Good spoof, but, I think, I read something like this before. And I think, the author's death is no longer exaggerated:-( It was about the well-water sent out for testing, and the result was: "Your horse has diabetes."
Just wait for...
on
Robocones
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Somebody hacking their communication protocol(s) to make the barrels:
dance;
align into patterns, such as those, that form words and slogans, when viewed from the air;
block the traffic altogether ("Italian Job" anyone?).
It was you, who referenced a monkey butler episode. It made no sense to me then, it does not make sense to me now[, so I assumed, it must derive meaning from outside Simpsons.]
Funny, you said you knew of no TV show I could be referring to --not that you didn't know what it meant. Lets look at that quote again...
Your continuing use of the term "monkey butler" tells me nothing -- I have no idea, what children book, old saying, TV-show, or soap opera it comes from;
Are you still suggesting I'm lying? I thought, I explained myself in the part of my quote, which you carefully cut out -- shown above in bold. This dirty trick alone speaks tons of your integrity, sir. I don't need to be rude -- you are caught red-handed.
So, if you see any other reason for the State to be interested in Marriage -- go ahead and state it. Anything else (especially -- blasting me for avoiding everything else) just hides the real issue.
You present a idea, your idea is questioned and you avoid the questions, and we are the ones hiding issues?
Yes, you are -- right in this quote above. Instead of answering a direct question, you blame me for not seeing the answers myself. How convenient...
I gave you enough of the benefit of the doubt, but you keep on trying to fit me into one of the known groups, so you can respond with a pre-made response. And you proved to be dishonest. So long.
So, no I have to defend myself against accusations of lying, because I read one of the AC's posts an early one, to which I actually replied -- and asked her to stop posting anonymously, or else I will not reply? Speak of ad hominem, as your referenced AC condemns me for!
It was you, who referenced a monkey butler episode. It made no sense to me then, it does not make sense to me now, so I assumed, it must derive meaning from outside Simpsons.
Your approving reference to the "succint" AC is very welcome, because she is much less consistent in the expressed point of view, and her misunderstanding of that of mine is a lot easier to point out. The same mistakes and other shortcomings, but easier to crack.
Let's see, boy, it's like target practice!
Ad hominem fallacy and a lie to boot. You have read my arguments and still do not respond.
I read them as quoted by OnLawn, my respect for whom, although diminished, is still a lot higher, than for someone, who cares not and/or dares to speak under so much as a SlashDot alias.
I'm not attacking your cherished Marriage
Self contradiction. Akin to someone saying "I am not attacking you. Your lack of a brain is self-evident."
Wow! No, lady, that's not, what I am saying -- you must've heard this one somewhere else:-) (This is ad hominem, BTW). An "idiot" may both be an insult and a diagnosis... What I meant was simply to observe, the Marriage is diminishing. You seem to blame me and my views for the diminishment, but that's like blaming the diminishment of the horse on the car salesman -- at least in my school of economics and philosophy (no, I'm not writing a pamphlet here, so I'm not going to develop the whole theory, which is not mine anyway). As all things, a marriage has pluses and minuses. It helps partners in life and in raising children, while holding them together and responsible for each other and forcing them into compromises for the sake of staying with each other. As productivity grows, the partners don't need as much help in life and in raising children (where they are also often aided by the state), so they are not willing to sacrifice as much for their marriage. This -- to me -- explains the growing divorce rate, and I submit, that my view is a lot better explained than the rock/tiger thing. The divorce rate is kept down a little by tradition and religion -- not unlike how the horses are still used for transportation because of people's affection for them. When OnLawn cited Sweden -- with its lower influence of religion and higher divorce rate -- it played right into my argument. Swedes' productivity may be lower, but their generous welfare state makes child rearing easy -- intentionally or not, Swedes made Marriage even less important to people. Note, that I did not express my judgement of this. Personally, I like horses very much.
Nowhere do you argue that the demise of marriage, whether true or imagined, benefits society.
Indeed, I don't. Nor do I call for it. Nor do I ask you to "trust me to save Marriage". I simply state my conclusions (what OnLawn refers to as "mantra"), from what I see:
the importance of Marriage to people is diminishing;
the importance of Marriage to the State never really existed.
you seem to be of insufficiently pleasant character ("monkey butler", "pulled out", "wacko") for me to continue
Ad Hominem and evasive. OnLawn has made no attacks on your character, yet you assail his.
I find his language offensive (increasingly so, compared to the initial posts), and I quoted the particularly offensive terms to make it easier to comprehend. Not easy enough, I guess...
Appeal to popularity and spotlighting.
That's why I called it "foolish comfort", lady... Relax.
Your continuing use of the term "monkey butler" tells me nothing -- I have no idea, what children book, old saying, TV-show, or soap opera it comes from;
I don't usually read AC-comments -- I browse at 2, and/. does not notify me of replies below that;
I tried, but failed to convince you, I'm not attacking your cherished Marriage -- I "hold self-evident" its relative demise and explain it by improved economics; your explanation of the demise by "our lessened support for it" does not make sense to me -- the "lessened support" is part of the demise, it thus can not be the reason;
you seem to be of insufficiently pleasant character ("monkey botler", "pulled out", "wacko") for me to continue;
I'm sorry, if I was unable to respond to all of your (and your ACs') arguments -- it would require much more writing than I am willing to afford to convincing two people;
I shall allow myself to take foolish comfort in the '+5 Interesting' rating of my original posting -- as close to "being crowned a king of a tropical island" as it gets;
seek consolation in the remarkable agreeability (and individuality:-) of the ACs;
You have never heard of Clergy Confidentiality? It means that a clergy is never required by law to testify something that was told him/her for penance.
This is interesting, no I have not... It may be worth noting, however, that it seems to be the creation of states, rather than coming from the Constitution...
This is the kind of confidentiality I'd like to see afforded to people involved in raising children together.
A better paragraph defining individuality and the legal recognition of it, I have not found.
There is no word "individuality" in that paragraph. Nope. I'm not sure, which of the two meanings of the word, you (and the ACs, you bother to read) are using (see, the dictionary does not always help):
individuality, individualism -- (the quality of being individual: "so absorbed by the movement that she lost all sense of individuality")
identity, individuality -- (the distinct personality of an individual regarded as a persisting entity: "you can lose your identity when you join the army")
I thought, the AC, you quoted, before was talking about the second meaning. The quote, you provided, is about the first.
I am however, puzzled by your assertions, that affirming and supporting individualism is somehow in the interest of the State and that Marriage needs legal recognition because it helps foster individualism. I read in that quote above an opposite thing, that all Men are endowed with individualism by their Creator. State does not need, nor can support it any more than Gravity.
A marriage license is an official state-issued document and is required to access the marriage contract and all the benefits and responsibilities enumerated therein... Next!
Exactly the practice I'm advocating be abolished -- while leaving the drivers licenses alone.
Academic credentials (including but not limited to a diploma) are required by law to administer/practice law, medicine, education, and even certain feats of engineering.
Not (quite) true. What is required is a certification by a government authority, which, usually, requires passing some school-agnostic tests. But regardless, I remain of the opinion, that marriage should belong to the unregulated parts of life -- like those other feats of engineering.
We keep on talking about different things, and you are growing passionate. The AC you quoted -- even more so (he/she seems to be markedly similar to you... Khmm). You feel like I am threatening Marriage, to which you have passionate feelings. Being passionate about a subject of discussion is even worse, than going grocery shopping being hungry...
"Peddling my papers" is just what I am doing:-) At least, you don't insist, the papers are self-inconsistent...
This state does not recognize religion as anything special. Did the founding fathers "tear down" Religion with the 1st Amendment?
[...] you are trying to equate this with what you feel the state should also do with marriage.
Yes, pretty similar.
How is, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" not recognizing religion as anything special?
As anything legally special. Hence, make no law. What I meant was, that this State does not specify what a religion should be, nor what responsibilities and/or benefits come with it. No one can use religion to avoid testifying in court, and it does not entitle to powers of attorney nor to any of the many little and not so little things the State has attached to Marriage over the years (something newlyweds seldom realize).
Interesting. To you, expressing individuality is none of the states business. It seems the founding fathers thought the expression of individuality was of the utmost importance for the state to recognize!
Care to provide a reference? We seem to be attaching different meanings to "recognize". I am talking about legal recognition. Religion certainly expresses one's individuality. As do tastes, political opinions, and sexual orientation. But no one thinks of attaching special legal meaning to Cuisine, for example:-)
Imagine what would happen if we let people call define for themselves what a drivers license was! Imagine what would happen if we let people define just what a diploma is for themselves!
You are mixing separate issues together. The Driver's License is an official State-issued document and is required to access public roadways. A diploma -- thanks for a good example -- may be issued by a private enterprise and is not legally required for anything. And yes, anyone is, and, I think, ought to be able to define a diploma for her/himself and others -- as long as there is no government mandated recognition of it. Just as some religions and diplomas are now, there will be "fraudulent" marriages. So be it.
And the state who has an interest in individuality of both marriage partners and the children produced (with or without marriage) should continue to hold it up as the standard.
Again, "individuality" is of no concern for the State. Or should not be -- it is a private matter. The only possible legitimate concern the State may have in Marriage is its ability to produce and -- more importantly -- raise children. I hereby move, that the state legally recognizes, supports, and encourages these two abilities by themselves -- directly.
Are you admitting, the Marriage -- an institution predating all forms of government -- will not survive being no longer recognized by the State?
No, and you can quote me. You're gaming with scope and scale here and your results are *sigh* contradictory to your thesis.
A state that quits recognizing marriage has torn it down within the states pervue. That should be evident. To say that does not tear down the institution of marriage is a contradiction whithin the narrow blinders of state perspective.
This state does not recognize religion as anything special. Did the founding fathers "tear down" Religion with the 1st Amendment?
Feel free to re-read this AC's post on marriage to see just how, to him, forming a family in his and his wife's image is an expression of their individuality.
Exactly: his and his wife's. This is not State's business...
You seem to be trying (subconsiencely, perhaps) to fit my words into somebody else's view -- to which you already have objected in the past. Your presupposition, that I advocate some sort of additional costs to the State or the Society points at such attempts.
I'm not suggesting to "tear down marriage". I'm suggesting, the State stops recognizing it as anything special whatsoever
I can't parse this, its a direct contradiction.
Are you admitting, the Marriage -- an institution predating all forms of government -- will not survive being no longer recognized by the State? That it will be "shot through the head" and/or "torn down" by that? It is not what I set out to suggest nor prove, it simply follows from your statements... Interesting. Well, I'm no more willing to subsidize hetero- than homosexuality. I don't wish to subsidize either, to be more specific.
And every time you say it, it is just as absurd a contradiction as the first.
Contradiction between what and what?
Marriage still has all the value and capability it ever had, people just wish to find other ways around it that aren't so restrictive. That they may be more able to pay (or in this case have the state pay) the cost of their actions in a more prosperous society, but it does not diminish the capacity that marriage has to avoid those costs.
This is just as true as the fact, a mule and a plow can still be used for farming. In fact, I'll probably agree, that Marriage is relatively even more useful and gratifying to individuals today, than the plow to today's farmers. That is not my point. I'm saying is, Marriage is not particularly useful (nor gratifying) to the State.
You may think, it is foolish of people to deny themselves the benefits of Marriage, and I may even agree with you personally. But then you are not very different from people, who insist Religion would improve people's lives -- and cut the State's costs, and should thus be recognized and supported by the State.
I use them both too, but find the sendmail's configuration hopelessly complex. The language, that sendmail uses for.cf is horrible..mc files make it simpler, but it is still easy to get a non-obviously broken.cf, and for cool things, you still have to code in the.cf directly. Brrr...
And you are taking it far too seriously (and too verbously) for the forum, on which we meet.
Those, who wish to get married (in the traditional fashion) will always be welcome to, signing whatever contracts they wish to sign to bind them stronger together.
I'm not suggesting to "tear down marriage". I'm suggesting, the State stops recognizing it as anything special whatsoever, and concentrate instead on the couples, raising children -- regardless of whether they are "married" (by whichever definition). Foster Care program may, indeed, be a step in that direction.
Marriage is being "torn down" by vast increases in productivity, while still being supported by tradition and, indeed, religion -- as your facts about Sweden examplify. It will not be "putting a bullet through its head", rather "turning off the life support". I'm not saying it prevents gender equality, I just see its diminishment as an objective fact of life. It will go the way the hunting-gathering habits went with the improvements of agriculture, the way tribal societies went with the onset of urban life and advances of social science, the way slavery went with further developments in agriculture and the rise of industry (and not because it was "immoral"), etc.
But this is not, what I was talking about.
All I am calling for, is for State to recognize, that it has no inherent interest in Marriage itself -- only in the better and and bigger new generations.
I've said it enough times already, and no one else seems to be reading this thread.
A marriage provides a contract that both sides sign and enter into, leaving a great paper trail easy and convenient for states to record and file.
Most of the details of this contract are only discovered much later on, when/if things go sour. In my plan, people will be welcome to sign whatever contracts they want -- explicitly. The simplest "cookie cutter" ones to be available in bridal shops and in Staples.
The state and its citizenry can still get just as much out of marriage as they ever could.
Thanks to the improvements in Productivity, Marriage is not as important as it used to be for the survival of the partners nor of their children. This is the objective reasons of the diminished importance of it. That's my hypothesis, and the rising divorce rate supports it.
The only reason Marriage remains beneficial to Society is the better quality of the children -- all other qualities of it, that you allude to, benefit the partners themselves.
I guess, the word "subsidy" confused you. No, I'm not advocating handing out money to the child bearers (nor rearers). I'm talking about less tangible benefits like inheritance preference, the possibility of not testifying against each other in court, etc.
That's why, when I say "subsidy" in this thread, I put it into quotes.
So what is it you wish to change?
In short, and -- hopefully -- for the last time in this thread:
I want all "subsidies" currently afforded to married couples to instead be provided to couples raising children -- own or adopted.
I acknowledge, that my proposal is raw and unfinished -- for example, it does not cover older couples, who are no longer engaged in raising their adult children, whose children died, nor those, who try, but can not conceive. I'm sure, there are other uncovered spots...
Yet its fundamental idea still seems correct to me. Throughout history, societies rewarded Marriage because it -- almost inevitably -- resulted in children, who were then (almost always) raised to the best of their parents' abilities.
Contraception and abortion changed that. A healthy couple may live together for years without children. Religious institutions tend to blame it, but I don't. People own their bodies, and the ability to pick the time in their lives, when to conceive is a great achievement of medicine. But until that conception, they should not be afforded the benefits intended primarily to parents in the past.
I'm not proposing the Law redefines marriage or, indeed, its consummation. I suggest, these definitions are left to people with their religious beliefs, convictions, and prejudices and have no legal meaning.
As they are currently.
Not quite. A marriage is conducted by a government official or a licensee... Sometimes it also involves a mandatory health check-up and/or education courses.
Also, we will simply disagree in that I do not find homosexuality something that the state has interest in subsidising. [...] and suggest that homosexuality should be subsidized [...]
This was never my proposal. All I'm saying, is that the state should "subsidize" all loving couples, who raise children -- regardless of their sexuality and stop subsidizing childless loving couples -- also without regard for their sexuality. I'm not suggesting, homosexuality deserves any higher (nor lower) subsidy at all.
The Society has interest in higher quantity and quality of children. It is thus foolish to reward the Marriage itself, merely because of its potential for child bearing and raising, instead of the actual bearing (or adoption) and raising. This point is not even directly linked to gays...
Now, we are sliding into the gay adoption debate, which is not, what I wanted to discuss, but:
Your attempts to quantify the detriment of homosexuality of the "parents" are irrelevant to my idea -- you would not argue, that all homosexual couples are worse, than any heterosexual one when it comes to raising children. And even if you would, an assertion, that any heterosexual couple is automaticly worse than a foster home is flat out laughable.
So such couples' adoption applications should be considered honestly. Even if their sexuality, and other "lifestyle choices" are considered detrimental to their future adopted children, it can still be balanced by other qualities: education, length of relationship, income, health, criminal and credit histories, etc.
for example my power of attorney to make medical decisions for my spouse if he is incapacitated)
Why should a wife of three years have automatic power of attorney of her husband, while a girlfriend of ten years does not have such power over her loving and loved boyfriend? In both cases the partner can explicitly assign such powers to each other...
if we chose not to be breeders and add to overpopulation.
So long as the increase of the population is considered desirable by Society -- yes, I think, that it is silly for the Society to encourage things, which usually lead to such increases (marriage), as opposite to the actual increases themselves.
But it is not only (nor so much) the quantity I'm aiming for, but the quality. If you read carefully, I'm proposing we equally reward people adopting children...
The quantity is not additionally encouraged either -- my plan in itself does not encourage multiple children at all. One is enough...
Our society rewards breeding too much already.
That's debatable. In 18th and most of the 19th centuries, US population was doubling every 20 years... I'm not pushing for that rate, but there is certainly plenty of unsettled land in US, even more in Canada, and the rest of the world.
I am aware of the view, that humans are the scourge of the Earth, but do not share it... May be, it is just because I am human and "root for my side":-)
Your suggestion that actual child birth (or adoption) consumates a marriage is interesting, and certainly speaks to the need for marriage.
That's not, what I am suggesting. My idea is that it is the child-rearing by a couple and not their marriage per se, that is important to the Society. I am saying, that any couple involved in child-rearing deserves the "subsidy" -- regardless of their sexual orientation, and of who the child's physical parents are. I'm not arguing for "subsidizing homosexuality" any more, than a proponent of school vouchers argues for "subsidizing religion".
I'm not proposing the Law redefines marriage or, indeed, its consummation. I suggest, these definitions are left to people with their religious beliefs, convictions, and prejudices and have no legal meaning. Not even child births are important enough, IMO, to justify the "subsidy". Only the child-rearing (which normally, but not always, follows the birth) is. Any couple engaged in such rearing (whether it is a "civil union" or, indeed, "marriage" is, indeed, an unimportant word-play).
However Adoption should be considered as a way to help infertile couples overcome a handicap. There is a value to the state in helping people compensate for things they naturally would be capable of.
Is not it already?
This is where the question turns. Is Homosexuality a disability or not? Is it a handicap?
This is a very sensitive question emotionally, but, fortunately, we don't need an answer to it to discuss my proposal. We agree, that two adults are better for a child's development than one, and that the adults' homosexuality does not seem to be inherently detrimental to the child's development...
[Hey, I'm not starting an off-topic thread, I'm merely continuing it:-)]
Not only are the usual methods of getting children -- "unpleasant sex" and adoption, but this method will also be available to (at least) some homosexual couples.
The "Christian Right" (not just Christian, and not just "right") are correct in saying, it diminishes the traditional concept of marriage. However, IMHO, the concept is long diminished through other, perfectly heterosexual means. And it is not anyone's fault in particular. The economies have changed. A single parent can raise a child or two (even without government help). Having a good partner in life is not as important to survive as it used to be.
The "sanctity of marriage" is important for the Society only because it leads to more (and better) children. That's why the State affords special protections and privileges to married (as opposed to co-habitating) couples -- in inheritance, in not testifying against each other, etc.
Yet children tend to grow up better having two parents. There are no statistics that show, children in homosexual couples grow better or worse off.
Here is my proposal to the conundrum of gay marriage. Change all laws, that apply to "married couples," to apply to "any pair of people involved in raising children" (the exact formula should be phrased better, of course, it has to mention mutual devotion and loyalty -- borrow from the classic definition of marriage).
The actual acts of marriage should stop being administered by the State (both directly through mayors and through licensing). People, who wish to publicly swear their mutual love, respect, and devotion are still very welcome to do that (banning people of same sex from such expressions is directly against the 1st Amendment) in places of their choosing (including government buildings even), but it should not be the State's business.
The State's business only begins when a couple gives birth to (regardless of the conception method) or adopts a child -- that's when it qualifies for the privileges now afforded to the married only.
This way, the Society will reward exactly those it should want to, regardless of their sexual orientation, which is not, regretfully, a voluntary choice, it seems.
The Bush administration claimed to know exactly where the WMDs were hidden.
This, actually, totally defies the charge of lying. If they lied, they'd leave "escape clauses" in their statements (and argue the definitions of "sex" and "is" now). They did not. Foolishly overconfident -- may be. Lying? No.
This is a false choice -- it was not a matter of either doing a unilateral invasion, or doing nothing.
It was exactly that choice. The "containment" did not work -- for 12 years. Sanctions were crippling the country, but the scumbag prospered (as did some UN officials, as we are now learning). He did not prove, he did not have WMDs, as he was supposed to -- in fact, he repeatedly hinted and alluded to the contrary -- to keep his neighbors on their toes. Hundreds of Kuwaiti prisoners were unaccounted for. He kept paying families of suicide Palestinian bombers -- $10K per explosion. The choice was either to invade or to keep producing N+1st irresolute resolutions.
Bush's taking the right stand may be the only reason, I'll vote for him... Too bad, he could not master something more multilateral (read: make others help pay for the war), but that was not a good reason to sit idle.
Actually, they see that our military is completely tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan, so there is little the USA can do for the forseeable future about other countries. Do you think North Korea is worried about us invading them now?
Libia was certainly worried enough. Syria and Iran, probably, are too (100K American soldiers at their borders!). So little is known about North Korea (50 years of "containment"!), it is difficult to say... Of course, it would've been better if our dear allies supported us. But with USSR gone they think, they don't need us any more and let their suppressed inferiority complexes overwhelm their judgement...
Obviously, W's Iraq invasion didn't cause the 9/11. But that doesn't mean that his invasion didn't encourage the radicalization of hundreds or thousands of more terrorists.
And my point was, that's irrelevant. There were more "radicals" already, than Al Qaeda could use. They are a dime a dozen -- look at Hamas, the suicide bombers are their cheapest weapon... They don't even need to teach them to fly.
The proper direction would have been for Florida to resolve it
And they did, did not they? I forgot the exact chronology of it, but, I think, the FlSC and then USSC were asked to affirm or reject the state government's right to do what they did.
That's what the U.S. Constitution says should happen. Those 9 wise people shouldn't have been involved.
IANAL, and neither are you, I think. So I'd trust those 9 wise people on this. Even if four of them objected...
I must say that Clinton's lying about his personal life didn't kill anyone.
All I said with certainty, is that he made us look silly -- the post I replied to blamed Bush for making Americans look idiotic.
But now that we are venturing farther off-topic, I'll add, that these Clinton's lies robbed him of the moral authority to invade Long Island, causing him to quickly pull out from Mogadishu, and not invade Iraq. Either the lies prevented that, or they were just other indications of his lack of scruples, which prevented that.
Bush inherited the reasons for Iraq war from Clinton. It still seems, he also sincerely believed Iraq to be still in posession of WMD, so I don't see him lying about that one.
Now that America is discredited in the eyes of the world
I think, leaving Saddam Hussein alone despite his not living up to the cease-fire agreement of 1991, would've done a lot more damage to our credibility. Future and present villains see, that we come after word-breakers. At least, after the most egregious ones. Gaddafi may have discussed his surrender for a while before, but actually surrendered only after seeing captured Saddam on TV, for example...
Al Quaeda will use our government's unabashed duplicity
This is foolish. The most damaging act of Al Quaeda -- the 9/11 attack -- happened before the supposed "duplicity" was exposed, and went into preparation long before the president, that you and Jeremi so much despise, was elected. Our sin? Entering the sacred lands of Saudi Arabia, which we did to defend Kuwait -- a Muslim nation -- with the entire world's approval...
Oh, yes, 9 "wize" people appointed by the winner's daddy
You see, what passionate rage does to people? Horrible... Not to be like this Pig Hogger, I'll respond with facts. Only 2 of the nine USSC
members where appointed by George H.W. Bush -- the father of the current president. From the link above:
The current United States Supreme Court Justices are:
Slashdot Mirror
Will you mother know about the bug-reporting part of Mozilla, when she chooses the "complete install" -- on your insistence, she does not use IE?
Good spoof, but, I think, I read something like this before. And I think, the author's death is no longer exaggerated :-( It was about the well-water sent out for testing, and the result was: "Your horse has diabetes."
Somebody hacking their communication protocol(s) to make the barrels:
That would be fun...
Are you still suggesting I'm lying? I thought, I explained myself in the part of my quote, which you carefully cut out -- shown above in bold. This dirty trick alone speaks tons of your integrity, sir. I don't need to be rude -- you are caught red-handed.
Yes, you are -- right in this quote above. Instead of answering a direct question, you blame me for not seeing the answers myself. How convenient...
I gave you enough of the benefit of the doubt, but you keep on trying to fit me into one of the known groups, so you can respond with a pre-made response. And you proved to be dishonest. So long.
...Plonk...
So, no I have to defend myself against accusations of lying, because I read one of the AC's posts an early one, to which I actually replied -- and asked her to stop posting anonymously, or else I will not reply? Speak of ad hominem, as your referenced AC condemns me for!
It was you, who referenced a monkey butler episode. It made no sense to me then, it does not make sense to me now, so I assumed, it must derive meaning from outside Simpsons.
Your approving reference to the "succint" AC is very welcome, because she is much less consistent in the expressed point of view, and her misunderstanding of that of mine is a lot easier to point out. The same mistakes and other shortcomings, but easier to crack.
Let's see, boy, it's like target practice!
Ad hominem fallacy and a lie to boot. You have read my arguments and still do not respond. I read them as quoted by OnLawn, my respect for whom, although diminished, is still a lot higher, than for someone, who cares not and/or dares to speak under so much as a SlashDot alias.Self contradiction. Akin to someone saying "I am not attacking you. Your lack of a brain is self-evident."
Wow! No, lady, that's not, what I am saying -- you must've heard this one somewhere elseAd Hominem and evasive. OnLawn has made no attacks on your character, yet you assail his.
I find his language offensive (increasingly so, compared to the initial posts), and I quoted the particularly offensive terms to make it easier to comprehend. Not easy enough, I guess... Appeal to popularity and spotlighting. That's why I called it "foolish comfort", lady... Relax.Now, you may disagree wit
This is interesting, no I have not... It may be worth noting, however, that it seems to be the creation of states, rather than coming from the Constitution...
This is the kind of confidentiality I'd like to see afforded to people involved in raising children together.
There is no word "individuality" in that paragraph. Nope. I'm not sure, which of the two meanings of the word, you (and the ACs, you bother to read) are using (see, the dictionary does not always help):
- individuality, individualism -- (the quality of being individual: "so absorbed by the movement that she lost all sense of individuality")
- identity, individuality -- (the distinct personality of an individual regarded as a persisting entity: "you can lose your identity when you join the army")
I thought, the AC, you quoted, before was talking about the second meaning. The quote, you provided, is about the first.I am however, puzzled by your assertions, that affirming and supporting individualism is somehow in the interest of the State and that Marriage needs legal recognition because it helps foster individualism. I read in that quote above an opposite thing, that all Men are endowed with individualism by their Creator. State does not need, nor can support it any more than Gravity.
Exactly the practice I'm advocating be abolished -- while leaving the drivers licenses alone.
Not (quite) true. What is required is a certification by a government authority, which, usually, requires passing some school-agnostic tests. But regardless, I remain of the opinion, that marriage should belong to the unregulated parts of life -- like those other feats of engineering.
We keep on talking about different things, and you are growing passionate. The AC you quoted -- even more so (he/she seems to be markedly similar to you... Khmm). You feel like I am threatening Marriage, to which you have passionate feelings. Being passionate about a subject of discussion is even worse, than going grocery shopping being hungry...
"Peddling my papers" is just what I am doing :-) At least, you don't insist, the papers are self-inconsistent...
Yes, pretty similar.
As anything legally special. Hence, make no law . What I meant was, that this State does not specify what a religion should be, nor what responsibilities and/or benefits come with it. No one can use religion to avoid testifying in court, and it does not entitle to powers of attorney nor to any of the many little and not so little things the State has attached to Marriage over the years (something newlyweds seldom realize).
Care to provide a reference? We seem to be attaching different meanings to "recognize". I am talking about legal recognition. Religion certainly expresses one's individuality. As do tastes, political opinions, and sexual orientation. But no one thinks of attaching special legal meaning to Cuisine, for example :-)
You are mixing separate issues together. The Driver's License is an official State-issued document and is required to access public roadways. A diploma -- thanks for a good example -- may be issued by a private enterprise and is not legally required for anything. And yes, anyone is, and, I think, ought to be able to define a diploma for her/himself and others -- as long as there is no government mandated recognition of it. Just as some religions and diplomas are now, there will be "fraudulent" marriages. So be it.
Again, "individuality" is of no concern for the State. Or should not be -- it is a private matter. The only possible legitimate concern the State may have in Marriage is its ability to produce and -- more importantly -- raise children. I hereby move, that the state legally recognizes, supports, and encourages these two abilities by themselves -- directly.
This state does not recognize religion as anything special. Did the founding fathers "tear down" Religion with the 1st Amendment?
Exactly: his and his wife's. This is not State's business...
Are you admitting, the Marriage -- an institution predating all forms of government -- will not survive being no longer recognized by the State? That it will be "shot through the head" and/or "torn down" by that? It is not what I set out to suggest nor prove, it simply follows from your statements... Interesting. Well, I'm no more willing to subsidize hetero- than homosexuality. I don't wish to subsidize either, to be more specific.
Contradiction between what and what?
This is just as true as the fact, a mule and a plow can still be used for farming. In fact, I'll probably agree, that Marriage is relatively even more useful and gratifying to individuals today, than the plow to today's farmers. That is not my point. I'm saying is, Marriage is not particularly useful (nor gratifying) to the State.
You may think, it is foolish of people to deny themselves the benefits of Marriage, and I may even agree with you personally. But then you are not very different from people, who insist Religion would improve people's lives -- and cut the State's costs, and should thus be recognized and supported by the State.
Does the laser run Linux?
I use them both too, but find the sendmail's configuration hopelessly complex. The language, that sendmail uses for .cf is horrible. .mc files make it simpler, but it is still easy to get a non-obviously broken .cf, and for cool things, you still have to code in the .cf directly. Brrr...
I'd rather this thing made you chase it for some time -- to force some excercise. Soda is bad enough for you even when you have to walk to take it...
And you are taking it far too seriously (and too verbously) for the forum, on which we meet.
Those, who wish to get married (in the traditional fashion) will always be welcome to, signing whatever contracts they wish to sign to bind them stronger together.
I'm not suggesting to "tear down marriage". I'm suggesting, the State stops recognizing it as anything special whatsoever, and concentrate instead on the couples, raising children -- regardless of whether they are "married" (by whichever definition). Foster Care program may, indeed, be a step in that direction.
Marriage is being "torn down" by vast increases in productivity, while still being supported by tradition and, indeed, religion -- as your facts about Sweden examplify. It will not be "putting a bullet through its head", rather "turning off the life support". I'm not saying it prevents gender equality, I just see its diminishment as an objective fact of life. It will go the way the hunting-gathering habits went with the improvements of agriculture, the way tribal societies went with the onset of urban life and advances of social science, the way slavery went with further developments in agriculture and the rise of industry (and not because it was "immoral"), etc.
But this is not, what I was talking about.
All I am calling for, is for State to recognize, that it has no inherent interest in Marriage itself -- only in the better and and bigger new generations.
I've said it enough times already, and no one else seems to be reading this thread.
Good night, sir.
Then get your own domain and forward the e-mail to whatever @yahoo or @google you happened to be.
Some (most?) domain registrars will even do such forwarding for free for you...
Most of the details of this contract are only discovered much later on, when/if things go sour. In my plan, people will be welcome to sign whatever contracts they want -- explicitly. The simplest "cookie cutter" ones to be available in bridal shops and in Staples.
Thanks to the improvements in Productivity, Marriage is not as important as it used to be for the survival of the partners nor of their children. This is the objective reasons of the diminished importance of it. That's my hypothesis, and the rising divorce rate supports it.
The only reason Marriage remains beneficial to Society is the better quality of the children -- all other qualities of it, that you allude to, benefit the partners themselves.
I guess, the word "subsidy" confused you. No, I'm not advocating handing out money to the child bearers (nor rearers). I'm talking about less tangible benefits like inheritance preference, the possibility of not testifying against each other in court, etc.
That's why, when I say "subsidy" in this thread, I put it into quotes.
In short, and -- hopefully -- for the last time in this thread:
I acknowledge, that my proposal is raw and unfinished -- for example, it does not cover older couples, who are no longer engaged in raising their adult children, whose children died, nor those, who try, but can not conceive. I'm sure, there are other uncovered spots...
Yet its fundamental idea still seems correct to me. Throughout history, societies rewarded Marriage because it -- almost inevitably -- resulted in children, who were then (almost always) raised to the best of their parents' abilities.
Contraception and abortion changed that. A healthy couple may live together for years without children. Religious institutions tend to blame it, but I don't. People own their bodies, and the ability to pick the time in their lives, when to conceive is a great achievement of medicine. But until that conception, they should not be afforded the benefits intended primarily to parents in the past.
Not quite. A marriage is conducted by a government official or a licensee... Sometimes it also involves a mandatory health check-up and/or education courses.
This was never my proposal. All I'm saying, is that the state should "subsidize" all loving couples, who raise children -- regardless of their sexuality and stop subsidizing childless loving couples -- also without regard for their sexuality. I'm not suggesting, homosexuality deserves any higher (nor lower) subsidy at all.
The Society has interest in higher quantity and quality of children. It is thus foolish to reward the Marriage itself, merely because of its potential for child bearing and raising, instead of the actual bearing (or adoption) and raising. This point is not even directly linked to gays...
Now, we are sliding into the gay adoption debate, which is not, what I wanted to discuss, but:
Your attempts to quantify the detriment of homosexuality of the "parents" are irrelevant to my idea -- you would not argue, that all homosexual couples are worse, than any heterosexual one when it comes to raising children. And even if you would, an assertion, that any heterosexual couple is automaticly worse than a foster home is flat out laughable.
So such couples' adoption applications should be considered honestly. Even if their sexuality, and other "lifestyle choices" are considered detrimental to their future adopted children, it can still be balanced by other qualities: education, length of relationship, income, health, criminal and credit histories, etc.
Why should a wife of three years have automatic power of attorney of her husband, while a girlfriend of ten years does not have such power over her loving and loved boyfriend? In both cases the partner can explicitly assign such powers to each other...
So long as the increase of the population is considered desirable by Society -- yes, I think, that it is silly for the Society to encourage things, which usually lead to such increases (marriage), as opposite to the actual increases themselves.
But it is not only (nor so much) the quantity I'm aiming for, but the quality. If you read carefully, I'm proposing we equally reward people adopting children...
The quantity is not additionally encouraged either -- my plan in itself does not encourage multiple children at all. One is enough...
That's debatable. In 18th and most of the 19th centuries, US population was doubling every 20 years... I'm not pushing for that rate, but there is certainly plenty of unsettled land in US, even more in Canada, and the rest of the world.
I am aware of the view, that humans are the scourge of the Earth, but do not share it... May be, it is just because I am human and "root for my side" :-)
Don't post as AC if you wish to continue...
That's not, what I am suggesting. My idea is that it is the child-rearing by a couple and not their marriage per se, that is important to the Society. I am saying, that any couple involved in child-rearing deserves the "subsidy" -- regardless of their sexual orientation, and of who the child's physical parents are. I'm not arguing for "subsidizing homosexuality" any more, than a proponent of school vouchers argues for "subsidizing religion".
I'm not proposing the Law redefines marriage or, indeed, its consummation. I suggest, these definitions are left to people with their religious beliefs, convictions, and prejudices and have no legal meaning. Not even child births are important enough, IMO, to justify the "subsidy". Only the child-rearing (which normally, but not always, follows the birth) is. Any couple engaged in such rearing (whether it is a "civil union" or, indeed, "marriage" is, indeed, an unimportant word-play).
Is not it already?
This is a very sensitive question emotionally, but, fortunately, we don't need an answer to it to discuss my proposal. We agree, that two adults are better for a child's development than one, and that the adults' homosexuality does not seem to be inherently detrimental to the child's development...
[Hey, I'm not starting an off-topic thread, I'm merely continuing it :-)]
Not only are the usual methods of getting children -- "unpleasant sex" and adoption, but this method will also be available to (at least) some homosexual couples.
The "Christian Right" (not just Christian, and not just "right") are correct in saying, it diminishes the traditional concept of marriage. However, IMHO, the concept is long diminished through other, perfectly heterosexual means. And it is not anyone's fault in particular. The economies have changed. A single parent can raise a child or two (even without government help). Having a good partner in life is not as important to survive as it used to be.
The "sanctity of marriage" is important for the Society only because it leads to more (and better) children. That's why the State affords special protections and privileges to married (as opposed to co-habitating) couples -- in inheritance, in not testifying against each other, etc.
Yet children tend to grow up better having two parents. There are no statistics that show, children in homosexual couples grow better or worse off.
Here is my proposal to the conundrum of gay marriage. Change all laws, that apply to "married couples," to apply to "any pair of people involved in raising children" (the exact formula should be phrased better, of course, it has to mention mutual devotion and loyalty -- borrow from the classic definition of marriage).
The actual acts of marriage should stop being administered by the State (both directly through mayors and through licensing). People, who wish to publicly swear their mutual love, respect, and devotion are still very welcome to do that (banning people of same sex from such expressions is directly against the 1st Amendment) in places of their choosing (including government buildings even), but it should not be the State's business.
The State's business only begins when a couple gives birth to (regardless of the conception method) or adopts a child -- that's when it qualifies for the privileges now afforded to the married only.
This way, the Society will reward exactly those it should want to, regardless of their sexual orientation, which is not, regretfully, a voluntary choice, it seems.
This, actually, totally defies the charge of lying. If they lied, they'd leave "escape clauses" in their statements (and argue the definitions of "sex" and "is" now). They did not. Foolishly overconfident -- may be. Lying? No.
It was exactly that choice. The "containment" did not work -- for 12 years. Sanctions were crippling the country, but the scumbag prospered (as did some UN officials, as we are now learning). He did not prove, he did not have WMDs, as he was supposed to -- in fact, he repeatedly hinted and alluded to the contrary -- to keep his neighbors on their toes. Hundreds of Kuwaiti prisoners were unaccounted for. He kept paying families of suicide Palestinian bombers -- $10K per explosion. The choice was either to invade or to keep producing N+1st irresolute resolutions.
Bush's taking the right stand may be the only reason, I'll vote for him... Too bad, he could not master something more multilateral (read: make others help pay for the war), but that was not a good reason to sit idle.
Libia was certainly worried enough. Syria and Iran, probably, are too (100K American soldiers at their borders!). So little is known about North Korea (50 years of "containment"!), it is difficult to say... Of course, it would've been better if our dear allies supported us. But with USSR gone they think, they don't need us any more and let their suppressed inferiority complexes overwhelm their judgement...
And my point was, that's irrelevant. There were more "radicals" already, than Al Qaeda could use. They are a dime a dozen -- look at Hamas, the suicide bombers are their cheapest weapon... They don't even need to teach them to fly.
And they did, did not they? I forgot the exact chronology of it, but, I think, the FlSC and then USSC were asked to affirm or reject the state government's right to do what they did.
IANAL, and neither are you, I think. So I'd trust those 9 wise people on this. Even if four of them objected...
It all comes do
All I said with certainty, is that he made us look silly -- the post I replied to blamed Bush for making Americans look idiotic.
But now that we are venturing farther off-topic, I'll add, that these Clinton's lies robbed him of the moral authority to invade Long Island, causing him to quickly pull out from Mogadishu, and not invade Iraq. Either the lies prevented that, or they were just other indications of his lack of scruples, which prevented that.
Bush inherited the reasons for Iraq war from Clinton. It still seems, he also sincerely believed Iraq to be still in posession of WMD, so I don't see him lying about that one.
I think, leaving Saddam Hussein alone despite his not living up to the cease-fire agreement of 1991, would've done a lot more damage to our credibility. Future and present villains see, that we come after word-breakers. At least, after the most egregious ones. Gaddafi may have discussed his surrender for a while before, but actually surrendered only after seeing captured Saddam on TV, for example...
This is foolish. The most damaging act of Al Quaeda -- the 9/11 attack -- happened before the supposed "duplicity" was exposed, and went into preparation long before the president, that you and Jeremi so much despise, was elected. Our sin? Entering the sacred lands of Saudi Arabia, which we did to defend Kuwait -- a Muslim nation -- with the entire world's approval...
You see, what passionate rage does to people? Horrible... Not to be like this Pig Hogger, I'll respond with facts. Only 2 of the nine USSC members where appointed by George H.W. Bush -- the father of the current president. From the link above: