Social progress

[Ben Kenobi]

If you really believed raising kids and getting married are actually societal issues, and not something that should be left up to personal choices, then you would support government telling people who to marry and how many kids they should have

This is a false dilemma. I would argue (contrary to many) that the state does have an interest in preserving marriage as between one man and one woman. That doesn't necessarily follow that the state has an interest in regulating the number of children. That being said, many on the left *do* argue that population control is an important concern of the state.

How do you reconcile your beliefs with support for population control?

[Bereta_Eder]

During the pride parade in athens there was a group called "policemen for tolerance" but the LGBTGGBGKSJYTDFUKYSDTFK people told them to piss off.

that's not tolerance

[Jon Miller]

If you really believed raising kids and getting married are actually societal issues, and not something that should be left up to personal choices, then you would support government telling people who to marry and how many kids they should have ...

Not if you think family is the basis of society.

And I definitely think marriages need the support of the family and I like the idea of arranged marriages...

JM
(The support of my grandfather and my wife's grandparents was very important when we decided marry or split back in 2012.)

[Bereta_Eder]

yeah yeah when families are SO important like they are here, it's like you have and the SO has to be screened family wide and given the green light (and you given the green light)

it's ok because most of the time it is benevolent and there's an eagerness to approve (unless you're I don't know what)

then again, mothers in law man you know. especially sons' mothers.


anyway


sometimes it would be better to be one on one than this byzantine weaving of family relationships and alter ego approvals

[rah]

Then why can't Christians be left alone?

Why can't you just let Gays be?

Again, why are Christians being forced to deny what they believe?

No one is forcing you not to believe that it's a sin. Why are you trying to force gays to deny what they believe by not allowing them to marry. No one is saying the catholic church has to marry them.

For a guy that's pleading for tolerance of Christians, you might want to try giving it before you receive it.

Post an article about that school closing so we can see how you're stretching what you're saying.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why can't you just let Gays be?

Nobody's stopping them from being with whomever they want to be with rah.

No one is forcing you not to believe that it's a sin.

Then why are they shutting Christian schools down in Alberta?

Why are you trying to force gays to deny what they believe by not allowing them to marry.

What exactly am I denying from them? They can be with whomever they want.

No one is saying the catholic church has to marry them.

Oh. Can you explain why they are shutting down Christian schools then?

As for the article, here you go.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/camrose-christian-school-battle-river-bible-1.4185861

[rah]

If they want to teach what they want, they can fund it themselves. If they're taking public funds then the public gets a say.
I wish catholic schools in the US didn't get tax benefits. And I'm catholic so don't paint it as I want to persecute Catholics.

Nobody's stopping them from being with whomever they want to be with rah.

So you have no problems allowing them to be legally married?
If so, I'm proud that you've grown as a person.

And if I misunderstood and you don't want them to be allowed to legally marry, they you are kind of stopping them from being with whomever they want. If a partner is in the hospital and his partner has no legal standing to be there because you won't give him the same rights that you have.

[Aeson]

This is a false dilemma. I would argue (contrary to many) that the state does have an interest in preserving marriage as between one man and one woman. That doesn't necessarily follow that the state has an interest in regulating the number of children. That being said, many on the left *do* argue that population control is an important concern of the state.

How do you reconcile your beliefs with support for population control?

Welcome back Ben. As always, you seem to be confused. I have never supported population control. I think it, and marriage, is a matter that should be left to personal choice.

[Aeson]

Not if you think family is the basis of society.

And I definitely think marriages need the support of the family and I like the idea of arranged marriages...

JM
(The support of my grandfather and my wife's grandparents was very important when we decided marry or split back in 2012.)

That is not the logic you are using in regards to homosexual marriages though. You say it is THE STATE that should make the decision, overriding the personal or even familial choice.

The exact same logic can be used for population control, forcing couples to have a specific number of kids to meet the "ideal" family size. Arranged marriages by the state. Forced sterilizations.

It is clearly better to allow individuals to choose if and who they marry, if and how many children they will have. The state deciding these things in the "best interests of society" invariably is monstrous.

The states should only get involved inasmuch as to protect that choice. (Including some type of age of consent so as to avoid children from being forced into relationships.)

[Jon Miller]

No, I am saying that society has been founded on families and alliances between families. Because of this, society has used it's power, the state, to make these marriages have properties which were beneficial for the alliances and families and so on.

The last ~100 years in the west we have said that the family is a mom and a dad and children and not extended (doesn't include cousins and 3rd cousins and so on). We have said that it is individual relationships (romance, or sex) that matter and not an alliances between families. We have no fault divorce and nuclear families and now gay marriage.

But marriage is just a vestigial (which is why there was the claim it was religious) social construct in this case.

That everyone here, people who have read lots of science fiction and can imagine other lives then their own... and yet don't seem to have read history with the same imagination.. is hard for me to understand.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Currently we put things in terms of individual or 'the state' (which was the imagination of marx but never really existed).

That isn't how the first 7k years of civilization existed.

JM

[Jon Miller]

I always thought Solaria was a utopia.

It was very impactful for me 16 years ago.

I thought that the only way we could be free is to have nukes and robots (everyone).

JM

[Lorizael]

Currently we put things in terms of individual or 'the state' (which was the imagination of marx but never really existed).

That isn't how the first 7k years of civilization existed.

JM

The last 7000 years are almost nothing like most of the last 50,000. This is all one big experiment. Just go with it, man.

[rah]

In the US now, except among the wealthy, most marriage is not about alliances between families, so to pretend that it should be a guiding principle seems a stretch.

[Jon Miller]

Individual liberty is of utmost importance.

I don't think this is correct. It is not even self-consistent.

JM