The Reality Of Progressivism

[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.

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."

Which reminds me of William Burroughs on heroin. Something like:

"Selling is more addictive than using."

[kcdodd]

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.
...

Yes, gay people asking for marriage is insignificant to you, if you are not gay. For those people who actively work against that cause, and other causes designed to take away from gay people, my words are very apt. If that is not you, then why are you taking my words personally.

Political groups are formed to make it illegal to adopt children, even within your own family. Keep you from visiting your spouse in the hospital. etc, etc. How are people supposed to form families, one of the most basic rights of human nature, when the tools to do so are denied them because of who they are. The "choice" here, and has always been, whether to lay back and do nothing, be quiet, wait our turn, hope noone notices us, or confront those very ideas which are stopping us from having the same things everyone else does. If you don't want to hear about it then tough, you shouldn't have come into a political thread.

You whining tone (oh, woe is me) is not a good way to convince people.

So, fighting back against prejudiced ideas is "oh, woe is me"? As opposed to your "oh, woe is me I have too much taxes".

[Diogenes]

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.

I'm pretty sure I used neither the word "Love" nor the word "Hate." These are your words which you are attempting to stuff into the mouth of a strawman version of me.

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.

I believe I said it does nothing beneficial for society. What difference if Gay people cheat? No bastard offspring, no foul.

When it is done by straight people it benefits society. When it is done by gay people it damages society.

When done by mating couples, it serves a beneficial purpose in society. When done by any other entities, it makes the concept into a silly ritual without any benefit to society, and thereby undermines the beneficial purpose that it serves with mating couples.

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.

Apples and Oranges. Gay people are usually substantially more intelligent, more talented and Make more money than average. They have produced works that have brightened the lives of human kind, and have contributed substantially to the overall productivity of human kind.

All of these things are beneficial to society, but they are not of equal value with creating the MEMBERS of society. What is the value of a child compared to that of a sonnet? Is a life worth a song? Who would trade a Painting for their son or daughter? What profit it a man to gain the whole world and lose his own soul?

In biology, the "soul" is the children. To families (biological groupings of similar genes) their "soul" is their gene line. Evolution selected for this characteristic. Those genes which did not express it are either absorbed or extinct.

Each species evolved to insure progeny, and much of the way each species behaves revolves around this purpose. With humans, customs are evolved to suit this same end. A society made up of mating couples and offspring can last forever. A society made up of non mating couples or trios etc. can only survive for one generation, if that.

The Benefit of creating the society cannot be compared to the benefit of serving and entertaining that society.

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.

Well, i'm provoking hatred from you. That is not my intention, but I am not surprised that it is your reaction. You do not like what I have to say, and I don't blame you. I wouldn't like it either. As Benjamin Franklin said, "It is a horrible thing to witness a beautiful theory being beaten to death by a gang of ruthless facts."

Your beef is not with me, but with nature. I am merely the conveyor of these ugly truths.

[Diogenes]

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.

Good point. As Ace of Spades pointed out, since medical costs are guaranteed to occur, why would you call it Insurance? Insurance is supposed to be what we use to cover an unexpected disaster. Not routine and highly probable medical needs.

[MSimon]

As opposed to your "oh, woe is me I have too much taxes".

I'm confident the taxes will be repealed. And I work towards that end. Not only that - I have a rational basis for my position.

I'm rather agnostic when it comes to gay marriage. I don't see where gays gain anything from having their private lives regulated by marriage that can't be gained in other ways.

Reminds me of the stupid anti-prohibitionists who say tax my drugs extra just don't send me to jail. They will get the taxes. It will not be a good thing. A commodity that should cost $1 a pound will cost $800 a pound with the proposed taxes (California). The tax is probably high enough to support a thriving black market. A lose - lose in the long run.

[MSimon]

When done by any other entities, it makes the concept into a silly ritual without any benefit to society, and thereby undermines the beneficial purpose that it serves with mating couples.

There are lots of silly rituals around. Some are of benefit others are vestigial.

Cheap DNA testing will probably alter the nature of marriage. Like the presumed paternity rule in marriage. It made sense before DNA testing. Not so much these days.

If historical DNA research is any guide about 10% of children born are illegitimate if strict paternity (DNA evidence) is the guide.

[kcdodd]

As has been stated before, marriage has many legal implications. Not the least of which is property. And I am also atheist, so I would rather not have to submit church law either.

"The Constitution says that all men are created equal, and it doesn't say that all men are created equal except for gays. Just like everyone else who is born in this country, gays are endowed by their creator, God, with inalienable rights, and among those are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. At birth, whether your are born in Russia, Cuba, South America, or New York, you are born equal. The difference is that our babies grow up to live free." -Barry Goldwater

Of course, it was the declaration of independence, and not the constitution.

[Diogenes]

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.

Aren't we getting our evolutionary cart before our horse? A point I often make is that Mores and customs evolved under conditions which humanity has endured during MOST of it's existence. And most of humanities existence has been spent in small tribes and villages, where morality is not just a good idea, it was necessary for survival.

I constantly hear of people picking on the Arabs for making their women wear uncomfortable and bulky clothing which disguises their figure and features. It occurs to me that the harsher an environment is to survival, the more critical it is to avoid having too many mouths to feed, because if enough food cannot be produced, someone or someones will end up dying. This places the unfortunate people who live in harsh environments in the unenviable position of having to balance nature's unceasing urge to reproduce with the environments ability to support the population.

More likely through the experience of tragedy, did people seize on the burka method of birth control. As the pain of a male deprived of sex increase dramatically with having to endure the dangling prospect of it being visible and enticing in front of him, so does the sudden loss of opposing will power translate into unfortunate events.

I surmise, that the covering up of females is a moral custom necessitated by the nature of males *, and the demands of a harsh environment. It is axiomatic that the advent of wealth and prosperity brings with it a loosening of the clothing and the mores, and with that, People are just trying to impose their own experiences and belief system on another group of people who have had a different and more difficult road to the present.

If the Arabs become prosperous enough long enough, they will become as debauched as the "civilized" world.



* Females have no comprehension of the powerful urges males have to live with. One woman who was given testosterone injections to treat a medical condition said: "Oh my God! Now I understand what men go through. I want to go out and Rape someone! "

[Diogenes]

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?

If no money or property is involved, then it wouldn't need to be the province of civil government. Do you know of any marriages that don't involve money or property?

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

Then who decides who gets the money and the property?

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.

I'm trying to follow your thinking, but I am just not getting it. Marriage affects the outcome of all sorts of civil legal decisions. Who has the authority to authorize medical care if someone is unconscious? If non-married, the next of kin. If married, the spouse.

Does this not require the government to recognize the spouse as having legal authority as a consequence of the marriage?

[MSimon]

As has been stated before, marriage has many legal implications. Not the least of which is property. And I am also atheist, so I would rather not have to submit church law either.

"The Constitution says that all men are created equal, and it doesn't say that all men are created equal except for gays. Just like everyone else who is born in this country, gays are endowed by their creator, God, with inalienable rights, and among those are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. At birth, whether your are born in Russia, Cuba, South America, or New York, you are born equal. The difference is that our babies grow up to live free." -Barry Goldwater

All "men" are not created equal. Half of them (men) can't deliver babies. The other half can't (at this time) impregnate women.

BTW there are "churches" for agnostics. The Universal Life Church for one. Or if you want to get far out on a limb The Neo-American Church. Or for a more traditional "no God religion" you might consider Buddhism.

Or if you wanted a tradition with a more developed jurisprudence you could go Hindu. It is full of stuff that is as unbelievable as "son of God" and "resurrection".

Of course a Tantric tradition might be more to your liking. The essence of Tantra is ritualistic violation of norms in order to free yourself of should and oughts.

BTW instead of marriage have you considered adoption?

Such laws as there are about giving birth only apply to half the population. I knew it. I just knew it. I'm being discriminated against.

[Diogenes]

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.

Sounds like a very astute methodology. Much is the misery that could be avoided if this notion was universal.

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

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

I get that a lot. Then I Pounce!

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

[kcdodd]

In states like Arkansas, it is now illegal for someone to adopt if they are in a gay relationship. Luckily I moved to the progressive state of Texas were at least one of the parents can gain legal adoption.

And I would have thought you would take more kindly to a quote from your libertarian/conservative buddy Barry Goldwater.

And no, I will not be a part of any religion. Except perhaps physics, if you call that a religion.

[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."

Which reminds me of William Burroughs on heroin. Something like:

"Selling is more addictive than using."

I would like to add to the list of pseudo drugs:

Television.
Sex.
Pornography.
Gambling.
Eating.

Basically, anything that pumps up the serotonin and stimulates the pleasure centers to the point of obsessive behavior. Not all drugs are ingested. Some are created in the body in response to certain stimuli.

Sex comes to mind.

Not all drugs are bad. Some drugs aren't bad at all to some people. To others, almost anything is bad. I blame genetic diversity. What might be a feature in one evolutionary scheme, is a bug in another.

I think all humans are sensitive to the drug of power over others. Money is just a subset of that.

[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.
...

Yes, gay people asking for marriage is insignificant to you, if you are not gay. For those people who actively work against that cause, and other causes designed to take away from gay people, my words are very apt. If that is not you, then why are you taking my words personally.

Yes, I'm NOT gay. Most people aren't. As I said, most people don't care which direction your plumbing points, as long as you're not continually forcing them to pay attention. When you force their attention on it, are you getting positive responses?

Taking your words personally? I'm trying to give you advice to advance what you want. Did you read the whole thing or just to the point where you felt you could blow off the rest of my post because I'm obviously a homophobic hater who doesn't want you to have your shiny toy now?

There's a wide range between phobic and philic, it's not a binary condition. Personally, I don't like brats who have screaming meltdown tantrums in stores to get what they want. In most cases, the brat learns quickly that the tantrum doesn't get them what they want, and they stop doing it. They instead get what they want through other means, or decide they want something different.

The "choice" here, and has always been, whether to lay back and do nothing, be quiet, wait our turn, hope noone notices us, or confront those very ideas which are stopping us from having the same things everyone else does. If you don't want to hear about it then tough, you shouldn't have come into a political thread.

Going on as you are, I don't think you're going to get what you want as you want it, when you want it. You want it now, you don't want to wait and work for it, so you figure that by getting in people's faces on the issue you're going to advance your cause. The problem is, you're giving the very people who WANT an excuse to bar you from those things the reasons they need to continue their objections. Congratulations, you're shooting yourself in the foot.

I don't think confrontation is going to work and will be quite counterproductive, and I was trying to get that across to you. But feel free to discount what I'm telling you because it's not what you want to hear. And also MSimon's and Diogenes' advice. It's good stuff - even if you don't want to hear it.

[Diogenes]

When done by any other entities, it makes the concept into a silly ritual without any benefit to society, and thereby undermines the beneficial purpose that it serves with mating couples.

There are lots of silly rituals around. Some are of benefit others are vestigial.

Vestigial was often once useful. When conditions changed the vestigial component lost it's usefulness. If conditions change back, what was once vestigial may become functional.

Cheap DNA testing will probably alter the nature of marriage. Like the presumed paternity rule in marriage. It made sense before DNA testing. Not so much these days.

A system in use by an organism will continue to be used as long as it is beneficial. The inability of women to hide paternity will eventually guarantee that they won't try to do so. Marriage was never a guaranteed insurer of fidelity, but it was a probability enhancer. The utility of this function waxed and waned depending on the extant conditions. Harsher times made it more sure. Prosperous times made it less so.

Marriage has been declining as an institution for decades, mostly due to the conditions of prosperity and the interference of natural relationship by the government. Before the government made husbands not absolutely essential, women were far more hesitant to place their own lives and that of their offspring in mortal jeopardy through reckless sex. They neither had the strong urges of the male, nor the risk taking mindset.

It was far more strategically important to find the best male they could, and take up with him.

Prosperity and the Government made this methodology less important, so women could select for sex partners males with different characteristics than they would want for a long term stable partner. They could find "prettier" boys, with more exciting personalities and boldness of nature. Often "Bad boys" as it were. These are characteristics that women's hearts longs for as opposed to the stability that their minds tell them they should have. When the cheat, they try to obtain the best of both worlds. The boring mundane provider, and the handsome, sexy lover. This is win win for the woman and her lover, and lose lose for the hapless drone (and his family) supporting her.

If historical DNA research is any guide about 10% of children born are illegitimate if strict paternity (DNA evidence) is the guide.

Yup. That's how it works.


In any case, I predict marriage will continue to decline until economic conditions become harsh. Government dole for unwed mothers and attempts to force it from it's societal purpose will hasten that decline, but the laws of nature, like the laws of economics will eventually reassert themselves. When times get bad enough, Marriage will eventually resurge. Desperately so.