ParanoiA

Doesn't the opposition to homosexual parental adoption make the same kind of argument? It's not fair to disparage the parents for abuse when the abuse is actually a downstream consequence delivered by an intolerant society - not the parents. That's not to say there isn't something to be said for reasonably predicting society's unfair, intolerant reaction and avoiding potential problems for the kiddo, and you're right, reckless is a word I'd probably use and I'd give them an earful if they would listen. Just like naming my kid "dickhead" would be an outright torturous thing to do. I just wanted to be sure we're not letting society off the hook here since ultimately, it's their fault that this is a problem. And I realize that. It's just that we should assign the charge of abuse to the source. And his parents are idiots, and selfish, no doubt. There's a reason why my kids aren't named Beatle and Zeppelin.

They meant between one man and one woman because the word "marriage" is qualified with man-woman in its definition. Your argument seems to ignore inherent arrangements imposed by the definition of other words. I appreciate the comments and evidence you put alot of trouble to put together in that nicely written post - but if the word "marriage" is defined with the hetero qualifier, then that is terrific evidence of the intent of the law. For that reason, I think the burden of proof for "gay marriage" falls on you. You said yourself, there is no direct distinction in the verbiage for homosexual unity - but there is within the definition of the verbiage. Put another way, there is, at the very least, an implication of a male-female qualifier via the definition of the word "marriage", while there doesn't seem to be any implication otherwise. It would be akin to saying that Nuclear Weapons are protected by the first amendment, since there was no need to articulate a distinction as to the types of "arms" we have a right to bear. I think the only ones of any value are constitutional ones. Skeptic and I have been consistent that we value the integrity of our constitutional obligation over equality. Like Pangloss has pointed out, we're a long way from equality in so many categories, that to sacrifice our legislative process would undermine all of the equality we have achieved thus far, and then provide an unstable framework for the equality we have yet to achieve. In other words, if you want to guarantee equality, then we can't subvert the systems designed to rigidly maintain it. I hope everyone is noting this. This is the clear example of our lack of "ignorance" to accepting homosexual unions - our issue has to do with how equality is achieved with our process. Clearly, if I merely thought homosexuals were "icky", I wouldn't accept any process, right or wrong.

Obviously, we agree on this. So, let me ask this: What if iNow were to lobby the lexicographers to redefine the word to exclude the male-female qualifier, and then successfully convince congress to pass a law (instead of courtroom antics) that retroactively applies this new definition to any laws containing that language? Wouldn't that be respectful of the legislative process? I'm thinking that the meaning of words do change, so there must be some method by which we can "update" our laws deliberately through Congress, while not endangering our Constitution by abusing the Judical branch.

Now that shocked me. I'm impressed, and shocked. Hey, maybe it could do for our economic recession what WWII did for the depression. Maybe "printing" money should be replaced with "growing" it. And of course, you all can count on me to do my part.

That's not a fair premise since if all laws were "explicitly clear" we wouldn't need a Judical Branch to interpret them. The Ban was passed because there IS enough wiggle room to achieve "legislation from the bench" with the right judicial atmosphere - at least from the point of view of those who felt it necessary to pass such a thing. I'm not sure why you think we HAVE to defend the ban in order to prove what marriage meant. Redundancy is not proof of inadequacy.

I hope you don't mean that. I have no intention of defending that ban any more than I would defend a ban on breaking the speed limit. It's not my fault if they're letting their fears override their common sense.

Maybe another question might be for a practical example of a society removing a category of hate through the power of hate, or even force...like militarily...like in Iraq....like what GWB has us doing....that we all claim we're against, and how stupid it is, and how it creates more terrorists. Isn't that what we've been pluralizing around here? So why do we endorse that backwards battle tactic with Warren and his followers? (for those who advocate militant discourse that is).

Yeah, see the Ghandi example, MLK, etc. I'll admit it's probably more of an idealogue position driven by principle. I don't believe it to be consistent to hate while preaching against hate. It's the whole lead by example routine. Love your enemy. Nothing new, it's just that most people leave the movies feeling all jolly about that kind of message, then turn right around and bigot someone else for their belief system. And you know my whole "deal" with bigotry, I simply don't believe it should be institutionalized. No matter how noble we seem think our current moral code plays out. And I think the only way to truly avoid that, is to remove as much subjectivity as possible from our legal system. However, don't confuse "being nice" with "sit down and shut up". I would never advocate that folks be a doormat and take inequality. All I'm really arguing for is a more civil discourse so we can more aptly persuade folks to change. Persuasion is the key in my little libertarian-ish world. Well, sort of, but similar to how democracy works better with a constitutional check, in my opinion, the free-market of societal morality obviously has to have their boundary. I would describe them as an attempt to maximize diversity and individual liberty so that society can evolve without the drag of static laws that institutionalize some kind of moral conclusion - even if it appears noble and just by present standards. In short, my view is that government should legislate ethics, leaving morality up to individual choice. I realize the inherent problem with parsing those two words, but I feel it necessary. It's unethical to deny unions to same-sex couples, triples, familials, etc. Morality, however, is up to those individuals. If you want to spread your morality, then it should require persuasion of the free mind, not institutionalized for efficiency. It's my belief that had we objectively applied the words "all men are created equal", then we could not create laws that determined slaves were 3/5ths of a person. Either that, or those words should have been removed. In other words, only subjective prejudicial reasoning allowed us to wriggle around that principle and institutionalize bigotry on such a shameful scale. Our country will suffer from this for centuries to come. If we force ourselves to be objective with our creation of laws, then we disallow ourselves the chance to "accidentally" or "incidentally" institutionalize a prejudice, and hurt some class of people, or other life form. Not sure if I answered your question. I hadn't really thought about it quite like you're putting it, so I'll be thinking about this more. It's quite interesting.

Sisyphus - I don't know what happened to the rep scales, but that was a great post. Interesting too, because other people think this is entirely the other way around, as the most unrealistic option. It does seem to appeal to each particularly interested group. I would also think it should be forced onto the states to legally recognize it.

Actually Mokele, everyone reading this thread knows exactly who's doing the whining and throwing the temper tantrum here. While you were gone, the quality of these threads have soared, since we stick to criticizing ideas, not people. We don't really engage in post-wars where the focus morphs into who can come up with the best insults - there's AOL and Yahoo chat rooms for that. I suggest revisiting the forum rules to reacquaint yourself with the restriction of ad hominem and trolling, and the myriad of fallacies associated with using insolence as your weapon of desperation. There's no reason to be shitty with me. I respect everyone's views and genuinely enjoy logical arguments that flex the critical thinking component, and I'm sorry if that offends you. Much love, Para

You're kidding right? Let me get this straight...you want me to consult a history book regarding the definition of words? What's next? Consulting the dictionary regarding historic events? Awesome. Discover the difference between a history book and a dictionary. It'll change your life.

You're absolutely wrong. Period. Go ahead, make me like the color blue. Think you can make me recognize you're a scientist? Nope. I don't believe it and I don't have to. Nothing you can do about it. I don't believe in science in my religion. I don't have to recognize you're married, to a woman even, no matter how much the state recognizes it. As far as I'm concerned, you're boyfriend and girlfriend. Now go ahead, make me believe otherwise. You can't police the public's beliefs, only their behavior. So our recognition and belief of labels and concepts is entirely separate from our duty to comply with their "legal" existence by the state. That's free society for ya'. They have to obey the rules, created by the state, none of which have to do with forcing us to recognize labels you give yourself, except maybe in the capacity of business as a result of said rules, but you can't make people believe what you want. Now the STATE on the other hand....there's where the force recognition comes in, because that's the sovereign collective governing the land, that is duty bound to do it fairly, to put it brief. It is not "free to discriminate" like free society is. So you're fighting for them to recognize your union to release rights and privilege that are being denied at the moment, and I'm all for your fight. New laws need to be drafted to get this straight. Prove it. Prove the word "marriage" meant 'the union between a man and a woman which includes beating the woman residually'. I think you're attempting to roll old morals and behavior into the definition of an old word, which is a lexicographical fallacy of a kind I've never encountered before. Quite fascinating. No it didn't, as evidenced by Loving vs Virginia. They ruled against Virginia's anti-miscegenation laws since they didn't believe "marriage" could be denied on racial grounds, per the fourteenth amendment, so marriage could not have been defined as 'the union between a man and woman of same race'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia Again, prove it. Prove the word "marriage" was defined as 'the union between a man and woman in which the woman is property'. No, rather I think they qualified the word "marriage" with something like "forced", "arranged", whatever, because the word "marriage", by itself, is not sufficient - it is not defined with that baggage. And, for purposes of our discussion, it has to be the definition intended by those who wrote it into law, which is quite a subjective nasty reality, but nevertheless is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret. No, the word "voter" meant 'a person who votes' or an elector. The "white, rich male over 21' is the baggage we added, into law. You do realize we're talking about the definition of words right? This is the second violation of this weird fallacy where you seem to be lumping whole phrases into the definition of a single word, as if the dictionary of the time would actually contain all that spin. The more important point is that new laws need to be written. Sneaking in the back door with pretentious misguided nobility that sets dangerous precedents in the interpretation of our laws is no violation of principle I want to see played out. It's entirely against the mission of the Judicial Branch to retroactively apply modern updates to the lexicon. Demand new laws. Or demand rewritting laws. That's how our republic works. You'll have far more of the people in support once the word "marriage" is out of the argument and a proposed legal structure that imposes civil unions as the new verbiage for all combinations, regardless of race or gender, and to be effected by the same rights and privilege as any law or contract that grants or restricts rights and privilege to so-called "married" persons. Personally, I'd take that even further, but I'll save that for some other day. As you can see, the supreme court has to interpret the meaning of words per the time they were written, as that's what makes the whole mechanism of a rigid document based legal structure work. That's why we add laws, or edit current ones, we make changes as we evolve as a society. It's time now to add laws, change some, strike some down - exercise the constitutional process like it was designed. Tell that to the framers of the constitution. Share your insight with the supreme court justices since it's apparent they don't share your view. It's quite apparent their mission statement obligates them to revere the language in the chronological context it was written. Thanks for the demonstration on responsible moderator discourse. Noted. My nuclear weapons = gun analogy was just a hypothetical to demonstrate the absurdity of changing the constitution by simply redefining what words mean. The meaning of words can change all they want, but we are obligated to interpret the laws as the words were meant at the time they were written. I'm sorry you're having a hard time with it, I tried to give you an example, I'm not sure how else to explain it. It just seems like common sense to me. I'm not opposed to gay marriage. I'm opposed to retroactive lexicographical updates to our laws thus undermining the point of rule of law. If you can get rights, privilege, whatever, calling it "gay marriage" with new laws or changing the language of current ones, then I'm all for it. My only concern is the method of using courts to redefine old language - that's ruling from the bench. No, because we passed laws about that. We did not change the definition of words, we changed the laws themselves.

Depends on how it's done. If the definition of "marriage" is changed retroactively - thus expanding laws and rights and privileges by redefining old language with modern changes, then it endangers the entire constitution, all of the laws and rights that protect you and I are then susceptible to redefinition by other groups (like the KKK, neo-nazi types, GWB's, american taliban...etc) without passing a single law. See my example on theoretically redefining nuclear weapons as "guns", therefore enabling every american to enjoy nuclear weapon ownership protected by the second amendment. And that's entirely in line with how the three branches have been designed. Absolutely false. You have repeatedly justified why you think militant discourse is called for here. So I gave you a good reason why it's not. All of our political differences come down to real life suffering and pain. That's not a strawman, you just don't agree.

Ouch. So much for my defense lawyer career...

Ok, but there was only the one post listed as reference. If it's plural, then where's the others? Also, Tom claims he has paid for these previous offenses, so why would they be included in this infraction that's been pluralized? Presuming he's not lying...again, of course. Tom, I'm working pro bono here dude, so don't sweat the compensation. (especially since I could very well get you banned of course, to some that would still be for the public good I suppose...)

Ah, the ole excuse thrown out when the parent realizes the kid has a point but they don't want to admit it. You're grounded then for all that other stuff that I didn't punish you for before... And I don't see this lie either... Looks to me like his sentence is associated with the charge that quantum computers are "nowhere near powerful enough to run anything like this sort of simulation...." as opposed to the charge that he's comparing quantum computers to 'normal' ones. Anyway, it's a public thread, so there's my two cents. Looks like Tom's reputation has fueled the kids on the playground to throw rocks at him.

Yeah, back at ya' iNow. And thanks for the new rare word...verklempt. I like it.

How about honoring Mr Bush on his humanitarian work in Africa? He apparently received an award for it. http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2008-11/2008-11-13-voa5.cfm?CFID=82497641&CFTOKEN=72734182

Well said. I guess I find myself in the middle of those two views. The world really is there to exploit, in my opinion, but ignoring the symbiotic relationship hurts us as much as that which is being exploited, so I think that is the "check" on our exploitation. I think we ignore that at our own peril. That said, I can't help but to appreciate Pangloss's point about dismissing current solutions, presuming no option for scientific advancement, while we turn right around and latch on to solutions that aren't even practical yet, with eternal investment in scientific advancement. I love the idea of energy from the sun. No sun = no us, so I have no issue in robbing its energy until it's dead. I have an eternal hope for scientific advancement in harnessing that energy one day. But we're not very good at it yet, despite the solar energy movement. Why do we not hold any hope for scientific advancement on coal? We're actually good at getting energy out of it, already. We have far less hurdles to deal with. Some biggies, sure, but we're not starting from scratch trying to roll out infrastructure, capital, marketing, trying to make it affordable and workable. All that's been done, more or less. All that's left is making it not contribute to climate change. That may be daunting, but certainly a narrow scope. It would seem that we're closer to making coal actually "clean", than we are in making solar practical, and an absolute substitute.

Wait a minute...what right are you trying to attain then if you are not forcing others to recognize it? That makes no sense. Marriage, like "names", is a concept you are free to imagine yourself within all you want. You and your lover can "get married" in any way you want. If you want society to recognize it however, you must pursuade us. The traditional method is the ceremony, the church, the rice, yadda yadda yadda and for the state, it's the marriage license. So what is stopping you from considering yourselves married? Nothing. No, you're fighting for, and rightfully so, to be recognized by the state as a union, and so that means others. Otherwise, this whole exercise is a waste of time. None of the disparaging commentary in your paragraph counters the notion of marriage as between a man and a woman. I don't care if it was forced slavery, it's irrelevant to the point that the word "marriage" is the union of a man and woman. Come up with your own word instead of hijacking existing ones. Hell, isn't that better? I'd love to be able to create my own damn word to describe my union, that has been bigoted for centuries in this country. It has earned it. "Marriage" doesn't deserve you. That's a good point, and one I have conceded to before. You have your goals, I have mine and we each have our reasons. I call it role playing (stop snickering you dirty minded pigs). We have our roles to play and I think they're both necessary. I try to share my larger goal bit with those focused on the short term, but not to shut them down, rather to express my intent so they don't misrepresent me as the enemy, even though on the short term we are on opposing sides.

And that is entirely reasonable and expected, as long as we don't retroactively apply these new definitions to the constitution. I don't like the idea of one day society redefines nuclear weapons as "guns" and so we all have a right to bear nuclear weapons now, protected by the second amendment, woohoo!! Amen...(sorry). Seriously, that's exactly right. In fact, why don't we question its effectiveness on atheists? Surely swearing on the bible doesn't effect them so you'd think that would be enough to cause one to at least question how or what they would swear to.

Hmm, is there any way to know if you've been hit? I've been paying bills all day, logging into this and that, before I noticed this security hazzard. I'd like to think our network is secure here at work, but I don't know...

Ok, is this list a summary of his actual beliefs, or is this one of those partisan hack jobs where they "infer" these beliefs based on his stance against gay marriage, support for civil unions? Here's why I ask: http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/12/rick-warrens-controversial-com.html I'm far more liberal than Rick, and probably you, on civil unions. Some of us against the redefinition of marriage, and even further the whole notion of government intrusion of these concepts, is based on an insistance for logical consistency. We see a philosophical conflict in redefining marriage as well as denying the same rights to gay partnerships as marriage. I'm caught between both because both are wrong. They are not justified in not recognizing gay partnerships, familial partnerships, poly partnerships with the same rights and privilege. And you are not justified in redefining the lexicon to gain this right and privilege. Steel tariffs effect my property, which is a right that is even more spelled out and insisted upon than state recognized partnerships. It effects far more people and directly effects our supply of resources to feed, clothe and shelter ourselves. Interesting. His stance on Global Warming, global poverty and disease and support of literacy and education around the globe would seem to counter your claim of worthlessness. I suppose if his position were driven by hate, I could see it, but I see no evidence of hate. I just see evidence of philosophical difference of opinion. Obama sees that too, and is capitalizing off of it the way a responsible statesman should. For one' date=' if you're going to pimp any notion of tolerance, then you must back it up by not being a hypocrite. There is no good hatred. There is no healthy bigotry. So you show neo-nazi's how not to hate by not hating - starting with them. [i']If [/i]there was middle ground, and if they had a large movement in this country, like christianity, then that would mean we must deal with them, like it or not. Now, do you do it like George Bush and piss them off with prejudicial militant behavior thereby fueling their recruitment and validating their propoganda? Or do you do it by convincing them that they're wrong by leading by example, eschewing militant discourse in favor of civil logical primacy? You're choosing the short-sighted partisan view that obsesses over details in opposition, and it appears prejudicial. You already admitted it's personal, and you don't care how about any middle ground that they share. You have no apparent interest in any healthy discourse with his position and you refuse to divorce emotion from your arguments so I'm highly suspicious of your intentions. It's seems quite clear your mind is made up about him, despite his positive efforts around the globe and his demonstration of fair treatment with Obama, and that reminds me a bit much of the current administration. In the face of contrary evidence, you insist his position is based on hatred. I can only conclude that prejudice would blind a person so. This is true. Too bad it doesn't help them focus their efforts on changing that, rather than lexicon legislation. And to echo waitforufo, why is Obama getting a free pass for holding the exact same view as Warren? Why aren't you dismissing Obama altogether for being a bigot? He's in lock step with your claim of keeping you from visiting your dying partner of 20 years.

Can I also add that I've found that after actually making a mistake, making a fool of myself and losing out on my potential reward in the process, that the subsequent opportunities were so much easier? It's as if I needed to actually experience the negative consequence to realize that it wasn't as bad as I made it out to be.