"Voting" with Your Pocketbook?

[Couchrocket]

I think that the courts could rule on that on a case by case basis... the law should not be so rigid as to exclude the very few who can make a case for child marriage, say for instance, the teen who is very advanced in their years of education, the kid who graduating from college at 16 and finds a mate... I think we are still talking such a small minority of situations. So, I would amend my earlier statement that says drawing the line at children to have an asterisk there. But on the whole, most would agree, parents and the courts, that children before the age of 17 and before aren't really the best arbiter of what's good for them.. but that statement can exclude a very small percentage.

 

But to be honest, I am not sure how that would be determined by a case worker/Guardian ad litem/officer of the court. I am not skilled in that area to make a determination in a case like that. I would trust that these professionals would be able to make a clear decision for a teenager getting married before the allowable age of the locality.

 

Thanks again. As you may see, when we start clean in defining marriage (that is we bring no previous consensus that is allegedly based only on some other generation / religion / societal preferences) we end up almost completely boundryless. In our discussion, so far (and it could be extended further) we have the possibility of a plural marriage with one or more members being an emancipated minor.

 

Without even arguing the possible implications of such a "marriage," I think it even more important to note that the idea that marriage itself means anything in particular is pretty much gone. That's my concern with redefining things without being thoughtful and honest about what it is we're seeking to achieve. I think the LGBT appeal on a civil rights basis is innappropriate. To remove meaning from the concept in hope of expanding human rights merely makes the concept itself meaningless for all.

 

I think your concept of removing marriage from law and only addressing what might constitute a contractual relationship between an indeterminate number and gender of human beings is the way forward in a post-modern democracy. Leave all that "meaning in marriage" mumbo jumbo to religious types and only within the confines of their own communities.

[Roadwolf]

Scott, I get where you are coming from. I came out of your position on just about everything religiously speaking, but have found myself in a naturalist view of the world now. But that is for another topic.

 

I think the French, for all the scorn heaped upon them by ignorant U.S. citizens, have it right when it comes to legal marriage. As I last checked, there are two ceremonies that usually take place in that country. One, the legal civil union recognized by the state (which I desire and consider the most important) and then, if you are so religiously inclined, to have a religious ceremony that seals the deal, so to speak, for your religious convictions. Wish it were the way here, but religious tradition is so entrenched in most place in the U.S. that I don't see it going that way anytime soon. Would solve a lot of what I have problems with the current state of defining marriage.

[Couchrocket]

I agree. The sooner any religious overtones are removed from governance in the US the sooner we can get on with whatever a 51% vote may bring to our future. It is only then that the full expression of a consensus that sees mankind as completely and only a biochemical entity, free from the constraints of any external absolutes, may be realized.

 

[Roadwolf]

Says he, with his tongue firmly planted in his cheek.

[David13]

Couchrocket.

When we impose these absolutes, will they be yours, or mine?

dc

[Couchrocket]

Says he, with his tongue firmly planted in his cheek.

 

No, actually I'm dead serious. Not optimistic about where this leads, but dead serious nevertheless.

[Couchrocket]

Couchrocket.

When we impose these absolutes, will they be yours, or mine?

dc

 

I think you misread my post. I'm advocating the abandonment of archaic absolutes all-together as the US moves forward in history. Religious groups who wish to live based on such notions are free to do so (as of today at least) but their notions should be removed from governance except as they may inform the vote of any given individual.

[Roadwolf]

Okay, I am confused... who are you and what have you done with the real Scott.

 

Seriously, if I am to understand you here, you are actually advocating a secularization of the way our system of government is to operate going forward?

 

Okay, what's the catch?

 

 

 

 

[moshe_levy]

Scott-

 

I must step in - are you in effect stating that absolutes are only drawn from religious morality? I know your point is serious (and not what you nor I would like to see at the end of the slippery slope) but the above seems to imply that. Me thinks Ms. Ayn Rand would have a healthy argument with you, if that's what you meant!

 

-MKL

[Couchrocket]

Okay, I am confused... who are you and what have you done with the real Scott.

 

Seriously, if I am to understand you here, you are actually advocating a secularization of the way our system of government is to operate going forward?

 

Okay, what's the catch?

 

 

 

 

No catch. The founding fathers, even though they built upon a consensus that called upon absolutes as evinced by their words in the Declaration, saw fit to exclude that foundation "in law" in the Constitution itself, and only codified a guarantee of "freedom of exercise of religion." I suspect the reason for this is two-fold: first, I don't think they could foresee a time when this consensus would not be "self-evident;" and they were very wary of there ever being "prescribed" a state-religion as was the case in England. My personal view is that this is unfortunate and that the proverbial "baby liberty" was tossed out with the bath-water, but that's what we have and we should not pretend that it is otherwise.

 

 

[Couchrocket]

Scott-

 

I must step in - are you in effect stating that absolutes are only drawn from religious morality? I know your point is serious (and not what you nor I would like to see at the end of the slippery slope) but the above seems to imply that. Me thinks Ms. Ayn Rand would have a healthy argument with you, if that's what you meant!

 

-MKL

 

No, I'm not saying that at all. Many secular leaders / societies have imposed absolutes that have their genesis in purely secular thought. They are/were only "absolute" in the sense that there was sufficient power to impose them. Then, there have been attempts to find transcendent absolutes through an appeal to evolution for their genesis. I think this is specious, and schizophrenic since if evolution is the mere product of time and chance, both "absolute" and "transcendent" have lost the possibility of meaning. Last there is the popular notion that absolutes may be arrived at by consensus but that abuses the notion of "absolute" since it is dependent on the consensus in order to remain absolute. All of these have mankind as the measure of all things.

 

A careful reading of Rand will surprise, if thought through. I believe that even the kind of individual liberty, dignity and freedom Rand espouses in Objectivism as expressed by Roark,Galt and others, appeals to truly transcendent absolutes that Rand herself assumes presuppositionally in her approach to philosophy.

[moshe_levy]

I believe that even the kind of individual liberty, dignity and freedom Rand espouses in Objectivism as expressed by Roark,Galt and others, appeals to truly transcendent absolutes that Rand herself assumes presuppositionally in her approach to philosophy.

 

Hmmm..... VERY interesting take on things, as usual, Scott. I will have to spend some time thinking that one through....

 

-MKL

[Couchrocket]

I believe that even the kind of individual liberty, dignity and freedom Rand espouses in Objectivism as expressed by Roark,Galt and others, appeals to truly transcendent absolutes that Rand herself assumes presuppositionally in her approach to philosophy.

 

Hmmm..... VERY interesting take on things, as usual, Scott. I will have to spend some time thinking that one through....

 

-MKL

 

It's worth thinking about, if I may say that without sounding condescending. Presuppositions drive almost everything yet are given too little serious though because they are "pre-supposed"itions. Often, IMO, huge foundational ground is relinquished in the discussion of details without consideration of the presuppositional concepts / truths that give meaning to the details.

[Rocer]

Do you have a link to the medical professionals who are refusing to hand out condoms?

He used the word "contraceptives" not "condoms". There is a difference.

 

Here's a link to a specific instance: ACLU: Pharmacist refuses to refill a birth control prescription.

 

For a state-by-state overview, see: Pharmacist Conscience Clauses: Laws and Information

 

 

Actually, maybe, perhaps it was Kangaroo Condoms.

[Bob Palin]

I agree. The sooner any religious overtones are removed from governance in the US the sooner we can get on with whatever a 51% vote may bring to our future. It is only then that the full expression of a consensus that sees mankind as completely and only a biochemical entity, free from the constraints of any external absolutes, may be realized.

OMG! (none) - he's come round to my point of view!

[Couchrocket]

I agree. The sooner any religious overtones are removed from governance in the US the sooner we can get on with whatever a 51% vote may bring to our future. It is only then that the full expression of a consensus that sees mankind as completely and only a biochemical entity, free from the constraints of any external absolutes, may be realized.

OMG! (none) - he's come round to my point of view!

 

Yeah, but you know where I think this will lead!

We've already seen the first couple of iterations of this in the last century and from my perspective it wasn't pretty.

[upflying]

A LGBT supporter apparently takes his hate out on a traditional marriage group with Chik-Fil-A ties in DC.

Interesting to see if the press tries to low key this violence since the suspect is part of a protected class. I would assume a LGBT supremacist is not the same as a white supremacist.

Thank God for the heroic efforts of the security guard.

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-national/20120815/US.Security.Guard.Shooting/

[Roadwolf]

Same coin, different sides... violence on either part is unacceptable... but it may a nice time to remind you that in the grand scale of violence on both sides, the anti-gay stance has more blood on it's hands... not even close. Just keep that in mind when you see these incidents and try to establish equivalency.

[upflying]

Same coin, different sides... violence on either part is unacceptable... but it may a nice time to remind you that in the grand scale of violence on both sides, the anti-gay stance has more blood on it's hands... not even close. Just keep that in mind when you see these incidents and try to establish equivalency.

So what you are saying is black racism is more acceptable on a grand scale because there is more blood on the hands of white racists?

When do we reach that equivalency?

[Roadwolf]

You fail to understand my point... in your desire to comment on the situation at FRC, your comments suggest that this account will be swept under the rug by news organizations in an attempt to protect a "class" that has been overwhelmingly and historically the target of like attacks (Matthew Shepard to name one example). Read my statement before... the acts on both sides are deplorable, I only added the fact that what happened here today is but an aberration compared to what LGBT people have endured before. Doesn't take what happened to the security guard and minimizes it, just puts it in perspective.

[upflying]

You fail to understand my point... in your desire to comment on the situation at FRC, your comments suggest that this account will be swept under the rug by news organizations in an attempt to protect a "class" that has been overwhelmingly and historically the target of like attacks (Matthew Shepard to name one example). Read my statement before... the acts on both sides are deplorable, I only added the fact that what happened here today is but an aberration compared to what LGBT people have endured before. Doesn't take what happened to the security guard and minimizes it, just puts it in perspective.

I understand your point, I'm just frustrated at the media double standard. Had the roles been reversed and a FRC member tried to shoot up the LGBT center, the media would have been all over it for the next few weeks.

And this dovetails with Ken's original post. Chick Fil A publicly announces a traditional marriage stance and all hell breaks loose. Target Stores openly supports gay marriage and no one calls them on it.

Political correctness is becoming tyranny.

[ratfink]

I've seen stories on network news about this group of right wing wacko's http://onemillionmoms.com/ protesting Target, JC Penny for two mom's in the catalog, DC comics for gay superheroes and Macy's for a two groom ad. I think they are largely ignored or bring in more business due to the publicity.

[Ridgerunner]

Just a correction. Chick Fil A did not announce anything. An individual who happened to be the CEO of Chick Fil A gave his personal opinion during an interview. The PC police are the ones attacking Chick Fil A. Which by the way isn't working

[Roadwolf]

Political correctness is becoming tyranny.

 

Your definition of political correctness (whatever the hell that means) is another person's quest for equality... your examples are as follows:

 

1. Chick-Fil-A announces support for traditional marriage (and if all they did was verbally support it, then fine, we are all good). But the actively give money (and quite a bit at that) to organizations that seek to DENY equality under the law for gay couples seeking to be married and recognized by the state. In this case, they are for discriminating against a class of people based on religious views.

 

2. Target (and JC Penny, et al) support the inclusion of gay couples. They are all for supporting gay (and heterosexual marriage, which is in NO danger by granting gay couples equal protection under the law). See the difference?

 

The double standard, as you are calling it, is just one side standing for justice and fairness, and the other for restricting and narrowing what is allowable. And as I have said sometime earlier... history isn't going to be too kind to the Chick-Fil-As. But I might close this point with this... Cathy and crew are entirely in their right to speak, give money, support what they believe in and all other manner of free speech. I just don't have to give them material support (ammunition) to mow down proponents of same sex marriage.

[moshe_levy]

And to add to Chris' point, Bob, you're incorrect that "nobody called them on it" re Target and other chains which have come out in favor of equality. JC Penney was all over the news for its choice of Ellen DeGeneres as its spokesperson. Other chains have also come under fire - have been BOYCOTTED by religious organizations and such. Now, when that happens, it's justified of course. When the other side boycotts, it's "empty symbolism," of course. Right?

 

When you say "nobody called them on it" you're revealing that perhaps you're getting your news from a source or sources which give only half the story. Or you're simply ignoring that news which doesn't play into what your point of view is. (Cognitive dissonance rears its head, once again).

 

As my dad told me growing up, when you read a newspaper, watch the news, or listen to the radio, MAKE SURE you're frequenting those sources you most disagree with. Don't pay attention to anyone who agrees with you. You already know your side. You already know what you think. Find out what THEY'RE saying, and you won't be in the dark so much.

 

-MKL

[TyTass]

A careful reading of Rand will surprise, if thought through. I believe that even the kind of individual liberty, dignity and freedom Rand espouses in Objectivism as expressed by Roark,Galt and others, appeals to truly transcendent absolutes that Rand herself assumes presuppositionally in her approach to philosophy.

Hmmm ... as a reader of Rand, you do see the irony in that an Objectivist would call your argument specious, right? Rand defined her base premise and built from there. It would seem that you merely disagree with her base premise ... "with reason as an absolute" ... yet you persist in arguing reasonably suggesting there are alternatives. You my friend, are a man in conflict according to Rand's Objectivism.

[Selden]

...Chick Fil A publicly announces a traditional marriage stance and all hell breaks loose. Target Stores openly supports gay marriage and no one calls them on it...

Chick fil-A's CEO spoke out about his stance on traditional marriage; Target, Inc. has been all over the place, and I suspect that their current position may be based on voting with your pocketbook issues.

 

Eight months after sparking a national firestorm over donations in support of a political candidate who opposed gay rights, Target Corp. once again is raising the ire of the gay and lesbian community by suing a California advocacy group that has been lobbying for same-sex marriage outside its stores.

Source: Target Sues California Gay Rights Group for Lobbying Outside Stores

[Quinn]

Am I correct that some group contacted the media to tattle on Chick-fil-a for donating money to an organization that campaigned against recognizing gay marriage? And when confronted with the story, Cathy then varified it and said those were his values and he would continue to donate?

 

So, in other words, if this group had gone to a Catholic, or Muslim, or possibly half the other businesses in town, they may have found the same values. Basing this on the pass rate of Marriage Amendments. Guess they were smart enough to goad the bull that would fight back and give them their show.

 

Couldn't win in the legislature or the courts, so trial by media.

 

 

-------

 

 

[Fubar]

I'm going back to supporting all those other corporations.

 

You know, the one's that have always put the consumer first.

The one's that never put corporate profit ahead of doing the right thing.

I'm with you, Tim! (Ummmm, which ones are they again? )

[Fubar]

So you see, there is always more history behind things than we may have known. Today, it's en vogue to attack gay people for what they are and who they love, with the sanction of some Churches (the SAME ones, as you see above, with a history of such actions). Tomorrow, maybe it will be me, next (again). Maybe you. Maybe someone you love or care for. OR we can stand up to it now, and stop the very cycle you see above from repeating.

 

-MKL

Well said, sir.

 

Intolerance NEVER ends well. In fact, it never seems to end at all, it just shifts to a new target.

 

For a planet containing 7 billion people of the same race (human), we spend an inordinate amount of time subdividing ourselves into smaller and more restrictive groups instead of just acknowledging our differences, though not needing to accept or adopt them, and getting on with life.

And fortunately, we have the right and opportunity to discuss those differences and hopefully learn more about ourselves and each other in the process.

Go First Amendment!

[Fubar]

This whole discussion about CF is another example of the continued culture wars that we will see for a long time to come.

Often times, one's "culture war" is another person's quest for equality under the law. I'll side with the latter any day.

Based on the increased business CFA is enjoying as a result of the culture war publicity, I'd say the latter is in the minority.

Being the loudest doesn't make them right. Or wrong.

Majority rule works in elections and mobs but not in whether something is right.

Fortunately (at least for U.S. citizens) the Constitution protects the one from the many, not the other way 'round. Let them make their voice heard if you want yours heard as well.

[Fubar]

Is it safe for me to assume, then, that you think the number of participants in marriage should be limited to two in the legal definition? If so, what is your rationale in law for that?

 

Probably wasn't too clear on that (thought I was)...

 

I think I'd probably defer to the individual situation and not box it into a two person definition... my go to definition is colored by my upbringing, but in all honesty, I could see a multiple partner marriage. Some cultures have that going for them. To be consistent and not pre-judge the marriage arrangements between consenting ADULTS, that would be fine. I would draw the line at anything remotely considering Children and I take that stance from a position that a child is generally not mature enough to enter into such a contract with a lot of emotional and physical awareness of said decision... in fact, I would presume that in most of those cases it is coerced.

Thanks for the response. Logically consistent.

What if a child is legally emancipated? If the law sees fit to consider them adult, should marriage be denied them? If so, why?

FWIW, the last time I checked (10 years or so ago) it was legally possible in every state in the USA for a person aged 16 to marry. Emancipation not needed. In some states it is possible to marry as young as 12 years old, though admittedly this often requires parental consent.

These are old (though still current) laws that followed more along the human body's ability to reproduce and the accepted-at-the-time definition of when a person became an adult. Plus, life expectancy was much lower then while infant mortality was much higher (Yea, modern medicine!).

For examples, check out a bar or bat mitzvah or quincenera, among others.

[Couchrocket]

A careful reading of Rand will surprise, if thought through. I believe that even the kind of individual liberty, dignity and freedom Rand espouses in Objectivism as expressed by Roark,Galt and others, appeals to truly transcendent absolutes that Rand herself assumes presuppositionally in her approach to philosophy.

Hmmm ... as a reader of Rand, you do see the irony in that an Objectivist would call your argument specious, right? Rand defined her base premise and built from there. It would seem that you merely disagree with her base premise ... "with reason as an absolute" ... yet you persist in arguing reasonably suggesting there are alternatives. You my friend, are a man in conflict according to Rand's Objectivism.

 

I don't consider my observation in conflict with Rand's "...with reason as an absolute..." - my comment is merely that there is also an appeal to presuppositional positions that underlie and support moving forward with reason as a foundation for her approach to ethics. I'd say that there is in her Objectivism the same sort of appeal to the "self evident" that there is in the declaration that informs it. That's where the right to individual dignity, self determination, rectitude of personal effort, etc. derive the power with which to appeal to reason.

 

I'd also agree that most present day Objectivists would not appreciate this, nor agree with it. But I must add that most present day Objectivists that I've met and have had the opportunity to explore their philosophical understanding - tend more toward narcissistic elitism than anything resembling Rand's Objectivism. Understanding where Ayn came from and what her philosophy derived from and was in opposition to (Soviet style collectivism) is important, I think, as is appreciating the broader cultural context of her life experience.

 

I'll take another step into "heresy" to share that I see John Galt as a messianic figure in Atlas Shrugged. I'm not suggesting, of course, that Ayn saw this consciously or that she would agree with this assessment. I suspect that she'd find the thought amusing.