LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[madhatter85]

*sigh* There's a small possibility you might be genuinely confused instead of merely disingenuous, so I will give it one more try: In a hypothetical, the conditions are assumed to be true. They are assumed to be true even if they are not actually true, in the real world. That's why it's called a "hypothetical" situation and not a "real-life" situation. If the assumed conditions of the hypothetical are different from the real world, that does not make the hypothetical situation "illogical". That makes it a hypothetical situation. It is, in fact, possible to answer hypothetical questions. I have seen people do it. The only obstacle is your willingness to do so.

I'm asking you to assume/pretend/imagine that people can choose their skin color. Anyone has the ability to close their eyes and imagine this hypothetical situation, except those who are unwilling to do it. For example, you could imagine everyone gets a magical device and they can pick "African" or "Chinese" or whatever as their ethnicity. You could imagine that Michael Jackson clicked a button, instead of going through surgeries and treatments. Perhaps one day technology will actually progress to this point. Perhaps it never will. Again, I stress that there is nothing "illogical" about imagining this situation, or considering this possible situation. If this imagined world seems different from the real world, that is because it is not the real world, but a hypothetical world we are considering, for the sake of argument.

So, consider this hypothetical situation. Would the fact that race is a "behavioral trait" in this hypothetical situation change anything? In other words, in this hypothetical case, would it be okay to send blacks to the back of the bus?

There is no point to a hypothetical when one of the conditions cannot (as in can never be for any number of reasons) be true. Until you provide me with reason to believe that skin color is the cause of any behavior. Your hypothetical situation is irrelevant.

 

[Magic Man]

And trampling religious freedoms in the process.

And this is why this thread, as you said, is pointless. Because you refuse to listen. I explained in detail how those are not examples of trampling religious freedoms, but you don't want to hear that.

If you start a business that uses government funding and/or serves the public, you have to abide by equality laws. If you don't want to compromise your bigoted views, then don't start such a business. You're still perfectly able to practice your religion as you want.

 

[madhatter85]

And this is why this thread, as you said, is pointless. Because you refuse to listen. I explained in detail how those are not examples of trampling religious freedoms, but you don't want to hear that.

It does trample religious freedom. no religious organization should be penalized for their beliefs. in all of those examples they were penalized.

 

[Autodidact]

It does trample religious freedom. no religious organization should be penalized for their beliefs. in all of those examples they were penalized.

So, for example, take the Church of Jesus Christ, Christian. If they open a campground, should they be allowed to deny African Americans or Jews the right to camp there? Due to their religious beliefs that those groups are evil?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

There is no point to a hypothetical when one of the conditions cannot (as in can never be for any number of reasons) be true.

No. You're wrong. Ask any scientist who has ever considered a frictionless surface, or an infinite potential well. Physicists find hypotheticals very, very useful even when one of the conditions can never be true.

And you're doubly-wrong because we have the cosmetic surgeries and treatments today which allow people to change their skin color and other features in such a way, that it is at least conceivable that a person could, with future technology, change their appearance convincingly from one ethnicity to another. Just look at Michael Jackson. There's no law of Nature that I know about that would make this impossible to do.

I think you just will not answer the question because it destroys your argument. It's wrong to send blacks to the back of the bus because skin color is not a matter of concern. It has nothing to do with skin color being an inherent vs. behavioral trait. Your argument almost suggests to me that, you do think black skin is somehow "bad" or undesirable, but we should tolerate it because black people can't help it. Is that really how you feel?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I apologize i did not read that post (there are a lot on this thread and I come in for an hour or so, and don't get back here for another day.) so please bare with me.

Fair enough.

Your assertions are still rooted in the idea that people who identify as "gay" are a "people" just because someone is a demographic based on any sort of preference does not mean that they should get special privileges.

It's not a matter of gay people getting special privileges; it's a matter of them getting the same ones as everyone else.

And it's not a matter of identifying "gay" as a "people"; it's a matter of identifying a gay person as a person, and therefore the proper recipient of human rights.

Take for instance smokers, some people love smoking, they can't imagine quitting because they don't care about any possible ramifications (and not all people who smoke get cancer but, i digress). Yet, they are confined to smoke only in designated areas and are not allowed to smoke in certain places because, it offends people(they don't like the smell or smoke or whatever). This is based on a behavior and a preference.

No - not because it offends people; because it harms people. Smoking offended people for centuries, but it only became illegal when it became clearly established that second-hand smoke causes serious and definite harm to the surrounding non-smokers.

Sexuality is much the same, it is behavior and preference. it does not mean that we are required to change the definition of marriage to be "whatever you feel like" when marriage was instituted in all cultures as a way to bear and raise children.

Pregnancy and parenthood is the way to bear and raise children. It's been officially established in our culture for quite some time now (and unofficially acknowledged with a wink and a nod in virtually all cultures for all human history) that marriage is not necessary for this.

BTW - something just occurred to me: Joseph Smith is credited (if that's the right word) for marrying teenage girls as young as 14. Other LDS members here have excused this by pointing out that Smith didn't have children with any of these girls, and claiming that their relationships were a matter of material (or perhaps spiritual) support and protection, not sex.

Is this a fair assessment? Is it wrong?

Either way, either you're wrong about child-rearing being the only valid purpose of marriage or the founder of your religion entered into several marriages for invalid purposes. Which is it?

If you define marriage outside of that boundary (the reason it was instituted in the first place) then you have to also aknowlege other forms of "marriage" marriage to robots or poly-amorous relationships, marriage to primates or any animal that has the presence of mind to make cognitive decisions. You will be setting a precedent under the guise of "rights" when in reality they already have the same rights. just because their preference doesn't align with the law doesn't mean their rights are diminished.

Ah... slippery slope game. How about we look at things from the other perspective?

If your position is correct and child-rearing and marriage are inexorably linked, then this doesn't just condemn childless marriages; it condemns child-rearing outside of marriage.

Should we go back to the days where an unmarried single mothers are forced to give their babies up for adoption? Should there be some sort of penalty of law against parents who would raise a child while they aren't "properly" married?

And as to the slippery slope hypothetical (hey - you can deal with hypotheticals after all!), answer me this: does a robot or a non-human primate have the legal capacity to enter into any agreement? If not, where does your worry come from? If the day came when chimpanzees or horses were owning property, signing contracts and serving as directors of corporations, I might agree with you that there's a risk that they might be able to marry as well... but I don't think any of these things will happen in the foreseeable future.

As for polyamorous couples... I suppose that's a possibility. It would have some major legal hoops to jump through and take a fair bit of political will that, IMO, so far isn't there, but I guess there is an outside chance that this will occur. However, I think this issue will go forward or not independently from whatever happens with same-sex marriage. I'm also rather confused as to why a Mormon would have an issue with polygamy, seeing how (AFAIK) your church teaches that God's okay with it in principle, it's happened in the past and it's happening in Heaven right now.

 

[Magic Man]

It does trample religious freedom. no religious organization should be penalized for their beliefs. in all of those examples they were penalized.

No, they weren't. Please at least try to read what I'm saying. No one is penalized for their religious beliefs. You're the one saying a group of people shouldn't have special concessions made for them, and yet here you are asking for special concessions for religious people with businesses. In your examples no one's religious beliefs were trampled, and no one was penalized for them. If you believe that stuff, then logically, you'r believe that gay people are being penalized and having their rights trampled on. Interestingly you only see that happening in the case you identify with.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It does trample religious freedom. no religious organization should be penalized for their beliefs. in all of those examples they were penalized.

There's a better case to be made that the religious freedom of groups like the Metropolitan Community Church is being infringed by not being able to perform legal same-sex marriages than there is to say that it "tramples religious freedom" for a church-owned adoption agency loses its contract with the state because they won't abide by the state's policies for its contractors.

 

[Duck]

There is no point to a hypothetical when one of the conditions cannot (as in can never be for any number of reasons) be true. Until you provide me with reason to believe that skin color is the cause of any behavior. Your hypothetical situation is irrelevant.

So spray tans are what? non-existent technology? Please tell me that you don't think that the unfortunately colored (orange) folks that end up looking like this:

have a normal skin pigmentation resulting in that particular shade of orange? How about these gentlemen:

If this can be done using current technology, how hard is it to assume that other, more naturally occurring human skin pigmentations can be artificially developed? So, is applying a pigmentation to your skin a behavior or an inborn characteristic? And why should someone be treated differently in either case?

Could it be that as has been asserted you are strictly refusing to consider even the possibility of selectable skin colors because it doesn't fit with your desire to continue to deny equal treatment under the civil law to a group of people you find personally repugnant?

 

[linwood]

A very unfair generalization.

I`m sure the statement could be easily supported with evidence.

Unlike the statement he was responding to.

 

[madhatter85]

So spray tans are what? non-existent technology? Please tell me that you don't think that the unfortunately colored (orange) folks that end up looking like this:

have a normal skin pigmentation resulting in that particular shade of orange? How about these gentlemen:

If this can be done using current technology, how hard is it to assume that other, more naturally occurring human skin pigmentations can be artificially developed? So, is applying a pigmentation to your skin a behavior or an inborn characteristic? And why should someone be treated differently in either case?

Could it be that as has been asserted you are strictly refusing to consider even the possibility of selectable skin colors because it doesn't fit with your desire to continue to deny equal treatment under the civil law to a group of people you find personally repugnant?

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not :biglaugh:

 

[madhatter85]

No. You're wrong. Ask any scientist who has ever considered a frictionless surface, or an infinite potential well. Physicists find hypotheticals very, very useful even when one of the conditions can never be true.

And you're doubly-wrong because we have the cosmetic surgeries and treatments today which allow people to change their skin color and other features in such a way, that it is at least conceivable that a person could, with future technology, change their appearance convincingly from one ethnicity to another. Just look at Michael Jackson. There's no law of Nature that I know about that would make this impossible to do.

I think you just will not answer the question because it destroys your argument. It's wrong to send blacks to the back of the bus because skin color is not a matter of concern. It has nothing to do with skin color being an inherent vs. behavioral trait. Your argument almost suggests to me that, you do think black skin is somehow "bad" or undesirable, but we should tolerate it because black people can't help it. Is that really how you feel?

I am not saying that changing your skin color isn't possible.

I am saying that your skin color being the cause of your behavior is impossible.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am not saying that changing your skin color isn't possible.

I am saying that your skin color being the cause of your behavior is impossible.

I'm really not sure what you're arguing now. Can you explain how this is supposed to relate back to same-sex marriage?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I am not saying that changing your skin color isn't possible.

Then you should have no problem answering my hypothetical question. It's a simple 'yes' or 'no' question. You answered 'no' before dodging the second time, are we back to a 'no'?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I'm really not sure what you're arguing now. Can you explain how this is supposed to relate back to same-sex marriage?

I'm just trying to get him to answer the question, what if people could choose their skin color? Would that make it okay to discriminate based on skin color? If the answer is 'no' then clearly, it is not always okay to discriminate based on "behavioral" traits and his argument goes out the window, i.m.o. (Although Autodidact already demonstrated the absurdity of his argument by pointing to the case of other "behavioral" traits, such as the practice of Mormonism.)

At first he dodged the question, then he said his answer was 'no', then he dodged again, now he's saying something incoherent about skin color causing behavior. It's like watching a 747 crash in super slow motion.

 

[happyhummingbird]

I find it odd that people spend their time doing something they themselves think is worthless.

Since he has you on ignore, I'm going to repost this.

This is for you madhatter.

As you said, really?

 

[madhatter85]

Then you should have no problem answering my hypothetical question. It's a simple 'yes' or 'no' question. You answered 'no' before dodging the second time, are we back to a 'no'?

Again,

I am saying that your skin color being the cause of your behavior is impossible.

Therefore, your hypothetical is irrelevant.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Again,

I am saying that your skin color being the cause of your behavior is impossible.

Therefore, your hypothetical is irrelevant.

But since your objection is irrelevant, I don't see what your point is.

I get the impression that you've forgotten what you're arguing.

 

[madhatter85]

I'm really not sure what you're arguing now. Can you explain how this is supposed to relate back to same-sex marriage?

It doesn't. that is my whole point. you cannot compare Gays to blacks because the two do not correlate at all

 

[madhatter85]

Since he has you on ignore, I'm going to repost this.

This is for you madhatter.

As you said, really?

did i say worthless? did I not say I was having fun (watching you guys go all bonkers over my opinions)?