Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Joe and Matt Walsh Disagree Over Gay Marriage" video.

Oh really? When I was a kid, it was perfectly ordinary for gay people to marry straight people and hide their real feelings from their spouse. That was destructive. Honesty never is. I really don't like to hear honest, courageous people trashed, like those gay and lesbian people who decided to marry who they love. Bravo to them.
6
@HoodrichShinobi Your spouse is your next of kin who decides what happens to you if you are unable to speak for yourself. If you cannot trust that person to love and protect you, then that is a plenty good enough reason to divorce them.
1
@HoodrichShinobi Oh good grief. Well, if you want to live in Never, Neverland . . . Do you actually not know what goes on in other people's homes? It's based on television or movies?
1
@HoodrichShinobi Clean your room.
1
@HoodrichShinobi reported and blocked
1
@MyLilTony93 Food and shelter without modern (early 20th century) technology do not "scale," either. If forcing people to limit family size "scales" better, should that be adopted as well? If not by law, then should there be social pressure to limit the number of children you have?
1
@MyLilTony93 And I fail to see how everyone procreating to the maximum their biology allows would "scale." I don't think you appreciate the history of technology, which includes the farming equipment that became common in the 18th and 19th centuries. I didn't mean computers, or atom bombs.
1
@MyLilTony93 Neither is "scalable," and the standard itself is arbitrary. Neither is even possible: people intent on having children don't, and those who planned never to have them do. Read a book on demographics that covers why human populations suddenly ballooned. History is not "a chicken and egg argument." What do they teach in school now? This is scary.
1
@MyLilTony93 I never said tech vs. food. And I reject scalability as a standard of goodness. You could make an argument for polygamy on that basis. That sounds like a modern meme, not a well-thought-out ethical position. This is tiresome. 'Bye.
1
@Radblur You give him vastly too much credit. Scalability isn't Kantian at all; the categorical imperative would seek to create a maxim by asking something like, would you will for all human beings to have been wanted by their parents at birth, or would you will that everyone have children, wanted or not? How could the latter be a moral imperative?
1
@MyLilTony93 You're the one who posited "scalability" as some sort of normative principle, with no justification whatsoever. You simply contributed slogans which we've all had our fill of. Time waster. Blocked.
1
@Radblur I didn't think you were, actually. It seems to me that scalability is inherently a utilitarian principle; Kant's point is that if a principle of conduct is in fact an ethical one, and not just a matter of what is more pleasurable, agreeable, or useful, then it must exist as a universal imperative: it must impose a duty upon all moral agents. I think you're right. Having children can be no more a universal moral imperative than becoming a surgeon, a concert pianist, or an electrical engineer -- or being a foster parent, or an adoptive parent. I think Kant would approach the question from the standpoint of whether we can frame a universal moral imperative to develop one's (God-given, in Kant's eyes) talents to the best of one's ability. It's inconceivable that he would urge those without any inclination to parenting to have children "because they should."
1
@Radblur Just checked: Kant never married or had children. He had a very strict religious upbringing, and severe migraines as an adult, both of which may have inhibited him socially. I didn't think he ever married.
1