Perhaps you have in mind some form of discrimination not rooted in bigotry? Or, were you planning on discussing some hypothetical difference with no real-world examples?
Gay marriage in Utah put on hold
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
Perhaps you have in mind some form of discrimination not rooted in bigotry? Or, were you planning on discussing some hypothetical difference with no real-world examples?
If a person genuinely believes in the doctrines of the LDS and is gay, telling them that they can shop around for another religion comes across as insensitive and cavalier.
No need to be snappy. What I meant was, the word bigoted does imply hate. It is a loaded word. The more appropriate word to use in this context is prejudiced or discriminatory. For example, affirmative action is discriminatory, but it is not bigoted. Some countries even disallow such practices for being examples of "positive discrimination".
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
I'm not saying it isn't prejudice. I just think that the unique feature of there being thousands of faiths, cults, sects, and America's idealized, secular conception of being able to practice any one of them so long as they don't infringe on certain tenets of society, means that the prejudiced, or bigoted views of a given sect shouldn't have the potency to really impact the life of a given individual. I know many homosexual individuals who feel this way.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
If they want the group-dynamic of LDS-lifestyle along with being able to have homosexual relations, I would tell them to consider starting an off-sect of LDS faith that includes homosexual reconciliation if it doesn't already exist-- this is how literally every offshoot, sect, or cult is formed. Not sure how this is insensitive and cavalier. God Bless America.
But isn't this what OB is saying? The church has the right to disallow gay marriage. But since that is not justified with a rational argument with axioms we can all agree upon, it is fair to say that their position is discriminatory. Given the general pattern of human social progress, the position will be judged as such in retrospect.
On the topic of sibling marriage, briefly:
Even if one sibling were adopted, and not biologically related at all, I would opposed to the sibling marriage because of the unequal power structures of those entering the marriage. By contrast, I agree with stitches that if biological siblings were raised apart and were not going to have children, I don't have an objection to that marriage.
Even if one sibling were adopted, and not biologically related at all, I would opposed to the sibling marriage because of the unequal power structures of those entering the marriage. By contrast, I agree with stitches that if biological siblings were raised apart and were not going to have children, I don't have an objection to that marriage.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
Which comes full-cicle: I have no idea why OB quoted a post of mine arguing a point that I never really talked about in this thread.
Lots of people we both would recognize as bigots insist they have no hate in their hearts, as long as the recipients of their bigotry "keep their place" or some such notion.
I don't know if this is true of the LDS particularly, but many religions include a belief than one organization only is God's representative. Forming a sect is not always an option.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
What, a group formed by people has determined what God's word is?! Oh gosh, this will be impossible to work around.
So if a person has a defined genetic condition that can be passed to their progeny such as ectrodactyly, would you be on board to deny them marriage?
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Yeah we can test for quite a few genetic conditions. What about the genetic predisposition toward breast cancer that caused people like Angelina Jolie to have her breasts removed pre-emptively. Maybe we should screen for that before allowing people to procreate.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Here is a list of things this company can screen for, including to see if Rene Zellweger is hanging out at your house or something.
https://genesisgenetics.org/pgd/what-we-test-for/
https://genesisgenetics.org/pgd/what-we-test-for/
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
cute straw man. I give it a 3/10.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
will address this later.
Right. So there's no point in general, blanket analysis. If people choose to do stuff then they must have reasons for it.
That's a slave? Someone choosing to work?
This is incredibly simplistic way to view it. There are a lot of factors that influence what governments decides should be legal and what it decides shouldn't. They deal with trade-offs quite frequently - for example the trade off to prohibiting procreation of people with genetic deceases is limiting personal freedoms and rights, discrimination on disability/illness with everything that goes along with it,etc. It's quite possible that the net result of such discrimination is negative, while prohibiting siblings or parents and children to marry results in a net positive outcome. Also, genetically transmitted deceases in general do not pose the same level of risks to the public health as the decreased biological fitness of the population posed by inbreeding. Simply put, there are different factors that need to be considered in those cases and the resulting laws could be different. As One Brow put it, the balance of powers is another one that is pretty serious one against close relatives' marriage. At the end, you add up the positives and negatives and decide if the practice should be allowed or not.
That's why gay marriage(just like any other legislative decision) should be considered on its own merits, as well. Benefits vs harms to the people, to the public, to the state. When you draw the line and assess, it's a landslide in favor of allowing it.
Last edited:
In some very powerful ways, believing in the LDS system of authority is much more disabling than believing in obeying civil law, when you need to "shop around" for a place to belong. When the LDS Church excommunicates someone, it destroys many friendships and relationships, even marriages, and imposes extreme prejudice upon the excommunicated person. . . . . Civil governments can throw you in prison, but cannot as effectively destroy your "life".