The Reality Of Progressivism

[MSimon]

For those willing to abide by Jewish law ecclesiastical courts adjudicate marriage disputes.

i.e. you get your day in court, just not a government court.

The courts are called Bet Din and their decisions are recognized by American law. I know they can handle commercial disputes in America. I'm not sure if they are currently authorized to adjudicate marriage disputes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beth_din

Yep. Divorce is in the mix.

If churches handled marriage law then getting married would not be a political act.

The less the government is involved in culture the better I like it.

[MSimon]

BTW I'm all for private culture wars. i.e. get out on a street corner and denounce what ever cultural infirmities you please. (or the modern equivalent - a teleministry).

Government can no more make a people "moral" than it can make them rich.

kcdodd,

If insurance is a problem for you work for Apple. I believe they will insure domestic partnerships.

Our real problem with medicine is insurance. Government provided or private. A return to fee for services medicine would lower medical costs by roughly 75%. Get catastrophic coverage for things that would destroy you (vs merely pinch) financially.

And why can't you do that? The insurance companies OWN the State legislatures. And now they own the Federal legislature.

The lesson of the Interstate Commerce Commission is that once government legislation and regulation dominates an industry the industry will buy the government and you will then get the very best government money can buy. Except it will not be your money (directly) that is buying the government.

[MSimon]

How did we get here? Again, government interference. Back in the 1970s

WW2 wage controls started it.

[MSimon]

You are incorrect about the current Republican Party re: racism. There was a interlude where the racists flocked to the Republicans due to Democrat reversal of their former racist policy. But I don't see much evidence of Republican racism these days. I see more racism in the Democrats. i.e. the support of institutionalized racism. AKA affirmative action. Jim Crow for white people.

Did you know that MLKjr was a Republican?

And where are the Democrats when it comes to La Raza?

I can tell you where I am:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... -raza.html

There must be a balance somewhere in between.

Here is the balance I prefer:

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.
Thomas Jefferson

[Diogenes]

MSimon

The civil rights campaign is one big reason why there is such a strong split between conservative republicans and liberal democrats. It has not always been that way. That is why republicans have to be very careful when they talk about it being a republican (aka Lincoln) who freed the slaves, and not a conservative. He was very liberal, and your opinions very much oppose those of Lincoln.

Again with a discussion about Lincoln! Lincoln is on a pedestal in our history, and most people know only good things about him. The ugly things are covered up and not spoken about, but people who study history learn of them. You think Lincoln freed the slaves because he was liberal, and that is what people are constantly told, but the facts of this period of history do not readily support this notion. Lincoln said he would do anything to end the war. If that included freeing the slaves, he would do it. If it meant freeing no slaves, he would do that. If it meant freeing some and leaving others, he would do that also.

Lincoln arrogantly triggered the conflict that became the civil war, not having the first clue of the consequences of his actions, and he lived in misery and horror at the outcome of what he had started.

I could go on and on about this subject, I could show you quotes from Lincoln, I could show you acts by Lincoln, I could show you all sorts of historical records concerning Lincoln that don't fit the Image of him that people have nowadays. On one point I will agree with you. He was a Liberal insofar as he didn't mind tampering with things better left alone, and he cynically manipulated events to create a conflict that got away from him and killed over 600,000 people, and left areas of the country desolate for years. The greater destruction he caused was to the concept of Federalism, and the 9th and 10th amendments. We are still living with the consequences of that destruction.

Slavery was evil, and it needed to go, but Lincoln killed it accidentally, not on purpose. McCormick's reaper would have ended it a few decades later without bloodshed.

The democratic party had a fairly good foothold in the south, until it came to the passage civil rights legislations, which started the trend of the south being solidly republican. If it were republicans who had pushed civil rights then you can bet the south would vote democrat today.

Where do you get your notions from? The Republicans DID push civil rights. The Civil rights act of 1964 had more Republican votes than Democrat votes. The only KKK member in Congress is Robert Byrd. Governor Wallace was a Democrat. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican! Geeze, read some stuff.

Diogenes

I really don't care what qualifications you think you have. I am gay, and I think I know more about being gay than you do.

You know a lot about you. You know some about your associates. Do you know about people beyond your circle? Do you know about causes? Do you know about Proclivities? Do you know about History?

Let me simplify what I am getting at. One can know about being a soldier in the army, without knowing everything about the army, unless the soldier studies the army. Don't discount what people can learn from studying the army rather than specific soldiers.

It is unfortunate you cannot hear how stupid your arguments are. "traditional marriage" is a parade of heterosexuality down the streets of USA, which is consummated by sex between the parties involved,

Who would think that? It is an affirmation of happiness and life. It is the recognition that the circle of life continues, and that the family line will be assured. The passing of genes is the most important thing that any organism can accomplish. That is not only custom, it is science. A Wedding is the celebration of that happy probability, and also serves as a custom to promote monogamy, which history has shown is beneficial to society.

and is by your own admission an institution created for procreation and children.

I actually said nothing of this previously. The closest I come to saying anything like this is what I have just written above.

You dare claim that I, by simply saying that i am gay, and wanting to be able to get married to another person who also is a guy, is somehow revealing more about my sexuality than the hundreds of thousands of people who get married every year.

Gay Marriage does not serve the purpose for which the concept of marriage was created. As there can be no chance of offspring (withholding the application of macabre science) there are no possibilities of descendants to hope for, so what is there to celebrate and acknowledge? Marriage, among other things, is established to make it more difficult, and more unlikely for spouses to reproduce with anyone other than the spouse. The idea is, the Entire Community knows a person is married, to discourage prospective mating partners, while the vows are intended to dissuade the married couple from cheating in the first place.

You see, families have an interest in insuring that their related genes get passed into the future, and likewise that their genetic descendants are cared for by the family. This is why bastards and sluts have a negative stigma. It calls into question whether someone is a blood relative or not.
Remember, custom came about before there were sure fire methods of ferreting out the truth.

Marriage is a ritual of communities which serves the beneficial purpose of reducing the chances of false and lost descendants. It is in the best interest of each gene line to insure that they aren't supporting a false descendant, or not supporting one of their own that they don't know about.

Marriage also serves a purpose between the couples, which Homosexual marriage cannot. Marriage is assurance to the woman that she will be cared for when she is helpless while bearing and caring for the offspring. Marriage is assurance to the man that this woman will give him the opportunity to pass on his genes. THERE IS NOTHING MORE IMPORTANT TO ANY ORGANISM THAN PROGENY. Not even their life. We live on through our children.



How does Homosexual marriage benefit society? It not only serves no beneficial purpose to society, it likewise damages the purpose that marriage has in society by being a farcical representation of it.

I am thinking that perhaps you might not want to talk to me any further. I find the more truth I learn, the more unhappy I become, and I think you will find out the same. I've never been able to lie to myself, and I find there is much in life that I would rather have never learned. Better to have Heroes (such as Lincoln) and delusions than unhappy truths. If you listen to me, I will only lead you down the same unhappy path. Mark me off as someone who raves, and leave it at that.

[kcdodd]

Those are very narrow and prejudiced views of marriage. According to you, when straight people do it, it is out of love. When gay people do it, it is out of hate. When it is done by straight people you see it as making the family stronger. When it is done by gay people you see it as destroying the family. When it is done by straight people it benefits society. When it is done by gay people it damages society.

Gay people love. Gay people make families. Gay people benefit society every day as much as straight people. It is only your prejudices which prevent you from seeing that.

YOUR actions and views, and those like you, are in FACT exactly those actions and views one would take to create hate, destroy families, and damage society.

[JLawson]

YOUR actions and views, and those like you, are in FACT exactly those actions and views one would take to create hate, destroy families, and damage society.

Oh, put a flippin' cork in it.

I can't think of any sort of dialog or response that's less designed to get support for your cause. You come across as a ranting activist - and it makes me question whether my own mild support of gay marriage is even worth the effort.

Passion for a political cause doesn't automatically mean that cause is right, worthwhile, or timely, or that your methods are the best way to get what you want. Yes, I understand this is something that you very, extremely, definitely passionately want - but do you realize just how alienating your arguments are?

I believe that gay marriage isn't a problem. I don't believe it's going to cause the traditional family structure to dissolve, I don't believe that it's going to cause the nation to fall, or the world to crumble.

But I DO think that someone getting in my face, insulting me, insulting my preferences, and screaming for the right to get married is going to make me consider very seriously whether I want to support such abuse on such a trivial issue. Or whether, if offered the opportunity to vote on it, I'd vote no just out of spite.

And yes, it's a trivial issue to the vast majority of people. They don't think about it, they're not obsessed with it, they're not going "How can we keep teh Gey from marrying?" It's a side issue, there's too many other concerns that have higher priorities for them. Like their jobs, and the economy, and the price of gas. Hell, even the price of milk and eggs and what they're going to fix or have for dinner tonight likely impinges on their thinking more.

I don't much give a darn which way your plumbing points, or what you do with who (or what) in the privacy of your bedroom. For all I know (or care) you could have sixsomes with your partner, a sheep, a squirrel, a parrot and a squid. It's none of my business, thank you very much.

Again - do what you want. I DON'T CARE.

It's when you start dragging it out, parading it, FORCING me to care, INSISTING that I support you, your cause, your feelings and preferences because if I DON'T, then I'm suddenly homophobic, hateful, and every other insult you can come up with, that I start to CARE very much. Screaming and shouting at people doesn't get their acceptance - instead it makes them mad at YOU.

And buddy, you seriously don't want that if you want to see gay marriage legal.

You WANT me to go "Oh, okay, whatever." You WANT me to make jokes like "You know why lawyers like gay marriage? Because gay divorce is the last untapped market for legal services." You WANT me to have neutral to accepting feelings, to tacitly condone the sociological changes you're pushing. Why on earth would you want to piss off the people you need to support you tacitly in your desire to marry?

You get a lot more social change on a wide scale done SLOWLY over time than you do through 'in your face' attempts. Look at how 'successful' Prohibition was in curbing drinking, as opposed to slowly making it less socially acceptable to get drunk at every opportunity. Smoking used to be ubiquitous in society - but it didn't take a government ban to cause it to stop, what it took was making it less socially acceptable and educating people about the hazards of smoking. The number of smokers is WAY down from the 70s or 80s.

Take it slowly, you'll get what you want in time. The acceptance is somewhat already there, but it's a quiet, benign one. Force the issue, and that acceptance WILL change and you'll likely never see it in your lifetime.

You got someone you want to marry? Whom you SERIOUSLY want to do the "To Death Do You Part" routine with? Congratulations, send me an invite, let me shake your hand and wish you all sorts of happiness. But I would LIKE to see you take marrige seriously, with all the implications of having a lifelong commitment to a single person - not in a "We'll get married, and I'll be faithful to you until the next hot body comes along" or in a 'Dammit, breeders can marry so why can't we?' sort of way.

But what I see a lot more of is a 'In your face, you homophobes!" attitude from the folks who supposedly want gay marriage. That seriously doesn't help.

And it may seem like I'm bustin' your chops here, but read the whole thing and take it in the spirit it's meant. If you want gay marriage, don't throw a tantrum about not having it - work for it instead. Quiet, small steps will get you a lot more than screaming and shouting will.

[KitemanSA]

Our real problem with medicine is insurance. Government provided or private. A return to fee for services medicine would lower medical costs by roughly 75%.

Actually, the problem is NOT insurance, since very very very few people in America have health insurance. What we have is PREPAID medical coverage, and if you don't use it, you lose it. Etc.

Perhaps if we HAD insurance vice the "get around the WWII wage freeze pre-paid" system we have now, health service costs would be in line.

But maybe not, given the lawyers playing with that pie.

[Diogenes]

I have heard this repeated often, and I never thought to question it before. But upon a moments worth of thinking, it seems to me that this cannot be right.

I have actually done some research on the subject. I can flood the post with links or you can take my word for it.

Even so, this does not address my point. If inheritance of money and property is based on legitimacy, and legitimacy is determined by marriage, and since the adjudication of real estate and other estates are solely the province of the civil government, how can the civil government not be linked with the issue of marriage?

Even from the Civil government perspective, Marriage is at the least a legal contract. Ergo, the government must be involved in it on that basis if no other.

[MSimon]

You see, families have an interest in insuring that their related genes get passed into the future, and likewise that their genetic descendants are cared for by the family. This is why bastards and sluts have a negative stigma. It calls into question whether someone is a blood relative or not.

Yeah. But birth control and DNA testing negates a lot of that argument these days. AIDS has yet to be dealt with. It will get solved in time.

The culture will change in line with the new technology. Over time.

BTW kcd,

You whining tone (oh, woe is me) is not a good way to convince people. Accept that what ever cause you champion is inevitable and carry on accordingly. And don't take temporary setbacks as a permanent condition. And for God's sake patience. Cultures take 50 to 100 years or more to change. Be in it for the long haul. Take your losses like a man.

And I say that even though I believe many of your "solutions" will cause more problems than they fix.

I have been fighting against the drug war for 40 years. I have another 5 to 10 years to go. A retired LEO that I know says the drug war will be over 5 years after the first state legalizes pot. Which could happen this November. But when I started 40 years ago I assumed that prohibition would end and acted according. Back then people assured me - not a snowball's chance in hell. Now the goal is in sight.

[MSimon]

Even so, this does not address my point. If inheritance of money and property is based on legitimacy, and legitimacy is determined by marriage, and since the adjudication of real estate and other estates are solely the province of the civil government, how can the civil government not be linked with the issue of marriage?

I provided an example of marriage being the province of ecclesiastical governance. Why does it have to be the province of civil government?

Correct answer: civil government is not needed to regulate marriage.

Further example: the Catholic Church decides whether a Catholic marriage is valid. Their judgment is upheld in civil courts.

Marriage used to be the province of religion. We should return to that state. Conservatism don't you know.

[Diogenes]

For those willing to abide by Jewish law ecclesiastical courts adjudicate marriage disputes.

i.e. you get your day in court, just not a government court.

The courts are called Bet Din and their decisions are recognized by American law. I know they can handle commercial disputes in America. I'm not sure if they are currently authorized to adjudicate marriage disputes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beth_din

Yep. Divorce is in the mix.

If churches handled marriage law then getting married would not be a political act.

The less the government is involved in culture the better I like it.

I think that it is impossible to separate legality and morality.

When England was ruled by a King, they claimed his authority was granted to him by God. This is why clergy always officiated at coronations, to make sure that point was understood by the masses. During that time, to be legal was to be moral because both the legal and moral authorities were assumed to derived their power from the same source.


This country changed that dynamic. We no longer regarded a King to be our moral authority nor our legal authority, but instead they cited "the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them". This was the mindset for most of our nations existence, that the Legal must also be the moral, and the morality is that which was based on the Judeo-Christian ethics.

The notion that they could or should be separate is relatively recent. (ever since Roosevelt/Truman stacked the Federal courts with "progressive" judges.)

As I and others have mentioned constantly. All laws are imposed morality. It is never a question of IF morality is going to be imposed by law, it is always a question of WHO's. I personally think the Judeo-Christian version was fairly benign, and I suspect it (in the guise of the Protestant Reformation) was what drug Europe out of the Dark ages, and likewise what made America so powerful before the ACLU type sappers came out to molest it.

[Diogenes]

BTW I'm all for private culture wars. i.e. get out on a street corner and denounce what ever cultural infirmities you please. (or the modern equivalent - a teleministry).

Government can no more make a people "moral" than it can make them rich.

It may not be able to make them moral, but it can most certainly make them immoral. Notice the narcotic effect free money has on people.

The United States Government Senators and Representatives have become pushers for the "money drug", and the countless "money drug" addicts throughout the land simply cannot help themselves. Not only are the Senators and Reps "pushers", but they are themselves "addicts."

[MSimon]

Even from the Civil government perspective, Marriage is at the least a legal contract. Ergo, the government must be involved in it on that basis if no other.

Jewish Courts are perfectly capable of judging marriage contracts and their judgment is upheld in civil courts. In fact under current Jewish law you can't get married without a contract. And the contract can be specific to the individuals involved. Or it can be generic.

i.e. under Jewish Law a prenup is REQUIRED.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketubah

I dunno D. Sometimes I think you are not paying attention.

I take the Conservative position: RETURN marriage to the religious authorities.

[Diogenes]

How did we get here? Again, government interference. Back in the 1970s

WW2 wage controls started it.

Very likely. The last article I read on the issue pointed to the 1970s, but wage controls in the 40s would seem to fit the bill as well.