or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Mormon Religion--not necessarily the members--but the religion itself is 100% Racist
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Mormon Religion--not necessarily the members--but the religion itself is 100% Racist - Page 3

post #81 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I was not trying to argue that the government is not, first and foremost, constrained by the constitution; just that within that constraint the intent of a democracy is to follow the wishes of the people, not use the position as a license to further one's own agendas.

 

You let us know when it works that way.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #82 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I was not trying to argue that the government is not, first and foremost, constrained by the constitution; just that within that constraint the intent of a democracy is to follow the wishes of the people, not use the position as a license to further one's own agendas.

You let us know when it works that way.

Since my original comment was in reply to your observation that you would never enter politics because you do not want to force people to do things against their will, I'd say it might begin to work that way if you and others with your view did not have that attitude.
post #83 of 167
Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

 

I think you will find that your definition of secular is incorrect, at least as applied to government.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_state

 

And in no way is it claimed that religion may not inform views - the point is that religious beliefs have no more legitimacy in terms of defining policy than any other personal opinion, and should not be appealed to as an authority.

 

I took my answer from the Lemon Test which is what the Supreme Court uses to determine rulings related to both secular and religious matters. Declaring our government is secular and then linking to the definition for secular doesn't prove our government is secular. It is circular reasoning. I maintained our government is not exclusively secular. It merely demands no religious preference.

 

Also while you have not argued that religion grants no authority, others in this thread namely BR, have argued that it should not be accorded even that status.

 

Here is an example from this thread:

Any belief system that would deny the latter is morally bankrupt and has no place in civilized society.

 

That view is irrational and reflects hatred and bias. You've declared that you wouldn't say his view goes as far as that. I think you should revise that statement. You have your personal opinion informed by your inputs. I have my personal opinion informed by my inputs which may include religion. Per BR, I should not be allowed to participate in civic discourse and in fact I have no place in civilized society. That is hatred.


Edited by trumptman - 10/23/12 at 8:29am

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #84 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

No, I'm just trying to make sure same-sex couples have the same rights as any other loving heterosexual couple.  Your right not to be offended or not to feel icky does not trump the rights of those same-sex couples.  Your right to judge people unworthy does not trump a gay woman's right to visit her wife on her wife's deathbed--something that has been denied to many.  

 

Your right to be a fucking bigot does not trump a same-sex couple's right to say one final goodbye to each other.  Any belief system that would deny the latter is morally bankrupt and has no place in civilized society.

 

I would assume that you then also support polygamy?  I don't see any reason that if we are going to as a society change the definition of marriage to extend to same-sex couples we can continue to maintain the legal ban on polygamy.  Please don't give me that "slippery slope" crap because you know that if same-sex marriage were to be made legal in the US that there would be numerous suits brought about pertaining to polygamy.  So, I say again that I assume you are in favor of polygamy?

post #85 of 167
Thread Starter 

I don't have a problem with it as long as everyone is a consenting adult.  I don't know that there will be rallying cries for legalized polygamy, but I would not oppose them as long as the legal framework for marriage between more than two individuals is sufficiently robust.

 

Same-sex marriage is easy--no changes to the legal framework need to be made aside from dropping the bigoted opposite gender requirement.  Polygamy is harder to implement, but I am not opposed in the least.

 

Not much of a gotcha question there, though you tried to frame it that way.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #86 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

 

I think you will find that your definition of secular is incorrect, at least as applied to government.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_state

 

And in no way is it claimed that religion may not inform views - the point is that religious beliefs have no more legitimacy in terms of defining policy than any other personal opinion, and should not be appealed to as an authority.

 

I took my answer from the Lemon Test which is what the Supreme Court uses to determine rulings related to both secular and religious matters. Declaring our government is secular and then linking to the definition for secular doesn't prove our government is secular. It is circular reasoning. I maintained our government is not exclusively secular. It merely demands no religious preference.

 

Also while you have not argued that religion grants no authority, others in this thread namely BR, have argued that it should not be accorded even that status.

 

Here is an example from this thread:

Any belief system that would deny the latter is morally bankrupt and has no place in civilized society.

 

That view is irrational and reflects hatred and bias. You've declared that you wouldn't say his view goes as far as that. I think you should revise that statement. You have your personal opinion informed by your inputs. I have my personal opinion informed by my inputs which may include religion. Per BR, I should not be allowed to participate in civic discourse and in fact I have no place in civilized society. That is hatred.

 

You may disagree with the source that I cited, but I did not use circular reasoning. Perhaps you didn't actually follow the link. You argued that secular means an absence of religion rather than religion neutral. I pointed out that a secular state is indeed defined as religion neutral, and that the US therefore meets that definition, and indeed is given as an example of a secular state. I'm not declaring the US to be secular - merely noting that it meets the criteria.

 

I'm not trying to defend all BR's positions - that must be clear to you. I will, however, point out when I think that you or others mistakenly dismiss all his arguments because some of them may be wrong. Perhaps he does have a serious problem with religion. Perhaps he would care to confirm or deny that. But while I agree that he does, on occasion, ridicule religion, that does not, per se, equate to or imply hatred. Nor does claiming that a belief system is morally bankrupt imply hatred. Nor does claiming that a belief system is morally bankrupt equate to saying that a believer has no place in civilized society. I think you are reaching too far to obtain the conclusion of hatred. You could be right though.

post #87 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I don't have a problem with it as long as everyone is a consenting adult.  I don't know that there will be rallying cries for legalized polygamy, but I would not oppose them as long as the legal framework for marriage between more than two individuals is sufficiently robust.

 

Same-sex marriage is easy--no changes to the legal framework need to be made aside from dropping the bigoted opposite gender requirement.  Polygamy is harder to implement, but I am not opposed in the least.

 

Not much of a gotcha question there, though you tried to frame it that way.

 

You mentioned exactly the problem.  The legal framework for polygamy would be a nightmare to workout.  How would assets be divided in the instance of the death of a spouse?  Does this differ if it's the death of the single male with multiple wives where he is the primary financial support as opposed to one of the wives (or vice versa in the event of a female with multiple husbands)?  If a man has more than one wife, how does tax filing work?  Is she simply a dependent?  What is she has more than one husband?  What happens to the assets in a divorce?  Who gets custody of the children in the event of a female with multiple husbands where the biological husband is also deceased?  This is just a few things off the top of my head.  The legal issues pertaining to polygamy seems absolutely insane.

 

Same-sex marriage may very well be "easy" by comparison, but the left if all about fairness.  It seems to me that the responsible path forward for you would be to ensure that those wanting legalized polygamy shouldn't be left out in the cold to fend for themselves.  If you are going to be fair about this you should be advocating for polygamy also.

 

Just a few more legal framework issues in the polygamy case...  How does beneficiary benefits work?  How does your example of deathside visitation work?  What about all the various hotels and resorts that have "Honeymoon suites"?  Should the government mandate these suites have to accommodate up to X number of individuals so as not to be discriminatory towards polygamists?  This is kind of fun, but I think this makes my point.

 

If you're going to redefine marriage, I think we should only go through this nightmare once.  I don't think we should go through this for same-sex marriage and discriminate against polygamy if as a society we are going to do it.

post #88 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by svnipp View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I don't have a problem with it as long as everyone is a consenting adult.  I don't know that there will be rallying cries for legalized polygamy, but I would not oppose them as long as the legal framework for marriage between more than two individuals is sufficiently robust.

 

Same-sex marriage is easy--no changes to the legal framework need to be made aside from dropping the bigoted opposite gender requirement.  Polygamy is harder to implement, but I am not opposed in the least.

 

Not much of a gotcha question there, though you tried to frame it that way.

 

You mentioned exactly the problem.  The legal framework for polygamy would be a nightmare to workout.  How would assets be divided in the instance of the death of a spouse?  Does this differ if it's the death of the single male with multiple wives where he is the primary financial support as opposed to one of the wives (or vice versa in the event of a female with multiple husbands)?  If a man has more than one wife, how does tax filing work?  Is she simply a dependent?  What is she has more than one husband?  What happens to the assets in a divorce?  Who gets custody of the children in the event of a female with multiple husbands where the biological husband is also deceased?  This is just a few things off the top of my head.  The legal issues pertaining to polygamy seems absolutely insane.

 

Same-sex marriage may very well be "easy" by comparison, but the left if all about fairness.  It seems to me that the responsible path forward for you would be to ensure that those wanting legalized polygamy shouldn't be left out in the cold to fend for themselves.  If you are going to be fair about this you should be advocating for polygamy also.

 

Just a few more legal framework issues in the polygamy case...  How does beneficiary benefits work?  How does your example of deathside visitation work?  What about all the various hotels and resorts that have "Honeymoon suites"?  Should the government mandate these suites have to accommodate up to X number of individuals so as not to be discriminatory towards polygamists?  This is kind of fun, but I think this makes my point.

 

If you're going to redefine marriage, I think we should only go through this nightmare once.  I don't think we should go through this for same-sex marriage and discriminate against polygamy if as a society we are going to do it.

 

Oh dear - I'm going to go after your reasoning twice in succession - sorry about that. Same-sex marriage and polygamy are not equivalent as rights unless you regard homosexuality as a preference of free will; denying polygamy does not deny anyone a right that others have.

post #89 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

I took my answer from the Lemon Test which is what the Supreme Court uses to determine rulings related to both secular and religious matters. Declaring our government is secular and then linking to the definition for secular doesn't prove our government is secular. It is circular reasoning. I maintained our government is not exclusively secular. It merely demands no religious preference.

 

Also while you have not argued that religion grants no authority, others in this thread namely BR, have argued that it should not be accorded even that status.

 

Here is an example from this thread:

Any belief system that would deny the latter is morally bankrupt and has no place in civilized society.

 

That view is irrational and reflects hatred and bias. You've declared that you wouldn't say his view goes as far as that. I think you should revise that statement. You have your personal opinion informed by your inputs. I have my personal opinion informed by my inputs which may include religion. Per BR, I should not be allowed to participate in civic discourse and in fact I have no place in civilized society. That is hatred.

 

Actually, the USSC goes far beyond Lemon today, particularly when deciding 1st Amendment issues in the schools.  But very good points as always, trump.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #90 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Oh dear - I'm going to go after your reasoning twice in succession - sorry about that. Same-sex marriage and polygamy are not equivalent as rights unless you regard homosexuality as a preference of free will; denying polygamy does not deny anyone a right that others have.

 

I'm sure that many polygamists would argue that point.  They are still being denied the "right" to marry who they choose.

 

Your argument is based upon the idea that there is no difference between men and women.  Right now, on the federal level, same-sex couples do not have the "right" to marry.  This is only an equivalent "right" when you also accept the idea that there is no difference between men and women.  Additionally, you seem to ascribe to the idea that you are in control of who you fall in love with.  You are arguing that someone cannot fall in love with two individuals and have equally strong feeling about both.  How is that attraction any different than the sexual attraction that you are defending?

post #91 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by svnipp View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Oh dear - I'm going to go after your reasoning twice in succession - sorry about that. Same-sex marriage and polygamy are not equivalent as rights unless you regard homosexuality as a preference of free will; denying polygamy does not deny anyone a right that others have.

I'm sure that many polygamists would argue that point.  They are still being denied the "right" to marry who they choose.

Your argument is based upon the idea that there is no difference between men and women.  Right now, on the federal level, same-sex couples do not have the "right" to marry.  This is only an equivalent "right" when you also accept the idea that there is no difference between men and women.  Additionally, you seem to ascribe to the idea that you are in control of who you fall in love with.  You are arguing that someone cannot fall in love with two individuals and have equally strong feeling about both.  How is that attraction any different than the sexual attraction that you are defending?

I sympathize with their predicament, but my last sentence above stands; denying polygamy does not deny anyone a right that others have, so it is not discriminatory. While gays do have the legal option of marrying someone of the opposite sex, it is not a real option for them, so denying the right to same-sex marriage can easily be argued as discriminatory.
post #92 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


I sympathize with their predicament, but my last sentence above stands; denying polygamy does not deny anyone a right that others have, so it is not discriminatory. While gays do have the legal option of marrying someone of the opposite sex, it is not a real option for them, so denying the right to same-sex marriage can easily be argued as discriminatory.

 

I honestly don't see how that is substantively different from polygamy.  I can't think of, off the top of my head, any other instance where a singular of something is legal whereas a plurality of that same thing is illegal.  My point is that if you are going to argue from the idea of "fairness" that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, I don't see how you can not argue affirmatively for polygamy.  The point is that those arguing FOR same-sex marriage are seeking to change the current laws, and therefore they must bear the burden of proof so to speak.  If it's "fair" to not deny a same-sex couple the right to marry, how is it "fair" to deny a polygamist the right to marry.

 

I'm almost scared to ask the question, but let's put it this way...  Mike and Rachel fall in love and get married.  Mike realizes that he is bisexual and has fallen in love with Tom.  Rachel is similarly attracted to Tom and wants to have a three way marriage.  Assuming that same-sex marriage were to become legal, would that then make this potential marriage legal?  If not how is it "fair" to deny it?  I don't think that this scenario is very far-fetched.  Bear in mind they enormous legal issues that this would suddenly create in the event of a divorce, especially if Rachel had a child with either man.

post #93 of 167
Thread Starter 

Svnipp is clearly attempting to link polygamy to same-sex marriage in order to provide an obstacle to legalizing same-sex marriage.  It's disingenuous at best, evil at worst.

 

Same-sex marriage does not require any changes to the legal framework that exists now.  A few forms may have to be changed to be more gender neutral, but that's it.  There is no reason to hold up same-sex marriage until the framework for polygamy is worked out--unless you are opposed to same-sex marriage and want another artificial roadblock.

 

Svnipp is committing a perfect solution fallacy--he doesn't want to address same-sex marriage because it doesn't fix the entire problem.


Edited by BR - 10/23/12 at 2:23pm

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #94 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

denying polygamy does not deny anyone a right that others have

 

I'm curious about this statement. It seems to betray an underlying presupposition of yours.

 

Do you believe people have rights regardless of what any given state says or do you believe states grant rights to people?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #95 of 167
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

I'm curious about this statement. It seems to betray an underlying presupposition of yours.

 

Do you believe people have rights regardless of what any given state says or do you believe states grant rights to people?

Not this again.  Save it for another thread regarding the role of government.  

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #96 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

You may disagree with the source that I cited, but I did not use circular reasoning. Perhaps you didn't actually follow the link. You argued that secular means an absence of religion rather than religion neutral. I pointed out that a secular state is indeed defined as religion neutral, and that the US therefore meets that definition, and indeed is given as an example of a secular state. I'm not declaring the US to be secular - merely noting that it meets the criteria.

 

I'm not trying to defend all BR's positions - that must be clear to you. I will, however, point out when I think that you or others mistakenly dismiss all his arguments because some of them may be wrong. Perhaps he does have a serious problem with religion. Perhaps he would care to confirm or deny that. But while I agree that he does, on occasion, ridicule religion, that does not, per se, equate to or imply hatred. Nor does claiming that a belief system is morally bankrupt imply hatred. Nor does claiming that a belief system is morally bankrupt equate to saying that a believer has no place in civilized society. I think you are reaching too far to obtain the conclusion of hatred. You could be right though.

 

Your are very polite muppetry and I'll admit I was probably being a bit of a crank there. The definition of secular excludes religion. The Wikipedia entry, in my opinion, walks both sides of the issue. It states no religious preference, defines secular as not having a state religion, but then allows that many of these "secular" societies have sort of religious vestigial organs whereby customs, holidays and other events are state endorsed.

 

As for BR and dismissing him. We've had a lot of discussion on this point in this thread. I've made my points pretty well. I've got my opinion on him and so do others. You don't dismiss him but you haven't dealt with him for an extended period. We will see if he deserves your patience and good will several months from now. Heck we will see if I still earn it as well. ;-)

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp View Post

 

You mentioned exactly the problem.  The legal framework for polygamy would be a nightmare to workout.  How would assets be divided in the instance of the death of a spouse?  Does this differ if it's the death of the single male with multiple wives where he is the primary financial support as opposed to one of the wives (or vice versa in the event of a female with multiple husbands)?  If a man has more than one wife, how does tax filing work?  Is she simply a dependent?  What is she has more than one husband?  What happens to the assets in a divorce?  Who gets custody of the children in the event of a female with multiple husbands where the biological husband is also deceased?  This is just a few things off the top of my head.  The legal issues pertaining to polygamy seems absolutely insane.

 

Same-sex marriage may very well be "easy" by comparison, but the left if all about fairness.  It seems to me that the responsible path forward for you would be to ensure that those wanting legalized polygamy shouldn't be left out in the cold to fend for themselves.  If you are going to be fair about this you should be advocating for polygamy also.

 

Just a few more legal framework issues in the polygamy case...  How does beneficiary benefits work?  How does your example of deathside visitation work?  What about all the various hotels and resorts that have "Honeymoon suites"?  Should the government mandate these suites have to accommodate up to X number of individuals so as not to be discriminatory towards polygamists?  This is kind of fun, but I think this makes my point.

 

If you're going to redefine marriage, I think we should only go through this nightmare once.  I don't think we should go through this for same-sex marriage and discriminate against polygamy if as a society we are going to do it.

 

The legal framework wouldn't be a nightmare to workout. We basically allow serialized polygamy now with divorce and remarriage. All the same sort of matters are dealt with there.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Oh dear - I'm going to go after your reasoning twice in succession - sorry about that. Same-sex marriage and polygamy are not equivalent as rights unless you regard homosexuality as a preference of free will; denying polygamy does not deny anyone a right that others have.

 

I'd argue that is pure nonsense. Certainly the number of affairs and divorces show that polyamory is far from a choice nor is it an aberration. The criteria of number has the same basis as gender, it is historically related to child-rearing. If that isn't a sound basis for determining marriage for homosexuality, then it isn't for polyamory or polygamy as well.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by svnipp View Post

 

I'm sure that many polygamists would argue that point.  They are still being denied the "right" to marry who they choose.

 

Your argument is based upon the idea that there is no difference between men and women.  Right now, on the federal level, same-sex couples do not have the "right" to marry.  This is only an equivalent "right" when you also accept the idea that there is no difference between men and women.  Additionally, you seem to ascribe to the idea that you are in control of who you fall in love with.  You are arguing that someone cannot fall in love with two individuals and have equally strong feeling about both.  How is that attraction any different than the sexual attraction that you are defending?

 

You make many good points. I'd only add that homoesxuals are allowed to marry. They just do not like the marriage criteria. There are plenty of homosexuals I know who started adult life in heterosexual relationships, often even relationships that gave children, and later decided to be true to themselves, come out, etc. with regard to moving to a same-sex partnership.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I sympathize with their predicament, but my last sentence above stands; denying polygamy does not deny anyone a right that others have, so it is not discriminatory. While gays do have the legal option of marrying someone of the opposite sex, it is not a real option for them, so denying the right to same-sex marriage can easily be argued as discriminatory.

 

Nonsense, rights are expanded all the time. It is only considered new in the concept of number. The reasoning that others don't have it doesn't mean it ought not be had or that all groups don't desire it. No one used to be allowed to vote for senators. All women were kept from voting as were all slaves due to their sub-human status as written in the Constitution. There are millions who have been forced into divorces, been caused untold shame and harm due to the declaration of two as being the ideal relationship and life being the ideal timeframe. Divorce used to be for cause, not it isn't. Things change because they are right, not stay the same because it is difficult.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #97 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Not this again.  Save it for another thread regarding the role of government.  

 

His question is absolutely relevant to the conversation. Do rights exist independent of governments, or are rights "granted" to us by governments?

 

Does the right to enter into voluntary contracts with consenting adults exist independent of government, or must we seek the government's approval?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #98 of 167
Thread Starter 

You aren't dealing with reality.  As it stands, heterosexual couples have rights that homosexual ones don't have.  You are muddying the issue with your own perfect solution fallacy (shocker).  If you think the government shouldn't be deciding who can enter into such contracts, take the pragmatic approach and allow same-sex marriage to correct an immediate injustice while lobbying for the removal of government sanctioned marriages for everyone down the road.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #99 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

His question is absolutely relevant to the conversation.

 

Of course it is.

 

What's interesting is that I've already stated that the right to "marry" is something everyone HAS. It is government's involvement in personal relationships that is the problem.

 

I suspect BR doesn't really want to admit this because it would take the wind out of his big government, make other people do what he wants sails.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #100 of 167
Thread Starter 

Pragmatically, you aren't about to get the government to stop recognizing heterosexual marriages.  So, living in the real world, if you TRULY BELIEVE everyone has the right to marry, you would correct the injustice of same-sex couples not being recognized by the government first.  That's the bandaid that helps a lot of people immediately.  You just won't acknowledge that.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #101 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by svnipp View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


I sympathize with their predicament, but my last sentence above stands; denying polygamy does not deny anyone a right that others have, so it is not discriminatory. While gays do have the legal option of marrying someone of the opposite sex, it is not a real option for them, so denying the right to same-sex marriage can easily be argued as discriminatory.

 

I honestly don't see how that is substantively different from polygamy.  I can't think of, off the top of my head, any other instance where a singular of something is legal whereas a plurality of that same thing is illegal.  My point is that if you are going to argue from the idea of "fairness" that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, I don't see how you can not argue affirmatively for polygamy.  The point is that those arguing FOR same-sex marriage are seeking to change the current laws, and therefore they must bear the burden of proof so to speak.  If it's "fair" to not deny a same-sex couple the right to marry, how is it "fair" to deny a polygamist the right to marry.

 

I'm almost scared to ask the question, but let's put it this way...  Mike and Rachel fall in love and get married.  Mike realizes that he is bisexual and has fallen in love with Tom.  Rachel is similarly attracted to Tom and wants to have a three way marriage.  Assuming that same-sex marriage were to become legal, would that then make this potential marriage legal?  If not how is it "fair" to deny it?  I don't think that this scenario is very far-fetched.  Bear in mind they enormous legal issues that this would suddenly create in the event of a divorce, especially if Rachel had a child with either man.

 

SS numbers, passports, Appleinsider accounts. You can certainly argue for polygamy as a personal freedom, but not by arguing that restricting it is discriminatory, except perhaps under a freedom of religion position. Polygamists are allowed to marry just like everyone else. Just not more than once concurrently, just like everyone else. No discrimination there. I don't know how to state that distinction any more simply and obviously.

post #102 of 167
Thread Starter 

Polyamorists should have equal protection under the law, too.  The same hospital visits denied to gay couples would be denied to the unofficially married member of a triad.  Regardless, you are falling into Svnipp's perfect solution fallacy trap. 

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #103 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

SS numbers, passports, Appleinsider accounts. You can certainly argue for polygamy as a personal freedom, but not by arguing that restricting it is discriminatory, except perhaps under a freedom of religion position. Polygamists are allowed to marry just like everyone else. Just not more than once concurrently, just like everyone else. No discrimination there. I don't know how to state that distinction any more simply and obviously.

 

This is exactly the same argument against same-gender marriage.

 

Let's try this:

 

 

Quote:
You can certainly argue for same-gender marriage as a personal freedom, but not by arguing that restricting it is discriminatory. Homosexuals are allowed to marry just like everyone else. Just not a person of the same gender, just like everyone else. No discrimination there.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #104 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You aren't dealing with reality.  As it stands, heterosexual couples have rights that homosexual ones don't have.  You are muddying the issue with your own perfect solution fallacy (shocker).  If you think the government shouldn't be deciding who can enter into such contracts, take the pragmatic approach and allow same-sex marriage to correct an immediate injustice while lobbying for the removal of government sanctioned marriages for everyone down the road.

 

"Pragmatism" is not doing the opposite of what needs to be done to fix the problem. Using government to force everyone to recognize same-sex "marriage" is at best a band-aid, at worst, it will further entrench government meddling in areas it shouldn't be.

 

Government shouldn't be involved in marriage, so let's vote to perpetuate government involvement in marriage and just change the definition of marriage? It makes no sense.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #105 of 167
Thread Starter 

No chance in hell of getting government out of marriage.  

 

Option 1:  Fight for years and years while a segment of the population is treated like second-class citizens.

Option 2:  Immediately stop discriminating, then fight the good fight for years and years (and maybe a little longer than otherwise, but those folks aren't treated like second-class citizens the whole time).

 

Option 2 may set your long-term goals back, but it fixes a much greater injustice in the short-term.  You put extreme anti-government principles above the plight of real people, though. That's terrible in my book.  It's just really disgusting the consequences you are willing to accept.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #106 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

No chance in hell of getting government out of marriage.

 

If you believe this, then we really have nothing further to discuss on the matter.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #107 of 167

BR, while you try to portray me as an inhuman monster for disagreeing with you on how to get the government out of marriage, I'd like to point out that I am voting for Libertarian Party Candidate Gary Johnson, who recently issued the following statement in support of defeating the gay marriage ban in Minnesota:

Quote:

 

Just last week, a federal court in New York ruled the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional — and that was the correct decision. Denying committed couples the right to marry under the law is discrimination, plain and simple. While different faiths may choose not to perform or recognize same-sex marriage, the government has no business deciding who should be allowed to marry.
 
While as a former governor, I am a staunch supporter of States’ Rights, when it comes to what I firmly believe is a constitutionally protected right to equality, the states have no right to discriminate. I do not agree with President Obama that the federal government should defer to states, allowing them to choose to deny their residents the equal right to marry.
 
I hope Minnesota voters will reject this attempt to enshrine discrimination in their state’s Constitution, and urge them to reject Amendment 1.
 
As a Libertarian, I believe there is much that government does and tries to do to interfere in our personal lives that it simply has no business doing. I am proud to join with Minnesota Libertarians in taking a stand against discrimination and the idea that government should be imposing moral values on free people.
 
I also commend Minnesotans United for All Families for their leadership in opposing Amendment 1. The breadth and width of the coalition that has joined to protect equality is truly gratifying, and I am pleased to join with that coalition in this very important battle.

 

You're voting for Obama. Where is his statement on an issue that is so important to you?

 

Ironic, isn't it?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #108 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

You may disagree with the source that I cited, but I did not use circular reasoning. Perhaps you didn't actually follow the link. You argued that secular means an absence of religion rather than religion neutral. I pointed out that a secular state is indeed defined as religion neutral, and that the US therefore meets that definition, and indeed is given as an example of a secular state. I'm not declaring the US to be secular - merely noting that it meets the criteria.

 

I'm not trying to defend all BR's positions - that must be clear to you. I will, however, point out when I think that you or others mistakenly dismiss all his arguments because some of them may be wrong. Perhaps he does have a serious problem with religion. Perhaps he would care to confirm or deny that. But while I agree that he does, on occasion, ridicule religion, that does not, per se, equate to or imply hatred. Nor does claiming that a belief system is morally bankrupt imply hatred. Nor does claiming that a belief system is morally bankrupt equate to saying that a believer has no place in civilized society. I think you are reaching too far to obtain the conclusion of hatred. You could be right though.

 

Your are very polite muppetry and I'll admit I was probably being a bit of a crank there. The definition of secular excludes religion. The Wikipedia entry, in my opinion, walks both sides of the issue. It states no religious preference, defines secular as not having a state religion, but then allows that many of these "secular" societies have sort of religious vestigial organs whereby customs, holidays and other events are state endorsed.

 

As for BR and dismissing him. We've had a lot of discussion on this point in this thread. I've made my points pretty well. I've got my opinion on him and so do others. You don't dismiss him but you haven't dealt with him for an extended period. We will see if he deserves your patience and good will several months from now. Heck we will see if I still earn it as well. ;-)

 

 

I don't think you have anything to worry about there - I just took a little while to get used to your style of discussion.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Oh dear - I'm going to go after your reasoning twice in succession - sorry about that. Same-sex marriage and polygamy are not equivalent as rights unless you regard homosexuality as a preference of free will; denying polygamy does not deny anyone a right that others have.

 

I'd argue that is pure nonsense. Certainly the number of affairs and divorces show that polyamory is far from a choice nor is it an aberration. The criteria of number has the same basis as gender, it is historically related to child-rearing. If that isn't a sound basis for determining marriage for homosexuality, then it isn't for polyamory or polygamy as well.

 

 

I'm not arguing against polyanything, but I disagree that number and gender are equivalent criteria. Your point below notwithstanding, for those for whom it is not a viable option to engage in heterosexual marriage then prohibiting same-sex marriage does discriminate against them - they have no other option. Choosing to marry multiple partners is not an aberration, but it is a personal choice and denying it is not discriminatory. Discrimination attacks what you are, not what you choose. Except for religion, if you regard that as a choice.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by svnipp View Post

 

I'm sure that many polygamists would argue that point.  They are still being denied the "right" to marry who they choose.

 

Your argument is based upon the idea that there is no difference between men and women.  Right now, on the federal level, same-sex couples do not have the "right" to marry.  This is only an equivalent "right" when you also accept the idea that there is no difference between men and women.  Additionally, you seem to ascribe to the idea that you are in control of who you fall in love with.  You are arguing that someone cannot fall in love with two individuals and have equally strong feeling about both.  How is that attraction any different than the sexual attraction that you are defending?

 

You make many good points. I'd only add that homoesxuals are allowed to marry. They just do not like the marriage criteria. There are plenty of homosexuals I know who started adult life in heterosexual relationships, often even relationships that gave children, and later decided to be true to themselves, come out, etc. with regard to moving to a same-sex partnership.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I sympathize with their predicament, but my last sentence above stands; denying polygamy does not deny anyone a right that others have, so it is not discriminatory. While gays do have the legal option of marrying someone of the opposite sex, it is not a real option for them, so denying the right to same-sex marriage can easily be argued as discriminatory.

 

Nonsense, rights are expanded all the time. It is only considered new in the concept of number. The reasoning that others don't have it doesn't mean it ought not be had or that all groups don't desire it. No one used to be allowed to vote for senators. All women were kept from voting as were all slaves due to their sub-human status as written in the Constitution. There are millions who have been forced into divorces, been caused untold shame and harm due to the declaration of two as being the ideal relationship and life being the ideal timeframe. Divorce used to be for cause, not it isn't. Things change because they are right, not stay the same because it is difficult.

 

 

No - you misunderstand my point. I'm not arguing that they shouldn't have it, I'm arguing that preventing them from having it, while it may be a totally unreasonable restriction of their personal freedom, does not constitute discrimination. 

post #109 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

SS numbers, passports, Appleinsider accounts. You can certainly argue for polygamy as a personal freedom, but not by arguing that restricting it is discriminatory, except perhaps under a freedom of religion position. Polygamists are allowed to marry just like everyone else. Just not more than once concurrently, just like everyone else. No discrimination there. I don't know how to state that distinction any more simply and obviously.

 

This is exactly the same argument against same-gender marriage.

 

Let's try this:

 

 

Quote:
You can certainly argue for same-gender marriage as a personal freedom, but not by arguing that restricting it is discriminatory. Homosexuals are allowed to marry just like everyone else. Just not a person of the same gender, just like everyone else. No discrimination there.

 

Only if you assume that it is a viable option for them. I'm assuming that it is accepted not to be - therefore they are discriminated against by not being able to marry.

post #110 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Svnipp is clearly attempting to link polygamy to same-sex marriage in order to provide an obstacle to legalizing same-sex marriage.  It's disingenuous at best, evil at worst.

 

It's not disingenuous, and certainly not evil.  The two are linked, because both are non-traditional marriage.  If we allow one, there exists no grounds to prevent the other, or variants of the other.  It's a slippery slope, but it's not a slippery slope fallacy.  It's a real concern.  

 

 

Quote:
Same-sex marriage does not require any changes to the legal framework that exists now.  A few forms may have to be changed to be more gender neutral, but that's it.

 

That's probably true.  

 

 

Quote:

 There is no reason to hold up same-sex marriage until the framework for polygamy is worked out--unless you are opposed to same-sex marriage and want another artificial roadblock.

 

Svnipp is committing a perfect solution fallacy--he doesn't want to address same-sex marriage because it doesn't fix the entire problem.

 

And you're stating that you value homoesexual marriage more than polygamist marriage.  You're throwing the polygamous community under the bus!  :)  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Polyamorists should have equal protection under the law, too.  The same hospital visits denied to gay couples would be denied to the unofficially married member of a triad.  Regardless, you are falling into Svnipp's perfect solution fallacy trap. 

 

Wait...so marriage should not be limited to two people?  How many should it be limited to?  10? 20?  1,000?  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

No chance in hell of getting government out of marriage.  

 

Probably true.  

 

 

 

 

Quote:

Option 1:  Fight for years and years while a segment of the population is treated like second-class citizens.

Option 2:  Immediately stop discriminating, then fight the good fight for years and years (and maybe a little longer than otherwise, but those folks aren't treated like second-class citizens the whole time).

 

Option 2 may set your long-term goals back, but it fixes a much greater injustice in the short-term.  You put extreme anti-government principles above the plight of real people, though. That's terrible in my book.  It's just really disgusting the consequences you are willing to accept.

 

As long as we can keep discriminating against bigamists and polygamists, right?  They don't matter as much.   

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #111 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

As long as we can keep discriminating against bigamists and polygamists, right?  They don't matter as much.   

 

I really don't see a single valid argument for why that is discrimination, but it keeps coming up. It's not discrimination if it just restricts personal choice. It's discrimination if it denies you equal rights - such as making your entire potential marriage pool unavailable to you.

post #112 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I really don't see a single valid argument for why that is discrimination, but it keeps coming up. It's not discrimination if it just restricts personal choice. It's discrimination if it denies you equal rights - such as making your entire potential marriage pool unavailable to you.

 

Let me ask you then:  Is there any element of personal choice in sexual orientation?  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #113 of 167
Thread Starter 

No.  I'm saying that one stroke of the pen fixes one large injustice.  Another injustice will require more fighting for because the legal framework doesn't exist yet for it.  Because I say take care of the easy one immediately because no framework changes are necessary does not mean in the least that I am OK with discriminating against polygamists. 

 

Again, my objection to the linkage isn't complaining about slippery slope fallacies--it's about the perfect solution fallacy.  You are making a strawman fallacy by arguing against a point that I did not make.  The linkage is obstructionism and distraction from a very easy way to eliminate a very large injustice.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #114 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I really don't see a single valid argument for why that is discrimination, but it keeps coming up. It's not discrimination if it just restricts personal choice. It's discrimination if it denies you equal rights - such as making your entire potential marriage pool unavailable to you.

 

Let me ask you then:  Is there any element of personal choice in sexual orientation?  

 

Ah - different question. In my limited personal experience (one data point), no. Consensus on the opinion appears to be no. Would you disagree?

post #115 of 167
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Ah - different question. In my limited personal experience (one data point), no. Consensus on the opinion appears to be no. Would you disagree?

I don't think that the question of personal choice matters in the least.  Consenting adults and whatnot.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #116 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Ah - different question. In my limited personal experience (one data point), no. Consensus on the opinion appears to be no. Would you disagree?

I don't think that the question of personal choice matters in the least.  Consenting adults and whatnot.

 

On the contrary, I think it is central to the issue. Restricting personal choice is commonplace. It may be unduly restrictive, depending on your viewpoint, but it is not discriminatory if it restricts everyone equally. It is only discriminatory if it restricts a demographic group due to something that they have no control over, such as race, gender or, in this case, orientation - with the caveat that we assume they have no choice on that matter.

post #117 of 167
Thread Starter 

Religion is a choice. 

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #118 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Religion is a choice. 

 

I agree. Not sure that view is unanimous though.

post #119 of 167

Christians can be extremely prophetic. When abortion was being debated, that generation's Christians said that killing off the unborn would inevitably lead to discussions about euthanasia in society. Those warnings were shrugged off, and then, it happened.

 

When we opposed 'same-sex marriage' we warned that it would quickly lead to the acceptance of polygamy in society, and again those warnings were dismissed as fear mongering. And right on cue, the biggest proponents of ssm are now coming around to the idea that's it's okay 'between consenting adults', wilfully discarding the legion of historical evidence of how polygamy damages the lives of women and children.

 

And after breaking through moral barriers Christianity erected in our society against cohabitation, then homosexuality, abortion, euthanasia and now polygamy, only one real challenge will occupy the darkened minds of our generation.

 

Incest.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #120 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Christians can be extremely prophetic. When abortion was being debated, that generation's Christians said that killing off the unborn would inevitably lead to discussions about euthanasia in society. Those warnings were shrugged off, and then, it happened.

 

When we opposed 'same-sex marriage' we warned that it would quickly lead to the acceptance of polygamy in society, and again those warnings were dismissed as fear mongering. And right on cue, the biggest proponents of ssm are now coming around to the idea that's it's okay 'between consenting adults', wilfully discarding the legion of historical evidence of how polygamy damages the lives of women and children.

 

And after breaking through moral barriers Christianity erected in our society against cohabitation, then homosexuality, abortion, euthanasia and now polygamy, only one real challenge will occupy the darkened minds of our generation.

 

Incest.

 

I think you need a nice, stiff drink. That is some serious pessimism. It's also a huge straw man. There have always been discussions about euthanasia, they didn't start with abortion, won't end with it, it still hasn't happened, and if it did it would, as a self-requested process, be quite different to abortion. On the marriage issue, are you actually blaming the gay community's quest for equal rights for some kind of push for the legalization of polygamy? And who, exactly, are these "biggest proponents" of same-sex marriage who are supporting polygamy? And your latest dire warning is that this will all end in tears with the legalization of incest?

 

You are right. This is not fear-mongering. This makes fear-mongering look like tomorrow's weather forecast.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Mormon Religion--not necessarily the members--but the religion itself is 100% Racist