What slippery slope?

10,947 Views | 244 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by BusterAg
Seamaster
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
https://nypost.com/2022/10/08/nyc-judge-rules-in-favor-of-polyamorous-relationships/

I mean, why not right? There can no longer be a rational basis to limit marriage whatsoever. This ruling is short of marriage but that's just around the corner.
jkag89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Already being discussed in a thread on a board where it is probably a better fit.
schmendeler
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
More liberals bringing political threads to the R&P board
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I find polygamy more reasonable than gay marriage. One is at least in line with why humans invented marriage. The other makes no sense whatsoever.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Martin Q. Blank said:

I find polygamy more reasonable than gay marriage. One is at least in line with why humans invented marriage. The other makes no sense whatsoever.


If we're talking straight history, property rights exist in gay marriage, too. Though it's less about one person have legal control over the other.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
What possible religious argument is there against gay polygamy besides the ones against homosexuality in general? The "polygamy" in gay polygamy is moot?
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sapper Redux said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

I find polygamy more reasonable than gay marriage. One is at least in line with why humans invented marriage. The other makes no sense whatsoever.


If we're talking straight history, property rights exist in gay marriage, too. Though it's less about one person have legal control over the other.
What are you blabbing about?
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Martin Q. Blank said:

I find polygamy more reasonable than gay marriage. One is at least in line with why humans invented marriage. The other makes no sense whatsoever.

I don't find your religion reasonable at all. . . . yet, I am a staunch supporter of your right to it. Weird, huh?
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Martin Q. Blank said:

Sapper Redux said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

I find polygamy more reasonable than gay marriage. One is at least in line with why humans invented marriage. The other makes no sense whatsoever.


If we're talking straight history, property rights exist in gay marriage, too. Though it's less about one person have legal control over the other.
What are you blabbing about?


What was the reason for "inventing marriage" in your mind?
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
kurt vonnegut said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

I find polygamy more reasonable than gay marriage. One is at least in line with why humans invented marriage. The other makes no sense whatsoever.

I don't find your religion reasonable at all. . . . yet, I am a staunch supporter of your right to it. Weird, huh?
As such, atheism shouldn't be the established religion in this country.
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sapper Redux said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

Sapper Redux said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

I find polygamy more reasonable than gay marriage. One is at least in line with why humans invented marriage. The other makes no sense whatsoever.


If we're talking straight history, property rights exist in gay marriage, too. Though it's less about one person have legal control over the other.
What are you blabbing about?


What was the reason for "inventing marriage" in your mind?
To make gays jealous.
Jabin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
My guess is that the societal invention of marriage had virtually nothing to do with religion. Support for that guess is that every society in history has recognized marriage, including purely secular societies. Marriage is a fundamental building block of every society, and all societies have recognized that fact.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
kurt vonnegut said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

I find polygamy more reasonable than gay marriage. One is at least in line with why humans invented marriage. The other makes no sense whatsoever.

I don't find your religion reasonable at all. . . . yet, I am a staunch supporter of your right to it. Weird, huh?


You support our right to believe it in private as long as it isn't practiced in public. I think that's an important distinction.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Martin Q. Blank said:

Sapper Redux said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

Sapper Redux said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

I find polygamy more reasonable than gay marriage. One is at least in line with why humans invented marriage. The other makes no sense whatsoever.


If we're talking straight history, property rights exist in gay marriage, too. Though it's less about one person have legal control over the other.
What are you blabbing about?


What was the reason for "inventing marriage" in your mind?
To make gays jealous.


Bravo on the dedication to the bit.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AGC said:

kurt vonnegut said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

I find polygamy more reasonable than gay marriage. One is at least in line with why humans invented marriage. The other makes no sense whatsoever.

I don't find your religion reasonable at all. . . . yet, I am a staunch supporter of your right to it. Weird, huh?


You support our right to believe it in private as long as it isn't practiced in public. I think that's an important distinction.


As long as it isn't imposed on others using state power or space. That's an important distinction.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sapper Redux said:

AGC said:

kurt vonnegut said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

I find polygamy more reasonable than gay marriage. One is at least in line with why humans invented marriage. The other makes no sense whatsoever.

I don't find your religion reasonable at all. . . . yet, I am a staunch supporter of your right to it. Weird, huh?


You support our right to believe it in private as long as it isn't practiced in public. I think that's an important distinction.


As long as it isn't imposed on others using state power or space. That's an important distinction.


So public accommodation can be done away with? And religious charities can pursue their own morals without having to be under a church umbrella? DoE won't interfere with religious schooling?

Nobody believes you.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AGC said:

Sapper Redux said:

AGC said:

kurt vonnegut said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

I find polygamy more reasonable than gay marriage. One is at least in line with why humans invented marriage. The other makes no sense whatsoever.

I don't find your religion reasonable at all. . . . yet, I am a staunch supporter of your right to it. Weird, huh?


You support our right to believe it in private as long as it isn't practiced in public. I think that's an important distinction.


As long as it isn't imposed on others using state power or space. That's an important distinction.


So public accommodation can be done away with? And religious charities can pursue their own morals without having to be under a church umbrella? DoE won't interfere with religious schooling?

Nobody believes you.


You're conflating a limited discussion of the imposition of religious beliefs on others using the power of the state with other debates about the line between various individual rights and public responsibilities. Your religious charities should be under strict supervision if they are using state funds or state resources. I personally don't think they should be allowed to discriminate against anyone or proselytize to anyone if using state funds. Schooling involves the public. If you're using public funds or resources, then yes, it can and should be regulated. Somehow I doubt you'd be a huge fan of the Taliban opening an elementary school dedicated to producing little Taliban warriors in downtown Bryan with zero oversight or investigation.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sapper Redux said:

AGC said:

Sapper Redux said:

AGC said:

kurt vonnegut said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

I find polygamy more reasonable than gay marriage. One is at least in line with why humans invented marriage. The other makes no sense whatsoever.

I don't find your religion reasonable at all. . . . yet, I am a staunch supporter of your right to it. Weird, huh?


You support our right to believe it in private as long as it isn't practiced in public. I think that's an important distinction.


As long as it isn't imposed on others using state power or space. That's an important distinction.


So public accommodation can be done away with? And religious charities can pursue their own morals without having to be under a church umbrella? DoE won't interfere with religious schooling?

Nobody believes you.


You're conflating a limited discussion of the imposition of religious beliefs on others using the power of the state with other debates about the line between various individual rights and public responsibilities. Your religious charities should be under strict supervision if they are using state funds or state resources. I personally don't think they should be allowed to discriminate against anyone or proselytize to anyone if using state funds. Schooling involves the public. If you're using public funds or resources, then yes, it can and should be regulated. Somehow I doubt you'd be a huge fan of the Taliban opening an elementary school dedicated to producing little Taliban warriors in downtown Bryan with zero oversight or investigation.


Kurt said he found our belief unreasonable but supports our right to it. My point was that he doesn't actually support our right to it because if he did then we'd do away with state impositions of secular moral belief on religious practice. Rather than refute that point you continue to reinforce it. You give the state moral supremacy and it suppresses all opposing views outside of those done at home in private. What is a belief if it cannot be lived out?
Aggrad08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It seems you are not drawing a distinction between having a right to do something and being entitled to government sponsorship unless you are referring to something particular I'm not aware of.

What situation are you being denied a right to religious practice or schooling in which you aren't simultaneously relying on government support?

If you have such a situation in mind I'm likely to agree with you that's an imposition by the government to burden you.

It seems that for some the removal of special treatment is deemed an attack or persecution.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Aggrad08 said:

It seems you are not drawing a distinction between having a right to do something and being entitled to government sponsorship unless you are referring to something particular I'm not aware of.

What situation are you being denied a right to religious practice or schooling in which you aren't simultaneously relying on government support?

If you have such a situation in mind I'm likely to agree with you that's an imposition by the government to burden you.

It seems that for some the removal of special treatment is deemed an attack or persecution.


What? No need for the trope. I spelled it out pretty clearly.
barbacoa taco
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Martin Q. Blank said:

kurt vonnegut said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

I find polygamy more reasonable than gay marriage. One is at least in line with why humans invented marriage. The other makes no sense whatsoever.

I don't find your religion reasonable at all. . . . yet, I am a staunch supporter of your right to it. Weird, huh?
As such, atheism shouldn't be the established religion in this country.
.........it's not
Aggrad08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You listed nothing in which you were receiving nothing from the government. What entitles you to state sponsorship?
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Aggrad08 said:

You listed nothing in which you were receiving nothing from the government. What entitles you to state sponsorship?


The freedom to bake a cake as you see fit is now…*checks notes* state sponsorship? Selling a product for a living is state sponsorship? A Jewish university in New York only sponsoring organizations that align with their beliefs is state sponsorship?

What a bizarre argument that the state is the source of all rights. Do you really believe that?
barbacoa taco
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I will always believe in one's right to freely practice their religion, or to not practice any religion. So long as they aren't trying to force their beliefs on others, or use the power of the state to favor or enforce their religion.

But those in power consistently show they are unwilling to do that.
Aggrad08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AGC said:

Aggrad08 said:

You listed nothing in which you were receiving nothing from the government. What entitles you to state sponsorship?


The freedom to bake a cake as you see fit is now…*checks notes* state sponsorship?
Title II Of The Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations) (justice.gov)

This is a public accommodation issue. These are not new, either we are going to have this sort of law or not. The same law that says if you are going to sell cakes you will do so to blacks or Muslims also say if you are going to sell paintings you shall do so for Christian evangelicals.

Quote:


Selling a product for a living is state sponsorship?
Again with the public accommodation laws. These are all in or all out you don't get to just protect who you like best.


Quote:


A Jewish university in New York only sponsoring organizations that align with their beliefs is state sponsorship?


First we will see how this plays out Sotomayor put a stay on this one. Second, Yashiva university DOES receive taxpayer money. Even still they may make this case work for them.



Quote:

What a bizarre argument that the state is the source of all rights.

Do you really believe that?

I didn't state that at all. The state is the defender of all rights. Rights are just ideas without the state. But what the state chooses to defend as a right isn't the backbone of the moral reasoning as to why that should be a right.

I don't think god grants rights if that's what you are asking. He's never in human history bothered to defend them.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Aggrad08 said:

AGC said:

Aggrad08 said:

You listed nothing in which you were receiving nothing from the government. What entitles you to state sponsorship?


The freedom to bake a cake as you see fit is now…*checks notes* state sponsorship?
Title II Of The Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations) (justice.gov)

This is a public accommodation issue. These are not new, either we are going to have this sort of law or not. The same law that says if you are going to sell cakes you will do so to blacks or Muslims also say if you are going to sell paintings you shall do so for Christian evangelicals.

Quote:


Selling a product for a living is state sponsorship?
Again with the public accommodation laws. These are all in or all out you don't get to just protect who you like best.


Quote:


A Jewish university in New York only sponsoring organizations that align with their beliefs is state sponsorship?


First we will see how this plays out Sotomayor put a stay on this one. Second, Yashiva university DOES receive taxpayer money. Even still they may make this case work for them.



Quote:

What a bizarre argument that the state is the source of all rights.

Do you really believe that?

I didn't state that at all. The state is the defender of all rights. Rights are just ideas without the state. But what the state chooses to defend as a right isn't the backbone of the moral reasoning as to why that should be a right.

I don't think god grants rights if that's what you are asking. He's never in human history bothered to defend them.



So basically my statement was right all along: you think I should be able to believe whatever I want privately but unable to practice it publicly (thereby negating my private belief). Because reasons.

So no, the atheist / secular materialist really doesn't support my ability to believe what I want. I think we're done here.
Aggrad08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG


Quote:

So basically my statement was right all along: you think I should be able to believe whatever I want privately but unable to practice it publicly (thereby negating my private belief). Because reasons.


Um no. You can put up billboards saying jesus loves you, I know because people do. You can grift on TV commercials pretending to have faith healing, I know because people do.

They only thing you are asking to do that you can't is deny protections that are broadly afforded to everyone which protect you also. You may not like these laws, but it seems your are only wanting to be an exception.

I suspect if private businesses like costco were denying service to christians you'd see that as a much bigger burden than baking a cake.

The last one is taxpayer funded as are most the "school issues".

Public accommodation laws are not laws to keep you from practicing your religion, they are broad protections against all sorts of discrimination including religious discriminations.

If you want to not bake the cake then people should be able to deny service to blacks or christians also. As long as you are consistent here I don't care too much. I think we are better off with these protections than without, but it's more important that the protections or lack there of are equal.

Quote:


So no, the atheist / secular materialist really doesn't support my ability to believe what I want. I think we're done here.
You can and do believe whatever you want. Pretending to be a victim in this country is laughable. You are simply complaining about lack of special treatment as far as public accommodation laws.

You are just as persecuted as a KKK member who doesn't want to serve blacks. No more, no less.
Jabin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
But is it a public accommodation issue?

Isn't the real issue that the plaintiffs wanted a custom designed cake? Aren't they trying to force the baker to make statements and exercise his creative powers in a way that violates his conscience?

If you're OK with that, where to we draw the line? Wouldn't twitter and Facebook fall within your expanded definition of a public accommodation? Can we force twitter to post something, coming from its corporate offices, endorsing Donald Trump?
Aggrad08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
My understanding is the opposite. You can refuse to bake a cake based on message. For instance you don't have to bake a cake that says I love Joe Biden, or that has a dickbutt printed on it. What you don't get to do is regularly sell I love Joe Biden cakes but refuse to sell one to a christian.

The discrimination must be about messaging not about the person receiving it.

Any wedding cake seller that wants to refuse to make a cake that has dicks on it should be free to do so, but refusing to sell a cake they have sold to others just because someone is gay is a public accommodation issue and falls under those laws.
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Martin Q. Blank said:

kurt vonnegut said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

I find polygamy more reasonable than gay marriage. One is at least in line with why humans invented marriage. The other makes no sense whatsoever.

I don't find your religion reasonable at all. . . . yet, I am a staunch supporter of your right to it. Weird, huh?
As such, atheism shouldn't be the established religion in this country.

Agreed. Because I don't want a state established religion. And because atheism isn't a religion.
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AGC said:

kurt vonnegut said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

I find polygamy more reasonable than gay marriage. One is at least in line with why humans invented marriage. The other makes no sense whatsoever.

I don't find your religion reasonable at all. . . . yet, I am a staunch supporter of your right to it. Weird, huh?


You support our right to believe it in private as long as it isn't practiced in public. I think that's an important distinction.


Thank you for telling me what I believe in. Here I am going about thinking that I'm fine with you practicing your religion in public, but lucky I have you to set me straight.

Just for funsies, can you tell me how specifically I am against your right to practice your religion?

You want to murder all atheists. See I can make up lies about you too. This is a fun game.
Beer Baron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Back to the OP, Plural marriages are nothing new. Straight people have been doing them for ages. A lot of people in this country who want to be in them, do so for religious reasons but that's where religious liberty apparently stops for a lot of Christians.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Aggrad08 said:



Quote:

So basically my statement was right all along: you think I should be able to believe whatever I want privately but unable to practice it publicly (thereby negating my private belief). Because reasons.


Um no. You can put up billboards saying jesus loves you, I know because people do. You can grift on TV commercials pretending to have faith healing, I know because people do.

They only thing you are asking to do that you can't is deny protections that are broadly afforded to everyone which protect you also. You may not like these laws, but it seems your are only wanting to be an exception.

I suspect if private businesses like costco were denying service to christians you'd see that as a much bigger burden than baking a cake.

The last one is taxpayer funded as are most the "school issues".

Public accommodation laws are not laws to keep you from practicing your religion, they are broad protections against all sorts of discrimination including religious discriminations.

If you want to not bake the cake then people should be able to deny service to blacks or christians also. As long as you are consistent here I don't care too much. I think we are better off with these protections than without, but it's more important that the protections or lack there of are equal.

Quote:


So no, the atheist / secular materialist really doesn't support my ability to believe what I want. I think we're done here.
You can and do believe whatever you want. Pretending to be a victim in this country is laughable. You are simply complaining about lack of special treatment as far as public accommodation laws.

You are just as persecuted as a KKK member who doesn't want to serve blacks. No more, no less.


Again it's all because reasons. You keep defaulting to laws rather than engaging with how they interfere with religious practice. You don't have a right to someone else's labor for a cake - this isn't the 1950s south where a black man can't get a hotel room at the only place in town. You're also ignoring the intentional malice found that is present in secular government.

I know the pretension of a persecution complex really plays to your atheist audience here but a Christian parent with kids in public school will likely have anti Christian teaching presented and encouraged. Preferencing one morality over another is replacement, not removal of privilege.
AGC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I posted specific examples. Teaching queer theory to elementary schoolers in public ed is another example of infringement. You said in another thread you're fine with it so why's my statement offensive?
schmendeler
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
"you don't get to teach kids things" isn't a Christian belief that the rest of us have to observe.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.