Gay marriage in Utah put on hold

[One Brow]

No need to be snappy. What I meant was, the word bigoted does imply hate.

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.

 

[One Brow]

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.

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.

 

[Deleted member 848]

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.

What, a group formed by people has determined what God's word is?! Oh gosh, this will be impossible to work around.

 

[Scat]

I'm horrified with the notion of giving kids birth defects.

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]

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?

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]

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/

Z
Zellweger PEX1

 

[Deleted member 848]

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?

cute straw man. I give it a 3/10.

 

[Deleted member 848]

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.

will address this later.

 

[8]

There is a wide spectrum of what can be considered 'better'. Better and worse isn't black and white.

Right. So there's no point in general, blanket analysis. If people choose to do stuff then they must have reasons for it.

 

[8]

Such deep, deep ignorance. People would rather be enslaved than starve.

That's a slave? Someone choosing to work?

 

[stitches]

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?

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.

 

[babe]

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.

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".