Ain't that what decides the law doe?
Gay marriage in Utah put on hold
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
Ain't that what decides the law doe?
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
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.
Love them and pour all your resources to deny them equal rights and liberties... and in the mean time call them "sick"... makes sense. Most of the time acts speak louder than words. My problem with religions is not what they believe and what they implement within their own churches. They can do everything they want to do for all I care with the people who have voluntarily agreed to be part of their church. My problem with religions and churches is when they decide that they have the right to dictate what everybody else does or doesn't do. For them it's not enough for their own gay followers to not be able to marry within their church. They want nobody(gay) to be able to marry within the state. This is the thing that pisses me off the most with religions and churches. It's not enough for them to preach abstinence only and anti-contraception to their own followers. No, they want everybody else's choices and information to be limited. It's not enough for them to teach creationism in their churches, they want everybody else to be subjected to it. They have that right, though, just like I have the right to call those practices for what they are.
The terminology is irrelevant really. Is it bigoted or is it not? Is it motivated by hatred or intolerance? Does it matter? I find it reprehensible, abhorrent and extremely rude to say the least either way.
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.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
I'm also quite against cheap labour.
How come? Anti-economic development?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
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.