Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Rick Warren's Son takes his Life

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Rick Warren's Son takes his Life

    Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
    Thanks for remind me of All in the Family, Archie, Edith, Meathead and, well the daughter's name escapes me for the moment. I hate when that happens. Old age.

    All gut knowledge isn't bad though, just the gut knowledge that is a bit short on intuition and insight from that intuition. So the gut moves back to the head, and both get involved. LOL.

    My gut once told me to get out of the way of an unperceived threat. Literally saved my life. I was in my 20s, way too young to check out. So some gut knowledge equals intuition which is a very real deal. As is insight,that comes when the brain shuts the fuck up for a nanosecond. When taking latin in college, in translating a verse I would get stumped as to the right words to use and in which order. I had this candle one night as the power had gone out, and I when I got stumped I would pull a piece of the hardened drippings of the sides and feed that into the flame, only being aware of this simple thing and suddenly the right words and order would miraculously come to me. I still use that to this day, but not necessarily with a candle.

    Yet I understand the point you were making Pirate.

    Got nothing to say about oldman, except since we are both older than hell, I like him. We are probably from a similar background. But then I like everyone here. Even that hard core right winger T. He's just a square is all. But the universe is arranged in opposites, and so I know we have to have these kind of folks. The world would not operate without them. Yin Yang. Up, down, left, taken. I mean, left, right.
    What the pirate calls gut thinking is actually years of experience. Thirty years from now he could easily be accused of the same.

    ?


    • Re: Rick Warren's Son takes his Life

      Originally posted by Darth Hussein Omar View Post
      Zepps asked Irons about his views on gay ‘marriage’ during an interview about the Showtime series “The Borgias,” in which Irons plays the role of a pope. While Irons said he had no strong feelings either way on the issue, he did worry that unscrupulous people could use a redefinition of marriage to their advantage at society’s expense. [actor Jeremy Irons]

      LifeSiteNews Mobile | Actor Jeremy Irons: gay ‘marriage’ could lead to father-son unions to avoid estate taxes

      Though Irons is a Brit, this is instructional because it illustrates that, contrary to myth, there are people who have valid, non-religious objections, to redefining marriage to accommodate the gay community’s need to feel included or have their life style choice sanctified by the government.

      Which is why this issue should be resolved legislatively and on the state level.
      You have demonstrated that they are non-religious, not that they are valid.

      In fact, this...
      While Irons said he had no strong feelings either way on the issue, he did worry that unscrupulous people could use a redefinition of marriage to their advantage at society’s expense.

      “Tax wise, it’s an interesting one, because, you see, could a father not marry his son?” Irons asked Zepps.

      [...]

      “It's not incest between men,” he said. “Incest is there to protect us from having inbreeding. But men don’t breed … so incest wouldn't cover that. But if that was so, if I wanted to pass on my estate without estate duties, I could marry my son and pass on my estate to him.”

      ...may very well be the stupidest argument I've ever heard against gay marriage. I mean, for starters, heterosexuals already scam the system. I personally know three individuals who got married in order to get their spouse into the United States (all of them are divorced now). Is this an argument against heterosexual marriage? Can you imagine anyone seriously arguing that a man and a woman who fell in love shouldn't get married because some other, unscrupulous heterosexuals might use it to game the system?

      Also... if you are advocating civil unions with the same legal benefits as marriage, couldn't homosexuals (and non-homosexuals) scam that system at taxpayers' expense?

      And this, by the way, is why I never listen to what actors have to say about anything... with the possible exception of acting.
      Last edited by AdamKadmon; 04-13-2013, 10:20 AM. Reason: Thought of another point

      ?


      • Re: Rick Warren's Son takes his Life

        Originally posted by AdamKadmon View Post
        You have demonstrated that they are non-religious, not that they are valid.

        In fact, this...
        While Irons said he had no strong feelings either way on the issue, he did worry that unscrupulous people could use a redefinition of marriage to their advantage at societys expense.

        Tax wise, its an interesting one, because, you see, could a father not marry his son? Irons asked Zepps.

        [...]

        It's not incest between men, he said. Incest is there to protect us from having inbreeding. But men dont breed so incest wouldn't cover that. But if that was so, if I wanted to pass on my estate without estate duties, I could marry my son and pass on my estate to him.

        ...may very well be the stupidest argument I've ever heard against gay marriage. I mean, for starters, heterosexuals already scam the system. I personally know three individuals who got married in order to get their spouse into the United States (all of them are divorced now). Is this an argument against heterosexual marriage? Can you imagine anyone seriously arguing that a man and a woman who fell in love shouldn't get married because some other, unscrupulous heterosexuals might use it to game the system?

        And this, by the way, is why I never listen to what actors have to say about anything... with the possible exception of acting.
        Well, in a democracy stupid is clearly in the eye of the beholder.

        Which is why we settle this and similar issues via the legislative branch. Given that marriage, as an institution, affects all of society then all of society should have a say in how it should be best defined. Since that what it ultimately comes down to.

        But I suspect what will happen is the courts will step in and those who disagree with the ruling will be left on the outside pounding sand. Im pretty sure that is not what the founders intended in this republic.

        But when the unintended consequences start to trickle in down the road, they/we will at least be able to say I told you so.

        ?


        • Re: Rick Warren's Son takes his Life

          Originally posted by Darth Hussein Omar View Post
          Well, in a democracy stupid is clearly in the eye of the beholder.
          Indeed. Although you never did address the question: Don't heterosexuals scam the current institution of marriage? (Heck, for all we know, so do homosexuals: A lesbian and a gay man could get married so they can enjoy all the tax benefits of being married, while still engaging in wanton, Biblically-condemned, non-procreative sex with people of their own gender.) And why isn't that an argument against heterosexual marriage?

          Also, as I pointed out in a late edit, if we have civil unions that are granted the exact same legal benefits as marriage (as you are advocating) what's to stop homosexuals (and heterosexuals) from scamming that system?

          Which is why we settle this and similar issues via the legislative branch. Given that marriage, as an institution, affects all of society then all of society should have a say in how it should be best defined. Since that what it ultimately comes down to.

          But I suspect what will happen is the courts will step in and those who disagree with the ruling will be left on the outside pounding sand. Im pretty sure that is not what the founders intended in this republic.

          But when the unintended consequences start to trickle in down the road, they/we will at least be able to say I told you so.
          What if the unintended consequences are positive?

          ?


          • Re: Rick Warren's Son takes his Life

            Originally posted by AdamKadmon View Post
            Indeed. Although you never did address the question: Don't heterosexuals scam the current institution of marriage? (Heck, for all we know, so do homosexuals: A lesbian and a gay man could get married so they can enjoy all the tax benefits of being married, while still engaging in wanton, Biblically-condemned, non-procreative sex with people of their own gender.) And why isn't that an argument against heterosexual marriage?

            Also, as I pointed out in a late edit, if we have civil unions that are granted the exact same legal benefits as marriage (as you are advocating) what's to stop homosexuals (and heterosexuals) from scamming that system?



            What if the unintended consequences are positive?
            If we set the possible scams aside, as some people will take advantage and scam, what are the negative consequences of same sex marriage?

            Many fear this redefinition of marriage, and their fears are based in part on negative consequences that would effect society in of course bad ways. So I ask, what are those?

            Will there be these negative consequences, and how do we know since the world has never used this very old institution except for the union of male and female, sometimes not monogamous but polygamous and even in a part of India, polyandrous. The latter I think arose with a shortage of females and perhaps it was a way to insure that all could enter into the marriage relationship.

            If you can not come up with the negative, then what would be the positive consequences, outside of correcting perhaps a civil rights injustice?

            Or will there be neither?

            ?


            • Re: Rick Warren's Son takes his Life

              Originally posted by AdamKadmon View Post
              Indeed. Although you never did address the question: Don't heterosexuals scam the current institution of marriage? (Heck, for all we know, so do homosexuals: A lesbian and a gay man could get married so they can enjoy all the tax benefits of being married, while still engaging in wanton, Biblically-condemned, non-procreative sex with people of their own gender.) And why isn't that an argument against heterosexual marriage?
              It can be. But I dont see where you actually engaged the point; which is, that there are non-religious reasons to object to same sex marriage. Why should Mr. Irons [assuming he were a citizen here] be disenfranchised of his right to have his concern expressed via his duly elected representative.

              Then there is the open-the-door-to-polygamy objection. Yet another non-religious objection. Gay supporters brush that off as baseless even though it is no more baseless than their scoffing at it. The fact is, no one knows what the outcome of meddling with marriage will entail.

              Why do some have this laser-like focus on the rights of gays to have their marriages governmentally ordained when there are other rights in question as well?

              Ill leave it to you to explain to Mr. Irons why he has no right to have his opinion expressed.

              Originally posted by AdamKadmon
              Also, as I pointed out in a late edit, if we have civil unions that are granted the exact same legal benefits as marriage (as you are advocating) what's to stop homosexuals (and heterosexuals) from scamming that system?

              What if the unintended consequences are positive?
              Now there is an optimistic statement if Ive ever seen one!

              One of the fault lines that separate liberals from conservatives is that liberals cant seem to come to grips with the fact that government interference/regulations tend to have negative unintended consequences.

              Quite often to the extent the bad out weighs the good. Obamacare would make an excellent poster-child for it, in fact.

              And the reason for this is actually pretty straight-forward: unintended consequences are, by definition, unseen, unintended and for all intents and purposes, random. So from a purely probabilistic perspective, the chances are greater that a given system function will worse, and not better, after a random input.

              And why should anyone expect otherwise? If you throw a random part on your lawn mower, the chances are very good you are going to screw it up.

              Applying that principle to the institution of marriage, and the chances are very good that it will suffer detriment if it is meddled with by the government.

              In fact, you can take it to the bank.

              ?


              • Re: Rick Warren's Son takes his Life

                Originally posted by Darth Hussein Omar View Post
                It can be. But I dont see where you actually engaged the point; which is, that there are non-religious reasons to object to same sex marriage. Why should Mr. Irons [assuming he were a citizen here] be disenfranchised of his right to have his concern expressed via his duly elected representative.

                Then there is the open-the-door-to-polygamy objection. Yet another non-religious objection. Gay supporters brush that off as baseless even though it is no more baseless than their scoffing at it. The fact is, no one knows what the outcome of meddling with marriage will entail.

                Why do some have this laser-like focus on the rights of gays to have their marriages governmentally ordained when there are other rights in question as well?

                Ill leave it to you to explain to Mr. Irons why he has no right to have his opinion expressed.
                I don't recall saying Jeremy Irons had no right to express his opinion; just that his opinion was in invalid (as in Webster's definition, "logically inconsequent"). And I also said that I am not generally interested in what actors (of any political bent) have to say about... well... anything other than their craft. However, if Mr. Irons would like to discuss this further, have him give me a call.

                Also, I never denied that there were non-religious arguments against same-sex marriage. You and I had a very enjoyable (for me, anyway) back-and-forth based on a non-religious argument you were making. As to the same-sex-marriage-will-lead-to-polygamy argument, I already solved that problem in a previous post, by suggesting that we pass a Constitutional amendment saying that marriage is only between two human beings who are of the age of consent. That would forbid polygamy, pedophilia and bestiality (and if we wanted to throw in there something about parents not being allowed to marry children the Jeremy Irons clause we can do that, too). This should be entirely acceptable to almost everybody... unless the opposition to same-sex marriage is indeed mostly rooted in bigotry.

                I had also made the point that same-sex marriage deserves equal recognition under the law, or not, on its own merits. What you are arguing is that homosexuals should bear the burden of your distaste for polygamy. This is like saying that interracial marriage should have stayed illegal because its legalization might lead to same-sex marriage (which, to some extent, it probably did).

                There is something else interesting about the polygamy question, in the context of the rest of your post, since the ban on polygamy is the result of "government interference/regulations," the very thing you are against. In fact, in defending the constitutionality of DOMA (another example of government interference) attorney Paul Clement said:
                I think I would take issue with the premise, first of all, that this is such an unusual Federal involvement on an issue like marriage. If you look at historically, not only has the Federal Government defined marriage for its own purposes distinctly in the context of particular -- particular programs, it's also intervened in -- in other areas, including in-state prerogatives. I mean, there's reason that four state constitutions include a prohibition on polygamy. It's because the Federal Congress insisted on them.

                http://media.npr.org/assets/news/2013/domaarguments.pdf

                So riddle me this: If the government stops meddling in marriage, doesn't that mean that polygamy will be legal?

                Now there is an optimistic statement if Ive ever seen one!
                That's me. All sunshine and rainbows.

                One of the fault lines that separate liberals from conservatives is that liberals cant seem to come to grips with the fact that government interference/regulations tend to have negative unintended consequences.

                Quite often to the extent the bad out weighs the good. Obamacare would make an excellent poster-child for it, in fact.

                And the reason for this is actually pretty straight-forward: unintended consequences are, by definition, unseen, unintended and for all intents and purposes, random. So from a purely probabilistic perspective, the chances are greater that a given system function will worse, and not better, after a random input.

                And why should anyone expect otherwise? If you throw a random part on your lawn mower, the chances are very good you are going to screw it up.

                Applying that principle to the institution of marriage, and the chances are very good that it will suffer detriment if it is meddled with by the government.

                In fact, you can take it to the bank.
                As I showed earlier, the ban on polygamy (which you seem to support) is the result of government interference. I would also add that your argument that we should have civil unions which convey for same-sex couples all the rights of marriage would also be an example of government intervention.

                And as an argument, opposing same-sex marriage "from a purely probabilistic perspective" is a little general, isn't it? After all, the same thing could have been argued with equal legitimacy about literally every advancement in civil rights we've ever had.

                As I've said before, I am a huge fan of marriage mine in particular and I think that it is actually excellent news that homosexuals have wanted to embrace it.

                ?


                • Re: Rick Warren's Son takes his Life

                  Originally posted by AdamKadmon View Post
                  I don't recall saying Jeremy Irons had no right to express his opinion; just that his opinion was in invalid (as in Webster's definition, "logically inconsequent"). And I also said that I am not generally interested in what actors (of any political bent) have to say about... well... anything other than their craft. However, if Mr. Irons would like to discuss this further, have him give me a call.
                  I dont even know he who is though I recognized the name as I am somewhat culturally illiterate by most peoples standards. Being from WV, and all.

                  My point with Irons had less to do with his trade as an actor and more to do with his opinion. Since it is an opinion that is shared by many people who object to gay marriage on non-religious grounds. The only reason his statements came to light was because he is well known.

                  By right to have his opinion expressed I meant expressed via legislative process; in other words, by writing his congressman and encouraging him/her to vote against it for the reasons he stated.

                  However this issue is resolved it should stay out of the courts because marriage is an institution that affects the whole of society.

                  Originally posted by AdamKadmon
                  Also, I never denied that there were non-religious arguments against same-sex marriage. You and I had a very enjoyable (for me, anyway) back-and-forth based on a non-religious argument you were making. As to the same-sex-marriage-will-lead-to-polygamy argument, I already solved that problem in a previous post, by suggesting that we pass a Constitutional amendment saying that marriage is only between two human beings who are of the age of consent. That would forbid polygamy, pedophilia and bestiality (and if we wanted to throw in there something about parents not being allowed to marry children the Jeremy Irons clause we can do that, too). This should be entirely acceptable to almost everybody... unless the opposition to same-sex marriage is indeed mostly rooted in bigotry.
                  Well, the problem with your remedy, as I see it, is that it discriminates against polygamists in precisely the same manner current marriage laws discriminate against gay marriages. And again, to use your own reasoning, what is the anti-polygamist opposition rooted in, besides bigotry?

                  Gay marriage advocates cant have their cake and eat it, too.

                  See what Im saying? How do you stop the ball from rolling all the way down the hill once you get it started? Later groups can pick up the same argument and use it to their advantage. Also, what is to prevent the more militant types of gays from challenging the right of orthodox ministers to not-perform gay weddings? And the way court rulings go any more, who is to say how they would rule on it.

                  You underestimate the mischief that could result over this and there are many non-bigots who agree with me. Irons just happens to be a famous one.

                  Originally posted by AdamKadmon
                  I had also made the point that same-sex marriage deserves equal recognition under the law, or not, on its own merits. What you are arguing is that homosexuals should bear the burden of your distaste for polygamy. This is like saying that interracial marriage should have stayed illegal because its legalization might lead to same-sex marriage (which, to some extent, it probably did).
                  Well again, if gays deserve equal protection [vis a vis marriage laws] so do the polygamists. Once you start down that road you cant turn back just because you dont like polygamy.

                  What this comes back to is that marriage laws, as currently conceived, arent actually discriminatory in the same sense that discrimination forced Rosa Parks to the back of the bus. Rosa wasnt made to sit in the back seat because of a definition that was rooted in thousands of years of tradition---but by sheer bigotry.

                  And its worth noting that this tradition isnt even necessarily religious. In fact, I could make the argument for polygamy using the OT---if I was so motivated. Far from explicitly forbidding polygamy, one can easily argue that the Bible condones it! I dont have enough fingers and toes to count the OT patriarchs who were polygamists. Very likely where the Mormons got the idea. If I was rich, I wouldnt mind having several wives, in fact.

                  Second thought, maybe not.

                  For whatever reasons [nobody knows, really], our current marriage laws are rooted in a certain definition that excludes anything but one man and one woman. And this definition goes back thousands of years.

                  Gays would like to change it. This is a different thing than what Rosa Parks was forced to deal with because it is not rooted in sheer bigotry---but a definition.

                  Originally posted by AdamKadmon
                  There is something else interesting about the polygamy question, in the context of the rest of your post, since the ban on polygamy is the result of "government interference/regulations," the very thing you are against. In fact, in defending the constitutionality of DOMA (another example of government interference) attorney Paul Clement said:
                  I think I would take issue with the premise, first of all, that this is such an unusual Federal involvement on an issue like marriage. If you look at historically, not only has the Federal Government defined marriage for its own purposes distinctly in the context of particular -- particular programs, it's also intervened in -- in other areas, including in-state prerogatives. I mean, there's reason that four state constitutions include a prohibition on polygamy. It's because the Federal Congress insisted on them.

                  http://media.npr.org/assets/news/2013/domaarguments.pdf

                  So riddle me this: If the government stops meddling in marriage, doesn't that mean that polygamy will be legal?
                  My point is, if you want government sanctioned gay marriage you need to be prepared for the polygamy question---because it is next down the pike. And it seems that you are.

                  My other point is this legal quagmire could be averted if gay marriage advocates would settle for the civil union compromise. But this isnt really about rights; its about using the power of government to set gay marriage on equal moral footing with traditional marriage. And amongst the more militant types, its about ramming it down the throats of the Christian right.

                  Might as well call a spade a spade, at this juncture.

                  Not only does that make for bad politics, its a blatant misuse of government. And this, from the ideological persuasion that typically rebels against the government meddling in morality.

                  Originally posted by AdamKadmon
                  That's me. All sunshine and rainbows.
                  Lolget a few more years under your belt and you will learn that it pays to be a cynic.

                  Originally posted by AdamKadmon
                  As I stated earlier, the ban on polygamy (which you seem to support) is the result of government interference. I would also add that your argument that we should have civil unions which convey for same-sex couples all the rights of marriage would also be an example of government intervention.

                  And as an argument, opposing same-sex marriage "from a purely probabilistic perspective" is a little general, isn't it? After all, the same thing could have been argued with equal legitimacy about literally every advancement in civil rights we've ever had.

                  As I've said before, I am a huge fan of marriage mine in particular and I think that it is actually excellent news that homosexuals have wanted to embrace it.
                  They already do and Im fine with it.

                  ?


                  • Re: Rick Warren's Son takes his Life

                    Originally posted by Darth Hussein Omar View Post
                    I dont even know he who is though I recognized the name as I am somewhat culturally illiterate by most peoples standards. Being from WV, and all.
                    First, I think you have offered the strongest argument against same-sex marriage that I have heard. Not to say I agree with you, but I very much enjoyed it.

                    Second, Jeremy Irons: Jeremy Irons - IMDb

                    However this issue is resolved it should stay out of the courts because marriage is an institution that affects the whole of society.
                    I am not sure I get the logic of this. Isn't one of the functions of the courts to protect individuals, and groups, from the tyranny of the majority? So why shouldn't individuals who believe, rightly or wrongly, that the majority if tyrannizing them, seek redress from the judicial branch of our government?

                    Well, the problem with your remedy, as I see it, is that it discriminates against polygamists in precisely the same manner current marriage laws discriminate against gay marriages. And again, to use your own reasoning, what is the anti-polygamist opposition rooted in, besides bigotry?
                    I understand your point, but I actually see a distinction, because homosexuality and polygamy aren't actually analogous. Homosexuality, like
                    heterosexuality, is a sexual orientation; polygamous marriage, like monogamous marriage, is a social practice. Equal protection under the law (which is the argument I find the most compelling in favor of same-sex marriage) means that you get the same thing (monogamy), not a different thing (polygamy). But hey, I'm no lawyer.

                    See what Im saying? How do you stop the ball from rolling all the way down the hill once you get it started?
                    We could do it the way that I stated. And I understand why you think I shouldn't be in favor of it... but why wouldn't you be in favor of it, since it would allay all your fears?

                    Plus, as far as I can tell, your "civil unions" compromise would be no less likely to lead to the legalization of polygamy than same-sex marriage, so I'm not sure what, exactly, you are accomplishing.

                    Later groups can pick up the same argument and use it to their advantage. Also, what is to prevent the more militant types of gays from challenging the right of orthodox ministers to not-perform gay weddings? And the way court rulings go any more, who is to say how they would rule on it.
                    And this, once again, leads us back to polygamy. Because in Reynolds v. United States (1878) the government was sued by a Mormon, who said that his religion required him to marry multiple women. The USSC, as I understand it, found that the government could prohibit this religious practice. So you are in the odd position of worrying that government will interfere with religion (when it comes to same-sex marriage) while worrying that government will stop interfering with religion (when it comes to polygamy).

                    Honestly, though, I don't think you have anything to worry about on this score. Because there is a difference between a state forbidding a religious practice and compelling a religious practice. Which means that they can prohibit polygamy by Mormons and the religious use of peyote by Native Americans, but they can't compel an orthodox minister to perform a same-sex marriage or force the Catholic Church to allow women to become priests.

                    You underestimate the mischief that could result over this and there are many non-bigots who agree with me.
                    Maybe. But this slippery slope argument could be made with every advancement in civil rights. A concrete example: Lawrence v. Texas (2003) where the USSC, in a 6-3 vote, said that states are not allowed to prohibit private homosexual activity between consenting adults. Now, I hope you'd agree that criminalizing private, consensual homosexual activity is an intolerable assault on civil liberties by the government and that the case was rightly decided. But at the time, Scalia argued that this decision would eventually lead to the legalization of same-sex marriage... which was pretty prescient.

                    The conundrum (for those who are against same-sex marriage, but don't want to criminalize homosexuality) is that to prevent us all from going down that slippery slope that Scalia warned us about, you would have to leave in place a law the wrongfully persecuted homosexuals. And I wonder, even with the benefit of hindsight, would you take that trade? And if so, what other advancements in civil liberties would you have eliminated to keep us from traveling down the road of same-sex marriage? Would you leave in place anti-miscegenation laws? Would you uphold separate-but-equal? All of these things helped get us where we are today.

                    What this comes back to is that marriage laws, as currently conceived, arent actually discriminatory in the same sense that discrimination forced Rosa Parks to the back of the bus. Rosa wasnt made to sit in the back seat because of a definition that was rooted in thousands of years of tradition---but by sheer bigotry.
                    Anti-gay bigotry has a long and inglorious history in this country (and other countries). It is still considered acceptable among many Americans. (As I pointed out, it was only ten years ago that private, consensual, homosexual activity was still criminalized in some places in the United States.) Now, I am certainly willing to believe that your opposition to same-sex marriage is not rooted in animus towards gays, but we should acknowledge that much of the opposition to same-sex marriage is indeed rooted in the same longstanding (often religious) bigotry that made people to oppose every advancement in gay rights.

                    And its worth noting that this tradition isnt even necessarily religious. In fact, I could make the argument for polygamy using the OT---if I was so motivated. Far from explicitly forbidding polygamy, one can easily argue that the Bible condones it! I dont have enough fingers and toes to count the OT patriarchs who were polygamists. Very likely where the Mormons got the idea. If I was rich, I wouldnt mind having several wives, in fact.

                    Second thought, maybe not.


                    You are correct. Virtually none of the arguments used against same-sex marriage apply to polygamy, which is indeed condoned by the Bible and has been practiced throughout human history, up to and including today. So by what logic should polygamy be banned?

                    For whatever reasons [nobody knows, really], our current marriage laws are rooted in a certain definition that excludes anything but one man and one woman. And this definition goes back thousands of years.

                    Gays would like to change it. This is a different thing than what Rosa Parks was forced to deal with because it is not rooted in sheer bigotry---but a definition.
                    The phrase "for whatever reasons" is a bit troubling. Why should we be beholden to the understanding of people from thousands of years ago... especially if we don't know the reason?

                    My point is, if you want government sanctioned gay marriage you need to be prepared for the polygamy question---because it is next down the pike. And it seems that you are.

                    My other point is this legal quagmire could be averted if gay marriage advocates would settle for the civil union compromise. But this isnt really about rights; its about using the power of government to set gay marriage on equal moral footing with traditional marriage. And amongst the more militant types, its about ramming it down the throats of the Christian right.

                    Might as well call a spade a spade, at this juncture.

                    Not only does that make for bad politics, its a blatant misuse of government. And this, from the ideological persuasion that typically rebels against the government meddling in morality
                    The "more militant types" do have an issue with Christian right... but when you think about it, why on earth wouldn't they? Mostly, though, it's people like my lesbian friends, who fell in love and got married and someday, hope to raise some children.

                    Lolget a few more years under your belt and you will learn that it pays to be a cynic.
                    I was actually kidding. I am generally quite cynical. But my cynicism doesn't always cut the same way as yours.

                    ?


                    • Re: Rick Warren's Son takes his Life

                      Originally posted by AdamKadmon View Post
                      First, I think you have offered the strongest argument against same-sex marriage that I have heard. Not to say I agree with you, but I very much enjoyed it.

                      Second, Jeremy Irons: Jeremy Irons - IMDb

                      I am not sure I get the logic of this. Isn't one of the functions of the courts to protect individuals, and groups, from the tyranny of the majority? So why shouldn't individuals who believe, rightly or wrongly, that the majority if tyrannizing them, seek redress from the judicial branch of our government?
                      That is one of the functions of the courts; but one of the functions of the legislature is to protect ‘the people’ from tyranny of the minority. The principle of separation of powers arose out of the latter concern, in fact. Anytime either the courts or the executive branch begin to exercise and inordinate amount of power tyranny of the minority is in effect. That was one problem [apart from its tortuous logic] with Roe v Wade: it usurped power from the states; and thereby, the people.

                      I would further argue that allowing a minority to redefine the concept of marriage for the whole of society is a case of tyranny of the minority.

                      And, it seems the SCOTUS is currently sensitive to that fact on this issue as they seem reluctant to get into it.

                      Originally posted by AdamKadmon
                      I understand your point, but I actually see a distinction, because homosexuality and polygamy aren't actually analogous. Homosexuality, like
                      heterosexuality, is a sexual orientation; polygamous marriage, like monogamous marriage, is a social practice. Equal protection under the law (which is the argument I find the most compelling in favor of same-sex marriage) means that you get the same thing (monogamy), not a different thing (polygamy). But hey, I'm no lawyer.
                      Polygamy is more analogous than interracial marriage since it, at least, deals with gender. Also, the animus against interracial marriage was sheer bigotry and based on the notion of ‘mixing bloods’; in contrast, the argument against polygamy is that it isn’t good for children and that it would likely be abused in our current culture.

                      This isn’t after all, the same age that the ancient biblical patriarchs lived in.

                      Originally posted by AdamKadmon
                      We could do it the way that I stated. And I understand why you think I shouldn't be in favor of it... but why wouldn't you be in favor of it, since it would allay all your fears?

                      Plus, as far as I can tell, your "civil unions" compromise would be no less likely to lead to the legalization of polygamy than same-sex marriage, so I'm not sure what, exactly, you are accomplishing.
                      Polygamy is a marital construct and civil unions are a legal construct. I couldn’t practice polygamy unless I was married to at least 2 women [yikes] so I don’t think I follow you on that one.

                      Also, unless I’m wrong, I don’t think its even legal in most states for a man to go through a marriage ceremony in marrying more than one woman; I know for a fact, that Christian ministers would lose their license to perform weddings and a justice of the peace might even do jail time for it.

                      Doesn’t that mean that polygamists have less rights than gays at this juncture? And isn’t that a case of ‘tyranny of the majority’ by your reckoning?

                      Originally posted by AdamKadmon
                      And this, once again, leads us back to polygamy. Because in Reynolds v. United States (1878) the government was sued by a Mormon, who said that his religion required him to marry multiple women. The USSC, as I understand it, found that the government could prohibit this religious practice. So you are in the odd position of worrying that government will interfere with religion (when it comes to same-sex marriage) while worrying that government will stop interfering with religion (when it comes to polygamy).
                      I might. Though that was an instance where the court came down on the side of the majority opinion. The majority of people favor the current definition of marriage---as it relates to gender.

                      Originally posted by AdamKadmon
                      Honestly, though, I don't think you have anything to worry about on this score. Because there is a difference between a state forbidding a religious practice and compelling a religious practice. Which means that they can prohibit polygamy by Mormons and the religious use of peyote by Native Americans, but they can't compel an orthodox minister to perform a same-sex marriage or force the Catholic Church to allow women to become priests.
                      Your logic is sound but I don’t think it is misapplied in this instance; since, as you say, compelling a religious practice and compelling someone to violate their religious principles are two different things. In fact, the ground for that was laid under Obamacare where Catholic institutions are forced to provide abortifacients contrary to their religious beliefs.

                      That is called greasing the slope, my friend. I totally disagree and I think my concern is not only entirely legitimate in that regard, but it is shared by many people besides myself.

                      Originally posted by AdamKadmon
                      Maybe. But this slippery slope argument could be made with every advancement in civil rights. A concrete example: Lawrence v. Texas (2003) where the USSC, in a 6-3 vote, said that states are not allowed to prohibit private homosexual activity between consenting adults. Now, I hope you'd agree that criminalizing private, consensual homosexual activity is an intolerable assault on civil liberties by the government and that the case was rightly decided. But at the time, Scalia argued that this decision would eventually lead to the legalization of same-sex marriage... which was pretty prescient.

                      The conundrum (for those who are against same-sex marriage, but don't want to criminalize homosexuality) is that to prevent us all from going down that slippery slope that Scalia warned us about, you would have to leave in place a law the wrongfully persecuted homosexuals. And I wonder, even with the benefit of hindsight, would you take that trade? And if so, what other advancements in civil liberties would you have eliminated to keep us from traveling down the road of same-sex marriage? Would you leave in place anti-miscegenation laws? Would you uphold separate-but-equal? All of these things helped get us where we are today.
                      Well, there is a slope after all lol. We are getting somewhere.

                      You ask some fair questions here, but in so doing, you beg another question, which is this: at what point do we put the brakes on? Or do we ever? Is there any arrangement that can be conceived of as ‘marriage’ that should be disallowed, if the majority of people hold that it could be a detriment to the society in which they are going to raise their children and grand children in?

                      Or are we/they at the mercy of the will of the minority?
                      Last edited by Darth Hussein Omar; 04-15-2013, 05:35 AM.

                      ?


                      • Re: Rick Warren's Son takes his Life

                        Originally posted by AdamKadmon
                        Anti-gay bigotry has a long and inglorious history in this country (and other countries). It is still considered acceptable among many Americans. (As I pointed out, it was only ten years ago that private, consensual, homosexual activity was still criminalized in some places in the United States.) Now, I am certainly willing to believe that your opposition to same-sex marriage is not rooted in animus towards gays, but we should acknowledge that much of the opposition to same-sex marriage is indeed rooted in the same longstanding (often religious) bigotry that made people to oppose every advancement in gay rights.



                        You are correct. Virtually none of the arguments used against same-sex marriage apply to polygamy, which is indeed condoned by the Bible and has been practiced throughout human history, up to and including today. So by what logic should polygamy be banned?
                        Firstly, I am not King, so my opinion is just that---an opinion. In my opinion, children and women would suffer under polygamy. Here is a study which supports the contention, cited by Slate, hardly a conservative think tank:

                        The problem with polygamy - Slate Magazine

                        History suggests that it is. A new study out of the University of British Columbia documents how societies have systematically evolved away from polygamy because of the social problems it causes. The Canadian researchers are really talking about polygyny, which is the term for one man with multiple wives, and which is by far the most common expression of polygamy. Women are usually thought of as the primary victims of polygynous marriages, but as cultural anthropologist Joe Henrich documents, the institution also causes problems for the young, low-status males denied wives by older, wealthy men who have hoarded all the women. And those young men create problems for everybody.
                        _________________

                        Note that the study documents the fact that societies have systematically evolved away from polygamy. Now, gay marriage advocates would blithely claim that gay marriage is all a bed of roses and nothing bad could ever possibly come of it; the problem, it is a sufficiently novel concept that it hasnt been around long enough to get a good grasp on how, exactly, a given society would fare if it were attempted on a broad scale.

                        Which, again, should mean that all of society should have a say in how the issue is dealt with; and if it goes the way of gay marriage, then at least they will have the satisfaction of knowing they had a hand in creating their owns problems. That is the way our government is supposed to work.

                        Originally posted by AdamKadmon
                        The phrase "for whatever reasons" is a bit troubling. Why should we be beholden to the understanding of people from thousands of years ago... especially if we don't know the reason?
                        Well, for whatever reasons is what it is, troubling or no. Its actually pretty simplistic [and a tad troubling as well] to claim traditional marriage is defined the way it is---just because---of those damned religious bigots. That may make for a good talking point to fire up gay activism but it is hardly reflective of reality. And in fact, the study out of Canada [cited above] suggests that societies have tended to reject polygamy for reasons that have nothing to do with religion; and this, in spite of the fact the OT supports polygamy.

                        Originally posted by AdamKadmon
                        The "more militant types" do have an issue with Christian right... but when you think about it, why on earth wouldn't they? Mostly, though, it's people like my lesbian friends, who fell in love and got married and someday, hope to raise some children.
                        There are militant gay activists and there is Christian right; both groups are vocal but the debate is more nuanced than either group will concede. The militant activists would run rough-shod over the legislative process [and who knows what else, down the road] and I fault the Christian right for conflating religious doctrine with public policy.

                        As an aside, I would also say the Christian right is a more nebulous constituency in that there is a fair amount of diversity of opinion on this issue compared to the militant gay community.

                        Which, come to think about it, probably isnt saying much.

                        Originally posted by AdamKadmon
                        I was actually kidding. I am generally quite cynical. But my cynicism doesn't always cut the same way as yours.
                        The motives behind any political agenda of this size are rarely pure.

                        ?


                        • Re: Rick Warren's Son takes his Life

                          Originally posted by Darth Hussein Omar View Post
                          That is one of the functions of the courts; but one of the functions of the legislature is to protect the people from tyranny of the minority. The principle of separation of powers arose out of the latter concern, in fact. Anytime either the courts or the executive branch begin to exercise and inordinate amount of power tyranny of the minority is in effect. That was one problem [apart from its tortuous logic] with Roe v Wade: it usurped power from the states; and thereby, the people.

                          I would further argue that allowing a minority to redefine the concept of marriage for the whole of society is a case of tyranny of the minority.

                          And, it seems the SCOTUS is currently sensitive to that fact on this issue as they seem reluctant to get into it.
                          The SCOTUS certainly has the option to take a pass on deciding the issue... and a lot of court-watchers think that's exactly what they'll do. Which is fine. But there are a lot of things that the SCOTUS decides that affects society as a whole. Generally speaking, most people are fine with it if they are on the winning side.

                          I am not convinced that, at this point, the number of individuals who favor same-sex marriage are in the minority and, if they are, it certainly won't be for long. In any case, both the majority and the minority have a right to ask the courts for relief.

                          This isnt after all, the same age that the ancient biblical patriarchs lived in.
                          Absolutely true. It's one of the reasons I don't sacrifice goats on an altar in my back yard.

                          Doesnt that mean that polygamists have less rights than gays at this juncture? And isnt that a case of tyranny of the majority by your reckoning?
                          Nowadays, polygamists are indeed worse off than gays in the eyes of the law. Whether this constitutes "tyranny" is in the eye of the beholder.

                          Well, there is a slope after all lol. We are getting somewhere.
                          A slippery slope? Or the arc of the moral universe?

                          You ask some fair questions here, but in so doing, you beg another question, which is this: at what point do we put the brakes on?
                          It is a legitimate question. And I agree that it is not an easy one. What I would point out is that every advancement of civil rights in gender equality, race equality and LGBTQQ (did you know there are two "Q's" now? I just found out) equality was accomplished over the objections of people who wanted to put the brakes on too soon.

                          Also, I remain convinced that there is something inherently unjust to deny homosexuals equality because we have a problem with polygamy. Shouldn't we judge same-sex marriage on its own merits? And this is where the opponents of same-sex marriage have run into real problems, because without waving the Bible around, they can't really explain why same-sex marriage is bad in and of itself, so they bring up polygamy. To me, this feels like a bit of sleight of hand.

                          I would add that every freedom we cherish comes with a downside, because it means that all sorts of people, and behaviors, we disapprove of enjoy the very same protections that thoroughly awesome people like us enjoy.

                          Or do we ever? Is there any arrangement that can be conceived of as marriage that should be disallowed, if the majority of people hold that it could be a detriment to the society in which they are going to raise their children and grand children in?

                          Or are we/they at the mercy of the will of the minority?
                          Well, if you think the point where we put the brakes on is now, there is always my Constitutional amendment idea. But hurry: The people opposing same-sex marriage waited too long and blew their opportunity, but I'd bet there's still a window for eliminating any possibility of polygamy, bestiality and pedophilia, so why not go for it?

                          Firstly, I am not King, so my opinion is just that---an opinion. In my opinion, children and women would suffer under polygamy. Here is a study which supports the contention, cited by Slate, hardly a conservative think tank...
                          Well, those are perhaps valid reasons why polygamy should not exist, but literally nothing in that article can be applied to same-sex marriages. First, since same-sex marriages are also monogamous, they are not subject to the structural inequities of polygamy. And obviously, whatever you think about the fate of children in a same-sex marriage, they wouldn't fare any better in a same-sex civil union, so barring same-sex marriage would not help the children at all.

                          Well, for whatever reasons is what it is, troubling or no. Its actually pretty simplistic [and a tad troubling as well] to claim traditional marriage is defined the way it is---just because---of those damned religious bigots. That may make for a good talking point to fire up gay activism but it is hardly reflective of reality. And in fact, the study out of Canada [cited above] suggests that societies have tended to reject polygamy for reasons that have nothing to do with religion; and this, in spite of the fact the OT supports polygamy.
                          We are talking about two different questions. One is how marriage got to be defined as heterosexual and monogamous, and the other is why people are opposing same-sex marriage today. As to the first question, you had said that "nobody knows, really" but insist that it was not rooted in religious bigotry. Which is fine. Maybe it wasn't.

                          But that does not answer why same-sex marriage should not exist now (since, as you pointed out, "[t]his isnt after all, the same age that the ancient biblical patriarchs lived in"). Nor does it mean that many of those advocating against same-sex marriage now are not doing so for reasons of pure bigotry (present company excluded). After all, there is a long history in this country of anti-gay bigotry, that took both social and legal forms. Are we to believe that this anti-gay bigotry just evaporated? Or have those anti-gay bigots frustrated that they can no longer criminalize private homosexual activity or fire homosexuals for being gay simply drawn a new line in the sand at same-sex marriage? I would suggest it is the latter.

                          There are militant gay activists and there is Christian right; both groups are vocal but the debate is more nuanced than either group will concede. The militant activists would run rough-shod over the legislative process [and who knows what else, down the road] and I fault the Christian right for conflating religious doctrine with public policy.
                          I see this as false equivalence. The Christian right (among other groups) has long been demonizing homosexuals (and a fair number of them are not done yet). Up until recently, homosexuals lived in shame and terror. And while, yes, there are always people in any group that overstep, I have a lot more sympathy for the victims of oppression than the oppressors.

                          The motives behind any political agenda of this size are rarely pure.
                          What impure motives do you suspect?

                          ?


                          • Re: Rick Warren's Son takes his Life

                            Originally posted by AdamKadmon View Post
                            The SCOTUS certainly has the option to take a pass on deciding the issue... and a lot of court-watchers think that's exactly what they'll do. Which is fine. But there are a lot of things that the SCOTUS decides that affects society as a whole. Generally speaking, most people are fine with it if they are on the winning side.

                            I am not convinced that, at this point, the number of individuals who favor same-sex marriage are in the minority and, if they are, it certainly won't be for long. In any case, both the majority and the minority have a right to ask the courts for relief.
                            That the SCOTUS is apprehensive about getting mixed up in this in says a couple of things, to me at least: one is, this issue, contrary to pro-gay rhetoric, is more complicated than black/white racism of prior decades; secondly, they are right about not wanting to usurp legislative power in this instance [aka, legislating from the bench].

                            In other words, the SCOTUS [for now at least] agrees with the general thrust of my argument.

                            Originally posted by AdamKadmon
                            Nowadays, polygamists are indeed worse off than gays in the eyes of the law. Whether this constitutes "tyranny" is in the eye of the beholder.
                            Well, if gay marriage becomes government sanctioned and polygamy is left on the outside looking in, then gays have more rights than polygamists. At least that is the argument gay marriage advocates use. In fact, at least gays can get married now, if they can find someone to perform the ceremony and Im pretty sure polygamists cant even do that.

                            What would be the legal justification for blocking legal polygamy once you open the Pandoras Box?

                            And if there is no legal justification for blocking legal polygamy, after granting legal gay marriage, then doesnt that mean the gay opponents have a legitimate, non-religious, justification for opposing gay marriage?

                            And doesnt it follow from that, that this issue should left to the legislative branch and to the states?

                            Originally posted by AdamKadmon
                            It is a legitimate question. And I agree that it is not an easy one. What I would point out is that every advancement of civil rights in gender equality, race equality and LGBTQQ (did you know there are two "Q's" now? I just found out) equality was accomplished over the objections of people who wanted to put the brakes on too soon.

                            Also, I remain convinced that there is something inherently unjust to deny homosexuals equality because we have a problem with polygamy. Shouldn't we judge same-sex marriage on its own merits? And this is where the opponents of same-sex marriage have run into real problems, because without waving the Bible around, they can't really explain why same-sex marriage is bad in and of itself, so they bring up polygamy. To me, this feels like a bit of sleight of hand.
                            Well I disagree with that. I didnt wave the Bible around in any of my prior bleats. Did I? My Bible is close at hand but I promise I have yet to wave it at you. Actually, I see Bible-thumping as something as a straw man; since, as soon as the debate can be construed as Bible-thumpers verses gays then gay marriage wins---slam dunk---because we dont live in a theocracy.

                            To me at least, if you are going to advocate gay marriage then you have to concede your position is inherently discriminatory towards polygamists unless there is a legitimate legal justification for depriving polygamists of the rights you want to grant to gays. Either that, just say you dont give a crap if gay marriage leads to polygamy. Which is fine, but not all of society agrees with you.

                            Getting back to the SCOTUS, they see all of this coming and dont want to step in it. And I cant say as I blame them. Its asking for a mess down the road.

                            Again, this is an issue that is literally on its knees begging for a compromise, which is where civil unions come in, since it solves the rights issue. But as Ive said, this issue goes beyond rights: its more about using the power of government to grant moral legitimacy to homosexuality.

                            Originally posted by AdamKadmon
                            I would add that every freedom we cherish comes with a downside, because it means that all sorts of people, and behaviors, we disapprove of enjoy the very same protections that thoroughly awesome people like us enjoy.

                            Well, if you think the point where we put the brakes on is now, there is always my Constitutional amendment idea. But hurry: The people opposing same-sex marriage waited too long and blew their opportunity, but I'd bet there's still a window for eliminating any possibility of polygamy, bestiality and pedophilia, so why not go for it?
                            There are no brakes because someone drained the hydraulic fluid out of the lines. Government sanctioned marriage will likely be a reality. I guess well see what happens next.

                            Originally posted by AdamKadmon
                            Well, those are perhaps valid reasons why polygamy should not exist, but literally nothing in that article can be applied to same-sex marriages. First, since same-sex marriages are also monogamous, they are not subject to the structural inequities of polygamy. And obviously, whatever you think about the fate of children in a same-sex marriage, they wouldn't fare any better in a same-sex civil union, so barring same-sex marriage would not help the children at all.
                            My point with that article was that both polygamy and gay marriage comprise social experiments in the sense they effectively redefine traditional marriage [in ways that inter-racial marriages dont]; actually, gay marriage is the more novel of the two ideas so we have more data on polygamy than we do gay marriage.

                            This is the point where you assure me things will be fine.

                            Originally posted by AdamKadmon
                            We are talking about two different questions. One is how marriage got to be defined as heterosexual and monogamous, and the other is why people are opposing same-sex marriage today. As to the first question, you had said that "nobody knows, really" but insist that it was not rooted in religious bigotry. Which is fine. Maybe it wasn't.
                            Its simplistic to suggest otherwise. There is no good single answer as to why marriage is defined the way it is. Though I suspect its convenient to assert it is rooted in religious bigotry.

                            People oppose gay marriage for numerous reasons; and yes, some of it is due to bigotry [though I think the word is misapplied in many instances]; however, there only needs to be one or a few legitimate justifications for the bigots to become irrelevant from a public policy standpoint. People can oppose or support a given policy for the most asinine reasons but the only thing that should be considered are the reasoned arguments---for or against---said policy.

                            Or at least that is the way it is supposed to work.

                            ?


                            • Re: Rick Warren's Son takes his Life

                              Originally posted by Good1 View Post
                              Rick Warren's son, Matthew, was 27 when on Saturday, he ended his own life with a bullet. Rick Warren, himself, was recovering from Pneumonia so last week, on the whole, really sucked out there in Irvine, California.

                              CNN covers the suicide, here.

                              Now, my question is this: There is a portion of the homosexual community who wants the rest of America to believe they understand "love" well enough to support a marriage to their partner. These same people, however, are now coming out from under their rocks to attack Rick Warren over the death of his son.

                              See some samples here.

                              How can these people claim to know love but express such vile hatred for anyone ... particularly someone who has just lost a child?
                              I've lost count of the number of alleged "Christians" who've exhibited vile hatred for homosexuals.

                              I don't see you bitching about them, though.

                              ?


                              • Re: Rick Warren's Son takes his Life

                                Originally posted by Darth Hussein Omar View Post
                                That the SCOTUS is apprehensive about getting mixed up in this in says a couple of things, to me at least: one is, this issue, contrary to pro-gay rhetoric, is more complicated than black/white racism of prior decades; secondly, they are right about not wanting to usurp legislative power in this instance [aka, legislating from the bench].

                                In other words, the SCOTUS [for now at least] agrees with the general thrust of my argument.
                                We'll see what they ultimately decide. But sure, they may agree with you. They agreed with "separate but equal" too... for a while.

                                Well, if gay marriage becomes government sanctioned and polygamy is left on the outside looking in, then gays have more rights than polygamists. At least that is the argument gay marriage advocates use. In fact, at least gays can get married now, if they can find someone to perform the ceremony and Im pretty sure polygamists cant even do that.
                                "Homosexuality" and "polygamy" are not truly analogous. Homosexuality is a human characteristic; polygamy is a social contrivance. Arguing that people shouldn't be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation is not the same as arguing that every social contrivance is equally acceptable. Homosexuals want what heterosexuals have; polygamists want what nobody has.

                                What would be the legal justification for blocking legal polygamy once you open the Pandoras Box?
                                You offered, in a link in your previous post, a whole host of rationales for banning polygamy not one of which applied to same-sex marriage. As I said earlier, I don't see where the Equal Protection argument applies in this case, because polygamists are not asking for something equal, but something unequal. And keep in mind, too, that the Constitutional challenge to polygamy has been on the grounds of religious freedom.

                                What I am curious about, though, is why you think your Civil Unions compromise wouldn't be opening "Pandora's Box" as well? After all, if same-sex couples can have Civil Unions, why can't polygamists?

                                And if there is no legal justification for blocking legal polygamy, after granting legal gay marriage, then doesnt that mean the gay opponents have a legitimate, non-religious, justification for opposing gay marriage?

                                And doesnt it follow from that, that this issue should left to the legislative branch and to the states?
                                Hey, as long as all states continue recognize legal marriages from other states, that's swell. 'Course, that's not what we're talking about now, is it?

                                Well I disagree with that. I didnt wave the Bible around in any of my prior bleats. Did I? My Bible is close at hand but I promise I have yet to wave it at you. Actually, I see Bible-thumping as something as a straw man; since, as soon as the debate can be construed as Bible-thumpers verses gays then gay marriage wins---slam dunk---because we dont live in a theocracy.
                                Allow me to clarify. I was not saying that you have been waving the Bible around, because you haven't. What I was saying is that I believe that same-sex marriage should be judged on its own merits. And one problem that the opponents of same-sex marriage have is that if they don't wave the Bible around, they have precious little basis for arguing that same-sex marriage will be a problem in and of itself. Instead, the argument changes from "same-sex marriage is bad" to "same-sex marriage could lead to polygamy, which is bad." Which, to me, is a bit of sleight of hand. Why should homosexuals be denied equality because you don't like polygamy?

                                To me at least, if you are going to advocate gay marriage then you have to concede your position is inherently discriminatory towards polygamists unless there is a legitimate legal justification for depriving polygamists of the rights you want to grant to gays. Either that, just say you dont give a crap if gay marriage leads to polygamy. Which is fine, but not all of society agrees with you.
                                I cannot say for certain that same-sex unions won't lead to polygamy, just as you can't say that civil unions won't lead to polygamy or a challenge based on religious freedoms won't lead to polygamy. But I do not believe we should deny homosexuals equality because we don't like polygamy. And that is the foundation of your argument, isn't it?

                                There are no brakes because someone drained the hydraulic fluid out of the lines. Government sanctioned marriage will likely be a reality. I guess well see what happens next.
                                A constitutional amendment would do it, my brother. I'm not sure why you're so resistant to draw a line that you deem so vitally important?

                                My point with that article was that both polygamy and gay marriage comprise social experiments in the sense they effectively redefine traditional marriage [in ways that inter-racial marriages dont]; actually, gay marriage is the more novel of the two ideas so we have more data on polygamy than we do gay marriage.

                                This is the point where you assure me things will be fine.
                                Honestly, I think polygamy is a much bigger change than same-sex marriage. Although it's not really fair to call polygamy an "experiment" since it is still practiced and we know what it looks like. If it is so odious, we have a rationale for banning it; if not... why should we ban it?

                                People oppose gay marriage for numerous reasons; and yes, some of it is due to bigotry [though I think the word is misapplied in many instances]; however, there only needs to be one or a few legitimate justifications for the bigots to become irrelevant from a public policy standpoint. People can oppose or support a given policy for the most asinine reasons but the only thing that should be considered are the reasoned arguments---for or against---said policy.

                                Or at least that is the way it is supposed to work.
                                Emotion tends to trump reason (and I mean this in a completely nonpartisan way). Theoretically, the judicial system is where logic prevails, but we both know that's not always true (seems to me people can twist the law to reach whatever conclusion they want to reach).

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X