Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 20 of 23 FirstFirst ... 10 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 LastLast
Results 381 to 400 of 448
  1. #381
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,673
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why I believe homosexuality is morally wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If it's a purely private hire than the government is not involved and likewise it should have no say over your private hire and therefore can exert no force or coercion (and force and coercion is the issue).

    As an example, hiring someone to mow your lawn would be a private hire (no government involvement). Would you get in any kind of legal trouble over refusing to hire a gay guy to mow your lawn because he's gay? I very much doubt it.
    Technically gay is not yet a protected class, but if you didn't hire someone because he is black you might not get in trouble, but you would be breaking the law. http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    I am NOT copping out and I am NOT dodging your point so please stop with those accusations. Just address my arguments.
    You didn't make an argument related to the point, which is why I made that statement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    If the government has a say over your business practices then you must have a business license of some kind and therefore you are in a relationship with the government.
    Your business license has nothing to do with hiring. The individual contract you make with an employee does not have the government as a party in any conceivable form. That is why the government can't sue you for material breach on a labor contract. I think I would need to see a bit more support that an individual labor hire has the government as a party for this. Because the government can mandate certain aspects of a business (presumably because your actions infringe the rights of others) does not mean they can regulate all aspects of your business.

    And lets say we accept the premise, doesn't that prove my point? That we are forced to act in a certain way when engaging a particular hire?

    Quote Originally Posted by Just Me View Post
    Yes, same as a male or female, black or white, indian, asian, someone with a high IQ as yours, You can hire whoever you want, and not hire whoever you want.
    Not in the US. That would be discriminatory hiring. Engaging in that would bring about a force on me from the EEOC.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rodriguez View Post
    You, like the rest of us, are free to do anything you are physically capable of doing. But there are consequences (and sometimes those consequences are of a legal nature) that could result from your doing so.
    Fine, then you agree with me that we are coerced into doing a certain action with the threat of force.

    And the implication here is a bit of equivocation. Because we could or should force one person not to kill another one does not mean that we could or should force a person to associate with another one.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  2. #382
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,533
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why I believe homosexuality is morally wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Technically gay is not yet a protected class, but if you didn't hire someone because he is black you might not get in trouble, but you would be breaking the law. http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html
    Your argument is about government coercion so it's pretty much the same issue, as in the government will "coerce" you so really that differentiation hurts your argument but I'll concede that we are heading towards laws where to discriminate against gays would be like discrimination against blacks (since it's reasonable to believe that this is where it's going).

    But I hold that it's just as bad to discriminate based on sexual orientation than it is to discriminate based on race so any argument agains such legal protections would need to address legal protections in general as opposed to legal protections against gays.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You didn't make an argument related to the point, which is why I made that statement.
    Then just say that my argument did not really address the point. Attack my argument. Don't attack me. Note that I never accuse you personally of things like that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Your business license has nothing to do with hiring. The individual contract you make with an employee does not have the government as a party in any conceivable form. That is why the government can't sue you for material breach on a labor contract. I think I would need to see a bit more support that an individual labor hire has the government as a party for this. Because the government can mandate certain aspects of a business (presumably because your actions infringe the rights of others) does not mean they can regulate all aspects of your business.
    Right. But they certainly regulate many aspects of your business. And if it's "coercion" to say you can't do A, then it's likewise "coercion" to say you can't do B,C,D,E...etc. So you are automatically submitting yourself to "coercion" in many, many ways when you start up a business that the government will have rules over.

    And the point is you don't have to start a business and therefore you can completely avoid all of this "coercion". Coercion that can be avoided is not really coercion. You don't have to hire any gays unless you make a choice to put yourself in a position where it becomes an issue. So people are not being inherently coerced.

  3. #383
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,673
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why I believe homosexuality is morally wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But I hold that it's just as bad to discriminate based on sexual orientation than it is to discriminate based on race so any argument agains such legal protections would need to address legal protections in general as opposed to legal protections against gays.
    And? Something can be bad and we still don't force people to do or not do it. Just because something is morally objectionable doesn't mean we are allowed to force someone into an activity right?

    And it would seem that you are conceding the point, that we are (or will be) forcing people to accept a lifestyle they do not agree with and associate with people they do not wish. IE that the point of force was a valid one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Right. But they certainly regulate many aspects of your business. And if it's "coercion" to say you can't do A, then it's likewise "coercion" to say you can't do B,C,D,E...etc. So you are automatically submitting yourself to "coercion" in many, many ways when you start up a business that the government will have rules over.

    And the point is you don't have to start a business and therefore you can completely avoid all of this "coercion". Coercion that can be avoided is not really coercion. You don't have to hire any gays unless you make a choice to put yourself in a position where it becomes an issue. So people are not being inherently coerced.
    So if we mandated people to pray in their businesses it wouldn't really be a problem? You don't have to start your business after all.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  4. #384
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,533
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why I believe homosexuality is morally wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    And it would seem that you are conceding the point, that we are (or will be) forcing people to accept a lifestyle they do not agree with and associate with people they do not wish. IE that the point of force was a valid one.
    First off, "accept" is a mental concept as in one personally approves of something. So you can hire a gay person and still not accept/approve of the way he lives his life.

    And again, no is forced to hire anyone since you ALWAYS have the option of not going into business so no one is forced to hire anyone.

    This is kind of like complaining that declaring war forces everyone to go fight in that war when it's only those who choose to join the military who might be forced to fight (assuming there's no draft, of course).


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    So if we mandated people to pray in their businesses it wouldn't really be a problem? You don't have to start your business after all.
    I don't get the point of the question. While I don't unilaterally refuse to answer challenges posed in the form of questions I only feel obligated to respond to actual rebuttals to my arguments so I reserve the right to not respond to questions, especially if I don't see the point of them. This is one of those instances.

  5. #385
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Alpharetta, GA
    Posts
    412
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why I believe homosexuality is morally wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    And again, no is forced to hire anyone since you ALWAYS have the option of not going into business so no one is forced to hire anyone.
    This is just absurd. It's no different than saying "Well you aren't technically forced to get a driver's license because you ALWAYS have the option of simply not driving." If you want to drive, you are required (i.e. you are forced) to get a license. "Not driving" is not an actual option, just as "not going into business" is not an actual option because we aren't choosing between driving vs. not driving (or going into business vs. not going into business), but rather discussing what is required by the state/authority/community/etc. in order to drive (and likewise, in order to conduct business). If the state requires that we have a license in order to drive on the roads we want to drive on, then we are effectively forced to get a license. Likewise, if the state has regulations regarding discriminatory hiring practices, then we are forced to comply with said hiring practices.

  6. #386
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,533
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why I believe homosexuality is morally wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Freund View Post
    This is just absurd. It's no different than saying "Well you aren't technically forced to get a driver's license because you ALWAYS have the option of simply not driving." If you want to drive, you are required (i.e. you are forced) to get a license. "Not driving" is not an actual option, just as "not going into business" is not an actual option because we aren't choosing between driving vs. not driving (or going into business vs. not going into business), but rather discussing what is required by the state/authority/community/etc. in order to drive (and likewise, in order to conduct business). If the state requires that we have a license in order to drive on the roads we want to drive on, then we are effectively forced to get a license. Likewise, if the state has regulations regarding discriminatory hiring practices, then we are forced to comply with said hiring practices.
    WE are? I've never had to comply with those practices since I've never directly hired anyone. I think most people can probably say the same thing.

  7. #387
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Alpharetta, GA
    Posts
    412
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why I believe homosexuality is morally wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    WE are? I've never had to comply with those practices since I've never directly hired anyone. I think most people can probably say the same thing.
    It's called "staying within the universe of discourse". Who cares that you have never had to comply with those practices? That's not what is being discussed.

  8. #388
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,533
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why I believe homosexuality is morally wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Freund View Post
    It's called "staying within the universe of discourse". Who cares that you have never had to comply with those practices? That's not what is being discussed.
    We aren't discussing whether we have to comply with those practices?

  9. #389
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Alpharetta, GA
    Posts
    412
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why I believe homosexuality is morally wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    We aren't discussing whether we have to comply with those practices?
    Yes, if by the second "we" in that sentence you mean "a person who needs to hire someone". Since you are not "a person who needs to hire someone", your assertion (that you have never had to comply with said practices) is irrelevant to the discussion, as you do not qualify as being "a person who needs to hire someone".

  10. #390
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,533
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why I believe homosexuality is morally wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Freund View Post
    Yes, if by the second "we" in that sentence you mean "a person who needs to hire someone". Since you are not "a person who needs to hire someone", your assertion (that you have never had to comply with said practices) is irrelevant to the discussion, as you do not qualify as being "a person who needs to hire someone".
    But if a person CHOOSES to hire someone they likewise choose to enter a particular relationship between themselves and the government where the government dictates all kinds of rules on how they must treat their employees and such.

    If it's "coercion" to say you can't do A, then it's likewise "coercion" to say you can't do B,C,D,E...etc. So you are automatically submitting yourself to "coercion" in many, many ways when you start up a business that the government will have rules over.

    And the point is you don't have to start a business and therefore you can completely avoid all of this "coercion". Coercion that can be avoided is not really coercion. You don't have to hire any gays unless you make a choice to put yourself in a position where it becomes an issue. So people are not being inherently coerced.

  11. #391
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,673
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why I believe homosexuality is morally wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    First off, "accept" is a mental concept as in one personally approves of something. So you can hire a gay person and still not accept/approve of the way he lives his life.
    But you are forced to acknowledge it as equally legitimate with any other lifestyle by not considering it when you are choosing who to freely associate with in business.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    And again, no is forced to hire anyone since you ALWAYS have the option of not going into business so no one is forced to hire anyone.
    But this isn't just some action, free association is a fundamental right, saying "we aren't really forcing you to do anything unless you exercise your rights" is a pretty hollow defense. Gun control doesn't really violate your Second Amendment rights unless you choose to own a gun right? So its not really coercive to ban firearms because you can avoid it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    I don't get the point of the question. While I don't unilaterally refuse to answer challenges posed in the form of questions I only feel obligated to respond to actual rebuttals to my arguments so I reserve the right to not respond to questions, especially if I don't see the point of them. This is one of those instances.
    Your logic seems to imply that it isn't coercive of the government to mandate prayer within a place of business. Are you saying that that mandate wouldn't be coercive?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  12. #392
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,533
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why I believe homosexuality is morally wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    But you are forced to acknowledge it as equally legitimate with any other lifestyle by not considering it when you are choosing who to freely associate with in business.
    You are forced to treat people a certain way as a business person. But you always have the freedom to decide that you don't approve of certain people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    But this isn't just some action, free association is a fundamental right, saying "we aren't really forcing you to do anything unless you exercise your rights" is a pretty hollow defense.
    But you don't have the right to run a business. If you did, such a thing as a business license could not exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Your logic seems to imply that it isn't coercive of the government to mandate prayer within a place of business. Are you saying that that mandate wouldn't be coercive?
    It is coercive to the business community in the same way that every single regulation that government imposes on the business community is coercive.

    Of course the additional problem with prayer is that religion is being brought into the picture and therefore first amendment issues are added to the mix.

  13. #393
    Senior Mod

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,289
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why I believe homosexuality is morally wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But you don't have the right to run a business. If you did, such a thing as a business license could not exist.
    This is simply false. Simply because the government chooses to regulate something doesn't mean that we don't have a fundamental right to do it. We have a fundamental right to bear arms, but the government has plenty of regulations about that. We have regulations about what kind of speech can be uttered, and where, and under what circumstances, too. Doesn't mean that we don't have the right to free speech.

    Running a business comes under the right of "life" (in this case, acquiring the means necessary to make a livelihood), and to the "pursuit of happiness," both of which are enshrined as "inalienable rights" in the Declaration of Independence. Your assertion that simply because the government asserts the ability to regulate something means we don't have a right to it is totally incorrect.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    It is coercive to the business community in the same way that every single regulation that government imposes on the business community is coercive.

    Of course the additional problem with prayer is that religion is being brought into the picture and therefore first amendment issues are added to the mix.
    There's another part of the first amendment that people often overlook, and that is the right to the free exercise of conscience. By your logic and your application of the First Amendment to businesses, there is no functional difference between requiring people to hire gays and requiring them to pray, because both of them are making infringements upon the First Amendment. It's just that you don't acknowledge the right of people to exercise their conscience freely by not supporting or encouraging homosexuality by providing benefits to gay couples through employment (which now mandates coverage be provided to employees and spouses).

    By your logic, requiring that people pray in their place of business is not an infringement upon their First Amendment rights... you are always free to not start a business, after all. You can't have it both ways. Either it's both or neither.
    Last edited by Talthas; April 19th, 2013 at 02:01 PM.
    -=[Talthas]=-
    ODN Senior Moderator

    ODN Rules

  14. #394
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,673
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why I believe homosexuality is morally wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    You are forced to treat people a certain way as a business person. But you always have the freedom to decide that you don't approve of certain people.
    How so? I can't choose not to associate, I have to present a public face that it is identical to any other lifestyle. You might not care about that use of force, but it is a use of force nonetheless.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican
    But you don't have the right to run a business. If you did, such a thing as a business license could not exist.
    This is beyond just running a business (and I think if you are going to support that I don't have a right to engage in private enterprise that will need some support), it goes to association. I am choosing who I personally choose to associate with and not associate with. You are telling me I don't have that choice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    It is coercive to the business community in the same way that every single regulation that government imposes on the business community is coercive.

    Of course the additional problem with prayer is that religion is being brought into the picture and therefore first amendment issues are added to the mix.
    First amendment issues like the freedom of association?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  15. #395
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    I'm lost
    Posts
    3,026
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why I believe homosexuality is morally wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Not in the US. That would be discriminatory hiring. Engaging in that would bring about a force on me from the EEOC.
    Ok, let me rephrase, you SHOULD be able to. Same as any private property, churches, etc.. should be able to decide what marriages that want to hold, what type of parties. And a business should be able to decide who to hire and who to not to, same as who to fire and who not to. I think the discriminatory issue stems from a political stand point which is not a good thing imo.
    Show me the government that does not infringe upon anyone's rights, and I will no longer call myself an anarchist.~Jacob Halbrooks
    "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.~Benjamin Franklin
    "Go big or Go home"~ LoLo Bean

  16. Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  17. #396
    Senior Mod

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,289
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why I believe homosexuality is morally wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Just Me View Post
    Ok, let me rephrase, you SHOULD be able to. Same as any private property, churches, etc.. should be able to decide what marriages that want to hold, what type of parties. And a business should be able to decide who to hire and who to not to, same as who to fire and who not to. I think the discriminatory issue stems from a political stand point which is not a good thing imo.
    This is exactly the point that we've been making... the gay lobby as a political entity has been pushing the issue of "discriminatory" behavior to the point that if homosexual unions are legally recognized as marriages, they *would* be calling in the EEOC for people that refused to hire gays so as to avoid the requirement to legitimize their union by giving spousal benefits to the same-sex partner. There's every indication, from the pattern of successful litigations that have been pursued in this country, that the second the issue of giving the official legal status of "marriage" to same sex unions, we can reasonably expect a host of lawsuits against employers, insurance companies, and non-profits from gay couples who wish to use the government to force people to hire them, give their "spouses" medical insurance and other employment benefits, etc. In short, they will use the apparatus of state by means of the State and Federal court system to force people to violate their rights of conscience and freedom of association so that homosexual unions will have recognition as a legitimate social institution.

    It's not just about legal rights... it's about forcing people through the mechanism of the State to legitimize a lifestyle they find morally objectionable, and it always has been. That's the whole problem. If it weren't, then there would have been a greater push for either a) getting the government out of the business of defining marriage at all, or b) getting equivalent legal status as "civil unions" with all the same rights and privileges.
    -=[Talthas]=-
    ODN Senior Moderator

    ODN Rules

  18. #397
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    I'm lost
    Posts
    3,026
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why I believe homosexuality is morally wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    This is exactly the point that we've been making... the gay lobby as a political entity has been pushing the issue of "discriminatory" behavior to the point that if homosexual unions are legally recognized as marriages, they *would* be calling in the EEOC for people that refused to hire gays so as to avoid the requirement to legitimize their union by giving spousal benefits to the same-sex partner.
    Just to be clear here, are you saying that even in civil unions (just another name for marriage) that same sex couples should not have spousal benefits? Or just the hiring part? "marriage" is just another term for unions as long as unions have the same rights. It should be up to that company if it should hire a homosexual, it should be up to that white owner if it wants to hire a black man, correct?

    There's every indication, from the pattern of successful litigations that have been pursued in this country, that the second the issue of giving the official legal status of "marriage" to same sex unions, we can reasonably expect a host of lawsuits against employers, insurance companies, and non-profits from gay couples who wish to use the government to force people to hire them, give their "spouses" medical insurance and other employment benefits, etc. In short, they will use the apparatus of state by means of the State and Federal court system to force people to violate their rights of conscience and freedom of association so that homosexual unions will have recognition as a legitimate social institution.
    As long as same sex couples have the same rights as a hetero marriage each company
    should be able to decide. Do you feel the same way about interracial marriages as you do same sex?
    It's not just about legal rights... it's about forcing people through the mechanism of the State to legitimize a lifestyle they find morally objectionable, and it always has been. That's the whole problem. If it weren't, then there would have been a greater push for either a) getting the government out of the business of defining marriage at all, or b) getting equivalent legal status as "civil unions" with all the same rights and privileges.
    Which "rights" do you feel that a same sex couple should not have?
    The same thing was done about interracial marriages. People were "forced" to accept interracial marriage as well, do you object to that?

    Interracial marriages were also concidered immoral, wasn't it?
    Show me the government that does not infringe upon anyone's rights, and I will no longer call myself an anarchist.~Jacob Halbrooks
    "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.~Benjamin Franklin
    "Go big or Go home"~ LoLo Bean

  19. #398
    Senior Mod

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,289
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why I believe homosexuality is morally wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Just Me View Post
    Just to be clear here, are you saying that even in civil unions (just another name for marriage) that same sex couples should not have spousal benefits?
    Honestly, I think that things that are currently considered "employer benefits" like health insurance should be totally divorced from employment altogether, which would solve that problem nicely. Barring that, I think that if we're going to have employers providing "benefits" to people and someone else, then the benefits should be for the employee only or extend to anyone whom the employee designates, not just spouses, and make the extension of benefits be a contractural arrangement instead of tied to marriage. What I don't agree with is maintaining the current status of both tying benefits to employment and then making the extension of those benefits specific to spouses, which basically puts the state and the employer in the business of interacting directly with marriages, which I strongly disagree with. Marriage is a social and religious institution, not a legal or political one except where people have forced it to be.

    Quote Originally Posted by Just Me
    Or just the hiring part? It should be up to that company if it should hire a homosexual, it should be up to that white owner if it wants to hire a black man, correct?
    Honestly, I feel like a company or individual should be able to hire, not hire, or fire any person at any time, for any reason, including "I don't like the way your face looks" or "you like Justin Bieber, and I hate that no-talent ass-clown." If one of those criteria is, "you're black/white/[insert ethnicity/nationality here]" or "you're Christian/Muslim/Jewish/atheist/[insert religious belief or lack thereof here]," or "you're [gay/straight/trans-sexual/bisexual/etc]" or "you're too fat/too skinny/too ugly/too wimpy" or whatever, then so be it. It's their money. Why should they be obliged to give it to anyone they don't want to if they can just choose someone they like better, for whatever reason?

    Quote Originally Posted by Just Me
    Do you feel the same way about interracial marriages as you do same sex?
    Nope... because there's nothing in the definition of "marriage" that precludes two people of different races, so long as one is male and the other is female, from joining in marriage. It's only certain racist people that had an objection to inter-racial marriages, and it's not as if it's been a huge issue except for a relatively short period in Western civilization. It's not as if people didn't routinely take a foreign wife when various armies marched across Europe, Africa, and the Middle East at various times. There's no equivalency whatsoever. In the case of different races, they just happen to be people of different colors engaging in a well-established and virtually universally honored social and religious institution. Same sex couples, however, are doing no such thing. There is no universally socially or religiously sanctioned institution to give legitimacy to their union, and even if one might consider that "monogamous domestic partnership" ipso facto is its own instiution, that is certainly not the same thing as marriage, which has as one of its purposes from time immemorial the production and protection of offspring... which they are not capable of having while still remaining within the bounds of that union.

    Quote Originally Posted by Just Me
    Which "rights" do you feel that a same sex couple should not have?
    The ability to force me to call their choice to live together a "marriage" when it's not, or to treat it as if it were if I don't want to.


    Quote Originally Posted by Just Me
    The same thing was done about interracial marriages. People were "forced" to accept interracial marriage as well, do you object to that?
    Nope... see above. There's nothing inherent in a one man/one woman pairing that necessitates that they be of the same race, and there's not even that strong of a historical precedent that such a requirement ever existed in general (miscegenation laws here and in Britain not withstanding).

    Quote Originally Posted by Just Me
    Interracial marriages were also concidered immoral, wasn't it?
    No widely recognized ecclesial source made that stance a point of doctrine or dogma of which I'm aware... do you know of one?
    -=[Talthas]=-
    ODN Senior Moderator

    ODN Rules

  20. #399
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    I'm lost
    Posts
    3,026
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why I believe homosexuality is morally wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    Honestly, I think that things that are currently considered "employer benefits" like health insurance should be totally divorced from employment altogether, which would solve that problem nicely. Barring that, I think that if we're going to have employers providing "benefits" to people and someone else, then the benefits should be for the employee only or extend to anyone whom the employee designates, not just spouses, and make the extension of benefits be a contractural arrangement instead of tied to marriage. What I don't agree with is maintaining the current status of both tying benefits to employment and then making the extension of those benefits specific to spouses, which basically puts the state and the employer in the business of interacting directly with marriages, which I strongly disagree with. Marriage is a social and religious institution, not a legal or political one except where people have forced it to be.
    I do agree with all of that, except that marriage is a religious institution. That would exclude atheists..

    Honestly, I feel like a company or individual should be able to hire, not hire, or fire any person at any time, for any reason, including "I don't like the way your face looks" or "you like Justin Bieber, and I hate that no-talent ass-clown." If one of those criteria is, "you're black/white/[insert ethnicity/nationality here]" or "you're Christian/Muslim/Jewish/atheist/[insert religious belief or lack thereof here]," or "you're [gay/straight/trans-sexual/bisexual/etc]" or "you're too fat/too skinny/too ugly/too wimpy" or whatever, then so be it. It's their money. Why should they be obliged to give it to anyone they don't want to if they can just choose someone they like better, for whatever reason?
    I agree with this.

    Nope... because there's nothing in the definition of "marriage" that precludes two people of different races, so long as one is male and the other is female, from joining in marriage. It's only certain racist people that had an objection to inter-racial marriages, and it's not as if it's been a huge issue except for a relatively short period in Western civilization. It's not as if people didn't routinely take a foreign wife when various armies marched across Europe, Africa, and the Middle East at various times. There's no equivalency whatsoever. In the case of different races, they just happen to be people of different colors engaging in a well-established and virtually universally honored social and religious institution. Same sex couples, however, are doing no such thing. There is no universally socially or religiously sanctioned institution to give legitimacy to their union, and even if one might consider that "monogamous domestic partnership" ipso facto is its own instiution, that is certainly not the same thing as marriage, which has as one of its purposes from time immemorial the production and protection of offspring... which they are not capable of having while still remaining within the bounds of that union.
    At one point in history, the "highly religious" thought interracial couples was immoral.
    The ability to force me to call their choice to live together a "marriage" when it's not, or to treat it as if it were if I don't want to.
    You are defining marriage as a religious institution when it is not, atheists, even marriage predates the history of christianity.
    The concept of marriage predates Christianity and the other two forms of Abrahamic religions, Judaism and Islam which share a common origin and common values. Marriage is very ancient dating back beyond recorded history and was practiced by all people of many cultures, ethnicities and belief systems on all continents. LINK

    Nope... see above. There's nothing inherent in a one man/one woman pairing that necessitates that they be of the same race, and there's not even that strong of a historical precedent that such a requirement ever existed in general (miscegenation laws here and in Britain not withstanding)
    "people" determines what is immoral and moral, not any book, and People did think it was immoral
    Show me the government that does not infringe upon anyone's rights, and I will no longer call myself an anarchist.~Jacob Halbrooks
    "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.~Benjamin Franklin
    "Go big or Go home"~ LoLo Bean

  21. #400
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,533
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Why I believe homosexuality is morally wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    Running a business comes under the right of "life" (in this case, acquiring the means necessary to make a livelihood), and to the "pursuit of happiness," both of which are enshrined as "inalienable rights" in the Declaration of Independence. Your assertion that simply because the government asserts the ability to regulate something means we don't have a right to it is totally incorrect.
    But do you have the right to be free of regulation? Because that's what this is an issue of - the government telling you how to run your business, including hiring practices. If you have the right to run your business and be free of governmental hiring practices, THEN your rights are being violated when the government tells you that you cannot discriminate against blacks or you can't discriminate against gays. And even if I were to accept an argument that such a restriction IS immoral, the problem is not with blacks and gays but with unwarranted government interference.

    So ultimately this argument, even if conceded, does not equate to a valid argument that homosexuality is immoral or that homosexuals are doing something wrong. They are forcing the government to enact such hiring practices, such rules existed before there was an issue of whether to apply it to gays are not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    There's another part of the first amendment that people often overlook, and that is the right to the free exercise of conscience.
    So if one feels that it's morally wrong for white people to associate with black people, they should be free to hire only whites, even if their company employs millions of people?

    ---------- Post added at 10:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:23 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This is beyond just running a business (and I think if you are going to support that I don't have a right to engage in private enterprise that will need some support), it goes to association. I am choosing who I personally choose to associate with and not associate with. You are telling me I don't have that choice.
    It does NOT go beyond running a business since it's only via your participation in a business that you are forced to associate with certain people.

    As PRIVATE citizen you are completely free to not associate with whoever you don't associate with. And the ultimate penalty as a business owner for not hiring gays is that you can't be a business owner anymore.

    ------------------------

    To everyone:

    While I don't mind having this debate over hiring practices, let's be clear that if there is an unwarranted infringement it is ONLY on a person as a business owner and clearly a person's actions as a business owner is greatly restricted in comparison to a person's actions as a private citizen.

    NO argument has been presented that anything resembling "force" is being used on private citizens. I'm not saying that such an argument can't be made but it certainly has not been made at this point.

 

 
Page 20 of 23 FirstFirst ... 10 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The gay cure
    By Trendem in forum Hypothetical Debates
    Replies: 107
    Last Post: February 2nd, 2009, 05:22 AM
  2. Compassion is Morally Wrong
    By Castle in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: June 5th, 2008, 05:51 PM
  3. Is spanking unethical?
    By starcreator in forum General Debate
    Replies: 84
    Last Post: April 10th, 2006, 06:01 PM
  4. Wrong Wrong Wrong!!
    By IceWarm in forum General Debate
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: August 10th, 2005, 12:51 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •