Outrage!

As of a few minutes ago, gay couples in Massachusetts may legally marry. Our more conservative readers might find this outrageous, but don't forget: Saddam Hussein was much worse.

Comments

[joe]

...?Societies? (like individual species) evolve over Time?

Yes, they do. And the relationship between case law and social mores has always been a feedback loop. Consider the definition of "cruel and unusual punishment." Many actions that had been widely accepted were struck down by the courts, an action that served to alter the public's perception of those punishments. But in most cases, there was already a minority opinion that had begun to pick up steam, that the courts picked up on.

Do you have any doubt that the Goodridge decision and the events following it are changing the public's opinion on the issue? Poor Lonewacko still can't forgive The Gay Lobby for looking so happy and harmless in their wedding photos, and thus misleading us about the evil in their hearts.

[thoreau]

Sen. Santorum-

(heh heh, I just said "Santorum", giggle giggle)

Will you be doing any of the bestiality? You've said elsewhere on this forum that you enjoy sex with beagles.

Seriously, though, I guess that MA will be the testing ground to find out whether gays really do destroy civilization when they get married. My bet is no, but I guess we'll get actual data one way or another soon enough.

[Greg Piper]

Gay marriage destroy civilization? No, of course not. The issue of judges making decisions properly reserved for the people's representatives is dicier.

[Patrick]

?heterosexual marriage? is beneficial to society whereas that is not necessarily the case with homosexual marriage

Name one benefit to society of hetero marriage that will not apply equally to homo marriage.

I've had many homosexuals friends over the years, and until very recently none of them ever showed any interest in being "married"

Oh yeah, that's right. All we *really* want is to fuck around with every guy in sight, like animals. It's not like the availability or even encouragement of marriage will help stabilize us. Oh wait, that's just wishful thinking.

Why do I get the feeling that your solution to this problem involves a small elite group of ?intellectually superior? Atheists telling us what is ?right? and ?wrong? (i.e. Communism)?

I don't know why you get that feeling. All I was saying is that history is full of examples of the majority being wrong. Therefore it is foolish to dismiss an idea because the majority may disagree with it. And yes, I may be an intellectually superior atheist, but surprisingly enough, I am not (nor have I even been) a communist.

[Other Phil]

SteveInClearwater, there was a copy of the Penthouse Magazine style sheet in Harpers a couple of decades ago ... their standard is "come," not "cum".

Perhaps Sen. Santorum sticks to Penthouse rather than Hustler.

[R C Dean]

alkali - thanks for the "clarifications." That's what I get for relying on newspaper accounts of what is going on in Massachusetts.

I still think the Court in Massachusetts is seriously overreaching. What it has done is not adjudication, it is legislation, in effect and intent.

To the extent social mores have evolved to the point that "equal protection" requires gay marriage, well, I would rather monitor the evolution of social mores via a democratic mechanism as opposed to an oligarchic one. Certainly the court's reasoning on this point has very little of the precedential support that used to be a hallmark of common law.

[garym]

"Name one benefit to society of hetero marriage that will not apply equally to homo marriage."

Patrick, you're making things far to easy for your opponents. Family stability for children born within the marriage by normal biological means is the obvious one.

This discussion is proving very interesting for me. I'm not fully convinced by either side, so I can poke holes in everyone's arguments. 🙂

Except Walter's. That's so easy it's unfair.

[The Serpent]

Phil: Hey, a bunch of us just voted, and the Majority agreed it was OK to go over to The Serpent's house and rape his wife. I expect to hear no disagreement from him, given his spirited defense of simple Majoritarianism.

I think you are in for a surprise when you arrive, as obviously you haven?t comprehended much of what I have said.

Although, I guess by your ?logic? all murders volunteer to go to jail once they have committed murder?

Phil: Next, we'll explain how dictionaries are not static.

The problem for you is that:

1) Dictionaries do not give definitions they only provide usage.

2) Just because a term is listed in the Dictionary doesn?t imply that meaning provided is logically consistent. If you aren?t surprised by the revelation that the Bible isn?t inerrant, then it should surprise you even less to discover that the Dictionary isn?t inerrant (in terms of logical consistency) either.

3) The fact that most Individuals believe language and mathematics are completely separate branches of human knowledge doesn?t help the situation either.

[Harry]

It's amazing how some issues simply make no difference unless we talk about them.

[SteveInClearwater]

First off, Sen Rick, if you really kept up with your gay porn, you would know the correct spelling is CUM.

Now to Greg...The elected representatives do not have the job of passing unconstitutional laws. They can be part of amending the constitution, but as it is currently written (in Mass for at least one state) the judges are simply doing their job.

[Sen._John_Kerry]

I'm against gay marriage. If a man can't find a suger mommy, he's not trying hard enough.

[SteveInMuddywater]

The judges stretched so much in this opinion that I doubt they'll be able to snap back.

[Patrick]

Family stability for children born within the marriage by normal biological means is the obvious one

Well garym, for obvious reasons I was not thinking of the children.... But even still, if a lesbian has a child, is that child not better off with the stability of two parents??

[Me]

That's the kind of witty yet senseless comment that make liberals feel good.

[thoreau]

Those judges may have stretched the wording of the MA state constitution, but just remember that what they did wasn't as bad as what Saddam Hussein would have done. So that makes it OK 🙂

[Brian]

You know Greg, I sympathize with where you're coming from here, but I'm pretty much resigned to the fact that federalism as a guiding principle in this country is dead.

Some people are getting a bit more freedom, and no one is losing any.

We should probably take a net gain however we can get it.

[dhex]

no! it might catch TEH GAY!

i have read an article or two where the harm of gay marriage was laid out, and most of them seem to revolve around "what do i tell my children????"

and that it'll be a crime against common useage of the word marriage.

bibliophiles or not, surely there's a better argument than that.

[Patrick]

Patrick, you're making things far to easy for your opponents. Family stability for children born within the marriage by normal biological means is the obvious one.

Actually, I was assuming nobody would drag out something so obviously inapplicable. Of course two men or two women aren't going to have a child within their marriage "by normal biological means". But "family stability" applies just as much to gays who have kids. Doesn't it?

[The Lonewacko Blog]

The Lonewacko Blog has no official position on gay marriage other than as part of the wider cultural war. Therefore, we will reprint the following comment we just left at Captain Drum's place:

The first couple married in S.F. were two matronly old ladies. They looked so harmless!

Unfortunately, few people looked beneath the surface:

The author of the NOW paper in which the Rule of Thumb was fabricated, by the way, was Del Martin, a lesbian separatist and one of the first two lesbians married in Frisco, so you'll pardon me if I don't jump for joy over this great advance in civil rights, at least as it pertains to her.

[Andrew Lynch]

I think it's hilarious that Jesse calls out the "Saddam Hussein was much worse" meme, while the Accuracy In Media blogad directly to its right points to an uppity rant at AIM by Cliff Kincaid that says, "She [Deborah Norville] could have pointed out that none of what has been captured in the photos compares with what Saddam Hussein?or most Arab governments and Islamic terrorists?are guilty of."

HAHAHAHA! That made my day.

[The Lonewacko Blog]

Poor Lonewacko still can't forgive The Gay Lobby for looking so happy and harmless in their wedding photos, and thus misleading us about the evil in their hearts.

Hey, Joe. Did you read the link provided? Perhaps we might want to look beneath the images provided to us by the various lobbying groups rather than taking them at face value.

[garym]

Patrick: Well, yes, but you did say, "Name one benefit to society of hetero marriage that will not apply equally to homo marriage." Childbearing without external assistance happens only within heterosexual marriages, so the benefit doesn't apply "equally."

And yes, I am being an annoying nitpicker today, I know.

[Johnny]

A view from outside : America freedom rights have corrupted the national culture and tries to tell other countries to destroy their natural culture and follow their 21st century corrupted culture in the Name Of Human rights.

Even Senators supported and give in to this gay marriages in the Name Of Human rights.

For Heaven sake, please don't tell other nations about Human Rights which is much better than Amarica. Is America a Christian country ??

I can't see where the Holy Bible says it is OK for gay marriages !

[crimethink]

The only good thing that can come from this is to show conservatives what happens when an equality-obsessed government gets in the marriage business. Perhaps they'll consider the state's acknowledgement of marriage meaningless without the agreement of their church, family, and community, where gay marriage will have a much harder time getting accepted -- and where marriage should have been dealt with in the first place.

Of course, they haven't learned the lesson about the govt getting in the drug business, so that might be wishful thinking.

[The Serpent]

Patrick: I don't know why you get that feeling. All I was saying is that history is full of examples of the majority being wrong. Therefore it is foolish to dismiss an idea because the majority may disagree with it. And yes, I may be an intellectually superior atheist, but surprisingly enough, I am not (nor have I even been) a communist.

I mean no offense Mr. Patrick, but in my experiences an ?Atheist? is merely a "Communist" who isn?t fully self-aware that he actually is a Communist.

Okay, so history is full of examples where the majority turned out to be wrong (at least if you apply a generous dosage of hindsight). But isn?t Today (i.e. the Present) merely Tomorrow?s Past?

Look, 2000 years ago Gladiatorial contests were considered acceptable and moral, but in hindsight we consider this form of ?entertainment? to be highly immoral. Could you please provide me a list of ALL the things our Society currently considers ?moral? that will be considered ?immoral? in another 2000 years?

If you can?t then I would say we are stuck with Democracy as the most advanced form of governance available to us.

[Phil]

The problem for you is that:

1) Dictionaries do not give definitions they only provide usage.

Ummm, no, actually that appears to be your problem.

Did you just get tired of trolling The Raving Atheist, or what?

[Ivor the Engine Driver]

The judges stretched so much in this opinion that I doubt they'll be able to snap back.

There was little interpretation involved. Either you have equal protection under the law or you don't.

[joe]

"Hey, Joe. Did you read the link provided? Perhaps we might want to look beneath the images provided to us by the various lobbying groups rather than taking them at face value."

I read your "blockbuster" on the happy couple months ago. I don't hold it against them that they were right on this issue way before its time.

You do know that the pieces you link to only undermine your credibility, right? I mean, Bill Bennett? Who cares?

[Walter Wallis]

marc and joe, either you have never been to California or never read a paper here. There is a thriving industry filing big buck lawsuits for hostile working environment or for perceived racial insult to apartment seekers. Not acts, words. Say the secret word and the duck comes down.

[eunonymon]

for the folks who insist that gay marriage will make it impossible to birth enough sweet aryan...er...american bundles of joy, i'd like to even assume their premise to be true, and deliver a haiku:

world population
too high; food supply too low.
gay marriage can help!

[Dick Cheney]

I predict full-blown bestiality in the streets of Boston by Wednesday.

My prayers have been answered! Too bad we're not having the convention in Boston 🙁

[speedwell]

"...in my experiences an ?Atheist? is merely a "Communist" who isn?t fully self-aware that he actually is a Communist."

If you pulled your head out of your ass for a change, you might accumulate enough experience[s] to see how very, very, very wrong you are.

(Full Disclosure: the writer is a libertarian, anarcho-capitalist, Neo-Objectivist atheist.)

[Travis Felshaw]

America = Freedom.
Love it or leave it.

Side note response to a comment made by another reader: Of all the areas which have legalized same sex unions I don't know of any which are engaging in bestiality. It seems uneducated and naive to associate the two. But then perhaps society might be better off basing their policies and laws upon generalizations, such as 'politicians are crooks', or 'women should be bare-foot and pregnant.' It would be just such archaic, neanderthal, backwards thinking that would undermine America and what the founding fathers seem to have originally intended.

The Sacred Institution of Marriage: Heterosexuals have been desecrating this institution for hundreds (thousands?) of years (just look at the number of recorded instances of adultery and divorces). The hypothesis that homosexuals will 'undermine the fabric of society'? Seems to me that heterosexuals have already done this.

[Right Back Atcha]

in my experiences an ?Atheist? is merely a "Communist" who isn?t fully self-aware that he actually is a Communist.

Wow . . . what a fucking moron, especially when you take into account A) Rand's athiesm, and B) the communitarian thinking and dogma of most religions.

That's right, Serpent, it's the bad ol' athiests who are the Commies. Just keep repeating it, and it will be true! Clap harder!

Feh. It's like listening to the meaningless hoots and screeches of a goddamn monkey.

[eunonymon]

[from the heart of statistics and observation... for all you majority-mongers]

Andersen/Taylor, Sociology: The Essentials 3e

"Compulsory heterosexuality is the idea that heterosexual identity is not a choice but an expectation."

"The majority of people in the U.S. [~54%] think homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle."

"Better educated people are more likely to think that homosexuality is acceptable."

"Heterosexism refers to the institutionalization of heterosexuality as the only socially legitimate sexual orientation."

[joe]

I'm concerned about all these unmarried gay couples living in sin, and undermining our society's family structure.

Make an honest woman of him, fer chrissakes! Whattsamatta with you?

[Hans]

Johnny,

Here in a America, we have what is called the "Separation of Church and State," which means that our laws are not governed by what the Bible says (or doesn't say).

As to human rights, exactly how is allowing gay marriages a violation of human rights?

The only problem I have with this result is the further empowerment of activist judges. Which is why this decision is appropriate, now that everyone is celebrating Brown vs. Board, as that was one of the big cases that started all of this judicial activism.

[The Serpent]

Phil: Ummm, no, actually that appears to be your problem.

Apparently you aren?t very familiar with the method by which Dictionaries are compiled.

Of course as an Atheist (word-mangler) I would expect you to obfuscate the truth whenever you perceive it violated your sacred dogma.

[Patrick]

I mean no offense Mr. Patrick, but in my experiences an "Atheist" is merely a "Communist" who isn't fully self-aware that he actually is a Communist.

Well, that's a switch! I've been told before that I "just haven't found the right woman yet", but I've never been accused of being unaware of being a communist before.

And by the way, the fact that I don't believe in God in no way causes me to care one whit what you believe in. Notice how I didn't even bring up the issue--you did!

And further by the way, you may leave out the condescending "Mr." before my name.

[The Serpent]

speedwell: (Full Disclosure: the writer is a libertarian, anarcho-capitalist, Neo-Objectivist atheist.)

I?m an ?Atheist? when it comes to ?Anarchy? ? I lack-o-belief in it.

But maybe I am wrong and you can show me the error of my ways?

When I ask an Anarchist to define ?Anarchy? they typically say something along the lines of ?Anarchy is the absence of a government (or ?State?)?.

To which I respond ? Animals do not have governments or ?states? so does that make animals Anarchist just like You?

If you answer YES, then I would assert that Democracy is an Objectively better system than ?the Law of the Jungle? (i.e. no law or ?Anarchy?).

If you answer NO, then that would seem to indicate that there is something more to Anarchy than the absence of Government that you aren?t telling us about?

I?m guessing that (like all closet-communists) you also believe that ?free markets? are actually ?free? (i.e. without ?cost?)?

[The Serpent]

R-B-A-Y: That's right, Serpent, it's the bad ol' atheists who are the Commies. Just keep repeating it, and it will be true!

It?s True, that?s why we keep repeating it.

But I understand that the only way for you to deny the future is by first denying the past.

[Frank]

Damn. Must be a slow day at free republic.

[Gary Gunnels]

Brian,

It should be noted that this was a decision of the state courts, not the federal courts; indeed, the anti-federalists here are of course those who oppose gay marraige.

[Patrick]

Must be a slow day at free republic.

LOL

[The Serpent]

Patrick: Well, that's a switch! I've been told before that I "just haven't found the right woman yet", but I've never been accused of being unaware of being a communist before.

Political beliefs are merely a manifestation of one?s more deeply held Religious beliefs.

Atheism is ultimately a personal manifestation of Solipsism.

Communism is a political manifestation of Solipsism.

Patrick: And by the way, the fact that I don't believe in God in no way causes me to care one whit what you believe in.

I think you meant to say the:

the fact that I pretend I don?t believe in ?God? in no way causes me to care one whit what you believe in.

You believe in a ?God?, in fact I would accuse you of believing in several. You just pretend that your ?gods? aren?t ?Gods? so you don?t have to defend them as ?gods?.

Patrick: Notice how I didn't even bring up the issue--you did!

Keep pretending that there are no logical inconsistencies in your own beliefs, while anyone who disagrees with you is insane. Eventually this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Patrick: And further by the way, you may leave out the condescending "Mr." before my name.

Only a word-mangler would consider a sign of respect as condescending.

[Patrick]

OK... I'm moving to another thread now. One where I can express my beliefs rather than having them told to me. Please, please, please don't follow me.

[gofish]

This is an academic issue. Marriage is older than the hills; it will still be there (as we currently understand it) when all this is forgotten.
The Massachusetts ruling will not survive because it allows any state to impose its quirky laws on the others by proxy. There is no evidence that the people of Mass wanted or needed this and there is no prospect that the rest of the country will go along.
Of course, that doesn't stop publicity hounds from seeking their 15 minutes of fame. I guess we have 15 minutes, so why not?

[The Mongoose]

Sorry Patrick -- I think you've got a stalker.

[me, myself and I]

So what's wrong with solipsism? I do think the world outside the self is unknowable (at least without the aid of some pretty interesting drugs). It's not the same as narcissism, and does not preclude empathy / compassion.

[dhex]

"You just pretend that your ?gods? aren?t ?Gods? so you don?t have to defend them as ?gods.?

ok, you're stealing my schtick now. and i ain't fuckin' having it. i stole that schtick fair and square from someone else, dammit.

all of my gods are lowercase, helvetica, 12 point, fwiw.

[TJ]

Serpent:
"You just pretend that your ?gods? aren?t ?Gods? so you don?t have to defend them as ?gods?."

Ah, but I can replicate the "miraculous" feats of my "gods", and have done so on many occasions. You can't make the same claim for your "God". Your "Gods" miracles are just so much "cold fusion".

Enjoy your faith.

[The Mongoose]

"I mean no offense Mr. Patrick, but in my experiences an ?Atheist? is merely a "Communist" who isn?t fully self-aware that he actually is a Communist."

You make no fucking sense. Atheism is the belief there is no god. Communism is an economic arrangement in which the labor class, either directly or via the state, owns the means of production. The logical connection between these is...?

Hint: the wrong answer includes the word "solipsism."

"You believe in a ?God?, in fact I would accuse you of believing in several. You just pretend that your ?gods? aren?t ?Gods? so you don?t have to defend them as ?gods?."

You make no fucking sense, part two. You should change your handle from "serpent" to "miss cleo," since you profess mind-reading ability.

Do you have anything other than emotionalist blather and unsubstantiated conjecture to bring to the discussion, or are you going to proudly continue exporting the freeper model of discussion to reason?

[Jon H]

Dammit, how are conservatives going to fight this?

Take a bunch of "married" gay men, strip them naked, put sacks on their heads ... I bet they do this stuff for fun at those bars like "the Manhole" in Chicago.

Stack them in pyramids, naked. That won't be a problem. Might as well have them play naked gay twister.

Have them perform sex acts on each other. Still, no problem!

Dammit! How can the GOP fight these people! They're invincible!

[TheoraJones]

Y'know, for all those "judicial activism" whiners, who say "Where in the constitution is privacy explicitly protected? Where is equality under the law guaranteed?" I'd just like to ask where exactly in the Constitution judges are allowed to overrule _any_ law becuase it's unconstitutional?

Nowhere, that's where.

So, you "strict constructionists" have to make a choice. You can have your Bill of Rights OR you can have the freedom to legislate bigotry. But you can't have both, and if you want to keep your guns, (and your free speech and your little dog, too!) you need to shut the hell up about your right to pass bigot laws. Because if you can pass bigot laws, you can pass "only the goverment gets to have guns" laws, too.

Chist, we've been suffering the scourge of an activist judiciary since freaking 1803. I'm beginning to suspect that it's sort of NECESSARY to the balance of powers.

Idiots.

[Phil]

There is no evidence that the people of Mass wanted or needed this . . .

Except for, you know, the gay and lesbian people of Mass.

Oh, right -- not people. Forgot. Once they want something that straight, white, Christian conservative people don't want, their interests cease to be of importance.

[Used to argue with the Sepent]

Ah, the Serpent must've been banned from The Agitator again...

[thoreau]

I just got an invitation in the mail for my aunt and uncle's 40th wedding anniversary celebration. Clearly there's at least one marriage that hasn't been undermined recently.

Really, instead of getting upset over gay marriage, I'd rather just look at the many happy marriages out there. If everybody will just try to learn from the happy couples and otherwise mind their own business, it seems to me that we'll all be fine.

[wants to know]

which thoreau is this?

[thoreau]

The real one.

[Confused Timmy]

Dear Mr. Serpent:

Does god hate fags like the signs say?

Confused Timmy
Age 10

[speedwell]

"The Massachusetts ruling will not survive because it allows any state to impose its quirky laws on the others by proxy."

No, it doesn't. That assertion has been conclusively debunked. The Full Faith and Credit principle does not apply in this or similar cases. I'm so sick and tired of educating people on this legally obvious, widely acknowledged point, that the research will be left as an exercise for the reader. The archives at volokh.com are a good enough place to get started.

[Fred]

Johnny said: Is America a Christian country ??

My response: It better not be.

[Phil]

I can't see where the Holy Bible says it is OK for gay marriages !

Fill in the blank: "Everyone should give a shit about this because ________________ ."

[Walter Wallis]

Timmy - No, I don't hate fags or democrats. They can't help it.

G*d

[Frank]

Who's G*d?

[R C Dean]

I also tend to believe that the real problem with what is going on in Massachusetts is that it is originating with the judicial branch. Some of the issues raised:

(1) Its pretty clear that this is an undemocratic result. The elected representatives and polls of the folks are all strongly opposed to gay marriage. The man/woman definition of marriage has been in the statute books for literally centuries, put their via the democratic process.

Say what you will about how democracy is limited in a constitutional republic, we should nonetheless be careful of overturning democratically supported institutions without a clear constitutional mandate. Democracy may suck, but it beats the hell out of rule by oligarchy. There's a balance here, and its my sense that the court overstepped its role.

(2) The Mass decision came in the form of an order to the legislature to pass certain statutes. That is highly unusual, and very disturbing. I have no beef with a court decision that says certain legislation is stricken from the books because the legislature had no constitutional power to pass it, but ordering a legislature about is a different, and disturbing, kettle of fish. Courts should adjudicate, not legislate.

(3) I have no dog in the fight over whether gay folks should "marry", but the legal reasoning in the court's decision is specious and weak. Far better to win these victories in the court of public opinion than have them handed down from the burning bush of the courts. Decisions like this erode the legitimacy of the judicial branch.

[joe]

I'm pretty sure the definition of terrorism that Justice uses in implementing the Patriot Act includes "backsassing conservatives."

So be careful, Jesse.

[MJ]

"Oh yeah, that's right. All we *really* want is to fuck around with every guy in sight, like animals. It's not like the availability or even encouragement of marriage will help stabilize us. Oh wait, that's just wishful thinking."-Patrick

It would appear so:

"Yarbrough,..., has gotten hitched to Rogahn...

But he says the concept of forever is``overrated'' and that he, as a bisexual, and Rogahn, who is gay, have chosen to enjoy an open marriage. ``I think it's possible to love more than one person and have more than one partner, not in the polygamist sense,'' he said.``In our case, it is, we have, an open marriage"-
http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=28184

Maybe these two are an aberration, maybe they are the norm. In an article that seems to be generally favorable to your side, it appears strange that a homosexual couple who have such contempt for the moral disciplines of marriage would be featured as the face of gay marriage in Massachusetts.

[Sen. Zell Miller (D-GA)]

Whatever Sen. Santorum says is how REAL Democrats feel.

[breaking news]

This just in, a gaping hole to the underword has opened up along the borders of Massachusetts. It's raining boiling tar. Dogs and cats are living together and will be applying for marriage licences in that state.

Life as we know it has ended, and it's all the fault of those "activist judges" in Massachusetts.

[Walter Wallis]

Hey - let me redefine words at will and I will rule the world.
I don't care too much what others do in their bedrooms, but they want to intrude in the privacy of my thoughts.
Unfuck 'em.

[garym]

Sitting here in Cambridge. Civilization has collapsed. The traffic light has just married the newsstand. Story at 11.

[Redshift]

The point is that the term ?Marriage? has had a well defined and accepted meaning in this country for over 200 years.

Yep, it's been well defined for 200 years. That's why we don't allow people of different races to marry, and give men all rights to their wives property when they marry, and don't allow divorce. It hasn't changed at all in 200 years, so it shouldn't change now.

[joe]

"The elected representatives and polls of the folks are all strongly opposed to gay marriage."

That's not actually true. The split is pretty close to even at this point.

"The man/woman definition of marriage has been... put their via the democratic process."

That's not actually true, either. The man/woman definition of marriage was put there by monarchs and theocrats.

[Lisa Simpson]

Mass. will also be inundated with horny cicadas seeking marriage licenses.

[MJ]

"...the anti-federalists here are of course those who oppose gay marraige."-Gary Gunnels

No, simply stated, federalism (as it pertains to state's rights) simply is not a legitimate issue here. The pro-gay marriage side is using federalism merely as a tactic to undermine a possible constitutional amendment manuever by their opponents, they do not actually subscribe to it. They cannot, if they truly believe in the basis of their main argument: "equality".

If you really believe gay marriage is a matter equal rights, how can a gay marriage that is valid in Massachusetts be invalid in, say, Oklahoma? I don't see this as being acceptable to the homsexual activists. Oklahoma's position will be challenged in federal court, if not under the Full Faith & Credit clause than under the "equal protection" clause of the 14th amendment. If the courts buy into the "equality" argument, than gay marriage will be imposed on all the states. Whatever happens, the "pro" side is either lying about their interest in federalism or they do not understand the logic of their own argument.

[Mark S.]

So atheist are commies, huh?

"You cannot serve both God and money." Matthew 6:24; Kyje 16:13

"...it is easier for a camel to go through the eye fo a needle that for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." Matthew 19:24; Mark 10:25; Luke 18:25

"...woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort." Luke 6:24

"Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; for one's life does not consist in the abundance of possessions." Luke 12:15

"Sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven." Luke 18:22; Mark 10:21; Matthew 19:21

"What is highly valued among men is detestable in God's sight." Luke 16:15

Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Jesus.

[Mark S.]

Sorry, that should have been:

So atheists are commies, huh?

[Mark S.]

Oh and "kyje" should have been "Luke."

[Pavel]

I don't care too much what others do in their bedrooms, but they want to intrude in the privacy of my thoughts.

I'm sorry you're having irrepressible homosexual thoughts as a result of this ruling, Walter, but it's really none of our concern.

Of course nothing that will happen as a result of this ruling will change most conservatives' minds. The damage wrought by gay marriage will simply be viewed as insidious, stealthy and other kinds of indemonstrable.

[alkali]

Just a couple of clarifications on R C Dean's post:

1) The man/woman definition of marriage has been in the statute books for literally centuries, put their via the democratic process.

Actually, the Massachusetts statutes don't specify the gender of a married couple. (That having been said, the Mass. court did observe that that was the common understanding before moving on to the consitutional question.)

2) The Mass decision came in the form of an order to the legislature to pass certain statutes.

No, it didn't. What the court ordered was that town clerks issue marriage licenses to otherwise qualified gay couples. Ordering state officials to obey state law is what state courts often do. The court stayed its order (i.e., put it on hold) for six months to allow the legislature to pass any legislation it thought might be required to address any issues created by the court's order.

3) I have no dog in the fight over whether gay folks should "marry", but the legal reasoning in the court's decision is specious and weak.

Unclear why you think so. There is a very strong equality provision in the Mass. constitution put there in 1976. In the last 20 years, the Mass. legislature has enacted statutes granting gay people equal rights in every other area of public life. Accordingly, as a matter of state law, it would seem that there is a reasonable argument (even if you disagree) that denying gay people marriage licenses violates the equality provision of the Mass. constitution.

[The Serpent]

thoreau: Seriously, though, I guess that MA will be the testing ground to find out whether gays really do destroy civilization when they get married. My bet is no, but I guess we'll get actual data one way or another soon enough.

The real question is who gets to decide what the term ?Marriage? means when you live in a ?Democracy?.

A lot of people were somewhat surprised to discover that apparently it isn?t the Majority who gets to make the call.

Ahhh, but in the end Karma is never actually thwarted.

[garym]

What complicates things is that marriage is inherently "de-equalizing." People who are married in the eyes of the law are treated differently in certain respects from people who aren't, and that's the point of the law. In some cases it's to the advantage of married people, in some cases to their disadvantage (e.g., higher income taxes). It's not clear that the court is striking down inequality simply by changing the conditions under which one can get married. There are, for example, people in Massachusetts who might like to get married in groups larger than two. They still can't, so there is an inequality. The question is: Is it an inequality which the courts can address under the state Constitution? Is prohibiting same-sex marriage an unjustified denial of equality, but prohibiting polygamy not? The answers are unclear, and it bothers me that the issue has been addressed by court fiat rather than legislative process.

[Walter Wallis]

G*d is L*ve!

[joe]

Serpant, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman will go before Massachusetts voters in two years.

And after two years of the sky not falling, we're going to win. Big. It's about even now, so the forces of light and progress will probably beat your side by about 60/40.

On that day, (or a few weeks before, when they realize their "Eternal Jew"-inspired ads aren't reversing the polling, conservatives will stop complaining about tyranny of the minority and the need for democratic action, and begin complaining about tyranny of the majority. We're at war with East Asia, we've always been at war with East Asia.

[Jon H]

MJ writes: "Maybe these two are an aberration, maybe they are the norm. In an article that seems to be generally favorable to your side, it appears strange that a homosexual couple who have such contempt for the moral disciplines of marriage would be featured as the face of gay marriage in Massachusetts."

They don't seem to be any worse than many, many heteros, including plenty of Republicans (they just don't talk about it openly).

What's your point?

[TrueBeliever]

Johnny said: Is America a Christian country ??

Well, not in my town. Just the other day I was starting to kill my neighbor when I saw her on her way to work at Walmart.
(Exodus 35:2 --Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.)

The police claimed that it is illegal. They are all soft relativists who don't want to live in a Christian utopia where we can follow the Bible and put people to death for sabbath work, curing their parents or sleeping with your son's daughter, etc.

Well, I better get back to my fundamentalist life, and go lie with some concubines like Abraham. To be a good fundamentalist, one musn't pick and choose.

[Walter Wallis]

I'm sorry you're having irrepressible homosexual thoughts as a result of this ruling, Walter, but it's really none of our concern.

Pavel, you extrapolate to absurdity. I have a right to think and express bad things about a hetero marriage. I can, by virtue of hate crime laws, be deprived of liberty and property for expressing a negative opinion of a gay marriage.

If I don't like burning my hand this is a deep desire to burn to death? Was that Freud or Springer?

[Mo]

Walter,
As long as you don't commit a crime against a homosexual because you think they are a deviant, then you are quite safe from hate crime laws (they aren't thoughtcrime laws [entirely]). So go ahead, hate fags and their marryin' ways. As long as you don't beat up or kill any, you'll just be a bigot, not a criminal.

[joe]

"I can, by virtue of hate crime laws, be deprived of liberty and property for expressing a negative opinion of a gay marriage."

Bullshit! Link to a case, a single case, of somebody facing criminal sanctions for expressing an opinion. Or STFU.

Maybe you can post your evidence that all the soldiers at Abu Ghraib were Democrats right below it.

[garym]

joe, there have been plenty of cases of people facing criminal sanctions in the US for expressing an opinion. Fortunately, few if any are recent, and I seriously doubt that there have been any of the kind Walter describes.

[thoreau]

Walter still hasn't posted any evidence to prove that he isn't a terrorist. I'm going to do like Walter and continue to assert my own irrational fantasies without bothering to provide any evidence for my inflammatory claims.

[Mark S.]

"I can, by virtue of hate crime laws, be deprived of liberty and property for expressing a negative opinion of a gay marriage."

Ahhhh yes, the right-wing paranoid fantasy about "PC police" dragging "decent" Christian conservative folk into prison for their thoughcrimes. Please, save the Orwellian plots for the discussions on the U.S. PATRIOT Act. At least they have some weight there.

When last I checked, a "hate crime" law only affects those who have committed an actual crime (murder, assault rape, etc.) when racism, homophobia, sexism, etc. is the motivating factor. Now, we can rationally debate whether these laws are truly necessary or even just, but to claim that they will be used to prosecute people who only have bigoted opinions is a red herring.

If you really wish to cling to this myth, then post one example of someone being criminally prosecuted under a "hate crime" in America for just having a bigoted opinion.

[Walter Wallis]

If I as a landlord or employer were to express distaste for same sex marriage in general or one in particular I could, by virtue of [unconstitutional] hate crime legislation be subject to confiscatory fines. Happens every day.

Bigot? I put my body on line for equality back when it was not comfortable. Presumably all you bigotry free right thinkers have absolutely no bigotry in your own bodies except - bigotry against disagreers? Gets kindsa recursive after a while, don't it?

That democrat thing really hurts, don't it, joe?

[Patrick]

A lot of people were somewhat surprised to discover that apparently it isn?t the Majority who gets to make the call.

The "majority" are quite often wrong--and have been throughout history--as I'm sure you are well aware.

[joe]

If by "hurts" you mean "makes it easy to dismiss everything Walter says," then yes, it hurts a lot.

Does anyone remember the scene in Don Quixote when the hero asks the column of prisoners what they were arrested for? One says "for tripping over a cobblestone." (As he and his friends ran away from the place they were robbing, he fell and the gendarmes caught him). The rest similarly blamed their arrests on such details. Anyway, Walter's post about violating labor and fair housing laws for merely "expressing an opinon on gay marriage" put me in the mind of that book.

[Dave Ruddell]

Unless Walter lives in Canada, he's just blowing smoke.

However, after the passage of bill C-250, who knows whether or not he'd be in trouble up here...

[Johnny]

Hans, thanks for your enlightenment.

Now I can see how perverted America is portrayed with comments made.

I am not aware that it is such a messy country to live in. Furthermore, the true picture of America is still like the wild, wild west.

The so call stipulated law of America does not exist and can be manipulated to suits ones satisfaction.

Phil wrote :
"Fill in the blank: "Everyone should give a shit about this because ________________ ."

TrueBeliever wrote :
Johnny said: Is America a Christian country ??

Well, not in my town. Just the other day I was starting to kill my neighbor when I saw her on her way to work at Walmart.
(Exodus 35:2 --Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.)

The police claimed that it is illegal. They are all soft relativists who don't want to live in a Christian utopia where we can follow the Bible and put people to death for sabbath work, curing their parents or sleeping with your son's daughter, etc.

Well, I better get back to my fundamentalist life, and go lie with some concubines like Abraham. To be a good fundamentalist, one musn't pick and choose.

Good Luck to America with these so-called "Americans" around.

What a mess ??!!

[Mark S.]

Walter: Expressing or acting on? It's one thing to say that you disagree with gay marriage, but it's quite another to actively discriminate against gay couples. Again, show me the law that states that expressing an anti-gay opinion is illeagal.

[Patrick]

A lot of people were somewhat surprised to discover that apparently it isn?t the Majority who gets to make the call.

The "majority" are quite often wrong--and have been throughout history--as I'm sure you are well aware.

[The Mongoose]

Serpent: A lot of people were somewhat surprised to discover that apparently it isn?t the Majority who gets to make the call.

...just like the Majority weren't allowed to decide that things like slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow weren't peachy keen.

[d fischer]

I'd rather have a gay marrige than a sad one

[The Serpent]

Joe: Serpent, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman will go before Massachusetts voters in two years.

The point is that the term ?Marriage? has had a well defined and accepted meaning in this country for over 200 years. Only the word-manglers are asserting this term is ?ambiguous?, and only because it serves their purpose in the here and now (thwarting Democracy).

Joe: And after two years of the sky not falling, we're going to win. Big. It's about even now, so the forces of light and progress will probably beat your side by about 60/40.

The moment that ?Gay Marriage? becomes the will of the majority, then it is those who oppose ?Gay Marriage? who become the ?Communists? (i.e. conformists).

But the fact of the matter is that ?heterosexual marriage? is beneficial to society whereas that is not necessarily the case with homosexual marriage. You seem to be assuming a conclusion based on no evidence, but instead on wishful thinking.

I?ve had many homosexuals friends over the years, and until very recently none of them ever showed any interest in being ?married? (to be completely honest, I have known very few homosexual (males) who even showed much interest in monogamy).

Joe: On that day, (or a few weeks before, when they realize their "Eternal Jew"-inspired ads aren't reversing the polling, conservatives will stop complaining about tyranny of the minority and the need for democratic action, and begin complaining about tyranny of the majority.

That?s a good prophecy, and as a Fatalist I will be the first to concede you were correct, should it come true.

But I think you are assuming that Individuals will be happy about being forced to believe what you believe. In the end I think the game you have been playing will backfire on you.

It?s more than disingenuous for homosexuals to whine that they are unfairly being forced to accept the will of the Majority against their wishes, while they are unfairly attempting to force their will onto the Majority against the wishes of the Majority.

Joe: We're at war with East Asia, we've always been at war with East Asia.

Perhaps ? okay, I?m not sure how this relates to the homosexual thing though?

[Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)]

I predict full-blown bestiality in the streets of Boston by Wednesday.

Don't believe me? Just wait and see, folks!

[Sen. John Kerry (D-MA)]

I was for gay marriage before I was against it.

[Kevin Carson]

Way to turn their "at least we're not as bad as Saddam" bullshit against them, Jesse.

Maybe that should be the response every time they break out in phony outrage over some culture wars issue like gay marriage, drugs, etc.: "Yeah, but Saddam was much worse."

[Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)]

Well, it's nice to know that my distinguished colleague agrees with me. I guess my campaign is having an effect.

Now, if only I could persuade my wife to oppose gay marriage. She recently said on this forum that she has the hots for Lynndie England. She claims that I'm a hypocrite, just because I read all that gay porn. But I say that every time I come inside her is proof that I'm really straight after all.

[The Serpent]

Patrick: The "majority" are quite often wrong--and have been throughout history--as I'm sure you are well aware.

So what is the solution to that problem Dr. Hindsight? Or are you denying that ?Societies? (like individual species) evolve over Time?

Do you know of a race of ?super-intelligent? aliens who can come down here and show us the error of our ways?

Why do I get the feeling that your solution to this problem involves a small elite group of ?intellectually superior? Atheists telling us what is ?right? and ?wrong? (i.e. Communism)?

[mona]

Yeah? Well at midnight, my neighbor lady turned into a pillar of salt. So there.

--Mona--

[The Mongoose]

edit: "weren't" s/b "were"

[Phil]

Hey, a bunch of us just voted, and the Majority agreed it was OK to go over to The Serpent's house and rape his wife. I expect to hear no disagreement from him, given his spirited defense of simple Majoritarianism.

Next, we'll explain how dictionaries are not static.

[thoreau]

What "institution" is being "overturned" here? At best, an institution's reach is being broadened; it is not being overturned. Straight people can still marry all they want to in Massachusetts.

Good point! You know, I honestly can't figure out what part of my marriage to my wife will be revised/overturned/nullified/undermined/redefined/descrecated/etc. by this ruling. I really don't. OK, I don't live in MA. But even if I did, I really can't see how this would affect my wife and I. I can't imagine this making one iota of difference to us, and I love her a great deal.

[The Serpent]

Serpent: Yes. One?s political beliefs are merely a manifestation of one?s more deeply held (more foundational) religious beliefs.

Mark S.: Leaving aside the debate on whether religion and politics are "the same thing" you still haven't given an clear answer as to why being an atheist automatically makes one a communist?

First off, keep in mind I am not saying that politics and religion are the same thing, I am saying that one is a manifestation of the other.

Kind of like the way that You (as an adult) are a manifestation of yourself when you were just a child (one is a higher evolution (manifestation) of the other).

There is only one A-Theist, and he is ?god?, and he is all that exists in reality, and he imagines the universe and everything and everyone in it.

Since no one else is real, no one else really matters, which is how the A-theist behaves. If he was a political leader than his beliefs would manifest politically as Communism. He would attempt to conform all of the figments of his imagination to think and behave exactly like himself (i.e. no individual freedom (ultimately))

Mark S.: "Atheism" is merely a term that describes a particular religious belief, like monotheism, polytheism, agnosticism, deism, etc.

I agree.

But I would contend that A-theism is actually a Religion of Solipsism.

Solipsism is the logical conclusion of Materialism. In other words, when you remove all of the internal inconsistencies inherent to the philosophy of Materialism you are left with Solipsism. Solipsism is the parsimonious version of Materialism.

Mark S.: Christians are monotheistic, Hindus are polytheistic ?

I would argue that the vast majority of Christians (and Jews) are not actually true monotheists.

Hinduism is a good religion.

Mark S.: ? many Buddhists and those who don't subscribe to any organized religion are atheists.

I agree. Buddhism and Atheism have a lot in common.

Both are extremely dangerous paths to follow (in terms of your immortal Soul).

Mark S.: Even then, atheists are not a monolithic lot that believes the same thing.

Well ? there are some very subtil differences to be sure, but I would argue that there is less theological/philosophical difference between your average two Atheists than there is between your average two Theists. In fact I would argue that two Atheists will tend to agree on far more than two Christians will.

Mark S.: Yes, many Marxists are atheists, but have you ever heard of liberation theology, or the Maryknoll order of the catholic church? I posted those passages to show that "true" christian may have more in common with Marx's vision of humanity than with George Dubbya Bush's.

Not everyone calling themselves ?a Christian? would be considered a Christian by the Christian God (if such an entity existed).

I would say that Christianity is an inherently non-materialistic philosophy (it rejects the premise of Materialism (i.e. ?Matter makes consciousness?)). Now, it is also true that many individuals wrongly assume that Communism is also an anti-materialistic theory, but I would dispute that argument. I would say that Communism is all about Materialism. At least ?matter? for the elite (and ?superior?) few.

Mark S.: And let's not forget that there are "godless capitalists." Ayn Rand and the Objectivists school of thought showed that you can be a non-believer in "God", but still believe in the economoic and moral superiority of free markets.

Ayn Rand?s greatest mistake was in retaining her Atheism.

Sometimes I wonder if Ms. Rand wasn?t more interested in starting her own cult than she was in discovering and revealing Truth in reality?

Did you ever read Machiavelli? He?s a good companion to Rand.

Mark S.: As for your argument that free market atheists are really closet communists, I must request that you give us one shred of substantial proof. Otherwise, it's a straw man argument with no weight whatsoever.

Democracy is a manifestation of Deism.

Communism is a manifestation of Atheism.

The founders of this nation (a Democracy) were all Deists.

The founders of every single modern Communist state were all Secular Atheists.

But there?s tons of evidence for this hypothesis. The ?Liberals? (not quite the same as ?the Democrats?) are increasing the party of Atheism. They are also the same party that desires the most government oversight and interference with our daily personal and business lives. They want to conform us. They want to control our schools; what you think inside your head. They don?t want ?free thought? they want ?controlled thought?. Of course at the same time they want to deny history, and they want to deny that individuals are ultimately responsible for their actions. The notion of Causality is contrary to their purpose.

They are like the Borg collective ?

Resistance is futile!
You will be assimilated.

[The Serpent]

TJ: If I initiate the action, and I correctly predict the result, it would seem that I am in control.

Yes, but in what way did you ?initiate? the action?

Did you also ?initiate? your own birth?

The fact is that you didn?t initiate the sequence. You are more analogous to a robot who has been created, and turned on. Now as you carry out your function (your ?purpose?) you perceive your own actions (the logical and systematic execution of your algorithm). But perceiving your own actions is not the same as being the Cause of your own actions. The Cause of your actions is more accurately placed with the entity that created you and programmed you in the first place.

That would be TLOP (The Laws of Physics).

Serpent: Isn?t it true that your actions are all preordained by the laws of Physics (TLOP)?

TJ: Sure. So are yours. That's why I had this response pre-written. All I had to do was push your button...

Ahhh, so are you conceding the point regarding Fatalism?

And of course you are ?pushing my buttons?, I?m just a figment of your imagination ? remember? I don?t even exist except inside your head.

[TJ]

Serpent:
"The correct solution is the one that explains all of the observations in the most parsimonious manner..."

Okay, you obviously believe in some God. So, what is the most "parsimonious" explanation for the creation of said God? Who / what made God? Who / what made the thing that made the thing that made God?

Best luck on your search for a parsimonious explanation. Don't waste our time with blind assertion.

[Jon H]

Sepent: "Can women achieve ?enlightenment? according to Buddha?"

The scriptures say that a woman would have to be reborn as a man before being able to achieve it.

However, what Buddha said was passed down verbally for hundreds of years before being written down, and so what was written might have been contained corruptions, perhaps influenced by Hindu thought.

In the context of the period and place, women were considered inferior and/or dirty, etc. That damned menstrual cycle, seems to cause trouble all over the place; also, the pains and risk of birth were probably a factor; maybe also the smaller size of women compared to men.

In Buddhist theory, being reborn in such a state (afflicted with "woman problems") must be the result of prior karma. You'd have to burn that off, so to speak, before being able to attain enlightenment. Being reborn as a male would represent having burned off the karma that caused rebirth as a female.

Similarly, bad karma can cause you to be reborn as an animal, and animals aren't capable of becoming enlightened because they're driven by instinct and animal needs, or something like that. So someone who is reborn as an animal would have to be reborn as a man before becoming enlightened.

So, from this perspective, being reborn as a woman is a lot better than being reborn as an animal, but not *quite* as good as being reborn a man.

Then again, enlightenment in *this* life isn't exactly guaranteed for practicing Buddhist men, either. So for most people there really isn't a practical difference. Becoming enlightened isn't like following the Atkins Diet. If you do, great. Otherwise, you're trying to set up the conditions for a better rebirth in the next life, which hopefully will help you attain enlightenment.

I personally have a more metaphorical take on rebirth, where rebirth means repeating the behaviors and patterns in life that aren't productive/are harmful/whatever because you're not paying attention to what you're doing. The goal, as the Buddha said, is to end the cycle of rebirth - ie, quit making the same dumb mistakes over and over again. The method is by being mindful of what you're doing and feeling and thinking.

(Maybe rebirth happens, maybe it doesn't. I don't know, and I won't ever know. So it doesn't really matter, and not worth worrying about, especially when the whole goal is to *not* be reborn.)

Clearly, there's nothing in that approach that would preclude women from becoming 'enlightened'.

[eunonymon]

Walter: "God is Love"
___

This is the important part. The trouble with this thread is involving the word/concept "God" ... you then seem to enable yourselves to involve theology, which is really quite separate from Love - monstrously so, even.

Why not meet on middle ground, then, and defend your beliefs/ideas on a premise which might be agreed upon?

Do not argue from a faith in God, or lack thereof. Argue with Love, or admit that what you have to say comes from a darker place.

i.e.:

Pro:
Gay marriage will enable persons to further happiness and love by encouraging them to embrace themselves and each other through societally "normal" means, as opposed to being forced to form an identity distinct from the heterosexuals in order to feel safe and valid as human beings.

Con:
Gay marriage at its onset will engender confusion; children in such families will be placed under undeserved stress, regardless of how "good" the parents are, because this concept is still new to much of society, and even if you or I can regard the child and the family with love, we can not control the unreasonable reactions of the majority.

Compromise:
We need to educate/encourage those who would discriminate to have respect and compassion for these families. Specifically, I, and you, and you; each of us needs to do this ourselves. It is our individual duty to humanity to help enlighten not only those immediately around us, but *ourselves*, in that increasingly likely event that we were wrong about something ... Love your neighbor. All is permitted.

- a loving atheist

[Jon H]

"Then again, enlightenment in *this* life isn't exactly guaranteed for practicing Buddhist men, either."

To expand on this, Buddhists aren't like Jack Chick-style Christians who believe you say a few words, accept Jesus as your personal savior, and you *bang* are a-goin' to heaven.

I can't see what that can contribute as a moral guide. Sin has no meaning whatsoever when you can say the magic words and receive a get-out-of-hell-free pass. What's the point of being good when you can escape punishment that easily? Bugger your children then say the magic words and you're good as gold again.

In Buddhism, you have to work for enlightenment. It comes from within, not from some outer source. It might well take decades.

[TJ]

Serpent:
"The Cause of your actions is more accurately placed with the entity that created you and programmed you in the first place. That would be TLOP (The Laws of Physics). "

No, serpent, that would be my parents.

It would appear that serpent is hung up on the "Prime Mover" question. There are suppositions that fit the scientific model of the universe (as we know it) to some degree, and there are suppositions that don't. But there are no certainties. God ain't the answer, based on Occam's Razor, parsimony, or any other metric except "faith".

[dhex]

"Are you asserting that the consequences for your actions are always immediate?"

no. but that wasn't my question. my question is why the WWF ultimate consequence stance...this sort of ontological steel cage match you're having against...well, everyone.

outside of the silliness of creating personality profiles from a series of blog entries, "ultimate consequences" - the routine i was referring to above - aren't something i worry about too much within quotations or capital letters.

"Sure keep telling yourself that Atheist. That?s how you got to be ?the One True Faith?. By ?randomly? selecting one of a thousand possibilities."

hardly. i'm seriously agnostic about this whole thing. it doesn't matter to me if my wife exists only in my head - i trust my sense data enough to go along with what appears to be happening. if that's objectively false, so be it...

i don't know why that bothers you so much. you pick the data you think fits and roll with it, like everyone else.

"But in reality there is only one correct solution to the problem at hand."

maybe.

maybe not. i'm betting on maybe not.

hence, ultimate consequences of the cosmological sense you're talking about is an unimportant question. it's like arguing about the big bang or the existence of god other unproveable questions. even if everything is "pre-determined" in some cosmic sense, it still doesn't matter, since i cannot know, so unless something happens to convince me otherwise...

"Can women achieve ?enlightenment? according to Buddha?"

no. he tended to view them as instruments of the flesh, and hence, desire. and hence, bad. the most they could hope for was reincarnation as a male human.

but...there are also other interpretations which have modernized this view to allow women and men equal opportunity for the extinguishment of desire.

[The Serpent]

TJ: Okay, you obviously believe in some God. So, what is the most "parsimonious" explanation for the creation of said God? Who / what made God? Who / what made the thing that made the thing that made God?

What do you know about Kurt Godel and the Incompleteness theorem?

Can consciousness exist without Time?

Can Time exist without consciousness (in what way is unperceived ?time? still Time)?

TJ: Best luck on your search for a parsimonious explanation. Don't waste our time with blind assertion.

Coming from the Individual that asserts his ?god? (i.e. ?the matter?) exists independent of observation, that is a rather humorous (if not absurd) statement.

-----------------------
Jon H.: In Buddhist theory, being reborn in such a state (afflicted with "woman problems") must be the result of prior karma. You'd have to burn that off, so to speak, before being able to attain enlightenment. Being reborn as a male would represent having burned off the karma that caused rebirth as a female.

Well, if we were talking about ?Good? and ?Evil? as opposed to Gender then I could agree with everything you say here.

Jon H.: Similarly, bad karma can cause you to be reborn as an animal, and animals aren't capable of becoming enlightened because they're driven by instinct and animal needs, or something like that. So someone who is reborn as an animal would have to be reborn as a man before becoming enlightened.

More or less.

I would argue that no Consciousness is ever born more than once in this reality regardless of form. This reality is a Sorting Algorithm for all intent and purposes.

There is a less elaborate ?universe? (a matrix or ?shell?) ?below? this universe (sometimes referred to as ?Hell?) and there is a more elaborate universe ?above? us ("Heaven", or the "Metaverse").

Less elaborate realities operate under simpler rule sets (formal systems) and operate at lower energies. More elaborate realities operates under more complex (i.e. more ?complete?) rules sets at higher energies. More elaborate realities require higher levels of consciousness (i.e. self-awareness) to perceive and to operate within.

Jon H.: So, from this perspective, being reborn as a woman is a lot better than being reborn as an animal, but not *quite* as good as being reborn a man.

Well behaved women rarely make History ? (They just quietly generate the universe). 😉

Jon H.: Then again, enlightenment in *this* life isn't exactly guaranteed for practicing Buddhist men, either. So for most people there really isn't a practical difference. Becoming enlightened isn't like following the Atkins Diet. If you do, great. Otherwise, you're trying to set up the conditions for a better rebirth in the next life, which hopefully will help you attain enlightenment.

That isn?t completely out of line with my own thinking.

Of course I would say that whether one achieves ?enlightenment? (or ?Gnosticism? if you prefer) is strictly a matter of one?s Destiny.

According to my worldview, You are an Algorithm, I am an Algorithm, and the universe is a complex reiterative fractal (generated by a relatively simple subroutine from within a greater Algorithm (i.e. ?God? or TLOP if you prefer).

Jon H.: I personally have a more metaphorical take on rebirth, where rebirth means repeating the behaviors and patterns in life that aren't productive/are harmful/whatever because you're not paying attention to what you're doing. The goal, as the Buddha said, is to end the cycle of rebirth - ie, quit making the same dumb mistakes over and over again. The method is by being mindful of what you're doing and feeling and thinking.

There is some Truth in every Religion. You will get no argument from me on that point.

I would agree with what you are saying here as well, of course I would use slightly different terminology. I would say that an ?un-enlightened? individual travels on a Worldline which is defined as a path through Destiny (SpaceTime) of Maximum Perceived Benefit. Whereas an ?enlightened? individual travels on an Omniworldline, which is a path of Maximum Ultimate Perceived Benefit.

In other words, the ?enlightened? individual avoids ?choices? that appear to be beneficial, but ultimately are not beneficial in reality.

Jon H.: Maybe rebirth happens, maybe it doesn't. I don't know, and I won't ever know. So it doesn't really matter, and not worth worrying about, especially when the whole goal is to *not* be reborn.

Yes, but this is another problem that I have with Buddhism (or more precisely with this type of notion of reincarnation). If you cannot recall your previous experiences then in what way are you truly improving? Either you are retaining these memories as you move along or you are not. And if you are not, then in what way are you moving any closer to enlightenment?

Of course if you do retain these memories (in some form), then one would assume there would be some critical threshold of self-awareness, in which the overall pattern would finally be perceived.

Of course as I have stated the biggest problem I have with Buddhism is in the notion that one must shed their Ego (i.e. their Desires, or their Individuality) in order to attain enlightenment.

I would argue that Individuality is now the primary Goal of existence.

I think the Buddha?s own words betrayed that he was ultimately a pessimist. And I think that pessimism permeates Buddhism.

But please don?t misunderstand me. I am not saying that all Buddhists are ?bad? or ?Evil? individuals ? not by any stretch of the imagination. There are many Buddhists who made it across to the next Shell. It?s just that when they arrive there they arrive with less Individuality then they could have.

[Jerry Falwell]

"And I looked as he opened the sixth seal, and behold there was a great earthquake, and the sun became as black as sackcloth, and the moon became as blood." The seas are boiling! Senator Rick Santorum is marrying his dog! I expect God to smite us down at any moment!

Worst of all, the Rapture came, and I'm still here. I'm going to go sing the worm song now.

[tps12]

Lonewacko:

The "rule of thumb" thing dates at least from the 19th century: http://research.umbc.edu/~korenman/wmst/ruleofthumb.html

Feminists (or anyone else) who repeat this false history should be criticized for lazy research, of course. OTOH, people who blame the urban legend on feminists are guilty of the same thing. No evil feminist plot here.

[The Serpent]

Jon H.: To expand on this, Buddhists aren't like Jack Chick-style Christians who believe you say a few words, accept Jesus as your personal savior, and you *bang* are a-goin' to heaven.

Yes, I would concur that is a rather na?ve view of reality, to put it mildly.

Jon H.: I can't see what that can contribute as a moral guide. Sin has no meaning whatsoever when you can say the magic words and receive a get-out-of-hell-free pass. What's the point of being good when you can escape punishment that easily? Bugger your children then say the magic words and you're good as gold again.

Mystical nonsense, you are quite right.

Fortunately, I would say that amongst Christians such views are only held (deeply) by a very small minority.

[Jon H]

The Serpent writes: "Well, if we were talking about ?Good? and ?Evil? as opposed to Gender then I could agree with everything you say here."

Well, yeah. I figure it stems from a guy thinking "Cripes, what'd those women DO to deserve having to bleed every dang month" and then extrapolating that, like other misfortunes, it must be because of bad karma. But, those problems being inherent in being a woman, it probably seemed likely that bad karma was a precondition of being a woman, and thus having such 'afflictions'.

It doesn't make much sense to us, but I can see how it would be a logical endpoint of someone with that belief system and without scientific knowledge to counterbalance it or answer the questions religion can't.

[The Serpent]

The Serpent: The Cause of your actions is more accurately placed with the entity that created you and programmed you in the first place. That would be TLOP (The Laws of Physics).

TJ: No, serpent, that would be my parents.

Typical Atheist tactic. Push the issue back one iteration then start screaming ?IT?S COMPLICATED! IT?S COMPLICATED!!! WHY CAN?T YOU JUST ACCEPT THAT IT IS ?MAGICALLY? COMPLICATED!?!?!

I would say that TLOP created and completely controls your parents as well.

In fact, in the same way that YOU are more conscious than your CAR, TLOP is more conscious than YOU.

TJ: It would appear that serpent is hung up on the "Prime Mover" question.

Ahhh, now you are projecting my Atheist friend ?

TJ: There are suppositions that fit the scientific model of the universe (as we know it) to some degree, and there are suppositions that don't. But there are no certainties. God ain't the answer, based on Occam's Razor, parsimony, or any other metric except "faith".

Keep chanting it like a mantra.

The fact is that there is definitely a ?God?. The only real question remaining is whether anyone else actually exist other than the Consciousness reading this post this very moment to occupy the position?

TLOP is just an equation. And that equation only exists inside your ?head?.

[dhex]

"Well, yeah. I figure it stems from a guy thinking "Cripes, what'd those women DO to deserve having to bleed every dang month" and then extrapolating that, like other misfortunes, it must be because of bad karma."

or it was eventually figured out that when the doodad goes in the hoo ha often babies come out, and controlling the hoo ha in order to make sure the proper interval of babies is acheived became very important. hence you get all that levitical stuff about women being unclean and having to be segregated...you try and insure that a maximum amount of impregnations can be gotten in the least amount of time.

you also get to treat half your population like slaves, which is always handy if you're calling the shots.

[The Serpent]

dhex: no. but that wasn't my question. my question is why the WWF ultimate consequence stance...

Ultimate consequences merely implies that the reaction does not immediately follow the initial action. The reaction always returns to the source (magnified over Time).

dhex: "ultimate consequences" - the routine i was referring to above - aren't something i worry about too much within quotations or capital letters.

I never had any doubt that was the case.

dhex: [?randomly? selected Atheism ?]hardly. i'm seriously agnostic about this whole thing. it doesn't matter to me if my wife exists only in my head ..

It doesn?t matter to you?

You expect me to believe that?

dhex: i trust my sense data enough to go along with what appears to be happening. if that's objectively false, so be it...

Yes, but you could say the same things about your dreams at night. Does that mean you have to behave as if you dreams have material substance even when you are awake?

Besides, if appearance is reality then wouldn?t the Earth be motionless and flat?

True Science is all about separating reality from appearance (illusion).

dhex: I don't know why that bothers you so much.

Your Karma doesn?t bother me at all.

Only the Karma of those individuals who are entangled with me has the potential to affect me.

dhex: you pick the data you think fits and roll with it, like everyone else.

Are you suggesting that I am doing something else?

Serpent: In reality there is only one correct solution to the problem at hand.

dhex: maybe ? maybe not. i'm betting on maybe not.

You mean that there is more than one valid ?Unified Physics Equation? (i.e. TOE)?

Isn?t that analogous to claiming there is more than one universe (existing simultaneously)???

dhex: hence, ultimate consequences of the cosmological sense you're talking about is an unimportant question.

if your ultimate Fate is ?un-important? to you personally, then you are correct.

dhex: it's like arguing about the big bang or the existence of god other unproveable questions.

What makes you believe that the nature of reality is beyond perception? That sounds like you are claiming reality doesn?t actually exist?

Sounds like creeping Solipsism to me? Of course to an Atheist, Solipsism only becomes more real with Time.

dhex: ? even if everything is "pre-determined" in some cosmic sense, it still doesn't matter, since i cannot know, so unless something happens to convince me otherwise...

All of the evidence indicates that reality (the future) is predetermined, and there is no evidence to even suggest that it is not predetermined.

So what possible reason (other than dogmatism) could you have for believing it is not determined?

dhex: but...there are also other interpretations which have modernized this view to allow women and men equal opportunity for the extinguishment of desire.

I love my desires. Without them I wouldn?t be ?me?. I wouldn?t be an Individual.

But that shouldn?t stop You from giving up your desires. In fact, if you have any money that you want to stop desiring then I will be more than happy to take it off your hands for you. 😉

[dhex]

"It doesn?t matter to you?

You expect me to believe that?"

yes. in addition to your many assertations, it is also possible the world is made out of tiny pink candy unicorns. that doesn't really matter to me either.

it's real enough. or enuff if i'm wearing spandex.

"Besides, if appearance is reality then wouldn?t the Earth be motionless and flat?"

"appearance" covers more than visuals, thun, especially in the world of emotions. likewise, as the earth is moving you don't notice people running in the opposite direction just to keep up.

"True Science is all about separating reality from appearance (illusion)."

at least you're aware of your particular gods.

True Science has nothing to do with what we're talking about, which is more like True Masturbation.

none of that neo-platonic gibberish for this poor soul, nosiree.

"Only the Karma of those individuals who are entangled with me has the potential to affect me."

uh, hate to break this to you, but we're entangling as we "speak."

the blind engine of the universe cuts both ways (to use that particular metaphor)

"You mean that there is more than one valid ?Unified Physics Equation? (i.e. TOE)?"

perhaps?

"Isn?t that analogous to claiming there is more than one universe (existing simultaneously)???"

perhaps?

the greater question is "who cares?"

"if your ultimate Fate is ?un-important? to you personally, then you are correct."

i'd have to have a wee bit of a notion that ULTIMATE FATE actually means anything. i'm sure it looks hot on a t-shirt.

"What makes you believe that the nature of reality is beyond perception? That sounds like you are claiming reality doesn?t actually exist?"

what makes you think the nature of reality is perceivable?

can you go back in time and tell me about the creation of the universe firsthand?

"Sounds like creeping Solipsism to me? Of course to an Atheist, Solipsism only becomes more real with Time."

jimny christmas, you sound like some sort of halley babble thumper obsessed with the homasheshuals...they're EVERYWHERE.

not everything is an Atheist. or an atheist.

"All of the evidence indicates that reality (the future) is predetermined, and there is no evidence to even suggest that it is not predetermined.

So what possible reason (other than dogmatism) could you have for believing it is not determined?"

now you're just getting weird, man.

what evidence?

besides, this all goes back to my original point. if there is an ulitmate reality and an ultimate punishment in the "objective universe" somewhere beyond where i can see now (or perceive now, etc) and such ULTIMATE finalities are done upon my person (or my ego or whatever), so be it. what the fuck am i going to do?

i yam what i yam, as both yahweh and a cartoon sailor were heard to say.

what you fail to factor into your thread here is that in addition to theism and atheism there is also apathy.

"I love my desires. Without them I wouldn?t be ?me?. I wouldn?t be an Individual."

heh, that's funny.

you go through this absurdist routine and come out the other end an egoist?

on second thought, that's actually kinda cool.

though flimsy. if you are your desires and your desires change over time...

[Lisa Simpson]

Libertarian epistemology fights are fun, wholesome, refreshing, and never futile or a waste of time.

Well, it keeps them off the streets, anyway. Sorta like a libertarian Youth Club.

[TJ]

Serpent:
"The fact is that there is definitely a ?God?."

Keep chanting it like a mantra.

Like I said before, bald assertion is a waste of our time.

We are done talking, "friend".

[Patrick]

it appears strange that a homosexual couple who have such contempt for the moral disciplines of marriage would be featured as the face of gay marriage in Massachusetts.

I find it hard to take an article seriously that stresses the leather outfits that the gays will be wearing to their weddings. Newsflash: we don't all wear leather.

I think this sort of thing is just another sign that, while gays are everywhere in the public arena now, they are still being relegated to their stereotypical roles of flaming queen, drug-addicted partier, and unremitting whore. Sure there are lots of these, but there are a lot more who don't fit the stereotypes, who aren't about to parade in front of reporters in leather outfits, and who just want to quietly get married and be left alone.

[garym]

Patrick: At a science fiction convention, the guy in the Darth Vader outfit or the woman in the fur bikini will be photographed and interviewed, and the many relatively normal-looking people will be left in the background. This is just more of the same.

[Jon H]

dhex: "or it was eventually figured out that when the doodad goes in the hoo ha"

I love Wonkette.

"often babies come out, and controlling the hoo ha in order to make sure the proper interval of babies is acheived became very important. hence you get all that levitical stuff about women being unclean and having to be segregated...you try and insure that a maximum amount of impregnations can be gotten in the least amount of time."

And also make sure the impregnations are by the right person...

[dhex]

how dare people not have the moral rigor to live the way i tell them to!

i have a few friends with open marriages, and they get along just fine and dandy. it's not my way, but...that's the beauty of living one's own life. and the beauty of a world where people are free to make up their own lives as they see fit.

[joe]

Wouldn't a conservative "guardrails" argument be that it is better for gay people to have a standard to live up to, or not, than to have no normative standard at all?

[The Serpent]

M-M-I: So what's wrong with solipsism?

Nothing ? so long as you don?t involve me in it (i.e. self-imposed isolation as opposed to forced conformity).

M-M-I: I do think the world outside the self is unknowable (at least without the aid of some pretty interesting drugs). It's not the same as narcissism, and does not preclude empathy / compassion.

You mean empathy/compassion towards figments of your imagination?

Is that necessary?

The thing is, if Solipsism were True you?d have your precious ?free will? and it would be real.

[The Serpent]

TJ: Ah, but I can replicate the "miraculous" feats of my "gods", and have done so on many occasions.

You mean you can control The Laws of Physics?

I?d like to see that ?

TJ: You can't make the same claim for your "God".

No, I am a Fatalist, I cannot defy the Laws of Physics, nor do I claim that I can.

TJ: Your "Gods" miracles are just so much "cold fusion".

I guess that depends on your precise meaning of the term ?miracle??

Also, are you sure your didn?t mean to say ?Thermodynamics? instead of ?cold fusion?.

------------------

Scared-stiff: Ah, the Serpent must've been banned from The Agitator again...

Yeah well, you know how it is for me ? some Atheist/Solipsist always banishing me from their version of the Garden of Eden.

I guess I?m just ?cursed? above all the cattle dude. 😉

-------------------

Timmy: Does god hate fags like the signs say?

Not the ?God? I worship.

Of course She does want you to ?be fruitful and multiply? (or words to that effect).

--------------------

Walter Wallis: (as ?God?) Timmy - No, I don't hate fags or democrats. They can't help it.

The thing is ? that the ?God? who created ?fags? and ?democrats? (the ?God? who created ?Souls?) is not the same ?God? who generates this reality (this ?universe?).

---------------------

The Serpent: The point is that the term ?Marriage? has had a well defined and accepted meaning in this country for over 200 years.

Redshift: Yep, it's been well defined for 200 years. That's why we don't allow people of different races to marry, and give men all rights to their wives property when they marry, and don't allow divorce. It hasn't changed at all in 200 years, so it shouldn't change now.

The mechanism for valid (just/proper/moral) change is The Will of the Majority.

Or are you disputing that this is how it works in a Democracy??

------------------------

Mark S.: So atheists are commies, huh?

Yes. One?s political beliefs are merely a manifestation of one?s more deeply held (more foundational) religious beliefs.

Religion = One?s fundamental views regarding the nature and origin of existence (the ?universe? or ?reality? if you prefer).

...it is easier for a camel to go through the eye for a needle that for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." Matthew 19:24; Mark 10:25; Luke 18:25

"...woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort." Luke 6:24
etc.

Very True. Most forms of Theism are non-materialistic (i.e. they reject the premise of ?Scientific? Materialism). To a True Christian another Individual is more real than the ?matter? he ?owns?. The ?matter? is merely an illusion ? a hologram ? the perception of an algorithm.

---------------------------

joe: Wouldn't a conservative "guardrails" argument be that it is better for gay people to have a standard to live up to, or not, than to have no normative standard at all?

They have the same standard as everyone else.

Or are you suggesting that we should set a different set of standards for individuals who believe that thievery, rape and child molesting are moral (or ?acceptable? behavior)?

[dhex]

"You mean empathy/compassion towards figments of your imagination?

Is that necessary?"

sure, why not?

TREAT YOUR IMAGINATION WITH RESPECT!

[dhex]

it's the buddhist version of pascal's wager! 🙂

[MJ]

"So what? The themes of Federalism involved here do not require consistency on the part of those advocating marraige rights for homosexuals at a state level."

So those advocating gay marriage will not do so at the national level? My contention is that they will and when that happens the concern for federalism on the pro side will disappear as the morning dew. That is why I consider it an illegitimate argument, because I think that the pro side is only federalist as long as it allows them to protect and expand their beachheads.

"If you really believe gay marriage is a matter equal rights, how can a gay marriage that is valid in Massachusetts be invalid in, say, Oklahoma?"

It seems to me that a legitimate equal rights problem trumps federalism. If something is a matter of equal rights, than to have equal rights in one state and unequal rights in another is a logical absurdity. Particularly for an institution which normally "portable" from state to state.

"The EP clause refers to federal rights..."

What is a "federal right", and why do you believe marriage eligibility is so far out of the scope of such protections that a federal court would not touch such a case?

"FF&C does not apply here."

I've heard conflicting opinions on that, so I cannot say whether your assertion is correct or not.

[joe]

Do I respond to the Serpant?

Ummmmmm....................no.

[TJ]

Serpent:
"You mean you can control The Laws of Physics?"
"I?d like to see that ?"

Of course I can, and I'd love to give you a demonstration of F = 1/2M(V^2).

[The Serpent]

The Serpent: You mean empathy/compassion towards figments of your imagination? ? Is that necessary?"

dhex: sure, why not?

You mean suddenly there are ultimate consequences for your actions? Or are you just imagining it?

I wonder if someone who believes in ?imaginary consequences? will behave in the same way as someone who believes there are real consequences?

dhex: TREAT YOUR IMAGINATION WITH RESPECT!

Do you have a ?choice??

dhex: it's the Buddhist version of Pascal's wager! 🙂

I thought the Buddhist believed in the ?Omniconsciousness??

You know ? when you die you get to share the same mind (consciousness) with everyone else.

In other words, when you die you get to be a Solipsist again.

I guess that?s the Buddhist idea of ?progress? (evolution)?

[The Serpent]

TJ: Of course I can, and I'd love to give you a demonstration of F = 1/2M(V^2).

That?s not you controlling TLOP, that sounds more like TLOP controlling you.

But maybe I?m wrong? If that is the case you should be able to explain it to me ? right?

Suppose we are in a laboratory somewhere, and I have two test tubes filled with chemicals, and I mix the two test tubes together in a beaker, and as a result I get a chemical reaction.

Okay, would you say that the chemical reaction is the result of ?free will? or it is just the result of chemicals (i.e. atoms) doing what atoms do naturally ? what are programmed to do by TLOP?

So what is different about the chemical reactions occurring in your brain? What makes you believe that your atoms have more ?free will? than those atoms in that beaker?

Isn?t it true that your actions are all preordained by the laws of Physics (TLOP)?

Your past is certainly fixed ? correct? You can?t go back and change what you had for lunch yesterday.

So what?s so special about tomorrow that makes you believe it is not also fixed (determined)?

You?re just an Observer -- right? You aren?t making any actions at all (on your own). You are just watching.

[MJ]

The point is that they do not seem to be interested in marriage as a stabilizing force in their relationship, contrary to Patrick's assertion that that is what gays are interested in.

Making a wild claim that they are like "many heteros, including plenty of Republicans" is a bit of a sullen teenager sort of retort. What was your point?

[dhex]

why does there have to be "ultimate consequences" for everything with you? it's like the WWF of stoner philosophers here...

let me put it to you this way...i recognize that on one level, my wife only exists in my head. and vice versa, since i'm not a solipsist, i only exist in her head.

this is one of thousands of possible ontological interpretations and at the end of the day...it does not matter. one can accept the most absurdist propositions and still say "real, fake, whatever...it is real enough, it is true enough"

all this "supreme ultimate" nonsense is overrated. and therein lies the choice and the free will and all that rawkin' shit.

1) i do not think many people respect their imaginations.

2) buddhists, at least the "big boat" kind, do have a doctrinal duty to practice compassion towards beings that do know not they are not beings. and to help them realize that they are not what they think they are.

[dhex]

so what chemical reaction makes you post?

[Mark S.]

"Yes. One?s political beliefs are merely a manifestation of one?s more deeply held (more foundational) religious beliefs."

Leaving aside the debate on whether religion and politics are "the same thing" you still haven't given an clear answer as to why being an atheist automatically makes one a communist?

"Atheism" is merely a term that describes a paticular religious belief, like monotheism, polytheism, agnosticism, deism, etc. Christians are monotheistic, hindus are polytheistic, many Buddists and those who don't suscribe to any organized religion are atheists. Even then, athiests are not a monolithic lot that believes the same thing.

Yes, many Marxists are atheists, but have you ever heard of liberation theology, or the Maryknoll order of the catholic church? I posted those passages to show that "true" christian may have more in common with Marx's vision of humanity than with George Dubbya Bush's.

And let's not forget that there are "godless capitalists." Ayn Rand and the Objectivists school of thought showed that you can be a non-believer in "God", but still believe in the economoic and moral superiority of free markets.

As for your argument that free market atheists are really closet communists, I must request that you give us one shred of substantial proof. Otherwise, it's a straw man argument with no weight whatsoever.

[Gary Gunnels]

RC Dean,

"The man/woman definition of marriage has been in the statute books for literally centuries, put their via the democratic process."

It has been? If that's the case, then one wonders why so many statutes had to be amended in the 1990s to relect such a definition? To be blunt, it hasn't been on the "statute books" for centuries because the issue of gay marraige is rather new.

"Say what you will about how democracy is limited in a constitutional republic, we should nonetheless be careful of overturning democratically supported institutions without a clear constitutional mandate."

What "institution" is being "overturned" here? At best, an institution's reach is being broadened; it is not being overturned. Straight people can still marry all they want to in Massachusetts.

"The Mass decision came in the form of an order to the legislature to pass certain statutes."

That's because the Mass court was asked to make this decision by the Mass legislature; the US Supreme Court lacks this power (its called an advisory opinion by them), but many state courts have such power.

"That is highly unusual, and very disturbing."

Its not unusual in Masschusetts; indeed, its part of their government's structure.

"Courts should adjudicate, not legislate."

This depends on what the role of the court in the particular government in question is. State courts have far more power to create law because they are in essence common law courts.

"I have no dog in the fight over whether gay folks should 'marry,' but the legal reasoning in the court's decision is specious and weak."

What about it was specious and weak specifically?

"Far better to win these victories in the court of public opinion than have them handed down from the burning bush of the courts."

That's really a matter of opinion; and again, it depends on how the judiciary is designed to function in the particular government in question.

"Decisions like this erode the legitimacy of the judicial branch."

Can you point to such regarding the Masschusetts court?

[Mark S.]

Make that "buddhists" rather than buddists."

[dhex]

don't forget the catholic workers movement.

[TJ]

Serpent:
"That?s not you controlling TLOP, that sounds more like TLOP controlling you."

If I initiate the action, and I correctly predict the result, it would seem that I am in control.

"Isn?t it true that your actions are all preordained by the laws of Physics (TLOP)?"

Sure. So are yours. That's why I had this response pre-written. All I had to do was push your button...

[The Serpent]

Dhex: why does there have to be "ultimate consequences" for everything with you?

Are you asserting that the consequences for your actions are always immediate?

If you smoke one cigarette does it cause you to instantly keel over with lung cancer?

I?m not sure I understand your ?question?.

Dhex: it's like the WWF of stoner philosophers here...

Couldn?t resist the ad hominem? Like I said, you clearly do not behave as if you believe in ultimate consequences for your actions.

Dhex: let me put it to you this way...i recognize that on one level, my wife only exists in my head. and vice versa, since i'm not a solipsist, i only exist in her head.

No, your wife only exists in Your head. She doesn?t actually have a head herself. You only imagine it.

Like I said, if you are serious about Occum?s razor then the ?Big Bang? never produced anything more than the consciousness reading this post.

Dhex: this is one of thousands of possible ontological interpretations and at the end of the day...it does not matter.

Sure keep telling yourself that Atheist. That?s how you got to be ?the One True Faith?. By ?randomly? selecting one of a thousand possibilities.

But in reality there is only one correct solution to the problem at hand.

The correct solution is the one that explains all of the observations in the most parsimonious manner without contradictions. It just so happens that this is also the ?most beneficial? solution ? at least if you are ?sane?.

Dhex: one can accept the most absurdist propositions and still say "real, fake, whatever...it is real enough, it is true enough"

I?m not sure I follow?

The Atheists? beliefs are riddled with internal contradictions, not to mention that Atheism takes a giant dump on parsimony. Of course deep down the A-theist knows that Solipsism is true and Atheism is merely a mechanism to stave off insanity temporarily.

Dhex: all this "supreme ultimate" nonsense is overrated.

Spoken like a true Atheist.

To be honest your problem is related to your perception of Time.

Dhex: and therein lies the choice and the free will and all that rawkin' shit.

Define the term ?free will??

Do computer algorithms have ?free will??

In what way is your mind inherently different than any other algorithmic process?

I?d assert that non-algorithmic was akin to ?magical?, or ?supernatural?, ? ?uncaused?. It would be tantamount to a proclamation of Mysticism.

Do you consider yourself a Mystic?

Dhex: 1) i do not think many people respect their imaginations.

I?m not sure what you mean?

I would assert that imagination is also an algorithmic process (non-random).

Dhex: 2) buddhists, at least the "big boat" kind, do have a doctrinal duty to practice compassion towards beings that do not know they are not beings. and to help them realize that they are not what they think they are.

Can women achieve ?enlightenment? according to Buddha?

[Gary Gunnels]

MJ,

"No, simply stated, federalism (as it pertains to state's rights) simply is not a legitimate issue here."

Simply put, it is a legitimate issue, whether you like it or not.

"The pro-gay marriage side is using federalism merely as a tactic to undermine a possible constitutional amendment manuever by their opponents, they do not actually subscribe to it."

So what? The themes of Federalism involved here do not require consistency on the part of those advocating marraige rights for homosexuals at a state level.

"They cannot, if they truly believe in the basis of their main argument: 'equality.'"

Well, who is "they." Is they "me?"

"If you really believe gay marriage is a matter equal rights, how can a gay marriage that is valid in Massachusetts be invalid in, say, Oklahoma?"

Because the state has varying definitions of "equal rights." Indeed, the reason why this is an issue of federalism is due in part to this fact.

"I don't see this as being acceptable to the homsexual activists."

I'm so glad that you can speak for all homosexual activists.

"Oklahoma's position will be challenged in federal court, if not under the Full Faith & Credit clause than under the 'equal protection' clause of the 14th amendment."

The EP clause refers to federal rights; these are rights as applied by the states. The states can protect rights to a higher degree, etc. than the federal government does, but there is no requirement that these state-based protections be applied outside a state's borders. FF&C does not apply here. Its become abundantly obvious that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

[dhex]

quirky is good; overly repetitive is a problem. it's as true of minimal house as it is of the internet.

i don't even like IHOP; TLOP sounds worse. i'm not a scientific guy at any rate.

anyhoo, if you and i are sitting in a bar, drinking a fine lager perhaps, or a nice guiness with a baileys w/ice as a sidecar, i can intersect your life in a number of ways, from telling you a joke to dumping the beer in your lap. (or both)

whatever choice i make may very well be only the result of previous choices, or of forces outside my control. but since it appears i still get to pick one - assuming i'm actually thinking about my choices here - whether or not that's an "illusion" of free will is unimportant. again, it's real enough for me. and free enough (once again, assuming i'm using my head for more than keeping hats on it)

RAWK!

[Rosanna Rosannadanna]

What's all this about gray marriage?

I say if old people want to get married, what difference does is make? So what if they're old.

Who cares?

I mean, don't old people have the same right as young people to get married? If there's one thing that I can't stand, it's when somebody comes along and says, 'You can't do something because you're not young enough.'

It just goes to show you, it's always something.

Like just the other day, I was talking to my great aunt Suzanna Rosannadanna, and she said to me...

Eh?

What? Ah. Gay marriage!

Oh. Oh well.

Nevermind 🙂

[The Serpent]

dhex: quirky is good; overly repetitive is a problem. it's as true of minimal house as it is of the internet.

The Discordians are repetitive. Friggin broken record.

dhex: anyhoo, if you and i are sitting in a bar, drinking a fine lager perhaps, or a nice guiness with a baileys w/ice as a sidecar, i can intersect your life in a number of ways, from telling you a joke to dumping the beer in your lap. (or both)

You don?t seem to have the slightest comprehension of Quantum Entanglement.

dhex: whatever choice i make may very well be only the result of previous choices ?

?may very well be????

What else could it possibly be?

If you are asserting there is another possibility then you should be able to articulate (precisely) what that ?other possibility? is.

dhex: ? or of forces outside my control. but since it appears i still get to pick one - assuming i'm actually thinking about my choices here - whether or not that's an "illusion" of free will is unimportant.

You mean in the same way that it doesn?t really matter if we consider the Earth flat and motionless? You are asserting that it is the illusion (the appearance) that is important, and not the underlying reality?

dhex: again, it's real enough for me. and free enough (once again, assuming i'm using my head for more than keeping hats on it)

Spoken like a True Religious Fanatic (i.e. I believe it because it makes me happy).

dhex: RAWK!

Right back at ya bud.

[The Serpent]

dhex: what you fail to factor into your thread here is that in addition to theism and atheism there is also apathy.

Yeah, but I can only comment on your actions (what I actually perceive). Your actions tell me that you are a word-mangler.

Are all these posts your idea of ?apathy??

If you were truly Apathetic why would you have even bothered with this conversation at all?

Maybe you had no ?choice?? 😉

[dhex]

word-mangling n' wrangling aside for a sweet, brief moment, i was talking about stances towards issues of "cosmic" or "spiritual" natures. obviously.

so is the stoner philosophy cage match over yet? or are there other categories to capitalize?

[The Serpent]

dhex: word-mangling n' wrangling aside for a sweet, brief moment, i was talking about stances towards issues of "cosmic" or "spiritual" natures. obviously.

So are we back to talking about your dogmatic belief in your ?god? TLOP again?

Why all of these double standards, dhex?

You believe in ?free will? based on no evidence.

You seem to believe in a lot of things based on no evidence.

[*yawn*]

So has The Serpent evolved out of the physical world yet? He is obviously the smartest being in existence.

Or is he just a Communist?

[wwwrong]

U serp dhex with a TLOP and got RAWKed -- and now you're both off on a tangential binge -- get back on track -- that was funny stuff -- hope I can remember some of those comments during happy hour at the Moose Lodge.

[anikka]

It was exactly what I was looking for!!

[angelica]

Europe 1 Europe 2 Europe 3 Europe 4
Europe 5 Europe 6 Europe 7 Europe 8 Europe 9 Europe 10 Europe 11 Europe 12 Europe 13 Europe 14 Europe 15 Europe 16 Asia 1 Asia 2 Asia 3 Asia 4 Asia 5 Asia 6 Asia 7 Asia 8 Asia 9 Asia 10 Asia 11 Asia 12 Asia 13 Singapore Singapore 2 Singapore 3 Singapore 4 Singapore 5 Singapore 6 Singapore 7 Singapore 8 Thailand Thailand 2 Thailand 3 Thailand 4 Thailand 5 Thailand 6 Thailand 7 Thailand 8 Thailand 9 Thailand 10 Thailand 11 Thailand 12 Malaysia Malaysia 2 Kuala Lumpur Penang
Greece Athens Santorini Thessaloniki Greece 2 Hotels 1 Hotels 2 Hotels 3 Hotels 4 Hotels 5 Hotels 6 hotels 6 hotels 7 hotels 8 Orient Bizimkent Porselen Sar Ottoman Asia Europe Asia 2 Europe 2