Gay wedding cakes and the bigots who won't bake them.

[kpmarine]

But Margaret didn't, she was almost 12 before she hit puberty!

Which is still under 18.

 

[Rob Roy]

Did you sleep through your US history classes?

Given the nature of the revisionist history taught in the USA's Prussian school model that would have been the best thing she could have done.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Which is still under 18.

"A real young adult is over 18, an 11 year old hasn't even hit puberty yet"

You must be real high, brah!

Real life young adult means over 18.
Book company's marketing definition of young adult, 11 year old Margaret who hasn't hit puberty.

Having fun with much ado about nothing, which both of us know, and you know I know too. Or else, you're really stoned and don't know that's what you just did. Or did you?

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Given the nature of the revisionist history taught in the USA's Prussian school model that would have been the best thing she could have done.

I nearly got suspended for doing what this kid did when I got pissed my literature teacher said how the vikings were just a bunch of savage cavemen rapists who somehow got ahold of a boat. She said I was retarded for saying the vikings usually attacked when people like the British went back on their word, so they violated the shit out of them to force them for payment.


[video=youtube;ahyB8jhJfZU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahyB8jhJfZU[/video]

 

[kpmarine]

Given the nature of the revisionist history taught in the USA's Prussian school model that would have been the best thing she could have done.

Given that more than a few atrocities committed by the US government are taught in US schools; I'd be inclined to disagree.

 

[kpmarine]

"A real young adult is over 18, an 11 year old hasn't even hit puberty yet"

You must be real high, brah!

Real life young adult means over 18.
Book company's marketing definition of young adult, 11 year old Margaret who hasn't hit puberty.

Having fun with much ado about nothing, which both of us know, and you know I know too. Or else, you're really stoned and don't know that's what you just did. Or did you?

Except your hypothetical 11 year old isn't the norm, and most people finish puberty before 18.

 

[Rob Roy]

Given that more than a few atrocities committed by the US government are taught in US schools; I'd be inclined to disagree.

Do they teach them the purpose of the "free education" and why the Prussian School model was adopted? No, they don't. Do they teach them that most public schools are paid for via ransom? No they don't. Do they teach them how to think or what to think? hmmm.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Except your hypothetical 11 year old isn't the norm, and most people finish puberty before 18.

It was a reference to the book as joke. Jokes follow the norm, or is the fact they don't usually what makes them jokes?

My comment was poking fun at marketing calling an 11 year old a young adult, when the legal definition of an adult is 18, even a 16 year old emancipated minor isn't an adult in the legal sense either.

 

[fr3d12]

It was a reference to the book as joke. Jokes follow the norm, or is the fact they don't usually what makes them jokes?

My comment was poking fun at marketing calling an 11 year old a young adult, when the legal definition of an adult is 18, even a 16 year old emancipated minor isn't an adult in the legal sense either.

If the legal definition of an adult is 18 then why are kids younger than that tried as adults?
I accept that the crime is usually murder but nonetheless I'm curious.

 

[tokeprep]

I'm all for removing all penalties for homosexuality, descrimination and the like. I just don't see any need to add any benefits to it, as it produces none of the benefits heterosexual coupling produces.

If your goal is to reward children, which you say are the great benefit to society that justifies the tax savings, shouldn't we just have a bigger child tax credit? Otherwise you're indiscriminately passing along tax savings to tens of millions of childless couples, which sums to a substantial amount of money being wasted. Maybe then we could increase the child tax credit and enable some people who can't afford children to actually have them, spurring all that extra child spending!

Also, I would make an observation about gay couples and children. First, a lot of gay people are reluctant to have children because of the acceptance issues they've faced, which are furthered by dismissals like the one you just wrote. If you've had a hard time being gay, the idea of forcing a child through some of that agony is probably difficult. As our society continues to becomes more accepting, I think we'll see more gay people having children. I've known a lot of gay people, and many want children, some very badly. I certainly want children. That said, it's not as easy for us, the main problem being that it's expensive. Denying a tax benefit to gay couples probably makes them even less likely to have children.

As to the morality, well I certainly don't think homosexuality raises to the same immorality as fraud or other forms of immorality, there is no harm being done. But neither you nor I get to decide what is moral and what isn't. Societies across time have, and almost universally homosexuality is considered outside of normal morals.

I do get the sense that this may be changing, and when it does that is fine, society decides these things, not individuals. It's like the distinction between climate and weather in the global warming debate. My and your opinions are like weather. Enough of the same, over time will lead to climate. But for now, the vast pool of opinions are that homosexuality is amoral. But as I said this mah be changing. I heard recently that US opinion on same sex marriage has shifted greatly recently, up to 54% I think approval. Perhaps the climate is chaining for homosexual morality, but it isn't there yet.[/QUOTE]

It's there in the generations rising up now. ~70% of people 18-34 want gay marriage to be legal in all 50 states (given the way that's worded, the pro gay marriage number is probably even higher). At the other end, ~55% of people 55+ think gay marriage is wrong. A lot of them will be dead in 10-20 years, and much prejudice will disappear with them.

Many, many societies in human history have tolerated or accepted homosexuality. In many that have discouraged or forbidden it, there may be obvious explanations, such as population pressure (or prohibitions may have been derived in transmitted culture/religion from such origins). If that kind of justification underpinned the morality, it's irrelevant in a world of plenty where we have far more people than jobs for them to do.

 

[kpmarine]

It was a reference to the book as joke. Jokes follow the norm, or is the fact they don't usually what makes them jokes?

My comment was poking fun at marketing calling an 11 year old a young adult, when the legal definition of an adult is 18, even a 16 year old emancipated minor isn't an adult in the legal sense either.

If the legal definition of an adult is 18 then why are kids younger than that tried as adults?
I accept that the crime is usually murder but nonetheless I'm curious.

Hmm... your joke loses a bit of wind when context is applied.

 

[tokeprep]

Benefits exist to promote specific actions. Those actions are typically seen to be of some utility or benefit to our society on the whole.

A heterosexual couple unable/unwilling to have kids should not be separated from the rest of the heterosexual couples for purposes of these benefits. Theoretically, you are right, but the amount of monitoring it would take to "police" this provision would be cost prohibitive. In essence, the benefit is distributed where the potential to create the societal good rests. Even a hetero couple who never has children has the potential to have the by virtue of their sex. The vast majority do. While it is an impossibility for a homosexual couple to produce a child.

Already addressed this with the tax credit, which distributes the benefit exactly where you claim it is intended to go in a way that is also incredibly easy to police.

Homosexuality is amoral because western society has said it was for about 1500 years, if not longer. Homosexuality found acceptance in peagan Europe, but not as practiced today. Men would marry women, and engage in homosexual activity with each other for shits and giggles. Rarely before in world history has there been a movement where homosexuals would decide to enter into the same type of relationship as men and women enter into. So at times when homosexual activity was accepted, what we might call a same sex marriage was still unacceptable to their societies. Greece and Rome come to mind here. So were talking amoral for 3000 years of western society here.

Surely you recognize that the universal condemnation of homosexuality in the Western world in the period you just referenced was attributable entirely to the rise of the Christian church. The situation in classical times was entirely different, as you referenced, but you're wrong that gay marriage didn't occur. It did. The situation in other periods and other places was likewise different. The liberalization of society's views on homosexuality in the modern period has been coupled with a significant decline in the power of the church, and its questionable condemnations have little meaning to modern people.

As I said, this morality seems to be changing. Time will tell. Marrying a child was ok, when it was ok. It's not ok anymore, because we nolonger think it is ok. Make sense?

You say rights don't change. Go tell Henry VIII, Nero, and the Spanish Inquisitors that.

We should be focused on what should be a right, not what is or has been a right.

 

[Beefbisquit]

Heterosexuality is the null hypothesis. In other words, it's the norm, it is assumed, and it is the morally superior orientation.

Bullshit. It's not morally superior in any way shape or form. Any belief to the contrary is simply opinion and should have no actions based on it.

All moral codes that have ever existed make this determination. Furthermore, heterosexuality is in the interest of the state. Heterosexual relationships are better for the economy, and produce the next generation of citizens.

Also not true. Homosexuality has been welcomed and seen as a desirable trait in many cultures. Native Americans, Greeks, lots of tribal cultures, and many more. What you mean to say is, the Abrahamic religions say it's bad so YOU think it's morally inferior.

Homosexuals spend very little money on children, resulting in greater accumulations of wealth.

So, now people with money are the problem? Anyone who's rich and doesn't blow their money?

Accumulations of wealth are good for the person, not good for the economy. Economy is money in motion. Most heterosexuals largest expense is their children, on local services such as child care.

Seriosuly? The fact that less gay people buy diapers and baby food is grounds for a moral stance against their sexuality? That is just ridiculous.

Populations need a 2.1 birth rate for population maintenance, a higher rate for growth. Homosexuals do nothing to this. Adoption by homosexual couples could be an answer to the first point, but not this one.

Lots of gays use surrogates. Have you never heard of this? The fact that gays have less children that heterosexuals means absolutely nothing in terms of morality. Nothing.

Heterosexuality is the norm, and most beneficial to society.

Homosexuality is the norm too, just on a smaller scale as can be documented by virtually every mammalian species. You are talking about your opinion about gays, not facts.

Homosexuals should be free to be what they are, that is not in dispute, but their benefits to society are far less. And don't give me any bullshit about the arts.

You are measuring 'benefits to scoeity' as likelyhood to have children. This is complete bullshit. What about being a good neighbour or brother/family member? Helping out people who are less socially mobile than you? Donating money to charities? Being a good person overall? These are much more important than having kids in terms of 'helping' society.

Anyone can pop out a kid and raise it as a shitstain. How is that helpful?

Anyway, your opinion about the morality of sexuality is completely opinion based, with no basis in reality other than 'cause I (or an old book) say(s) so'.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

I'm an immoral weed smoker just because I wanted to get high. Smoking weed is so bad, that under certain circumstances supporting another's weed habit can get you the death penalty. In other words, morality is in and of itself is opinion based.

 

[BigNBushy]

no, it's not.

Ok, I saw the example you provided. I see a homosexual couple there, some doctors, a whlole bunch of equipment, lab assistants, nurses, and government regulation.

To accomplish the same feat, a (normal) heterosexual couple needs 10 minutes and a paper towel to wipe up with.

It's not the same thing.

 

[kpmarine]

I'm an immoral weed smoker just because I wanted to get high. Smoking weed is so bad, that under certain circumstances supporting another's weed habit can get you the death penalty. In other words, morality is in and of itself is opinion based.

I would argue that what is viewed as moral is opinion based. Morality is a different subject altogether.

 

[BigNBushy]

So it's not the perceived benefit to society, it's the function of ability; heterosexual couples could do it "if they wanted to"... homosexual couples can't - that's what matters.

What about sterile heterosexual couples? Should they be denied the same benefits, too, because they don't have the ability to have kids?


You seem to believe that what is right is whatever the society of the time says is right. How do you not see the obvious flaw in this reasoning? Slavery was legal up until 1865, does that mean it was right because the society said it was in 1860?

No, it is the observation that most, vast majority, of certain folks in a certain class do a specific thing, and government deciding that thing is good, so it should be rewarded.

Presently, we are talking about benefits often given to married couples in the tax code. I stated this was because of benefits to society; production of the next generation.

What percentage of married couples have kids, I dont really know, but I would be willing to put the over/under at 90% or higher. Most married people have children. You are muddying the waters by bringing up a super tiny minority. I would argue that no, they don't deserve the benefit, but, the ability to monitor which married couple was having children would be more expensive than the benefit that monitoring capability was supposed to prevent. So it is cheaper to just give the benefit to them, knowing their lack of child production is something they are still capable of, and if it isn't, something they would likely do if they could.

Besides, it has never been said that child production was the requirement of the benefit. Just marriage.

An infertile couple, and a homosexual couple stand at the same place functionally, cannot produce children. The difference being, very often the infertile couple didn't know until after marriage, where the homosexual couple always knew they couldn't have children.


Historically slavery was ok. One of the first things they teach you if you take a sociology class is that you can't judge other cultures (and naturally their customs) by our own. The same stands to reason that you cannot judge other times values by our own.

Slavery was fine in 1830, and find in 87bc when I think Spartacus revolted in Rome. It had always been done, and was a norm of society. Though by 1830 some were suggesting it end. So then it was probably where homosexuality is now.

So, in 1860, slavery was legal, and by the standards of the day, it was the right thing to do. Can't Jude days gone by by our standards today.

 

[jahbrudda]

Bullshit. It's not morally superior in any way shape or form. Any belief to the contrary is simply opinion and should have no actions based on it.



Also not true. Homosexuality has been welcomed and seen as a desirable trait in many cultures. Native Americans, Greeks, lots of tribal cultures, and many more. What you mean to say is, the Abrahamic religions say it's bad so YOU think it's morally inferior.


So, now people with money are the problem? Anyone who's rich and doesn't blow their money?



Seriosuly? The fact that less gay people buy diapers and baby food is grounds for a moral stance against their sexuality? That is just ridiculous.



Lots of gays use surrogates. Have you never heard of this? The fact that gays have less children that heterosexuals means absolutely nothing in terms of morality. Nothing.



Homosexuality is the norm too, just on a smaller scale as can be documented by virtually every mammalian species. You are talking about your opinion about gays, not facts.



You are measuring 'benefits to scoeity' as likelyhood to have children. This is complete bullshit. What about being a good neighbour or brother/family member? Helping out people who are less socially mobile than you? Donating money to charities? Being a good person overall? These are much more important than having kids in terms of 'helping' society.

Anyone can pop out a kid and raise it as a shitstain. How is that helpful?

Anyway, your opinion about the morality of sexuality is completely opinion based, with no basis in reality other than 'cause I (or an old book) say(s) so'.

Not to rain on your parade but, if government wasn't involved in marriage, you wouldn't have had to make all those defenses.
What does it matter if gays want to marry, what does it matter if gays are born that way or not, what does it matter whether they are moral or not.
Why does all this matter, government laws.

 

[Winter Woman]

How do you feel about that not being a traditional conservative viewpoint? One might even call it liberal

I'm pretty much socially liberal, but fiscally conservative.

 

[Winter Woman]

So wrong again. I think stem cell is fantastic and will save many people. I personally don't care if gays have their own kids or not. Just make them behave in restaurants and don't take them to the theater at night.

funny, i've been to restaurants and worked in restaurants and have never seen gays acting in any kind of disruptive fashion. what the hell are you even talking about, bigot?

I was speaking of the children behaving and everyone here knows that, except you. lol. And the word bigot does fit you so very well.

bigot (ˈbɪɡət)
— n
	a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot?s=t