09-29-2006, 08:34 PM | #1 | |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
"Bundle of Rights" argument
Quote:
What is not clear is if they also oppose a la carte "rights" for homosexuals. Contracts, visitations, inheritance, etc. I'm not sure I understand the logic of opposing the "bundled" rights, but not opposing a la carte. But if you do oppose a la carte, in my mind, that is lunacy and complete abrogration of liberty. That's the problem with talking so much about this. You dig yourself a hole that doesn't make sense. For example, in the piece, they conflate eternal marriage with secular marriage. Is the definition of marriage what God says, or what the state says? It sure isn't clear in that article, because they endorse both. http://www.lds.org/newsroom/issues/a...-4-202,00.html |
|
09-29-2006, 08:39 PM | #2 | |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
I should have continued reading before posting. Wickman continues:
Quote:
One man's bundle could be another man's a la carte. |
|
09-29-2006, 08:46 PM | #3 |
Resident Jackass
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Roswell, New Mexico
Posts: 1,846
|
The legalese is mesmerizing.
Surely interfering with another's fundamental liberty to direct or participate in certain rights ought to be taboo (clear to me at least). Why should we care anyway? Is the "bundle of rights" granted by the government the purpose of marriage. Or is it the spiritual effects of doing so? This ought to be a purely secular issue, if we don't like those types of marriages we don't preform them. |
09-29-2006, 08:51 PM | #4 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
Seems to me the only marriage that God recognizes is the kind in the temple. Heterosexual sex within civil marriage (or it's equivalent--in my mission couples need not be married formally to be baptized) is allowed. But that state-defined civil marriage must be what? There is clearly no one single standard.
|
09-29-2006, 08:58 PM | #5 |
Resident Jackass
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Roswell, New Mexico
Posts: 1,846
|
I agree that the only type of marriage recognized by God are temple marriages. Therefore, I am unsure what the grave danger. I get a strong whiff of homophobia from this.
The "but they're gay, they don't deserve rights " argument is maybe not the strongest one in an open society. |
09-29-2006, 09:09 PM | #6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Bluth Home
Posts: 3,877
|
Quote:
Devil is in the details there. What "rights" are we talking about here that you would discribe as a "fundamental liberty." And when you use that phrase, do you mean in the constitutional sense or in the "nature law" or "inalienable rights" sense? Just trying to understand what you mean.
__________________
The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. -Galileo |
|
09-29-2006, 09:20 PM | #7 |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
This is what's called sophistry--saying things in a way that borrows jargon from fields that employ reason to justify what is just subjective bias or belief. What this smug yewt needs is to have one of his kids turn out gay. That would knock him off his high horse. I can hear the General Conference intonation as he says these empty words.
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster |
09-29-2006, 09:21 PM | #8 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
I don't know if inheritance is a fundamental right. But to say that inheritance setups are okay, except for ones involving gay partners, is crazy in my book.
|
09-29-2006, 09:26 PM | #9 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
if a member opposes adoption by his gay sibling, should he oppose the sibling and his child from staying with the members family, so as not to condone the adoption?
you take this to the full logic of not condoning, and pretty soon you are on absurd pharisaical (is this a word?) grounds. |
09-29-2006, 09:27 PM | #10 |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
It's sophistry.
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster |
Bookmarks |
|
|