Unequal power structure between siblings?
Yes.
Unequal power structure between siblings?
That which is not truthful is never rational.
Yes.
what he means, Pearl, is that his bigger and older brother usually beat the crap outta him every time he impudently protested the injustice of the unequal ice cream servings his brother helped himself to while mocking and tormenting him.
... failed parents who couldn't always dictate absolute justice between siblings, ...
And, of course, believers in social justice in this life have vested themselves in a blind faith that some human authority actually gives a crap about justice, and not a better paycheck and more power for him/her self, a patently false delusion on its face.
given the axiom that truth consists of the set of objective facts which determine or characterize the universe or some domain within the universe, and considering that human brains are essentially "imaginary" organs with a limited capacity to comprehend or describe the universe or more likely some much smaller subdomain of reality, it is likely that everything we think is "rational" and/or that we could expect to be "true" is probably only approximately true and probably applies accurately to an even smaller domain. . . ..
So "rational" has only a slight advantage in the claim of "truth" over our irrational notions.
I know with all our chemical fluxes coursing through our bodies there is a comforting release of some dopamine when we are satisfied with our notions, but chemistry can hardly validate merely associated neural phenomena. "Truth" is probably something beyond what we are projecting in our brains.
At any rate, some of the issues raised (sibling "marriage" or a "marriage" between friends) are issues I question in the context of the "gay marriage" question. When talking bout expanding the definition of "marriage" I have difficulty with limiting it only to relationships where some sort of sexual activity is presumed to take place.
For example, there have been plenty of instances of siblings living together into old age - why not allow them to "marry" and file a joint tax return and get the same benefits accorded to married couples? As has been stated by others, I think the primary purpose is to foster a more stable living arrangement - certainly if children are involved, but even if there is no potential for either "natural" or "adopted" children to be part of the picture - two adults should have access to the same mechanisms that are granted by "marriage" to provide increased stability to their lives.
In my own perfect world, terms like "marriage" and "wedding" would have no legal standing. The legal term would be "civil union" - it would be between two adults and it would convey all the same rights that are granted with what we now call marriage.
"Wedding" would be a term used for the actual ceremony performed by whomever is licensed to do so in front of witnesses according to whatever process the "state" specifies. Marriages would be weddings that would take place in churches/temples (or other recognized places of worship) only.
I still do not get why those who subscribe to organized religion feel they have the monopoly on the terms "Wedding" and "marriage". I do not subscribe, but I'm married. So I'm curious, according to you am I not married? Was my wedding not a wedding?
Weddings and marriage, even as terms, are not solely owned by those of faith. Once that is understood, maybe some will realize the "separate but equal" argument is offensive to many others, not just LGBT folks.
If you're looking for a eugenicist, go talk to DutchJazzer.
what he means, Pearl, is that his bigger and older brother usually beat the crap outta him every time he impudently protested the injustice of the unequal ice cream servings his brother helped himself to while mocking and tormenting him.
Many a valiant believer in government has been driven to such irrationality by failed parents who couldn't always dictate absolute justice between siblings, with a resulting appeal to a more immediate higher authority than the God whose only promise is an ultimate escape from this worlds' injustices.
And, of course, believers in social justice in this life have vested themselves in a blind faith that some human authority actually gives a crap about justice, and not a better paycheck and more power for him/her self, a patently false delusion on its face.
With themselves and mediators. Privately on a case by case basis.
Anyone noticed the downwards spiral of morality that Canada has been in since 2005? No?
Naked protests, reminiscent of homosexual pride parades, over tuition hikes doesn't exactly boost your "point."
Not everyone thinks nudity is an abomination unto God. Gay marriage hasn't affected Canada negatively in any objective measure. If morality is just some personal arbitrary set of rules (as it seems to be the case for some religious people), then yes, I'm sure you can make the point that everything has a negative effect on everything else.
Just my opinion. Married is the term we've grown accustomed to - that's not to say the meanings and language can't evolve over time. It can and does happen.
Gay is a prime example! Maybe there will come a time when it simply means happy and joyous again.
What "objective measures" have you been looking at?
If you're talking to your relief society friends, then you can make an argument about the evils of drinking coffee or whatever. That's how preaching to the choir works. Everyone already agrees with you, so you don't need to expend much effort explaining your position. But when you're talking to a more diverse audience, you can't throw nude protests as an example of declining morality, because we do not share religious beliefs. In this case, for gay marriage to be immoral, you must demonstrate that it has harmed individuals or society in measurable ways. And the correlation must be clear. Claiming a connection between gay marriage and something like hurricanes or failing infrastructure is irrelevant. Most do not believe there is a causal link between gay marriage and hurricane strength or government spending on infrastructure. You have to show a connection that is based on consensus reality, not arbitrary subjective sentiment.
Edit: Also, I don't need an objective measure to support the right for two consenting people to get married. We live in a society based on the idea that individuals have the right to do as you wish as long as their freedom does not infringe on another's. If you want to deny them this right, then you must show that their actions infringe on your freedom, somehow.
With terms like "public health risk" you are.
The older guy is usually more physically and financially powerful in every sexual relationship, so if there is an "inherent unequal power structure" between siblings I don't see how that isn't just the norm anyway.