Can the government compel you to provide someone a service against your will?

I assume that at least some of our members will say, "yes it can and should".

The specific case in question is about a photographer in New Mexico who refused to photograph a gay marriage. The case made it all the way to the New Mexico Supreme Court where they decided that the photographer must photograph gay marriages even if he doesn't want to.

Refusal to photograph New Mexico same-sex couple ruled illegal

Quote:

---

In refusing to photograph the ceremony, Elane Photography violated the New Mexico Human Rights Act in the same way that it would have if the company had refused to photograph an inter-racial wedding, the New Mexico Supreme Court said.

"We conclude that a commercial photography business that offers its services to the public, thereby increasing its visibility to potential clients, is subject to the anti-discrimination provisions of the and must serve same-sex couples on the same basis that it serves opposite-sex couples," the court ruled.

---

Interestingly, the ACLU was representing the plaintiffs in this case.. :inquisitive:

I have a lot of problems with this decision. Wouldn't the easiest course of action be for the couple to find another photographer who's willing to take their money? How can you force someone to photograph your even, and why would you want to? What if you think the photographer did a deliberately lousy job? Can you take him to court for that too? Can the government enforce a standard of quality for the service as well as forcing you to provide it?

that depends very much on the service...

Life Saving Surgery? Yes and it should

Photography? No and it shouldn't...

An in depth look at the legal implications and reasoning;
http://volokh.wpengine.com/2013/08/2...mination-case/

Quote:

---

The decision comes down to three basic conclusions:

(1) The state’s antidiscrimination law applies. Discrimination against a same-sex couple (married or not) is discrimination based on “sexual orientation” and is prohited in public accomodations under the statute.

(2) The First Amendment does not protect the photographer. There is no free-speech right of a business to discriminate in providing services to the public.

(3) The state Religious Freedom Restoration Act does not apply.

---

Consider as well that photography is a form of artistic expression, and if we have freedom of speech (and expression) protecting our ability to say (and photograph) what we want, surely that means we have the freedom to not say (or photograph) what we don't want to. In this case, the government is compelling expression from an individual through the law.

CR

Total Bull Pucky! How did they even get standing on such a case?

That would also mean that a Jewish Photographer would have to take a Nazi client for what ever ceremony they wanted photographed or a Black Photographer would have to take a job with the KKK if it came along.

I think the Judges should be tossed out along with the decision. Judicial Tyranny.

They should be in some cases, in the bible-belt here they refuse to have their kids vaccinated for some pretty nasty diseases. Screw that. It doesn't matter to them that these diseases are contagious, they are the most egocentric people ever.

How did photographing a gay wedding turn into a public health issue?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Consider as well that photography is a form of artistic expression, and if we have freedom of speech (and expression) protecting our ability to say (and photograph) what we want, surely that means we have the freedom to not say (or photograph) what we don't want to. In this case, the government is compelling expression from an individual through the law.

CR

---

That's not it, professional photography in this case is a corperate service, not an artistic expression. It's the equivalent of refusing to sell them a wedding cake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I
I have a lot of problems with this decision. Wouldn't the easiest course of action be for the couple to find another photographer who's willing to take their money? How can you force someone to photograph your even, and why would you want to? What if you think the photographer did a deliberately lousy job? Can you take him to court for that too? Can the government enforce a standard of quality for the service as well as forcing you to provide it?

---

That would be the easiest way yes (although in this case I suspect it went nasty halfway through transactions, a la "A marriage? sure. Wait a minute, a gay marriage? Never!"), but consider this situation:

What if all local photographers would refuse them because they don't want to photograph a gay marriage? So option b is either non-existant or much more expensive (renting someone from another city/state). That would be very discriminating agreed?

And we agree that there's some types of discriminations companies aren't allowed to do, on principle? So we have to differ between the private person and the company man, who are a lot more restricted in their actions.

To make it very clear, this is legally the same as refusing cutting the hair of a black man because he's black. Or sell him food.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

That would also mean that a Jewish Photographer would have to take a Nazi client for what ever ceremony they wanted photographed or a Black Photographer would have to take a job with the KKK if it came along.

---

Are discrimination because of political opinions illegal? Because if it's legal, then no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

And we agree that there's some types of discriminations companies aren't allowed to do, on principle? So we have to differ between the private person and the company man, who are a lot more restricted in their actions.

To make it very clear, this is legally the same as refusing cutting the hair of a black man because he's black. Or sell him food.

---

I think business owners should be free to make any (stupid) decisions they want about how to operate. They can also live with the consequences.

Because of features people are born with? Definitely yes.

Because of opinions? Nope, not a chance.

Feel free to toss commies and nazi's out of your shops, but be prepared to lose it if you start tossing out blacks or gays. Judge 'em on the content of their character, as one of the finest Americans who ever lived once dreamed of ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I think business owners should be free to make any (stupid) decisions they want about how to operate. They can also live with the consequences.

---

I agree. Discrimination in the private sector should be allowed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Pretty much this. If it is a vital service, then discrimination of any kind is wrong. If it is something very much non-vital and private like a wedding photography business, then what happened to the right to refuse service?

---

The right to refuse service must be seen in the light of the right to not be harassed.

Rights must always be seen in context with others, otherwise they all become meaningless.

How does a gay couple not recognize the freedoms and liberties of an individual. I would have thought they would be hypersensitive to using the law to compel somebody to change their behaviors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

I agree. Discrimination in the private sector should be allowed.

---

Agreeing with this. I don't really care about gays myself but if you do it should be up to you.

Example, what if you run a youth-camp dedicated to old-fashioned family values. A private enterprise. Should you than be forced to allow gays, I don't think so. If you disagree alsways keep a distance where neither side gets uncomfortable.

I don’t agree with the guys decision not to take the job, but his reasons no matter how absurd are his to make. Earning a livelihood does not mean surrendering your right to free association.

If it were a charted corporate entity I could see grounds for a suet, but not an individual.

Quote:

---

How does a gay couple not recognize the freedoms and liberties of an individual. I would have thought they would be hypersensitive to using the law to compel somebody to change their behaviors.

---

I have to assume that these people are like reformed smokers. Holeyer than thou.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

If it were a charted corporate entity I could see grounds for a suet, but not an individual.

---

If corporations are individuals(ref. that other thread...), then an individual must be a corporation, right?

That depends entirely on the Court Venue and how vapid or hide-bound the judges, but a corporation is charted to serve the public, where as an individual is not.

A corporation is an association, and as such has obligations to its member and society which an individual does not.

Under the rules put forward by this court case it could be said that if a person advertises for a room mate to share rent, they have no choice over who to except or reject but have to have it ruled upon by the government.

I probably should've included a tongue-in-cheek-smiley in my last post...

So if it was a Jewish straight couple that was refused service it would be a ok?

So private companies can choose who and how they serve people? Taxis can refuse to pick up someone with a blind dog? Buses can choose were you sit? Dinners can refuse service based on skin color?

These are all solid past examples of discrimination based on either skin color or disability. Things that the individual who has the properties cannot chose to have or not have.

Are we discriminating who we discriminate on?

I believe that businesses should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. However, if we have established as a society that private sector discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion, and disability are unlawful, the same rationale should apply to gay people as sexual orientation is not a choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

I believe that businesses should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. However, if we have established as a society that private sector discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion, and disability are unlawful, the same rationale should apply to gay people as sexual orientation is not a choice.

---

Yep, either all of it or none of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Because of features people are born with? Definitely yes.

Because of opinions? Nope, not a chance.

Feel free to toss commies and nazi's out of your shops, but be prepared to lose it if you start tossing out blacks or gays. Judge 'em on the content of their character, as one of the finest Americans who ever lived once dreamed of ~;)

---

Of course it is still a scientific debate as to whether or not sexual orientation can possible be considered a trait you are born with.

Religion is not a trait you are born with either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Of course it is still a scientific debate as to whether or not sexual orientation can possible be considered a trait you are born with.

---

Nature versus nurture has yet to be conclusively proven, but I do not believe any credible sources still assert that it is a choice.

A prescription for photographic conscription?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I think business owners should be free to make any (stupid) decisions they want about how to operate. They can also live with the consequences.

---

As Horetore pointed out, at some point you're starting to cheer for the bully with this attitude. It's defending someone's right to make another person's life harder and moving it towards miserable (if systematic by several people). Sometimes that may be a good thing yes, but it's easy to see why you'll need restrictions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

I don’t agree with the guys decision not to take the job, but his reasons no matter how absurd are his to make. Earning a livelihood does not mean surrendering your right to free association.

If it were a charted corporate entity I could see grounds for a suet, but not an individual.

---

The one being sued are Elane Photography and is refered to as commercial photography business. Somehow I don't think that's a person. That company may very well only be one person, but it's the company that's being sued.

This decision will probably be overturned. It sounds like compelled service against conscience.

Should the photographer be forced to work, no, of course not. Should he be be labeled a homophobe and ridiculed for such prejudice? Yes.

Agreed!

And why would you even wish to compel someone doing a job for you?

You may force them to comply but you can’t exactly depend on what sort of results you may get.

How many times can you redo a wedding to get the photos you want?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Nature versus nurture has yet to be conclusively proven, but I do not believe any credible sources still assert that it is a choice.

---

It has come about as more of a preference, such as with food, try getting some one to eat something they dislike even though you might like it and viceversus. There is some thought that naturally, we are just instinctively horny animals which would hump anything (and lots of evidence to show that in practise on google) and it is society which helps moulds us to tame these wild ways. The whole idea of taking simply one 'mate' and performing marriage is unnatural, but that is the custom we have.

tl;dr version: people getting in a huffy about consensual things between adults which doesn't affect them.

What is the context of the refusal? Did the photography outfit sign up for the gig and the photographer sent then refused to untake the task? Or did they simply refuse the job, in which case why not just make up some reason for not doing it (sorry, we are all booked up on that day)? I don't get it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slyspy

What is the context of the refusal? Did the photography outfit sign up for the gig and the photographer sent then refused to untake the task? Or did they simply refuse the job, in which case why not just make up some reason for not doing it (sorry, we are all booked up on that day)? I don't get it.

---

I get the feeling that it went something like this "A wedding? Sure! Wait a minute. A gay wedding? Never!" making it very blatant for the reasons. Because as you said, it's quite easy to give another official reason if you really don't want to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

I get the feeling that it went something like this "A wedding? Sure! Wait a minute. A gay wedding? Never!" making it very blatant for the reasons. Because as you said, it's quite easy to give another official reason if you really don't want to.

---

It does sound like that, he turned up for the big day then realised there were two grooms then pulled out. Obviously, the couple wanted pictures of the big day and those memories were kind of ruined and the photographer possibly didn't refund them too at first, so they started a legal battle to get their funds back and the fact their day was ruined, might have had the money returned, but they continued due to discrimination and the hard legal process they had to go through.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slyspy

What is the context of the refusal?

---

Most salient question about this entire thing. As clumsy as the law can be, it's very frequently about context, and it looks like we're missing all of it right now.

Were the couple getting married?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Were the couple getting married?

---

No, same-sex marriage is not legal in the state. It was a "commitment ceremony".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

It has come about as more of a preference, such as with food, try getting some one to eat something they dislike even though you might like it and viceversus. There is some thought that naturally, we are just instinctively horny animals which would hump anything (and lots of evidence to show that in practise on google) and it is society which helps moulds us to tame these wild ways. The whole idea of taking simply one 'mate' and performing marriage is unnatural, but that is the custom we have.

---

Might be true. But I personally think that it is good that such "natural" behaviors are suppressed whether they exist or not.

To those who say that 'This or that is unnatural for humans': are you grammatical prescriptivists?

Do you maintain that "May I have..." is the only proper English form, and that "Can I have..." is ungrammatical?

Grammar is just what people do, guys! Same with 'the natural'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

It is mostly that the Christian church since the early days sought an monopoly on sex. It wasn't the only religion and there were others with conflicting views.

---

Christian marriage Law just follows Roman Law, or Germanic Law depending on locality.

The only "Christian" part is the resistance to divorce.

On to the topic at hand - society in general has decided that being Gay is OK and disagreeing with being Gay is not OK. Ergo, you either photograph any "wedding" or none. The rational is that we have accepted that "Gay Marriage" is the same as "Marriage" and any discrimination at this point essentially refusing to accept the validity of the marriage.

I personally disagree with that view of technical grounds, but I lost the argument because nobody else on either side was interested in the technical question. So now I'm not allowed to air my views in public, or to act upon them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

No, same-sex marriage is not legal in the state. It was a "commitment ceremony".

---

Missed that.

Then the judges are technically wrong, and the case should be overturned on appeal because it sets bad precedent, that a "similar" situation is the same as an "equivalent" one.

I.E. That a non-legal ceremony is the same as a legal one.

Quote:

---

I personally disagree with that view of technical grounds, but I lost the argument because nobody else on either side was interested in the technical question. So now I'm not allowed to air my views in public, or to act upon them.

---

And you too, with your 'concepts can only mean what I'd like them to mean' hooey...

Well, on a personal level I have had people discriminate against me because of my beard. That may sound far out or like a bad joke, but it is the truth. Not only do you have people steer clear from you like you a dangerous caveman, but I have had people working in certain business when I spent some time in Madison and Chicago think I was a hobo who wandered my way in by accident (even though I was dressed similarly to some of the customers inside). From what I read, it seems those stupid Duck Dynasty brothers have had similar experiences in a hotel.
My guess is that this type of discrimination happens quite often, but famous people generally do not have big, bushy beards, so you do not hear about it much. Even in my hippie Uni I was treated weird and got a bunch of punk comments on my beard.
My point is that if someone chooses not to serve me because they think I am a hobo because of my beard, I'll happily take my business elsewhere. Sure, I think people who think poorly of people because of their facial hair are schmucks, but it their right to be so.
People gotta stop being so sue happy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

My guess is that this type of discrimination happens quite often, but famous people generally do not have big, bushy beards, so you do not hear about it much. Even in my hippie Uni I was treated weird and got a bunch of punk comments on my beard.
My point is that if someone chooses not to serve me because they think I am a hobo because of my beard, I'll happily take my business elsewhere. Sure, I think people who think poorly of people because of their facial hair are schmucks, but it their right to be so.
People gotta stop being so sue happy.

---

The rules are there to prevent systematic descrimination on something you can't really change (well you can change religion, but that not normally considered easy). It's usually gender, religion, etnicity and disabillity, but can also include LGBT, transpersons and age. If worst comes to worst, you can shave, they don't have that option. One or two places might not matter much, but all of them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Missed that.

Then the judges are technically wrong, and the case should be overturned on appeal because it sets bad precedent, that a "similar" situation is the same as an "equivalent" one.

I.E. That a non-legal ceremony is the same as a legal one.

---

Nah, it's rejecting the service because they are gay that's illegal, not the service itself. It would be the same decision if they choosed to not photograf them on a special holiday, a family photo etc, etc, only because they were gay and would do it for straight people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

The rules are there to prevent systematic descrimination on something you can't really change (well you can change religion, but that not normally considered easy). It's usually gender, religion, etnicity and disabillity, but can also include LGBT, transpersons and age. If worst comes to worst, you can shave, they don't have that option. One or two places might not matter much, but all of them?

---

First of all, it may not be easy, but you can choose to not be gay. Second of all, these people do not need to, because even if in the worst case scenario that they could get no professional to photograph their ceremony, they could still have a family member or friend do it. Also, that doesn't stop them from living together. To think though that majority (never mind the entirety) of professional photographers in the area would not photograph their ceremony is unrealistic I think.

Also, about the beard, it is not as easy as you think. My paternal grandfather was Jewish and always wore a long beard. My paternal grandmother was Norwegian and her father wore a large beard. My maternal grandfather wore a large beard, my father wore a beard nearly to his waste his whole life. All my brothers wear large beards, as do many of the men living around us (due in part to the fact that there are tons of Amish around).
I grew up in a very religious (Christian) family in which the men are expected to have beards, and to say "I will cut off my beard and become an entirely different person because some snobs do not like it." is just completely unrealistic. (it was hard enough to trim it down when I went abroad and to turn it into a goatee for my job)
Not to mention I have had it since I was 16, and am used to having a beard and not used to shaving (it comes in very handy when you are working in the cold).
Also, add on to that the fact that I have no chin whatsoever and would look like a scary cartoon character without it, and you can see why it is a very unreasonable thing to just say 'cut it off!'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Nah, it's rejecting the service because they are gay that's illegal, not the service itself. It would be the same decision if they choosed to not photograf them on a special holiday, a family photo etc, etc, only because they were gay and would do it for straight people.

---

Is that explicitly stated in Court documents - because here it's illegal to refuse marriage counselling to homosexual couples.Not "because they're Gay", but because you aren't allowed to say they aren't "married".And to Montmercy: You can flap you're gums as much as you like but you need grammar for that to mean anything.

Grammar is what we're doing right now, and it changes over time.

It's not something you dictate or preserve in perpetuity.

Vuk put yourself in their shoes. Could or would you become gay so a company would provide you it's services?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Vuk put yourself in their shoes. Could or would you become gay so a company would provide you it's services?

---

No, and I wouldn't shave my beard either. That is kind of my point though: it is not impossible, just unreasonable. There is a difference.
My point is that if a business doesn't want to serve you, you just gotta put your big boy panties on and suck it up and move on to a business that will.

Quote:

---

My point is that if a business doesn't want to serve you, you just gotta put your big boy panties on and suck it up and move on to a business that will.

---

What if this creates an excessive burden on the rejected customers? Why should that be taken as a matter of course?

At first I thought this was silly and an overreach of the judicial. But then I thought, how is this any different from southern lunch counters in the sixties being forced to serve blacks?

Making and serving lunch is not an example of protected free speech and expression like photography is. The fact that it's a business that provides photography and not a personal hobby is irrelevant. It's still free expression, just as a professional author has the right to free expression.

Question for those who support this court - would you support a law forcing poets to write wedding poems for couples they don't want to?

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Making and serving lunch is not an example of protected free speech and expression like photography is. The fact that it's a business that provides photography and not a personal hobby is irrelevant. It's still free expression, just as a professional author has the right to free expression.

Question for those who support this court - would you support a law forcing poets to write wedding poems for couples they don't want to?

CR

---

I guess the root of it is that when you offer your services as a commercial photographer, what you are saying is that the jobs you are going to do are no longer an expression of your own thoughts, feelings, and beliefs, but those of your clients, as they are paying you for the service and your art will be guided by their vision, not yours. You are merely the vehicle for their expression when under contract. Once your shingle is on the door offering your services for hire, unless a customer is actually asking you to do something illegal or something that you can prove would harm yourself or others, you just have to bite the bullet and do it. So yes, if the poet was advertising her services commercially as a pen for hire, I would support a law that prohibited her from refusing to serve gays at her lunch counter.

As a side note, I wonder if this case would have ever made it to court if the photographer had said "I'm sorry, but my personal and/or religious beliefs make me uncomfortable with the idea of homosexual relationships and marriage, so I am afraid I might not be the best person to hire to capture this very special day for you. I would be happy to refer you to my colleague, Mr. So-and-So, who is an excellent photographer and would be happy to have your business."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

I guess the root of it is that when you offer your services as a commercial photographer, what you are saying is that the jobs you are going to do are no longer an expression of your own thoughts, feelings, and beliefs, but those of your clients, as they are paying you for the service and your art will be guided by their vision, not yours. You are merely the vehicle for their expression when under contract. Once your shingle is on the door offering your services for hire, unless a customer is actually asking you to do something illegal or something that you can prove would harm yourself or others, you just have to bite the bullet and do it. So yes, if the poet was advertising her services commercially as a pen for hire, I would support a law that prohibited her from refusing to serve gays at her lunch counter.

As a side note, I wonder if this case would have ever made it to court if the photographer had said "I'm sorry, but my personal and/or religious beliefs make me uncomfortable with the idea of homosexual relationships and marriage, so I am afraid I might not be the best person to hire to capture this very special day for you. I would be happy to refer you to my colleague, Mr. So-and-So, who is an excellent photographer and would be happy to have your business."

---

But if they find gay marriage offensive, shouldn't they be able to refuse? A dog breeder has the right to not sell a dog to a customer if they don't like the customer. What if it was a NAMBLA meeting and they wanted them to photograph it? Should they be forced to do that too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

But if they find gay marriage offensive, shouldn't they be able to refuse? A dog breeder has the right to not sell a dog to a customer if they don't like the customer. What if it was a NAMBLA meeting and they wanted them to photograph it? Should they be forced to do that too?

---

Does a dog breeder really have the right to refuse to sell a dog to a customer just because he "doesn't like" them, or is it only if he believes they are unfit pet owners and he would be putting the dog in a harmful environment if he sold to them? I believe I already said that the latter reason for refusal of service should be protected in my original post. As for NAMBLA (that old chestnut), if it is just to photograph a meeting where nothing illegal or harmful is happening, then I guess he would have to do it. However, I imagine that it would be easy to make a case that any discussion that takes place at a NAMBLA meeting is harmful to others and/or illegal, since they would most likely be openly discussing and promoting the idea of older men diddling underage boys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Does a dog breeder really have the right to refuse to sell a dog to a customer just because he "doesn't like" them, or is it only if he believes they are unfit pet owners and he would be putting the dog in a harmful environment if he sold to them? I believe I already said that the latter reason for refusal of service should be protected in my original post. As for NAMBLA (that old chestnut), if it is just to photograph a meeting where nothing illegal or harmful is happening, then I guess he would have to do it. However, I imagine that it would be easy to make a case that any discussion that takes place at a NAMBLA meeting is harmful to others and/or illegal, since they would most likely be openly discussing and promoting the idea of older men diddling underage boys.

---

A dog breeder can refuse to sell you a dog for any reason except a small group of legally protected criteria (sex, race, age, etc). He may not think that you will abuse the dog, but maybe he thinks you are just a redneck and don't deserve one of the dogs he breeds. Maybe he wants to make sure all his dogs end up being pampered in well-to-do homes, or maybe wants them all to end up in homes where they are gonna be shown. It is up to the breeder.
Suppose it is just a NAMBLA meeting discussing political activism to overturn laws prohibiting Man-Boy-Love which they think are wrong and outdated? Who are you to deny them even though you have a strong moral objection?
You should not be able to force people to provide a service like that to a venue they disagree with, whether that is a gay marriage or a NAMBLA or KKK meeting. Would you force a gay guy to photograph a church event for a church that condemns homosexuality as ungodly and thinks it should be illegal? Of course not, it would not be right. Why should it be right the other way around just because you disagree with their beliefs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Grammar is what we're doing right now, and it changes over time.

It's not something you dictate or preserve in perpetuity.

---

Your shaky understanding of linguistics fails you.

When "marriage" is understood to mean "the physical joining of one man and one woman" it naturally excludes homosexuals couples, as well as un-consummated marriages. Notably, un-consummated marriages are known throughout history, and they often resulted in divorce (as opposed to consummated marriages).

The current bill passing through the British Parliament does not allow for the consummation of a homosexual union (because that it technically impossible) but instead side-steps the issue.

Now - because the meaning of the word marriage has been abandoned, and the word attached to the meaning "a union between two people who love each other, recognised by the State" we now apply a syntactical qualification, being "straight" or "gay".

Put another way - in Latin I can say "te amo" or "amo te" but in English I cannot say "I love" or "love I", the statements are meaningless. They require syntactical qualification because they lack grammar.

Now - the point in question is really very important, because laws are drafted using words, and they will be on the statute books for centuries, and you cannot re-interpret them because you don't understand what the original jurist meant.

The case in-point is that the US has had to specifically outlaw homosexual marriage because the Constitution and existing laws did not explicitly state the nature of "marriage". This was a legal absurdity, because the framers of said Laws took the understanding of the word "marriage" to intrinsically mean a heterosexual union.

But, you know, who cares right?

We can just re-interpret laws whenever we like as our taste in words changes, so "Slavery" can become "Freedom" and "Freedom" can become "Slavery" and...

Oh wait, didn't George Orwell have something to say about this?

Quote:

---

Put another way - in Latin I can say "te amo" or "amo te" but in English I cannot say "I love" or "love I", the statements are meaningless. They require syntactical qualification because they lack grammar.

---

And over time, the grammar of English could change so that this is possible.

Quote:

---

Now - the point in question is really very important, because laws are drafted using words, and they will be on the statute books for centuries, and you cannot re-interpret them because you don't understand what the original jurist meant.

---

Laws should not be on the book for "centuries". Would you lament the laws of Shakespeare's time (assuming any such hold-overs) because we have a different interpretation of them now? What a rigid and backwards view of the law; get a grip.

Quote:

---

The case in-point is that the US has had to specifically outlaw homosexual marriage because the Constitution and existing laws did not explicitly state the nature of "marriage". This was a legal absurdity, because the framers of said Laws took the understanding of the word "marriage" to intrinsically mean a heterosexual union.

---

This is exactly why laws should not be retained for perpetuity without amendment at the least.

Quote:

---

We can just re-interpret laws whenever we like as our taste in words changes

---

Or, we could update them to reflect new meanings? :shocked:

My, what an idea.

Quote:

---

Your shaky understanding of linguistics fails you.

---

Not seeing anything new here, just more prescriptivist rubbish...

Another thing:

We're not really talking about word definitions per se here, but specifically legal definitions.

Words broaden their meaning all the time. They go from specific origins to broad figurative application. 'A marriage of ideas', for instance.

So it's not actually the definition of marriage overall that's changing, but "marriage" as a legal and social status.

"Marriage" is already often taken to mean something like "intimate union".

Yet you would specifically keep the social-legal sense of marriage as "between man and woman", because only man and woman could be "husband and wife" in your eyes.

This is pretty much religious bigotry, just up and admit it. You don't want these upstarts in your traditional club.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

And over time, the grammar of English could change so that this is possible.

---

That's the point, it was possible and now is not because of the loss of grammar.

Abandoning Grammar is a choice which narrows your frame of reference, it does not expand it. It is a poor parallel for you to draw.

Quote:

---

Laws should not be on the book for "centuries". Would you lament the laws of Shakespeare's time (assuming any such hold-overs) because we have a different interpretation of them now? What a rigid and backwards view of the law; get a grip.

---

No - you get a grip.

Laws from Shakespeare's time need to be interpreted in their original frame of reference, granted that the practical circumstances of the day may alter how that law is applied but the wording of the Law must not be sidestepped because we have a different understanding of a particular adjective.

For example - "Malice of forethought" means "with intention to act" with regard to the Common Law definition of "murder" in the UK, it does not mean "with intent to kill" if defense lawyers could argue that it did then they could get their clients off.

If you don't like a Law you change it, ignoring it or fantastically reinterpreting it weakens the legal institutions.

Quote:

---

This is exactly why laws should not be retained for perpetuity without amendment at the least.

---

I agree, but Gay-Rights activists should not have been able to use that argument. As a result you have had states pass laws restricting the rights of homosexuals. So, now instead of having to pass a Law to include homosexuals you now have to repeal a law that deliberately excludes them. Not only is this absurd, but it is proving predictable hard to do.

Quote:

---

Or, we could update them to reflect new meanings? :shocked:

---

Err yes - was this not obviously my point?

Quote:

---

Not seeing anything new here, just more prescriptivist rubbish...

---

Learn a little about linguistics first, please, at least as much as I do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Another thing:

We're not really talking about word definitions per se here, but specifically legal definitions.

---

Well - legal wording - yes.

The difficulty when the two diverge is that the people might not understand their Laws - but that's not exactly a new problem.

Quote:

---

Words broaden their meaning all the time. They go from specific origins to broad figurative application. 'A marriage of ideas', for instance.

---

You've applied a rhetorical figure - one that means "the joining together of disparate ideas". The figure clearly references the heterosexual concept of marriage.

Beyond that - words fluctuate in use - there's no specific rule that says definitions broaden over time. For example, the definition of "Buxom" which originally meant "pliable" or "willing" broadened to encompass the figures of "willing" tavern maid and prostitutes, and now refers specifically to a type of figure men find desirable.

Quote:

---

So it's not actually the definition of marriage overall that's changing, but "marriage" as a legal and social status.

---

What has changed is a movement of "marriage" as primarily a contractual arrangement to regulate the parentage of children to a primarily social arrangement that validates the emotional relationship between two people. Both these meanings were and are present but there has been a rapid shift in emphasis in a small number of Western Countries (and it really is a small number) in about a generation.

Quote:

---

"Marriage" is already often taken to mean something like "intimate union".

---

True - but the point is this jives neither with traditional usage or with Laws as they stand prior to amendment. The UK Bill currently under consideration is just such a fudge. After it become law I will still be able to annul
my marriage if, after the ceremony, I discover that my new wife is carrying another man's child. HOWEVER, none of my Lesbian friends will be able to do the same.

How is that fair?

Quote:

---

Yet you would specifically keep the social-legal sense of marriage as "between man and woman", because only man and woman could be "husband and wife" in your eyes.

---

No - I said that the legal definition of marriage is this. The laws being passed currently just tack some rights on for homosexuals. The reason for this is simple, nobody (least of all politicians) want to admit the truth, that marriage as a legal institution has effectively ceased to exist in the West. the only vestige remaining pertains to divorce (division of wealth) and death (inheritance) both of which can be more easily and cheaply resolved by writing contracts.

A Solicitor costs less than a wedding.

Quote:

---

This is pretty much religious bigotry, just up and admit it. You don't want these upstarts in your traditional club.

---

Oh?

Where?

Because I happen to have an appreciation of the legal and historical context, and a lack of sentiment?

Quote:

---

Abandoning Grammar is a choice which narrows your frame of reference, it does not expand it. It is a poor parallel for you to draw.

---

How is it "abandoning grammar"?

Quote:

---

The figure clearly references the heterosexual concept of marriage.

---

How? Seriously, explain that one.

Quote:

---

Beyond that - words fluctuate in use - there's no specific rule that says definitions broaden over time. For example,the definition of "Buxom" which originally meant "pliable" or "willing" broadened to encompass the figures of "willing" tavern maid and prostitutes, and now refers specifically to a type of figure men find desirable.

---

I just said that "words broaden their meanings all the time", not "all words always..."

***

So I take it that you fault whatever is going on in the UK for not going far enough, not because you're particularly concerned for the gays, but because legal kludges weaken the authority and coherence of the legal system.

You want a clear, concrete and widely applicable legal redefinition of marriage.

That's it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

A dog breeder can refuse to sell you a dog for any reason except a small group of legally protected criteria (sex, race, age, etc).

---

Typically, sexual orientation is on that list as well, at least in places that value human rights. So you have just defeated your own point. If a dog breeder cannot refuse to sell to you because you are black, or female, then he should not be allowed to refuse to sell to you because you are gay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

He may not think that you will abuse the dog, but maybe he thinks you are just a redneck and don't deserve one of the dogs he breeds. Maybe he wants to make sure all his dogs end up being pampered in well-to-do homes, or maybe wants them all to end up in homes where they are gonna be shown. It is up to the breeder.
Suppose it is just a NAMBLA meeting discussing political activism to overturn laws prohibiting Man-Boy-Love which they think are wrong and outdated? Who are you to deny them even though you have a strong moral objection?

---

My objection to diddling little boys has nothing to do with morality. Rather, it is based on proof that an adult having sexual relations with a minor is harmful to the minor. Homosexuals being allowed to marry (or just being allowed to be, for that matter) harms nobody. I do note however that you have managed to sneak pedophilia into a discussion about homosexuals, which is a common tactic of the right. Nicely done. But there is really no relevance in your comparison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

You should not be able to force people to provide a service like that to a venue they disagree with, whether that is a gay marriage or a NAMBLA or KKK meeting. Would you force a gay guy to photograph a church event for a church that condemns homosexuality as ungodly and thinks it should be illegal? Of course not, it would not be right. Why should it be right the other way around just because you disagree with their beliefs?

---

Homosexuality is not a "belief." Hatred of homosexuals is a belief. If the church event was a legal event that was not harming anyone else (by, for example, inciting discrimination against homosexuals) then I would have the law apply the same way. Would you allow a town with only one grocery store to starve a gay man to death because the grocer was a bigot who didn't like homosexuals?

Your post is riddled with hypocrisies and inaccuracies, so allow me to tackle it piece at a time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Typically, sexual orientation is on that list as well, at least in places that value human rights. So you have just defeated your own point. If a dog breeder cannot refuse to sell to you because you are black, or female, then he should not be allowed to refuse to sell to you because you are gay.

---

You would have some kind of point if being gay was something like being black or male that you were just born with. The science is not settled on that, so any legislative protections would be premature.
If you have to serve customers and cannot make exceptions for sexual orientation, then does that mean that a gay dude who runs a gay bar cannot turn straight couples away if they come to his business? Of course that should be his right, and it should be the right someone to turn a homosexual away if they think their actions/beliefs conflict with their morals/philosophy or that of their business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

My objection to diddling little boys has nothing to do with morality. Rather, it is based on proof that an adult having sexual relations with a minor is harmful to the minor.

---

So what? Who cares if it is harmful to the minor? The reason that you think someone 'innocent' (and indeed the very concepts of innocence and guilt) being harmed is wrong is based in your moral beliefs. If you have no morals then you are a fracking piece of rock. Even cold-blooded killers have morals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Homosexuals being allowed to marry (or just being allowed to be, for that matter) harms nobody.

---

Says who? There is a considerable amount of evidence suppressed by the scientific community and lobbyist groups linking homosexual sex to the spread and mutation of some of the world's most horrible diseases. What you do in the bed room doesn't stay in the bed room when you spread a disease around that kills millions. God did not create our bodies to engage in homosexual sex, and when you use it in such a way it is not intended for, there are unintended consequences.

Also, endorsing homosexuality and legitimizing it will only help it to spread. Gay people are the victims of hormonal imbalance or sexual/mental trauma usually. Being gay is not emotionally healthy, and helping spread it hurts people.
You can call me a crazy bigot all you want, but every single gay person I have ever known has been either the victim of sexual abuse (usually by a gay rapist), or been preyed upon when they were at a very emotionally vulnerable mental state, or have severe hormone imbalance. No matter what, it is not healthy. I don't think gays are evil (you have evil one and good ones, just like with straights), but I do think their life style is not emotionally or physically healthy, and I don't think it would be a good thing for society to make it seem acceptable to young people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

I do note however that you have managed to sneak pedophilia into a discussion about homosexuals, which is a common tactic of the right. Nicely done. But there is really no relevance in your comparison.

---

It was actually not intentional, but for you to say that there is not a strong correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia is dishonest. Like I said, most gay people I know well have been victims of abuse when they were children (most gay celebrities I know of too). I don't think that by any stretch that all gay/bi people are pedophiles, but I do think that most pedophiles are gay/bi.
Ever hear of a North American Man/Girl Love Association or North American Woman/boy Love Association? No, me neither.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Homosexuality is not a "belief."

---

Having gay sex is not a belief, but believing that gay marriage and gay sex is acceptable is. Wouldn't going to such a wedding condone that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Hatred of homosexuals is a belief.

---

Hating homosexuals? Who said anything about that? Is thinking that cancer is an unhealthy disease and detesting it the same thing as hating a cancer patient? I disagree with homosexuality, but that does not mean I hate homosexuals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

If the church event was a legal event that was not harming anyone else (by, for example, inciting discrimination against homosexuals) then I would have the law apply the same way.

---

See what you did there? You say that just by holding their beliefs they are harming others! Of course many people believe that homosexuality harms society, so they would believe that a gay wedding is just as offensive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Would you allow a town with only one grocery store to starve a gay man to death because the grocer was a bigot who didn't like homosexuals?

---

First of all, I would love to see a town that only had one place to eat and no other place to get food in an acceptable travel distance. If it is out in the sticks, then the guy has a vehicle as you cannot get around without one. If it is an urban area, then there is more than one place to eat.
In your hypothetical situation though, the grocer would be harming the man. Not taking wedding pictures or selling someone a dog does not harm them, so there is a world of difference. Add into that that we are talking about businesses that are an expression of the business owner your analogy falls apart completely.

Quote:

---

If you have to serve customers and cannot make exceptions for sexual orientation, then does that mean that a gay dude who runs a gay bar cannot turn straight couples away if they come to his business?

---

Jeez, then where would the straight women go? :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Your post is riddled with hypocrisies and inaccuracies, so allow me to tackle it piece at a time.


You would have some kind of point if being gay was something like being black or male that you were just born with. The science is not settled on that, so any legislative protections would be premature.
If you have to serve customers and cannot make exceptions for sexual orientation, then does that mean that a gay dude who runs a gay bar cannot turn straight couples away if they come to his business? Of course that should be his right, and it should be the right someone to turn a homosexual away if they think their actions/beliefs conflict with their morals/philosophy or that of their business.

---

No, it should not. That is where our fundamental disagreement lies. Turning away anyone from any business based on sexual orientation, gay or straight, should not be allowed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

So what? Who cares if it is harmful to the minor? The reason that you think someone 'innocent' (and indeed the very concepts of innocence and guilt) being harmed is wrong is based in your moral beliefs. If you have no morals then you are a fracking piece of rock. Even cold-blooded killers have morals.

---

Sure, if you want to say a belief in not harming others is a moral belief that's fine. I then propose that this is the only morality that should have any value, as it is also practical. All other moral beliefs are based on trying to force others to behave as you want them to simply because you find behaviour to the contrary offensive, either due to religious beliefs or social/cultural prejudices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Says who? There is a considerable amount of evidence suppressed by the scientific community and lobbyist groups linking homosexual sex to the spread and mutation of some of the world's most horrible diseases. What you do in the bed room doesn't stay in the bed room when you spread a disease around that kills millions. God did not create our bodies to engage in homosexual sex, and when you use it in such a way it is not intended for, there are unintended consequences.

---

That's where you lose me. I will never accept "God doesn't want you to" as a legitimate argument about any topic. It has no basis in logic and "God's will" can be made to serve whatever purpose anybody wants. It has no validity whatsoever. And there is absolutely no research suggesting anything you said was true with respect to disease.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Also, endorsing homosexuality and legitimizing it will only help it to spread. Gay people are the victims of hormonal imbalance or sexual/mental trauma usually. Being gay is not emotionally healthy, and helping spread it hurts people.
You can call me a crazy bigot all you want, but every single gay person I have ever known has been either the victim of sexual abuse (usually by a gay rapist), or been preyed upon when they were at a very emotionally vulnerable mental state, or have severe hormone imbalance. No matter what, it is not healthy. I don't think gays are evil (you have evil one and good ones, just like with straights), but I do think their life style is not emotionally or physically healthy, and I don't think it would be a good thing for society to make it seem acceptable to young people.

---

You have the cause and effect reversed. Gay people don't have hard lives because they are gay. They have hard lives because society generally treats them like second class citizens. And, for the record, almost without exception, the gay people I know are happy, healthy, adn successful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

It was actually not intentional, but for you to say that there is not a strong correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia is dishonest. Like I said, most gay people I know well have been victims of abuse when they were children (most gay celebrities I know of too). I don't think that by any stretch that all gay/bi people are pedophiles, but I do think that most pedophiles are gay/bi.
Ever hear of a North American Man/Girl Love Association or North American Woman/boy Love Association? No, me neither.

---

How many websites come up if you google "lolita" or "teen girls," all of which aimed at heterosexual men? There is no evidence to support a link between pedophilia and homosexuality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Having gay sex is not a belief, but believing that gay marriage and gay sex is acceptable is. Wouldn't going to such a wedding condone that?




Hating homosexuals? Who said anything about that? Is thinking that cancer is an unhealthy disease and detesting it the same thing as hating a cancer patient? I disagree with homosexuality, but that does not mean I hate homosexuals.

---

Sorry, I wasn't implying that you in particular hate homosexuals, only that there are people who do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

See what you did there? You say that just by holding their beliefs they are harming others! Of course many people believe that homosexuality harms society, so they would believe that a gay wedding is just as offensive.

---

Sorry, to be clear: It's not their beliefs that are causing harm. It's the actions they take (discrimination, for example) based on those beliefs that cause harm. You're free to believe whatever you want. As long as you don't harm others and try to use your beliefs as justification.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

First of all, I would love to see a town that only had one place to eat and no other place to get food in an acceptable travel distance. If it is out in the sticks, then the guy has a vehicle as you cannot get around without one. If it is an urban area, then there is more than one place to eat.
In your hypothetical situation though, the grocer would be harming the man. Not taking wedding pictures or selling someone a dog does not harm them, so there is a world of difference. Add into that that we are talking about businesses that are an expression of the business owner your analogy falls apart completely.

---

So it's okay to deny some services but not others? How do we decide which ones? Should there be a big list? As far as the "expression" aspect goes, as I said before: when you, as a photog take on a commercial contract, the creativity, thoughts and ideas you are being paid to express are not yours, but those of your customer. This is not a freedom of expression issue. Using your argument, a bricklayer or a landscaper could refuse to work on a gay man's property because he believed his "art" would be compromised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I personally disagree with that view of technical grounds, but I lost the argument because nobody else on either side was interested in the technical question. So now I'm not allowed to air my views in public, or to act upon them.

---

Mostly due to the technical definition you give in no longer valid in society, it is out of touch with modern reality. Marriage is not seen as something as the sole purpose of reproduction, marriage is seen as a commitment between two people who love each-other. The whole children part is counted separately. In this, whether is it man, women, either, in combination, it is simply two people loving each other. Parenting is separate, it can occur before and after marriage, especially as there are many options such as fostering/adopting which doesn't require the two people involved to put the bun in the oven.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

So I take it that you fault whatever is going on in the UK for not going far enough, not because you're particularly concerned for the gays, but because legal kludges weaken the authority and coherence of the legal system.

You want a clear, concrete and widely applicable legal redefinition of marriage.

That's it?

---

No - I want the legal abolition of marriage, because anything less will sow confusion. With the advent of genetic testing women no longer need a piece of paper to prove who the father of their children is.

All marriage is used for today is to regulate divorce, which just creates more money for lawyers. Much better for people to sign a contract saying how their goods will be divided up. That would protect people who "don't want to get married" for whatever reason by making it clear to them that they need a contract.

Currently, those people are left high and dry because their "Common Law" marriages are not recognised.

The other key point to understand is that, given the historical dynastic role of marriage, I don't consider the "exclusion" of homosexuals to be an injustice. Indeed, the fact that it is now seen as an injustice proves to my mind that "marriage" has now ceased to resemble the institution with which it shares a name.

It's a fact of historical record that the early Church conducted homosexual unions, but they couched those unions in terms of the erotic love between the couple, not in the matrimonial terms of family.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

Mostly due to the technical definition you give in no longer valid in society, it is out of touch with modern reality. Marriage is not seen as something as the sole purpose of reproduction, marriage is seen as a commitment between two people who love each-other. The whole children part is counted separately. In this, whether is it man, women, either, in combination, it is simply two people loving each other. Parenting is separate, it can occur before and after marriage, especially as there are many options such as fostering/adopting which doesn't require the two people involved to put the bun in the oven.

---

Oh don't be sappy - what you've basically said is that the thing people do now in getting "married" is a different thing to what their parents did. Basically, people no longer get married - they just have a big expensive party that looks a bit like a wedding.

See above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

First of all, it may not be easy, but you can choose to not be gay.

---

How does one choose not to be gay? Can you explain in more detail?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Says who? There is a considerable amount of evidence suppressed by the scientific community and lobbyist groups linking homosexual sex to the spread and mutation of some of the world's most horrible diseases. What you do in the bed room doesn't stay in the bed room when you spread a disease around that kills millions. God did not create our bodies to engage in homosexual sex, and when you use it in such a way it is not intended for, there are unintended consequences.

Also, endorsing homosexuality and legitimizing it will only help it to spread. Gay people are the victims of hormonal imbalance or sexual/mental trauma usually. Being gay is not emotionally healthy, and helping spread it hurts people.
You can call me a crazy bigot all you want, but every single gay person I have ever known has been either the victim of sexual abuse (usually by a gay rapist), or been preyed upon when they were at a very emotionally vulnerable mental state, or have severe hormone imbalance. No matter what, it is not healthy. I don't think gays are evil (you have evil one and good ones, just like with straights), but I do think their life style is not emotionally or physically healthy, and I don't think it would be a good thing for society to make it seem acceptable to young people.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

but for you to say that there is not a strong correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia is dishonest. Like I said, most gay people I know well have been victims of abuse when they were children (most gay celebrities I know of too). I don't think that by any stretch that all gay/bi people are pedophiles, but I do think that most pedophiles are gay/bi.

---

Where are you getting this from? Can you source any of it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

It has no validity whatsoever. And there is absolutely no research suggesting anything you said was true with respect to disease.You have the cause and effect reversed. Gay people don't have hard lives because they are gay. They have hard lives because society generally treats them like second class citizens. And, for the record, almost without exception, the gay people I know are happy, healthy, adn successful.How many websites come up if you google "lolita" or "teen girls," all of which aimed at heterosexual men? There is no evidence to support a link between pedophilia and homosexuality.

---

I know you won't trust the site, but I don't think you can argue that their sources are legit.
http://www.frc.org/?i=IS01B1

Even look at this article sticking up for gays: http://www.politifact.com/virginia/s...-cuts-life-ex/
It states that though what the guy said was the truth in the 90's, it no longer is because we have gotten better at treating AIDs.

This dude has a point, it is basically playing in the toilet. How disgusting is it to dip your penis into fecal matter? That is something you would expect from an animal, not a human. how can that be healthy? You wonder why the gay community is so diseased...
http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22Sx...osx_lifspn.htm


I know you are gonna say "Oh I cannot read those or believe them because the people writing them are Christian!", but keep in mind that they are also scientists in the field with PhDs and quote many sources you would trust to back up their arguments.
http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.asp

The list goes on and on. That is just a few from a quick Google search.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

How does one choose not to be gay? Can you explain in more detail?

---

By not buggering men. (in the case of males) I thought that would be pretty obvious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

By not buggering men. (in the case of males) I thought that would be pretty obvious.

---

By that logic, finding yourself not having sexual relations with women means you are not heterosexual?
I am sure you would disagree with that assertion.

Though, a famous example of some one not having sexual relations with those of the same gender even though experiencing sexual attraction is Stephen Fry.

Anyway, the definitions are pretty much as follows:

homosexual: sexual attraction to those of the same sex
heterosexual: sexual attraction to those of the opposite sex.
bisexual: sexual attraction to those of either sex.
pansexual: sexual attraction regardless of sex.
demisexual: sexual attraction based on emotional bonding. (can have preference)
asexual: no sexual attraction regardless of sex.

Not performing an act is separate does not make you "not-homo" "not-hetero" etc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

I know you won't trust the site, but I don't think you can argue that their sources are legit.
http://www.frc.org/?i=IS01B1

---

The sources may be legit, but the interpretation is extremely flawed. For example, one of the authors, in trying to argue that the gay population is only 0.5% of the population instead of the more generally accepted 10%, uses survey data from homosexuals that says a very small number of them have had only same-sex partners their whole lives. This ignores that fact the many homosexuals fight against their own sexuality at first because society treats them so badly that they want to at least give heterosexuality a try. Look at the flip side. Many heterosexuals experiment at least once in their lives with homosexual sex. Does that make them not true heterosexuals?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Even look at this article sticking up for gays: http://www.politifact.com/virginia/s...-cuts-life-ex/
It states that though what the guy said was the truth in the 90's, it no longer is because we have gotten better at treating AIDs.

This dude has a point, it is basically playing in the toilet. How disgusting is it to dip your penis into fecal matter? That is something you would expect from an animal, not a human. how can that be healthy? You wonder why the gay community is so diseased...
http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22Sx...osx_lifspn.htm

---

The human mouth is one of the most unclean and bacteria-ridden parts of the body. Yet heterosexuals regularly mate it with the penis and the vagina, and the anus. Many men enjoy and engage in anal sex with women, as well. No wonder the heterosexual community is so diseased.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

I know you are gonna say "Oh I cannot read those or believe them because the people writing them are Christian!", but keep in mind that they are also scientists in the field with PhDs and quote many sources you would trust to back up their arguments.
http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.asp

The list goes on and on. That is just a few from a quick Google search.




By not buggering men. (in the case of males) I thought that would be pretty obvious.

---

That point was nicely covered already by Tiaexz. Your arguments are based on nothing more than yout personal feelings. As with the sources you quited above, you have used the common Christian tactic: You decide what the answer is then try to make the data conform to your belief. That is not science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

By that logic, finding yourself not having sexual relations with women means you are not heterosexual?
I am sure you would disagree with that assertion.

Though, a famous example of some one not having sexual relations with those of the same gender even though experiencing sexual attraction is Stephen Fry.

Anyway, the definitions are pretty much as follows:

homosexual: sexual attraction to those of the same sex
heterosexual: sexual attraction to those of the opposite sex.
bisexual: sexual attraction to those of either sex.
pansexual: sexual attraction regardless of sex.
demisexual: sexual attraction based on emotional bonding. (can have preference)
asexual: no sexual attraction regardless of sex.

Not performing an act is separate does not make you "not-homo" "not-hetero" etc

---

Like many psychological conditions, if you abstain from the behavior, the desire will eventually subside. That probably is not true for people suffering from hormone imbalance, but that can be treated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Look at the flip side. Many heterosexuals experiment at least once in their lives with homosexual sex. Does that make them not true heterosexuals?

---

Yeah. It makes them bi. A heterosexual is someone who is only attracted to/only has willing sex with people of the opposite gender. Just like a homosexual is someone who is only attracted to/only has willing sex with people of the same gender. If you do both, then you are bi or one of the other ridiculous PC terms people come up with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

The human mouth is one of the most unclean and bacteria-ridden parts of the body. Yet heterosexuals regularly mate it with the penis and the vagina, and the anus. Many men enjoy and engage in anal sex with women, as well. No wonder the heterosexual community is so diseased.

---

There is a reason that sodomy was traditionally banned, and not just amongst homosexuals. (sodomy includes oral sex) Unfortunately unhealthy practices from the gay community have corrupted the straight community as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

You decide what the answer is then try to make the data conform to your belief. That is not science.

---

Actually mate, he very nicely proved that studies suggesting a causal link between patterns in the brain and homosexual behavior have never been replicated or stood up to peer review. To be scientific something needs to be observable and you need to be able to replicate it.
It is funny that what you accuse Christians of doing is exactly what the pro-gay community does. They see man buggering as a human right, so they try to invent science to legitimize their unhealthy addiction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Like many psychological conditions, if you abstain from the behavior, the desire will eventually subside. That probably is not true for people suffering from hormone imbalance, but that can be treated.

---

snip

Quote:

---

Yeah. It makes them bi. A heterosexual is someone who is only attracted to/only has willing sex with people of the opposite gender. Just like a homosexual is someone who is only attracted to/only has willing sex with people of the same gender. If you do both, then you are bi or one of the other ridiculous PC terms people come up with.

---

Sustained practice of both makes you bi, experimenting a few times to see if that is who you are does not forever make you bi.

Quote:

---

There is a reason that sodomy was traditionally banned, and not just amongst homosexuals. (sodomy includes oral sex) Unfortunately unhealthy practices from the gay community have corrupted the straight community as well.

---

There was a reason that jews were traditionally persecuted. What does this have to do with anything?

Quote:

---

Actually mate, he very nicely proved that studies suggesting a causal link between patterns in the brain and homosexual behavior have never been replicated or stood up to peer review. To be scientific something needs to be observable and you need to be able to replicate it.
It is funny that what you accuse Christians of doing is exactly what the pro-gay community does. They see man buggering as a human right, so they try to invent science to legitimize their unhealthy addiction.

---

Can you please link to studies showing that gays are more unhealthy than straight people?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

snip

---

Chill mate. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean you should go around swearing and insulting them. Or is this a personal issue for you? In all seriousness though, I am actually most likely better educated than you, so I wouldn't go bringing that up if I were you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Sustained practice of both makes you bi, experimenting a few times to see if that is who you are does not forever make you bi.

---

So if I just experiment with rape once I am not a rapist? Ok, I see how this works now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

There was a reason that jews were traditionally persecuted. What does this have to do with anything?

---

Yes, and a bad reason. Whereas the reason sodomy was outlawed was actually a really good reason: public health.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Can you please link to studies showing that gays are more unhealthy than straight people?

---

Ah, I see then that you have not read the articles I posted already.

Do you really need a study though to prove that sticking your schlong in a man's crap-shute with all his crap is less healthy than straight intercourse?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Chill mate. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean you should go around swearing and insulting them. Or is this a personal issue for you? In all seriousness though, I am actually most likely better educated than you, so I wouldn't go bringing that up if I were you.

---

For real.

Quote:

---

Ah, I see then that you have not read the articles I posted already.

Do you really need a study though to prove that sticking your schlong in a man's crap-shute with all his crap is less healthy than straight intercourse?

---

Well said, good man. Well said.

It is a personal issue because I actually know gay people. And they are not unclean, they are not gay by choice.

I don't tolerant blatant ignorance of someones identity. I have been personally criticized by people in the backroom when I attacked other members religiosity. But apparently, give Vuk the microphone and lets let him talk because it's "unfair" we just ridicule him all the time. Now we have a whole thread where Vuk tries to argue that sodomy laws back in the middle ages are relevant to criticise gays because of "unclean poop sex" since there is obviously no such thing as an anal cleansing nowadays. I mean every anal scene in porn has the males just COVERED in poop right?

There is no discussion with the Grand Wizard and there is no discussion with people who condemn self exploration with blanket black and white terms.

I have never respected you Vuk and this can be my first official infraction/ban for the year. I have seen too much suffering first hand to hear this garbage here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

It is a personal issue because I actually know gay people.

---

First of all, thanks for making my day man! You are better than television.
Second of all, who cares if you know gay people? Why does that make it personal? I know gay as well...heck, everyone on earth probably knows somebody gay. I know pastry chefs, does that make their plight personal to me? I know plumbers, does that mean I should take the plight of plumbers personally?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

And they are not unclean.

---

What exactly do you mean by unclean? If you literally mean "not clean", then so is everyone else. If you mean "unnatural and evil", then you are obviously not responding to me. All I said is a type of sex is unhealthy. Working in a sewer is unhealthy, but that doesn't mean I'd classify those who do as "unclean". That is a very loaded word that you injected into the conversation my friend, not me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

they are not gay by choice.

---

Of course you know this for a fact because you are a god who knows everything, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I don't tolerant blatant ignorance of someones identity.

---

Really? Like when you said "You are a backwards, uneducated, uncultured ****."?
If you will not 'tolerate' someone disagreeing with you on the definition of a word or concept, then why do you bother discussing it? Why not just gather about a big group of homies who think just like you are all pat each other on the back and affirm the common belief? Surely that would be less stressful for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I have been personally criticized by people in the backroom when I attacked other members religiosity.

---

You attack people's religion? My, my, I don't believe it! And tell me my excitable friend, were they doing the right things by attacking you personally, or being emotional, illogical buffoons? Food for thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Now we have a whole thread where Vuk tries to argue that sodomy laws back in the middle ages are relevant to criticise gays because of "unclean poop sex" since there is obviously no such thing as an anal cleansing nowadays.

---

Really? That was my argument? Wow, I guess the boogey monsters must have deleted where I posted that! lol
As far as I remember, I neither mentioned the middle ages, or condoned any sodomy law. I said there was a reason for sodomy laws; not that any particular sodomy law was ever properly implemented. I obviously, for instance, don't condone the capital punishment that went along with breaking most of those laws.
Sure, there are anal cleansings, but that does not remove the bacteria. If you do remove the bacteria, then you are gonna have major health problems and not be able to digest your food properly.
Ever hear of "Dirty Sanchez"? Clean, right? But of course, all these guys stop and cleanse their colon before sex (even though a massive amount of the gay male community loves random hook-ups with random strangers in random places at random times...let me guess, after they meet in the bathroom one tells the other "Hold on mate, let me cleanse my colon over the sink before you bugger me"). Be serious, we cannot even get teens to use condoms. You really think most gay men do a colon cleanse before they bugger?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I mean every anal scene in porn has the males just COVERED in poop right?

---

Well, I guess I will have to defer to your knowledge of gay porn, as I have had no experiences with it myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

There is no discussion with the Grand Wizard and there is no discussion with people who condemn self exploration with blanket black and white terms.

---

The Grand Wizard? Oh, you mean the guy who blows up every time someone disagrees with him and refuses to actually answer their arguments? Yeah, I know what you mean...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I have never respected you Vuk

---

Is this supposed to be news or something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

this can be my first official infraction/ban for the year.

---

Actually, with the number of times you have behaved disrespectfully to other members this year, I think it says lots about the moderation here that this will be your first infraction.
(No offense mods who actually do your jobs, but a lot of your mates don't. Go ahead, give me an infraction for complaining. Better yet, wait to nab me on a technicality in another post...that is what you usually do)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I have seen too much suffering first hand to hear this garbage here.

---

Poor, poor you. You are breaking my heart here Mr. Victim Boy.
As a side note though, if you are trying to get someone's sympathy, maybe you should stop treating everyone you disagree with like crap. Tends to go a long way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

And tell me my excitable friend, were they doing the right things by attacking you personally, or being emotional, illogical buffoons?

---

They did the right thing.

Quote:

---

Clean, right? But of course, all these guys stop and cleanse their colon before sex (even though a massive amount of the gay male community loves random hook-ups with random strangers in random places at random times...let me guess, after they meet in the bathroom one tells the other "Hold on mate, let me cleanse my colon over the sink before you bugger me"). Be serious, we cannot even get teens to use condoms. You really think most gay men do a colon cleanse before they bugger?

---

Most common location of sexual encounters between gay men happen in a house. And anal sex actually happens a lot less than you expect.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...438.x/abstract
"The most commonly reported behavior was kissing a partner on the mouth (74.5%), followed by oral sex (72.7%), and partnered masturbation (68.4%). Anal intercourse occurred among less than half of participants (37.2%) and was most common among men ages 18–24 (42.7%). "

Quote:

---

Well, I guess I will have to defer to your knowledge of gay porn, as I have had no experiences with it myself.

---

Gay or straight porn bro. What are you so afraid of?

Quote:

---

Actually, with the number of times you have behaved disrespectfully to other members this year, I think it says lots about the moderation here that this will be your first infraction.
(No offense mods who actually do your jobs, but a lot of your mates don't. Go ahead, give me an infraction for complaining. Better yet, wait to nab me on a technicality in another post...that is what you usually do)

---

I know how I act on here and I do not claim to deserve sympathy from anyone. I do not expect respect from anyone here and I would understand if starting tomorrow everyone stopped replying to anything I said. If I ask for sympathy it is up to everyone individually to give it and I appreciate it when it is given, even if I do not show it as well as I should.

Quote:

---

As a side note though, if you are trying to get someone's sympathy, maybe you should stop treating everyone you disagree with like crap. Tends to go a long way.

---

I would rather be told by others to leave the org rather than engage in a polite conversation with you. My experiences are what they are. I won't abandon them just for the sake of keeping up appearances here.

If people have had enough of me, just tell me. Life is too short to deal with a hothead like me.

Vuk - Do you believe that sexual attraction is a conscious choice? If you needed to be attracted to men for some reason, could you will it to happen? I'm not talking about the ability to maintain an erection throughout a sex act, but the attraction - two very different things.

Quote:

---

Well, I guess I will have to defer to your knowledge of gay porn, as I have had no experiences with it myself.

---

Obviously not, but I'm wondering if you've even had basic sex ed. You're quoting a lot of overtly biased sources that are selectively quoting actual sources to create a narrative that fits their agenda. Yes, it is quite true that unprotected anal sex is risky. What your sources seem to be leaving out is that any form of unprotected sex is risky. The human vagina is rather filthy in its own right, and plays host to a myriad of infectious diseases. STDs via vaginal sex were rampant in America long before sodomy was decriminalized, and far more STDs are spread today through vaginal intercourse than the anal version, and yet your sources don't appear interested in warning their readers about the dangers of heterosexual sex.

One could play the same game by replacing gays with blacks. Countless studies indicate that STD infection, and particularly HIV/AIDS, is a uniquely African American problem in the US. The black identifier correlates more strongly with STD infection than the gay one. Using the same dishonest cherry picking of data, a case could easily be made that black sex in America is inherently unhealthy and should be discouraged. Of course, that would be just as ridiculous as the argument your sources put forth.

Your sources have created a gay strawman of sorts who has unprotected sex with hundreds (thousands!) of partners through 'random hook-ups with random strangers in random places at random times...' Such a lifestyle is, indeed, quite unhealthy! However, that caricature has almost no resemblance to the reality associated with being gay. The mean number of sexual partners each year is about two, not two hundred. ACIN already refuted the nonsense you posted about random hookups, but here are some more fun facts.

Quote:

---

"Of all sexual behaviors that men reported occurring during their last sexual event, those involving the anus were the least common," Rosenberger said. "There is certainly a misguided belief that 'gay sex equals anal sex,' which is simply untrue much of the time."

More than 40 percent of the study's participants reported that their most recent sexual partner was someone they were dating, their boyfriend or their spouse/partner. In comparison, an earlier study of predominantly heterosexual participants found that rate to be just over half.

---

I would submit that you do not understand homosexuality or the reality of what it means to be gay. Just as with the heterosexual population, promiscuity and risky sexual behavior certainly occurs among homosexuals; however, such activity is no more representative of gay people than straight people.

At the risk of contracting Lemur's disease; here's Popehat's write up: http://www.popehat.com/2013/08/22/th...ion-revisited/

Me, I particularly like the quoted argument by Justice Bosson:

Quote:

---

On a larger scale, this case provokes reflection on what this nation is all about, its promise of fairness, liberty, equality of opportunity, and justice. At its heart, this case teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others. A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our nation’s strengths, demands no less. The Huguenins are free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish; they may pray to the God of their choice and follow those commandments in their personal lives wherever they lead. The Constitution protects the Huguenins in that respect and much more. But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life.

In the smaller, more focused world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public accommodation, the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different. That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people. That sense of respect we owe others, whether or not we believe as they do, illuminates this country, setting it apart from the discord that afflicts much of the rest of the world. In short, I would say to the Huguenins, with the utmost respect: it is the price of citizenship.

---

(Emphasis mine.)

Let's hope the don't-want-to-pay-employment-benefits-because-I-disagree-with-the-choices-of-my-employees crowd grows up and learns that lesson about civic duty and civility, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Vuk - Do you believe that sexual attraction is a conscious choice? If you needed to be attracted to men for some reason, could you will it to happen? I'm not talking about the ability to maintain an erection throughout a sex act, but the attraction - two very different things.

---

We are hard wired to be attracted to adults of the opposite sex and same species. Anything else is either the result of an unhealthy hormone imbalance or a person being trained to be stimulated by something. Whether that was being raped as a child, being preyed upon when depressed and associating good feelings with the sex act, or whatever.
It is also something that can be untrained.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

One could play the same game by replacing gays with blacks. Countless studies indicate that STD infection, and particularly HIV/AIDS, is a uniquely African American problem in the US. The black identifier correlates more strongly with STD infection than the gay one. Using the same dishonest cherry picking of data, a case could easily be made that black sex in America is inherently unhealthy and should be discouraged. Of course, that would be just as ridiculous as the argument your sources put forth.

---

The reason these STDs are so common among black people is because gay relationships are extremely common and an enormous amount of America's black population is poor and does not practice safe or clean sex. Add needles onto that and you get the current situation. It doesn't mean being black is the problem, but that behaviors common amongst the black community are the problem.


As far as your sources, they are all biased and almost all based on survey data. The problem with that is that for all you know these men were reporting falsely in order to combat stereotypes about their sexuality. It is social science, and not science. Also, it is at odds with older data collected on the same subject, so even if the person conducting the research did not fabricate it and most of the respondents reported truthfully, that is still a recent development in the gay community, and for most of our country's history that was not true.

Whether the majority of them have tons of sex partners or not, and whether the majority of them have sex in bathrooms or homes, does it really matter? Sodomy is still extremely unhealthy (whether practiced by straights or gays), and much more likely to be practiced by gays than straights. In fact, unlike straight people who can engage in normal sexual intercourse, gay people's only options is sodomy (whether oral or anal, which are both extremely unhealthy).

You are right that majority of the scientific (university educated) community is on your side, because it is the politically correct thing to believe and they are heavily indoctrinated in Uni. I'll remind you though that at times the scientific community came down on the side of eugenics and many other messed up beliefs and practices. That doesn't make it right, nor does it mean that it is a settled issue because currently the scientific community reaches a partial consensus.

When it really gets down to it there is no way to objectively know 100% either way, and we make the choices based on our morals. We both look at the same data and draw different conclusion.

Let's just agree to disagree, as I really don't have the time to keep contributing to this thread anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

We are hard wired to be attracted to adults of the opposite sex and same species. Anything else is either the result of an unhealthy hormone imbalance or a person being trained to be stimulated by something. Whether that was being raped as a child, being preyed upon when depressed and associating good feelings with the sex act, or whatever.
It is also something that can be untrained.

---

That is incorrect. I said in this post the reality.