of gay rights

Postby Sircoth on July 22nd, 2015, 11:10 am 

Daktoria » July 22nd, 2015, 8:49 am wrote:
Sircoth » July 22nd, 2015, 6:17 am wrote:
Daktoria » July 21st, 2015, 6:17 pm wrote: People aren't supposed to get married to celebrate their love. They get married to express their public recognition of raising children in case they bring them into the world. There are plenty of straight people who shouldn't get married either.

Amen. Marriage is to promote procreation, and once the child is born, to give it a secure family in which to be raised. These key aspect has served societies well, not only contemporary ones but those in the distant past.

But throughout the West feminism has done its best to destroy and marginalise marriage, and it has done so to a remarkable degree. And what is sown is reaped: direct harmful consequences include the millions killed by their mothers, the normalisation of single parenthood, high rates of divorce (that are only ameliorated because much fewer people are marrying) while the mass immigration to compensate for declining birth rates promises ethnic conflict, maybe even civil war in time to come.


To be fair, this really has nothing to do with Judeo-Christian tradition or the West.

I presume you're talking about marriage, and agreed, I didn't invoke the idea that such marriages were Christian only or Western only, though of course they try to make hay by claiming that marriage between man and woman is 'Christian' or 'religious' only.

Marriage has existed since paleolithic times to ensure the responsibility and sustainability of clans, villages, and tribes such that people take care of the kids they bring into the world. It wasn't about encouraging childraising, but just securing it.

Yep.

Feminism is a problem, but feminism isn't what started it. There are lots of aristocratically elitist conservatives who are obsessed with social status in their pursuit of getting married just as well. Heck, many feminists opposed marriage in opposition to this aristocratic elitism.

No one denies that since millenia past people have pursued marriage for other purposes, such as to secure familial alliances for advantage in business, politics, or other fields. The point is that feminism has been unprecedented in its attack on marriage.

Only some feminists are obsessed with the chaotic deconstruction of society for the fun of it.

Agreed. But they drive the useful idiots who think that the plan is to deconstruct and destroy Christian norms so as to replace them with political ones do any good; now these don't want to destroy society in toto but to destroy so as to rebuild (Marxist echoes), but the effect is immensely destructive whether they intend it or not.

Also, anyone who knows feminism knows that it's a racist ideology. In fact, ethnic minorities disproportionately get abortions compared to whites:

https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/11/3/gpr110302.html

Quite. But you see, they're on the right side, the side of tolerance! They couldn't be possibly be racist or discriminatory or bigots themselves!

The reasoning for feminism's racism has to do with its externalist, evidentalist, emotivist, coherentist nature. It judges people for what they are, not who they are. It judges people based on how they're felt about, not thought about. It judges people not for their internal sense of self, but for how they connect among others.

Well put. It abandons the rational for the more bestial side of man, which is emotionally and pack/group oriented.
Sircoth
 


Re: Two Dudes on a Cake: further discussion of gay rights

Postby TheVat on July 22nd, 2015, 1:19 pm 

Daktoria » July 22nd, 2015, 7:56 am wrote:
Braininvat » July 22nd, 2015, 8:00 am wrote:So you are a troll. Well, at least it's out in the open now.

...and my Mormon analogy stands. No gay topped cakes IS refusing service to a specific group of customers. Your cheap trick fooled no one.

We don't serve lunch to black folks. We don't serve gay cakes to gay folks. (Or straight wedding planners serving as proxy for the gay couple) (closing the loophole for sophistry for you) It's discrimination, however you want to distract us from that.


It's not discrimination. Discrimination is when you tell people they have less legal rights than another. Business and law are not the same thing.


Unless it's statutory law which happens to regulate commerce. I suggest you study the law before commenting on it. Discrimination is providing differential service to customers based on their race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. This is really not complicated, people. The example this thread is using is not a great one, because it is a rather trivial one that is easy to work around. And that has been used to cloud and obscure the underlying issue. I'm not running away from this, but I've reached the point where it's clear that some of us have made our points and that the opposition is not going to concede anything, so there's really no point in just going in circles forever. If anyone wants to do a victory lap over this, it's misplaced, but you are welcome to dance and gibber all you want.

I think the basis of homophobia lies in early experiences, where one absorbs the poison that some adult is spouting about gay people, and somehow internalizes it so thoroughly that it's impossible to see them for who they are. It's unfortunate when the poison is cloaked in the pious trappings of organized monotheism, which, as Christopher Hitchens said, poisons everything. There is nothing scarier than the smug believer, safely ensconced in his armor of invincible ignorance and absolute refusal to question the absurd fairy tales stuffed into his head in childhood and youth.
User avatar
TheVat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 7133
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Two Dudes on a Cake: further discussion of gay rights

Postby Daktoria on July 22nd, 2015, 2:41 pm 

Braininvat » July 22nd, 2015, 12:19 pm wrote:
Daktoria » July 22nd, 2015, 7:56 am wrote:
Braininvat » July 22nd, 2015, 8:00 am wrote:So you are a troll. Well, at least it's out in the open now.

...and my Mormon analogy stands. No gay topped cakes IS refusing service to a specific group of customers. Your cheap trick fooled no one.

We don't serve lunch to black folks. We don't serve gay cakes to gay folks. (Or straight wedding planners serving as proxy for the gay couple) (closing the loophole for sophistry for you) It's discrimination, however you want to distract us from that.


It's not discrimination. Discrimination is when you tell people they have less legal rights than another. Business and law are not the same thing.


Unless it's statutory law which happens to regulate commerce. I suggest you study the law before commenting on it. Discrimination is providing differential service to customers based on their race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. This is really not complicated, people. The example this thread is using is not a great one, because it is a rather trivial one that is easy to work around. And that has been used to cloud and obscure the underlying issue. I'm not running away from this, but I've reached the point where it's clear that some of us have made our points and that the opposition is not going to concede anything, so there's really no point in just going in circles forever. If anyone wants to do a victory lap over this, it's misplaced, but you are welcome to dance and gibber all you want.

I think the basis of homophobia lies in early experiences, where one absorbs the poison that some adult is spouting about gay people, and somehow internalizes it so thoroughly that it's impossible to see them for who they are. It's unfortunate when the poison is cloaked in the pious trappings of organized monotheism, which, as Christopher Hitchens said, poisons everything. There is nothing scarier than the smug believer, safely ensconced in his armor of invincible ignorance and absolute refusal to question the absurd fairy tales stuffed into his head in childhood and youth.


I was talking about the idea, not the practice, of law.

Statutory law can be corrupt when legislators simply reinterpret the definition of words for their own self-interest as they see fit. If a bunch of legislators simply don't like private property, they could arbitrarily just pass a law to say that discrimination can take place within it.

Just because they say it's discrimination doesn't make it so. Politics and political philosophy are not automatically the same.

To be clear, I'm not endorsing homophobia. If people who have gay feelings are in love with each other, good for them. As I said before, the point of marriage is to be an artificial institution that recognizes the responsibility of childbearing, and children are entitled to reliable dimorphic expertise within their household. They shouldn't have to assume the risk of encountering willing alternate adult role models within the wider community, and other adults shouldn't be enslaved to raise the children of others. When you're in love with your partner, you're not in love with an institution. If your relationship is defined by marriage, then there's something wrong with your relationship whether you're gay or not.

As for religion, it doesn't really matter why someone believes what they do as a motive for behaving why one does within private boundaries. People are entitled to their opinions. The fact of a baker being religiously motivated is irrelevant.
Daktoria
 


Re: Two Dudes on a Cake: further discussion of gay rights

Postby Daktoria on July 22nd, 2015, 3:36 pm 

Sircoth » July 22nd, 2015, 10:10 am wrote:Agreed. But they drive the useful idiots who think that the plan is to deconstruct and destroy Christian norms so as to replace them with political ones do any good; now these don't want to destroy society in toto but to destroy so as to rebuild (Marxist echoes), but the effect is immensely destructive whether they intend it or not.


With regards to "Marxist echos"...

...Marxism isn't necessarily bad. I know there's this trend of blaming Cultural Marxism out there for social decay, but Marx very explicitly acknowledged how commodity fetishism socially alienates people from relating with the means of production by prioritizing abstract exchange value before concrete use value.

In other words, Marx was actually remarkably similar to those conservatives who believe how hedonist consumerism socially alienates people from living with morals and ethics since consumerism leads to people engaging an arty-fairy theories that don't make sense instead of figuring out how to live an efficiently sustainable way of life. Marx today has been misinterpreted as being someone who he wasn't. Yea, a lot of lazy bums campaign for equality in the name of the working class, but Marx was actually targeting aristocratic elitist spoiled brats who were getting something for nothing by simply manipulating the rule of law to maintain their social status...

...so yea, some feminists are really targeting the institution of marriage in order to breakdown that aristocratically elitist spoiled brat social status.

The shame of gay marriage is that it's gotten this completely backwards where now gay couples can and will aspire for that social status rather than breaking it down.
Daktoria
 


Re: Two Dudes on a Cake: further discussion of gay rights

Postby Lomax on July 22nd, 2015, 3:55 pm 

Daktoria » July 22nd, 2015, 2:49 pm wrote:Also, anyone who knows feminism knows that it's a racist ideology. In fact, ethnic minorities disproportionately get abortions compared to whites:

https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/11/3/gpr110302.html

So you're saying it discriminates against whites because it gives them a freedom they don't particularly want to exercise, in comparison to blacks?

Daktoria » July 22nd, 2015, 7:41 pm wrote:To be clear, I'm not endorsing homophobia. If people who have gay feelings are in love with each other, good for them. As I said before, the point of marriage is to be an artificial institution that recognizes the responsibility of childbearing, and children are entitled to reliable dimorphic expertise within their household. They shouldn't have to assume the risk of encountering willing alternate adult role models within the wider community, and other adults shouldn't be enslaved to raise the children of others.

But they are, whether you like it or not. Just as there are lots of couples who are unable to reproduce but would dearly love to raise children, there are lots of children already in existence who don't have their own biological, heterosexual parents to raise them, and that's not just because of a lack of abortion rights. I guess that besides your astute criticisms of homosexuals who want to marry we'll have to start pouring a bit more scorn on single parents, elderly couples who want to marry, and heterosexual couples who, despite their dimorphism, lack "dimorphic expertise".

In fact, there's no evidence that Masterpiece Cakeshop made any attempt to assess what kind of parents the couple were going to make, if any. What the owner is in fact on record as having said is that they would not make a gay cake "just as he would not be willing to make a pedophile cake." In other words, his criticism is nothing to do with dimorphism - what relationship could be more dimorphic than a paedophilic one? - but simply considers homosexuality a moral abomination in the class of paedophilia. To pretend otherwise is sophistry.

I admit, having read through this thread, to have identified within myself a striking naivete. Once again I think I am reading principled libertarian arguments only to discover, late in the game, that I am reading the same old drivel of the religious right. Perhaps we should let them have the practice and definition of marriage all to themselves - after all, they've proven they can construct the cultures which are best at child-rearing. That's why Texas and Mississippi have the highest teen birth-rates, Arizona wants evolution off the curriculum, and Iran's age of consent, as late as 2002, was nine.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3687
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK
TheVat liked this post


Re: Two Dudes on a Cake: further discussion of gay rights

Postby Daktoria on July 22nd, 2015, 6:53 pm 

Lomax » July 22nd, 2015, 2:55 pm wrote:So you're saying it discriminates against whites because it gives them a freedom they don't particularly want to exercise, in comparison to blacks?


Are you really trying to troll me there?

No. I was talking about how feminists endorse an activity which proportionally kills way more Hispanics and blacks than whites.

But they are, whether you like it or not. Just as there are lots of couples who are unable to reproduce but would dearly love to raise children, there are lots of children already in existence who don't have their own biological, heterosexual parents to raise them, and that's not just because of a lack of abortion rights. I guess that besides your astute criticisms of homosexuals who want to marry we'll have to start pouring a bit more scorn on single parents, elderly couples who want to marry, and heterosexual couples who, despite their dimorphism, lack "dimorphic expertise".

In fact, there's no evidence that Masterpiece Cakeshop made any attempt to assess what kind of parents the couple were going to make, if any. What the owner is in fact on record as having said is that they would not make a gay cake "just as he would not be willing to make a pedophile cake." In other words, his criticism is nothing to do with dimorphism - what relationship could be more dimorphic than a paedophilic one? - but simply considers homosexuality a moral abomination in the class of paedophilia. To pretend otherwise is sophistry.

I admit, having read through this thread, to have identified within myself a striking naivete. Once again I think I am reading principled libertarian arguments only to discover, late in the game, that I am reading the same old drivel of the religious right. Perhaps we should let them have the practice and definition of marriage all to themselves - after all, they've proven they can construct the cultures which are best at child-rearing. That's why Texas and Mississippi have the highest teen birth-rates, Arizona wants evolution off the curriculum, and Iran's age of consent, as late as 2002, was nine.


I don't know if you've read the studies on homosexuals raising children, but the studies aren't controlled at all. The overwhelming majority of subjects in those studies involve raising kids in (white) middle class households and liberal communities. In other words, the kids are brought up where libertine consumerism is used as a crutch for proper parenting. They're just substituting one problem with another. There is a clear parenting problem at stake.

Coincidentally, this libertine consumerism is exactly what so many around the world are frustrated with when it comes to Western cultural imperialism. It just goes to show feminism's incompatibility with multicultural objectives.

Again, it doesn't really matter why the baker made his decision because it's (literally) none of our business. We don't have the right to expect the baker to justify his opinions to our satisfaction...

...but that's the real objective of feminism here in line with the gay rights movement - to deny the private-public distinction and weasel its way into judging other people's lives. The baker didn't judge anyone. He simply refrained from taking action when no prior contract existed.

I'm not saying Texas, Arizona, or Iran are doing it right, but this doesn't correct the problems they're making either.
Daktoria
 
Paul Anthony liked this post


Re: Two Dudes on a Cake: further discussion of gay rights

Postby Paul Anthony on July 22nd, 2015, 7:27 pm 

Most disagreements, IMO, can be easily resolved if all parties approach the issue without emotion. That is an opinion not supported by facts because it is so rare when one finds a disagreement wherein one or more of the parties is NOT emotionally invested.

Sometimes it is helpful to present an analogy, allowing us to examine a similar situation in which we are not as emotionally charged. It is with that hope that I present this:

We are told 60% of the population is in favor of gay marriage. This is not even close to unanimity, but it is a majority. We are told that because of this majority opinion, the remaining 40% must stop resisting.

I think it safe to say more than 60% of the population claims to believe in God. Since this is the majority opinion, would it be valid to demand that all atheists surrender their disbelief and conform to the majority opinion?

Well, I don't think atheists are likely to see the wisdom of that dictate. What if we passed legislation to enforce the majority opinion? Would that make it more palatable for atheists? After all, if it is the law, surely all atheists will feel compelled to comply, right? ;)

The majority rules, but it cannot expect to eradicate individual thought. Nor, in a free society, should it be allowed to.
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5706
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ


Re: Two Dudes on a Cake: further discussion of gay rights

Postby CanadysPeak on July 22nd, 2015, 8:52 pm 

Paul Anthony » Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:27 pm wrote:Most disagreements, IMO, can be easily resolved if all parties approach the issue without emotion. That is an opinion not supported by facts because it is so rare when one finds a disagreement wherein one or more of the parties is NOT emotionally invested.

Sometimes it is helpful to present an analogy, allowing us to examine a similar situation in which we are not as emotionally charged. It is with that hope that I present this:

We are told 60% of the population is in favor of gay marriage. This is not even close to unanimity, but it is a majority. We are told that because of this majority opinion, the remaining 40% must stop resisting.

I think it safe to say more than 60% of the population claims to believe in God. Since this is the majority opinion, would it be valid to demand that all atheists surrender their disbelief and conform to the majority opinion?

Well, I don't think atheists are likely to see the wisdom of that dictate. What if we passed legislation to enforce the majority opinion? Would that make it more palatable for atheists? After all, if it is the law, surely all atheists will feel compelled to comply, right? ;)

The majority rules, but it cannot expect to eradicate individual thought. Nor, in a free society, should it be allowed to.


Paul,

Have your faculties abandoned you? Or do you suppose mine have? Your analogy fails of not being analogous.

If 95% of the country believes in a god, they are free to do so, and to practice that belief. The same holds for a 51% level, even for a 20% level, in fact for a 3% level. Belief in a god need not depend on one, or all, the atheists also believing. Surely you have learned from St. Paul that a man cast into a dungeon amongst a populace of heathens may still believe in his god. In a democratic open and free society, we have only to say that no atheist may force the believer to stop believing or practicing.

If 60% of the country believes that same-sex marriage is OK, the remaining 40% are still free to believe otherwise. They are even free to practice heterosexual marriage if they wish. Even if only two heterosexuals remain in the entire country, they would be free to practice their belief in heterosexuality.

But, if 60% of the country believes that gays and lesbians can be forced to refrain from practicing their belief - a belief which demonstrably harms no heterosexuals - then you have tyranny and persecution. I realize that you are not a dogmatic libertarian, so you must see that it is acceptable to use force to prevent a group from denying the rights of another group, where those rights explicitly do not threaten or harm the first group, but it is not acceptable to use force to oppress the harmless rights of a group.
CanadysPeak
 
Lomax liked this post


Re: Two Dudes on a Cake: further discussion of gay rights

Postby Paul Anthony on July 22nd, 2015, 9:33 pm 

I should not be surprised that the first response is one dripping in emotion. (sigh)
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5706
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ


Re: Two Dudes on a Cake: further discussion of gay rights

Postby Daktoria on July 23rd, 2015, 2:02 am 

Paul Anthony » July 22nd, 2015, 6:27 pm wrote:Most disagreements, IMO, can be easily resolved if all parties approach the issue without emotion. That is an opinion not supported by facts because it is so rare when one finds a disagreement wherein one or more of the parties is NOT emotionally invested.

Sometimes it is helpful to present an analogy, allowing us to examine a similar situation in which we are not as emotionally charged. It is with that hope that I present this:

We are told 60% of the population is in favor of gay marriage. This is not even close to unanimity, but it is a majority. We are told that because of this majority opinion, the remaining 40% must stop resisting.

I think it safe to say more than 60% of the population claims to believe in God. Since this is the majority opinion, would it be valid to demand that all atheists surrender their disbelief and conform to the majority opinion?

Well, I don't think atheists are likely to see the wisdom of that dictate. What if we passed legislation to enforce the majority opinion? Would that make it more palatable for atheists? After all, if it is the law, surely all atheists will feel compelled to comply, right? ;)

The majority rules, but it cannot expect to eradicate individual thought. Nor, in a free society, should it be allowed to.


A lot of it is basically payback against the anti-intellectual folk community common sense that oppressed homosexuals for a long time. It's basically, "How do you like it now?" reasoning.

The problem is that while some people did oppress homosexuals, others who thoughtfully understood the problem of gay marriage in a non-emotional manner did not. The gay rights movement doesn't care to distinguish between these two groups.

Strangely enough, the same problem exists among the gay rights movement itself. Some gay rights advocates are victims of trauma who are looking for retribution. Others are chaotic wise guys who see the problem at hand, but don't care since they love drama.

I mean it's kind of ironic if you think about it. Those anti-intellectual folk community common sense emotional oppressors of homosexuals are no different from those who seek to let homosexuals simply express their emotions of love through marriage. A lot of those anti-intellectuals didn't care for the responsibility of childraising either, but simply wanted to get married for social status.

It makes you wonder if behind the scenes, some of those anti-intellectuals switched sides since they realized they can still have the thinkers about marriage to oppress and feel good about themselves. Likewise, they realized that the children of homosexuals will lack dimorphic expertise, so they'll become inferior members of society and can have social status propped on top of.
Daktoria
 


Re: Two Dudes on a Cake: further discussion of gay rights

Postby Daktoria on July 23rd, 2015, 2:16 am 

CanadysPeak » July 22nd, 2015, 7:52 pm wrote:
Paul Anthony » Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:27 pm wrote:Most disagreements, IMO, can be easily resolved if all parties approach the issue without emotion. That is an opinion not supported by facts because it is so rare when one finds a disagreement wherein one or more of the parties is NOT emotionally invested.

Sometimes it is helpful to present an analogy, allowing us to examine a similar situation in which we are not as emotionally charged. It is with that hope that I present this:

We are told 60% of the population is in favor of gay marriage. This is not even close to unanimity, but it is a majority. We are told that because of this majority opinion, the remaining 40% must stop resisting.

I think it safe to say more than 60% of the population claims to believe in God. Since this is the majority opinion, would it be valid to demand that all atheists surrender their disbelief and conform to the majority opinion?

Well, I don't think atheists are likely to see the wisdom of that dictate. What if we passed legislation to enforce the majority opinion? Would that make it more palatable for atheists? After all, if it is the law, surely all atheists will feel compelled to comply, right? ;)

The majority rules, but it cannot expect to eradicate individual thought. Nor, in a free society, should it be allowed to.


Paul,

Have your faculties abandoned you? Or do you suppose mine have? Your analogy fails of not being analogous.

If 95% of the country believes in a god, they are free to do so, and to practice that belief. The same holds for a 51% level, even for a 20% level, in fact for a 3% level. Belief in a god need not depend on one, or all, the atheists also believing. Surely you have learned from St. Paul that a man cast into a dungeon amongst a populace of heathens may still believe in his god. In a democratic open and free society, we have only to say that no atheist may force the believer to stop believing or practicing.

If 60% of the country believes that same-sex marriage is OK, the remaining 40% are still free to believe otherwise. They are even free to practice heterosexual marriage if they wish. Even if only two heterosexuals remain in the entire country, they would be free to practice their belief in heterosexuality.

But, if 60% of the country believes that gays and lesbians can be forced to refrain from practicing their belief - a belief which demonstrably harms no heterosexuals - then you have tyranny and persecution. I realize that you are not a dogmatic libertarian, so you must see that it is acceptable to use force to prevent a group from denying the rights of another group, where those rights explicitly do not threaten or harm the first group, but it is not acceptable to use force to oppress the harmless rights of a group.


What's harmful is subjective, and those who are harmed shouldn't have to prove their harm.

If anything, expecting people to prove harm exposes their vulnerability, and enables predators to exploit that vulnerability when smelling weakness. On top of that, people who are harmed can be traumatized, and won't necessarily be able to describe how they're harmed. Whether we're talking about gay marriage or not, this principle applies in general to discourse ethics. Any reasonable person doesn't expect harmed parties to prove harm, but expects authorities to organize society such that active parties remain innocent before proven guilty while fellow parties aren't exposed to assuming the risk of harm.

If you wish to administer justice, you must take a higher perspective in society to understand the balancing act at stake. Justice is not a simple matter of showing guilt or not. You must also account for burden of proof and duty of care.

To give a similar issue, consider illegal immigration. Now you might argue that illegal immigration itself doesn't harm anyone since people are criminals one way or another, and the proportion of illegal immigrants who are criminals compared to the native population is statistically comparable.

However, the fact of the matter is that illegal immigration, like gay marriage, deconstructs social cohesion, fabric, and values which are used to reliably ensure that people treat each other with respect in society. In fact, there are plenty of gay marriage and illegal immigrant advocates who deliberately advocate this in order to make things change...

...and in the course of deconstructing social fabric, people are exposed to disrespect.

Now you might argue, "Who's being harmed here?"

In advance of experience, nobody is, but people are exposed to it.

After experience, it happens, but those harmed are vulnerable and traumatized. Heck, they might not even have a record to prove what happened to them.

The harm principle is a very unreliable metric when dealing with intangibles like this. When ensuring reliable security, you don't tell people that harm has to be proven. Just because harm hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it can't happen, and just because it does happen doesn't mean proof of it happening is around too.
Daktoria
 


Re: Two Dudes on a Cake: further discussion of gay rights

Postby Paul Anthony on July 23rd, 2015, 3:06 am 

How much of the trauma is self-inflicted? Victimhood, when self-identified, can lead to a lot of pain, but who is to blame for that pain?

And when the "victim" has the support of a "community" the drama and trauma is magnified.

Here is an example: http://www.advocate.com/transgender/2015/07/17/black-woman-who-claims-iowa-police-arrested-her-being-trans-now-placed-isolat

Notice how this story unfolds (according to this account). You have to read 4 long paragraphs before you learn why she was arrested. The reason she was held in isolation isn't explained until the 12th paragraph.

The hotel personnel did what all respectable hotels do when they suspect prostitution. They called the police.
The police investigated and found she had an outstanding warrant and prescription drugs in her possession without a prescription. And she thinks she shouldn't have been arrested.

They put her in isolation for her own protection, but she claims that isolation traumatized her. What should they have done? Her safety was their responsibility.

But she says she was profiled and traumatized, so the hotel staff and the police are the bad guys.

Who has really been harmed here? The people who did their jobs.
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5706
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ


Re: Two Dudes on a Cake: further discussion of gay rights

Postby Lomax on July 23rd, 2015, 8:03 am 

Daktoria » July 22nd, 2015, 11:53 pm wrote:I don't know if you've read the studies on homosexuals raising children, but the studies aren't controlled at all.

Paul Anthony » July 23rd, 2015, 12:27 am wrote:Most disagreements, IMO, can be easily resolved if all parties approach the issue without emotion. That is an opinion not supported by facts

Don't worry about things like facts or controlled studies, guyz. Everybody knows that emotion and logic are incompatible, so just accuse everybody of the former and divest yourselves of either.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3687
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: Two Dudes on a Cake: further discussion of gay rights

Postby CanadysPeak on July 23rd, 2015, 8:28 am 

Paul Anthony » Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:33 pm wrote:I should not be surprised that the first response is one dripping in emotion. (sigh)


Emotion? Emotion? What about my response dripped with emotion? I tried to be careful to not have it drip distain, but that is not what one thinks of as emotion.
CanadysPeak
 


Re: Two Dudes on a Cake: further discussion of gay rights

Postby edy420 on July 23rd, 2015, 3:25 pm 

Serpent » 10 Jul 2015, 12:09 wrote:
Braininvat » July 9th, 2015, 7:28 pm wrote:Serpent, I think the hot button example on religious objection to serving customers is the bakery asked to make a wedding cake
with two guys on top. I had to wonder whatever happened to leaving your personal beliefs at home and doing your f-ing job. If you want to refuse customers' reasonable requests, go find a job better suited to you. But I digress.

Oh, I know about that. In fact, it was a hot topic (my freedom! MY F-IN Free-DOM!!) on a more.... permissive... forum recently, complete with six pages of righteous language. I just thought it funny how the question was phrased: "Should a small business, based on religious grounds, be allowed to refuse ..." Well, if you advertise that you make wedding cakes, bake the cake and tell every customer to supply their own figurines. What's the big deal? If you bill yourself as a wedding photographer, get your ass out there and take the stupid pictures - you don't have to be in them, or look at them every Thanksgiving for the next 30 years, so you're still better off than the parents-in-law, no matter whether their stupid daughter is making the big stupid expensive fuss with a girl or a guy.


A wedding cake maker, is more than someone just baking a chocolate cake to cure boredom.

Broadening the wedding ceremony and accepting gays to marry, is like allowing Vladimir Putin to run for American president.
The Presidential ceremony has rules, and I'm sure a patriot cake maker would deny Putin his celebration cake if he won the American election.

If your advertised as any old cake maker, then you should make any old cake.
But I think a religious cake maker, who makes cakes for religious ceremonies has every right to deny making a cake that goes against their religion.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ
Paul Anthony liked this post


Re: Two Dudes on a Cake: further discussion of gay rights

Postby Paul Anthony on July 23rd, 2015, 4:06 pm 

edy420 » Thu Jul 23, 2015 12:25 pm wrote:

A wedding cake maker, is more than someone just baking a chocolate cake to cure boredom.

Broadening the wedding ceremony and accepting gays to marry, is like allowing Vladimir Putin to run for American president.
The Presidential ceremony has rules, and I'm sure a patriot cake maker would deny Putin his celebration cake if he won the American election.

If your advertised as any old cake maker, then you should make any old cake.
But I think a religious cake maker, who makes cakes for religious ceremonies has every right to deny making a cake that goes against their religion.


Another good analogy that is likely to be ignored by those whose minds are already made up. :)
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5706
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ


Re: Two Dudes on a Cake: further discussion of gay rights

Postby CanadysPeak on July 23rd, 2015, 4:15 pm 

Paul Anthony » Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:06 pm wrote:
edy420 » Thu Jul 23, 2015 12:25 pm wrote:

A wedding cake maker, is more than someone just baking a chocolate cake to cure boredom.

Broadening the wedding ceremony and accepting gays to marry, is like allowing Vladimir Putin to run for American president.
The Presidential ceremony has rules, and I'm sure a patriot cake maker would deny Putin his celebration cake if he won the American election.

If your advertised as any old cake maker, then you should make any old cake.
But I think a religious cake maker, who makes cakes for religious ceremonies has every right to deny making a cake that goes against their religion.


Another good analogy that is likely to be ignored by those whose minds are already made up. :)


No! GLBTs are citizens with all the rights of any other citizen. Accepting gays to marry is like allowing Jeb Bush to run for President - you may not like it, but WTF cares.
CanadysPeak
 
LomaxParalithSciameriKen liked this post


Re: Two Dudes on a Cake: further discussion of gay rights

Postby Daktoria on July 23rd, 2015, 4:19 pm 

Lomax » July 23rd, 2015, 7:03 am wrote:
Daktoria » July 22nd, 2015, 11:53 pm wrote:I don't know if you've read the studies on homosexuals raising children, but the studies aren't controlled at all.

Paul Anthony » July 23rd, 2015, 12:27 am wrote:Most disagreements, IMO, can be easily resolved if all parties approach the issue without emotion. That is an opinion not supported by facts

Don't worry about things like facts or controlled studies, guyz. Everybody knows that emotion and logic are incompatible, so just accuse everybody of the former and divest yourselves of either.


What controlled studies are you talking about? Can you find a study where homosexual households are studied across race, class, and political orientation in the wider community?

The fact of the matter is the gay marriage movement depends on the wider deconstruction of social fabric in order to be sustainable. It's neither independent, nor dependent upon a reliable symbiotic relationship, in society to parent children appropriately.

The bottomline is gay marriage advocates relish in chaos, getting things wrong on purpose, creating drama, and expecting those in society who fall through the cracks to just deal with it and prop up their chaos. Otherwise, they tell those who fall through the cracks that they're selfish when in reality, they're projecting their own selfishness.

In fact, you basically just admitted it from saying, "guyz" and that sarcastic remark about emotion and logic. Give me a break.
Daktoria
 


Re: Two Dudes on a Cake: further discussion of gay rights

Postby edy420 on July 23rd, 2015, 4:48 pm 

CanadysPeak » 24 Jul 2015, 05:15 wrote:
Paul Anthony » Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:06 pm wrote:
edy420 » Thu Jul 23, 2015 12:25 pm wrote:

A wedding cake maker, is more than someone just baking a chocolate cake to cure boredom.

Broadening the wedding ceremony and accepting gays to marry, is like allowing Vladimir Putin to run for American president.
The Presidential ceremony has rules, and I'm sure a patriot cake maker would deny Putin his celebration cake if he won the American election.

If your advertised as any old cake maker, then you should make any old cake.
But I think a religious cake maker, who makes cakes for religious ceremonies has every right to deny making a cake that goes against their religion.


Another good analogy that is likely to be ignored by those whose minds are already made up. :)


No! GLBTs are citizens with all the rights of any other citizen. Accepting gays to marry is like allowing Jeb Bush to run for President - you may not like it, but WTF cares.


Or how about American icon, legend, champion, Governor and American Citizen, Arnold Schwarzenegger.
He left politics because he can never be president... yet he can be everything else American.
If he did make President, it would still be in the patriot cake makers rights to deny him a Presidential celebration cake that has an American flag with an Austrian standing on it.

Because an American standing on an American flag represents honor, but an Austrian standing on an American flag is down right disrespectful.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


PreviousNext

Return to Political Theory

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests