Like the power of the media? Minorities, today, can have lots of power. And that is well and good. But it is not well and good that reason should be lost. Democracy is about the power of the majority. Funny how some people like that when it provides benefits and hate it when it takes them away. And as to the slavery argument, I showed you the differences. I don't think they are the same at all. I'm done now.

It was not a single response. It was a pretty lengthy argument covering a lot of ground. I'm not going to play this game, Ms. M.; I've done it before, and too many times the thread goes missing after that. Maybe if you could guarantee that would not happen, then I would be happy to proceed, but, way too much work for that result, ya know. My posts on this thread start at about #73. I posted this article to flesh out the argument: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...editors?page=1 There is such a thing as tyranny of the minority, too. Goodnight!

You thanked the poster who suggested that my argument was like that against slavery. I assumed you agreed. My response to her: This type of bomb throwing has stifled real discussion about the issue, and it is propaganda, IMO. It is quite effective in shutting down discussion. But I definitely do want you to understand me, and I am more than happy to have real dialog. So let me know what part you don't follow, and I will do my best to clarify.

What? If he was in the military, the military would only recognize one wife (which is the situation anyway, I believe). If his lifestyle caused disruption of his duty, he would be discharged. If he attempted to actually, legally marry multiple wives, he would be in legal trouble. The military does pay for multiple children, but it would not pay benefits for multiple wives, say for educational benefits or for medical benefits. Some people do not remarry, I think, to keep their military benefits. I think there are a lot of questionable things that already go on. I can't see expanding that by allowing a broader definition of marriage. That is my position. Okay, you did not call me a bigot directly, but suggesting that I favored an argument for slavery has pretty big implications. Just the use of the word, slavery is pretty loaded. It is akin to invoking Hitler, IMO.

For one thing, people are suggesting that if you don't agree with this particular allocation, you are a bigot and in favor of slavery. :D You are completely right about the fraud issues. How will that improve if we further expand the definition of marriage to include gay marriage or polygamy? I am not seeing that helping, and I see us tottering so far on the brink of collapse that it might push us over. We have to start saying no to some things. Why not start by saying no to things that vastly expand benefits? Right now our friend, the polygamist, lives his dream, but because the definition of marriage is one man/one woman, we don't pay for his dream. He is NOT receiving benefits for multiple wives. (Whew!) That is a-okay with me. Which is what would happen, Ms. M., if we start monkeying with the biological definition of marriage (man+woman=child).

Nice to hear from you Ms. M. I appreciate your thoughtful post. Good points. Did you read back a bit to see the entirety of my argument? I think I covered your points, but I am happy to address them here a bit, too. I think, if we were clear thinking on this issue, and we were really looking at it without other agendas at work, we could come to some kind of arrangement that would favor certain types of civil unions for practical and unemotional purposes like you are suggesting. I think the private sector is already doing this to some extent. There has been blustering about boycotts against those places, but not about laws to force such businesses out of existence. That is a vital distinction, see? The real limiting factor for this is economic. If business (or government) who do that sort of thing get so bogged down they go under, then their nice intents really are of no consequence, are they? But they are trying to sort that out in the private sector, and I think that should continue. We'll see where it goes. I just don't think we are in a place where we should force the State to do such things, for financial reason, but also because our society is not in consensus and it would be forcing the issue unnecessarily. That is just the reality.

If everyone's taxes are used to pay for benefits for our polygamous friend here (the show in the OP), then that would be not only impinging on our freedom of thought, but on our wallets. I am having equal difficulty wrapping my head around not getting that. :confused: Look, I am trying to figure out a way to arrange our affairs to allow freedom for people to define relationships on a personal and network level, so that diversity, like you see in this show, can be allowed (no one going off to jail) but not forced on people (no one going off to jail). And if we could keep from going bankrupt in the process, then that would be really nice. I have tried to be gracious and not judgmental in process because it really isn't about judgment. Calling me a bigot (indirectly) in response is really nice. Thanks for that.

That's funny, because you sound rather gleeful, really. And your counter-argument sounds a lot like propaganda. Emotional bomb throwing. So, there we are. What freedom is being limited again? Be very specific please, because I have pointed out that I feel that people who desire to commit themselves to one another in a life long union have been free to do so for a long time. We could not even stop that if we wanted to do so, and that is marriage, and the State doesn't bestow it or own it or give it. It just allocates some benefits for the purpose of encouraging strong families (fail). So, tell me again how denying some benefits to some people is anything like slavery? Because I would really, really like a few Pell Grants for my kids, and if I could accuse people of denying me "rights," and treating me like a "slave" to get them, than that would be great. You can't just throw out a word and say it is the same thing. Slavery is an act perpetrated on a person, it is not simply the State deciding what benefits to give to whom under what criteria. If that is the definition of slavery, then there are a lot of slaves out there because there are plenty of people not getting this or that benefit because of this or that "rule," and the government may as well close up shop now. Plus you have not addressed (why bother when you can just throw bombs) the limiting of freedom for people who do not want their tax money to be used to support every imaginable civil union. What about them being slaves to the State? What about the State coercing people into "belief." Is that okay with you? Propaganda. If you repeat an emotional charged idea long enough, people believe it despite the lack of reasoning behind it. People who do that make this issue very muddy and this Republic soon to be ancient history.

Thanks! And thanks for a little distraction today. :001_smile:

If you don't even know what resources go into supporting and encouraging marriage, and I do not think you are stupid for that nor unique, then it is no wonder that this issue is so misunderstood and so easily used to manipulate public opinion by groups with an interest to do so. Suffice it to say that there are VAST military benefits doled out to spouses and children. They would be easily exploited by people who wanted to accumulate benefits for "partners" then move on. Easy to exploit. Then there are civil jobs and taxes to consider. I do not know all the resources allocated to this, but the amount I know of is extensive. It is costly to support marriage, but we do so for the sake of encouraging family stability in raising children. I have always thought that the real reason to go to the mat for the "right" to marry is about assets and resources as well as political agendas, not about people being denied the ability to commit to one another and share their burdens in a life long commitment. Yeah, call me jaded, but I think people have been free to do that all along. They are not falling all over themselves about how they are not going to be able to devote themselves "for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health" unless they get a stamp of approval from Uncle Sam, they are clamoring for government subsidies and benefits. And who can blame them? I certainly don't blame them. That is why, in my very first post, I said we are having enough trouble with the one kind of marriage. We can't really afford to do what we have already promised. There is an ongoing struggle for the collective resources (taxes), so figuring out how to allocate tax money is an ongoing struggle, often politically and emotionally loaded. We should make cool headed decisions whenever we can. The other motivation, as I have pointed out, would be using the power of the State to change people's thinking. Recognition of the State for alternative unions is thought, by some, to be making those unions "legitimate." But that is not the purpose of government. That is not in the government's power. And such attempts to use State power in that manner will always be coercive. So we better be careful when/how we coerce, right? You are assuming that the concern of the debate is about how people feel about marriage, and I have shown that that is not the real issue. That is a nice red herring. Some people may fear that allowing gay marriage, or poly-marriages, or any other kind of marriage, will push out hetero marriages, but I am not making that argument. I am making the argument, here and now, that it will make us bankrupt and will restrict our freedom of thought. Well, more bankrupt. This is the non-religious argument for defining marriage as between one man and one women. It is not the only argument being put out there. It is clearly not the most common one being heard (or ever being heard). But I suggest that it is a very good one. So, if you hear that everyone who is against the legalization of gay marriage is a bigot, you have to admit that that doesn't hold water. Some are just cheap and like freedom. ;)

To what end do we need such recognition of these partners? If it is only practical purposes having to do with property or visitation, then I agree that, if it is necessary as a separate measure, laws can be adjusted so that some legal rights can be given to a variety of relationships. And as I said, private citizens and businesses should be able to recognize whomever they wish in providing benefits. No problem with that. Language about marriage should conform to what people have been convinced to believe in their own, personal relationships and personal networks. Churches can have their own while other networks have their own. People are free to decide the issue for themselves and to convince others over time one way or the other, peacefully, without the Power of the State forcing them. But as to the State no longer recognizing marriage, I've thought about that, and it is the position of most libertarians. It has great appeal, but it is not necessary except to make some kind of point, which is not the job of the State - to force us how to think about things. In addition, it is unrealistic and would cause great, social upheaval. For example, if you consider our military, it is set up to provide vast benefits to family. They do that so that we can have a volunteer military, because no one in their right mind would join the military if they could not be assured of family support, and it is exactly in this arena that we will break the bank trying to please everyone. It is exactly because of this that we do need some, limited State involvement in marital relationships, and it is exactly this that demonstrates that it should be limited to the most likely relationship to provide financial and emotional stability for children. Providing for the emotional support of adults is not the point of State involvement. Making people feel "approval" about their choice of partners is not the point. It is unfortunate if it hurts some people's feelings, but defining it outside this framework (man/woman = child) is too complex and far too likely to invite fraud. If you do not think that people will use that "setting of partners" for no other purpose than to gain for themselves vast benefits under the law, then I think you are mistaken. It would be perfectly legal to set a partner while serving in the military, then dissolving that "partnership" when they got out. And it would technically be perfectly legal. Without ANY moral or societal pressures brought to bear on this, then people have no compunction about doing such things. Why should they? People no doubt already do that to some extent, but we need not make it public policy. Imagine if the State no longer thought of poly-marriages as "illegal," and partners or civil unions took the place of traditional marriage. You could set up as many partners as you want (because that is "fair" for bisexuals after all). Now the military and all State jobs have to provide benefits to 2, 3, 4 partners? Probably not a good financial decision right there. Make it legal as in, "we won't cart you off to jail," but not legal as in having the same status as tradition marriage. Get it? That is what this is about. We are not going to support every imaginable form of personal union. It comes down to a budget issue regarding the allocation of scarce resources. We will draw a line somewhere, so let us have biology draw it for us. Furthermore, under such a set up, people would be forced to financially support a variety of unions for which they do not know the purpose. Children are the only reason we support marriage with the State, not satisfying sex or convenience. Marriage is just as much a responsibility and obligation in the view of the State. No such expectations are brought to bear on other relationships. Notice that not one of these arguments is about religion, yet the bottom line does support all manner of religious freedom, as well it should, because it is not the State's job to dictate our beliefs. Forgive me for taking over this thread. I have a head cold and nothing else to do today. :D

Exactly, but they do not expect everyone to agree with their behavior, and they do not expect the State to pay for it. If it is to gain real acceptance, they will have to be very convincing (good luck with that). To force people to accept their behavior will likely do their cause far more damage than just going about their business. We should be free as individuals to assess these behaviors and not forced to accept them against our conscience. Freedom requires that. Technically, it is not illegal. It is just not recognized and subsidized like one man/one women marriages. I think someone already pointed out that most of these "marriages" have only one legally recognized union, the others are extraneous. There is a difference between legal as in recognized by the State and legal as in "coming to take you to jail." Confusing these ideas calls the State into the situation and causes problems. That is exactly why I favor a law that would define marriage recognized and supported by the State as between man/woman while other relationships would be recognized on the personal level or by organizations outside the State. They would not be considered criminal behavior. Employers could be free to subsidize whatever relationships they could afford (good luck with that), but the State would not work that way - because the State's money is everyone's money, and everyone does not agree on the definition of marriage these days. :confused: This is just practical stuff, folks. If we think of it as organizing the situation to allow diverse opinions and ideas to co-exist, then we must LIMIT the State's involvement by sticking to a biological definition. Otherwise we invite chaos. Either the State starts going into homes and dragging people to jail, OR they start going into Churches and dragging people to jail. Some people may want those outcomes, but I don't want EITHER! :thumbdown: It is because we are confused about the State's role that we endanger our freedom.

Religion need not be invoked to turn away from State support of such unions. I suggest, if one looks at it from a purely evolutionary/materialist POV, that most religions turned away from such unions because they did not fit with civilization on the large scale, predominately because asking the State (remember the State is either a dictatorial person/group or The People) to subsidize too diverse a definition of marriage is simply impractical. It causes several levels of descent, and to be perfectly honest, it starts sucking too many resources. It costs too much. And it doesn't take anything but common sense to realize that the biological link to offspring is probably the best one to put your money on. Combined resources being allocated to the surest bet is good public policy and has nothing to do with discrimination against people, it is simply a way to allocate resources that belong to a wide range of people with a wide range of beliefs and customs. But can you see how confusing and confounding the ideas could be used by groups to gain power and access to these resources? Furthermore, if the ideas can be confounded, people with an ax to grind against religion will have leverage to do damage to those organizations by confusing the ideas of "rights" and "bigotry" etc. thus inserting their own agenda into those organizations instead of allowing them to be free. We see this argument against State intrusion into homeschooling, don't we? Yes, I have. And I don't have an ax to grind in this issue nor is it my pet issue. It is just that sometime people ask such a clear and distinct question about it that I can't help but give them an answer. I don't think it has a name, because it is just a basic idea that has been forgotten and subverted. It is based on something one can call the Natural Law (not as in physics). It is definitely not my idea, but I have always thought it was, in reality, the one most consistent with a scientific view of the issue. It reminds me though, how reason is not always at the basis of making public policy. Here is an article that explains it much more thoroughly. Yes, it is a conservative site, but it remains that the POV is the most rational and logical that I can find. Any other will cause profound upheaval in our culture and result in much less freedom if you are honest and think about it deeply without the emotional baggage. It would require though, that people understand that the State does not give rights, and that the State is not the one that legitimizes relationships. It just allocates resources (it ain't God, okay?). It is not a personal judgement against certain relationships, it is just a practical solution to a social issue. People would still be free to make personal judgments about all this, the State would just stop taking sides based on those judgments. The State's involvement would be based on a biological fact and nothing more. People are free, and should be free, to marry. What they can't do is force others to recognize that relationship or to subsidize it because the State has no right to require such things from people, no more right than it has to encourage some religions. Perhaps the laws can be tweaked to be more fair on some things, allowing social unions to work more smoothly, but a wholesale forcing of the population to recognize and financially support other relationships as being "the same" as traditional marriage would stop being the job of the State - because it is not the job of the State, no more than it is the job of the State to make anyone take Jesus as their savior. Those things, if they are to happen at all, should be freely chosen by people who are convinced of their truth. That is how real social change takes place, anything else is oppression. ;) I am not holding my breath for such reason to dawn on people. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/245649/case-marriage-editors?page=1

:001_huh: Or maybe you were already crippled by the previous 5 years of public education and that little experiment just proved it. But I'd say, high school is a lot different than 6th grade, and handing someone who is not properly prepared a math book and saying do it yourself is a lot different than empowering young adults to become responsible for themselves. When you think about it, there is really no significant difference between middle school and high school in general. How depressing is that, when in reality high school age people are adults for all practical purposes? Maybe we need to start treating them like adults.

Money, that's why. When it gets right down to it people (taxpayers) should not have to support every kind of possible marriage combination. It is true that some people do debate its existence, and it is true that the State has supported one kind of marriage and that has coincided with tradition and religion in the West, but if people are honest, that is really incidental. The real debate is about the State's interest in marriage. We generally have a very free and open culture. People can marry, co-habitate, etc. if they wish to do so. The thing is that the State recognizes, for purely practical purposes, only one kind of marriage. That need not be a proclamation about a "right" (the State has no inherent ability to declare rights) or any kind of moral validation one way or another (the States ability to dictate morality is limited). Frankly, those things are not the job of the State. The only interest the State should have in marriage is the fact that it has the potential to produce children, so, as general policy, it should only support those marriage that have the highest potential to produce stable families. Even then, the State doesn't really have that much of an interest. And one can argue that the State's interference may do more harm than good. In order to make sure it does not OVERSTEP its boundaries into what are really family matters (read that as suck the financial life out of us and instigate invasive rules and regulations), it is best to keep its interest to a minimum. The best way to do that, in reality, is to limit the definition of marriage. Keeping marriages that are recognized by the State (people are all still free to marry, just not register that union with the State) to one man/one woman effectively curbs the ability of the State to wrangle funds from us all in order to support "marriages" of types and varieties that might eventually go far and wide in their definition thus tapping taxpayer funds that were never really intended for those purposes. So you see, it is a budget issue. Now, how people personally define the concept should be up to them and the churches and networks with which they associate. So other family arrangements should be left up to people to work out to the best of their ability without expecting the State to be involved in every aspect. At least that is the way I see it. If someone wants to educate their child, they should not wait for the state to grant that right or pay for it. If you want to marry two women, or if two men want to marry, then they had better not wait around for Uncle Sam's stamp of approval, and they should not ask taxpayers to help support them. We are having enough trouble with the one kind of marriage.

Awesome! Thanks for sharing!

:iagree: I admit, I'm a little envious here. :tongue_smilie:

Exactly! :D

So, it turns out to be nothing but "another massive tax break for the super rich." I knew it! ;):lol:

Kind of like the folks I work with. They go online and watch their kids grades. They are very reassured when they are up there in the 90s where they feel they belong. It is so vital to have feedback and know what is going on, so this kind of data is really helping the parents keep track of things. Technology like this is no doubt really making a difference. I am telling you, peace of mind is priceless. Truly priceless.

Yes, parenting is the key. But the problem with this is that it fails to hold the school system accountable because that systems has become the de facto parents. That system churns out the majority of people populating public and private settings, and even many homeschool groups are full of public school parents and some children who have been in that system. It IS the public. The other instances of bullying are mostly emanating from that environment and the outgrowth of some 100 years of that environment's influence on our culture and society. We have to face the fact that it is doing a poor job of socializing our population when bullying is entrenched and cheating is as well. These poorly socialized youngsters then become poorly socialized adults - in our workplaces, churches, hospitals, etc.. But because there are so many of them, it has become the new normal and better (yes, BETTER) socialized homeschoolers get called "different." :glare: (I have every reason to believe that being socialized by adults to be adults is better. And I believe that being taught not ever to bully or cheat is also better.) But instead of schools answering for this, the question is often deflected from public schools and instead parents who choose to homeschool are put on the defensive and grilled about how well they are socializing their children. And, BTW, I am generalizing. Exceptions are a given.

Or maligned? Did you read the other comments? The photo is not from his website, and he apparently exposed the misuse of $20K worth of course fees. If I did not know first hand how corrupt academia really is, I might believe the story on the face of it, but I have seen it myself. Perhaps his comments about Dorothy Sayers are a better representation of him than the college would like known. Who knows?

You have gotten a lot of lotion recommendations, but I have to add another. Try Renew Lotion. It is a Melaleuca product. It is a pain to get a hold of, but it is really amazing stuff. Good luck.

:iagree: I often wonder, when I read threads like this, what kind of horrible things future generations might think of those of us living right now (full of our own self righteousness). What terrible, moral atrocities are we committing that we are blissfully unaware of at the moment? What things are we doing that we know full well are immoral and yet we make excuses? Do you think they are minor? Beware! Your descendants might not think so! ;)

Maybe. But then I teach my children that the real value in hard work, or anything else that is valuable for that matter, doesn't always manifest in "material wealth or success.'' It is the value stored up in heaven and earned in your heart and soul that matter. And that never rests in only luck. You have the power to chose it ALWAYS. So there are plenty of people all over the world who posses the truest forms of wealth, success, and joy apart from their economic realities. Now, these truths, when lived out fully by a civilization do, however, tend to lend themselves to material wealth and success over time and from generation to generation. That type of generational wealth should never be discouraged or disdained by anyone. And I am afraid too much of this perspective that you are not tied up in the decisions and choices of your ancestors (and therefore, by implication, you do not have anything to do with future generations) has a poisonous side. It discourages people in there here and now from taking risks and making sacrifices or difficult decisions because they become disconnected from the ones who come before and after. Why bother to balance a budget NOW if it will make us suffer but make things better for those two or three generations out? After all, we have nothing to do with those that come before and after, at least this attitude seems to say. If we can feel no pride in our ancestors, if we cannot say that our good fortune is the result of their hard work and we deserve it because they intended us to have it, then we can also feel little concern for our descendants. This affects our incentives in the here and now. I think it is problematic. So I think we must feel pride in our ancestor's good choices, and we must feel obligated to make good choices ourselves. We need to feel gratitude, not smugness, but also not indifference. But to feel nothing and to assign our good fortune to luck and then feel guilty about it is a dangerous business.