Senator Craig [Archive] - Comic Book Resources Forums

FunkyGreenJerusalem

09-05-2007, 09:06 PM

Ya'see, it's not the cock that his obsessed with so much, it's the whole naughty factor involved with it.
He doesn't like meeting another fellow in bar, having a dance and a drink, and then heading back to whoever's for a night of mutual orgasms.
No, Craig's obviously all about the thrill of sticking it through a hole in a cubicle door, and hoping a stranger is good enough to place their mouth around it.
It's a symptom of that whole 'let's get the country back to Norman Rockwell times' that the Republican party has - it's given them outdated ideas on how things should be done, including getting a serious dicking.

Can you please tell me when Senator Craig tried to criminalize sexual relations between members of the same sex? Last I heard, he came out in favor of states allowing civil unions. While that's not requiring minimum hiring quotas of gays, it doesn't sound like criminalizing their behavior, either.

I note you didn't try and dodge his claims about Clinton being unfit for the job though.

Paul McEnery

09-05-2007, 11:02 PM

Ya'see, it's not the cock that his obsessed with so much, it's the whole naughty factor involved with it.
He doesn't like meeting another fellow in bar, having a dance and a drink, and then heading back to whoever's for a night of mutual orgasms.
No, Craig's obviously all about the thrill of sticking it through a hole in a cubicle door, and hoping a stranger is good enough to place their mouth around it.
It's a symptom of that whole 'let's get the country back to Norman Rockwell times' that the Republican party has - it's given them outdated ideas on how things should be done, including getting a serious dicking.

I note you didn't try and dodge his claims about Clinton being unfit for the job though.

He was just aesthetically offended by the bendy penis. Clearly unfit for purpose!

Steven Grant

09-06-2007, 01:16 AM

Ya'see, it's not the cock that his obsessed with so much, it's the whole naughty factor involved with it.

Technically, that seems to be true. It's kind of like why rape isn't about sex and arson is. While sex is the medium of rape, the object for the rapist isn't sexual gratification but the exercise of power. (On the other hand, in most arson cases, even for professional arsonists - and often for firemen as well - the object is sexual pleasure since many people but arsonists especially get aroused by fire.)

The Craig thing, similarly, doesn't seem to really be about homosexuality, so it's quite possible that from his perspective he doesn't consider himself a closeted gay. While homosexual behavior is the medium of the experience, what the experience would really seem to be about is the danger and the taboo-breaking. Which kind of makes it considerably more dangerous than if he were gay, because if that's what's really going on it would have the strong potential for escalation as success would drive him to more danger and more serious taboos, just to get the same kick.

- Grant

FunkyGreenJerusalem

09-06-2007, 01:26 AM

Which kind of makes it considerably more dangerous than if he were gay, because if that's what's really going on it would have the strong potential for escalation as success would drive him to more danger and more serious taboos, just to get the same kick.

- Grant

Maybe he'd have started to hint that gun-control or free health care was a good idea!

bartl

09-06-2007, 03:11 PM

Craig has said that he's for so-called "civil unions", but has voted consistently against gay marriage:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Larry_Craig_Civil_Rights.htm

He also said voted "Yes" that it's ok for an employer to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

He also voted against expanding hate crimes to include homosexuality in the definition.

Not the best record for gay rights, no.
But failing to grant special privileges to gays is not the same as criminalizing gay behavior.

That JonoGuy

09-06-2007, 03:53 PM

But failing to grant special privileges to gays is not the same as criminalizing gay behavior.

Well, if you you warp the argument like that, yeah, it does make sense.

Gays aren't aren't asking for anything "special", just equal.

By not granting equal rights gays are being put into a position as second class citizens. They are being penalized for not being straight.

saucemaster

09-06-2007, 03:57 PM

But failing to grant special privileges to gays is not the same as criminalizing gay behavior.

being allowed to marry someone you love isn't a 'special privilege', if everyone is allowed to do it.

if anything makes it a privilege, it is that heteros are allowed to do it while no one can.

Spike-X

09-07-2007, 02:26 AM

But failing to grant special privileges to gays is not the same as criminalizing gay behavior.
What kind of "special privileges" are we talking about here?

bartl

09-07-2007, 07:53 AM

Gays aren't aren't asking for anything "special", just equal.
Let's see. Non-discrimination in employment, as practiced, means that if a business does not have a proportion of people in a position that is proportional to the population as a whole, there is a prima facie case of discrimination, meaning that the burden of proof is on the employer, not the rejected employee. That translates to minimum quotas that have to be hired; in other words, if a business does not have a number of gay employees reflecting the population as a whole, they can be sued, and forced to hire employees BECAUSE they're gay. Now, add into this a difficulty in coming up with a legal definition of a gay person, and we're talking extra privileges. And denying it is not criminalizing being gay.

Next, let's go to hate crimes (which, by the way, I think are unconstitutional, as does noted Communist civil rights attorney, Ron Kuby. They criminalize thought, and set a very dangerous precedent). Hate crimes take certain groups of people, and make it a BIGGER crime to assault them than it is to assault an average person. Therefore, adding gender preference to hate crimes makes it a bigger crime to assault a gay person than it is to assault another person. Doesn't sound like "equal" to me, and denying it does not criminalize being gay.

Finally, let's go to gay marriage. We are talking about radically altering an institution that has existed for thousands of years so a few people can feel better about themselves (the legal ramifications can easily be fixed by other means, such as, say, being able to legally designate anybody you want as your "next of kin".). I have no problem with this, personally, but don't call it "equal rights", until I have the right to go into a women's rest room (although, frankly, from looking at the lines in theaters and malls, it would make a lot of sense to allow women to use MEN'S rooms). And it STILL does not criminalize being gay.

bartl

09-07-2007, 07:53 AM

being allowed to marry someone you love isn't a 'special privilege', if everyone is allowed to do it.
Gay people are allowed to get married. They do it all the time.

That JonoGuy

09-07-2007, 10:04 AM

Finally, let's go to gay marriage. We are talking about radically altering an institution that has existed for thousands of years so a few people can feel better about themselves (the legal ramifications can easily be fixed by other means, such as, say, being able to legally designate anybody you want as your "next of kin".). I have no problem with this, personally, but don't call it "equal rights", until I have the right to go into a women's rest room (although, frankly, from looking at the lines in theaters and malls, it would make a lot of sense to allow women to use MEN'S rooms). And it STILL does not criminalize being gay.

BULL! Marriage may have existed thousands of years, but that doesn't mean it hasn't changed over time. There is no reason it cannot be changed once again.

That JonoGuy

09-07-2007, 10:07 AM

Gay people are allowed to get married. They do it all the time.

So, what? You'd rather gays live "straight" lives and destroy whole families in the process.

mattx110

09-07-2007, 11:39 AM

Gay people are allowed to get married. They do it all the time.

to people of the same sex?

people have been racist for a long time. there are long-standing fascist governments. birth control only happened recently... the old testament had a mean angry god, but jesus made him nice again thousands of years later? do you still expect a herd of sheep for your son to marry a chick?

things change, not always for the better, but definitely not always for the worse.

Steven Grant

09-07-2007, 12:49 PM

We are talking about radically altering an institution that has existed for thousands of years so a few people can feel better about themselves (the legal ramifications can easily be fixed by other means, such as, say, being able to legally designate anybody you want as your "next of kin".).

No, it's sodomy laws, many of which are still in place in many states in the union, that criminalize homosexuality.

It's true that marriage has existed for thousands of years. But it has existed in many, many forms and shades in many cultures, not just in the form Americans consider it to be today. As for who gets to marry who, only a little over a century ago, and well after the Civil War, laws existed that prohibited blacks from marrying white under penalty of death, and until well after WWII in most places in the country it was totally socially unacceptable.

And, yes, you can say that even if that was true the underlying institution - one man and one woman united in fidelity to each other - was still unchanged. But traditional marriage isn't the binding of a man and a woman but the binding of a woman to a man - to ensure that the man would know his sons were his. (Not that marriage was ever any assurance of that, but that was the general idea.) Among germanic tribes, whence most of our marriage traditions come, the woman was originally the only one to receive a ring, from her husband, to symbolize her being "encircled" by him, and cut off from the rest of the world. She was only to have sexual concourse with her husband, but he was free to spread his seed wherever. Likewise, wives were traditionally drawn from outside the tribe - but they were always considered alien, and the children of the union were frequently taught to regard their mothers as the same. (Hence many "fairy tales" featuring evil stepmothers who sought to harm children, like Hansel & Gretel; the stepmother is a later literary device adjusted to changing times, but in the originals it was the mother, and not a stepmother, who sought to kill the children because in germanic tribes mothers drawn from other tribes were not to be trusted.)

In fact, it was only fairly recently that love was even a factor in marriages, most of which were arranged by parties other than the bride and groom for various purposes, and married couples were basically expected to learn to put up with each other for the sake of the greater cultural good: in essence marriage was slavery.

So has the essence of marriage over the centuries changed or hasn't it?

Considering that marriage confers special privileges and status in society, it does discriminate against anyone who doesn't fit The Special Definition. So asking for an end to the discrimination isn't asking for special privilege in and of itself, except from the perspective of those who already enjoy those privileges and view them as their due and not a special circumstance. But the Special Definition can easily be euphemized without any damage to the underlying principle whatsover: instead of marriage being the union of one man with one woman in a monogamous and "eternal" relationship (we'll leave the question of divorce out of it for now) it would only take a shift to being the union of one person of age with another person of age in a monogamous and "eternal" relationship. Marriage would remain intact as an institution, and any couples wishing to be "legally wed" could enjoy all the special privileges (and special responsibilities) that come with that status.

Though, personally, I'd prefer to see the religious concept of "marriage" stripped of any legal status whatsoever, and see the concept of "civil union" become the legal form. Religions could then decide who was married and who wasn't to their hearts' content, but the civil union would be the basis for any tax breaks, probate status, etc. I doubt that would cause the end of western civilization.

Separation of church and state, that's the ticket.

- Grant

bartl

09-07-2007, 01:53 PM

people have been racist for a long time.
Actually, racism is a relatively recent development, only coming about around the 16th century in Europe. Before then, the bigotry was based on nationalism and tribalism.
there are long-standing fascist governments.
Douglas Adams once said that the difference between the English and the Americans is that the English think that 100 miles is a long distance and the Americans think that 100 years is a long time.
birth control only happened recently...
The Talmud, which goes at least 1700 years and probably a few hundred more, talks of birth control methods. Hildegarde of Bingen in the 11th century wrote of commonly used methods of birth control and herbal abortions.
the old testament had a mean angry god, but jesus made him nice again thousands of years later? do you still expect a herd of sheep for your son to marry a chick?
You've been reading too much Martin Luther.

bartl

09-07-2007, 02:11 PM

No, it's sodomy laws, many of which are still in place in many states in the union, that criminalize homosexuality.
Which the Supreme Court (quite rightly, in my opinion) declared to be unconstitutional. Has Craig supported bringing them back?
It's true that marriage has existed for thousands of years. But it has existed in many, many forms and shades in many cultures, not just in the form Americans consider it to be today. As for who gets to marry who, only a little over a century ago, and well after the Civil War, laws existed that prohibited blacks from marrying white under penalty of death, and until well after WWII in most places in the country it was totally socially unacceptable.
In a few states in the United States, not world-wide.
And, yes, you can say that even if that was true the underlying institution - one man and one woman united in fidelity to each other - was still unchanged.Actually, it developed evolutionarily, as human children take a dangerously long time to reach maturity, and therefore need far more care than a single parent can provide. Humans which formed stable mating pairs survived much better than those who didn't. When we got all agricultural, inheritance came into the picture, and the state got involved, even if the state was the local tribe. Religion came later than that, in some cases far later. Then record keeping came in, and things got really complicated.
In fact, it was only fairly recently that love was even a factor in marriages, most of which were arranged by parties other than the bride and groom for various purposes, and married couples were basically expected to learn to put up with each other for the sake of the greater cultural good: in essence marriage was slavery.
Actually, that was more of a burp than a tradition. And the fairy tales which you mentioned earlier frequently talk about marriage for love.
Considering that marriage confers special privileges and status in society, it does discriminate against anyone who doesn't fit The Special Definition.
However, the special status is based on the rearing of children. Unfortunately, the bureaucracy mixed up a bunch of other things into it, but that's a reason to remove them from marriage.

Once again, let me make this clear: I am not saying that gay marriage is wrong. I am saying that being against it is NOT the same as criminalizing gay behavior, and it is NOT a civil rights matter. Pretty much all the relevant legal benefits can easily be gained without any need for gay marriage; the marriage part is social recognition (or, for some groups, a stepping stone to the destruction of marriage altogether, but that's another topic). But I'd like to know under what legal principle gay marriage can be allowed, which will not also wipe out incest laws. If gay marriage is voted in as a law, then there's no problem. If it's determined to be a civil right, then a LOT of other garbage comes along with the territory. And there is Bart Lidofsky's Law: If it's legal, and there's money to be made, somebody's going to do it.

mattx110

09-07-2007, 02:24 PM

Actually, racism is a relatively recent development, only coming about around the 16th century in Europe. Before then, the bigotry was based on nationalism and tribalism.

Douglas Adams once said that the difference between the English and the Americans is that the English think that 100 miles is a long distance and the Americans think that 100 years is a long time.

The Talmud, which goes at least 1700 years and probably a few hundred more, talks of birth control methods. Hildegarde of Bingen in the 11th century wrote of commonly used methods of birth control and herbal abortions.

You've been reading too much Martin Luther.

so you're saying 400 years isn't enough to be considered long-standing?
and then you're saying 300 years ago is a long time?

then you accuse me of reading! how evil of me. the institution of marriage has involved a dowery for quite some time, and this still goes on today across the globe. marrying for love is also a relatively recent development... how do you feel about that? it leads to a higher divorce rate as financial stability is less of a factor...

bartl

09-07-2007, 08:10 PM

so you're saying 400 years isn't enough to be considered long-standing?
Fascism is only about 75 years old or so, not 400 years.
then you accuse me of reading! how evil of me.
When you read slanders written by Jew haters, and you buy it without checking out things for yourself, then it is not a good thing.

Steven Grant

09-07-2007, 08:17 PM

However, the special status is based on the rearing of children.

Mmmm... no, it isn't, unless the rearing of children is a specified aspect of the marriage vows. Legally, children are no condition for marriage whatsoever, and marriages are not declared illegitimate if the families produced by marriage don't include children.

The special status of marriage is based on sex, in that the two parties being married agree to forgo having sex with anyone but each other, and companionship. In an expansive civilization, it's about removing competition from the gene pool. Children are a separate issue (no pun intended), and in order for children to be a factor you have to limit the definition of children to offspring.

Because even if it's based on the rearing of children, we've pretty much demonstrated that gay couples are perfectly capable of rearing children. They just can't produce them without outside help. But many marriages only receive children via outside help, unless you want to eliminate adoption, fostering and modern technology as "proper" ways for children to become family members. You'd have to grant special status to children genetically produced in a marriage in order to grant special status to marriages there for rearing children.

I know you're not arguing against gay marriage, Bart, I'm just arguing that there really is no basis, in tradition or otherwise, for denying it.

- Grant

Steven Grant

09-07-2007, 08:20 PM

Fascism is only about 75 years old or so, not 400 years.

Fascism proper, sure. But Mussolini based his political system on standards of ancient Rome, and he pilfered considerable bits of the structure and precepts from various institutions stretching well back into history, including the Catholic Church.

- Grant

mattx110

09-07-2007, 10:34 PM

Fascism is only about 75 years old or so, not 400 years.

When you read slanders written by Jew haters, and you buy it without checking out things for yourself, then it is not a good thing.

keep track. i was responding to your comment on racism, which you state is 400. i like to use the term "long-standing" sue me.

and well, i haven't read martin luther in a few years, and well, i've checked out a lot for myself and well, the difference in demeaner between the old testament god and the new testament god is blatant. i didn't really need to read anything but some excerpts from the old testament and the bible to see how different the depiction of god is. this isn't something you can argue without radically re-interpreting the new testament. luther has nothing to do with it. plus, even anti-semites are right every once in a while. even hitler had a nice wardrobe, and turned to a jew for his nuclear program. doesn't mean i have any respect for the dispicable piece of garbage.

NatGertler

09-08-2007, 09:15 AM

Craig was an ardent supporter of the military discrimination against homosexuals, for people losing their jobs for far less than the circumstances that he doesn't think he should lose his own job over.

Honestly, I don't think the guy should be facing ethics committee problems over this, because it's far from a high crime and it wasn't abandoning the duties of his office. But I'm not crying tears that his party is treating him the way he believes others should be treated, and if he represented me in Congress, I'd not be exactly thrilled with the guy who said he was guilty then said he wasn't, said he was quitting then sent out opposite signals... doesn't sound like a man of his word.

mattx110

09-08-2007, 09:34 AM

Craig was an ardent supporter of the military discrimination against homosexuals, for people losing their jobs for far less than the circumstances that he doesn't think he should lose his own job over.

Honestly, I don't think the guy should be facing ethics committee problems over this, because it's far from a high crime and it wasn't abandoning the duties of his office. But I'm not crying tears that his party is treating him the way he believes others should be treated, and if he represented me in Congress, I'd not be exactly thrilled with the guy who said he was guilty then said he wasn't, said he was quitting then sent out opposite signals... doesn't sound like a man of his word.

being in denial can cause mixed signals.

badMike

09-08-2007, 05:00 PM

But failing to grant special privileges to gays is not the same as criminalizing gay behavior.Let's take a hypothetical if we live in "Larry Craig's world." Joe is gay and when his employer finds out, he cuts Joe to part-time employment and his benefits are cut.

Then, Joe's co-workers decide to jump him on night and beat the shit out of him just because he's gay. Joe's badly injured and doesn't go to the hospital because he doesn't have insurance and he can't use his partner of ten years' insurance -- even though they had a marriage ceremony 8 years ago -- because the state won't legally recognize them as marriage and the insurance won't cover domestic partners. So, Joe dies. And his co-workers get a one-year suspended sentence for involuntary manslaughter because, you know, they didn't mean to kill him and you can't prosecute them for a "thought crime."

No, Larry Craig's world doesn't criminalize gay behavior, but it decriminalizes anti-gay behavior, which is just as if not more disgusting.

badMike

09-08-2007, 05:05 PM

Non-discrimination in employment, as practiced, means that if a business does not have a proportion of people in a position that is proportional to the population as a whole, there is a prima facie case of discrimination, meaning that the burden of proof is on the employer, not the rejected employee. That translates to minimum quotas that have to be hired; in other words, if a business does not have a number of gay employees reflecting the population as a whole, they can be sued, and forced to hire employees BECAUSE they're gay.I decided to look up the bill Larry Craig voted against. This is it:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:S.2056:

In the parts I clipped out below, a "covered entity" means employer, employment agency, labor organization, etc.:

A covered entity shall not, with respect to the employment or employment opportunities of an individual--

(1) subject the individual to a different standard or different treatment on the basis of sexual orientation;

(2) discriminate against the individual based on the sexual orientation of a person with whom the individual is believed to associate or to have associated; or

(3) otherwise discriminate against the individual on the basis of sexual orientation.

(a) QUOTAS- A covered entity shall not adopt or implement a quota on the basis of sexual orientation.

(b) PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT- A covered entity shall not give preferential treatment to an individual on the basis of sexual orientation.So, no quotas of which you speak and it's discrimination against the individual that Larry Craig didn't like

bartl

09-09-2007, 05:13 PM

I know you're not arguing against gay marriage, Bart, I'm just arguing that there really is no basis, in tradition or otherwise, for denying it.
However, if it is put through the courts as a civil rights matter, then a whole bunch of extra baggage goes along with it. I am also kind of leery about the courts deciding that an amendment to the Constitution that was voted down is considered to be the law of the land; this means that rather than interpreting the Constitution, the courts have the ability to unilaterally amend the Constitution, which can do far more damage than gay marriage could even begin to do.

I mean, if the Supreme Court can determine that actions that take place entirely outside the United States with people who are neither U.S. citizens nor residents does not qualify as being "international", we're all in trouble.

bartl

09-09-2007, 05:17 PM

keep track. i was responding to your comment on racism, which you state is 400. i like to use the term "long-standing" sue me.
Re-read the thread. You were the one to use the term "long-standing", and used it to refer to fascism, not racism. I called racism as "relatively recent" development, and, relative to marriage, 400 years IS recent.
and well, i haven't read martin luther in a few years, and well, i've checked out a lot for myself and well, the difference in demeaner between the old testament god and the new testament god is blatant. i didn't really need to read anything but some excerpts from the old testament
That's the problem.

bartl

09-09-2007, 05:25 PM

Craig was an ardent supporter of the military discrimination against homosexuals, for people losing their jobs for far less than the circumstances that he doesn't think he should lose his own job over.
I guess I'm a bit prejudiced, coming from a time when people were desperately trying to prove they were gay so they WOULDN'T be accepted in the military. What is your opinion of mixing males and females in the same barracks? And not allowing gays in the military is not the same as criminalizing gay behavior. I never said that Craig should stay in as Senator, although I believe that his probable resignation comes more from being unelectable among his constituency than any ethical reason (hell, look at Senator Torricelli; the Democratic Party had no problem with him until he went down in the polls behind his Republican rival). And I certainly don't think that he has any great love for gay people (and he probably thinks that being gay is a matter of choice, because it's a matter of choice for him).

What I did say was that I was not aware of his trying to criminalize gay behavior. If Grant had just said that he was in favor of anti-gay legislation, I probably would not have started this thread. But I think it's a good thread, anyway.

bartl

09-09-2007, 05:38 PM

Then, Joe's co-workers decide to jump him on night and beat the shit out of him just because he's gay. Joe's badly injured and doesn't go to the hospital because he doesn't have insurance and he can't use his partner of ten years' insurance -- even though they had a marriage ceremony 8 years ago -- because the state won't legally recognize them as marriage and the insurance won't cover domestic partners.
If he has money, he can get insurance. If he doesn't have money, he cannot be legally turned away from a hospital. He may have the debt, but his partner is not legally responsible for the debt (it's a two-way street). But this is the reason why domestic partnership needs to be done through legislative rather than judicial means. If done by judicial means, it won't just be gay couples insisting on insurance; it will be any group of people who get together and decide they have a "household." Which will create legal chaos. But, going back to the attack:
So, Joe dies. And his co-workers get a one-year suspended sentence for involuntary manslaughter because, you know, they didn't mean to kill him and you can't prosecute them for a "thought crime."
If that is what the penalty in the state for beating someone to death is, then that is the penalty. If the courts look the other way, then they'll look the other way for a hate crime as well. And one of the purposes of federal civil rights laws is so that there can be punishment if the state purposefully throws the case.

bartl

09-09-2007, 06:11 PM

I decided to look up the bill Larry Craig voted against. This is it:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:S.2056:

In the parts I clipped out below, a "covered entity" means employer, employment agency, labor organization, etc.:
So, no quotas of which you speak and it's discrimination against the individual that Larry Craig didn't like
A nice little Catch-22. A guy comes forward, and sues for discrimination. He bases his case on the fact that the company has fewer gays than are in the population. The company has a choice: An expensive lawsuit or a quota of gays. How many businesses will go for the expensive lawsuit? Except when someone who is NOT gay gets refused a job for what he believes to be a less qualified gay man.

So, if they don't have gay quotas, they get sued for discrimination. If they do have gay quotas, they get sued for having quotas.

It's a stupid law. I would have insisted that the law included language that the number or lack thereof of gay employees may not be used as evidence in court in a discrimination suit. The fact that it wasn't shows that the law was designed to fail.

Steven Grant

09-09-2007, 08:48 PM

NatGertler

09-09-2007, 09:20 PM

The company has a choice: An expensive lawsuit or a quota of gays.By that argument, there should be no law that allows the suing of a company for any reason, because a company may actually have to defend themselves in a suit! But really, it doesn't behoove us as a society to say that a business can do anything and get away with it. And part of the cost of that system is that businesses will end up in suits even in cases where they are in the right.If that is what the penalty in the state for beating someone to death is, then that is the penalty.Actually, the penalty generally already depends on the thoughts in the killer's head; intent is generally the difference between first degree murder and manslaughter.What is your opinion of mixing males and females in the same barracks?Me? I don't have any inherent objection to it. But I suspect that you're about to go down the path of claiming that homosexual presence will make people uncomfortable or that pairs of gay soldiers will not be able to control themselves... which are much like the arguments that was used to separate black and white soldiers back in the day, and somehow the army didn't fall apart when they were placed together.
Besides, under the current policy, gays aren't so much kept out of the military as forced to be secretive or lose their jobs. Due to that law, the modern soldier actually has it worse than dealing with a known homosexual in his ranks - he can expect there are homosexuals there, but if he has concerns about them, must be concerned at all times because he doesn't know who they are.
(One of the old pieces of logic for keeping homosexuals from the military was that they were security risks, because they could be blackmailed by outing. Of course, that was before gays were expected to be "out"; now such blackmail would be much less likely if it wasn't for the fact that the military is forcing homosexuals to be closeted.)

NatGertler

09-09-2007, 09:24 PM

I mean, if the Supreme Court can determine that actions that take place entirely outside the United States with people who are neither U.S. citizens nor residents does not qualify as being "international", we're all in trouble.Bart, if something takes place entirely in Canada with people who are Canadian citizens and residents, I don't see where there would be anything international about it. Foreign, yes, from our perspective, but within one nation rather than between nations.

mattx110

09-09-2007, 11:13 PM

Re-read the thread. You were the one to use the term "long-standing", and used it to refer to fascism, not racism. I called racism as "relatively recent" development, and, relative to marriage, 400 years IS recent.

That's the problem.

and i explained to you. i referred to two separate things with the same adjective. thanks for y'know, trying so hard to have a point that you miss what's actually being said.

and the fact are. the new testament depicts god differently from the old. doesn't matter what luther or anyone says. because it's different. it's like batman shooting people, than having an irrational fear of guns. same character, different characterization, it's not even about interpretation. it's about actions taken by the NT that are contradictory to his previous exploints in the OT. you saying "That's the problem" is meaningless. i said i wouldn't have needed to read more than parts of the bible, not that i only read certain excerpts to prove a point. please, if you're going to try to use semantics instead of make an actual argument, try to keep better track of the actual language being used. unless english isn't your first, in which case, sorry, misunderstanding.

and craig is being forced to resign by republicans who know they can take the state easily in an election. the republican party since well, the late 19th century has been, well, corrupt. some brief glimmers of hope, but generally, you need to appease a lot of people before you get a chance at an election. and yea, the democrats would force a resignation if a senator becomes involved in a high-profile enough scandal too. voting with the party has become this perpetual first step before real good is done when the party has power. but that system is incredibly slow-working and involves a majority of congress and a same party president.

Steven Grant

09-10-2007, 12:08 AM

What is your opinion of mixing males and females in the same barracks?

Let's see... since I assume that were I in that situation, working and living in close quarters with women, that I would be mature enough, intelligent and respectful enough to be professional and reasonably courteous regardless of how sexually attractive I found them. So I guess I'd expect that behavior of anyone in that situation, and I'd expect the military would expect that of anyone in that situation and that it would in fact mandate that behavior. And if it couldn't or wouldn't, I'd expect our leaders to make sweeping changes in the military until it could and did.

- Grant

Steven Grant

09-10-2007, 12:29 AM

same character, different characterization, it's not even about interpretation.

In some, mainly Gnostic interpretations, it's not the same character, and the Jehovah of the Old Testament is a relatively psychotic figure called a Demiurge, a creation of the true God to handle the mortars and bricks of physical creation who forgets there is a mightier being over him and believes he himself is the Creator when he isn't. In that variation, Jesus is the son not of Jehovah but of the God Of Light, who has come to free us from slavery to dead matter.

But, yeah, personality-wise, OT Jehovah and NT Father Of Jesus have pretty distinctive characters, especially that Jehovah tends to stick his nose into things pretty directly a lot of the time and FoJ is almost always a background player letting Jesus make the direct connections. He doesn't even take a direct hand during Jesus' conception...

and craig is being forced to resign by republicans who know they can take the state easily in an election. the republican party since well, the late 19th century has been, well, corrupt.

In fairness to Republicans, so has the Democratic Party, and them since prior to the Civil War. At least on and off. Someone once said that the Democratic Party is the party of banks and the Republican Party is the party of real estate. Or maybe it was vice versa, but the principle applies regardless. Craig's expendable because Idaho's governor is Republican, so any replacement named will likely also be Republican. David Vitter isn't expendable because Louisiana's governor is a Democrat, so his replacement would almost certainly be a Democrat, not only shifting the balance in the Senate a little further but making a Democrat the incumbent in next year's elections. If Craig gets out well before the elections, the feeling is the story - and any outcry for further and wider investigations into scandalous Republican behavior, including stories of various stripes of Capital Hill prostitution rings (I'd make a joke about lobbyists, but they are involved) - will die out long before the real campaign season begins. If Craig refuses to relinquish his seat, and Arlen Specter is pushing him to refuse, election season just means a flare-up, and a potential runaway wildfire.

Not that the Democrats should get too smug about it if it happens, because they've got plenty of their own dirty laundry.

- Grant

mattx110

09-10-2007, 05:45 AM

In some, mainly Gnostic interpretations, it's not the same character, and the Jehovah of the Old Testament is a relatively psychotic figure called a Demiurge, a creation of the true God to handle the mortars and bricks of physical creation who forgets there is a mightier being over him and believes he himself is the Creator when he isn't. In that variation, Jesus is the son not of Jehovah but of the God Of Light, who has come to free us from slavery to dead matter.

But, yeah, personality-wise, OT Jehovah and NT Father Of Jesus have pretty distinctive characters, especially that Jehovah tends to stick his nose into things pretty directly a lot of the time and FoJ is almost always a background player letting Jesus make the direct connections. He doesn't even take a direct hand during Jesus' conception...

In fairness to Republicans, so has the Democratic Party, and them since prior to the Civil War. At least on and off. Someone once said that the Democratic Party is the party of banks and the Republican Party is the party of real estate. Or maybe it was vice versa, but the principle applies regardless. Craig's expendable because Idaho's governor is Republican, so any replacement named will likely also be Republican. David Vitter isn't expendable because Louisiana's governor is a Democrat, so his replacement would almost certainly be a Democrat, not only shifting the balance in the Senate a little further but making a Democrat the incumbent in next year's elections. If Craig gets out well before the elections, the feeling is the story - and any outcry for further and wider investigations into scandalous Republican behavior, including stories of various stripes of Capital Hill prostitution rings (I'd make a joke about lobbyists, but they are involved) - will die out long before the real campaign season begins. If Craig refuses to relinquish his seat, and Arlen Specter is pushing him to refuse, election season just means a flare-up, and a potential runaway wildfire.

Not that the Democrats should get too smug about it if it happens, because they've got plenty of their own dirty laundry.

- Grant

the democrats have had more charismatic bastards use the system to their advantage, makes them come off as less evil. and when the southern democrats started turning republican.
and along with real estate, i've got this theory that the department of the interior is the most consistently corrupt part of government at any time. something about controlling resources, and the search for them within american soil. if people think they can make money, they cut corners.

democrats sort of switched roles a few times. i mean, so have the republicans, but i think moreso the democrats become defined by adopting how they can beat the republicans. annexing populists, but no civil rights support for decades.
anyway, everyone i've talked to recently just feels bad for craig. there's a 92% chance he's living a lie, and struggling with identity every day while his family and every news pundit watches.

Steven Grant

09-10-2007, 09:32 AM

92%? How did someone come to that specificity?

- Grant

mattx110

09-10-2007, 03:43 PM

92%? How did someone come to that specificity?

- Grant

i thought 92%=relatively certain. and i'm relatively certain.;)

Paul McEnery

09-10-2007, 05:12 PM

He doesn't even take a direct hand during Jesus' conception...

Wait a sec.

You can conceive just from a little hand action?

Crap!

Steven Grant

09-10-2007, 06:10 PM

I think it only works with virgins, Paul, and I doubt there's a virgin anywhere who'd ever let you near her, so chin up...

- Grant

Paul McEnery

09-10-2007, 06:38 PM

I think it only works with virgins, Paul, and I doubt there's a virgin anywhere who'd ever let you near her, so chin up...

- Grant

At this point, I think it's only virgins who'd be taken in.

Now, where am I supposed to put my chin again?

bartl

09-10-2007, 06:47 PM

By that argument, there should be no law that allows the suing of a company for any reason, because a company may actually have to defend themselves in a suit!
There ARE laws against filing invalid lawsuits for the purpose of extortion. But they're seldom, if ever, enforced. I would be in favor of criminal penalties for any lawyer who files a lawsuit without a prima facie case.
Actually, the penalty generally already depends on the thoughts in the killer's head; intent is generally the difference between first degree murder and manslaughter.
Hate crimes bases penalties on WHO you committed the crime against. A guy flushed a Koran down a toilet in a school in New York, and he is being charged with a hate crime. In the same school, Islamic students put up maps of Israel with swastikas painted over them, and it's free speech. Just to get another dialogue started, what do you believed the purpose of hate crime laws is? I think that, ultimately, they're one of the several government attempts to create precedent that there is no inherent right to freedom of thought (I believe the drug laws are also part of this).
Me? I don't have any inherent objection to it. But I suspect that you're about to go down the path of claiming that homosexual presence will make people uncomfortable or that pairs of gay soldiers will not be able to control themselves... No more or no less then men and women being in the same barracks.

My uncle was given a general discharge during WWII for being gay. He risked his life for his country, and was deprived of his veteran's benefits. His crime? Writing effeminate letters; there was no accusation of any homosexual activity. And gays have served in the military pretty much as long as there has been a military. However, if people who are openly gay serve in the military, I think that the situation should be handled with the level of care of, say, men and women in the same barracks.
(One of the old pieces of logic for keeping homosexuals from the military was that they were security risks, because they could be blackmailed by outing. Of course, that was before gays were expected to be "out"; now such blackmail would be much less likely if it wasn't for the fact that the military is forcing homosexuals to be closeted.)
Yeah, I know. Circular Logic: see circular logic. (I'm agreeing with you here, just in case I'm not clear).

bartl

09-10-2007, 06:49 PM

Bart, if something takes place entirely in Canada with people who are Canadian citizens and residents, I don't see where there would be anything international about it. Foreign, yes, from our perspective, but within one nation rather than between nations.
The Supreme Court has decided that sections of the Geneva Convention that are designed for internal conflicts, and SPECFICALLY not international conflicts, apply to POW's caught in Afghanistan.

bartl

09-10-2007, 06:51 PM

Let's see... since I assume that were I in that situation, working and living in close quarters with women, that I would be mature enough, intelligent and respectful enough to be professional and reasonably courteous regardless of how sexually attractive I found them. So I guess I'd expect that behavior of anyone in that situation, and I'd expect the military would expect that of anyone in that situation and that it would in fact mandate that behavior. And if it couldn't or wouldn't, I'd expect our leaders to make sweeping changes in the military until it could and did.
Good answer.

bartl

09-10-2007, 09:11 PM

Steven Grant

09-10-2007, 10:28 PM

At this point, I think it's only virgins who'd be taken in.

It's a Catch-22.

Now, where am I supposed to put my chin again?

Anywhere you can get away with it.

- Grant

FunkyGreenJerusalem

09-11-2007, 07:24 PM

The reason is that if gay marriage is legalized through legislation, that is ALL that is legalized. If it is legalized through the courts, it allows for the courts being allowed to amend the Constitution, to pass legislation, and, by making marriage a civil right, opens the door to incestuous marriage, group marriage (I can just see the divorce lawyers salivating over THAT one), co-ed toilets, men crying date-rape, etc.

Bart

HOLY HELL!

It's like EVERYONE would be equal, and we'd all have to grow up and act like adults and be responsible for our own choices, (not to mention actions! Oh shit!) because there would be NOTHING except OURSELVES, to stop us from making mistakes!!!

Thank god for the legislative body, and the fact they don't have to deal with shitty concepts like what is 'just', when making a decision.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

09-11-2007, 07:28 PM

When you read slanders written by Jew haters, and you buy it without checking out things for yourself, then it is not a good thing.

In this case do you mean things written by actual anti-semites, or is this the same as us anti-semites who think that Israel isn't all that when it comes to their conflict with Palestine?

FunkyGreenJerusalem

09-11-2007, 07:30 PM

But, yeah, personality-wise, OT Jehovah and NT Father Of Jesus have pretty distinctive characters, especially that Jehovah tends to stick his nose into things pretty directly a lot of the time and FoJ is almost always a background player letting Jesus make the direct connections. He doesn't even take a direct hand during Jesus' conception...

- Grant

He was too busy experimenting with different combinations of plants, herbs and molds to give to John (the disciple jesus loved) to inspire the book of revelations.

Chilled him out some, and gave him some perspective on shit.

NatGertler

09-12-2007, 02:53 PM

Hate crimes bases penalties on WHO you committed the crime against. A guy flushed a Koran down a toilet in a school in New York, and he is being charged with a hate crime. Let's keep this straight, Bart -- this guy stole Korans and used them to clog toilets, a form of vandalism. So there are actual crimes there. That's how hate crime statutes generally work -- increasing penalties for crimes when hate is a motivation, not having a crime simply for having hate.
In the same school, Islamic students put up maps of Israel with swastikas painted over them, and it's free speech.Sounds like it. Where's the crime? I can't speak to Pace, but I've found people taking and posting their political views to be a common part of campus life in various places. Does Pace have some campus rule against political postings... and if so, do they have the force of law?
But yeah, I don't have a problem with there being a difference between the penalty for someone spraypainting "Fred, Move Away Or Die" on someone's home and "Jews, Move Away Or Die"; the latter is intended to create terror in a greater number of folks. And it's reasonable that either should be considered worse than spray-painting "Eat Chippawee-brand Potato Chips!" on the same home.

badMike

09-12-2007, 03:41 PM

Sounds like it. Where's the crime? I can't speak to Pace, but I've found people taking and posting their political views to be a common part of campus life in various places. Does Pace have some campus rule against political postings... and if so, do they have the force of law?Bart got the story all wrong and/or left out important facts. The swastikas were found following the Koran vandalism as a retaliation and they weren't on a map of Israel, they were scrawled on a bathroom wall and over a poster for the Hillel Jewish club.

They caught the guy who flushed the Koran, so they're charging him with a crime. They haven't caught the guys who scrawled the swastikas and no campus official said that act of vandalism was just an act of "free speech."

bartl

09-12-2007, 08:03 PM

In this case do you mean things written by actual anti-semites, or is this the same as us anti-semites who think that Israel isn't all that when it comes to their conflict with Palestine?
A) Martin Luther predated the existence of Palestinians by about 450 years.

B) Since Arabs claiming that all Jews, Israeli or not, should be killed (or, as most leftists are putting it, turned into "good Jews") are saying that they can't be anti-Semites because they are Semitic, I'm simply responding by using the term, "Jew hater".

bartl

09-12-2007, 08:04 PM

Bart got the story all wrong and/or left out important facts. The swastikas were found following the Koran vandalism as a retaliation and they weren't on a map of Israel, they were scrawled on a bathroom wall and over a poster for the Hillel Jewish club.
The swastikas on the maps of Israel have been there for several years, and the school refused to even let the students put them down. It's one thing to be anti-Israel, but when swastikas are being used, the message is not death to Israel, it's death to Jews.

NatGertler

09-12-2007, 09:48 PM

should be killed (or, as most leftists are putting it, turned into "good Jews")Really, Bart? Mot leftists? Can you actually quote most leftists? Or is this just another example of you making up crap to demonize folks?

FunkyGreenJerusalem

09-12-2007, 10:15 PM

A) Martin Luther predated the existence of Palestinians by about 450 years.

B) Since Arabs claiming that all Jews, Israeli or not, should be killed (or, as most leftists are putting it, turned into "good Jews") are saying that they can't be anti-Semites because they are Semitic, I'm simply responding by using the term, "Jew hater".

See I thought it was you (I could be mistaken), who once implied that those off us who don't think Israel is 100% right, all of the time, were anti-semetic.
I was just trying to see where you draw the line between anti-semetic and jew-hater.
(While also having a laugh at the twisted logic leaps hard core righties have to leap through to seem to have a valid point - ie. a law passed by politicians is likely to be better than that passed by a court ruling).

badMike

09-12-2007, 11:03 PM

The swastikas on the maps of Israel have been there for several years, and the school refused to even let the students put them down. It's one thing to be anti-Israel, but when swastikas are being used, the message is not death to Israel, it's death to Jews.In what context are these swastikas on the maps being displayed? Just general decoration on campus? Part of an art installation? I couldn't find any reference of this happening at Pace University. The only swastikas my search turned up were ones put up after the Koran-in-the-toilet incident.

Steven Grant

09-13-2007, 02:40 PM

Since Arabs claiming that all Jews... should be killed...

Some Arabs...

- Grant

FunkyGreenJerusalem

09-13-2007, 08:19 PM

Some Arabs...

- Grant

Oh stop arguing semantics Steven!

If you don't paint the world with a broad brush, you can't just demonise a large group of people, and instead have to treat them as individuals, and then life just gets too confusing!

Here's a new question though, if anti-gay politicians and religious leaders keep getting outed as they are, will the anti-gay movement start to be more accepting, realising that anyone can be gay, or become even more anti-gay because it's corrupting those around them?

Of course, I can't help but point out that Australia has an openly gay man, Justice Kirby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Kirby#Public_life) sitting on the high court (our version of the supreme court).
The biggest scandal to rock him was an accusation, that turned out to be incorrect, that he used rent boys.
The big accusation of the scandal wasn't that he used them, but they he used his tax-payer funded car and driver to pick them up.
(Also of note concerning Australian Justice's is a set retirement age for the 'life-appointment'. Yup, life is better down this way!)

bartl

09-13-2007, 09:04 PM

See I thought it was you (I could be mistaken), who once implied that those off us who don't think Israel is 100% right, all of the time, were anti-semetic.
Nope, not me. I think Israel has made some major blunders.

bartl

09-13-2007, 09:05 PM

In what context are these swastikas on the maps being displayed? Just general decoration on campus? Part of an art installation? I couldn't find any reference of this happening at Pace University. The only swastikas my search turned up were ones put up after the Koran-in-the-toilet incident.
Hanging on the walls of the halls in the dormitories.

bartl

09-13-2007, 09:08 PM

Some Arabs...
- Grant
Well, if you want to get grammarian, I said, "Since Arabs are claiming", not "Since the Arabs", which implies some, but not all.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

09-13-2007, 09:29 PM

Nope, not me. I think Israel has made some major blunders.

Apologies then.

badMike

09-14-2007, 08:20 AM

Hanging on the walls of the halls in the dormitories.So, you're telling us that Arab students walked around Pace University and put up maps of Israel with swastikas on them in several dormitory halls?

Then, other students who walked by the posters didn't tear them down, but went to school officials who publicly declared that these maps were an expression of free speech and under some kind of penalty forbade other students to take them down?

Now, Jewish students must walk by them everyday with their heads hung low, completely unable to take action to remove them. Plus, this incident has no reporting on it anywhere on the Internet? And, that these maps are still hanging up and have been for several years with absolutely no one talking about them in a public forum?

This all really happened?

Steven Grant

09-14-2007, 09:59 AM

Well, if you want to get grammarian, I said, "Since Arabs are claiming", not "Since the Arabs", which implies some, but not all.

It still comes off as pretty inclusive, Bart.

If you read, "Since middle aged white men are claiming 14 year old girls should be married off to cousins in polygamous marriages," as a middle aged white man isn't your first inclination to think, "I'm a middle aged white man, and I never claimed anything that stupid! How dare they tar me with that brush?" The statement doesn't sound like they're only referring to Warren Jeffs and a relatively small group of related or similarly bent Mormon Fundamentalist cults, it makes it sound like middle aged white men - or at least a substantial number of them - are making that claim, which implies that all middle-aged white men are suspect, or capable of tipping that way when push comes to shove.

Anyway, I wasn't arguing on grammarian grounds, but on psychological grounds. "Blacks think they're entitled to special privileges because their ancestors were slaves" doesn't really create any different impression than "The blacks think they're entitled to special privileges because their ancestors were slaves." The impression someone will come away from that with is that if you pick out any African-American at random on the street, that person will think they're entitled to special privileges etc. Even though many don't believe that, many never had slaves for ancestors, etc. Likewise, while "The Arabs want all Jews to be killed" does sound more like they had a convention and voted it a card-carrying Arab tenet of faith, "Arabs want all Jews to be killed" just makes it sound like unorganized bigotry, like any random Arab you meet will start sharpening a large knife in their head at the mention of Jews. It gives the impression that it's a hardcore cultural thing, an impossible impediment. Whereas many Arabs are perfectly willing and happy to live peacefully alongside Jews, and don't want anybody dead.
"Americans will shoot you in your sleep and rape your daughters before your eyes as you lie dying" obviously only applies to some Americans, an extremely tiny subset, but, phrased like that, it becomes a warning about all Americans. Saying "The Americans..." just makes it sound slightly more like you're only targeting a special clique, mainly the American military... (Which also doesn't make the statement any more true.)

- Grant

Steven Grant

09-14-2007, 10:08 AM

So, you're telling us that Arab students walked around Pace University and put up maps of Israel with swastikas on them in several dormitory halls?

Then, other students who walked by the posters didn't tear them down, but went to school officials who publicly declared that these maps were an expression of free speech and under some kind of penalty forbade other students to take them down?

Now, Jewish students must walk by them everyday with their heads hung low, completely unable to take action to remove them. Plus, this incident has no reporting on it anywhere on the Internet? And, that these maps are still hanging up and have been for several years with absolutely no one talking about them in a public forum?

This all really happened?

It seems to me that if defacing the posters with swastikas was free speech, defacing the swastika-laden posters is also free speech.

Given some of the incredibly stupid things that come out of the Northeast and specifically New York, I wouldn't be surprised if it were true, but it does smack of urban myth...

- Grant

badMike

09-14-2007, 10:23 AM

Given some of the incredibly stupid things that come out of the Northeast and specifically New York, I wouldn't be surprised if it were true, but it does smack of urban myth...I also don't want to imply that if I can't read about an incident on the Internet then that incident de facto didn't happen. I'm always seeing car accidents and such and think "Oh, I'm going to be hearing about this on the news tomorrow," which is then followed by complete silence and lack of coverage.

But, given the outrageousness of this story that is allegedly still continuing and there's not one single blip about it anywhere I find stretches the imagination. Plus, with all the other stories about Pace that I can find about the Koran incident, none of them mention the still hanging maps of Israel with swastikas on them? I think that would be relevantly mentioned.

Spike-X

09-14-2007, 01:13 PM

It's that damn liberal media, obviously.

bartl

09-14-2007, 06:25 PM

So, you're telling us that Arab students walked around Pace University and put up maps of Israel with swastikas on them in several dormitory halls?I will admit that I only heard of two, and it was only carried in a couple of local New York papers, and not on the front pages.

bartl

09-14-2007, 06:28 PM

Likewise, while "The Arabs want all Jews to be killed" does sound more like they had a convention and voted it a card-carrying Arab tenet of faith, "Arabs want all Jews to be killed" just makes it sound like unorganized bigotry,
OK. More properly: the PLO, Hamas, and Hezbollah, among other Arab organizations are calling for ALL Jews to be killed on their Arab language websites.

badMike

09-14-2007, 06:46 PM

I will admit that I only heard of two, and it was only carried in a couple of local New York papers, and not on the front pages.You said this previously:

The swastikas on the maps of Israel have been there for several years, and the school refused to even let the students put them down.Are these swastikas still hanging on the walls of the dorms or not? Have they been up for "several years" or was this just a temporary thing?

Because now you are saying that a news story that you read in the back pages of a newspaper, which must have been "several years" ago, have told you that these swastikas are still hanging up as of this date, that the Pace University administration still considers them acts of "free speech" and that students still can't take them down. But that's all written in a "years old" newspaper article? That they're still up? I don't get it.

By the way, do you remember which local New York paper this was? I assume you mean New York City. Was it the Times, the Post, Newsday? As far as I know all those papers put up stories online that are on pages 2,3,4, etc. Most papers don't limit their online content to just front page stories.

bartl

09-14-2007, 08:27 PM

By the way, do you remember which local New York paper this was? I assume you mean New York City. Was it the Times, the Post, Newsday? As far as I know all those papers put up stories online that are on pages 2,3,4, etc. Most papers don't limit their online content to just front page stories.
News and Post. And the stories did specify that the maps had been up for several years.

Spike-X

09-14-2007, 09:16 PM

And nobody had the balls to just rip 'em down?

badMike

09-14-2007, 09:53 PM

News and Post. And the stories did specify that the maps had been up for several years.So, they "had" been up? But they are not now? You said before that they are still up.

Steven Grant

09-15-2007, 01:05 AM

And nobody had the balls to just rip 'em down?

I am reminded of the Firesign Theater bit:

"'Give us your tires, your power,
your muddied chassis burning to debris,
and we will give you
time payments.'
These words are inscribed
on Our Lady Of The Torch
because no one man,
alone, in a democracy,
has the right
to remove them.
Thank you."

- Grant

bartl

09-16-2007, 06:15 PM

So, they "had" been up? But they are not now? You said before that they are still up.
Feel free to go there and check it out for yourself.

hyzmarca

09-18-2007, 11:22 PM

In a few states in the United States, not world-wide.
Actually, it developed evolutionarily, as human children take a dangerously long time to reach maturity, and therefore need far more care than a single parent can provide. Humans which formed stable mating pairs survived much better than those who didn't. When we got all agricultural, inheritance came into the picture, and the state got involved, even if the state was the local tribe. Religion came later than that, in some cases far later. Then record keeping came in, and things got really complicated.

If you want to get into evolution and childrearing, partible paternity is the best system in which to raise a child. Children who have multiple fathers are far more likely to survive into adulthood than children who only have a single father are. This fact alone supports both gay marriage + involved surrogates are better for children than traditional heterosexual marriage are. Likewise, Polyandry is superior to heterosexual monogamy for the purpose of raising children.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

09-19-2007, 02:38 AM

hyzmarca

09-19-2007, 02:13 PM

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0011-3204(199802)39%3A1%3C164%3ATBPPPP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-9

http://homepages.uel.ac.uk/C.Knight/Beckerman%20and%20Valentine%20Introduction.pdf

http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Human%20Nature%20S%201999/shared_paternity_in_south_americ.htm

bartl

09-20-2007, 09:46 AM

If you want to get into evolution and childrearing, partible paternity is the best system in which to raise a child. Children who have multiple fathers are far more likely to survive into adulthood than children who only have a single father are. This fact alone supports both gay marriage + involved surrogates are better for children than traditional heterosexual marriage are. Likewise, Polyandry is superior to heterosexual monogamy for the purpose of raising children.
Problem is that it's not good a producing children. A single male and a dozen females (assuming all are fertile) can produce far more children than a dozen males and a single female.

It also ignores our evolutionary past, where are still in mid-switch from a highly competitive animal to a pack animal. A polyandrous situation will usually dissolve into civil war (one of the reasons why divorce lawyers are salivating over the possibility of legalized polyandry; ka-CHING!). where the issue will become weapons and prizes.

bartl

09-20-2007, 09:48 AM

Or are you just going with 'It takes a village to raise a child'?
Actually, an extended family is probably far better for raising children than a "nuclear family" (which was the exception rather than the rule before the invention of the automobile).

FunkyGreenJerusalem

09-20-2007, 06:00 PM

Actually, an extended family is probably far better for raising children than a "nuclear family" (which was the exception rather than the rule before the invention of the automobile).

Undoubtebly.
The more influences, positive influences anyway, on a child the better.

I believe it's Italy, has a very low teen suicide rate, and it's attributed to the sense of extended family/village lifestyle that still remains over there.

hyzmarca

09-20-2007, 09:07 PM

Problem is that it's not good a p children. A single male and a dozen females (assuming all are fertile) can produce far more children than a dozen males and a single female.

It also ignores our evolutionary past, where are still in mid-switch from a highly competitive animal to a pack animal. A polyandrous situation will usually dissolve into civil war (one of the reasons why divorce lawyers are salivating over the possibility of legalized polyandry; ka-CHING!). where the issue will become weapons and prizes.

An appeal to human competitiveness can only work if the existance of successfull polyandrous cultures is completely ignored.

Polyandry and partible paternity do not reduce overall human population growth, which is limited by female fertility. They only does so if they prevents some fertile women from finding fertile mates.
For the same reason, polygyny does not cause an increase in the rate of population growth. Rather, those cultures that practice polygyny also tend to place a high value on quantity of offspring. If quantity of offspring is not an issue, and women tend to be educated professionals, negative population growth will occur even in a primarily polygynous society.
The polygynous society will, however, tend to have less genetic diversity due to the large number of paternal half-siblings.

bartl

09-21-2007, 08:03 AM

An appeal to human competitiveness can only work if the existance of successfull polyandrous cultures is completely ignored.
OK, can you name a few, so we can compare?

mattx110

09-21-2007, 12:06 PM

OK, can you name a few, so we can compare?

king david has a whole bunch of wives, and he's the best king in history...
george bush only has one wife...

and in response to the evolutionary past thing. we're human. what makes us human (aside from the conception of history, which a couple of chimps also have a grasp of) is that we can ignore our evolutionary past and not let it affect us. i mean... isn't that kinda the point of crazy religious groups anyway. the mormons might seem nuts, but they aren't hypocrits the way some fundamentalists might be.

Steven Grant

09-21-2007, 06:39 PM

bartl

09-23-2007, 04:32 PM

king david has a whole bunch of wives, and he's the best king in history...
A) That was polygamous, not polyandrous.
B) Best is not perfect.
C) Although there was some polygamy, the culture itself was not polygamous.

george bush only has one wife...

And Bill Clinton had lots of concubines.

Anyway. the mormons might seem nuts, but they aren't hypocrits the way some fundamentalists might be.
It's a lot easier to be a Marxist, where hypocrisy is considered to be a valid part of the philosophy, so that they can put it down in others while openly practicing it themselves.

hyzmarca

09-23-2007, 06:19 PM

The Nyinba, the Toda, the Sherpa and the Marquesan practice polyandry.

The Bari and the Aché practice partible paternity.

Hulkamaniac

09-24-2007, 11:07 AM

One quick thing: as Grant has deduced, I have no problem whatsoever with gay marriage. What I have a problem with is the side effects and precedents set if gay marriage is forced through by the courts instead of passed as legislation (although it is less harmful the way it was done in New Jersey, where the court ordered the government to pass a law legalizing gay marriage or civil unions).

The reason is that if gay marriage is legalized through legislation, that is ALL that is legalized. If it is legalized through the courts, it allows for the courts being allowed to amend the Constitution, to pass legislation, and, by making marriage a civil right, opens the door to incestuous marriage, group marriage (I can just see the divorce lawyers salivating over THAT one), co-ed toilets, men crying date-rape, etc.

Bart

I wonder what your idea of the Supreme Courts stance on civil rights of blacks in the South during the 60's -70's. Was this overreaching or should all of them have waited for the legislative representatives to eventually come to this conclusion themselves? I seem to recall that we have three branches of government and to exclude the Supreme Courts influence of law is to allow other the other branches total dominance over all law and that would be an affront to the very concept of checks and balances. Not saying that the Supreme Court has the final say, just that denying them the ability to influence law, or rather balance it in regards to the principles of the Constitution, is not how things work in a three branch democratic government. The ability of the courts to determine or influence legislation in regards to civil rights and the Constitution is pretty basic in my opinion. I find that for the most part when people have a problem with this they do so based on their own feelings rather than the law or spirit of it.

mattx110

09-24-2007, 04:05 PM

A) That was polygamous, not polyandrous.
B) Best is not perfect.
C) Although there was some polygamy, the culture itself was not polygamous.

And Bill Clinton had lots of concubines.

It's a lot easier to be a Marxist, where hypocrisy is considered to be a valid part of the philosophy, so that they can put it down in others while openly practicing it themselves.
1. nobody said perfect.
2. so, how does calling clinton a slut make him a worse president than bush?

magically, it doesn't, and i'm sorta (jokingly) arguing it may have made clinton a stronger leader. when bush needs a stress reliever, he goes to his ranch. clinton just pushed "1" on his telephone intercomat his oval office desk and said "can you come in here for a minute?".

and i'm not a marxist. violence can not theoretically solve anything.

Steven Grant

09-24-2007, 08:44 PM

Actually, violence can solve quite of few things, if it's of sufficient intensity. It might create new problems, though.

- Grant

mattx110

09-24-2007, 09:36 PM

Actually, violence can solve quite of few things, if it's of sufficient intensity. It might create new problems, though.

- Grant

you can't stop a violent reaction after you've reduced the economic and political power of the formerly wealthy by force. equality can never come through violence. a state with sovereignty over the opposing forces might be able to force peace through treaty.

so, what i gues i'm saying, is violence doesn't solve anything if you don't have a guy with a big gun standing over everyone ready to push the off switch.

(my post was longer, but i'm trying to keep sensible. i'm basing my line of reasoning here on franz fanon's writing on post-colonialism, which can apply to states that have undergone an oppresive force or coup,

for reference, if Bartl wants to ridicule or challenge my philosophy on the state or religion. i'm one of them long-term atheist peaceful abdication anarchist world regional alliance people, like in star trek, no currency, planet-wide education and health care services through non-profit private organisations... and if we meet a giant spaceship claiming to be god, we teach it humility)

FunkyGreenJerusalem

09-25-2007, 02:45 AM

The Nyinba, the Toda, the Sherpa and the Marquesan practice polyandry.

The Bari and the Aché practice partible paternity.
Yeah, a list of dying cultures is a good way to show that the system works.

(And the Toda have begun to move towards monogamy).

Steven Grant

09-25-2007, 10:46 AM

you can't stop a violent reaction after you've reduced the economic and political power of the formerly wealthy by force. equality can never come through violence. a state with sovereignty over the opposing forces might be able to force peace through treaty.

so, what i gues i'm saying, is violence doesn't solve anything if you don't have a guy with a big gun standing over everyone ready to push the off switch.

Right, that's what I'm saying. It depends on the nature of the problem and the desirability of the response. The Romans were pretty good at shutting down any serious political opposition in "annexed" territories by publicly slaughtering the opposition and making it clear to others in the territory that everyone will get along as long as we all get along, but you don't want the consequences if we don't. But the Romans were mainly a race of shopkeepers, they were more interested in keeping trade flowing than anything else. Violence pretty much wiped out the problem of the Paris Commune for the Western European governments that didn't want to see a successful anarchic society come into being. (Whether it would have been successful in the long run is anyone's guess, since it never got the chance.) Iraq is a problem that sufficient violence would pretty much solve - pick a side and wipe out the other side to a man, woman and child. Unfortunately, that sort of behavior is at least publicly frowned upon these days, and the USA would find itself with one problem solved and an international relations nightmare of catastrophic proportions in its place, since it's one thing for countries to watch the relatively localized genocides of, say, Rwanda, which hasn't much impact on their lives anyway, and and another when that genocide is perpetrated by the self-proclaimed "last superpower" that theoretically has the ability to do the same to anyone except China.

On the other hand, if somebody is stalking your family, and breaking into your house to leave bloody notes about how he's going to kill all of you in your sleep, and the cops can't or won't do anything about it (a lot of big ifs...) shooting the guy through the head completely solves that problem, since, media fiction aside, most psychos and killers don't have family, lovers or followers in the wings aching for vengeance. You'll probably then just face the problem of a murder investigation.

- Grant

Paul McEnery

09-25-2007, 07:57 PM

Yeah, a list of dying cultures is a good way to show that the system works.

(And the Toda have begun to move towards monogamy).

Oh, you're so right.

That, and the fact that monogamists are murdering bastards.

Think there might be any connection?

bartl

09-25-2007, 08:35 PM

I wonder what your idea of the Supreme Courts stance on civil rights of blacks in the South during the 60's -70's. Was this overreaching or should all of them have waited for the legislative representatives to eventually come to this conclusion themselves?
The 14th Amendment says nothing about sexual preference. The United States rejected the ERA. And I think it is extremely dangerous precedent to allow the Supreme Court to unilaterally amend the Constitution, no matter what the cause.

bartl

09-25-2007, 08:38 PM

1. nobody said perfect.
No, but having a lot of wives didn't make him a better king, either.
2. o, how does calling clinton a slut make him a worse president than bush?It doesn't. But I figured on answering one ridiculous irrelevancy with another.

bartl

09-25-2007, 08:40 PM

But the Romans were mainly a race of shopkeepers, they were more interested in keeping trade flowing than anything else.
And the United States isn't?

Hulkamaniac

09-26-2007, 12:05 AM

The 14th Amendment says nothing about sexual preference. The United States rejected the ERA. And I think it is extremely dangerous precedent to allow the Supreme Court to unilaterally amend the Constitution, no matter what the cause.

It's called interpreting the law/constitution. That's what the courts are there for.

bartl

09-26-2007, 07:39 AM

It's called interpreting the law/constitution. That's what the courts are there for.

Extreme example to demonstrate the logical flaw:
So, if the Supreme Court says that Congress should pass a law prohibiting any opposition in elections, we should accept it, because that's their interpretation of the Constitution?

Steven Grant

09-26-2007, 01:37 PM

The Supreme Court doesn't say "Pass this law." It says three types of things: "The law you passed is invalid because it goes against the Constitution" (unfortunately, they don't say that nearly enough), "Sorry, but the law you cite doesn't cover the situation," and "This law has already been passed, because here's what is written and this is what it means."

Because they get to interpret what laws mean and don't mean. That's one of the perks of the job.

- Grant

FunkyGreenJerusalem

09-27-2007, 10:17 PM

That's one of the perks of the job.

- Grant

That, and job security.

bartl

09-28-2007, 12:59 PM

Because they get to interpret what laws mean and don't mean. That's one of the perks of the job.
I'm sorry, but saying, "You breathe the air, and air goes interstate, therefore anybody who breathes is subject to Congressional control based on the Interstate Commerce clause" is overreaching.

Adding with an edit: A better example. A bunch of Religious Right Approved judges get onto the Supreme Court. They decide that the 1st Amendment only includes Christian religions. Are you sure you want to give absolute power to the Supreme Court?

FunkyGreenJerusalem

10-29-2007, 06:50 PM

Thought you might all enjoy a similar political scandal from down under:
(Family First are a Christian party that looks out for the rights of the family - they only have one senator in parliament).

Family first candidate expelled for porn

October 28, 2007 - 5:04AM

Family First has expelled one of its election candidates over a pornography scandal.

Victorian Senator Steve Fielding's pro-family party disendorsed Andrew Quah, 22, on Saturday, News Limited newspapers said.

Mr Quah has admitted to posing for two revealing images. In one, he is partly undressed, and in the other, he is clutching his private parts.

The images were attached in an email and sent around the nation.

Mr Quah told News Ltd newspapers he could not rule out being responsible for producing a third image which shows men's genitalia.

The image was attached in an email Mr Quah said he had not sent or created. He believes he is a victim of a set-up.

Mr Quah has admitted to downloading porn on the web, the last occurring about two weeks ago.

The scandal is a blow for Family First, whose key concern is to crack down on internet porn.

"The first two (images) are definitely from me and the third one might have been from me," Mr Quah said.

"Yes, I've downloaded pornography, maybe a couple of weeks ago."

The rumour is he's denying the third one where he shows his genitalia because... well, apparently it's nothing to brag about.

Oh, and in this article (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/29/2072646.htm) he claims he was drugged by opponents and forced into the third picture!

Steven Grant

10-30-2007, 10:17 AM

Nick Soapdish

10-30-2007, 11:04 AM

I'm sorry, but saying, "You breathe the air, and air goes interstate, therefore anybody who breathes is subject to Congressional control based on the Interstate Commerce clause" is overreaching.

Adding with an edit: A better example. A bunch of Religious Right Approved judges get onto the Supreme Court. They decide that the 1st Amendment only includes Christian religions. Are you sure you want to give absolute power to the Supreme Court?

Absolute power?

Didn't they get on because the Executive Branch nominated them and the Legislative Branch approved them?

I thought that's what the system of checks and balances was for - to help ensure that one of the branches doesn't go nuts. There isn't a perfect system of government that is going to be able to ensure that the rights of the minority aren't infringed upon by the majority unless the majority also don't have a voice in that government (in which case, everybody's being infringed upon). But I think that the US system is pretty damn good.

No, I don't want to see the Religious Right take over the Supreme Court and start turning us into a theocracy, but it is a risk that we have to be willing to accept.

(Yeah, I know it's old. But it just got bumped.)

mattx110

10-30-2007, 11:49 AM

Drugged by opponents? Wow. You Aussies really play political hardball.

Larry Craig should've thought of that one. Maybe once the real presidential campaign hits the Ghost can use that one to blame the war on the Democrats...

- Grant

please, the russians are already using clone armies with stolen CIA radioactive materials and mosquito robot syringes. There's been 6 Putin's, they get replaced when they break protocol and say something crazy like "that's a good point mr. opposition leader".

bartl

10-31-2007, 11:10 AM

Didn't they get on because the Executive Branch nominated them and the Legislative Branch approved them?

I thought that's what the system of checks and balances was for - to help ensure that one of the branches doesn't go nuts.
What is the check on the Supreme Court, if it has the power to define what its powers are? If it can unilaterally amend the Constitution?

bartl

10-31-2007, 11:12 AM

Larry Craig should've thought of that one. Maybe once the real presidential campaign hits the Ghost can use that one to blame the war on the Democrats...
Larry Craig had two choices: plead guilty to a lesser (non-sexual) charge, and hope that nobody found out, or plead not guilty (and almost certainly win; the cop jumped the gun, so to speak), and definitely have the world find out.

He rolled the dice, and crapped out. Pun intended.

Bart

Steven Grant

10-31-2007, 02:11 PM

What is the check on the Supreme Court, if it has the power to define what its powers are? If it can unilaterally amend the Constitution?

The Supreme Court doesn't amend the Constitution, it interprets the Constitution. Checks on the Supreme Court are two-fold: while it has both its up and down sides, one of the checks is the un-necessity of sitting members to be beholden to external politics. (Which isn't to say they don't; Scalia, for instance, is about 80% about external politics - but even he surprises once in awhile.) That members can sit on the bench until they die or retire and that happens at staggered rates means that at any given time the court can represent a variety of viewpoints regardless of which party or political philosophy is in power, and about the only way to ensure, say, a Supreme Court packed with theocrats is to assassinate all the existing sitting members while having a theocratic president and a substantially theocratic Congress in power. Even in "Red States" that's not especially likely. The second "curb" on Supreme Court control is that if the Supreme Court declares that dogs must be fed in restaurants, Congress can always oversee a Constitutional Amendment restricting the rights of dogs in restaurants. In many cases, since not everything decided by the SC is ultimately a constitutional issue, Congress can pass a corrective law instead to take care of the problem, as long as they're not too stupid to write a law that actually takes care of the problem instead of merely restating the problem in such a way it'll be overturned again, which is what Congress usually does. But that has more to do with the idiots we elect to Congress than with any inherent problem in the Supreme Court. In the case of constitutional amendments, the SC can't declare a constitutional amendment unconstitutional. Once it's passed it become a part of the Constitution until repealed, and repealing amendments happens even less often than passing amendments. In any case, remedies to any perceived abuses by the Supreme Court do exist, and in many cases (like air pollution cases) SC verdicts are often just ignored, or their enforcement left to regulatory agencies that lack the funds or manpower to successfully regulate and often (at least under Republican regimes, but often under Democratic regimes too) lack the interest. And that's a curb on SC power too, just not an official one.

- Grant

Briareos

10-31-2007, 05:46 PM

The Supreme Court doesn't amend the Constitution, it interprets the Constitution. Checks on the Supreme Court are two-fold: while it has both its up and down sides, one of the checks is the un-necessity of sitting members to be beholden to external politics. (Which isn't to say they don't; Scalia, for instance, is about 80% about external politics - but even he surprises once in awhile.) That members can sit on the bench until they die or retire and that happens at staggered rates means that at any given time the court can represent a variety of viewpoints regardless of which party or political philosophy is in power, and about the only way to ensure, say, a Supreme Court packed with theocrats is to assassinate all the existing sitting members while having a theocratic president and a substantially theocratic Congress in power. Even in "Red States" that's not especially likely. The second "curb" on Supreme Court control is that if the Supreme Court declares that dogs must be fed in restaurants, Congress can always oversee a Constitutional Amendment restricting the rights of dogs in restaurants. In many cases, since not everything decided by the SC is ultimately a constitutional issue, Congress can pass a corrective law instead to take care of the problem, as long as they're not too stupid to write a law that actually takes care of the problem instead of merely restating the problem in such a way it'll be overturned again, which is what Congress usually does. But that has more to do with the idiots we elect to Congress than with any inherent problem in the Supreme Court. In the case of constitutional amendments, the SC can't declare a constitutional amendment unconstitutional. Once it's passed it become a part of the Constitution until repealed, and repealing amendments happens even less often than passing amendments. In any case, remedies to any perceived abuses by the Supreme Court do exist, and in many cases (like air pollution cases) SC verdicts are often just ignored, or their enforcement left to regulatory agencies that lack the funds or manpower to successfully regulate and often (at least under Republican regimes, but often under Democratic regimes too) lack the interest. And that's a curb on SC power too, just not an official one.

- Grant

It's pretty much set in stone now that there should always be 9 on the bench. It would be pretty much political suicide to try to pack the courts today unless the court repeatedly did insanely unpopuler decisions.