Subject:
|
Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:23:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1135 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
> > Let's see:
> >
> > 1. Mary, unemployed, but that's okay
> > 2. Joseph, employed, but later disappears from all record
> > 3. James, child by marriage
> > 4. Jesus, child by a contemporaneous extramarital union who
> > grows up to be executed for sedition
> >
> > Doesn't sound like a traditional model to me.
> Anyway, I referred to Jesus' {teaching}:
Well sure, but that wouldn't have been as funny! 8^)
> Questions:
>
> If you recognize same-sex marriage, do you also recognize 3-way marriages?
> 4-way? Between siblings? Between father/mother and legal age son/daughter?
> I don't see how you can logically draw the line at same-sex marriages. Why
> don't we cut to the chase here? As RM suggested elsewhere, aren't you really
> just in favor of government not recognizing {any} unions?
Let's stipulate that by "marriage" I refer to the contract of marriage between
two or more willing parties, but I do not recognize any religious component as
necessary or central to that contract.
Having said that, I'll field your questions one at a time:
Q: Do you recognize same-sex marriage?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you recognize 3-way marriages?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you recognize marriage between siblings?
A: Yes, except insofar as we've previously discussed the genetic
problems of genetic inbreeding. If that could be overcome, then
I see no reason not to recognize such unions.
Q: Do you recognize marriage between parent and child?
A: Again, assuming we can overcome the problems of inbreeding, and
assuming that all parties are willing, I see no reason not to
recognize such unions.
Q: Aren't you really in favor of the government not recognizing any unions?
A: I would say that I have never heard a good reason why the government should
refuse to recognize any maritial union. Every reason I've ever heard has
boiled down to "because the bible tells me so," which is hardly a good
legislative foundation.
> > I grant that single-parent homes are problematic, but that's not
> > necessarily due to the single-parenthood as much as the fact of a
> > single-income, so the problem is economic rather than familial in that case.
>
> I strongly disagree, and I'm surprised you would argue so. Morally healthy
> families in poverty will turn out okay, just as morally bankrupt wealthy ones
> will turn out disasterous. Money is no panacea.
Anyone who says that money can buy no happiness is either lying or naive; money
is entirely able to buy off many sources of unhappiness. That doesn't mean that
money = happiness, but the lack of money often yields situations that in turn
result directly in unhappiness.
Similarly, a family so beaten-down by poverty that the single mother has to work
2+ jobs will seldom yield morally strong children. But if that single mother
could work one job at a liveable wage, then she'd be better able to raise her
family with strong moral guidance.
It's also incorrect to suggest that "morally healthy families in poverty will
turn out okay," as if it's a simple equation. Poverty yields countless
pressures upon family and the individual, any of which can, in combination,
overcome even a strong, family-based morality. I grant you that there are
commendable exceptions, but I don't accept that such exceptions are the norm.
And, if the elimination of that poverty (or the hardships that such poverty
imposes, such as bad schooling[1], poor nutrition, substandard housing,
inadequate healthcare, etc) reduces those external pressures, then I'd say that
money would definitely buy happiness in those cases, again by reducing
unhappiness.
Dave!
(1) the solution for which is ABSOLUTELY NOT school vouchers.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
220 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
