| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/15/2014 09:01:54 PM · #6401 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Marriage and sex go hand in hand. My belief system doesn't actually accept a marriage until it's consummated. Most religions have the same belief. |
Then your belief system is a fraud since a perfectly valid marriage in the eyes of any church may involve a quadruplegic, elderly couple or terminally ill patient for whom sex isn't an option. Not only that, you just negated your excuse for bigotry since you've now discounted the ceremony itself as marriage. So by your claims, unless the baker or photographer follows the couple home, they're not actively participating in anything your own belief system has a problem with. Busted again.
Message edited by author 2014-12-15 21:20:48. |
|
|
|
12/16/2014 11:31:11 AM · #6402 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Nullix:
Marriage and sex go hand in hand. My belief system doesn't actually accept a marriage until it's consummated. Most religions have the same belief. |
Then your belief system is a fraud since a perfectly valid marriage in the eyes of any church may involve a quadruplegic, elderly couple or terminally ill patient for whom sex isn't an option. Not only that, you just negated your excuse for bigotry since you've now discounted the ceremony itself as marriage. So by your claims, unless the baker or photographer follows the couple home, they're not actively participating in anything your own belief system has a problem with. Busted again. |
Consummation is only required once by the major religions (only the church of England removed the consummation requirement in 2013.) So you're calling all belief systems a fraud.
I'm not certain how you came to understand the marriage ceremony is not part of the marriage. The wedding ceremony is a public act. In the eyes of most religions, the marriage isn't valid until it's consummated (which is more private).
Most marriages are assumed to be consummated at a later date. However, a same sex marriage cannot be consummated. Even the church of England changed it's laws to remove the consummation requirement. Other religions haven't. So now, bakers are being required to participate in a wedding ceremony that they believe is invalid (cannot be consummated).
|
|
|
|
12/16/2014 11:51:43 AM · #6403 |
if a religion can change its requirements for acceptance, its followers should be able to as well.
edit: but then they wouldn't be followers.
Message edited by author 2014-12-16 11:54:47. |
|
|
|
12/16/2014 12:07:45 PM · #6404 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
However, a same sex marriage cannot be consummated. |
So you're saying that whatever a gay couple does in their bedroom, it isn't "sexual intercourse"? And THAT's the basis of your stance? |
|
|
|
12/16/2014 12:14:04 PM · #6405 |
The defintion of sexuel intercourse by Wikipedia
Seems to me that gays do that.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2014 12:17:07 PM · #6406 |
| omg. you are going to give him a heart attack with that link, its like looking at pure sin. |
|
|
|
12/16/2014 12:26:01 PM · #6407 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
In the eyes of most religions, the marriage isn't valid until it's consummated... So now, bakers are being required to participate in a wedding ceremony that they believe is invalid (cannot be consummated). |
Therefore you must be totally against a baker being 'forced to participate' in a wedding with a quadruplegic, elderly couple or terminally ill patient for whom sex isn't an option. Given that none of those scenarios have drawn the slightest complaint from anyone, and the fact that your hypothetical baker would also presumably refuse service to a gay couple in a civil marriage with zero church participation or consummation requirement, your argument is disingenuous. Busted yet again.
It looks very much like you don't even have a coherent argument, and you're just throwing out random rationalizations to excuse prejudice. You have yet to state any plausible way someone else's marriage would tangibly affect your life or any religious claim that wouldn't also apply to non-controversial weddings involving former adulterers, interracial couples, or straight couples incapable of procreation. In short, all you've done is demonstrate that you're glaringly incapable of justifiying a personal bias that matches the dictionary definition of bigotryĂ¢€“ a word, incidentally, that originated from a French term for religious hypocrite. |
|
|
|
12/16/2014 12:31:28 PM · #6408 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Marriage and sex go hand in hand. My belief system doesn't actually accept a marriage until it's consummated. Most religions have the same belief. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Then your belief system is a fraud since a perfectly valid marriage in the eyes of any church may involve a quadruplegic, elderly couple or terminally ill patient for whom sex isn't an option. Not only that, you just negated your excuse for bigotry since you've now discounted the ceremony itself as marriage. So by your claims, unless the baker or photographer follows the couple home, they're not actively participating in anything your own belief system has a problem with. Busted again. |
Not only that, but as is typically accepted biblically, sex within marriage is for procreation, not recreation, so the whole marriage & sex go hand in hand thing is pretty much BS.
Marriage is about the declaration of love and commitment between two people in front of the world.
And from that point, it's about building and living life and love from there. The sex is really a very small part of the marriage.
(Just ask anyone who's married!)
Also, you're falling back into that thing where you're talking like marriage belongs to you. Marriage has been around longer than your bible.......it's NOT yours to define.
Message edited by author 2014-12-16 12:33:48.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2014 01:26:31 PM · #6409 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Not only that, but as is typically accepted biblically, sex within marriage is for procreation, not recreation, so the whole marriage & sex go hand in hand thing is pretty much BS.
Marriage is about the declaration of love and commitment between two people in front of the world.
And from that point, it's about building and living life and love from there. The sex is really a very small part of the marriage.
(Just ask anyone who's married!)
Also, you're falling back into that thing where you're talking like marriage belongs to you. Marriage has been around longer than your bible.......it's NOT yours to define. |
Well, that's your belief system. I along with others have an another established belief system that doesn't think the same as you. We believe consummation is an integral part of marriage.
That all being said, you are more than welcome to have your marriage the way you define it. Just don't be surprised if there are those who don't think it's valid nor want to participate in it. |
|
|
|
12/16/2014 01:35:54 PM · #6410 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
I along with others have an another established belief system that doesn't think the same as you. We believe consummation is an integral part of marriage. |
So in the opinion of others like yourself, if you were impotent or paralyzed you would never be able to enjoy the tax and legal benefits or public expression of lifetime commitment that comes with marriage, and should expect to be turned away by business owners simply for being you? Your belief system sucks. |
|
|
|
12/16/2014 01:36:15 PM · #6411 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Nullix:
In the eyes of most religions, the marriage isn't valid until it's consummated... So now, bakers are being required to participate in a wedding ceremony that they believe is invalid (cannot be consummated). |
Therefore you must be totally against a baker being 'forced to participate' in a wedding with a quadruplegic, elderly couple or terminally ill patient for whom sex isn't an option. Given that none of those scenarios have drawn the slightest complaint from anyone, and the fact that your hypothetical baker would also presumably refuse service to a gay couple in a civil marriage with zero church participation or consummation requirement, your argument is disingenuous. Busted yet again.
It looks very much like you don't even have a coherent argument, and you're just throwing out random rationalizations to excuse prejudice. You have yet to state any plausible way someone else's marriage would tangibly affect your life or any religious claim that wouldn't also apply to non-controversial weddings involving former adulterers, interracial couples, or straight couples incapable of procreation. In short, all you've done is demonstrate that you're glaringly incapable of justifiying a personal bias that matches the dictionary definition of bigotryĂ¢€“ a word, incidentally, that originated from a French term for religious hypocrite. |
It's not in the news, but it happens. Maybe we'll have to start a, "Are marriage rights evolving?"
Bishop denies impotent paraplegic church wedding
Quadriplegic Denied Wedding by Church
It seems quadriplegics aren't bring cake bakers to court yet, but it does happen.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2014 01:38:54 PM · #6412 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Well, that's your belief system. I along with others have an another established belief system that doesn't think the same as you. We believe consummation is an integral part of marriage.
That all being said, you are more than welcome to have your marriage the way you define it. Just don't be surprised if there are those who don't think it's valid nor want to participate in it. |
So.......late life marriage partners who cannot consummate, someone who's sterile or impotent, or anyone who is in love enough to make the commitment to marriage but cannot consummate for whatever reason isn't real then? SERIOUSLY?????
I'm not presumptuous enough to try to define anyone's marriage. I'm just happy for them and wish them the best. That's my belief system. It's called empathy......maybe you could look it up?
|
|
|
|
12/16/2014 01:43:08 PM · #6413 |
Okay.......please tell me you think this is wrong.
If you agree with this decision, I will understand a lot more, and I will never bother you about your beliefs again.
|
|
|
|
12/16/2014 01:54:16 PM · #6414 |
All of this is beside the point anyway. It doesn't matter whether or not Tom's religious views are coherent and defensible. is
No, the real issue is whether anybody's religious views can be used as an excuse to violate someone else's civil rights with impunity. "Marriage" isn't even primarily a religious institution, after all;, but a civil one, administrated by the state. One can be married without the church (it happens all the time) but one can't have a valid marriage if the state does not recognize it. Hence all the fuss, since the state has started recognizing gay marriages.
Tom and his ilk are perfectly welcome to deny the "validity" of such marriages according to their "belief systems", as long as they don't ACT on those beliefs to deny state-sanctioned civil rights to others that don't share their beliefs. |
|
|
|
12/16/2014 01:58:47 PM · #6415 |
its true that we are all free to believe what we want to believe, but we also need to remember we live in is the conglomerate of various religions and we all need to place nice together which is where the laws come in.
i know that sucks but if each of us respected each other it would make it much easier to swallow.
Message edited by author 2014-12-16 13:59:44. |
|
|
|
12/16/2014 02:13:43 PM · #6416 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
No, the real issue is whether anybody's religious views can be used as an excuse to violate someone else's civil rights with impunity. "Marriage" isn't even primarily a religious institution, after all;, but a civil one, administrated by the state. One can be married without the church (it happens all the time) but one can't have a valid marriage if the state does not recognize it. Hence all the fuss, since the state has started recognizing gay marriages.
Tom and his ilk are perfectly welcome to deny the "validity" of such marriages according to their "belief systems", as long as they don't ACT on those beliefs to deny state-sanctioned civil rights to others that don't share their beliefs. |
What Bear said. To paraphrase Nullix, "there is nothing wrong with disapproving of gay marriage. The part the legal system has a problem with is acting out on that disapproval." |
|
|
|
12/17/2014 04:06:56 PM · #6417 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
That all being said, you are more than welcome to have your marriage the way you define it. |
Are you kidding me? That is untrue in approximately 15 states.
You know, kind of the whole point of this thread is about how many people are NOT welcome to have their marriage the way they define it. |
|
|
|
12/17/2014 04:07:16 PM · #6418 |
| And a bunch of people explaining why. |
|
|
|
12/18/2014 05:56:30 PM · #6419 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
[ So now, bakers are being required to participate in a wedding ceremony that they believe is invalid (cannot be consummated). |
Please explain to me just how baking a cake can be be viewed as as participating.
Over the years, as part of my job, I have arrested people for drunk driving, spousal assault, drug related offences and a myriad of other crimes.
You will note that all of these were functions associated with my job and in no way did I actively participate in the activities mentioned.
Just how is baking a cake any different.
Ray |
|
|
|
12/18/2014 07:43:52 PM · #6420 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Over the years, as part of my job, I have arrested people for ... spousal assault ... |
Any estimate as to the relative frequency of these situations in heterosexual vs same-sex couples? Male vs female perpetrator? |
|
|
|
12/18/2014 08:28:31 PM · #6421 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Over the years, as part of my job, I have arrested people for ... spousal assault ... |
Any estimate as to the relative frequency of these situations in heterosexual vs same-sex couples? Male vs female perpetrator? |
From a personal perspective I could not offer any information in that regard since I was never called to attend to a domestic involving a same sex couple.
Ray
Message edited by author 2014-12-18 23:56:48. |
|
|
|
12/18/2014 09:41:43 PM · #6422 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
...I was never called to attend to a domestic involving same a sex couple.
Ray |
That is information in itself ... |
|
|
|
12/19/2014 06:18:51 AM · #6423 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Nullix:
[ So now, bakers are being required to participate in a wedding ceremony that they believe is invalid (cannot be consummated). |
Please explain to me just how baking a cake can be be viewed as as participating.
Over the years, as part of my job, I have arrested people for drunk driving, spousal assault, drug related offences and a myriad of other crimes.
You will note that all of these were functions associated with my job and in no way did I actively participate in the activities mentioned.
Just how is baking a cake any different.
Ray |
clearly its because cake is edible. |
|
|
|
12/19/2014 02:44:08 PM · #6424 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Nullix:
[ So now, bakers are being required to participate in a wedding ceremony that they believe is invalid (cannot be consummated). |
Please explain to me just how baking a cake can be be viewed as as participating. |
Ah damn. I just wrote a big piece, then was logged out and lost it all. Let me try again.
The wedding cake is an integral part of the marriage celebration. It is shared with the guests to celebrate the couple's union. In fact, there is a whole ceremony attached to cutting the wedding cake.
Also, since creating the cake is an art form, the creator needs to get in touch with the subjects. This connection has a form of participation. (We are seeing other art forms being sued by gay couples such as wedding photographers.)
Lastly, if the wedding cake wasn't such an important part of the celebration, why would gay couples be suing bakers who refuse? They can just pick up a sheet cake at the local store if it wasn't such a big part of the ceremony.
Since it's a integral part of the celebration along with the connection needed to create such art, I hope you can see now how baking a cake for a celebration is some form of participating in the event.
You bring up arresting people doesn't have any participating involved. Arresting comes at the end of the involvement. I'm sure if you were asked to participate in any of the actives at the beginning of these encounters, I'd imagine you would strongly decline.
Granted, I am not equating arrests with gay marriage. Just trying to tie my argument with subjects you brought up. There are others who feel some degree opposition to gay marriage that they wouldn't bake a wedding cake for them.
Message edited by author 2014-12-19 15:01:09. |
|
|
|
12/19/2014 04:16:30 PM · #6425 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Nullix:
[ So now, bakers are being required to participate in a wedding ceremony that they believe is invalid (cannot be consummated). |
Please explain to me just how baking a cake can be be viewed as as participating. |
Ah damn. I just wrote a big piece, then was logged out and lost it all. Let me try again.
The wedding cake is an integral part of the marriage celebration. It is shared with the guests to celebrate the couple's union. In fact, there is a whole ceremony attached to cutting the wedding cake.
Also, since creating the cake is an art form, the creator needs to get in touch with the subjects. This connection has a form of participation. (We are seeing other art forms being sued by gay couples such as wedding photographers.) |
Good grief, I guess my marriage is null and void... we didn`t have wedding cake. Baking a cake for a gay couple is `participating`in the activity about as much as my having the ability to breast feed simply because I attended a La Leche League meeting. I look at your line of thinking and honestly believe that if the bride was pregnant you would throw ``puffed rice`` in her direction once the couple left the church.
Originally posted by Nullix:
Lastly, if the wedding cake wasn't such an important part of the celebration, why would gay couples be suing bakers who refuse? They can just pick up a sheet cake at the local store if it wasn't such a big part of the ceremony. |
No one is suggesting that the cake in not an inmportant part of the wedding. What is being brought to the fore is that one can not legally discriminate against a group simply because you don`t agree with their life style. The gay couple in this instance is suing the baker because he served them before and then refused to bake them a cake for their wedding only because of their lifestyle.
Originally posted by Nullix:
Since it's a integral part of the celebration along with the connection needed to create such art, I hope you can see now how baking a cake for a celebration is some form of participating in the event. |
See my comments above.
Originally posted by Nullix:
You bring up arresting people doesn't have any participating involved. Arresting comes at the end of the involvement. I'm sure if you were asked to participate in any of the actives at the beginning of these encounters, I'd imagine you would strongly decline. |
Really now. Let us say that I was involved in some security aspect at the Canada Day celebrations, something which I have done on many occasions. I would have gotten there before the throngs of people arrived, stayed all day mingling with the revellers and on occasion been called to arrest or detain some that might have imbibed too much. Is my level of participation in such instances not significantly greater than that of your baker. In a similar vein, I had the good fortune of working with native peoples in Canada and familiarized myself with their customs and learn a bit of their language. Would you suggest that by doing this I have become totally assimilated and may have become a native person... of course not. All that the gay community is asking for is respect and to be treated fairly.
Originally posted by Nullix:
Granted, I am not equating arrests with gay marriage. Just trying to tie my argument with subjects you brought up. There are others who feel some degree opposition to gay marriage that they wouldn't bake a wedding cake for them. |
I hate to say this, but you have tied your argument with a slip knot and you can rest assured that most of society is pulling on that end which will unbind the shackles that you and those who think like you would continue to impose on a segment of society whose lifestyles you don't agree with.
Ray
Message edited by author 2014-12-19 16:20:02. |
|
