Gay marriage in Utah put on hold

[Siro]

I understand the argument that morality cannot exist if not backed by an absolute unquestionable authority. If that's the case then there is no real morality, because there has never been shown to be an unquestionable authority to enforce it. However, I believe that morality can exist even in the absence of this authority because, as you mention, reality exists. Our morality will most certainly be imperfect, however we can continue, as we have, to reduce the degree of imperfection as we gain a greater understanding of what reality is.

If God's morality were perfect and unquestionable then please explain to me the evolution in human morality within the "Christian world" over the last couple thousand years. I presented this argument to you before. The fact is that humans have always controlled the shaping of our morality. We readily abandon yesterday's unquestionable moral standards for those that better match our progressive notions of fairness and that better suit our current cultural "reality." Men do this, not God. Yet we continue to imagine that God endorses these updated notions of morality because God is fair and loving towards us.

We do not need to imagine that some sort of boogeyman is going to enforce our moral standards. Nor do we need to pretend that some supernatural being devised our moral standards for them not to fall apart. Our moral standards are not a matter of the whims of man, they never have been. If anything allows whim to control morality it is authoritarian religious institutions appealing to the authority of their God and who's intentions they are the sole interpreter of. Our moral standards come from a power greater than God, they come from reality.

If God exists, then either his proclamations are what makes things moral, or some things are inherently moral, and God simply acts to inform us of what these things are. In the first case, we must conclude that morality does NOT exist. God's commands must be followed or else! In the second case God is utterly redundant. If morality naturally exists, then it can be illuminated through human experience. In fact, God only hinders human growth by telling us what is and isn't moral, instead of letting us learn through experience.

The concept of morality only makes sense if it is a human construct created for human purposes. I can go on about this forever, but it is a pain typing on the phone.

 

[Deleted member 848]

That's what the "scientists" said about interracial marriage.

It ain't surprising that you sound just like a eugenicist.

If you're looking for a eugenicist, go talk to DutchJazzer.

 

[DutchJazzer]

If you're looking for a eugenicist, go talk to DutchJazzer.

**** YOU!

 

[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?

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.

The problem with 'testing' for genetic predispositions is that they're just that-- predispositions. Not having the BRCA1 gene is not a guarantee that you'll get cancer-- just like having the genes that give you susceptibility to diabetes won't necessarily cause diabetes. Even rare autosomal dominant disorders like cleft hand don't have a complete penetrance.

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?

No, because if you take any two people there will GUARANTEED be some sort of chronic or acute condition that they'll have a higher predisposition for. On these grounds, you could essentially discredit every single person from getting married.


So why draw the line at incest? Because incestuous relationships have an insanely higher rate of inbreeding, and deleterious mutations from genetic aggregation of like-alleles. It's a significantly higher danger, so it requires a different legislation behind it. Kinda like how you can have a set amount of blood alcohol in your system while you drive, but if you go way over it, it's illegal. Every human union will have a set amount of inbreeding between particular genes. That's why some amish communities actually get people to expand their gene pool. However, a certain amount of inbreeding can sometimes be too much.

So your argument against siblings being allowed to marry was arbitrary.

No, your post was a stupid argument brought forth by someone who clearly lacked an understanding of how genetics worked. I figured it was a troll at first, tbh.

 

[One Brow]

No need to be snappy. What I meant was, the word bigoted does imply hate. It is a loaded word. The more appropriate word to use in this context is prejudiced or discriminatory. For example, affirmative action is discriminatory, but it is not bigoted. Some countries even disallow such practices for being examples of "positive discrimination".

Fair enough, there is discrimination that is used to counter other discrimination. Outside of that, I don think all discrimination is based on the otherizing of a group. Human emotions are so intertwined, that this otherizing moves from fear to hate to dismissal to fear in the blink of an eye, depending on the circumstance.

 

[One Brow]

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

I sense sarcasm in your response, but it is nonetheless true. It's why liberal Catholic convents don't secede from the RCC, but seek to reform it from within. It's nice that your religious tradition gives you the freedom to shop around, but not every religion comes with that luxury. If you are gay and Catholic, or a JW, or to my understanding an LDS, when you leave you become a heretic, not an honest seeker with a difference of opinion. Telling such people to leave their church is tantamount to telling them to abandon their faith.

 

[One Brow]

That's a slave? Someone choosing to work?

No, someone choosing to sell themselves into slavery rather than starve. I know you don't get it, but it has and does happen(ed).

 

[One Brow]

so saying marriage is about procreation and creation of a family by procreation is not rational?

That which is not truthful is never rational.

 

[One Brow]

Unequal power structure between siblings?

Yes.

 

[babe]

That which is not truthful is never rational.

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.

 

[babe]

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.

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.

 

[One Brow]

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.

Exactly that, except I was the oldest, and I don't recall doing such things (doesn't mean it didn't happen, though).

... failed parents who couldn't always dictate absolute justice between siblings, ...

We can't know truth, but we can have absolute justice? Or, are all parents failed parents?

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.

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.