Gay marriage in Utah put on hold

[8]

have slaves ever been voluntary?



https://thecnnfreedomproject.blogs....d-slavery-and-chocolate-all-too-easy-to-find/

This is one (of many) example. Ferrero and Nestlé claim that they're gonna try and end it by 2020 FWIW (I have my doubts).



Sometimes. But sometimes there comes an idea that is initially met by dissidence, before the majority of the public accepts it.

In fact, this is routine for every social, scientific, economical, political, and religious movement ever. Public perceptions are dynamic. Hence, the fact that a general issue ha temporary disapproval does not mean that it is immoral, incorrect, or shouldn't be fought for.

My point exactly

I think we're all against slavery, but definitely not against cheap labor. Economic development is a process and countries are poor before they are rich.

I think we agree completely, except on the thinking that free markets make slavery. People forced to work violates the very idea of a free market.

 

[Deleted member 848]

My point exactly

I think we're all against slavery, but definitely not against cheap labor. Economic development is a process and countries are poor before they are rich.

I think we agree completely, except on the thinking that free markets make slavery. People forced to work violates the very idea of a free market.

I'm also quite against cheap labour.

 

[8]

I'm also quite against cheap labour.

How come? Anti-economic development?

 

[colton]

Love them and pour all your resources to deny them equal rights and liberties... and in the mean time call them "sick"... makes sense.

Do you think siblings should be able to marry? Do you think a father and daughter should be able to marry?

If not, how are your views on that topic any different than my views on gay marriage? Do you feel that it's possible to be opposed to marriages like that without hating the people involved?

The terminology is irrelevant really. Is it bigoted or is it not? Is it motivated by hatred or intolerance? Does it matter?

Yes, terms matter. Bigot is an ugly word and should only be used in the proper context--which is to say people who have a true hatred of certain classes of other people. Otherwise, among other things, it trivializes the word itself.

I find it reprehensible, abhorrent and extremely rude to say the least either way.

I find lots of things reprehensible, abhorrent and extremely rude. Doesn't mean I should call the offenders bigots, now, does it?

 

[stitches]

Do you think siblings should be able to marry? Do you think a father and daughter should be able to marry?

If not, how are your views on that topic any different than my views on gay marriage?

That's a complicated topic. To me it's not a clear-cut case. There are very good objective reasons why procreation between close relatives is not desirable and thus sex and marriage between close relatives is illegal - namely - it produces offspring with mutations that entails suffering to the offspring and society by extension. No objection of that sort is available for gay marriages. In general what a state decides to allow is dictated by what the state deems would be beneficial to society and it bans what it deems harmful. There are some good arguments why close relatives marrying/procreating would be harmful to society, but I am not sure it's enough to offset any positives it might have. I haven't really studied the subject much, thus I am not sold on either side of this specific dilemma.

On the other hand, I have never seen a good coherent secular argument as to why gay marriage should be illegal. On the contrary, pretty much every study ever done on the subject implies great benefits for society from allowing it. Most people's objections to gay marriage are religious. I don't mind that - if you are gay and you are religious and don't want to go against your religion, all the more power to you. Do whatever you want. If you are straight and you want gay people within you religion to not marry - good, preach to them and hope they won't leave your church. I don't mind that. What I mind is using your religious argumentation to force people outside of your religion to comply with your specific beliefs. In other words - if you want to ban gay marriage/sibling marriage/any sort of marriage for all people in your country/state, you better come with some damn good secular arguments about it.

Do you feel that it's possible to be opposed to marriages like that without hating the people involved?

I definitely think it's possible and that's why I avoid calling people bigots, but I don't shy away from calling their actions and beliefs bad/harmful/discriminatory.

Yes, terms matter. Bigot is an ugly word and should only be used in the proper context--which is to say people who have a true hatred of certain classes of other people. Otherwise, among other things, it trivializes the word itself.

I find lots of things reprehensible, abhorrent and extremely rude. Doesn't mean I should call the offenders bigots, now, does it?

Well, I didn't call you that since I can't know your motivation, although some definitions of bigotry don't require hatred, but simply unfair/prejudicial treatment of others. In general, it's a loaded word and as I said I avoid using it. To me the word doesn't matter - if one treats people in a harmful/disparaging/discriminatory way, their motivation is the last thing I care about.

 

[Deleted member 848]

How come? Anti-economic development?

Anti human abuse.

 

[8]

Anti human abuse.

Didn't know cheap labor and human abuse were synonyms. Confusing to have both of those terms, they should just pick one and stick with it. That would clear up a lot of my confusion.

 

[8]

I think just about everyone is against human abuse as well Dala, but outlawing cheap labor in a case where it is a real opportunity for many workers to improve their lives and that of their descendants seems like abuse to me.

 

[colton]

That's a complicated topic. To me it's not a clear-cut case. There are very good objective reasons why procreation between close relatives is not desirable and thus sex and marriage between close relatives is illegal - namely - it produces offspring with mutations that entails suffering to the offspring and society by extension. No objection of that sort is available for gay marriages.

And that proves that gay relationships are fundamentally different than what has been called a marriage since time immemorial. So, if one is taking procreation out of the equation for marriage, it changes what a marriage is in a fundamental way. So, for example, using the same arguments that the pro-gay marriage crowd uses, then there is absolutely no longer a reason to deny marriages between close relatives if, say, the relatives undergo surgery to prevent them from having kids. Is there?

...But if anyone stills does object to those types of marriages even with child-prevention surgery, then perhaps they can understand why I do not agree with the arguments of the pro-gay marriage crowd.

To be clear, in most respects I don't object to gay rights at all. I didn't object to civil unions... if the state wants to create a legal way to bind people together for those who have relationships different than [traditional] marriages, then that's perfectly fine. But such things should be open to ANY two people (siblings, very close friends, etc), not just those who have homosexual relations with each other.

Anyway, I've been over my views here before, so I'm pretty sure expressing my views again now isn't going to change any one else's opinion.

On the other hand, I have never seen a good coherent secular argument as to why gay marriage should be illegal.

Because it's not a marriage. It's an imitation, which is similar in some ways and different in other. Or putting it another way and to use your language, I have never seen a good coherent secular (or other) argument as to why gay unions should be called marriages.

Of course, what passes for a "good argument" is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?

Well, I didn't call you [a bigot] since I can't know your motivation...

Sorry, I guess I was still in "reply to One Brow" mode, and thought you were agreeing with his opinion.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Dala is right doe, over 300,000,000 different ideas of what the state should be and they are all correct. Dat's a lotta compromise going into every decision made at the federal level.

pls expound.

How come? Anti-economic development?

Worker-abuse with garbage working conditions, low pay, and no health standards is not synonymous with the only sure fire method of economic development for prospering countries.

Didn't know cheap labor and human abuse were synonyms. Confusing to have both of those terms, they should just pick one and stick with it. That would clear up a lot of my confusion.

Didn't know cheap labor and economic growth were synonyms. Confusing to have both of those terms, they should just pick one and stick with it. That would clear up a lot of my confusion

 

[Deleted member 848]

Do you think siblings should be able to marry? Do you think a father and daughter should be able to marry?

If not, how are your views on that topic any different than my views on gay marriage? Do you feel that it's possible to be opposed to marriages like that without hating the people involved?

Because has the propensity to cause birth defects while the other doesn't. Holy ****. If I feel like a relationship has the potential to destroy the health and well-being of a child, then I WILL be opposed to it without hating the people involved. Am I being punked? Did you just equate homosexual marriages to incestuous ones?

 

[Deleted member 848]

And that proves that gay relationships are fundamentally different than what has been called a marriage since time immemorial. So, if one is taking procreation out of the equation for marriage, it changes what a marriage is in a fundamental way. So, for example, using the same arguments that the pro-gay marriage crowd uses, then there is absolutely no longer a reason to deny marriages between close relatives if, say, the relatives undergo surgery to prevent them from having kids. Is there?


...But if anyone stills does object to those types of marriages even with child-prevention surgery, then perhaps they can understand why I do not agree with the arguments of the pro-gay marriage crowd.

Do me a favour: every time you mention "traditional" in your posts in reference to marriage, just swap it to [Mormon] altogether. Your use of the word traditional is biased and vague, and hard to interpret. The Mormon faith does not have exclusive rights to the word tradition, nor does it have exclusive rights to the word marriage.

Traditional could mean polygamous for all we know-- no?

To be clear, in most respects I don't object to gay rights at all. I didn't object to civil unions... if the state wants to create a legal way to bind people together for those who have relationships different than [traditional] marriages, then that's perfectly fine. But such things should be open to ANY two people (siblings, very close friends, etc), not just those who have homosexual relations with each other.

No, because relationships being open between two siblings means that the union is a risk to public health. One of our legal framework's duties is to protect the health of its followers.

Anyway, I've been over my views here before, so I'm pretty sure expressing my views again now isn't going to change any one else's opinion.

Opinions can be changed-- and they do so regularly here.

Because it's not a marriage. It's an imitation

An initiation of what YOU define marriage to be; newsflash: your faith does not have exclusive rights to the term 'marriage'.

which is similar in some ways and different in other. Or putting it another way and to use your language, I have never seen a good coherent secular (or other) argument as to why gay unions should be called marriages.

Of course, what passes for a "good argument" is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?



Sorry, I guess I was still in "reply to One Brow" mode, and thought you were agreeing with his opinion.

See above.

 

[Gameface]

Gay people can marry they just can't call it marriage?

Black people can drink out of fountains they just can't drink out of our fountains.

Do I understand it right?

This is a vocabulary issue. Must respect the sanctity of vocabulary word definitions?

 

[fishonjazz]

No, because relationships being open between two siblings means that the union is a risk to public health. One of our legal framework's duties is to protect the health of its followers.

Why is it a risk to public health if the siblings in the relationship had surgery preventing a possible pregnancy?

 

[stitches]

And that proves that gay relationships are fundamentally different than what has been called a marriage since time immemorial. So, if one is taking procreation out of the equation for marriage, it changes what a marriage is in a fundamental way. So, for example, using the same arguments that the pro-gay marriage crowd uses, then there is absolutely no longer a reason to deny marriages between close relatives if, say, the relatives undergo surgery to prevent them from having kids. Is there?

I am not certain. As I said I haven't read enough on the subject to have a firm position on it. Let me put it this way so you don't think I'm running away from it - if it is objectively shown that such relationships provides net positive effect on the people involved and the society as a whole - I'd have no objection to close relatives having the right to get married. The icky factor aside, imagine orphan siblings separated at some early point who meet for the first time when they are 25-30 and fall in love without knowing they are siblings. I really have hard time thinking of any other reason(other than the possible mutations with offspring) why they shouldn't be allowed to marry. Do you have any other?

To be clear, in most respects I don't object to gay rights at all. I didn't object to civil unions... if the state wants to create a legal way to bind people together for those who have relationships different than [traditional] marriages, then that's perfectly fine. But such things should be open to ANY two people (siblings, very close friends, etc), not just those who have homosexual relations with each other.

The problem with that line of reasoning is that marriage is by definition what the state decides it should be. This is the marriage I am talking about - state sanctioned marriage, not religious marriage. Religions can define their marriage any way they want and can impose whatever restrictions they want within their followers. The marriage I am talking about is a social and legal structure of society that has MANY more purposes than just procreation. That's the reason why nobody is testing people if they are impotent before they allow them to marry. Marriage serves as a society stabilizing structure, family uniting structure with a whole bevy of consequences, it serves as a legal instrument for arranging and settling all kinds of relations between the married couple. People marry for love, for companionship, for financial stability, to celebrate their love and relationship, and so on and so forth. Also, civil unions are similar but not the same as marriage, they include only part of the rights and responsibilities that a married couples have and they have a whole slew of problems arising from that status that don't arise from marriage.

Because it's not a marriage. It's an imitation, which is similar in some ways and different in other. Or putting it another way and to use your language, I have never seen a good coherent secular (or other) argument as to why gay unions should be called marriages.

Yes it is! If the states decide it is marriage, it is! Because they serve the exact same purposes and are motivated by the exact same emotions and considerations as straight marriage, especially in the case where gay couples would be allowed to adopt or already have children.

Of course, what passes for a "good argument" is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?

Not really. When we talk about law and legal definitions, there are objectively bad arguments, incoherent arguments, inconsistent arguments, etc. The arguments we are concerned with are the legal and secular arguments, since the state decides if something should be lawful or not. The very purpose of the law is to either prohibit and/or punish undesirable behavior, or to establish rule of law, and to establish rules by which laws are changed, adjudicated or recognized. If you want to have good legal and secular argument against gay marriage you need to provide reasons why it should be prohibited and why it is undesirable behavior. In general what that means is - you have to provide reasons why you think it would harm society, the state and/or the people involved. Every single study made on gay marriages shows that this is simply not the case - the net contribution of gay marriage to all of those is positive - creates more stable structure of society, more stable relationships, creates less polygamy, less STDs, more stable homes for kids of gay parents and so on and so forth. Think of all the benefits that straight marriage provides to society and to straight couples. Every single one of them is valid for gay marriage and gay couples.

Sorry, I guess I was still in "reply to One Brow" mode, and thought you were agreeing with his opinion.

No worries. Fair mistake...

 

[DutchJazzer]

It becomes perceived as hateful when you think that your perception should apply on a country that exceeds 300 000 000 people. It implies that you find their views incorrect, and then it takes another step and forces them to subscribe to your beliefs.

but then is it incorrect that they force their belief/definition on mariage on us?

and go protest in chick a fil joints?

 

[DutchJazzer]

Do you think siblings should be able to marry? Do you think a father and daughter should be able to marry?

If not, how are your views on that topic any different than my views on gay marriage? Do you feel that it's possible to be opposed to marriages like that without hating the people involved?

to add to his comment?
so why dont they get to marry? because they are related? because their offspring would [possibly be deformed?

seriously why?

what is marriage about?

 

[DutchJazzer]

That's a complicated topic. To me it's not a clear-cut case. There are very good objective reasons why procreation between close relatives is not desirable and thus sex and marriage between close relatives is illegal - namely - it produces offspring with mutations that entails suffering to the offspring and society by extension. No objection of that sort is available for gay marriages. In general what a state decides to allow is dictated by what the state deems would be beneficial to society and it bans what it deems harmful. There are some good arguments why close relatives marrying/procreating would be harmful to society, but I am not sure it's enough to offset any positives it might have. I haven't really studied the subject much, thus I am not sold on either side of this specific dilemma.

but marriage isnt about procreation. what if close relatives want to get married and addopt.
shouldnt they then have the same rights as those homosexuals.

that is a double standard.
because you admit they cant get to marry because their offspring might not be on the up and up. so by saying that you admit marriage is for creating offspring.
but you allow the homosexuals to marry because they cannot create offspring?

 

[DutchJazzer]

Because has the propensity to cause birth defects while the other doesn't. Holy ****. If I feel like a relationship has the potential to destroy the health and well-being of a child, then I WILL be opposed to it without hating the people involved. Am I being punked? Did you just equate homosexual marriages to incestuous ones?

soo if those siblings get a doctors note that he snipped his junk and she tied her tube. you would be ALL FOR IT?

 

[DutchJazzer]

Do me a favour: every time you mention "traditional" in your posts in reference to marriage, just swap it to [Mormon] altogether. Your use of the word traditional is biased and vague, and hard to interpret. The Mormon faith does not have exclusive rights to the word tradition, nor does it have exclusive rights to the word marriage.

he does not have to conform to your stupidity