Would it be discrimination for the government to give a benefits package for people who pray facing mecca several times a day and abstain from eating pork?
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Reygekan wrote:
Poly/Incest marriage isn’t relevant here. I don’t know why it came up. Why do we have to discuss polygamy when talking about gay marriage? The two are unrelated. You can be gay and poly or gay and mono, but it doesn’t matter because if you’re gay you’re fucked.
I don’t see an argument against gay marriage here aside from “it’s immoral”, “religious opposition”, “no more babies” and “polygamy and incest!”
You define your morality as you see fit, but the government has no place pushing that morality on other people unless it causes harm to a person (oh, I get it, you’ll spontaneously combust if a gay couple marries. It’s about self preservation. Carry on.)
The lower birthrate doesn’t mean shit. Did you know that by 2050 the Earth’s population isn’t going to be sustainable? I’m glad you want it so high, but fuck you, I want to hit 70. Even stupider, is that whether or not gays could marry wouldn’t lower the birthrate at all, because married or unmarried, they’re still not having kids. Maybe keeping gay guys apart turns every occurrence of twins into triplets?[/quote]
???
So government has no business defining morality when it comes to homosexuality but it has when it comes to polygamy?
Also, marrying animals is easy, you cannot have a contract with an animal.
Polygamy, would be way possible.
[/quote]
As I stated before. I don’t have an opinion on polygamy one way or another. If it’s an issue people seriously want brought up to the government, by all means let them. It doesn’t morally offend me, I see no issue with it, and if some kind of system for it can be set up than by all means do it. I don’t care.
But I don’t see why it’s being brought up here.
Is it an argument against gay marriage? “IF GAY GUYS DO IT, POLYGAMISTS WILL TOO”? Well no, they wont, until it goes through the legal system as well, and nobody, that I’m aware of, is arguing for it, and certainly not nearly in the same capacity.
Let us pretend we are playing basketball. If I score against you, I receive two points, but nothing else changes. The game is just as fair as it was before, but I’m up a little. You can still win, hell, you could still be winning despite the points I scored.
If basketball had a slippery slope, every time I scored against you, I would get to shoot you in the leg. Every point I score puts me ahead, and puts you in a position that’s more likely to make you lose. A single loss means falling down a slippery slope.
This is the logic that this “gays then polygamists” argument makes, and it is wrong. Gays marrying does not mean polygamists will marry. Gays marrying means it is easier for polygamists to marry, but it does not mean they’re going to instantly win our little basketball game. That’s stupid.
Is it an argument for gay marriage? “IF GAYS DO IT, POLYGAMISTS SHOULD GET THE CHANCE?” What kind of response are you looking for? It’s its own fucking issue. Stop. Talking. About. It. Why should I care what polygamists can do? I don’t. I really don’t give half a fuck. If a thousand people want to marry each other, then fucking go for it. I don’t care what other people do, if they decide to start a cult worshiping Satan the day after, I STILL WOULDN’T GIVE A FUCK.
Shackling homosexuality and polygamy like this is counterproductive. What exactly, is anyone trying to prove by bringing this up? Should polygamists be able to marry? I don’t fucking know. I don’t care. I don’t come into a discussion on gay marriage to talk about polygamists, I come into a discussion about gay marriage to talk about gay people.
I see all this arguing about it and half of it doesn’t make any sense. “POLYGAMY!” “It’s different” “FUCK YOU, POLYGAMY!” isn’t an argument. It’s worthless. Talking about polygamy doesn’t help my understanding about gay marriage.
If you want to talk about polygamy make your own fucking thread.
As for this whole “gays can’t have children” bullshit.
Does it matter? How is that relevant? I didn’t realize that marriage was an agreement to have kids.
“Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. Such a union, often formalized via a wedding ceremony, may also be called matrimony”
I decided to get the simplest explanation for what marriage is, so I just went to Wikipedia. A simple, lay person answer. I don’t see procreation there.
The ability to have kids isn’t a requirement to get married. Marriage is, entirely, “a social union or legal contract.” You can get married and have someone elses babies. You can not get married and have babies. It’s unrelated. A stupid, uninteresting point.
“Marriage is usually recognized by the state, a religious authority, or both. It is often viewed as a contract. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution irrespective of religious affiliation, in accordance with marriage laws of the jurisdiction.”
No, still don’t see it.
In fact
“While it is a relatively new practice that same-sex couples are being granted the same form of legal marital recognition as commonly used by mixed-sex couples, recent publicity and debate over the past decade gives an impression that civil marriage for lesbian and gay couples is novel and untested. There is a long history of recorded same-sex unions around the world. It is believed that same-sex unions were celebrated in Ancient Greece and Rome, some regions of China, such as Fujian, and at certain times in ancient European history.”
It’s fucking happened before. Several times, over a long period of time. They knew just as well as you do that they’re not having babies.
BUT IT DOESN’T MATTER.
If we deny gays marriage on the grounds they cannot produce children, then we have to do the same for those suffering from infertility. No, I don’t give a fuck that heteros can make babies naturally, if ANY infertile couple can get married and a gay couple cannot, then it’s an act of discrimination based on sexual orientation and the ability to produce children stops being a factor entirely.
You cannot claim that gays cannot marry while the infertile can. Whether or not other heterosexual partners can have children is irrelevant. The statements are incompatible assuming there is no bias towards sexual orientation. But, unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be the case here.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Same-sex marriage = gravely immoral. [/quote]
Feel free to condemn me to hell in your church, just don’t force your religious beliefs on me through our government.
Then again, maybe we should start denying marriage to people who are divorced, have sex without culminating in vaginal intercourse, and all other kinds of gravely immoral acts.[/quote]
On the other hand maybe we should allow polygamous and incestuous marriage. How dare the state deny these groups their fair share of happiness. It’s barbaric I tell you. Why those groups of people are treated like second class citizens.
[/quote]
Zeb,
You are an idiot, and a bigot. No one on these forums respects anything you say, and I, personally, hope you die.[/quote]
Why not open the flood gates to other weird arrangements? Tell me why homosexuals should top the list when we have polygamists and incestuous couples chomping at the bit. Who are YOU to deny them their happiness? Why do you want to enforce your morality on on others…tsk, tsk…very closed minded of you.
Oh and I wish you a long life and much happiness.
(see the difference between mean spirited liberals and kind hearted conservatives?)
[/quote]
Your argument is a flimsy straw man, no one is arguing the case for polygamous marriage or incestuous behavior and it has nothing to do with the topic. Shut up.
I agree, almost everything I’ve read from you comes across as hateful and bigoted. You really are the definition of a bigot actually, you read like an insincere nanny talking to a bunch of children. And your little smirk face at the end of posts is without a doubt the gayest thing i’ve seen in my life.
[/quote]
Really?
Then make an argument that can be made aginst polygamy, or polyandry for that matter, that cannot be turned around and made against gay marriage.
[/quote]
Fucking seriously?
Multiple person arrangements are fundamentally different than binary contracts, Orion. A gay marriage would be, in every way, exactly the same as a heterosexual marriage (legally speaking).
With a poly relationship, you have many more complications - say one partner dies, and the remaining two disagree on what to do with the estate. There are a wealth of complications that would arise from multiple person marriages none of which would apply to a homosexual marriage.
I expect this shit from idiots like Zeb, please dont do this “Oh yeah, you have to defend poly/incestuous/animal marriage too!” shit.
[/quote]
That is all you got?
Technical difficulties?
People die all the time and leave property behind and it is rare that there is only one person left to inherit the stuff.
Make a short ammendment to inheritance laws, problem solved.
[/quote]
Example =/= argument.
When you have to make “short ammendments” to many laws because a myriad of “technical difficulties” arise - the situation is fundamentally different.
Also, you asked for an argument against poly marriage that could not be used against gay marriage. You got one, now you want to pick apart my one example.[/quote]
Well, gay marriage needs some changes in the law, so would polygamy.
I also do not see how the situation is fundamentally different, in what way?
[/quote]
No, gay marriage doesn’t require any fundamental changes in marriage law. Having “Mr.” appear twice instead of once isn’t a fundamental change.
You dont see how the marriage of 3 or more people is different than the marriage of two? AFTER I gave you a clear example?[/quote]
Not really, so far all you put forward can easily be adressed with a few minor changes.
Also, there are many contracts that are way more elaborate than a marriage contract so to claim that the legal problems are overhwhelming is just ridiculous.
Either marriage is a right or it isnt, either you can deny that right to some people because of oyur own cultural preferences or you cant.
[/quote]
Is wearing what I want a right? What about teaching kindergarten nude?
Is eating what I want a right? What about human baby?
Is having any religion I want a right? What about one that prohibits giving my child medicine?
Ok, I’m done. Not trying to talk the slippery slope argument out of someone who should be smarter than that.[/quote]
You are trying to argue on the grounds of a principle that has more consequences than you care to admit.
To believe that once you have established this principle that people will simply stop at the point where you want them too is naive to say the least.
Also, culturally speaking, polygamy is the norm, not an abberation, and to think that something that has a long and powerful tradition and already is practised worldwide will have a harder time getting recognized than something entirely new like two men marrying is ridiculous.
If I use your argument above, well gay men can marry women too, and their right just has reasonable limits, like not being able to marry another man.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Would it be discrimination for the government to give a benefits package for people who pray facing mecca several times a day and abstain from eating pork?[/quote]
Yes.
[quote]Reygekan wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Reygekan wrote:
Poly/Incest marriage isn’t relevant here. I don’t know why it came up. Why do we have to discuss polygamy when talking about gay marriage? The two are unrelated. You can be gay and poly or gay and mono, but it doesn’t matter because if you’re gay you’re fucked.
I don’t see an argument against gay marriage here aside from “it’s immoral”, “religious opposition”, “no more babies” and “polygamy and incest!”
You define your morality as you see fit, but the government has no place pushing that morality on other people unless it causes harm to a person (oh, I get it, you’ll spontaneously combust if a gay couple marries. It’s about self preservation. Carry on.)
The lower birthrate doesn’t mean shit. Did you know that by 2050 the Earth’s population isn’t going to be sustainable? I’m glad you want it so high, but fuck you, I want to hit 70. Even stupider, is that whether or not gays could marry wouldn’t lower the birthrate at all, because married or unmarried, they’re still not having kids. Maybe keeping gay guys apart turns every occurrence of twins into triplets?[/quote]
???
So government has no business defining morality when it comes to homosexuality but it has when it comes to polygamy?
Also, marrying animals is easy, you cannot have a contract with an animal.
Polygamy, would be way possible.
[/quote]
As I stated before. I don’t have an opinion on polygamy one way or another. If it’s an issue people seriously want brought up to the government, by all means let them. It doesn’t morally offend me, I see no issue with it, and if some kind of system for it can be set up than by all means do it. I don’t care.
But I don’t see why it’s being brought up here.
Is it an argument against gay marriage? “IF GAY GUYS DO IT, POLYGAMISTS WILL TOO”? Well no, they wont, until it goes through the legal system as well, and nobody, that I’m aware of, is arguing for it, and certainly not nearly in the same capacity.
Let us pretend we are playing basketball. If I score against you, I receive two points, but nothing else changes. The game is just as fair as it was before, but I’m up a little. You can still win, hell, you could still be winning despite the points I scored.
If basketball had a slippery slope, every time I scored against you, I would get to shoot you in the leg. Every point I score puts me ahead, and puts you in a position that’s more likely to make you lose. A single loss means falling down a slippery slope.
This is the logic that this “gays then polygamists” argument makes, and it is wrong. Gays marrying does not mean polygamists will marry. Gays marrying means it is easier for polygamists to marry, but it does not mean they’re going to instantly win our little basketball game. That’s stupid.
Is it an argument for gay marriage? “IF GAYS DO IT, POLYGAMISTS SHOULD GET THE CHANCE?” What kind of response are you looking for? It’s its own fucking issue. Stop. Talking. About. It. Why should I care what polygamists can do? I don’t. I really don’t give half a fuck. If a thousand people want to marry each other, then fucking go for it. I don’t care what other people do, if they decide to start a cult worshiping Satan the day after, I STILL WOULDN’T GIVE A FUCK.
Shackling homosexuality and polygamy like this is counterproductive. What exactly, is anyone trying to prove by bringing this up? Should polygamists be able to marry? I don’t fucking know. I don’t care. I don’t come into a discussion on gay marriage to talk about polygamists, I come into a discussion about gay marriage to talk about gay people.
I see all this arguing about it and half of it doesn’t make any sense. “POLYGAMY!” “It’s different” “FUCK YOU, POLYGAMY!” isn’t an argument. It’s worthless. Talking about polygamy doesn’t help my understanding about gay marriage.
If you want to talk about polygamy make your own fucking thread.
As for this whole “gays can’t have children” bullshit.
Does it matter? How is that relevant? I didn’t realize that marriage was an agreement to have kids.
“Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. Such a union, often formalized via a wedding ceremony, may also be called matrimony”
I decided to get the simplest explanation for what marriage is, so I just went to Wikipedia. A simple, lay person answer. I don’t see procreation there.
The ability to have kids isn’t a requirement to get married. Marriage is, entirely, “a social union or legal contract.” You can get married and have someone elses babies. You can not get married and have babies. It’s unrelated. A stupid, uninteresting point.
“Marriage is usually recognized by the state, a religious authority, or both. It is often viewed as a contract. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution irrespective of religious affiliation, in accordance with marriage laws of the jurisdiction.”
No, still don’t see it.
In fact
“While it is a relatively new practice that same-sex couples are being granted the same form of legal marital recognition as commonly used by mixed-sex couples, recent publicity and debate over the past decade gives an impression that civil marriage for lesbian and gay couples is novel and untested. There is a long history of recorded same-sex unions around the world. It is believed that same-sex unions were celebrated in Ancient Greece and Rome, some regions of China, such as Fujian, and at certain times in ancient European history.”
It’s fucking happened before. Several times, over a long period of time. They knew just as well as you do that they’re not having babies.
BUT IT DOESN’T MATTER.
If we deny gays marriage on the grounds they cannot produce children, then we have to do the same for those suffering from infertility. No, I don’t give a fuck that heteros can make babies naturally, if ANY infertile couple can get married and a gay couple cannot, then it’s an act of discrimination based on sexual orientation and the ability to produce children stops being a factor entirely.
You cannot claim that gays cannot marry while the infertile can. Whether or not other heterosexual partners can have children is irrelevant. The statements are incompatible assuming there is no bias towards sexual orientation. But, unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be the case here.[/quote]
I dont care one way or the other, but the way gay marriage is argued means that polygamy can be argued on the very same grounds.
I do not even think that BB is right that simply passing a law is preferable to courts striking down a gay marriage ban because Joe Schmoe does not care about legal technicalities.
What I do care about is that people who defend gay marriage on the grounds that it is a right that cannot be denied by the state suddenly do a 180 when it comes to polygamy.
They do the very same thing they accuse gay marriage oppnents of which is blatantly hypocritical.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Would it be discrimination for the government to give a benefits package for people who pray facing mecca several times a day and abstain from eating pork?[/quote]
Yes.
[/quote]
Why? The government wouldnt be discriminating against people of other religions… sure, doing those things follows from being Muslim, but a Christian could do the same, right?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Would it be discrimination for the government to give a benefits package for people who pray facing mecca several times a day and abstain from eating pork?[/quote]
Yes.
[/quote]
Why? The government wouldnt be discriminating against people of other religions… sure, doing those things follows from being Muslim, but a Christian could do the same, right?[/quote]
I absolutely agree, which is why you cannot acknowlesge the rights of Muslims and Christians to practice their religion and yet deny it to Jews.
Same thing with hetero marriage, gay marriage and polygamous marriages.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Would it be discrimination for the government to give a benefits package for people who pray facing mecca several times a day and abstain from eating pork?[/quote]
Yes.
[/quote]
Why? The government wouldnt be discriminating against people of other religions… sure, doing those things follows from being Muslim, but a Christian could do the same, right?[/quote]
I absolutely agree, which is why you cannot acknowlesge the rights of Muslims and Christians to practice their religion and yet deny it to Jews.
Same thing with hetero marriage, gay marriage and polygamous marriages.
[/quote]
BINGO!
@ Sky (what you called yourself at the end of your post to ZEB)
Even if there is a higher risk for birth defects for incestuous couples, do you think that not being able to marry is going to stop them from having kids? if they’re committed they’re gonna have kids, marriage or no marriage.
Second, what makes you assume the ones involved are traumatized since they are CONSENTING adults. Its one thing for it to be forced, but if they both want it?
If we can establish that there is very little who are “hurt” in any way from incestuous relationships, then would you agree that they deserve the same marital rights as gays?
[quote]forbes wrote:
@ Sky (what you called yourself at the end of your post to ZEB)
Even if there is a higher risk for birth defects for incestuous couples, do you think that not being able to marry is going to stop them from having kids? if they’re committed they’re gonna have kids, marriage or no marriage.
Second, what makes you assume the ones involved are traumatized since they are CONSENTING adults. Its one thing for it to be forced, but if they both want it?
If we can establish that there is very little who are “hurt” in any way from incestuous relationships, then would you agree that they deserve the same marital rights as gays?[/quote]
Also, I resent the argument that just becsause someone was “traumatized” they have automatically forfeited any rights they had before.
The same bullshit argument is put forward in the case of prostiution where allegedly all women who engage in it were victims in some form or another and so must be protected from further abuse.
Actually, shit happens, to all of us, and to use it as and to use that as an excuse to restrict the little freedom we have left even further is begging for abuse by government mandate.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Would it be discrimination for the government to give a benefits package for people who pray facing mecca several times a day and abstain from eating pork?[/quote]
Yes.
[/quote]
Why? The government wouldnt be discriminating against people of other religions… sure, doing those things follows from being Muslim, but a Christian could do the same, right?[/quote]
I absolutely agree, which is why you cannot acknowlesge the rights of Muslims and Christians to practice their religion and yet deny it to Jews.
Same thing with hetero marriage, gay marriage and polygamous marriages.
[/quote]
Back up, ya lost me. First I asked if it would be discrimination, and you said yes. Then I offered up an argument of why it wouldn’t be discrimination, and your response is that you absolutely agree.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Would it be discrimination for the government to give a benefits package for people who pray facing mecca several times a day and abstain from eating pork?[/quote]
Yes.
[/quote]
Why? The government wouldnt be discriminating against people of other religions… sure, doing those things follows from being Muslim, but a Christian could do the same, right?[/quote]
I absolutely agree, which is why you cannot acknowlesge the rights of Muslims and Christians to practice their religion and yet deny it to Jews.
Same thing with hetero marriage, gay marriage and polygamous marriages.
[/quote]
Back up, ya lost me. First I asked if it would be discrimination, and you said yes. Then I offered up an argument of why it wouldn’t be discrimination, and your response is that you absolutely agree.
[/quote]
Of course they could, they could practice their Christian faith by acting like a Muslim.
But, since that is exactly the argument you are not trying to make when it comes to gay marriage.
You are not arguing for freedom of religion but that a specific religion gets a place on the public teat.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Would it be discrimination for the government to give a benefits package for people who pray facing mecca several times a day and abstain from eating pork?[/quote]
Yes.
[/quote]
Why? The government wouldnt be discriminating against people of other religions… sure, doing those things follows from being Muslim, but a Christian could do the same, right?[/quote]
I absolutely agree, which is why you cannot acknowlesge the rights of Muslims and Christians to practice their religion and yet deny it to Jews.
Same thing with hetero marriage, gay marriage and polygamous marriages.
[/quote]
Back up, ya lost me. First I asked if it would be discrimination, and you said yes. Then I offered up an argument of why it wouldn’t be discrimination, and your response is that you absolutely agree.
[/quote]
Of course they could, they could practice their Christian faith by acting like a Muslim.
But, since that is exactly the argument you are not trying to make when it comes to gay marriage.
You are not arguing for freedom of religion but that a specific religion gets a place on the public teat.
[/quote]
It is the argument I’m trying to make. Benefits for “acting like” a muslim would be (religious) discrimination, even if a christian could “act like a muslim”. Rewarding the behaviors that follow from being muslim is discrimination against non-muslims.
In kind, benefits for “acting like” a heterosexual is (sexual) discrimination, even if a gay man could “act like” a heterosexual.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
An infertile straight couple find it as naturally impossible to have children as a gay couple.
And both can adopt children.
Yet you’re trying to argue that one is a family, and one isn’t.
It comes down to your moral objection to gays, nothing more, so let’s not pretend it has to do with fertility.[/quote]
I’m pretty sure a heterosexual marriage can naturally produces children, and same-sex couples cannot. Hormonally or medically it maybe impossible for the heterosexual marriage to produce children, but not naturally. And, when I saw naturally I am not talking about sans-artificial I am talking about natural order.[/quote]
I am pretty sure that brother and sister can have children, so that makes it perfectly ok then, right?
[/quote]
Ever seen a baby of produced in incest? Crippling mutations. Doesn’t lead to human flourishing.
[quote]
Also, they already are family, in fact so much so, that I am beginning to doubt the legitimacy of traditional marriages on the grounds of your argument.[/quote]
Obviously didn’t read the grounds of my argument. It is immoral to commit an act which is against human flourishing. Only a traditional marriage in which is between a man and a woman which is not incestuous allows for that.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
An infertile straight couple find it as naturally impossible to have children as a gay couple.
And both can adopt children.
Yet you’re trying to argue that one is a family, and one isn’t.
It comes down to your moral objection to gays, nothing more, so let’s not pretend it has to do with fertility.[/quote]
I’m pretty sure a heterosexual marriage can naturally produces children, and same-sex couples cannot. Hormonally or medically it maybe impossible for the heterosexual marriage to produce children, but not naturally. And, when I saw naturally I am not talking about sans-artificial I am talking about natural order.[/quote]
I am pretty sure that brother and sister can have children, so that makes it perfectly ok then, right?
[/quote]
Ever seen a baby of produced in incest? Crippling mutations. Doesn’t lead to human flourishing.
[quote]
Also, they already are family, in fact so much so, that I am beginning to doubt the legitimacy of traditional marriages on the grounds of your argument.[/quote]
Obviously didn’t read the grounds of my argument. It is immoral to commit an act which is against human flourishing. Only a traditional marriage in which is between a man and a woman which is not incestuous allows for that.[/quote]
Ah, nonsense.
The chancesa are higher, yes, but it is far from a sure thing.
You could not possible be for aborting emryos just because they have an aboveaverage chance of being crippled?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Would it be discrimination for the government to give a benefits package for people who pray facing mecca several times a day and abstain from eating pork?[/quote]
Which one are you talking about?
Jews.
Muslims.
Traditional Catholic Vegetarians.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Would it be discrimination for the government to give a benefits package for people who pray facing mecca several times a day and abstain from eating pork?[/quote]
Yes.
[/quote]
Why? The government wouldnt be discriminating against people of other religions… sure, doing those things follows from being Muslim, but a Christian could do the same, right?[/quote]
Actually, Jews, Muslims, and Traditional Catholic Vegetarians all follow that “religiously.”
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
An infertile straight couple find it as naturally impossible to have children as a gay couple.
And both can adopt children.
Yet you’re trying to argue that one is a family, and one isn’t.
It comes down to your moral objection to gays, nothing more, so let’s not pretend it has to do with fertility.[/quote]
I’m pretty sure a heterosexual marriage can naturally produces children, and same-sex couples cannot. Hormonally or medically it maybe impossible for the heterosexual marriage to produce children, but not naturally. And, when I saw naturally I am not talking about sans-artificial I am talking about natural order.[/quote]
I am pretty sure that brother and sister can have children, so that makes it perfectly ok then, right?
[/quote]
Ever seen a baby of produced in incest? Crippling mutations. Doesn’t lead to human flourishing.
Chances are much higher. And, purposely engaging in conjugal acts when it is known that it leads to physical or mental retardation, on top of that the disregard for the familial relationship between a brother and sister.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Universal Rule Utilitarianism can be used to unjustly criticize any number of otherwise harmless practices.
For example: You are a Catholic. Ascetics under the Rule of St. Benedict live under a vow of absolute chastity. The logic with which you condemned homosexuality works to condemn religious chastity as well.
But it doesn’t even matter because, thankfully, law in the United States does not consider universal rule utilitarianism.[/quote]
I’m not fully aware of Universal Rule Utilitarianism, I have not gotten to that, yet. Would you explain to me how it works in this case of the of a vow of absolute chastity?[/quote]
If value judgments are to be made on the basis of utilitarianism, many otherwise harmless practices and many aspects of everyday human life become “immoral.”
So, we take an action and we ask whether its existence betters or worsens the human condition. The most extreme way for us to do this is to imagine if every single human being on earth were to suddenly adopt the practice in question. Then we can easily see its impact on earthly life. In such a light, homosexuality is obviously detrimental to the human race–if we suddenly all turned gay, the human race would see itself extinguished within a century.
But the same applies to Monks under vows of celibacy. And many other people and practices throughout the world. If we all suddenly decided to live under the Rule of St. Benedict, the children born today would be the last to walk the earth. Judged solely for its universal utility, celibacy is immoral.
The point is that one human being’s behavior cannot be labeled “moral” or “immoral” on the sole basis of universal rule utilitarianism without the condemnation of many, many otherwise harmless human activities. Universal Rule Utilitarianism condemns with far too broad a stroke.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Universal Rule Utilitarianism can be used to unjustly criticize any number of otherwise harmless practices.
For example: You are a Catholic. Ascetics under the Rule of St. Benedict live under a vow of absolute chastity. The logic with which you condemned homosexuality works to condemn religious chastity as well.
But it doesn’t even matter because, thankfully, law in the United States does not consider universal rule utilitarianism.[/quote]
I’m not fully aware of Universal Rule Utilitarianism, I have not gotten to that, yet. Would you explain to me how it works in this case of the of a vow of absolute chastity?[/quote]
If value judgments are to be made on the basis of utilitarianism, many otherwise harmless practices and many aspects of everyday human life become “immoral.”
So, we take an action and we ask whether its existence betters or worsens the human condition. The most extreme way for us to do this is to imagine if every single human being on earth were to suddenly adopt the practice in question. Then we can easily see its impact on earthly life. In such a light, homosexuality is obviously detrimental to the human race–if we suddenly all turned gay, the human race would see itself extinguished within a century.
But the same applies to Monks under vows of celibacy. And many other people and practices throughout the world. If we all suddenly decided to live under the Rule of St. Benedict, the children born today would be the last to walk the earth. Judged solely for its universal utility, celibacy is immoral.
The point is that one human being’s behavior cannot be labeled “moral” or “immoral” on the sole basis of universal rule utilitarianism without the condemnation of many, many otherwise harmless human activities. Universal Rule Utilitarianism condemns with far too broad a stroke.[/quote]
That’s a vocation, not an act. That’s like saying it’s immoral to be an engineer over a doctor. And, not all people can be monk, even if they wanted to.
Now, if you were just to isolate the act of taking the vow of celibacy, then yes I suppose you could say that is immoral. Just like isolating the act of killing someone from the vocation of soldier can be seen as immoral, because if everyone did that then within a generation we would all be dead (as well, we could say as some countries did requiring celibacy from their soldiers, that if every man become soldier we’d be burning the candle at both ends and die off even if we were in a time of peace). However, it’s not, a soldier kills those that are enemy combatants, which their act of killing that person actually helps the human flourish (protecting the innocent masses from death and slavery). Just as the Benedictine Monks in Northern Europe helped the Barbarians and Vikings turn around and flourish and stop killing each other.