The costs of gay marriage

[Gameface]

You are hearing the wrong message. I'm not asking for something, just noting that if there was less selfishness there would be less problems. This is not really a quit being selfish so I can get what I want selfishness circle that does happen out there.

Don't get me wrong, there are also quite a few unselfish people out there, they just generally don't publish how awesome they are.

I'm not accusing you of anything. It's the word and the way it is commonly used I have a problem with.

Maybe it's my cynicism, but I think people who are convinced to stop acting in their own interests (stop being selfish) encourage others to take advantage of the situation. I think the world is best when everyone expects others to protect their own interests and we understand it is our individual duty to protect our own interests. Anytime someone is told to stop protecting their own interests it is a recipe for someone else to take advantage of them.

I don't see people protecting their own interests as ever being a problem...unless by people protecting their own interests they are preventing others from accomplishing their goals because those goals require people who can be fleeced.

I think that there is a common misconception that protecting one's self interests (selfishness) means there is no cooperation, no generosity, no compassion. I disagree. If a person thinks that lack of cooperation, generosity and compassion is in their best interests they are sadly mistaken. For each of us as individuals to reach our greatest success we need to work with other people. In those relationships we need to give and take.

I think there is such a thing as selfishness, but I think it is typically so self-destructive to the individual that it has no power to destroy society.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it.

When I look at the people who are against gay marrige and the arguments they present, it's not too much of a stretch to make a comparison to an earlier time in this country when the issue of slavery was paramount.

When President Lincoln sought an end to slavery, the nay-sayers brought arguments to the table such as, "are negros ready for freedom", "this will adversely affect the make-up of our country", "this is evidence of a declining moral value in our society", "blacks cannot be given equal rights when they are not equal to whites", and so on and so on......

On the flip side, those who agreed that slavery should end held on to the simple notion that human rights are for ALL humans regardless of race, color, religion, etc. (pretty crazy notion, right?)

If you're worried about the institution of marrige, continue to do your best to take care of your marrige and raise your family under the moral code that you find appropriate as opposed to seeking to deny other humans a basic right simply because you see them as morally unworthy.

When looking back over the course of time, any group of people who try to deny others their basic civil rights always end up on the wrong side of history. It's happened with religion, it's happened with slavery, it's happened with segregation, it's happened with the woman's suffarage movement, etc. It's a losing battle, but sadly it's still a battle that too many who deem themselves morally advanced seem intent on fighting generation after generation.

So would you fight for something you thought was valuable to you or watch it slip through your hands, even if you thought it was a losing battle?
So people that want to push for morality should stop because more people don't want that?
I don't care if I'm the last one saying we should have higher morals, and that we as individuals need to change for the better, I'll say it.

Basically you are saying it's okay to back and push the gay marriage issue, but it's not okay to fight it because you are on the other side of the argument? I should live my life the way I want in silence just like the gay pride supporters? I'm pretty sure both sides should be able to voice their opinion.

If you lived in a neighborhood full of BYU fans that had their flags out and constantly talked about BYU.... you would of course keep your mouth shut and start to support BYU because you are fighting a losing battle? Is this the code to live your life by, give in to the larger group and keep your mouth shut?

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I'm not accusing you of anything. It's the word and the way it is commonly used I have a problem with.

Maybe it's my cynicism, but I think people who are convinced to stop acting in their own interests (stop being selfish) encourage others to take advantage of the situation. I think the world is best when everyone expects others to protect their own interests and we understand it is our individual duty to protect our own interests. Anytime someone is told to stop protecting their own interests it is a recipe for someone else to take advantage of them.

I don't see people protecting their own interests as ever being a problem...unless by people protecting their own interests they are preventing others from accomplishing their goals because those goals require people who can be fleeced.

I think that there is a common misconception that protecting one's self interests (selfishness) means there is no cooperation, no generosity, no compassion. I disagree. If a person thinks that lack of cooperation, generosity and compassion is in their best interests they are sadly mistaken. For each of us as individuals to reach our greatest success we need to work with other people. In those relationships we need to give and take.

I think there is such a thing as selfishness, but I think it is typically so self-destructive to the individual that it has no power to destroy society.

While I agree with much of what you said and think we are pretty close in how we think about things for the most part, I also think that selfishness is self-destructive as you said.
What is society, but a group of individuals. If each individual is harmed from selfishness, it does affect society greatly. Extreme selfishness from even one member of a family also does bleed into the other members of that family. Selfish families bleed into families around them that they interact with. Not one person is in a bubble, everybody has a circle of influence on somebody around them in one way or another to a small or great degree.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

The only problem I can see arising if same sex marriage is allowed would be the government forcing religions to accept or even participate in them. That would not be cool.

Separation between church and state isn't going anywhere. Don't worry.

 

[Qman]

Here is what torques my hide about the gay marriage debate.

The pro gay marriage side says it is immoral to oppose total equality.

The pro traditional marriage side says homosexual relationship are immoral.

Those that espouse the first side are lauded and public praised. I understand this wasn't always the case but history is history.

Those that publicly support the second and demonized and boycotted. See proposition 8 in California for many, many examples.

Okay I feel a little better getting that off my chest.

 

[PearlWatson]

Separation between church and state isn't going anywhere. Don't worry.

Marriage (a religious sacrament) is already a union of the two when the state gives clergy authority to to make a contract, so it is a valid concern.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Marriage (a religious sacrament) is already a segregation of the two.

Marriage has been in existence long before religion tried to claim it as their own.

If religion wasn't so selfish about keeping the term that wasn't theirs to begin with, than maybe the morals of this country wouldn't be degrading as many are claiming.

Or maybe they SHOULD be selfish about it and sell it, since that's the tenet of capitalism, selfishness, while NOT being selfish is the red devil of socialism.

 

[7StraightIsGreat]

Spazz Wrote:

So would you fight for something you thought was valuable to you or watch it slip through your hands, even if you thought it was a losing battle?

It really depends on what the battle is. You act as if you have something to lose in this battle. You don't. Everything that has to do with yourself, your marriage, and your family would still be in tact. Sure, maybe society wouldn't be confirming to what you believe to be appropriate moral standards, but you and your family would still dictate your lives.

So people that want to push for morality should stop because more people don't want thatI don't care if I'm the last one saying we should have higher morals, and that we as individuals need to change for the better, I'll say it.

Sure, your morality may be in line with your family members, fellow church go'ers, friends, etc. but that does not mean that you or anybody else are the complete and total authority on morals. Some people may have a different set of morals than you, but can still be every bit of a good person.

Basically you are saying it's okay to back and push the gay marriage issue, but it's not okay to fight it because you are on the other side of the argument? I should live my life the way I want in silence just like the gay pride supporters? I'm pretty sure both sides should be able to voice their opinion.

You have every right to voice your opinion on any issue. The slave owners were certainly heard when it came to abolishing slavery, the KKK was allowed to voice their opposition of desegregation, men who didn't want women to vote were allowed their voice as well. Just because you are voicing your opinion doesn't mean it's always going to be valid opinion void of intolerance.

If you lived in a neighborhood full of BYU fans that had their flags out and constantly talked about BYU.... you would of course keep your mouth shut and start to support BYU because you are fighting a losing battle? Is this the code to live your life by, give in to the larger group and keep your mouth shut?

Wow Spazz, that's a super valid analogy because being a Ute fan in a neighborhood full of BYU fans is a very accurate comparison to the plight of people over the course of history who have fought for human rights.

 

[PearlWatson]

Marriage has been in existence long before religion tried to claim it as their own.

There has never been a time where man has been without religion, so that doesn't make sense.

 

[Siro]

The only important issue here is that gay marriage is happening. So you better start reinterpreting whatever religious doctrines you follow so that you can pretend it never opposed the institution in the first place. You wouldn't want to be late to the party.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

There has never been a time where man has been without religion, so that doesn't make sense.

There has always been a time when marriage was not controlled by religion.

 

[7StraightIsGreat]

The only important issue here is that gay marriage is happening. So you better start reinterpreting whatever religious doctrines you follow so that you can pretend it never opposed the institution in the first place. You wouldn't want to be late to the party.

Siromar for the win!