Pangloss

It was just a not-very-well-put reflection on the earlier point about badgering people for not being logical with their opinions, but I think you addressed that point very well with this: That was nicely put.

Okay, and I agree, but you said earlier that anyone who follows reason has to choose gay marriage or they aren't being reasonable. I'm wondering if we can really expect people to operate on purely logical grounds when it comes to matters of opinion. And I have not been comfortable with telling people that they're not being reasonable, either -- it feels like an insult being that's been levied solely because of a difference in opinion. (And even if it's not opinion, aren't we saying that perceptions are what's important here, e.g. the perceptions of gays who are asked to accept equal "civil unions"? Is it really superior to use a pejorative against one group ("you're not being logical!"), instead of using one against another group ("a civil union is the same thing!")?) What strikes me as a more reasonable approach is to explain why we don't think civil unions are truly equal even when they have the same legal features and benefits, absolutely enforced by law. As opposed to saying "you're not being logical", and then passing the law over their objections without them fully understanding why we're doing it. (Which I think is what some would like and even prefer that we do.) If that is insufficient to change the law, then we either (A) wait and try again later (current practice), or (B) give them a civil union, then rinse, towel off, and restart the debate. (Also, I'm not sure I can agree that that's what this thread is about, and I don't think our thread-starter does either (e.g. post #264).)

Actually I think what we're talking about is what should be done with the law. I think we all agree that you can't change opinions overnight.

If the recipients receive the exact same access to resources and legal benefits, then the constitutional requirement of legal equality would seem to be satisfied. This isn't like segregation, where blacks could not access the same physical resources -- even if they had other equal facilities it wasn't equal, because literally could not walk into the same buildings, schools, etc. No matter what, one side or the other might (and probably would) have some kind of edge. Equality wasn't even theoretically possible.

I recognize that the Unicode characters are not the same, but the issue before us is equal justice under law. So if you think that's important, more power to you, but that's a matter of opinion. Are there any relevant secular reasons why we cannot call them civil unions if they are legally equal to marriage? What value it brings is equality under law. Having it called "marriage" would also bring equality under law. Why does it have to be called "marriage"? Why is that is the only logical conclusion?

Except that unlike in your excellent answer to Severian above, this one can't be easily answered in the reverse. Are there any relevant secular reasons why we cannot have civil unions instead, if they are created 100% equal to marriage?

Because there is at least one equally reasonable possibility -- a 100% legally equal "civil union". Okay, but what I think is not yet clear to the pro-gay-marriage side in this discussion is that a lack of logical grounds against gay marriage does not, in and of itself, constitute an irrefutable logical argument for gay marriage. Indeed, and well put. There is, however, no acceptable argument against chocolate!

Then you agree that even if there are no relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage, that doesn't mean that the only relevant secular conclusion is to have gay marriage?

Sure, but that doesn't mean the example can't be used for other purposes. You asked me to expand on my opinion, so I was responding to that request. The point of this thread isn't some academic question, it's an attempt to push everyone onto one side of the issue by means of an incorrect application of logic. This thread neither demonstrates that gay marriage is a logical mandate, nor that supporting it has a higher validity than any other opinion. And since the point has been made that there IS such a mandate, it is legitimate for someone to point out that it actually still comes down to a matter of opinion.

The fact that you can't prove the Giants are going to win doesn't prove that the Cowboys are the better team. Likewise, this thread neither demonstrates that gay marriage is a logical mandate, nor that supporting it has a higher validity than any other opinion. The fact that that conclusion has been opined in various posts as connected to the question posed by this thread opens the door for Severian's opinion.

I think Severian makes a valid and relevant point.

I agree. Not that my agreement makes for a very interesting discussion, I suppose, but I might as well weigh in. By the way, the "Similar Threads" listed at the bottom of this page is particularly useful here, providing a good review of our previous discussions on this subject. This issue has been on society's back burner for a long while, and several folks, most notably bascule (thanks!), have been helpfully bringing events to our attention. It's interesting (though perhaps not surprising) how SFN threads often run alongside events over time. (One of this forums best features, IMO.)

For which we pay taxes, and very few consider those taxes to be efficiently managed. IMO examples of shared/pooled practices within our society don't prove that socialism works. They don't even address the question, because we may simply "pay the cost" of the "socialism" and consider it not worth bothering to change. By the same token, you can't point at McDonald's and say "capitalism works" either.

In the Bill of Rights. And I'm not sure how everyone else seems to have missed that. The purpose of that addition to the Constitution is to specify what rights you cannot have taken away from you by the will of the majority or the representative actions of the majority through governance. They're not listed there for educational purposes. They're listed there so that they can't be taken away.

One of the nice things about the politics of this is that even if the system isn't very effective, Iran can't be positive that their medium-range missiles will hit their targets. And it sends a very clear (and more universal) message to Iran on the political front at the same time. From Tehran's point of view it's a lose-lose, which means from our POV it should be seen as a win-win. Not that that will stop the right-wing pundits from ripping the heck out of it, I'm afraid.

Anyone want to weigh in on this? Article linked below covers the basics pretty well. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/world/europe/18assess.html?hp IMO it's probably the best move, both for the politics and for the technology. It still focuses attention on the most likely threats of Iran and North Korea, while being less provocative towards our Russian allies. And it makes a statement that we're not giving up on proven and reliable technologies, as Obama promised during his campaign. What do you all think?

Are there any pure socio-economic governmental forms that don't go against some aspect of human nature? Capitalism requires a suspension of disbelief regarding a consumer's ability to discern product differences (e.g. safety). Communism/Marxism/Socialism requires that everyone be trusted to put forth their best effort, which is contrary to human behavior in large societies. Monarchy based on the divine right of nobles requires a belief in the superiority of a racial subset, and the inheritance of wisdom (or a belief that it doesn't matter). Pure Democracy requires the somewhat crazed notion that the will of the majority is somehow paramount. Republics require the even crazier notion that elected representatives cannot be corrupted. Meritocracies require the acceptance of the rather odd notion that skill or intelligence equate to wisdom. Authoritarianism seems to be based around the idea that a dictator could be benevolent, and absolute power doesn't always corrupt absolutely. Of course there's religion, which works great when everyone has the same one and nobody bothers to question its validity. (grin) There's the amusing Demarchy, in which randomly selected people get put in charge. Hm, what could possibly go wrong? And of course there's always Anarchy, which seems to invite EVERYTHING to go wrong.

That's a good one -- and you can make a little joke out of it, too. Any time you can get people to laugh it's a good thing.

Of course not. What would you consider a real recovery? Throw some terms out there and we'll probably all more or less agree. (And enough with the ridicule.)

"The Senator from Ohio calls for a vote on the poopsieroll bill. All those in favor of poopsieroll say aye!"

There's a time and a place for everything, and there's no shortage of means for the opposition party and its members to voice its view. In my opinion, the middle of a presidential speech is not one of those times. BTW, I thought you guys might find this 12-second clip amusing: BcuE9ghAgFM&feature=player_embedded

Fed Chairman Bernanke says the recession is likely over, and he's got some facts to back it up. His assessment is based largely on consumer spending. Let's take a look at this handy chart: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125301730771311713.html?mod=rss_Today%27s_Most_Popular Obviously we'll have to wait and see, and it sucks that employment is generally a lagging economic indicator, but with any luck we may be able to put this behind us soon.

Be consistent with your bulleted text. If you're going to use initial caps, keep using them throughout the presentation. If your going to put periods at the ends of your bullets, keep doing that. If you're inconsistent people will notice, and that's a distraction. Learn the correct forms of its/it's, you're/your, there/there/they're, and the other tricky aspects of the English language. The Wikipedia has a useful list of these things: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_frequently_misused_English_words Don't over-use the bullet animation feature. If you have to animate the bullets in order to stop your audience from reading them in advance then they're probably too informative -- reduce them to just a couple of words and move the rest of the information to your lecture notes, and then print those out and take them with you to the presentation. (It's also kinda insulting to read off a slide.) I agree with the point several people have made about asking the audience questions and getting them to interact. This is a tough one if you've never done it before, but in practice it's surprisingly easy to do. Just make sure you ask them question they'll know the answer to, or have an opinion on. (grin)

IMO we can rule out all of the fundamental socio-economic theories. This discussion reminds me of the Sid Meier game "Civilization", where you pick what type of government you want. The game presents the familiar socio-economic theories as a progression of successively better forms, discovered through scientific research. But I always thought it was odd that it worked that way, because the dynamic that generates progress in socio-economic theories is not scientific research, it's human experience. What I think human experience has shown us is that none of the unilateral theories, even with all of their philosophical underpinnings, actually works in their purest forms. The collection of these forms, ranging from fascism to socialism to capitalism, has gotten us pretty far, but none of them is really up to the challenges of modern technological life. Instant communications, the realization that we're all connected in our actions, the immediacy of information, these things pretty effectively undermine ALL of the unilateral forms. Which leaves us with "hybrids", like our current system. Fine-tuning and perhaps even overhauling at some point in the future, but never throwing it back into one of those old, historic forms. In my opinion.

They don't have to be unequal, they just presently are (but see my point below). I share this concern. I imagine that part of the motivation behind the push to call it marriage is to cut right through this possibility and just put it behind us before it can even happen. Consider, for example, that a civil union can only work as an equal option if employers (ALL employers!) fully support it, and don't split hairs and parse the meaning of a large and complex new federal law. And then there's the question of who would catch these people, and how much would it cost. If we call it marriage we'll still have discrimination, but at least then any prosecution can take place using existing manpower, existing legal apparatus, and a very familiar set of laws. If, for example, an employer allows a straight employee to utilize a benefit but disallows a gay employee from doing the same, they can probably be caught more easily, prosecuted more readily, and will not have a defense of "oh, what new law?". Everybody already knows about marriage and its basic set of expected benefits. Make THAT argument with the "I just want it called something else because marriage is a tradition that means man-and-woman" crowd and I think you might have more success than saying "You're a homophobe, be ashamed." But hey, that's just my opinion.