[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm asking people to cut through the BS -- they still think consanguineous relationships and polygamy are yucky and complicated.

Sorry I've had to drop out of the thread for a bit, I haven't had the time to give it the attention it deserves. I hope I'll be able to do so this weekend.

I wanted to quickly address this. I don't really see legit arguments against either of these. Consenting adults should be able to marry. Full stop.

The most you could get me to agree with in this case is:

1) First cousins or closer shouldn't have children

2) Closer than first cousins isn't inherently wrong, but the way our society forms family structures you can be almost assured there's something ****ed up going on which created the interest.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

Sorry I've had to drop out of the thread for a bit, I haven't had the time to give it the attention it deserves. I hope I'll be able to do so this weekend.

I wanted to quickly address this. I don't really see legit arguments against either of these. Consenting adults should be able to marry. Full stop.

The most you could get me to agree with in this case is:

1) First cousins or closer shouldn't have children

2) Closer than first cousins isn't inherently wrong, but the way our society forms family structures you can be almost assured there's something ****ed up going on which created the interest.

Playing "Devil's Advocate here

That's what birth control is for, right? Prenatal genetic test will reveal any fetal anomlies and if there are any, a quick trip to Planned Parenthood will take care of that. For those who don't want risk birth control failing, the ACA provides for free sterilization!

There are couples out there fighting for REAL marriage equality.

Outrage at father and daughter's baby together | World news | The Guardian

An Australian father and daughter who have conceived an apparently healthy child are being monitored by police and social services after going public about their incestuous relationship.

John Deaves, 61, and his daughter Jenny, 39, say they want to be treated as an ordinary couple despite being biologically related, but their case has sparked outrage. It has been revealed in court documents that their previous child died from a congenital heart defect a few days after birth.

A German brother and sister are currently fighting for the right to continue their sexual relationship and are challenging incest laws. They have four children together, three of whom are in foster care. Patrick Stübing faces imprisonment if he resumes a sexual relationship with his sister Susan.

[subego]

In subegoworld™ they could pretty much knock themselves out.

[ghporter]

If "Starbucks" speaks as it wishes, it's a corporate statement. If Starbucks' CEO, Howard Schultz speaks as he wishes, he does so carefully enough that there is no issue of knowing what are Howard's ideas and beliefs and what is Starbucks corporate policy. Again, this is basic communication. In military service, NOBODY is allowed to make statements to the press unless the organizations' Public Affairs office okays it, because if ANYONE in uniform says something to a reporter, it is automatically taken as "official," even if it a brand new private who can't remember his own locker combination. Thus "basic corporate communications" is essentially taught to GIs (although it isn't very well retained by many of them) all the time.

Hobby Lobby was only used as a random example of a business that closes on Sundays essentially so that their Christian employees can worship without work conflicts. This in itself is not a problem. The problem is when businesses make specific accomodations for a single religious group and not others. While HL is a pretty up-front business, others aren't so much, and it is there where issues of discrimination in hiring hide.

I am not confusing "suppression" with "separation." If YOU are to have religious freedom, I must not be allowed to force my ideas on you, just as much as the government must not be allowed to do so. What you seem to be getting at is something different. For both secular society and government to support the broadest freedom of religion, secular society and government must be entirely neutral. That means that when Christians use Scripture to denounce homosexuality, that's just fine - but that's a specific religious belief, and no single belief or group of beliefs can be given more credence in the law than any other. To protect YOUR beliefs, EVERYONE's beliefs must also be protected.

Chongo, when a small business is so small that they cannot adapt to requests from the public based on staffing, how do they manage? They say "sorry, we can't do that" and refer the customer to another business. So if our New Mexico photographer was asked to photograph something he was too booked up to work, would he complain that he was put into a difficult situation by being too busy? Why was it necessary to refuse and make a stink about it? Why did he/they not simply say "sorry, I can't do that" (without saying "because I think your ceremony is an abomination!!!") and refer the customer to another photographer? Would a photographer get away with refusing to do business with a Jewish couple, a black couple, a mixed black/Asian couple? Certainly not. I don't see the benefit for the photographer except for the publicity. Did making a big stink get him more business - in the long run rather than short-term?

I'm not saying every freelance photographer should be forced to go out and photograph events they find uncomfortable or unpleasant. I'm saying that making a fuss over the specific reason they can't do the job is a bad idea, and it's bad for business. And I'm saying that not being allowed to refuse a job on the grounds that you don't agree with the event you're asked to work is NOT infringing on YOUR religious freedom. Antidiscrimination is Business 101 stuff. Any business, large or small needs to know about avoiding the impression of discrimination to stay in business.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Sorry I've had to drop out of the thread for a bit, I haven't had the time to give it the attention it deserves. I hope I'll be able to do so this weekend.

I wanted to quickly address this. I don't really see legit arguments against either of these. Consenting adults should be able to marry. Full stop.

And for what it's worth to you, I appreciate your consistency and honesty. This is decidedly not the case for many, at present, championing equal marriage.

The most you could get me to agree with in this case is:

1) First cousins or closer shouldn't have children

Their rate of birth defect is generally that of those in their 40's for which we do not at present deny privilege. If reproductive fitness be a gauge, many would not qualify.

2) Closer than first cousins isn't inherently wrong, but the way our society forms family structures you can be almost assured there's something ****ed up going on which created the interest.

I don't know that you can say this with any degree of certainty or any more than you could say of a great many of both heterosexual and homosexual bonds. I think the crux of the matter is that A. many simply don't understand it which in light of our current knee-jerk partisan environment equates to being phobic, hateful, bigoted, and mean-spirited. And B. they think this type of relationship is yucky -- It is progress to expand the definition of marriage, but only so far.

[Shaddim]

Brothers + sisters, or any other immediate family, is biologically messed up, but the whole thing about denying first cousins is a modern convention, and no more genetically dangerous than old(er) people parenting kids (or those on certain antidepressants). I dated a 3rd cousin for a short time back in school and we caught hell over it, so much so that she broke up with me.

[subego]

@ebuddy

When it comes to brother-sister incest, there's no yucky factor with me. I don't have a sister, and I'm a total purv. I actually find the idea intriguing.

OTOH, I've found people who do have a sister, even the purvy ones like me, get some switch flipped which makes that no bueno.

Of course, people get into non-incestuous no bueno relationships. Abusers and the abused don't just magically find each other, they're attracted to each other. That attraction comes from somewhere, likely in the home when growing up, just as with an incestuous relationship.

The only real difference here is incest defines the scenario we're talking about, so it gives more leeway to make a judgement call. You can't make the same judgements about a "general" no bueno relationship because you're working with less information.

Does that make sense?

[subego]

Also, my first cousin used to look like Shirley MacLane circa My Geisha. I so would have hit that.

[Chongo]

interesting take on Brendan Eich "resignation"


Mozilla, Brendan Eich, and the HHS Mandates | CatholicVote.org

Mozilla, Brendan Eich, and the HHS Mandates

By Carson Holloway


Last week Brendan Eich was forced to step down as CEO of Mozilla Corporation because of complaints that, among other things, he had given a contribution to support Proposition 8–the amendment to the California Constitution defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. These developments have occasioned a debated about whether it was a good or bad thing that Eich had to resign.

One view has it that the episode illustrates a disturbing illiberality and vengefulness on the part of some proponents of same-sex marriage. This is the view of many conservatives, but also of liberal (and gay) blogger Andrew Sullivan.



The opposite view–the extreme left view–defends the forcing out of Eich on the grounds that his views are evil and retrograde and people like him should not be in high status positions. People who make this argument are doing everything they can to confirm the critique made by the critics mentioned in the previous paragraph.

I am most interested in a middle position I have seen defended. This view holds that it was proper to seek Eich’s removal just because his views don’t fit with the values of the Mozilla community. According to this perspective, the Mozilla Corporation does not exist only to make money but to embody certain values, and since many thought Eich did not share those values, they could properly ask him to leave.

I don’t know enough about Mozilla to know whether this argument is fully persuasive, but what really interests me in it is the principle it presupposes. It presupposes that a corporation might have a kind of ethical identity, derived from the ethical intentions of the people who constitute it.

That makes a lot of sense to me. A corporation is not just an abstraction but is made up of human individuals who have decided to cooperate with a view to some common good. Here’s the point: If this is true of Mozilla, wouldn’t it also be true, say, of Catholic hospitals and universities, which are set up not just to provide health care or education, but to do so according to Catholic standards? And if it is true, wouldn’t these institutions have a point in saying that they have an interest in not providing forms of health care coverage that they find immoral?

[subego]

His ouster is bothering me.

If this guy had a problem with separating his politics from his work, he wouldn't have gotten this far in the Mozilla organization. Firefox has done more for gay rights by just existing as a way activists can use the web than his donation did to stop them.

Mozilla knows that, but more importantly he knows that.

There are people here who's politics I find problematic. I have delightful non-political conversations with them because I can separate. There are only a few people who have crossed the line to where I can no longer separate, and FWIW, they all left awhile ago, so I doubt that statement applies to anyone reading this.

[subego]

Here's a bit from Sullivan's blog

The guy who had the gall to express his First Amendment rights and favor Prop 8 in California by donating $1,000 has just been scalped by some gay activists. After an OKCupid decision to boycott Mozilla, the recently appointed Brendan Eich just resigned under pressure:

Will he now be forced to walk through the streets in shame? Why not the stocks? The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.

I agree 100%.

[ebuddy]

You can't write this stuff, man;

OKCupid’s CEO Sam Yagan donated $500 in 2004 to then-Rep. Chris Cannon. As congressman from 1997 to 2009, Cannon voted for a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, against a ban on sexual-orientation based job discrimination and against gay adoptions.

[subego]

He basically just bagpiped the whole Internet.

[Shaddim]

It's only prejudice when certain people do it, duh?

[subego]

Eich wrote massive parts of JavaScript, and wanted to head what amounts to a charity.

The OKCupid guy made a site for people looking to ****.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

Eich wrote massive parts of JavaScript, and wanted to head what amounts to a charity.

The OKCupid guy made a site for people looking to ****.

Guess which one is going to end up having a bigger impact on the future of humanity?

[subego]

@ebuddy

I never got to the key point in my response to you except you couldn't have explicated your position better, and it was one I was glad to hear.

I also want to repeat that while I've improperly given you shit before, I've also considered, and even adopted some of your more "unpopular" positions.

I mean, of course. This isn't a popularity contest, it's a contest of who has the most solid reasoning. Something you often supply.

[subego]

I'm curious what Chongo and/or ebuddy, and/or anyone else would like a law of this type to cover. Is just having marriage ceremonies covered enough?

I could write my own policy and throw it past everyone, but that seems kinda jive. Though I'd do my best, religious freedom laws should probably be written by someone actually religious.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm curious what Chongo and/or ebuddy, and/or anyone else would like a law of this type to cover. Is just having marriage ceremonies covered enough?

I could write my own policy and throw it past everyone, but that seems kinda jive. Though I'd do my best, religious freedom laws should probably be written by someone actually religious.

Thanks for all your graciousness in this thread btw, now that I'm just getting back here. What law specifically? How the government should handle marriage or how government handles the nuance of opposition to gay marriage?

[subego]

The opposition part.

What would be the situations related to homosexuals under which the photographer and the baker can refuse service?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

The opposition part.

What would be the situations related to homosexuals under which the photographer and the baker can refuse service?

Good question. I don't think your attendance should be required. In other words, serving people is one thing and in the case of at least the photographer, she had served gay people. I think a gay wedding ceremony is different and her attendance at that celebration should not be required. How would I define different? Maybe I'm lacking creativity at the moment as I'm not sure other than to come right out with the attendance criteria.

[subego]

Kudos for precision (no snark), but doesn't that hose the baker?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Kudos for precision (no snark), but doesn't that hose the baker?

Yes. Unless you extend "attendance" to your wares. Your wares will be in attendance and are therefore not mandated, but yeah -- I admit that's pretty thin. I'm trying to think of a way where you'd maintain control over your artistic integrity. i.e. a photographer may not feel she can adequately capture the most intimate moments of a same-sex celebration or wouldn't perform with as much passion. Her subpar work would be out there, memorialized in what is still among many, a contentious moment. This would also apply to a gay atheist baker or photographer being compelled to serve a Westboro Baptist or NARTH convention. A situation that risks compromising ones artistic integrity.

[subego]

I must admit, the more I think about this the more I get incensed.

I've said many times, I philosophically agree with the concept of right to refuse for any reason. If I'm gay, and you don't like me, I don't want to give you my money.

I've also pointed out this has a "rubber meets the road" problem. Let's take housing. If you could be refused housing for being gay, people would end up being denied housing just for being born in a place where homosexuality is frowned upon. They likewise wouldn't necessarily have the income prospects to just pick up and move someplace else.

Okay... so I get why you need anti-discrimination laws for something like that.

Weddings? I'm at a loss.

Not because weddings somehow are too small of a deal to bother over, it's the opposite. Weddings are much too big of a deal to trust the jobs involved to people who aren't into it.

I mean, you nailed it on the head. That photographer was trying not to **** up that wedding, and got smacked for it.

[subego]

To put it another way, if you can't find a professional photographer in your area who will fly with a homosexual wedding, IMO it would genuinely be better for you not to have one.

That's not the case with a place to live.

[Shaddim]

If I were forced to photograph a wedding, I'd make sure to just take pics of everyone's ties, shoes, hats, and purses. After that, I doubt I'd be forced to do it again.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

If I were forced to photograph a wedding, I'd make sure to just take pics of everyone's ties, shoes, hats, and purses. After that, I doubt I'd be forced to do it again.

Careful Shaddmin, that's very close to becoming a hate crime.