cigarettes, tattoos, and homosexuality

[SD26]

Because the church, like any business, has the right to run their business their OWN way. Not to be told how they'll do it. Individuals do NOT have the right to another person's goods and services. The church is in the right in this case. It's all about VOLUNTARY exchange--by mutual consent--not compulsory. Just like Rearden refusing to sell Readen metal to the companies he didn't want to do business with. It's his right. See?

I looked and looked, but couldn't find (within a reasonable amount of time) any references to court cases (yet) about a gay couple suing a church for discrimination in a gay marriage state. I'm sure it's out there, but even if it's not--just wait.

My point is that the church is not government.

Think about the days of Affirmative Action with black people suing companies for not hiring them (for one reason or another) by playing the race card. Wait and see what happens when Bob and Gary, or any other gay couple with an equality bug up their asses try to sue a church for discriminating against them. Wait and see what happens in this ridiculous time of frivolous lawsuits. Read between the lines.

Do individuals have a RIGHT to the services of another? If you think they do, you certainly don't belong HERE...

No, I agree, no one has the right to the services or even the product of another. Value for value.

You'll have to correct me if I'm wrong, but Affirmative Action is a government issue or an issue where there are government funds at stake. And even that has came around where state and federally funded universities have been told by courts that quota's are no longer legal for individual rights issues.

Yes, there are pressures from outside groups to develop hiring practices by private companies, just like outside groups pressured banks to lend to "sub prime" borrower's that didn't fit traditional practices of lending to one that made enough money, etc.

Friviolous lawsuits? Sure, they exist. That's fraud. And acts of force are certainly morally wrong. So, attack those ideas, write your representatives.

Regardless, I see it as a jump to go from same sex couples getting married to churches being forced to marry them. Just as private companies still hire from their population pool that they see fit to hire them from to accomplish their tasks.

Why should government be involved in marriage anyway? Leave it to individuals to get a contract from a lawyer. I can see it on Legalzoom right now...

[ooghost1oo]

My point is that the church is not government.

I don't follow where you ever went there... Never said it was. Don't care. I'm treating the church, in this case, as a private business. This is so pointless...

Why should government be involved in marriage anyway? Leave it to individuals to get a contract from a lawyer. I can see it on Legalzoom right now...

Why indeed? That's the whole point. And what happens when the government gets involved? One party or another loses their freedoms. Their rights. They're strong-armed into doing something they don't want to do.

But, you'll see. What was originally intended to provide 'equal rights' to gay folks will have the unintended consequences of lawsuits that will put judges in the position to contradict the law OR step on the rights of the church. It's not much of a jump--it's foresight. You'll see.

Edited September 5, 2009 by ooghost1oo

[DavidOdden]

Look at this: Gay Bob and Gay Gary are two Christians (even though they're gay) that go to the "First Methodist Church" of Podunk, Vermont. They want to get married at their church, but their pastor refuses. Instead of just getting married at the courthouse, they make a big thing out of it, because they don't see anything wrong with it, and they want to get married in their church just like everybody else. So they sue the "First Methodist Church" for discrimination, because their state recognizes gay marriage as legal. And they win, because the law is on their side.

....

You don't see a problem with that?

I see a major problem with your ability to reason. You had to falsify an event to evade your own illogic. Show us a real case where a church is required by law to violate its own tenets. For each outlandish, fictitious scenario that you can invent out of whole cloth, I can invent two equally fictitious stories about how gays are being sold into slavery by Christian extremists.

You have an obligation to establish that churches are ever forced to marry gays, or to retract the claim. Establish means "to show; to prove to be a fact". You have no facts in support of your claim, and you should retract the claim.

[Jackethan]

Look at this: Gay Bob and Gay Gary are two Christians (even though they're gay) that go to the "First Methodist Church" of Podunk, Vermont. They want to get married at their church, but their pastor refuses. Instead of just getting married at the courthouse, they make a big thing out of it, because they don't see anything wrong with it, and they want to get married in their church just like everybody else. So they sue the "First Methodist Church" for discrimination, because their state recognizes gay marriage as legal. And they win, because the law is on their side. So now, the church is ordered to wed Bob and Gary, but the pastor and his organization doesn't want to because they firmly believe it wrong, evil, immoral, against the bible, etc ad nauseam. So now the church is being forced to do something they firmly believe against doing, under threat of force by the state.

I have to hand it to you, that was one of the most compartmentalized, rationalized strawman arguments I have seen thus far.

No gay man I know, including me, even -wants- to be married by a church. The only reasons I support gay marriage is because if my boyfriend or 'husband' got sick and was in the hospital, I would not have a legal right to see him, if his family denied me. If I wanted to marry a man in another country and bring him here to America like any straight person can do, I cannot. There are many other things gays can't do without being married.

So, let's tally. Gay people have -actual rights violated- right now. If a gay person went to the state government with a contract saying 'I want to be this person's partner and I want our union to be afforded all the same rights as a heterosexual marriage under the law.' He would be laughed at.

On the other hand, there are not currently, nor have there been suggested any laws which require churches to marry anybody to anybody else. So you come up with a hypothetical slippery slope where some whackjob fags get a court (somehow) to uphold an idea that they have a "right" to be married specifically by their church. So. What.

Rights are a principle, they apply to gays and everyone else. Your argument is essentially 'This law opens the door up for immoral people to get corrupt judges to set a precedent based on no real law.' It is a silly attempt to throw the principle out the window and attempt to use pragmatism to shoot something down.

Oh, and your conclusion about all gays being either socially inept or mentally deficient is vacuous psychologizing, which you yourself have admitted is based on no real empirical evidence, only on your anecdotal experience.

Stop getting your political advice from nutjobs like Rush Limbaugh and realize that not everyone who opposes your viewpoint is a crazy leftist commie.

EDIT: Grammar.

Edited September 5, 2009 by Jackethan

[bluecherry]

ooghost1oo,

On gay adoptions: Plenty has been said already on how people can get around natural selection in the sense of just having to rely on our biology and individuals that are stronger biologically last and reproduce more than biologically weaker individuals. It’s kind of what we rational animals do, using our smarts to make the world suit us so we can make it rather than just having to rely on good biology alone, you know? And adoptions don’t pass on biological traits anyway. Even if they did, being gay clearly is not something which just surely passes on from parent to child seeing as how many heterosexual parents have had non-heterosexual children and how many of the non-heterosexuals who have somehow had children with others have had heterosexual kids. Furthermore, even if a heterosexual kid grows up with homosexual parents and decides to try experimenting with homosexual relationships to see if they are right for them, what’s so awful that we should forbid that from happening? What’s so bad about a kid feeling comfortable enough to explore and find out for sure what they do and do not like in relationships? You don’t know at birth whether a kid will be heterosexual or not and I don’t see anybody talking about how awful it is that a non-heterosexual kid may grow up with heterosexual parents and think about trying out heterosexual relationships to try and see if they are for them. (I’m assuming in either case the kid is doing this out of their own curiosity, not that they have parents which are really pressuring them to be of a certain sexuality. That I would think would be bad parenting no matter who is doing it to kids of what sexuality.) Regardless of the sexuality of the parents or what the parents want a kid can discover their own likes and dislikes for sex perfectly fine on their own and go on to do what they want. It isn’t as if they tried out for a period seeing if they could like a certain sex of people and now they’re stuck with it for life even if they found out they don’t like it.

On gay marriage: As long as the government is involved in assigning certain bundles of government protections via marriage contracts anyway, then there’s no excuse for the government to discriminate based on what competent, consenting adults want to get married unless it violates other existing contractual obligations. To oppose marriage for people of the same sex because you oppose churches being forced to marry people of the same sex is wrongheaded. You are attacking the wrong thing, something which is in and of itself not wrong. Either recognize gay marriage as fine and just work to oppose anybody who would try to force churches to marry people of the same sex against their will, or if you think that it would be inevitable that people high on political correctness would get churches forced to marry people of the same sex against their will, then I’d have to ask you what makes you think you can stop them from getting it made law that people of the same sex can marry in the first place.

Somebody earlier mentioned looking down on people with tatoos regardless of what they were of. I'd like to ask why this is. What makes tattoos necessarily a sign of a problem in somebody in your view? I've heard arguments from people before against tattos, but none of them has ever well supported tattos as such being bad for everybody and anybody.

[2046]

Sorry to interrupt, but I have a question: Does Objectivism hold that the state should be involved in marriage or should it be privatized completely? If the state is involved, is there a limit to marriage, or is it just whoever has a contract with whoever is willing to sign that contract? How does marriage get defined and what is the standard? (so that includes polygamy, or multiple marriages, or any other odd combination you can think of?)

[themadkat]

Sorry to interrupt, but I have a question: Does Objectivism hold that the state should be involved in marriage or should it be privatized completely? If the state is involved, is there a limit to marriage, or is it just whoever has a contract with whoever is willing to sign that contract? How does marriage get defined and what is the standard? (so that includes polygamy, or multiple marriages, or any other odd combination you can think of?)

My understanding is that the state should only be involved in marriage insofar as it is involved in the enforcement of any contract. The current structure of marriage mostly hearkens back to when it constituted an economic alliance between two families with property and the need to designate legitimate heirs.

[ooghost1oo]

Bam.

Here is a court example of a gay couple suing a wedding photographer for refusing to photograph their gay marriage:

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/moralvaluesp...ographycase.pdf

If any of you don't see how this same bullshit can be applied to a righteous couple suing a church for discrimination, once such marriage is declared legal, you're refusing to accept reality. This is a hideous abuse of law and a front on individual rights, for individuals and businesses.

While Jack Ethan may say that a gay couple would never want to be married in a church, THAT is a generalization, and you can never say what other people may or may not do. But making laws based on discrimination like this opens the doors for abusing other people rights to run their businesses THEIR way (like churches, like that poor photographer), because there will ALWAYS be people who will take advantage of the system and make mockery of justice.

Unintended consequences.

You may say that the photographer didn't have a right to refuse service to the gay couple because she was against gay marriage. Wrong. No one has the right to dictate to a business how that business is run, who they can or cannot serve, and so on. If you don't understand that, then you are no Objectivist.

[DavidOdden]

Does Objectivism hold that the state should be involved in marriage or should it be privatized completely?

The state is involved in marriage only w.r.t. the legal aspects, i.e. what kind of partnership exists. A marriage cannot be considered to be a contract; it is essentially a partnership agreement.

How does marriage get defined and what is the standard?

It basically inherits its properties from the fact that it is a kind of agreement. The state can (and must) provide an objective matter of resolving disputes in case the terms of the agreement are not sufficiently explicit. Something along the lines of the UCC would be necessary.

[kainscalia]

Ghost: let's forbid people from marrying altogether. After all, some foreigners marry Americans just so they can be granted citizenship. That's certainly an unintended consequence.

Get real. If your measure of things is the insane, you might as well lock yourself up in the asylum and never come out. Freedom also means the freedom to make bad choices- and suffer the consequences.

[Jackethan]

Bam.

Here is a court example of a gay couple suing a wedding photographer for refusing to photograph their gay marriage:

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/moralvaluesp...ographycase.pdf

If any of you don't see how this same bullshit can be applied to a righteous couple suing a church for discrimination, once such marriage is declared legal, you're refusing to accept reality. This is a hideous abuse of law and a front on individual rights, for individuals and businesses.

While Jack Ethan may say that a gay couple would never want to be married in a church, THAT is a generalization, and you can never say what other people may or may not do. But making laws based on discrimination like this opens the doors for abusing other people rights to run their businesses THEIR way (like churches, like that poor photographer), because there will ALWAYS be people who will take advantage of the system and make mockery of justice.

Unintended consequences.

You may say that the photographer didn't have a right to refuse service to the gay couple because she was against gay marriage. Wrong. No one has the right to dictate to a business how that business is run, who they can or cannot serve, and so on. If you don't understand that, then you are no Objectivist.

More straw men. I never stated that anyone has the right to dictate to anyone else how to run their business, or who their customers should be. The photographer in your case was obviously a victim of an immoral person making a case before a corrupt judge.

While you're too busy trying to rationalize a judeo-christian political view behind a veil of 'practicality.' (a tactic that republicans use all the time, one which is wholly un-Objectivist.) You could be spending your time and effort lobbying for corrupt judges and lawyers to be weeded out of our system. You have not at all refuted my point that gays have a right to all those things I mentioned, or a right to marriage. Your only point is that in giving gays those rights, one starts down a -slippery slope- (fallacy) that leads to churches being forced to marry gays against the pastor's beliefs.

I refuse to be denied my individual rights on the basis that corrupt looters and thieves who work the system could possibly continue to be corrupt, loot, and thieve.

Your points are all still just as vacuous even when you stamp 'if you don't agree then you're not an Objectivist' at the end. I advise you learn the logical fallacies so that you can color your political opinions with reason instead of pragmatism.

[DavidOdden]

Bam.

<link to Elane Photography case>

Emeril, you have really mastered the art of superficial and paranoid analysis smothered in smokescreen. The matter has been filed in New Mexico and will no doubt be heard by the court some time soon, at which point we will see whether (that) the relevant points of law will become central.

We do not need to wait for that case to be decided to learn that it is totally irrelevant to the question of whether a church will be forced to perform gay marriages contrary to its doctrine. First, New Mexico law exempts churches from these regulations. Second, the instant case and any application to a church would violate separate New Mexico law (section 28 article 22). Third, following Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah, a First Amendment appeal against applying such a regulation to a church would be successful, since forcing a church to repudiate its religious doctrine would specifically target religious belief.

[RussK]

Unintended consequences.

In a previous post I said that I understood the point you were trying to make, but I really gave you the benefit of doubt--interpreting what I thought you meant--instead of having it come from your own words. So, for me to really understand your meaning, I have to ask you a question: do you think that respecting--I've got a problem using the term 'giving' in this context--a homosexual's right to marry who they want, to necessarily cause a violation of rights (churches, etc...), or not? Because that is what you said to begin with. Now if you think that other factors are involved in creating these "unintended consequences" then that's another thing altogether; if so, you need to say that.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

An aside...

I personally *do* expect such lawsuits, if nothing else because somebody in the gay community will decide it's an excellent way to give some fundamentalist church a black eye. Of course for that to work, they'd have to *join* the church in question (churches commonly follow a policy of only marrying their membership). I expect such a lawsuit would sooner happen to a more "moderate" church to try to nudge them all the way to "liberal" policies.

RussK your question wasn't aimed at me but I will answer it. I do not believe gay marriage inherently will lead to such things due to its very nature, but in the context of our current culture, where the freedom of association is non-existent for any business and most other organizations, it's almost inevitable that the (genuine) right of marriage will lead to attempts to pervert it into a (phony) right to have it done wherever one wants.

[RussK]

An aside...

I personally *do* expect such lawsuits, if nothing else because somebody in the gay community will decide it's an excellent way to give some fundamentalist church a black eye. Of course for that to work, they'd have to *join* the church in question (churches commonly follow a policy of only marrying their membership). I expect such a lawsuit would sooner happen to a more "moderate" church to try to nudge them all the way to "liberal" policies.

RussK your question wasn't aimed at me but I will answer it. I do not believe gay marriage inherently will lead to such things due to its very nature, but in the context of our current culture, where the freedom of association is non-existent for any business and most other organizations, it's almost inevitable that the (genuine) right of marriage will lead to attempts to pervert it into a (phony) right to have it done wherever one wants.

I totally agree with this assessment. I would expect that answer to my question from most of the people who frequent this board. It was specifically directed toward ooghost1oo, so I can better clarify, for myself, a previous post; and also to show him where confusion is coming from if he didn't mean what he wrote.

[Jake_Ellison]

Emeril, you have really mastered the art of superficial and paranoid analysis smothered in smokescreen. The matter has been filed in New Mexico and will no doubt be heard by the court some time soon, at which point we will see whether (that) the relevant points of law will become central.

We do not need to wait for that case to be decided to learn that it is totally irrelevant to the question of whether a church will be forced to perform gay marriages contrary to its doctrine. First, New Mexico law exempts churches from these regulations. Second, the instant case and any application to a church would violate separate New Mexico law (section 28 article 22). Third, following Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah, a First Amendment appeal against applying such a regulation to a church would be successful, since forcing a church to repudiate its religious doctrine would specifically target religious belief.

Bam.

[Andrew Grathwohl]

I'm from Connecticut and am quite proud that my state has decided to recognize same-sex marriages. The bills forces nobody to marry anyone. My father was a justice of the peace in CT - he married a gay couple, not because he had to, but because he wanted to. Nobody in the public or private sector is forced to do anything other than recognize that the two individuals have entered a life contract with one another.

Of course, I would prefer that the state not have anything to do with marriages, and thus have no requirement to recognize or ban same-sex marriages to begin with. This would force the homophobe in this thread to completely revise his argument, of course, which would not enable him to cover up his prejudices with pseudo-reason.

In a nation that respected and protected individual rights, there wouldn't be a single piece of legislation having to do with marriage - ever.

[ooghost1oo]

In a previous post I said that I understood the point you were trying to make, but I really gave you the benefit of doubt--interpreting what I thought you meant--instead of having it come from your own words. So, for me to really understand your meaning, I have to ask you a question: do you think that respecting--I've got a problem using the term 'giving' in this context--a homosexual's right to marry who they want, to necessarily cause a violation of rights (churches, etc...), or not? Because that is what you said to begin with. Now if you think that other factors are involved in creating these "unintended consequences" then that's another thing altogether; if so, you need to say that.

Honestly, Russ, my perspective, which began as the first time I committed my thoughts to 'paper', has gradually evolved over the course of this 'argument' and during the time I've spent digging up references. My opinion stated before on 'natural selection' is merely my opinion, as much as I still believe it, but it's unimportant to my point because it has nothing to do with rights or freedom, the unintended consequences, which is what this is all about. I still believe what I said, for the reasons I've fleshed out through the course, but it doesn't matter. Plus, I don't really care individually about the theoretical adopted kids who could be adversely affected by being raised by gay parents.

The point is: gay marriage being legalized will come with it the stipulations against discrimination based on sexual orientation. And anti-discrimination laws is what produces the unintended consequences, not the individual freedoms they try to produce.

I'd rather the law stay out of it, too. In fact, the smaller the gov't involvement in EVERYTHING, the better. And I'd rather Christians didn't have their stupid, homophobic beliefs in their stupid bible. BUT ... I respect their right to those beliefs, and I argue for their right to uphold those beliefs in their institutions. You people who label me as a right-wing fanatic, or 'rationalizing a judeo-christian political view behind a veil of practicality' sound like damned liberal parrots. Like you have NO idea the point I'm trying to make, and you don't understand Rand's outlook on Radical Capitalism, her idea of minimal government, and her respect for the rights of the individual.

But as things are, making anti-discriminary laws to go around previous laws, will only lead to people using the law to strong-arm their beliefs on people who believe otherwise. And unless specific measures are put in place to protect churches from discrimination suits, this legislation will quash freedom. It would be different if states allowed gays to get married at the courthouse only, bypassing the problem, but then there will still be gays who want to get married at their church (as rare as they may be), and if that church isn't one of those 'moderate' churches, one party or another is going to suffer. Like the photographer who had to pay damages of $6000-something just because she refused to associate her business with something she believed was wrong.

I know Objectivists have to be full of a lot of variety of independent minds, but it's amazing to me that you so-called Objectivists that are arguing against my 'smokescreen right-wing hate speech' don't grasp this fundamental issue. Amazing. How brainwashed you are.

Of course, I would prefer that the state not have anything to do with marriages, and thus have no requirement to recognize or ban same-sex marriages to begin with. This would force the homophobe in this thread to completely revise his argument, of course, which would not enable him to cover up his prejudices with pseudo-reason.

In a nation that respected and protected individual rights, there wouldn't be a single piece of legislation having to do with marriage - ever.

Homophobe ... you fool. I don't give a damn about gays. I just care about anti-discrimination laws, which only end up being abused to run over the rights of another. Pseudo-reason. I really wonder how much point there is debating on forums where there will always be some of you who just don't get it, and just sit around jacking each other off and making yourself feel smart.

[DavidOdden]

I know Objectivists have to be full of a lot of variety of independent minds, but it's amazing to me that you so-called Objectivists that are arguing against my 'smokescreen right-wing hate speech' don't grasp this fundamental issue. Amazing. How brainwashed you are.

So is your position that your are the one true Objectivist, who has seen the light? What exactly is the correct Objectivist position on marriage? (Oh, and don't forget to show why that is the one correct Objectivist position)

[Andrew Grathwohl]

Homophobe ... you fool. I don't give a damn about gays. I just care about anti-discrimination laws, which only end up being abused to run over the rights of another. Pseudo-reason. I really wonder how much point there is debating on forums where there will always be some of you who just don't get it, and just sit around jacking each other off and making yourself feel smart.

Anti-discrimination laws? What about laws that are discriminatory? That would be what our present system of marriage entails.

Here's the CT bill: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/TOB/H/2007HB-07395-R00-HB.htm Tell me whose rights are being run over in order to recognize a marriage as a union between two individuals (as opposed to a man and a woman).

[RussK]

The point is: gay marriage being legalized will come with it the stipulations against discrimination based on sexual orientation. And anti-discrimination laws is what produces the unintended consequences, not the individual freedoms they try to produce.

I also think someone will press the issue in the court system, sooner or later. Whether they will win in court and force laws that will violate the rights of churches is yet to be seen, that will be known when the times comes--I don't think it will be successful, but I don't rule out the possibility. That being said, violation of churches rights is not corollary to freedom to marry. What you describe, which you stated yourself, is a problem with anti-discrimination laws and egalitarianism, not freedom to marry. Even though I think that there is a good possibility of improper anti-discrimination laws, I'm not going to let the possibility of such "unintended consequences" prevent me from respecting the rights of others. That position can be applied now, just as I'm sure it was during other rights struggles throughout history, from women's rights to minority rights.

[Daniellecs]

I am going to get a sign of a dollar behind my ear.

[Myself]

I am going to get a sign of a dollar behind my ear.

Why?

[Daniellecs]

Because I love body modification , and because I am not going to tattoo something on myslef unless it has a meaning to me.

The dollar represent free trade, freedom, egoism, brain, my loyalty to create the best, producing and it is also a gesture to one of my favorite books.

Why behind my ear? I find this place suitable. Both because it is located near my brain, because I can hide it with my hair and because I find it sexy.

[aleph_0]

My tats are aesthetic and serve as an eloquent reminder of the principles and goals I have dedicated myself to embody. If I had more money, I'd certain have more ink.