Quote:

---

Celebrate the specialness of parents staying together to raise kids together.

---

It's great! Some of my best friends and family members are doing this. Good for them! Celebration!

How is my relationship a bad thing for society?

AstroAg17 said:

---

I'm a little confused by one of your post. You chastise BB for demanding approval instead of just tolerance, but then also go after him for saying he would choose not to associate with someone with your views?

That seems like exactly the attitude that you're accusing him of holding. You're demanding approval. Nobody is going to take your views away, so you're tolerated, but it shouldn't be surprising that the group of people who's rights you'd like to take away don't want to be around you. Why would they?

Edit- I see now that that's the direction the conversation went, so never mind I guess.

---

I'm trying to drive the point home that I can approve of Beer Baron as a person, and be friends with a gay person, without agreeing that homosexuality is something to be celebrated.

Beer Baron has said, however, that he would not want to be friends with someone who does not agree with him that homosexuality is something to be celebrated.

In the discussion around tolerance and acceptance, I find that to be extremely interesting.

Beer Baron said:

---

Quote:

---

Celebrate the specialness of parents staying together to raise kids together.

---

It's great! Some of my best friends and family members are doing this. Good for them! Celebration!

How is my relationship a bad thing for society?

---

Which is better for society? Homosexual marriages or Heterosexual marriages?

I don't think that's a good argument Buster.

In a hypothetical world where all people were faithful Christians and homosexual relationships weren't a thing and everyone practiced abstinence, celibacy would be a much more common and highly regarded thing. I think in a lot of ways, modern Christianity has made the vocation of marriage an idol, while not acknowledging the vocation that those who spend their lives single have..and how important they are for the Church.

In this hypothetical world, people who experience SSA would not be encouraged to marry people that they did not love or could not faithfully consummate their marriage with. They would be (they are) encouraged to embrace their freedom to be more mobile and have more flexibility in ways to serve the Church and their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.

Beer Baron said:

---

Quote:

---

Celebrate the specialness of parents staying together to raise kids together.

---

It's great! Some of my best friends and family members are doing this. Good for them! Celebration!

How is my relationship a bad thing for society?

---

It's not, per se. But it is not the same thing as agreeing to create and raise kids together. I would have called that marriage, but that is not marriage anymore. Marriage has become some short term contract with someone that may or may not be your same gender, and is tossed aside whenever not convenient.

Maybe we can come up with some other name for promising to create and raise kids together in a permanent monogamous relationship. I would be very pro any type of positive reinforcement, including economic incentives, that might help people that undertake this journey to stay together.

unless you were a mormon in pre-1970's (I think thats the dates), then civil rights race based accomodation isn't the same (although i pretty much think that the private marketplace should take care of things like that..run your business how you see fit) The problem here is different than just allowing blacks to sit at the bar. The problem here is asking people to perform art for a ceremony which violates their religious principles. They aren't walking in, buying cupcakes and leaving. They are asking for custom work specifically for an event that their Church does not condone. The courts have put their stamp on whether or not baking or flowers or special events venues are "artistic" enough...which is offensive in its own right.

Dr. Watson said:

---

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

I think the public accomodation laws are relevant to K2's mention of acceptance not being good enough -- needing approval and agreement as well.

IMO, its pretty obvious that the same people are lobbying for gay marriage and the public accomodation laws. Similar to pro-lifers getting ultrasound bills and the like when they can't outrightly ban abortion. It moves the dial closer.

I've been very vocal about the fact that I don't think that the state should be involved in marriage at all...but fine, so we have legal marriage and the state has opened that up to two people, regardless of their demographic as long as they are human and of age. Fine, don't care...but that's not enough. The next step is to make me voice approval or disapproval, when you ask me to provide art to celebrate (cakes) or host the event...and when I say that my religion makes me uncomfortable with providing those services, to prosecute. That's when it becomes my problem.

When my pastor says that legal marriage is not the same as religious marriage and that within religious marriage, homosexuality is a sin (just as is any other sexual sin), and that puts us in danger with the law...then it becomes my problem.

You do you, but once you start requiring my involvement, then it's a problem.

---

You're conflating a business enterprise with your personally held beliefs. This has already been adjudicated by lawmakers and the courts during the Civil Rights era, and there are very good reasons for requiring public businesses to treat all individuals equally. The simple fact is that public accommodation is part of equal rights under the law.

---

This is stupid though; we don't come here to discuss what is actually legal; that's a very short argument that can be resolved by cutting and pasting the relevant law. There have been numerous laws that have been anathema to differing viewpoints over the years; irrespective of their legality.

Sq16Aggie2006 said:

---

Beer Baron said:

---

Which is better for society? Homosexual marriages or Heterosexual marriages?

---

---

I think that this is the wrong question.

The right question, in my mind, is which is better? Parents that stay together, or not? Does the celebration of homosexual marriage help or hurt our societies attitudes towards responsible parenting?

BusterAg said:

---

Sq16Aggie2006 said:

---

Beer Baron said:

---

Which is better for society? Homosexual marriages or Heterosexual marriages?

---

---

I think that this is the wrong question.

The right question, in my mind, is which is better? Parents that stay together, or not? Does the celebration of homosexual marriage help or hurt our societies attitudes towards responsible parenting?

---

I think that question just takes us to my question next.

AstroAg17 said:

---

The politics board and many on this board seem to feel that their rights are being violated, so the question of what is legal is certainly relevant.

---

I'm just saying in a biazzaro 1850's world where we're discussing the issue of slavery online; it wouldn't make much sense to post the relevant U.S law and say "it's legal; case closed". The issue of "rights" that people are discussing transcends actual law; take the issue of gay marriage for example; I guarantee you Beer Baron wouldn't have argued that he had no right to get married before Obergfell was decided.

Quote:

---

It's not, per se.

---

Then stop saying it is.

Quote:

---

But it is not the same thing as agreeing to create and raise kids together.

---

If you think that, fine. Stop saying it's "bad for society."

Quote:

---

I would have called that marriage, but that is not marriage anymore. Marriage has become some short term contract with someone that may or may not be your same gender, and is tossed aside whenever not convenient.

---

This has nothing to do with the question I asked.

Can we also talk about how all-white is not a decoration scheme that is appropriate for people who live in a home that doesn't also have a maid living in it?

Stop.

Beer Baron said:

---

Quote:

---

I would have called that marriage, but that is not marriage anymore. Marriage has become some short term contract with someone that may or may not be your same gender, and is tossed aside whenever not convenient.

---

This has nothing to do with the question I asked.

---

This is one place where we differ in opinion.

I'll ask the question again:

Quote:

---

What are gay people supposed to do? How do we live and how should society deal with us to minimize whatever damage we're doing?

---

How is my relationship making the "good" marriages you're concerned with more disposable? What do I, as a gay man, need to do to help these "good" marriages succeed? Again, I'm very pro-straight marriage and know lots of wonderful people involved in the thing.

Beer Baron said:

---

I'll ask the question again:

Quote:

---

What are gay people supposed to do? How do we live and how should society deal with us to minimize whatever damage we're doing?

---

How is my relationship making the "good" marriages you're concerned with more disposable? What do I, as a gay man, need to do to help these "good" marriages succeed? Again, I'm very pro-straight marriage and know lots of wonderful people involved in the thing.

---

Again, it is about parenting, not marriage. To use your parlance, I am defining a "good" marriage as a nuclear family with monogamous parents.

One thing that you could do is to consider that my viewpoint is not anit-gay. My viewpoint is that the nuclear family is special. Much more special than your promise for a monogamous relationship with your husband.

What I would prefer you to do is not to take my reverence for the nuclear family as an attack on your lifestyle choice. Another thing that I would prefer you to do is not to see me primarily through a lens of my opinion of your sexuality. There are so many other things that we can agree on and talk about, and work on together.

Dude...you can't write this:

Quote:

---

One thing that you could do is to consider that my viewpoint is not anit-gay. My viewpoint is that the nuclear family is special. Much more special than your promise for a monogamous relationship with your husband.

---

And then immediately follow it with this:

Quote:

---

What I would prefer you to do is not to take my reverence for the nuclear family as an attack on your lifestyle choice.

---

It strains credibility...

I don't get it either.

look, my point is, in my opinion, the promise to raise kids together and not cheat while you are doing it is light years more important than the promise of a monogamous sexual relationship between two people. where there is no possibility for the creation of kids.

Many homosexuals want to equate the two, in order to feel accepted and equal themselves. Just because I don't share that opinion doesn't mean that I am a bigot.

What if a married gay couple adopted children? Now you have two parents in a loving, monogamous relationship raising a family (i.e. nuclear equivalent). Is that okay, or does it still violate your position that the gay marriage is somehow less special than a heterosexual one?

BusterAg said:

---

Again, it is about parenting, not marriage. To use your parlance, I am defining a "good" marriage as a nuclear family with monogamous parents.

One thing that you could do is to consider that my viewpoint is not anit-gay. My viewpoint is that the nuclear family is special. Much more special than your promise for a monogamous relationship with your husband.

---

This goes back to what I asked bustup. Show me how his marriage hurt the "good marriages". Bustup tried to argue it fundamentally undermined the "prestige" of marriage. I find this argument pretty ridiculous. Do you have some other line of reasoning for which BB or anyone else is truly hurting good marriage? Can't they both be good things even if one is better? I'll ask you what I asked bustup which he refused to answer: Is homosexual monogamy better than homosexual promiscuity?

Quote:

---

What I would prefer you to do is not to take my reverence for the nuclear family as an attack on your lifestyle choice. Another thing that I would prefer you to do is not to see me primarily through a lens of my opinion of your sexuality. There are so many other things that we can agree on and talk about, and work on together.

---

But you are more than reverent for "good marriage". You are actively against "bad marriage" and see it as something that should not be legally recognized since it, through some mechanism I've yet to understand, fundamentally damages good marriage.

BusterAg said:

---

Many homosexuals want to equate the two, in order to feel accepted and equal themselves. Just because I don't share that opinion doesn't mean that I am a bigot.

---

There is a long list of legal protections and privileges that probably meant a lot more than what people think...

AggieRain said:

---

What if a married gay couple adopted children? Now you have two parents in a loving, monogamous relationship raising a family (i.e. nuclear equivalent). Is that okay, or does it still violate your position that the gay marriage is somehow less special than a heterosexual one?

---

Adoption is even more loving than raising your own kids. Bravo to everyone involved, with the possible exception of the people who created the kids.

But, adoption is not the preferred way. It is doing the best in a less than perfect situation. If that was not the case, I would think that adoption would be much more common.

You didn't answer my question, though...

Aggrad08 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Many homosexuals want to equate the two, in order to feel accepted and equal themselves. Just because I don't share that opinion doesn't mean that I am a bigot.

---

There is a long list of legal protections and privileges that probably meant a lot more than what people think...

---

You know, that's fine. I think that homosexuals had a point. Something needed to be changed. Tax issues, health insurance issues, lots of things needed to be changed. Marriage had become so intertwined with co-habitation and financial partnership that our laws could not keep up with the change in societies tolerance for homosexual behavior.

But, looking down on people for wanting to make parenting a special, sacred, celebrated job is not the way to attack it, IMO.

AstroAg17 said:

---

So you think it's better to make your own kid than to take in one that needs a home? Why do you think that? The second seems much better for society.

---

Not at all. I think that taking in another kid is even more loving than taking care of the one you created.

However, the most loving thing to do is not to create kids without committing to taking care of them with your sexual partner for the rest of the kids life.

In an adoption situation, whatever the circumstances that created that situation, the people who created that kid were not able to pull that off.

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

unless you were a mormon in pre-1970's (I think thats the dates), then civil rights race based accomodation isn't the same (although i pretty much think that the private marketplace should take care of things like that..run your business how you see fit) The problem here is different than just allowing blacks to sit at the bar. The problem here is asking people to perform art for a ceremony which violates their religious principles. They aren't walking in, buying cupcakes and leaving. They are asking for custom work specifically for an event that their Church does not condone. The courts have put their stamp on whether or not baking or flowers or special events venues are "artistic" enough...which is offensive in its own right.

---

But there is no fundamental difference between sitting at a bar and having a wedding cake made if both businesses are open to the general public and intended to make a profit for the owners. There is a workaround for this if the business were a private club or a nonprofit organization.

Theoretically, I agree that I'd rather let individuals work out who can and can't make a transaction without any outside influence. Unfortunately, denying access to the open market has frequently been a weapon against minority people and groups to prevent them from exercising their rights or feeling equal in society

Quote:

---

You know, that's fine. I think that homosexuals had a point. Something needed to be changed. Tax issues, health insurance issues, lots of things needed to be changed. Marriage had become so intertwined with co-habitation and financial partnership that our laws could not keep up with the change in societies tolerance for homosexual behavior.

---

Of course we had(have) a point. Your marriage can still be a varsity marriage in your eyes and you can look down on my little JV one and I still get all the legal rights that I'm entitled to.

Quote:

---

But, looking down on people for wanting to make parenting a special, sacred, celebrated job is not the way to attack it, IMO.

---

You can do that while I'm married. Look, it's happening right now, this very second. But this is very different than the "homosexuality is bad for society" thing that you've been tossing around.

Quote:

---

Do you have some other line of reasoning for which BB or anyone else is truly hurting good marriage? Can't they both be good things even if one is better?

---

This.

Woah.
I think most artists and people who do custom work in general would disagree.

There is a huge difference between me making shoes made for mass retail and me designing custom shoes for a consumer who plans to wear them for a specific event

Okay, so now that my hippy dippy artist side is done being scandalized by the difference between mass consumption and customization...

The difference wasn't just the venue. I mentioned mormons because it was codified in their religion at one point to be racist. Not so for...anyone else (except maybe hindu caste system, but that isn't relevant here) For these, they are being expected to serve an event that is against their religious beliefs. They should be allowed to abstain.