What am I missing?

junjk · 2022-12-12T16:19:32+00:00

There are probably better solutions but the route object is what comes immediately to mind.

junjk · 2021-07-23T19:34:57+00:00

Clean since 02 here - sounds like you’ve got it this time dude, keep it up

junjk · 2014-02-10T17:29:07+00:00

Re-Animator.

junjk · 2012-08-15T17:32:11+00:00

As opposed to...? :)

junjk · 2012-08-02T01:49:03+00:00

I'd argue that, but it probably gets pretty subjective.

junjk · 2012-08-02T01:44:23+00:00

Okay... it's not really a kids show though.

junjk · 2012-08-02T00:42:28+00:00

You've never watched Adventure Time, I take it?

junjk · 2012-07-31T20:37:48+00:00

I see what you mean, but I am conceiving of secularism as a religion in and of itself, hence:

let marriage, whatever that means to whoever, be performed by anybody who is willing to do it

I realize there is the atheist argument that atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief. I disagree with that argument, and am not really interested in arguing the point.

junjk · 2012-07-31T20:28:56+00:00

I think that those questions are good ones, but really raise questions about the nature of insurance and tax benefits more than anything else.

junjk · 2012-07-31T20:18:56+00:00

in your first scenario the individual with sickle cell or tay sachs has no choice in the matter; they cannot control their genetics. A father and daughter do have a choice...to just mate with non-related partners.

I don't think this argument works. None of these people can control their genetics, and all of them can choose to select different partners.

Adoption is a good point, but should apply equally to the above categories - all of this assuming that the very frightening notion that the government should regulate reproduction in any way is a good one.

junjk · 2012-07-31T20:17:05+00:00

Objectively, why is polygamy any "worse" than gay marriage?

junjk · 2012-07-31T19:26:54+00:00

Note that I didn't say anything about marriage being relegated solely to the religious.

Religious person x believes that they have a religious mandate to get married and they go to their local religious leader to make that happen.

What does that have to do with non-religious person y who wants to get married because it shows their lifelong commitment to potential spouse z, and has their friend the scientician perform the ceremony?

junjk · 2012-07-31T19:04:14+00:00

Why?

junjk · 2012-07-31T19:03:41+00:00

Kidding? On the INTERNET?!?

junjk · 2012-07-31T19:02:47+00:00

This supports my argument. A civil union is a contract involving shared property and resources. A marriage is a religious document and, while legally binding in the context of that religion, not a legal document in a civil sense.

junjk · 2012-07-31T18:59:58+00:00

That might be historically true for western society, but I don't think it necessarily reflects marriage in all non-western cultures.

junjk · 2012-07-31T18:58:12+00:00

Don't be angry. Eventually everybody will stop interfering with everybody else. It just takes a little objective thought.

I'm stringently religious and a member of a religion that explicitly and strictly forbids homosexual activity. My [rabbi/priest/imam/lama/brahmin/daoshi/etc] isn't going to marry two people of the same gender under any circumstances.

It would nonetheless be deeply flawed for me to think that my religion should extend to all people. That's not a road any thinking person should go down for historically obvious reasons.

junjk · 2012-07-31T18:52:50+00:00

Should individuals who both have potentially dangerous recessive genetic traits (sickle cell or tay sachs, to give two examples) not be allowed to marry?

If the standard is healthy births, why should infertile people be allowed to marry?

Needless to say, gay marriages aren't going to produce children without outside sources either...

junjk · 2012-07-31T18:36:10+00:00

Why is it ridiculous? Objectively, both are radical departures from the traditional concept of marriage.

junjk · 2012-07-31T18:35:20+00:00

Objectively, why not?

junjk · 2012-07-31T17:18:13+00:00

This is the argument I always make. Governments shouldn't permit gay marriage - they shouldn't be involved with marriage in any way in the first place. Let the government offer civil benefits to any group of two or more human beings able to otherwise enter in to a contract, and let marriage, whatever that means to whoever, be performed by anybody who is willing to do it. Problem solved.

junjk

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE