SCOTUS: states cannot ban same sex marriage

[Steinlight]

The rise in single motherhood has directly correlated with the rise of the welfare state, and federal assistance for single moms. Women have children out of wedlock because they know they will have a bailout. That isn't to say that all single motherhood will be eliminated. But it will be reduced significantly. At the end of the day, humans are economic actors, and act to maximize their resources. If women know they wont have government resources, and have to pay it all on their own, they are more likely to not get into situations that lead to children out of wedlock.

It may sound mean, but in reality, we shouldn't be expected to pick up the tab for other people's bad decisions, particularly at the federal level. In the long run everyone will be better off when this economic incentive for dysfunctional behavior is removed. It is better off for the moms, children, and the society as a whole.

Do you have data to support your claim that the rise in single motherhood has directly correlated with the rise of the welfare state, and federal assistance for single moms?

In a forthcoming study for the journal Demography, Robert Moffitt, an economist at Johns Hopkins University, details how the poorest single-parent families—80 percent of which are headed by single mothers—receive 35 percent less in government transfers than they did three decades ago. Also, the birth rate to unmarried women has been flat since 2006 and declined in 2014

How Welfare Reform Left Single Moms Behind - The Atlantic

Share of births to unmarried women dips reversing a long trend Pew Research Center

At the same time, the evidence of a link between the availability of welfare and out-of-wedlock births is overwhelming. There have been 13 major studies of the relationship between the availability of welfare benefits and out-of-wedlock birth. Of these, 11 found a statistically significant correlation. Among the best of these studies is the work done by June O’Neill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Holding constant a wide range of variables, including income, education, and urban vs. suburban setting, the study found that a 50 percent increase in the value of AFDC and foodstamp payments led to a 43 percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births.(7) Likewise, research by Shelley Lundberg and Robert Plotnick of the University of Washington showed that an increase in welfare benefits of $200 per month per family increased the rate of out-of-wedlock births among teenagers by 150 percent.(8)

Relationship Between the Welfare State and Crime Cato Institute

But in addition to this data, it is just common sense. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. Humans are resource maximizing beings that respond to economic signals. If women knew there wasn't a safety net where their poor decision wasn't subsidized, they would be less likely to make that poor decision. Obviously, such a program will have to phased out overtime, and you can't just cut aid to already born children. At the most, it should be a state issue, but even at my state level, I wouldn't support it because it just creates more of the problem it tries to solve.

It appears that this thread has been run off the rails. How did we get from SCOTUS and same sex marriage to welfare and crime? Let me take a stab at it. The same declining social and sexual morals that allowed gay marriage has resulted in more single parent families and thus more welfare, poverty and crime. Is that it?

If so, it still has NOTHING to do with same sex marriage. Same sex marriage has NO effect on the behavior or values of heterosexual people who will do what they do regardless.

However, same sex marriage WILL have an effect on gay and lesbian families and the well being of their children. Those children will enjoy greater financial security and family stability and be less likely to wind up on welfare. Then there are all of those children who are wards of the state who might be adopted by gay and lesbian couples. We might just come out ahead.

But while we are on the subject of social safety nets, I will finish by saying that it is not those programs that cause the poverty, it is capitalism. With capitalism there are always winners and losers and poverty and unemployment are built in side effects.

Heterosexuals and homosexuals are intertwined, we share a society after all, that is far more interconnected than ever before through social and mass media. It is the hyperliberalization of heterosexual sexual behavior that led to a social climate. The idea there isn't a connection or heterosexuals and homosexuals are isolated and don't share a culture that includes sexual norms is incorrect. It is changing heterosexual norms, and decline in traditional values, that led to toleration of homosexuality among a significant section of the population(not flyover country though where all those hicks live) . Same sex marriage further erodes the idea of conjugal marriage, detaching marriage and sex from procreation in the larger culture. It isn't that homosexuality has wrought a social decline, but toleration and social and political normalization of this anti-social behavior is a manifestation of the decline.

I think the idea homosexual relations are "stable" has no basis in reality. You have an incredibly sanitized view of homosexuality that is given to you by mass media. But it isn't really the case. 55% of gay couples are either in an open relationship(47%) or "not sure"(8%).
Many gay couples negotiate open relationships - SFGate

Capitalism(the private ownership of the means of production), does not cause women to have sex out of wedlock.

Where on earth are you coming from with this. ?? You start out by making some degree of sense but then spiral down by saying:

“Same sex marriage further erodes the idea of conjugal marriage, detaching marriage and sex from procreation in the larger culture

What the hell does that mean and how is it true? Gay marriage does not erode anything. Marriage has been detached from procreation for a long time. Furthermore, gay people do have children, with help but they do have children. They procreate. But more than it being about procreation, marriage is about raising children and gay people do raise children who are better off if the parents are married.

.Then you say….

It isn't that homosexuality has wrought a social decline, but toleration and social and political normalization of this anti-social behavior is a manifestation of the decline

.”

What social decline? Tolerating discrimination is social decline, not tolerating variations on human sexuality that have no effect on others or society in general. A just and fair society is an advanced society. You might want to consider joining it.

You get further into the stupid zone by questioning the stability of gay relationships. Stability in relation to who? Some relationships are stable, some are not. What evidence do you have that same sex relationships are less stale than heterosexual relationships? In the last year, we had two heterosexual couple neighbors-on either side of us split up. If gays are any less stable, maybe it is because of being forced to live in the shadows, of having been marginalized for so long, of not having their relationships validated. MAYBE with marriage and general equality they will be just as stable as anyone else.

And open relationships not equate with unstable relationships. I am straight, we are not monogamous and we have been married for 30 fucking years . Do you not know anything about life

Support for gay marriage is a product of the erosion of the idea of conjugal marriage, and pushes it further in that direction. I disagree with the direction marriage and relationships in general are heading. I don't think separating marriage from sex and marriage from procreation is a good thing. This has resulted in marriage and relations becoming more about convenience and personal gratification rather than about family formation. Certainly hasn't brought us good results with higher divorce rates, lower marriage rates, lower birth rates, but higher out of wedlock birth rates. These are all net negatives.

Gays don't have children. It is impossible for two of the same sex to have a child. When they "have a kid", they take the sperm or eggs of another person, which opens into another ethical dilemma of the commodification of life. But I am pretty sure it is bigoted to have that.

A marriage license won't reverse these open relationship rates of about 55% among gay couples. Kids are not better off in such a environment absent faithful parents in a stable relationship. The idea that same sex couples are the same in their behavior as heterosexual couples is just incorrect. Doesn't match up to the reality of the situation.

Discrimination is not a bad thing. People discriminate in relationships and in their daily lives all the time. We discriminate everyday in who we chose to associate and disassociate with based on their values and characteristics. You I don't think the degenerate homosexual lifestyle should be normalized in the legal and cultural arena. They simply are not like heterosexuals in their behavior, and I don't think the culture should promote their degeneracy by equalizing them under the law.

I don't think normalizing a lifestyle that produces a 20% HIV rate, a 55% open relationship rate, a 20% meth use rate, and high promiscuity(studies show a range of between 100-500) is advanced at all. It is nihilistic and morally debased.

The Meth-Gay Sex Nightmare L.A. Weekly
Gay marriage and the triumph of 60s

Congratulations on being a cuck. You represent the baby boomers perfectly.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Since gay people are not heterosexuals, I do not see how they affect heterosexual norms. There are also straight couples that have open relationships.

I can't help you if you can't see that the liberalization of sexual norms amongst heterosexuals led to greater toleration of homosexuality amongst significant segments of the heterosexual population.

Not 55% of heterosexual couples.

I don't see what is wrong with having tolerance for them. I really do not understand your objection. You can't go back in time.

I don't see why I should tolerate their deviant sexual behavior(which includes the aforementioned open relationships and high rate of HIV, at 20%), or the overall sexual revolution in general. So I don't understand your support for these lifestyles.
CDC 20 of Gay Men Are HIV-Positive but Nearly Half Don t Know It TIME.com

Social norms shift overtime. Societies go through cycles, from more religious to less so, from more conservative to less so. Societies historically do not go in a linear but instead a cyclical manner.

Well you don't really have to. Just don't associate with them.

Also, I don't really "support" a lifestyle. I support equal rights and privileges for all American citizens because that is what I was raised to believe America stands for.

Not associating with them isn't really an option, you can face very severe legal and financial consequences for refusing to associate with homosexuals, just look at the six figure fine the bakers in Oregon just got for refusing to make a wedding cake for a lesbian wedding. Or look at the catholic adoption agencies in certain states that had to close down, lest they be in violation of anti-discrimination laws for not adopting to homosexual couples.

Illinois Catholic Charities to close rather than allow same-sex couples to adopt children - Nation - The Boston Globe

Free and voluntary association is illegal under the law in the United States.

So since I cannot disassociate, I will continue to voice my opposition to the direction the culture is headed, as I have to live in the society as well. I won't be silenced.

I don't believe one has a right to a marriage license, and believe in the conjugal version of marriage. So I will continue to advocate that and voice my opposition to the normalization of a lifestyle I think is anti-social.

I am 24, I think things will shift back in a socially conservative direction in my lifetime.

You're 24??!! Holly crap! You don't have much in common with the majority of your peers. That's for sure. Get with it old sport. We are not going back to a society of bigotry and exclusion . Get real dude>>>>Gezeee

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Do you have data to support your claim that the rise in single motherhood has directly correlated with the rise of the welfare state, and federal assistance for single moms?

In a forthcoming study for the journal Demography, Robert Moffitt, an economist at Johns Hopkins University, details how the poorest single-parent families—80 percent of which are headed by single mothers—receive 35 percent less in government transfers than they did three decades ago. Also, the birth rate to unmarried women has been flat since 2006 and declined in 2014

How Welfare Reform Left Single Moms Behind - The Atlantic

Share of births to unmarried women dips reversing a long trend Pew Research Center

At the same time, the evidence of a link between the availability of welfare and out-of-wedlock births is overwhelming. There have been 13 major studies of the relationship between the availability of welfare benefits and out-of-wedlock birth. Of these, 11 found a statistically significant correlation. Among the best of these studies is the work done by June O’Neill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Holding constant a wide range of variables, including income, education, and urban vs. suburban setting, the study found that a 50 percent increase in the value of AFDC and foodstamp payments led to a 43 percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births.(7) Likewise, research by Shelley Lundberg and Robert Plotnick of the University of Washington showed that an increase in welfare benefits of $200 per month per family increased the rate of out-of-wedlock births among teenagers by 150 percent.(8)

Relationship Between the Welfare State and Crime Cato Institute

But in addition to this data, it is just common sense. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. Humans are resource maximizing beings that respond to economic signals. If women knew there wasn't a safety net where their poor decision wasn't subsidized, they would be less likely to make that poor decision. Obviously, such a program will have to phased out overtime, and you can't just cut aid to already born children. At the most, it should be a state issue, but even at my state level, I wouldn't support it because it just creates more of the problem it tries to solve.

It appears that this thread has been run off the rails. How did we get from SCOTUS and same sex marriage to welfare and crime? Let me take a stab at it. The same declining social and sexual morals that allowed gay marriage has resulted in more single parent families and thus more welfare, poverty and crime. Is that it?

If so, it still has NOTHING to do with same sex marriage. Same sex marriage has NO effect on the behavior or values of heterosexual people who will do what they do regardless.

However, same sex marriage WILL have an effect on gay and lesbian families and the well being of their children. Those children will enjoy greater financial security and family stability and be less likely to wind up on welfare. Then there are all of those children who are wards of the state who might be adopted by gay and lesbian couples. We might just come out ahead.

But while we are on the subject of social safety nets, I will finish by saying that it is not those programs that cause the poverty, it is capitalism. With capitalism there are always winners and losers and poverty and unemployment are built in side effects.

Heterosexuals and homosexuals are intertwined, we share a society after all, that is far more interconnected than ever before through social and mass media. It is the hyperliberalization of heterosexual sexual behavior that led to a social climate. The idea there isn't a connection or heterosexuals and homosexuals are isolated and don't share a culture that includes sexual norms is incorrect. It is changing heterosexual norms, and decline in traditional values, that led to toleration of homosexuality among a significant section of the population(not flyover country though where all those hicks live) . Same sex marriage further erodes the idea of conjugal marriage, detaching marriage and sex from procreation in the larger culture. It isn't that homosexuality has wrought a social decline, but toleration and social and political normalization of this anti-social behavior is a manifestation of the decline.

I think the idea homosexual relations are "stable" has no basis in reality. You have an incredibly sanitized view of homosexuality that is given to you by mass media. But it isn't really the case. 55% of gay couples are either in an open relationship(47%) or "not sure"(8%).
Many gay couples negotiate open relationships - SFGate

Capitalism(the private ownership of the means of production), does not cause women to have sex out of wedlock.

Where on earth are you coming from with this. ?? You start out by making some degree of sense but then spiral down by saying:

“Same sex marriage further erodes the idea of conjugal marriage, detaching marriage and sex from procreation in the larger culture

What the hell does that mean and how is it true? Gay marriage does not erode anything. Marriage has been detached from procreation for a long time. Furthermore, gay people do have children, with help but they do have children. They procreate. But more than it being about procreation, marriage is about raising children and gay people do raise children who are better off if the parents are married.

.Then you say….

It isn't that homosexuality has wrought a social decline, but toleration and social and political normalization of this anti-social behavior is a manifestation of the decline

.”

What social decline? Tolerating discrimination is social decline, not tolerating variations on human sexuality that have no effect on others or society in general. A just and fair society is an advanced society. You might want to consider joining it.

You get further into the stupid zone by questioning the stability of gay relationships. Stability in relation to who? Some relationships are stable, some are not. What evidence do you have that same sex relationships are less stale than heterosexual relationships? In the last year, we had two heterosexual couple neighbors-on either side of us split up. If gays are any less stable, maybe it is because of being forced to live in the shadows, of having been marginalized for so long, of not having their relationships validated. MAYBE with marriage and general equality they will be just as stable as anyone else.

And open relationships not equate with unstable relationships. I am straight, we are not monogamous and we have been married for 30 fucking years . Do you not know anything about life

Support for gay marriage is a product of the erosion of the idea of conjugal marriage, and pushes it further in that direction. I disagree with the direction marriage and relationships in general are heading. I don't think separating marriage from sex and marriage from procreation is a good thing. This has resulted in marriage and relations becoming more about convenience and personal gratification rather than about family formation. Certainly hasn't brought us good results with higher divorce rates, lower marriage rates, lower birth rates, but higher out of wedlock birth rates. These are all net negatives.

Gays don't have children. It is impossible for two of the same sex to have a child. When they "have a kid", they take the sperm or eggs of another person, which opens into another ethical dilemma of the commodification of life. But I am pretty sure it is bigoted to have that.

A marriage license won't reverse these open relationship rates of about 55% among gay couples. Kids are not better off in such a environment absent faithful parents in a stable relationship. The idea that same sex couples are the same in their behavior as heterosexual couples is just incorrect. Doesn't match up to the reality of the situation.

Discrimination is not a bad thing. People discriminate in relationships and in their daily lives all the time. We discriminate everyday in who we chose to associate and disassociate with based on their values and characteristics. You I don't think the degenerate homosexual lifestyle should be normalized in the legal and cultural arena. They simply are not like heterosexuals in their behavior, and I don't think the culture should promote their degeneracy by equalizing them under the law.

I don't think normalizing a lifestyle that produces a 20% HIV rate, a 55% open relationship rate, a 20% meth use rate, and high promiscuity(studies show a range of between 100-500) is advanced at all. It is nihilistic and morally debased.

The Meth-Gay Sex Nightmare L.A. Weekly
Gay marriage and the triumph of 60s

Congratulations on being a cuck. You represent the baby boomers perfectly.

I am a 68 year old baby boomer and he does not represent me at all.

 

[Steinlight]

I can't help you if you can't see that the liberalization of sexual norms amongst heterosexuals led to greater toleration of homosexuality amongst significant segments of the heterosexual population.

Not 55% of heterosexual couples.

I don't see what is wrong with having tolerance for them. I really do not understand your objection. You can't go back in time.

I don't see why I should tolerate their deviant sexual behavior(which includes the aforementioned open relationships and high rate of HIV, at 20%), or the overall sexual revolution in general. So I don't understand your support for these lifestyles.
CDC 20 of Gay Men Are HIV-Positive but Nearly Half Don t Know It TIME.com

Social norms shift overtime. Societies go through cycles, from more religious to less so, from more conservative to less so. Societies historically do not go in a linear but instead a cyclical manner.

Well you don't really have to. Just don't associate with them.

Also, I don't really "support" a lifestyle. I support equal rights and privileges for all American citizens because that is what I was raised to believe America stands for.

Not associating with them isn't really an option, you can face very severe legal and financial consequences for refusing to associate with homosexuals, just look at the six figure fine the bakers in Oregon just got for refusing to make a wedding cake for a lesbian wedding. Or look at the catholic adoption agencies in certain states that had to close down, lest they be in violation of anti-discrimination laws for not adopting to homosexual couples.

Illinois Catholic Charities to close rather than allow same-sex couples to adopt children - Nation - The Boston Globe

Free and voluntary association is illegal under the law in the United States.

So since I cannot disassociate, I will continue to voice my opposition to the direction the culture is headed, as I have to live in the society as well. I won't be silenced.

I don't believe one has a right to a marriage license, and believe in the conjugal version of marriage. So I will continue to advocate that and voice my opposition to the normalization of a lifestyle I think is anti-social.

I am 24, I think things will shift back in a socially conservative direction in my lifetime.

You're 24??!! Holly crap! You don't have much in common with the majority of your peers. That's for sure. Get with it old sport. We are not going back to a society of bigotry and exclusion . Get real dude>>>>Gezeee

Most of my generation are brainwashed idiots that dont have their shit together on any level. They are in prolonged adolescence with shit jobs that just parrot what social media tells them. But not all of us are like this thankfully, a good amount are disgusted by the pc direction of our society.

Its funny how you boomers try to stay young and relevant. The 60s are over old man, and you aren't far away from the grave, and your degeneracy(your "open relationship" and advocating for corporate social fads like gay marriage) won't keep you from it despite what you think.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I don't see what is wrong with having tolerance for them. I really do not understand your objection. You can't go back in time.

I don't see why I should tolerate their deviant sexual behavior(which includes the aforementioned open relationships and high rate of HIV, at 20%), or the overall sexual revolution in general. So I don't understand your support for these lifestyles.
CDC 20 of Gay Men Are HIV-Positive but Nearly Half Don t Know It TIME.com

Social norms shift overtime. Societies go through cycles, from more religious to less so, from more conservative to less so. Societies historically do not go in a linear but instead a cyclical manner.

Well you don't really have to. Just don't associate with them.

Also, I don't really "support" a lifestyle. I support equal rights and privileges for all American citizens because that is what I was raised to believe America stands for.

Not associating with them isn't really an option, you can face very severe legal and financial consequences for refusing to associate with homosexuals, just look at the six figure fine the bakers in Oregon just got for refusing to make a wedding cake for a lesbian wedding. Or look at the catholic adoption agencies in certain states that had to close down, lest they be in violation of anti-discrimination laws for not adopting to homosexual couples.

Illinois Catholic Charities to close rather than allow same-sex couples to adopt children - Nation - The Boston Globe

Free and voluntary association is illegal under the law in the United States.

So since I cannot disassociate, I will continue to voice my opposition to the direction the culture is headed, as I have to live in the society as well. I won't be silenced.

I don't believe one has a right to a marriage license, and believe in the conjugal version of marriage. So I will continue to advocate that and voice my opposition to the normalization of a lifestyle I think is anti-social.

I am 24, I think things will shift back in a socially conservative direction in my lifetime.

You're 24??!! Holly crap! You don't have much in common with the majority of your peers. That's for sure. Get with it old sport. We are not going back to a society of bigotry and exclusion . Get real dude>>>>Gezeee

Most of my generation are brainwashed idiots that dont have their shit together on any level. They are in prolonged adolescence with shit jobs that just parrot what social media tells them. But not all of us are like this thankfully, a good amount are disgusted by the pc direction of our society.

Its funny how you boomers try to stay young and relevant. The 60s are over old man, and you aren't far away from the grave, and your degeneracy(your "open relationship" and advocating for corporate social fads like gay marriage) won't keep you from it despite what you think.

I might be close to the grave, but you are already in the grave, morally and socially speaking. I am relevant and you are an anachronism in your own time. If you think that we will go backwards to a society that closets homosexuality you are seriously delusional.


At the core of every argument against same sex marriage is the attitude, a belief that gay folks are fundamentally different than other people. There is a refusal to acknowledge the fact that they are real people with real lives and responsibilities and problems like everyone else.

Opponents of equality talk about tradition, about religion, about the law, about procreation, and oh yes, the sex….they love to talk about the sex as though that was all that gay folks do. They bloviate about how kids need a mom and a dad, but cannot explain how banning same sex marriage will result in more children having a traditional home, why that is important, and reject the fact-indeed will not discuss the fact-that denying gays the right to marry harms children.

They promote inane slippery slope to polygamy, incest, bestiality and whatever without any rational basis or logical argument. However, they can never ever talk about the fact that these are human beings who are profoundly affected by discrimination and the denial of the rights and benefits of marriage. They can only deal with the subject using abstract concepts and logical fallacies. If they dare to humanize the subject, even they might come to see how stupid their arguments are and that’s what they fear the most.

And they love to talk about racial equality and how race is different than sexual orientation, as though by doing so they can claim some moral high ground. The fact is that these are people who have a need to hate. In their own self loathing they need to see themselves as better, as more worthy than someone else. My guess is, that the people who claim to be against racial discrimination but who hate gays are the same people who- a couple of decades ago before gay rights came to the forefront- were segregationists, but knowing that they can’t get away with that any longer, have chosen a new target for their bigotry.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It appears that this thread has been run off the rails. How did we get from SCOTUS and same sex marriage to welfare and crime? Let me take a stab at it. The same declining social and sexual morals that allowed gay marriage has resulted in more single parent families and thus more welfare, poverty and crime. Is that it?

If so, it still has NOTHING to do with same sex marriage. Same sex marriage has NO effect on the behavior or values of heterosexual people who will do what they do regardless.

However, same sex marriage WILL have an effect on gay and lesbian families and the well being of their children. Those children will enjoy greater financial security and family stability and be less likely to wind up on welfare. Then there are all of those children who are wards of the state who might be adopted by gay and lesbian couples. We might just come out ahead.

But while we are on the subject of social safety nets, I will finish by saying that it is not those programs that cause the poverty, it is capitalism. With capitalism there are always winners and losers and poverty and unemployment are built in side effects.

Heterosexuals and homosexuals are intertwined, we share a society after all, that is far more interconnected than ever before through social and mass media. It is the hyperliberalization of heterosexual sexual behavior that led to a social climate. The idea there isn't a connection or heterosexuals and homosexuals are isolated and don't share a culture that includes sexual norms is incorrect. It is changing heterosexual norms, and decline in traditional values, that led to toleration of homosexuality among a significant section of the population(not flyover country though where all those hicks live) . Same sex marriage further erodes the idea of conjugal marriage, detaching marriage and sex from procreation in the larger culture. It isn't that homosexuality has wrought a social decline, but toleration and social and political normalization of this anti-social behavior is a manifestation of the decline.

I think the idea homosexual relations are "stable" has no basis in reality. You have an incredibly sanitized view of homosexuality that is given to you by mass media. But it isn't really the case. 55% of gay couples are either in an open relationship(47%) or "not sure"(8%).
Many gay couples negotiate open relationships - SFGate

Capitalism(the private ownership of the means of production), does not cause women to have sex out of wedlock.

Since gay people are not heterosexuals, I do not see how they affect heterosexual norms. There are also straight couples that have open relationships.

I can't help you if you can't see that the liberalization of sexual norms amongst heterosexuals led to greater toleration of homosexuality amongst significant segments of the heterosexual population.

Not 55% of heterosexual couples.

I don't see what is wrong with having tolerance for them. I really do not understand your objection. You can't go back in time.

I don't see why I should tolerate their deviant sexual behavior(which includes the aforementioned open relationships and high rate of HIV, at 20%), or the overall sexual revolution in general. So I don't understand your support for these lifestyles.
CDC 20 of Gay Men Are HIV-Positive but Nearly Half Don t Know It TIME.com

Social norms shift overtime. Societies go through cycles, from more religious to less so, from more conservative to less so. Societies historically do not go in a linear but instead a cyclical manner.

Do you tolerate the very hetero deviant behavior that brought homosexuals to acceptance? Where are the deviant heteros taking your freedoms? Why do you choose gays to make your stand rather than the deviant heteros who caused this all in the first place? Why has this court decision inspired you all to action? Why did you make so many cakes without question for the deviant heterosexual?

I'll tell you why. Because it's all bullshit.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Do you have data to support your claim that the rise in single motherhood has directly correlated with the rise of the welfare state, and federal assistance for single moms?

In a forthcoming study for the journal Demography, Robert Moffitt, an economist at Johns Hopkins University, details how the poorest single-parent families—80 percent of which are headed by single mothers—receive 35 percent less in government transfers than they did three decades ago. Also, the birth rate to unmarried women has been flat since 2006 and declined in 2014

How Welfare Reform Left Single Moms Behind - The Atlantic

Share of births to unmarried women dips reversing a long trend Pew Research Center

At the same time, the evidence of a link between the availability of welfare and out-of-wedlock births is overwhelming. There have been 13 major studies of the relationship between the availability of welfare benefits and out-of-wedlock birth. Of these, 11 found a statistically significant correlation. Among the best of these studies is the work done by June O’Neill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Holding constant a wide range of variables, including income, education, and urban vs. suburban setting, the study found that a 50 percent increase in the value of AFDC and foodstamp payments led to a 43 percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births.(7) Likewise, research by Shelley Lundberg and Robert Plotnick of the University of Washington showed that an increase in welfare benefits of $200 per month per family increased the rate of out-of-wedlock births among teenagers by 150 percent.(8)

Relationship Between the Welfare State and Crime Cato Institute

But in addition to this data, it is just common sense. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. Humans are resource maximizing beings that respond to economic signals. If women knew there wasn't a safety net where their poor decision wasn't subsidized, they would be less likely to make that poor decision. Obviously, such a program will have to phased out overtime, and you can't just cut aid to already born children. At the most, it should be a state issue, but even at my state level, I wouldn't support it because it just creates more of the problem it tries to solve.

It appears that this thread has been run off the rails. How did we get from SCOTUS and same sex marriage to welfare and crime? Let me take a stab at it. The same declining social and sexual morals that allowed gay marriage has resulted in more single parent families and thus more welfare, poverty and crime. Is that it?

If so, it still has NOTHING to do with same sex marriage. Same sex marriage has NO effect on the behavior or values of heterosexual people who will do what they do regardless.

However, same sex marriage WILL have an effect on gay and lesbian families and the well being of their children. Those children will enjoy greater financial security and family stability and be less likely to wind up on welfare. Then there are all of those children who are wards of the state who might be adopted by gay and lesbian couples. We might just come out ahead.

But while we are on the subject of social safety nets, I will finish by saying that it is not those programs that cause the poverty, it is capitalism. With capitalism there are always winners and losers and poverty and unemployment are built in side effects.

Heterosexuals and homosexuals are intertwined, we share a society after all, that is far more interconnected than ever before through social and mass media. It is the hyperliberalization of heterosexual sexual behavior that led to a social climate. The idea there isn't a connection or heterosexuals and homosexuals are isolated and don't share a culture that includes sexual norms is incorrect. It is changing heterosexual norms, and decline in traditional values, that led to toleration of homosexuality among a significant section of the population(not flyover country though where all those hicks live) . Same sex marriage further erodes the idea of conjugal marriage, detaching marriage and sex from procreation in the larger culture. It isn't that homosexuality has wrought a social decline, but toleration and social and political normalization of this anti-social behavior is a manifestation of the decline.

I think the idea homosexual relations are "stable" has no basis in reality. You have an incredibly sanitized view of homosexuality that is given to you by mass media. But it isn't really the case. 55% of gay couples are either in an open relationship(47%) or "not sure"(8%).
Many gay couples negotiate open relationships - SFGate

Capitalism(the private ownership of the means of production), does not cause women to have sex out of wedlock.

Where on earth are you coming from with this. ?? You start out by making some degree of sense but then spiral down by saying:

“Same sex marriage further erodes the idea of conjugal marriage, detaching marriage and sex from procreation in the larger culture

What the hell does that mean and how is it true? Gay marriage does not erode anything. Marriage has been detached from procreation for a long time. Furthermore, gay people do have children, with help but they do have children. They procreate. But more than it being about procreation, marriage is about raising children and gay people do raise children who are better off if the parents are married.

.Then you say….

It isn't that homosexuality has wrought a social decline, but toleration and social and political normalization of this anti-social behavior is a manifestation of the decline

.”

What social decline? Tolerating discrimination is social decline, not tolerating variations on human sexuality that have no effect on others or society in general. A just and fair society is an advanced society. You might want to consider joining it.

You get further into the stupid zone by questioning the stability of gay relationships. Stability in relation to who? Some relationships are stable, some are not. What evidence do you have that same sex relationships are less stale than heterosexual relationships? In the last year, we had two heterosexual couple neighbors-on either side of us split up. If gays are any less stable, maybe it is because of being forced to live in the shadows, of having been marginalized for so long, of not having their relationships validated. MAYBE with marriage and general equality they will be just as stable as anyone else.

And open relationships not equate with unstable relationships. I am straight, we are not monogamous and we have been married for 30 fucking years . Do you not know anything about life

I really think this is related to a fear of change amongst the older people. They are frightened to death of change and resist it as if their lives depend on it. You should have seen some of the posts after this forum changed. Lol!

That's conservatives in general regardless of age.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I can't help you if you can't see that the liberalization of sexual norms amongst heterosexuals led to greater toleration of homosexuality amongst significant segments of the heterosexual population.

Not 55% of heterosexual couples.

I don't see what is wrong with having tolerance for them. I really do not understand your objection. You can't go back in time.

I don't see why I should tolerate their deviant sexual behavior(which includes the aforementioned open relationships and high rate of HIV, at 20%), or the overall sexual revolution in general. So I don't understand your support for these lifestyles.
CDC 20 of Gay Men Are HIV-Positive but Nearly Half Don t Know It TIME.com

Social norms shift overtime. Societies go through cycles, from more religious to less so, from more conservative to less so. Societies historically do not go in a linear but instead a cyclical manner.

Well you don't really have to. Just don't associate with them.

Also, I don't really "support" a lifestyle. I support equal rights and privileges for all American citizens because that is what I was raised to believe America stands for.

Not associating with them isn't really an option, you can face very severe legal and financial consequences for refusing to associate with homosexuals, just look at the six figure fine the bakers in Oregon just got for refusing to make a wedding cake for a lesbian wedding. Or look at the catholic adoption agencies in certain states that had to close down, lest they be in violation of anti-discrimination laws for not adopting to homosexual couples.

Illinois Catholic Charities to close rather than allow same-sex couples to adopt children - Nation - The Boston Globe

Free and voluntary association is illegal under the law in the United States.

So since I cannot disassociate, I will continue to voice my opposition to the direction the culture is headed, as I have to live in the society as well. I won't be silenced.

I don't believe one has a right to a marriage license, and believe in the conjugal version of marriage. So I will continue to advocate that and voice my opposition to the normalization of a lifestyle I think is anti-social.

I am 24, I think things will shift back in a socially conservative direction in my lifetime.

You're 24??!! Holly crap! You don't have much in common with the majority of your peers. That's for sure. Get with it old sport. We are not going back to a society of bigotry and exclusion . Get real dude>>>>Gezeee

And get laid!!!! You are in your prime dude. You should be chasing everything. By thirty it's over.

You snooze you lose.

 

[Steinlight]

I don't see why I should tolerate their deviant sexual behavior(which includes the aforementioned open relationships and high rate of HIV, at 20%), or the overall sexual revolution in general. So I don't understand your support for these lifestyles.
CDC 20 of Gay Men Are HIV-Positive but Nearly Half Don t Know It TIME.com

Social norms shift overtime. Societies go through cycles, from more religious to less so, from more conservative to less so. Societies historically do not go in a linear but instead a cyclical manner.

Well you don't really have to. Just don't associate with them.

Also, I don't really "support" a lifestyle. I support equal rights and privileges for all American citizens because that is what I was raised to believe America stands for.

Not associating with them isn't really an option, you can face very severe legal and financial consequences for refusing to associate with homosexuals, just look at the six figure fine the bakers in Oregon just got for refusing to make a wedding cake for a lesbian wedding. Or look at the catholic adoption agencies in certain states that had to close down, lest they be in violation of anti-discrimination laws for not adopting to homosexual couples.

Illinois Catholic Charities to close rather than allow same-sex couples to adopt children - Nation - The Boston Globe

Free and voluntary association is illegal under the law in the United States.

So since I cannot disassociate, I will continue to voice my opposition to the direction the culture is headed, as I have to live in the society as well. I won't be silenced.

I don't believe one has a right to a marriage license, and believe in the conjugal version of marriage. So I will continue to advocate that and voice my opposition to the normalization of a lifestyle I think is anti-social.

I am 24, I think things will shift back in a socially conservative direction in my lifetime.

You're 24??!! Holly crap! You don't have much in common with the majority of your peers. That's for sure. Get with it old sport. We are not going back to a society of bigotry and exclusion . Get real dude>>>>Gezeee

Most of my generation are brainwashed idiots that dont have their shit together on any level. They are in prolonged adolescence with shit jobs that just parrot what social media tells them. But not all of us are like this thankfully, a good amount are disgusted by the pc direction of our society.

Its funny how you boomers try to stay young and relevant. The 60s are over old man, and you aren't far away from the grave, and your degeneracy(your "open relationship" and advocating for corporate social fads like gay marriage) won't keep you from it despite what you think.

I might be close to the grave, but you are already in the grave, morally and socially speaking. I am relevant and you are an anachronism in your own time. If you think that we will go backwards to a society that closets homosexuality you are seriously delusional.


At the core of every argument against same sex marriage is the attitude, a belief that gay folks are fundamentally different than other people. There is a refusal to acknowledge the fact that they are real people with real lives and responsibilities and problems like everyone else.

Opponents of equality talk about tradition, about religion, about the law, about procreation, and oh yes, the sex….they love to talk about the sex as though that was all that gay folks do. They bloviate about how kids need a mom and a dad, but cannot explain how banning same sex marriage will result in more children having a traditional home, why that is important, and reject the fact-indeed will not discuss the fact-that denying gays the right to marry harms children.

They promote inane slippery slope to polygamy, incest, bestiality and whatever without any rational basis or logical argument. However, they can never ever talk about the fact that these are human beings who are profoundly affected by discrimination and the denial of the rights and benefits of marriage. They can only deal with the subject using abstract concepts and logical fallacies. If they dare to humanize the subject, even they might come to see how stupid their arguments are and that’s what they fear the most.

And they love to talk about racial equality and how race is different than sexual orientation, as though by doing so they can claim some moral high ground. The fact is that these are people who have a need to hate. In their own self loathing they need to see themselves as better, as more worthy than someone else. My guess is, that the people who claim to be against racial discrimination but who hate gays are the same people who- a couple of decades ago before gay rights came to the forefront- were segregationists, but knowing that they can’t get away with that any longer, have chosen a new target for their bigotry.

No I am not an anachronism. Civilizations rise and fall, and go through periods of decadence and degeneracy. This linear version of history of the progressive, of "social progress", doesn't bare itself out. Social degeneracy and hyperliberalism does not last for long, they are the last gasps of a dying society. A example in a state of anomie, one of nihilism and atomization. The US wont last forever, this liberal global order if you call it that wont sustain itself financially and socially in the long run. You are on the wrong side of history if you look at any empire, and make no mistake, America is an empire. When this economic and social order collapses, people will revert to more traditional values sets, they always do.

The fact is, those in my generation who hold these nihilistic views only hold them because that is what media and school tell them to do. If right wingers, conservative, christians, traditionalists, whatever you want to call us, controlled the institutions, they would agree with us. 90% of people are complete followers and follow the cultural memes of the institutions. Also, a good percent of people my age don't agree with pc, they just don't care or fear repercussions. The true believers are very few in number.

It is pitiful that you had to live a life abandoned from tradition, in order to keep a false sense of youth, with your cuckold "open relationship". You aren't young in spirit or relevant. You are a holdover from the 60s who time is coming to an end. Your views are just a flash in the pan as far as civilization goes. Right wing traditionalism, nationalism, faith, blood and soil are the human state are the natural state of man. Your rebellion against the natural order will not succeed.

Homosexuals are not like heterosexuals, as the HIV numbers, the sexual partner count, the open relationship rate, the meth use rate indicate. They simply aren't the same, and are not "equal". This sounds nice, but it isn't the reality of the situation.

How can you oppose polygamy or incestuous marriage. If they are all consenting adults, and marriage is a right, who are you to deny them this right and on what grounds?

 

[Steinlight]

Heterosexuals and homosexuals are intertwined, we share a society after all, that is far more interconnected than ever before through social and mass media. It is the hyperliberalization of heterosexual sexual behavior that led to a social climate. The idea there isn't a connection or heterosexuals and homosexuals are isolated and don't share a culture that includes sexual norms is incorrect. It is changing heterosexual norms, and decline in traditional values, that led to toleration of homosexuality among a significant section of the population(not flyover country though where all those hicks live) . Same sex marriage further erodes the idea of conjugal marriage, detaching marriage and sex from procreation in the larger culture. It isn't that homosexuality has wrought a social decline, but toleration and social and political normalization of this anti-social behavior is a manifestation of the decline.

I think the idea homosexual relations are "stable" has no basis in reality. You have an incredibly sanitized view of homosexuality that is given to you by mass media. But it isn't really the case. 55% of gay couples are either in an open relationship(47%) or "not sure"(8%).
Many gay couples negotiate open relationships - SFGate

Capitalism(the private ownership of the means of production), does not cause women to have sex out of wedlock.

Since gay people are not heterosexuals, I do not see how they affect heterosexual norms. There are also straight couples that have open relationships.

I can't help you if you can't see that the liberalization of sexual norms amongst heterosexuals led to greater toleration of homosexuality amongst significant segments of the heterosexual population.

Not 55% of heterosexual couples.

I don't see what is wrong with having tolerance for them. I really do not understand your objection. You can't go back in time.

I don't see why I should tolerate their deviant sexual behavior(which includes the aforementioned open relationships and high rate of HIV, at 20%), or the overall sexual revolution in general. So I don't understand your support for these lifestyles.
CDC 20 of Gay Men Are HIV-Positive but Nearly Half Don t Know It TIME.com

Social norms shift overtime. Societies go through cycles, from more religious to less so, from more conservative to less so. Societies historically do not go in a linear but instead a cyclical manner.

Do you tolerate the very hetero deviant behavior that brought homosexuals to acceptance? Where are the deviant heteros taking your freedoms? Why do you choose gays to make your stand rather than the deviant heteros who caused this all in the first place? Why has this court decision inspired you all to action? Why did you make so many cakes without question for the deviant heterosexual?

I'll tell you why. Because it's all bullshit.

You don't believe in freedom in any sense of the word.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Since gay people are not heterosexuals, I do not see how they affect heterosexual norms. There are also straight couples that have open relationships.

I can't help you if you can't see that the liberalization of sexual norms amongst heterosexuals led to greater toleration of homosexuality amongst significant segments of the heterosexual population.

Not 55% of heterosexual couples.

I don't see what is wrong with having tolerance for them. I really do not understand your objection. You can't go back in time.

I don't see why I should tolerate their deviant sexual behavior(which includes the aforementioned open relationships and high rate of HIV, at 20%), or the overall sexual revolution in general. So I don't understand your support for these lifestyles.
CDC 20 of Gay Men Are HIV-Positive but Nearly Half Don t Know It TIME.com

Social norms shift overtime. Societies go through cycles, from more religious to less so, from more conservative to less so. Societies historically do not go in a linear but instead a cyclical manner.

Do you tolerate the very hetero deviant behavior that brought homosexuals to acceptance? Where are the deviant heteros taking your freedoms? Why do you choose gays to make your stand rather than the deviant heteros who caused this all in the first place? Why has this court decision inspired you all to action? Why did you make so many cakes without question for the deviant heterosexual?

I'll tell you why. Because it's all
bullshit.

You don't believe in freedom in any sense of the word.

I do. Just not in your sense.

 

[Steinlight]

I can't help you if you can't see that the liberalization of sexual norms amongst heterosexuals led to greater toleration of homosexuality amongst significant segments of the heterosexual population.

Not 55% of heterosexual couples.

I don't see what is wrong with having tolerance for them. I really do not understand your objection. You can't go back in time.

I don't see why I should tolerate their deviant sexual behavior(which includes the aforementioned open relationships and high rate of HIV, at 20%), or the overall sexual revolution in general. So I don't understand your support for these lifestyles.
CDC 20 of Gay Men Are HIV-Positive but Nearly Half Don t Know It TIME.com

Social norms shift overtime. Societies go through cycles, from more religious to less so, from more conservative to less so. Societies historically do not go in a linear but instead a cyclical manner.

Do you tolerate the very hetero deviant behavior that brought homosexuals to acceptance? Where are the deviant heteros taking your freedoms? Why do you choose gays to make your stand rather than the deviant heteros who caused this all in the first place? Why has this court decision inspired you all to action? Why did you make so many cakes without question for the deviant heterosexual?

I'll tell you why. Because it's all
bullshit.

You don't believe in freedom in any sense of the word.

I do. Just not in your sense.

No, not in any sense.

If I own a bakery, should I be allowed to not serve a gay wedding?

 

[Faun]

I don't see what is wrong with having tolerance for them. I really do not understand your objection. You can't go back in time.

I don't see why I should tolerate their deviant sexual behavior(which includes the aforementioned open relationships and high rate of HIV, at 20%), or the overall sexual revolution in general. So I don't understand your support for these lifestyles.
CDC 20 of Gay Men Are HIV-Positive but Nearly Half Don t Know It TIME.com

Social norms shift overtime. Societies go through cycles, from more religious to less so, from more conservative to less so. Societies historically do not go in a linear but instead a cyclical manner.

Do you tolerate the very hetero deviant behavior that brought homosexuals to acceptance? Where are the deviant heteros taking your freedoms? Why do you choose gays to make your stand rather than the deviant heteros who caused this all in the first place? Why has this court decision inspired you all to action? Why did you make so many cakes without question for the deviant heterosexual?

I'll tell you why. Because it's all
bullshit.

You don't believe in freedom in any sense of the word.

I do. Just not in your sense.

No, not in any sense.

If I own a bakery, should I be allowed to not serve a gay wedding?

Not if your reason is because it offends your religion since there is nothing in the Bible prohibiting baking cakes unless it is during Passover.

 

[Steinlight]

I don't see why I should tolerate their deviant sexual behavior(which includes the aforementioned open relationships and high rate of HIV, at 20%), or the overall sexual revolution in general. So I don't understand your support for these lifestyles.
CDC 20 of Gay Men Are HIV-Positive but Nearly Half Don t Know It TIME.com

Social norms shift overtime. Societies go through cycles, from more religious to less so, from more conservative to less so. Societies historically do not go in a linear but instead a cyclical manner.

Do you tolerate the very hetero deviant behavior that brought homosexuals to acceptance? Where are the deviant heteros taking your freedoms? Why do you choose gays to make your stand rather than the deviant heteros who caused this all in the first place? Why has this court decision inspired you all to action? Why did you make so many cakes without question for the deviant heterosexual?

I'll tell you why. Because it's all
bullshit.

You don't believe in freedom in any sense of the word.

I do. Just not in your sense.

No, not in any sense.

If I own a bakery, should I be allowed to not serve a gay wedding?

Not if your reason is because it offends your religion since there is nothing in the Bible prohibiting baking cakes unless it is during Passover.

The Bible, in both the new and old testament, prohibits homosexuality. Is this the new revisionist stance you are taking, that prohibition of homosexuality has no biblical basis?

Beyond being an issue of the exercise of freedom of religion, it is an issue of freedom of association, regardless of the reason given for not choosing to associate with a person.

The fact is you don't believe in free association. Its one thing to say you think people should be forced to bake cakes for gay weddings, or serve gay weddings in other capacities other the law, but you don't believe in freedom or the idea of "live and let live". Don't piss down my neck and tell me it is raining.

 

[Faun]

Do you tolerate the very hetero deviant behavior that brought homosexuals to acceptance? Where are the deviant heteros taking your freedoms? Why do you choose gays to make your stand rather than the deviant heteros who caused this all in the first place? Why has this court decision inspired you all to action? Why did you make so many cakes without question for the deviant heterosexual?

I'll tell you why. Because it's all
bullshit.

You don't believe in freedom in any sense of the word.

I do. Just not in your sense.

No, not in any sense.

If I own a bakery, should I be allowed to not serve a gay wedding?

Not if your reason is because it offends your religion since there is nothing in the Bible prohibiting baking cakes unless it is during Passover.

The Bible, in both the new and old testament, prohibits homosexuality. Is this the new revisionist stance you are taking, that prohibition of homosexuality has no biblical basis?

Beyond being an issue of the exercise of freedom of religion, it is an issue of freedom of association, regardless of the reason given for not choosing to associate with a person.

The fact is you don't believe in free association. Its one thing to say you think people should be forced to bake cakes for gay weddings, or serve gay weddings in other capacities other the law, but you don't believe in freedom or the idea of "live and let live". Don't piss down my neck and tell me it is raining.

A wedding cake is not gay sex and is not prohibited in the Bible.

 

[Steinlight]

You don't believe in freedom in any sense of the word.

I do. Just not in your sense.

No, not in any sense.

If I own a bakery, should I be allowed to not serve a gay wedding?

Not if your reason is because it offends your religion since there is nothing in the Bible prohibiting baking cakes unless it is during Passover.

The Bible, in both the new and old testament, prohibits homosexuality. Is this the new revisionist stance you are taking, that prohibition of homosexuality has no biblical basis?

Beyond being an issue of the exercise of freedom of religion, it is an issue of freedom of association, regardless of the reason given for not choosing to associate with a person.

The fact is you don't believe in free association. Its one thing to say you think people should be forced to bake cakes for gay weddings, or serve gay weddings in other capacities other the law, but you don't believe in freedom or the idea of "live and let live". Don't piss down my neck and tell me it is raining.

A wedding cake is not gay sex and is not prohibited in the Bible.

Enabling sin, in this case, participating in a sinful ceremony is prohibited by the Bible. Pretty clear in 1 Timothy 5:22 that Christians are not to enable sin.

But the fact remains, you don't support free exercise of religion or free association. Not only are you violating someone's religious liberties, you are violating their basic right of free association. In a free society, regardless of the reason, as sovereign individuals, we have the right to associate and disassociate with whoever we cant, because we are sovereign and own ourselves.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I do. Just not in your sense.

No, not in any sense.

If I own a bakery, should I be allowed to not serve a gay wedding?

Not if your reason is because it offends your religion since there is nothing in the Bible prohibiting baking cakes unless it is during Passover.

The Bible, in both the new and old testament, prohibits homosexuality. Is this the new revisionist stance you are taking, that prohibition of homosexuality has no biblical basis?

Beyond being an issue of the exercise of freedom of religion, it is an issue of freedom of association, regardless of the reason given for not choosing to associate with a person.

The fact is you don't believe in free association. Its one thing to say you think people should be forced to bake cakes for gay weddings, or serve gay weddings in other capacities other the law, but you don't believe in freedom or the idea of "live and let live". Don't piss down my neck and tell me it is raining.

A wedding cake is not gay sex and is not prohibited in the Bible.

Enabling sin, in this case, participating in a sinful ceremony is prohibited by the Bible. Pretty clear in 1 Timothy 5:22 that Christians are not to enable sin.

But the fact remains, you don't support free exercise of religion or free association. Not only are you violating someone's religious liberties, you are violating their basic right of free association. In a free society, regardless of the reason, as sovereign individuals, we have the right to associate and disassociate with whoever we cant, because we are sovereign and own ourselves.

The fact remains that religious dogma is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant.

And it's a fact of law that public accommodations measures in no way 'violate' freedom of association or religious liberty.

Last, public accommodations laws are just, proper, and Constitutional as authorized by the Commerce Clause.

 

[Steinlight]

No, not in any sense.

If I own a bakery, should I be allowed to not serve a gay wedding?

Not if your reason is because it offends your religion since there is nothing in the Bible prohibiting baking cakes unless it is during Passover.

The Bible, in both the new and old testament, prohibits homosexuality. Is this the new revisionist stance you are taking, that prohibition of homosexuality has no biblical basis?

Beyond being an issue of the exercise of freedom of religion, it is an issue of freedom of association, regardless of the reason given for not choosing to associate with a person.

The fact is you don't believe in free association. Its one thing to say you think people should be forced to bake cakes for gay weddings, or serve gay weddings in other capacities other the law, but you don't believe in freedom or the idea of "live and let live". Don't piss down my neck and tell me it is raining.

A wedding cake is not gay sex and is not prohibited in the Bible.

Enabling sin, in this case, participating in a sinful ceremony is prohibited by the Bible. Pretty clear in 1 Timothy 5:22 that Christians are not to enable sin.

But the fact remains, you don't support free exercise of religion or free association. Not only are you violating someone's religious liberties, you are violating their basic right of free association. In a free society, regardless of the reason, as sovereign individuals, we have the right to associate and disassociate with whoever we cant, because we are sovereign and own ourselves.

The fact remains that religious dogma is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant.

And it's a fact of law that public accommodations measures in no way 'violate' freedom of association or religious liberty.

Last, public accommodations laws are just, proper, and Constitutional as authorized by the Commerce Clause.

I don't care what some geriatrics in black robes say. Forcing a business to serve anyone for any reason violates free association and forcing someone to act against their religious conscience violates the free exercise of their religion.

A court can say up is down and black is white, but it doesn't make it so.

 

[Faun]

I do. Just not in your sense.

No, not in any sense.

If I own a bakery, should I be allowed to not serve a gay wedding?

Not if your reason is because it offends your religion since there is nothing in the Bible prohibiting baking cakes unless it is during Passover.

The Bible, in both the new and old testament, prohibits homosexuality. Is this the new revisionist stance you are taking, that prohibition of homosexuality has no biblical basis?

Beyond being an issue of the exercise of freedom of religion, it is an issue of freedom of association, regardless of the reason given for not choosing to associate with a person.

The fact is you don't believe in free association. Its one thing to say you think people should be forced to bake cakes for gay weddings, or serve gay weddings in other capacities other the law, but you don't believe in freedom or the idea of "live and let live". Don't piss down my neck and tell me it is raining.

A wedding cake is not gay sex and is not prohibited in the Bible.

Enabling sin, in this case, participating in a sinful ceremony is prohibited by the Bible. Pretty clear in 1 Timothy 5:22 that Christians are not to enable sin.

But the fact remains, you don't support free exercise of religion or free association. Not only are you violating someone's religious liberties, you are violating their basic right of free association. In a free society, regardless of the reason, as sovereign individuals, we have the right to associate and disassociate with whoever we cant, because we are sovereign and own ourselves.

I don't see anything in the Bible against two people of the same sex getting married and I see nothing prohibiting baking cakes other than during Passover.

Furthermore, there are many people committing other sins besides gay sex and I don't see any religious bakers denying them a wedding cake. Selectively citing religious infringement only against gay marriage, which isn't a sin, is nothing more than discrimination hiding behind religion. That's not allowed in Oregon which is why Sweet Cakes lost the lawsuit.

 

[Faun]

Not if your reason is because it offends your religion since there is nothing in the Bible prohibiting baking cakes unless it is during Passover.

The Bible, in both the new and old testament, prohibits homosexuality. Is this the new revisionist stance you are taking, that prohibition of homosexuality has no biblical basis?

Beyond being an issue of the exercise of freedom of religion, it is an issue of freedom of association, regardless of the reason given for not choosing to associate with a person.

The fact is you don't believe in free association. Its one thing to say you think people should be forced to bake cakes for gay weddings, or serve gay weddings in other capacities other the law, but you don't believe in freedom or the idea of "live and let live". Don't piss down my neck and tell me it is raining.

A wedding cake is not gay sex and is not prohibited in the Bible.

Enabling sin, in this case, participating in a sinful ceremony is prohibited by the Bible. Pretty clear in 1 Timothy 5:22 that Christians are not to enable sin.

But the fact remains, you don't support free exercise of religion or free association. Not only are you violating someone's religious liberties, you are violating their basic right of free association. In a free society, regardless of the reason, as sovereign individuals, we have the right to associate and disassociate with whoever we cant, because we are sovereign and own ourselves.

The fact remains that religious dogma is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant.

And it's a fact of law that public accommodations measures in no way 'violate' freedom of association or religious liberty.

Last, public accommodations laws are just, proper, and Constitutional as authorized by the Commerce Clause.

I don't care what some geriatrics in black robes say. Forcing a business to serve anyone for any reason violates free association and forcing someone to act against their religious conscience violates the free exercise of their religion.

A court can say up is down and black is white, but it doesn't make it so.

That's too funny. Who cares what you think of the Supreme Court justices in their black robes? Their opinion matters. Yours? Not so much.