Calm Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 Just now, T-Shirt said: "Temple" refers to where the marriage is being held, it is not a sub-set of, "marriage". "Gay", refers to who is being married. And "plural marriage" or "proxy marriages"? Are they redefinitions? 2
USU78 Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 2 minutes ago, Calm said: And "plural marriage" or "proxy marriages"? Are they redefinitions? Man to woman; woman to man; man to woman: proxy, plural and temple don't change that definition. Homosexual "marriage" does. 2
Gray Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I'll try this again. If complying with the law means that they must be "re-educated" into abandoning their values, that strikes me as despotic. And Nazi-like. And communistic. You're talking about training employees to be in compliance with the law. This is common practice, not just in regards to this issue. It's very common, for instance, for someone in a corporate environment to have to undergo training if they do something that is in violation of employment laws. Anyone in a management role in a corporate environment gets annual training on sexual harassment and discrimination laws. I assure you no one is strapping anyone to chairs. To think this is evidence of despotism, communism or Nazism is incredibly ill-informed. But congrats for bringing Godwin's law into it. 4
USU78 Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 1 minute ago, Gray said: You're talking about training employees to be in compliance with the law. This is common practice, not just in regards to this issue. It's very common, for instance, for someone in a corporate environment to have to undergo training if they do something that is in violation of employment laws. Anyone in a management role in a corporate environment gets annual training on sexual harassment and discrimination laws. I assure you no one is strapping anyone to chairs. To think this is evidence of despotism, communism or Nazism is incredibly ill-informed. But congrats for bringing Godwin's law into it. "Sensitivity training." Just what is that?
Gray Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 1 minute ago, USU78 said: "Sensitivity training." Just what is that? Often aimed at getting people not to use prejudicial language in their interactions with coworkers or customers. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 15 minutes ago, Calm said: There are many who still rebuff the idea of "temple marriage". That's not what I meant. Gay "marriage" would not have been possible in the past.
T-Shirt Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 9 minutes ago, Calm said: And "plural marriage" or "proxy marriages"? Are they redefinitions? All of those still adhere to the traditional definition of marriage regarding the gender of the participants. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 5 minutes ago, Gray said: Often aimed at getting people not to use prejudicial language in their interactions with coworkers or customers. Sounds like spin for political correctness. But it's irrelevant here anyway, as the baker is not accused of "prejudicial language." 1
USU78 Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 10 minutes ago, Gray said: Often aimed at getting people not to use prejudicial language in their interactions with coworkers or customers. Or ... ?
ALarson Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: No one has used those words. That's the impression I've gotten. No due consideration that the man might actually be motivated by sincerely lead religious beliefs. What if the baker was motivated by sincerely held religious beliefs when he refused to provide a wedding cake for a Mormon Temple wedding (when he makes and sells wedding cakes to every one else)? Below is a much better analogy of what this baker did (than the deli or t-shirt comparison): Say you're engaged to a recent convert and she desires to order the same wedding cake that her mother had ordered for her recent wedding (from the same bakery, the same flavors, decorations, etc.). You go to the bakery to order the same wedding cake and the baker starts to write up the order, but upon realizing that the cake was for a Mormon wedding, refuses to make it or sell it to you because he can't support temple marriages. However, he then claims that he doesn't discriminate against Mormons because he offered to sell you any other baked good in his shop that day. This is a more realistic analogy than comparing the deli owner who sells no ham to anyone, or the t-shirt supplier who sells no one a t-shirt with a picture of a black man on a cross. Can you see the difference? Can you see that this baker would be discriminating against you even if it was motivated by his religious beliefs? Edited July 12, 2017 by ALarson 3
Scott Lloyd Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Gray said: You're talking about training employees to be in compliance with the law. This is common practice, not just in regards to this issue. It's very common, for instance, for someone in a corporate environment to have to undergo training if they do something that is in violation of employment laws. Anyone in a management role in a corporate environment gets annual training on sexual harassment and discrimination laws. I assure you no one is strapping anyone to chairs. To think this is evidence of despotism, communism or Nazism is incredibly ill-informed. So you are informed on what the baker and his employees would be forced to undergo? That surprises me, because a moment ago you seemed unaware that there was to be any such training at all. Now you're talking about "prejudicial language," which apparently doesn't even apply here. Was the baker using offensive language in his interactions with customers? Can you document that? And you're going on about corporations giving training to employees. This is a small business, family owned. The sort of thing you describe lacks relevance. Edited July 12, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 3
USU78 Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 Just now, ALarson said: What if the baker was motivated by sincerely held religious beliefs when he refused to provide a wedding cake for a Mormon Temple weddings (when he make and sold wedding cakes to every one else)? Below is a much better analogy what this baker did than the deli or t-shirt comparison: Say you're engaged to a recent convert and she desires to order the same wedding cake that her mother had ordered for her wedding (from the same bakery, the same flavors, decorations, etc.). You go to the bakery to order the same wedding cake and the baker starts to write up the order, but upon realizing that the cake was for a Mormon wedding, refuses to make it or sell it to you because he can't support temple marriages. However, he then claims that he doesn't discriminate against Mormons because he offered to sell you any other baked good in his shop that day. This is a more realistic analogy than comparing the deli owner who sells no ham to anyone, or the t-shirt supplier who sells no one a t-shirt with a picture of a black man on a cross. Can you see the difference? Can you see that this baker would be discriminating against you even if it was motivated by his religious beliefs? That I call boorishness, and there's a perfectly and easily available social remedy for this situation. No need for $135K fines or re-education programs. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 2 minutes ago, ALarson said: What if the baker was motivated by sincerely held religious beliefs when he refused to provide a wedding cake for a Mormon Temple wedding (when he makes and sells wedding cakes to every one else)? I would think him misguided, but I wouldn't take him to court to try to force him to obey my will. I would consider such behavior to be no less petty than his. As I said earlier, I would vote with my feet and my money by seeking out a more congenial baker. 2
ALarson Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 7 minutes ago, USU78 said: That I call boorishness, and there's a perfectly and easily available social remedy for this situation. That's fine. People would react in different ways, I agree. But, it still doesn't change the fact that the baker is guilty of discrimination. 2
ALarson Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I would think him misguided, but I wouldn't take him to court to try to force him to obey my will. I would consider such behavior to be no less petty than his. As I said earlier, I would vote with my feet and my money by seeking out a more congenial baker. That's fine. People would react in different ways, I agree. But, it still doesn't change the fact that the baker is guilty of discrimination. 2
USU78 Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 Just now, ALarson said: That's fine. People would react in different ways, I agree. But, it still doesn't change the fact that the baker is guilty of discrimination. Nice tautology. He discriminated, and that's why he's guilty of discrimination. 1
T-Shirt Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Gray said: Misinformation combined with manipulation in order to present a misleading picture. That is a very good and succinct definition of what the gay lobby has been doing for a decade. "Marriage" refers to an institution that has been well defined for 6,000 years. There is nothing, "Orwellian" about it. I don't see your point. Quote Let's say we outlawed all shoe sizes except for size 7. Then we claim that everyone has equal access to shoes. Technically true, but highly misleading. That doesn't work. In your example you have decided to ban something that already exists, With gay marriage you are adding to something that already exists. Using your example of shoes, a better example would be that everyone has access to shoes. Someone, who does not like shoes, wants to strap kittens on his feet and demand they be called shoes. When he is told that those are not shoes, he ignores that fact and claims he is being denied his right to wear shoes and calls anyone who disagrees with him, a bigot. He will never acknowledge the fact that he always had the same access to shoes as everyone else. Quote Not really, straight people would simply have to have their relationships outside of marriage. But if this scenario happened, would you feel that you stood on equal grounds with gay people in regard to marriage rights? If marriage was traditionally defined, for 6,000 years, as being only between members of the same sex, I would not want to be married. If there was some benefit to having my family's relationship recognized by law, I would seek to either, pass a new law giving legal status to my relationship, or I would seek to have the word, "marriage" redefined to include couples of the opposite sex. If I did not see any benefit in this, I would not care. I would just continue doing what I was doing. Quote So you'll understand what I'm talking about. The institution itself has been changing and evolving for centuries. Can you provide examples of ways that marriage was evolving three hundred years ago, or anytime, for that matter, that involves the gender of those involved? Edited July 12, 2017 by T-Shirt 1
JulieM Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 (edited) 49 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: That's not what I meant. Gay "marriage" would not have been possible in the past. Temple marriages weren't always possible in the past either, so what's your point? Edited July 12, 2017 by JulieM
T-Shirt Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 4 minutes ago, JulieM said: Temple marriages weren't always possible in the past either, so what's your point? How is a place equal to a person? 1
ALarson Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 48 minutes ago, USU78 said: He discriminated, and that's why he's guilty of discrimination. Well, we're making progress. At least you admit now that this baker is guilty of discrimination.
USU78 Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 8 minutes ago, ALarson said: Well, we're making progress. At least you admit now that this baker is guilty of discrimination. Quote Tautology in formal logic refers to a statement that must be true in every interpretation by its very construction. In rhetorical logic, it is an argument that utilizes circular reasoning, which means that the conclusion is also its own premise. Typically the premise is simply restated in the conclusion, without adding additional information or clarification. The structure of such arguments is A=B therefore A=B, although the premise and conclusion might be formulated differently so it is not immediately apparent as such. For example, saying that therapeutic touch works because it manipulates the life force is a tautology because the definition of therapeutic touch is the alleged manipulation (without touching) of the life force.
ALarson Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 1 minute ago, USU78 said: Yes, I know what tautology means (I'm not the one who used it in a statement, you did.) But, let's get back to the fact that the baker is guilty of discrimination. I doubt we'll ever agree on how the couple reacted to being discriminated against, but it was their right to take legal action and so far the courts have ruled in their favor. It'll be interesting to see what happens with this other case now that the US Supreme Court has decided to hear it (the similar case out of Colorado).
Calm Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, USU78 said: Man to woman; woman to man; man to woman: proxy, plural and temple don't change that definition. Homosexual "marriage" does. Isn't that begging the question though?Or assuming the consequent or some such fallacy? Homosexual marriage is redefining marriage because it redefines marriage? I think there are other better arguments against gay marriage (though I myself am semiundecided at this point because I think we will only know the long term impact in a generation or two...unfortunately I don't see a way of knowing that ahead of allowing it). Add-on: probably tautology...wasn't paying close enough attention, honestly having a hard time staying awake and reading in hopes it helps. Edited July 12, 2017 by Calm
USU78 Posted July 12, 2017 Posted July 12, 2017 11 minutes ago, ALarson said: Yes, I know what tautology means (I'm not the one who used it in a statement, you did.) But, let's get back to the fact that the baker is guilty of discrimination. I doubt we'll ever agree on how the couple reacted to being discriminated against, but it was their right to take legal action and so far the courts have ruled in their favor. It'll be interesting to see what happens with this other case now that the US Supreme Court has decided to hear it (the similar case out of Colorado). Uhhh ... I was paraphrasing your argument.
Recommended Posts