Yes.
Gay marriage in Utah put on hold
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
Yes.
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.
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.
Exactly that, except I was the oldest, and I don't recall doing such things (doesn't mean it didn't happen, though).
We can't know truth, but we can have absolute justice? Or, are all parents failed parents?
If you believe that a human authority will fight for justice, you don't need to fight for the justice yourself. The mere existence of movements dedicated to social justice is testimony to the disbelief that the authorities will implement justice.
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.
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.
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.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
I am gay for this season of jazz bball.
Am I doing it right moe?
Am I doing it right moe?
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
With terms like "public health risk" you are.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
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. Not to mention marriage is about protection of the vulnerable...caregiver and children.
Last edited:
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
LazyD is right and should be laughing at you for saying homosexuals need marriage so the state can divide up their crap when they get divorced.
Homosexuals could handle their breakups the same way shackups do without government involvement.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
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.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
What "objective measures" have you been looking at?
I think marriage has evolved over time, which speaks to your point. Marriage is much more than a religious ceremony and the gateway to procreation. The words marriage and wedding have taken on a new meanings in our society encompassing couples religious and non. No need to alienate those that use that language to describe their union just because they have different beliefs, race, or sexuality.
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 they 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.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
So being against murder due to it's public health risks makes one a supporter of eugenics
With non-siblings, the power inequality begins only when the relationship begins, with siblings it's present long before.