UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (107) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 12880  
Subject: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/15/2003 1:42 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Soon To Be Ex-Governor Davis, in his finite wisdom, has decided to burden California with yet more costly legislation. Who is going to pay for all of this?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/po/20031014/co_po/davissignslandmarkequalbenefitslaw

Outgoing California Gov. Gray Davis signed landmark legislation on Sunday mandating that any company doing business with the state offer domestic partner benefits to its employees. Though similar laws exist in a handful of cities, including San Francisco, Oakland and Los Angeles, California became the first state in the nation to take such a stand.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/kr/20031014/lo_krsanjose/lawhitstimberindustry

In one of the most significant changes to California's timber regulations in 30 years, Gov. Gray Davis has signed a measure to allow state water quality officials to block logging that could harm sensitive streams.

The law will affect tens of thousands of miles of waterways throughout California, from the Sierra Nevada to Oregon to the Central Coast -- including forests in Santa Cruz, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties.


http://www.fresnobee.com/local/story/7585985p-8494841c.html

Davis signs bills adding new casinos

SAN FRANCISCO -- Wielding the influence he still has in the waning days of his administration, Gov. Davis signed four bills Sunday broadening the reach of Indian casinos in California.
Two of the measures ratified agreements the Davis administration already had negotiated this summer with Indian tribes that want to open new gambling facilities in Southern California.

One, the Torres-Martinez Band of Desert Cahuilla Indians of Thermal, plans to install 350 slot machines at an Imperial County truck stop and another 1,650 slots at a casino the tribe wants to build on up to 640 acres in Riverside County.

The other bill allows two Indian tribes in San Diego County -- the La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians and the Santa Ysabel Band of Diegueno Mission Indians -- to operate up to 350 slot machines apiece.

"The signing of these laws is the final hurdle in helping these tribes establish successful long-desired economic development projects on their reservations," Davis said in a statement.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031006/ap_on_re_us/davis_insurance_1

LOS ANGELES - Gov. Gray Davis (news - web sites) signed a bill Sunday that adds California to the short list of states that require employers to offer workers health insurance.

The bill, touted as a model for the rest of the country, could give more than 1.1 million workers and their families health insurance through a plan that employers would mostly finance. Hawaii, Washington and Oregon have similar mandated health insurance systems for employees.

"Today we take a bold step to reform health care," Davis told a crowd filled with supporters holding "No Recall" signs. The governor was joined at the bill-signing ceremony at a Kaiser Permanente medical facility by the Rev. Jesse Jackson (news - web sites), actor Danny Glover, labor leaders, health care workers and legislators.

The bill requires companies with more than 200 employees to offer health benefits to workers and their families by 2006. Employers will pay 80 percent of the premium, with employees paying the other 20 percent. Starting in 2007, companies with 50 to 199 employees will be required to provide employee-only coverage and share costs in the same manner.


CCSand
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8507 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/15/2003 2:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Sheesh.

The stream protection makes sense....

More casinos? May as well keep the gamblers money here. But lets tax it!

Health insurance? Toughie. Everyone who is willing to work hard ought to be able to get healthcare.

Domestic partners? As long as they have a civil contract between them, why not?

But signing them all in on his way out????? Not cool. The man can't take a hint? The people have pretty well said they don't want his leadership anymore. It'll be interesting to see how successful Arnold is at vetoing.






Print the post Back To Top
Author: wecoguy Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8510 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/15/2003 3:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
He should be shot in the head for this. Complete moron.

Perhaps the State Police should pay you a visit.. Threats on anyone's life these days best be taken more seriously.

The more I read of this poster the more concerned I think we should all be..


Print the post Back To Top
Author: ortman Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8513 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/15/2003 3:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
He should be shot in the head for this. Complete moron.

Perhaps the State Police should pay you a visit.. Threats on anyone's life these days best be taken more seriously.

A threat is a statement of intent to cause harm or pain to another. While my statement may have been slightly juvenile, it certainly wasn't a threat. Instead, it was a quick and easy way to convey my opinion on that particular bill.

Which did you take umbrage to? The fact that I think the bill is moronic? Or the manner in which I chose to express that opinion?

Forcing employers to pick up the cost of medical insurance isn't good policy.

1). The costs, when picked up, will ultimately come out of the employee's pocket.
2). Some employees will have their hours cut so that they fall below the legal requirement for health coverage
3). Some employers simply won't be able to afford medical coverage for their employees. As such, they will not hire - and may even go out of business or move to another state. Job losses.

Mandating that employers pick up the cost of medical coverage while simply ignoring simple economic realities regarding those costs is moronic and destructive. I'm sorry if the manner in which I chose to manifest that opinion offended you at all.

-Ortman

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ortman Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8515 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/15/2003 3:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
He should be <jest regarding assassination deleted>. Complete moron.

Perhaps the State Police should pay you a visit.. Threats on anyone's life these days best be taken more seriously.

Since you had the post pulled, I gather it offended you. For that, I apologize.

In a recent response, I offered a more detailed response as to why Davis should be beat with a rubber hose. With any luck you can no pay more attention to the content of the message than the manner in which I present it.

-Ortman

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ortman Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8516 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/15/2003 3:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I'll try again.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/po/20031014/co_po/davissignslandmarkequalbenefitslaw

Outgoing California Gov. Gray Davis signed landmark legislation on
Sunday mandating that any company doing business with the state offer domestic partner benefits to its employees.


Perhaps I'm an insane liberal, but I simply see this as being
anti-descriminatory. I have no problem with such a bill.

It's simply obligating that gay couples be treated the same as married
couples, right? That's no different then disallowing different treatment for hispanics, IMO.

http://www.fresnobee.com/local/story/7585985p-8494841c.html

Davis signs bills adding new casinos


You can lynch him for this; I don't complain.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031006/ap_on_re_us/davis_insurance_1

LOS ANGELES - Gov. Gray Davis (news - web sites) signed a bill Sunday
that adds California to the short list of states that require employers to offer workers health insurance.


Very bad for reasons detailed in a prior post.

You should also at least give him credit for deciding to veto the bill
that would offer education to illegal immigrants.

-Ortman


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8521 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/15/2003 5:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Ortman wrote:

It's simply obligating that gay couples be treated the same as married couples, right? That's no different then disallowing different treatment for hispanics, IMO.

Excepting that homosexual couples are not the same as heterosexual couples, therefore, they shouldn't be treated the same.

Racial preferences are a completely different issue. Race does not involve an issue of conduct or morality. It generally only involves skin color. Martin Luther King Jr.'s hope was that we would all be judged not by the color of our skin, but by the content of our character. That has a lot to do with what people do in their lives.

I do not wish to get into a huge discussion of this issue here. I am well versed in the arguments pro and con. I realize that there are many people who will and do disagree. I only wish to point out that there are issues of conduct and morality for many, many people. And in fact, Proposition 22, which banned gay marriage in California, passed with over 60% of the vote nearly 3 years ago.

As such, Davis isn't listening to us, just as he hasn't listened to us in many other areas as well.

CCSand

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ortman Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8522 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/15/2003 5:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
It's simply obligating that gay couples be treated the same as married couples, right? That's no different then disallowing different treatment for hispanics, IMO.

Excepting that homosexual couples are not the same as heterosexual couples, therefore, they shouldn't be treated the same.

They would be if they could marry.

I do not wish to get into a huge discussion of this issue here.

Oops; disregard then. I won't think poorly of you when I don't see a response.

I only wish to point out that there are issues of conduct and morality for many, many people. And in fact, Proposition 22, which banned gay marriage in California, passed with over 60% of the vote nearly 3 years ago.

And while I'm here, I would like to point out that a majority of voters in the south backed slavery before it was made illegal. Just becuase a majority adopt a particular view does not mean that it's right.

As such, Davis isn't listening to us, just as he hasn't listened to us in many other areas as well.

It's a good thing Lincoln didn't listen....

-Ortman


Print the post Back To Top
Author: EJDubya Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8524 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/15/2003 5:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I may very well be wrong on this. It certainly wouldn't be the first time. And, I'm not defending Gov. Davis. He lost, and he should bow out gracefully. But...

I believe that in California when the legislature is in recess, if the governor does not sign a bill by a certain deadline, it becomes law without the governor's signature. If that's the case, according to what I read recently in one of the newspapers, most of these bills would have become law even without his signature. It was tacky of him to do it, but probably he sees some sort of political gain in doing it... as if he has a future in politics after this, but he wouldn't be the first to make a comeback from a disaster.

Time will tell...

EJDubya

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8534 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/15/2003 6:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Ortman wrote:

They would be if they could marry.

No. They wouldn't. Making something legal doesn't change its nature.

And while I'm here, I would like to point out that a majority of voters in the south backed slavery before it was made illegal. Just becuase a majority adopt a particular view does not mean that it's right.

You could also say that the South lost because a majority of the people in the entire U.S. did not, in fact, adopt the view that slavery was a moral good.

CCSand



Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8535 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/15/2003 6:58 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
EJDubya wrote:

I believe that in California when the legislature is in recess, if the governor does not sign a bill by a certain deadline, it becomes law without the governor's signature.

Yes.

http://sam.dgs.ca.gov/TOC/6000/6915.htm

What a stupid provision. It essentially eliminates a check and balance.

CCSand

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ortman Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8536 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/15/2003 7:14 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
No. They wouldn't. Making something legal doesn't change its nature.

Last I checked, marriage was simply a contract between two people which allows you to file taxes together, share property, and make medical decisions.

How is the nature of such a union different when both parties are of the same sex?

I'm not gay; and don't really have any gay friends, so I won't be offended if you fall back on some hate-monger rhetoric here. In fact, I would be amused. :)

You could also say that the South lost because a majority of the people in the entire U.S. did not, in fact, adopt the view that slavery was a moral good.

The point was merely that popular support does not make something right. Before 1918, the general opinion was that women should not be allowed to vote. I would like to think that I would find such a view to be wrong if I had been around prior to 1918.

Making something illegal just because 60% of the population doesn't like it for some reason they likely can't explain adequately hardly seems rational.

Furthermore (and more to the point), I hardly see how requiring health benefits to extend to same sex partners means that the employer is "supporting" a lifestyle they don't agree with. My employer pays me twice a month. If I use that money to buy some drugs, booze, and hookers - that doesn't mean that my employer approves of such activities.

But you didn't want to get into it; so we'll leave it at that.

-Ortman

-Ortman

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ortman Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8537 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/15/2003 7:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
http://sam.dgs.ca.gov/TOC/6000/6915.htm

What a stupid provision. It essentially eliminates a check and balance.


Thanks for the link.

There seems to be no rational reason for such a provision; at least none that I can think of. =(

-Ortman

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8540 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/15/2003 8:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Ortman wrote:

Last I checked, marriage was simply a contract between two people which allows you to file taxes together, share property, and make medical decisions.

It's not solely in the nature of a contract and it is only between a man and a woman. In all of human history marriage has never occurred between people of the same sex.

How is the nature of such a union different when both parties are of the same sex?

For one, they can't create children.

I'm not gay; and don't really have any gay friends, so I won't be offended if you fall back on some hate-monger rhetoric here. In fact, I would be amused. :)

I wouldn't be amused and I don't hate gay people. I have two cousins who are/were gay (one of them is dead of AIDS). But that doesn't mean that I don't recognize a difference when I see one.

Furthermore (and more to the point), I hardly see how requiring health benefits to extend to same sex partners means that the employer is "supporting" a lifestyle they don't agree with.

To the extent you require the employer to pay for the benefit, you are requiring them to support it. This is just one more thing that will make California a less competitive environment for business.

But you didn't want to get into it; so we'll leave it at that.

Thank you, I think.

CCSand

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8541 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/15/2003 8:14 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
Race does not involve an issue of conduct or morality.

I work with gay people whose conduct and morality is beyond reproach. They live with their partners just as I live with my wife of xx yrs.

They should be entitled to every opportunity and benefit to which my wife and I are entitled.

I do not know why you would judge my co-workers conduct and morality. You do not know them, yet you would deny them basic civil rights.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8544 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/15/2003 8:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
sano wrote:

They should be entitled to every opportunity and benefit to which my wife and I are entitled.

Why? You beg the question. Just because?

You do not know them, yet you would deny them basic civil rights.

No I wouldn't because I don't think marriage is a civil right that was ever intended to be extended to same sex couples.

CCSand

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8545 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/15/2003 8:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
They should be entitled to every opportunity and benefit to which my wife and I are entitled.

Why? You beg the question. Just because?


Because they are honest, hard working, law abiding, tax paying, ex-navy, american citizens.... just like you and me.

Because when you've accomplished this,

Commissioned Officer, U.S. Navy, five ships and two shore duty billets, Officer of the Deck aboard Attack Aircraft Carrier and smaller ships. Operations Officer and Navigator, USS Hampshire County (LST-819) Officer of the Deck (for special evolutions) operating on the rivers of the Mekong Delta during combat operations. Assist Team for Commander Amphibious Group One and Chief Engineer aboard USS Turner Joy (DD-951).

you and your mate should have every damn right every other american citizen has.









Print the post Back To Top
Author: RustyMath Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8552 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/16/2003 1:49 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Last I checked, marriage was simply a contract between two people which allows you to file taxes together, share property, and make medical decisions.
How is the nature of such a union different when both parties are of the same sex?


Ortman,

My wife and I are thinking of adding a third member to our little marriage contract. Someone who would be involved equally in all aspects of a marriage; taxes, property, the whole shebang.

Please tell me why we shouldn't be allowed to do this while same-sex marriages should be allowed. Now, realize that I'm trying to trap you into an argument that many like minded people in little towns across Utah would be very interested in hearing.

Rusty

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8554 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/16/2003 1:50 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
sano wrote:

Because they are honest, hard working, law abiding, tax paying, ex-navy, american citizens.... just like you and me.

And they already have the same rights that any other honest, hard working, law abiding, tax paying, ex-whatever, American citizen has.

Nevertheless, they are not just like you and me in respect of their sexuality.

you and your mate should have every damn right every other american citizen has.

They have exactly the same right I do to marry someone of the opposite sex.

CCSand

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8556 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/16/2003 1:54 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
RustyMath wrote:

My wife and I are thinking of adding a third member to our little marriage contract. Someone who would be involved equally in all aspects of a marriage; taxes, property, the whole shebang.

And while you're at it, what about that sheep in the next pasture?

Sheesh.

CCSand

Print the post Back To Top
Author: alke Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8557 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/16/2003 1:59 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Sano,

The Turner Joy???

When I was in the Gulf on The USS Long Beach in mid to late 69 and early 70, We had to send Machinist Mates and Electricians to that ship to allow them to meet their commitments. We sent 12-14 NUKES over to the Turner Joy and they became the Engineering Department. They turned the ship around and really made a difference.

Chief Engineer of that ship at that time is nothing to brag about.

alke

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ortman Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8558 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/16/2003 2:02 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
How is the nature of such a union different when both parties are of the same sex?

For one, they can't create children.

Neither can sterile couples. So in that regard, some same sex couples share attributes with opposite sex couples, no?

Try again?

-Ortman

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ortman Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8559 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/16/2003 2:09 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
RustyMath:
My wife and I are thinking of adding a third member to our little marriage contract. Someone who would be involved equally in all aspects of a marriage; taxes, property, the whole shebang.

Please tell me why we shouldn't be allowed to do this while same-sex marriages should be allowed. Now, realize that I'm trying to trap you into an argument that many like minded people in little towns across Utah would be very interested in hearing.


I admit, I'm not 100% commited to my response here, as I've never been asked that question with regards to this issue.

My initial answer:
Why not? I'm not a fan of polygamy; but what is the rational reason for making it illegal? Sure, it complicates taxes, inheritence, etc - but is there a reason it should not be allowed if all adults are consenting?

Depending upon your answer, I may change my answer. It does paint me in a corner; I see no reason why marriage needs to be defined as occuring between "a man and a woman". One step further, why not between three or more people?

I'm all for people being able to do what they want; even though it means more people will be doing stuff I don't like.

CCSand:
And while you're at it, what about that sheep in the next pasture?

Well that's just silly; sheep aren't legal entities. :)

-Ortman

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8561 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/16/2003 9:27 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
They have exactly the same right I do to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Okay, let's eliminate the morality factor.

Ken and Bob are room-mates. After 15 years they realize they prefer each others company, do not want ot marry, and trust each other to the extent that they purchase a home in joint ownership, grant one another power of attorney, and take out a marriage document to qualify for the tax benefits .... choosing to live as life partners until death.

If there is no sex to offend you, can they get benefits?

What moral standard are you applying? Where is it written that Ken and Bob are morally wrong?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: whafa Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8562 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/16/2003 9:38 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Sorry to butt in.. just to add my .02:

It's not solely in the nature of a contract and it is only between a man and a woman. In all of human history marriage has never occurred between people of the same sex.

There was a point where, in all of human history, women never got a vote. There was a point in our country's history where blacks counted as 1/5 of a person. There was a point in history where it was OK to bludgeon your neighbor's head in with a club if he took your possessions.

Just because history says something has never been, doesn't mean that it should never be.

My belief is that, whether you approve of gay marriage or not, in the end it will have to be allowed, because it is unconstitutional to deny any specific group of people the rights allowed other groups.

My reasons for wanting to allow gay marriage are selfish and pragmatic.. I want them to pay the penalty taxes, too!



Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8563 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/16/2003 9:48 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
My wife and I are thinking of adding a third member to our little marriage contract....And while you're at it, what about that sheep in the next pasture?

Nice! That good old christian love and understanding talk-radio cloud the issue tactic.

Speaking of lame ducks, how about the new charges filed against Padre Perv yesterday !! little boy luvin' priest's shielded by the church get all kinds of benefits and exemptions !!

It's time to deny the Catholic Church its tax exempt status.... poking alll them little boys and , now, lookin at sheep in the pasture.

CC, you're makin my sheep nervous. He thinks he's gonna get drafted by the diocese.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: EJDubya Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8564 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/16/2003 10:25 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
What a stupid provision. It essentially eliminates a check and balance.

That is true. But the reality is that's the way it is here in Sunny Cahliforneea.

Maybe we need a referendum to change that provision...

EJDubya


Print the post Back To Top
Author: EJDubya Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8566 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/16/2003 10:54 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
No I wouldn't because I don't think marriage is a civil right that was ever intended to be extended to same sex couples.

CCSand


Some random thoughts...

I think marriage, as we know it, basically is a religious concept. Originally, it was a social construct designed to foster support of the next generation of humanity, but with the rise of religions, it became a religious ritual. Since most modern governments are basically religious in nature, even the good old USofA, we retain the religious concept of marriage, even in the civil contract.

In order to recognize "gay marriages" it is necessary that as a society we recognize that "marriage" is not necessarily about procreation or sex. Because of the influence of religion, even in America, that is unlikely to change anytime soon. Here in America, we talk about civil rights, but we are only willing to go so far in defining what is a civil right. We are not yet to the point as a society, where we are willing to give up our religious moral bias in favor of a civil recognition of relationships that do not fit with our basically religious conception of what a relationship should be.

Why should we care whether gays can marry? From a relationship standpoint, I see very little difference in the bonds between my gay friends and my hetero friends. Really, the only reason we care is that it somehow violates our religiously based construct of what "marriage" should be.

EJDubya

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8568 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/16/2003 11:05 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
EJDubya wrote:

I think marriage, as we know it, basically is a religious concept.

No. It's a cultural concept and it was around long before the Abrahamic monotheistic traditions existed as your next sentence said. It has to do with the perpetuation of the species and with the raising of children. Religion made it a big deal because it IS a big deal.

In order to recognize "gay marriages" it is necessary that as a society we recognize that "marriage" is not necessarily about procreation or sex.

It's true there's more to marriage than procreation and sex, but you don't need marriage if you aren't going to create children.

If this is just about benefits, then you can do your estate planning like everyone else and work for your own benefits like every other single person.

Why should we care whether gays can marry?

Why should we care whether people have and raise healthy well-adjusted children?

CCSand

Print the post Back To Top
Author: RustyMath Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8569 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/16/2003 11:24 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
My initial answer:
Why not? I'm not a fan of polygamy; but what is the rational reason for making it illegal? Sure, it complicates taxes, inheritence, etc - but is there a reason it should not be allowed if all adults are consenting?


Alright, how 'bout we take a peek further down the slippery slope. I'm invisioning an ad in La Opinion "Immigration problems? Just say 'I do' to the new civil union laws! Just bring two witnesses, a ring, and $500 to become part of the Jones family, 526 strong and growing."

Absurd? Of course. Clouding the issue? Perhaps. Covering the law of unintended consequences? Absolutely.

Rusty

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8570 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/16/2003 12:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
It has to do with the perpetuation of the species and with the raising of children. Religion made it a big deal because it IS a big deal.

That's one opinion. Another opinion is that the religion controllers were interested in keeping people glued to their organizations power base. The more oaths and vows , the more adhesion to the organization.

As we modernize, much religious dogma is dumped as antiquated and unnecessary.

Perpetuation of the species (building the religious powerbase) is no longer an issue. The species is not in danger (except from overpopulation).

If this is just about benefits, then you can do your estate planning like everyone else and work for your own benefits like every other single person.

Good! Back to the point. Two adults who have a civil union, or a marriage, ought to be entitled to the same benefits as any other adults so related.





Print the post Back To Top
Author: jck101 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8571 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/16/2003 12:38 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
My wife and I are thinking of adding a third member to our little marriage contract. Someone who would be involved equally in all aspects of a marriage; taxes, property, the whole shebang.

Why not? I'm not a fan of polygamy; but what is the rational reason for making it illegal? Sure, it complicates taxes, inheritence, etc - but is there a reason it should not be allowed if all adults are consenting?


Ortman for governer. I need someone around the house to keep my wife occupied while I goof off. Maybe he could do the laundry every now and then too.



Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8572 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/16/2003 12:57 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
sano wrote:

Perpetuation of the species (building the religious powerbase) is no longer an issue. The species is not in danger (except from overpopulation).

Not everyone agrees with you.

Saying modern nations won't lose population in the next 50 years, is like saying Michael scored 42 and Scotty scored 6 -- for an average of 24. Europe, Japan and most every other modern nation will suffer severe population losses, while the United States will grow.

Thus, the 2000 population of Europe is 727 million and the "medium" projection for 2050 is 603 million, a loss of 124 million people, or 17 percent, an unprecedented drop, hard to halt, let alone reverse. The "low" scenario for Europe, which unlike the "medium" version does not arbitrarily reflate low fertility rates, puts Europe at 556 million, a loss of 171 million, or 24 percent. Such a dizzying tailspin yields a senior theme park of castles and cuisine, disguised as a continent.

America, on the other hand, is slated to grow from 283 million today to 397 million in 2050, which pushes up the MDR average. But that American projection supposes increasing fertility and immigration, which is dubious. American fertility has been below the "replacement" rate of 2.1 children per woman for 30 consecutive years. Why would it go up? Will immigration go up? Mexican demographers say that Mexico has already breached the 2.1 rate, down from a 1965-70 rate of 6.8 children!

Like Mexico, there are already 21 nations from the LDR that have fertility rates below the replacement rate, including China, Thailand, Cuba, both North and South Korea and Kazakhstan. Yet a U.N. projection protocol mindlessly precludes an above-replacement LDR country from declining below replacement and, moreover, projects those that have back toward replacement.

Madness. Brazil's fertility fell from 6.25 children per woman to 2.25 in 40 years. Won't it likely go below 2.1? What about Turkey, down from 6.9 to 2.2, Tunisia from 7.2 to 2.3, or Indonesia from 5.6 to 2.7?


http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/wattenberg031201.asp

So talk to me again in 50 years or so when Italy and Japan, and much of Europe as we know it no longer exist.

Two adults who have a civil union, or a marriage ought to be entitled to the same benefits as any other adults so related.

Since they are not married, they get the same benefits as any other single person.

CCSand

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8573 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/16/2003 1:20 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Yes, CC, I've read the religious take on the issue. It does not impress me. An increase is an increase is an increase. The global population will increase no matter what the distribution. More crowded and more pressure on the dwindling biodiversity.



<<<"Though many individuals and parishes within it may disagree, the hierarchy of the Catholic Church has long refused to admit the seriousness of the problem of overpopulation and has even, unfortunately, done much to obscure the issue. A good example is this statement from the Pontifical Council for the Family, dated February 27, 1998:

The truth about current demographic trends [says the Council] cannot be denied any longer. It is increasingly evident and ever more widely acknowledged that the world is engaged in a marked demographic decline, which started around the year 1968. … For too long, most of the discussions about population have developed a certain universal and erroneous popular vocabulary, according to which the world is viewed as a prisoner of an "exponential", even "galloping" demographic growth which is causing a "demographic explosion"—the so-called "demographic time-bomb." … this "popular vocabulary" really lacks all foundation … For thirty years, the rate of growth of the world’s population has continued to decline at a regular and significant rate. At this point, following an impressive drop in their fertility, 51 countries in the world (out of 185) are no longer able to replace their population.
[This statement is from the Pontifical Council for the Family]
The impression left on the casual reader by these statements is that the population problem is illusory and that in many places we may soon be faced with the problem of not having enough people. Nothing in the broader context in which these statements occurs changes that impression; on the contrary; it is consistently maintained throughout the entire document.

According to the Pontifical Council, the idea of exponential population growth belongs to an "erroneous popular vocabulary." In a sense this is true; if you want to get very technical, population growth has not been a precisely exponential curve; but to a close approximation the curve is exponential. For hundreds of thousands of years, human population was well below one billion. It reached one billion only in 1850, two billion in 1930, three billion in 1960, four billion in 1976, 5 billion in 1990, and 6 billion in 1998.

The Pontifical council notes that since 1968 the rate of growth has declined, but fails to make two important points clear: (1) this decline in the growth rate is very slight, and (2) a decline in the growth rate is not a decline in growth; it merely means that the population is not growing quite as fast as it was—but the fact remains that it is still growing very rapidly—at about 1.8 percent per year. Even if this rate were to slow much more than it has, say to 1 percent per year (and there is no good reason to think that it will anytime soon)—population will continue to increase rapidly. At a one percent growth rate, which is much less than the current rate, population still doubles every seventy years.

Moreover the Pontifical Council’s statement that 51 nations are no longer able to replace their population is simply untrue. One of the fifty-one, for example, is the United States. The United States is not only able to replace its population; its population is in fact continuing to grow and will grow into the foreseeable future. The Pontifical Council bases its claim that the that the U.S. (and the other fifty countries) are unable to replace their populations on the fact that their birth rates are less than 2.1 children per women, which they consider to be the replacement rate. That replacement rate figure itself is questionable, but even if we grant it for the sake of argument, there are still three other errors in the Pontifical Council’s reasoning:

They ignore immigration. Population is replenished not only by births but by immigrants. The fifty-one nations mentioned by the council are mostly industrialized countries. And in fact population growth in industrialized nations is due largely to immigration from parts of the world in which the birth rate is much higher.
The Pontifical Council ignores increasing life spans. As life spans increase, generations increasingly overlap. This increases the population even if the birth rate stays exactly at replacement level. Life spans are increasing throughout much of the world.
Even if a nation’s birth rate is below 2.1 children per woman, that doesn’t mean that the nation is unable to achieve a higher birth rate, but only that it has not chosen to do so. If a higher birth rate were desired, it would no doubt be possible in any nation on Earth.
For these reasons, it is just not true that the United States (or any of the other fifty-one countries mentioned) is unable to replace its population. In most of the fifty-one, including the United States, population will continue to increase as far into the future as anyone can see. In the remaining 144 nations it will increase even more rapidly. ">>>>>>>

So talk to me again in 50 years or so when Italy and Japan, and much of Europe as we know it no longer exist

It may change in racial compsosition as immigrants overwhelm the land, but that is another issue. I suppose the only logical antidote to that change is a concerted effort by europeans to out-produce the immigrants. Let the race begin!!

The capacity of the human population to ramp up production is gigantic. We can do it!!

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8574 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/16/2003 1:36 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
sano wrote:

Yes, CC, I've read the religious take on the issue.

It's not about religion. It's about population. Read the UN report.

The global population will increase no matter what the distribution.

So out of the goodness of our hearts, we should refuse to reproduce so someone else can continue to exist. Someone else who has no similar responsibility to me.

Thanks, but no thanks.

CCSand

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8575 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/16/2003 1:44 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
So out of the goodness of our hearts, we should refuse to reproduce so someone else can continue to exist. Someone else who has no similar responsibility to me.

Nope. And since we've done this discussion at least twice already, I propose we assign numbers to our points, and just cite numbers. Saves time and bandwidth.

I hereby assign #4 as the number reresenting the following response:

Do not restrict funds to family planning which teach all aspects of family planning.

Teach the people all of the wonderful options which exist.

Now you respond with #5 (if people simply practiced personal responsibility....)




Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8576 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/16/2003 1:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
sano wrote:

Nope. And since we've done this discussion at least twice already, I propose we assign numbers to our points, and just cite numbers. Saves time and bandwidth.

Agreed. :) Which is why I didn't want to have it again. I already knew where this was going.

CCSand

Print the post Back To Top
Author: EJDubya Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8578 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/16/2003 3:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
I wrote:
Why should we care whether gays can marry?

CCSand responded:
Why should we care whether people have and raise healthy well-adjusted children?

Huh? One does not presuppose the other. As you pointed out earlier in your post, "It's true there's more to marriage than procreation and sex, but you don't need marriage if you aren't going to create children."

I submit that you don't need marriage if you are going to create children, and you certainly don't need marriage to raise healthy well-adjusted children. There are plenty of those around who came not from marriages, and there are millions of not so well adjusted children around who did come from marriages. In fact, marriage and well-adjusted children are not mutual requirements.

According to your reasoning, if a hetero couple doesn't want to have children, there is no reason they have to get married. True enough. We have finally come out of the dark ages in most states and no longer make it illegal to fornicate, at least as long as both parties are consenting adults. Unless, of course, those consenting adults happen to be homosexual, and then there are still some states that have sodomy laws that they may try to enforce. I suspect some also still have the fornication laws, as well, but not many are willing to try to enforce those, and fortunately the same is true of the sodomy laws in most cases.

But, hetero people get married for many reasons apart from wanting to have children, and they are then able to partake of the benefits of marriage (and the burdens as well), such as being able to obtain health insurance coverage through one's employer for both parties. Of course, that forces the employer to cough up some extra money, which I think you said you were opposed to, at least for gays. Maybe we should prohibit marriages unless the hetero couple intend to have children, and the marriage could automatically dissolve if the couple fails to fulfill this requirement within a specific time period.

CCSand also wrote:
No. It's a cultural concept and it was around long before the Abrahamic monotheistic traditions existed as your next sentence said. It has to do with the perpetuation of the species and with the raising of children. Religion made it a big deal because it IS a big deal.

Don't put words in my mouth. Actually, I said almost exactly what you argue, that it was orginally a cultural thing. However, I didn't say anything in my next sentence about "Abrahamic monotheistic traditions," nor did I even suggest that. What I actually said in my next sentence was, "Originally, it was a social construct designed to foster support of the next generation of humanity, but with the rise of religions, it became a religious ritual."

I really believe there were religions extant before the "Abrahamic monotheistic traditions" and most of them recognized some form of "marriage." Of course, many now think of these as some form of paganistic or otherwise "evil" belief systems. Prior to the "Abrahamic monotheistic traditions" there were even some "civilizations" that had polytheistic belief structures. Ancient Egypt and Greece come to mind most immediately. I'm sure your Catholic education taught you that, que no?

So, we agree that marriage is a social/cultural construct. That being so, is there a good reason to keep the "Abrahamic monotheistic tradition" that marriage can only exist between man and woman? If the culture otherwise permits homosexual couples to cohabitate and commit other unspeakable acts in the privacy of their homes, why, I ask again, should this be prohibited? There is no rational reason for prohibiting it. It causes no harm to anyone, at least none that have been identified. In fact, one could argue that it could help slow the spread of disease by slowing the rate of promiscuity if homosexual couples could marry. It offends some homophobic people, and it certainly offends the religious zealots. Apart from religious considerations of morality, there is really no moral reason to prohibit homosexual "marriages."

I'm not gay, never have been, don't intend to be. But if other people find that to be their way of life, I don't feel the urge to declare them wrong. I'm not threatened by their homosexuality, so I don't feel a need to legislate against it. As far as I'm concerned, gay people should be able to commit to and enjoy the benefits and burdens of married life, just like me and the rest of heterosexual humanity.

EJDubya


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: EJDubya Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8579 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/16/2003 3:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Alright, how 'bout we take a peek further down the slippery slope. I'm invisioning an ad in La Opinion "Immigration problems? Just say 'I do' to the new civil union laws! Just bring two witnesses, a ring, and $500 to become part of the Jones family, 526 strong and growing."

A simple and logical solution to that "problem" is to change the immigration laws to require that married people provide support to the spouses. We already have that with "sponsored" aliens, who are allowed to enter the U.S. under the sponsorship of someone who is here legally, but the sponsor is required to provide all support for the immigrant for a period of time, which I think is now 5 years. The sponsored alien is ineligible for welfare type benefits during the period of sponsorship.

EJDubya




Print the post Back To Top
Author: EJDubya Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8580 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/16/2003 3:19 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
So out of the goodness of our hearts, we should refuse to reproduce so someone else can continue to exist. Someone else who has no similar responsibility to me.

No, we should refuse to reproduce because we don't want to reproduce. Or, if we want to reproduce, we should do so. That's called freedom of choice, and we have that. It would be nice if could recognize that some people want to make different choices, that do us no harm, but some of us insist that their choices should suffer a penalty because they are not the same choices we would make.

Apart from saying, "it's so because I say so," do you have any rational reason for your dogmatic refusal to recognize their choices as legitimate lifestyle choices? Why should they have to choose to forego tax benefits because of the sex of their partner. The better argument is that there should be no tax benefit to being married. Of course that is politically unpopular because most Americans are married, some only for the tax benefits. And, there are tax penalties as well.

You told me to go to back to logic class. Your arguments lack any logical foundation, so come on back to class with me.

EJDubya




Print the post Back To Top
Author: ortman Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8581 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/16/2003 3:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
My initial answer:
Why not? I'm not a fan of polygamy; but what is the rational reason for making it illegal? Sure, it complicates taxes, inheritence, etc - but is there a reason it should not be allowed if all adults are consenting?


Alright, how 'bout we take a peek further down the slippery slope. I'm invisioning an ad in La Opinion "Immigration problems? Just say 'I do' to the new civil union laws! Just bring two witnesses, a ring, and $500 to become part of the Jones family, 526 strong and growing."

Absurd? Of course. Clouding the issue? Perhaps. Covering the law of unintended consequences? Absolutely.


Absurd? Maybe slightly; but still a fair scenario. However, any flaws in that scenario are with the immigration law - not the fact that people are able to form any types of social arrangements which they see fit.

And, your example is illustrating a problem that can occur with a traditional marriage; allowing polygamy would simply provide economy of scales. The solution would be the same; they have to live as a family, they must be able to support themselves, etc. Abuse of the system can be prevented, just as it is now.

So I'm left seeing no reason why polygamy should be illegal. I have no sympathy for them - likely becuase their numbers are smaller, and I think their beliefs are a bit odd. Gay people I can understand; they want the same things I do with regards to a relationship.

Still, despite not caring for polygamy, I don't know that it should be illegal. As such, your pointing to polygamy via slippery slope as a result of my being an advocate of same sex marriages..... it doesn't do anything to change my mind.

-Ortman

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8583 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/16/2003 3:49 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
EJDubya wrote:

I submit that you don't need marriage if you are going to create children, and you certainly don't need marriage to raise healthy well-adjusted children.

I submit to you that you're wrong. No matter how well-intentioned you believe yourself to be. The existence of some people who manage to do this well, does not prove a rule.

Maybe we should prohibit marriages unless the hetero couple intend to have children, and the marriage could automatically dissolve if the couple fails to fulfill this requirement within a specific time period.

Maybe we should all stop having children so they won't be so screwed up by the system that we in our incredible arrogance have substituted in place of what civilization over the course of many generations, has determined works best. What are the unintended consequences? Can you say that you have analyzed them all? I remain unconvinced that you have, in fact, done so.

Don't put words in my mouth. Actually, I said almost exactly what you argue, that it was orginally a cultural thing.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. You said:

Originally, it was a social construct designed to foster support of the next generation of humanity, but with the rise of religions, it became a religious ritual.

So it's a religious ritual. That it became one does not obviate its existence as a cultural construct. Frankly, it's not just a cultural construct. It's the nature and quality of existence that's at stake. You don't have the civilization you want without a next generation to carry it on. And if you screw up the next generation, either by failing to transmit the learning and wisdom of civilization or by screwing up the children so badly that they won't be able to transmit it, it's only a matter of time before the whole thing just collapses.

CCSand



Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8584 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/16/2003 3:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
EJDubya wrote:

Apart from saying, "it's so because I say so," do you have any rational reason for your dogmatic refusal to recognize their choices as legitimate lifestyle choices?

If they want to live together, fine. Do it. They have made their choice. If you want to couch this as a matter of choice, they are as free to choose to marry someone of the opposite sex although they wouldn't do so.

CCSand

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8585 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/16/2003 3:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Ortman wrote:

And, your example is illustrating a problem that can occur with a traditional marriage; allowing polygamy would simply provide economy of scales

Osama Bin Laden is a product of a polygamous society (among other things) and easy divorce. I'm sure we want to raise more children who were ignored by their fathers, just like him.

Economies of scale are so beneficial to children.

CCSand

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ortman Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8586 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/16/2003 4:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Osama Bin Laden is a product of a polygamous society (among other things) and easy divorce. I'm sure we want to raise more children who were ignored by their fathers, just like him.

Wow. That statement is just so wrong, it's funny. Polygamy is bad simply because it was the circumstance under which Osama was produced? How do we know it was that factor, in particular? He was also born on the opposite side of the ocean, and his name starts with the letter 'O'. Perhaps these are also signs of a bad thing?

Ignored children are bad, yes. But lots of people ignore their children. Are you prepared to assert that the percentage is higher in families based on polygamy than in traditional families?

Lots of children born to lower income minorities are neglected by their fathers (due to their increased chances of being incarcerated). Perhaps we should see if we can regulate minority parenthood; particularly in lower income families?

What exactly were you trying to say?

Again, I'm not a fan of polygamy. I was only defending it to the extent that another poster extended my view on what people should be able to do and not do.

There are lots of things I don't care for. Excessive consumption of liquor. Smoking. SUVs. Prostitution. Gambling. Almost all of these are unhealthy to for one reason or another. However, I'm not prepared to declare any of them illegal. Are you? And these items actually have very visible costs associated with them; I'm not sure if polygamy is on average going to result in poorer parenthood than the average family.

Either way, your statement flies in the face of logic.

-Ortman

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8588 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/16/2003 4:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Ortman wrote:

Wow. That statement is just so wrong, it's funny.

How is it wrong? His father had several wives, and divorced OBL's mother. He is therefore a product of both polygamy and divorce.

There are certainly other factors involved, but I don't see how this helped him.

Polygamy is bad simply because it was the circumstance under which Osama was produced? How do we know it was that factor, in particular?

I never said either of the above. But the fact that Bin Laden's father had 52 children and didn't give a rat's patoot about at least this one and that one of his motivations, amongst many, is a desire to be more "Islamic" than his father was, and thus prove himself, is a fact that has not escaped the notice of several historians who have been studying him for decades.

There are lots of things I don't care for. Excessive consumption of liquor. Smoking. SUVs. Prostitution. Gambling. Almost all of these are unhealthy to for one reason or another. However, I'm not prepared to declare any of them illegal. Are you?

Prostitution - Yes. Spread of STDs, some of which are fatal, is not in the public interest. You can't check a prostitute often enough to stop the spread of disease.

Gambling - Yes.

Smoking - Yes, in certain places. I don't want to breathe someone else's smoke. However, if I choose to go into a place where smoking is expected and allowed, I don't then expect everyone else to stop doing what they're doing.

SUVs - Won't need to because there will soon be fuel efficient SUVs on the market and I don't see why families with children should be penalized for needing a larger car to transport their children to school and after school activities. The market will take care of itself.

Excessive Consumption of Liquor - Already illegal to the extent that you get behind the wheel or cause a public disturbance. Which is what it should be.

CCSand

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: RustyMath Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8589 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/16/2003 5:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Still, despite not caring for polygamy, I don't know that it should be illegal. As such, your pointing to polygamy via slippery slope as a result of my being an advocate of same sex marriages..... it doesn't do anything to change my mind.

Ortman,
Those are some strong libertarian views you hold, and I commend you for intellectual honesty. However, you must agree that such views are in the minority. There are many that advocate same sex marriage but would find polygamy too offensive to countenance. Radical feminist organizations abhor polygamy as a step backward in the roles of women (rightly so) yet have no problem in attacking traditional American culture and family values. I have yet to hear anyone of such inclination - marriage is a civil right - who could logically rebut the argument: If marriage should be a right of two persons of the same sex, then why not three persons of any sex. I continue to believe that those who advocate same sex marriage and deny polygamy are intellectually dishonest.

Rusty


Print the post Back To Top
Author: ortman Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8590 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/16/2003 5:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Ortman,
Those are some strong libertarian views you hold, and I commend you for intellectual honesty.


Thanks.

However, you must agree that such views are in the minority.

As is my being an atheist. I see no reason why that should sway my opinion. At times, the minority is correct. If that's the case, the minority should at some point become the majority; it just moves slowly. The 19th ammendment, for example.

There are many that advocate same sex marriage but would find polygamy too offensive to countenance.

Then they are guilty of the same logic which their opponents are employing, and are just as wrong. Many people that believe in hetero-only marriage believe that same sex marriage is just wrong for whatever reason. To claim that is wrong, yet state that polygamy is inherently wrong is hypocrisy.

I recognize that if I choose not to judge one as wrong, I have to accept that the other is acceptable as well.

Radical feminist organizations abhor polygamy as a step backward in the roles of women (rightly so) yet have no problem in attacking traditional American culture and family values.

While those feminists may have the right goal, they make the same mistakes their opponents make.

I have yet to hear anyone of such inclination - marriage is a civil right - who could logically rebut the argument: If marriage should be a right of two persons of the same sex, then why not three persons of any sex. I continue to believe that those who advocate same sex marriage and deny polygamy are intellectually dishonest.

I can't deny polygamy without employing the same (faulty) logic that opponents of same sex marriage utilize. I would like to be able to, as I don't care for polygamy. But I can't criticize you for drawing a line between right and wrong, only to set it down 10 feet from where it was.

-Ortman



Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ortman Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8591 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/16/2003 5:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
How is it wrong? His father had several wives, and divorced OBL's mother. He is therefore a product of both polygamy and divorce.

You have failed to establish that polygamy breeds terrorists. Even if it was the direct cause in that one case (which hasn't been provedn), that says nothing of the overall population.

There are certainly other factors involved, but I don't see how this helped him.

And I'm sure the Twinkies he ate didn't help him out at all. That doesn't mean they did harm.

I never said either of the above. But the fact that Bin Laden's father had 52 children and didn't give a rat's patoot about at least this one and that one of his motivations

We have plenty of ignored children in traditional families.

And, you assume that polygamists don't give a rat's patoot about their children. That's a blanket assumption.

Prostitution - Yes. Spread of STDs, some of which are fatal, is not in the public interest. You can't check a prostitute often enough to stop the spread of disease.

Ok; I'll buy that one. People should bear the risk of who/what they sleep with, but medical costs to spill over into society. Sort of like a helmet law (hee hee).

Gambling - Yes.

Why? Because you don't like it? It's simply recreation. Money spent for entertainment. In that manner it's no different than DVDs, video games, etc.

Smoking - Yes, in certain places. I don't want to breathe someone else's smoke. However, if I choose to go into a place where smoking is expected and allowed, I don't then expect everyone else to stop doing what they're doing.

But so long as they don't infring on your rights, smoking should be legal. That's just as it should be. :)

SUVs - Won't need to because there will soon be fuel efficient SUVs on the market and I don't see why families with children should be penalized

I was speaking more to the fact that SUVs are much more likley to kill people; both inside the car and outside.

Excessive Consumption of Liquor - Already illegal to the extent that you get behind the wheel or cause a public disturbance. Which is what it should be.

But the act of drinking, so long as you aren't being a public nuisance, is legal. And you seem fine with that.

First, you aren't consistent from what I can see. Why should smoking and liquor be legal, but not gambling? At least I'm consistent; let them do what they want. :)

And, if these things are legal, which clearly do some level of public harm, that makes same sex marriage *more* harmful?

-Ortman

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: prometheuss Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8592 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/16/2003 5:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Prostitution - Yes. Spread of STDs, some of which are fatal, is not in the public interest. You can't check a prostitute often enough to stop the spread of disease.

Ok; I'll buy that one. People should bear the risk of who/what they sleep with, but medical costs to spill over into society. Sort of like a helmet law (hee hee).


Actually, teens spread more STDs than prostitutes. So by this logic we should make teens illegal.

Prometheuss
(Don't get me started on helmet laws!)


Print the post Back To Top
Author: ortman Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8593 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/16/2003 5:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Actually, teens spread more STDs than prostitutes. So by this logic we should make teens illegal.

And to extend that, the Catholic church is still against condom use. They say that the viruses simply slip through the wall of the condom anyway, as they are so small.

Can we make Catholisicm illegal? :)

-Ortman

Print the post Back To Top
Author: EJDubya Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8594 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/16/2003 5:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
I submit to you that you're wrong. No matter how well-intentioned you believe yourself to be. The existence of some people who manage to do this well, does not prove a rule.

And, I submit back to you that you're being illogical. It seems that the only belief structure you will accept is your own, and if anyone else has a different belief system, they are wrong. That's illogical. I doubt that it will make any difference to you, but for the sake of others who may be (but probably are not) interested, permit me to give you some "feedback." I'm not saying you're wrong, for I don't know the answer, unlike you, who seems to know all the answers, but here's what I hear in your reply:

You said, The existence of some people who manage to do this well, does not prove a rule.

I agree completely. But you also make the argument that the only or the main reason for the ban on gay marriage is so that we can "raise healthy, well-adjusted children." You cite no evidence for your "rule" but then you state that I'm wrong because my example doesn't prove the rule. What comes across to me is that you are incredibly arrogant. You sound like it's not necessary for you to support you "truth" with evidence, but only those who disagree with you are required to do so. I really don't think you are so arrogant, but it sure comes across that way. It's like the bumper sticker that reads, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." For you that may be true, but this is still a free country, and your system of beliefs is not the only one out there. And just because you said it does not make it so. Just as you demand proof of me (which I am not learned enough to possess at the moment), I ask only that you present your evidence. And, a statement that most people believe something makes that true. At one time most people believed that the earth was flat. Some still do. At one time most people believed that the universe revolved around the earth. Some probably still do. I don't believe either of those things, but I also don't directly possess the "factual knowledge" to prove them. That also doesn't make them true or untrue. In fact, what I believe about them is irrelevant to the truth of those ideas. The same goes for you.

You also said, Maybe we should all stop having children so they won't be so screwed up by the system that we in our incredible arrogance have substituted in place of what civilization over the course of many generations, has determined works best. What are the unintended consequences? Can you say that you have analyzed them all? I remain unconvinced that you have, in fact, done so.

Maybe I'm ignorant, but I don't quite understand your point here. I said something to the effect that recognizing gay marriages would not likely result in causing screwed up children. I'm not sure what that has to do with a "system that we ... have substituted... etc." What system is that, and what does it have to do with whether we recognize gay marriage? As for unintended consequences, I'm sure there are many, just like there are many unintended consequences of Prop 13, and the recall of Governor Davis, but I don't know what they are; and I never claimed to know them all. What are they? What are the unintended consequences of allowing gay marriages? How are they harmful? I don't know what unintended consequences you have in mind. I haven't thought of any that I believe are harmful, but if you can point them out to me, I'll be happy to consider them. Enlighten us with something other than "you're wrong." No, I haven't analyzed them all, and I doubt that you have either. I readily admit that I haven't done so; are you willing to admit that you haven't either?

Finally, you denied putting words in my mouth and stated, So it's a religious ritual. That it became one does not obviate its existence as a cultural construct. Frankly, it's not just a cultural construct. It's the nature and quality of existence that's at stake. You don't have the civilization you want without a next generation to carry it on. And if you screw up the next generation, either by failing to transmit the learning and wisdom of civilization or by screwing up the children so badly that they won't be able to transmit it, it's only a matter of time before the whole thing just collapses.

For some reason, you seem unwilling to accept that what I said is basically the same thing you said. I said it started as a social construct and became a religious construct. You said it started as a cultural construct and became a religious and cultural construct. Well, yes you kept the "cultural" part of the definition, but I believe that what I said, being the more general statement, included your idea. In my opinion, and your mileage may vary, religion is a social/cultural construct. I just didn't use all the words. Mea culpa.

Somehow you seem to think that by recognizing gay marriages, there will be no children born to carry on civilization. Given that the gay population is a very small part of humanity, and is far outnumbered by the heterosexual population, I fail to see how recognition of a status for this small group will be the downfall of civilization as we know it. I know you believe that, but I don't know why, nor do I know why I should believe it. And recognizing gay marriages will result in the failure to transmit the knowledge of civilization to the next generation, or will screw them up so badly that they will be unable to pass it on? Do you realize how homophobic that sounds? I've heard the argument that if gays can marry, then they will want children. Well, they are getting children now, without marriage. It remains to be seen whether growing up in a loving, caring "family" relationship where both parents are men or women will result in a higher incidence of dysfunctional children than there is in the current heterosexual family. Maybe so, or maybe not. What we do know for a fact is that the heterosexual nuclear family results in massively screwed up children some of the time. I'm not sure how gays could do any worse, but if you have some research that proves it, I'd be happy to consider it.

Here's what I believe will really screw up the next generation: teach them to hate, teach them that anyone who looks or acts differently than themselves must be screwed up and is someone to fear and hate. Teach them that they have the only truth, and that anyone who does not believe precisely what they believe should be killed. That way, Protestant Christians can justify killing Catholic Christians, and vice versa in Ireland. That way, Islamic children in Palestine can justify blowing themselves up in crowded places as long as they can take a few Israeli Jews with them. That way Muslim fanatics can justify hijacking commercial airliners and flying them into tall buildings in the evil Satan, America. Yes, teach them hate and intolerance, because that will surely lead to an enlightened and civilized next generation. And if it leads instead to global thermonuclear warfare, and we poison the entire planet, the meek cockroaches surely will inherit the earth.

So, to quote a knowledgeable source, "I submit to you that you're wrong. No matter how well-intentioned you believe yourself to be." But that's just my opinion. Your mileage may vary.

EJDubya








Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8595 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/16/2003 5:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Ortman wrote:

I recognize that if I choose not to judge one as wrong, I have to accept that the other is acceptable as well.

That should be a good indication to you that there is a flaw in your logic.

Particularly in light of the fact that cultures that have had polygamy have not succeeded nearly as well as those which chose not to have polygamy. There are reasons for that. That you may not know of them or don't remember them, doesn't mean that they don't exist.

CCSand

Print the post Back To Top
Author: EJDubya Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8596 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/16/2003 6:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
That should be a good indication to you that there is a flaw in your logic.

Actually it is a logical conclusion. It is like the law of unintended consequences. The fact that you disagree with the logical consistency does not mean that the logic is flawed. It means that you are picking and choosing what you will agree with, based on your personal predilicitions. That is not logic. Remember Logic 101? You sent me there.

Particularly in light of the fact that cultures that have had polygamy have not succeeded nearly as well as those which chose not to have polygamy. There are reasons for that. That you may not know of them or don't remember them, doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Does that somehow mean that polygamy is wrong? And, I'm not sure that it's even true. There are literally hundreds of "lesser" 0species on this planet that survive quite well being polygamous. For them it works well to preserve the best qualities of the species and assure the perpetuation of the species. Also there are hundreds of species who are monogamous, and they seem to survive quite well also. Then there are the millions of species who have offspring by the billions, most of whom are consumed by others, but those species also still survive. Are they "lesser" than we humans? Perhaps, but they continue on the planet (until we or something wipes them out). That's nature.

If we all became homosexual, our civilization would die out, no doubt. But we are not all likely to become homosexual, so there's really little danger from them.

Peace...

EJDubya




Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ortman Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8597 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/16/2003 6:07 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
I recognize that if I choose not to judge one as wrong, I have to accept that the other is acceptable as well.

That should be a good indication to you that there is a flaw in your logic.

I stated that if I condemn people who want action A to be illegal on grounds of morality, yet at the same time join condemn action B on those same grounds, that I am a hypocrite. That seems completely logical to me.

Particularly in light of the fact that cultures that have had polygamy have not succeeded nearly as well as those which chose not to have polygamy.

Due primarily to polygamy? Just because it was present does not mean it was directly responsible for cultures not suceeding.

There are reasons for that.

That may be the case, and there may be. I wouldn't know from your post, as you haven't offered any supporting facts.

That you may not know of them or don't remember them, doesn't mean that they don't exist.

I never said they didn't; just as you haven't offered any proof of them.

But before we get off-topic discussing whether polygamy is wrong (too late!), let me offer this. If you can prove that the cost of polygamy to society is overwhelmingly higher than the inherent value of the liberties of that part of the population, then I would support anti-polymagy laws. So we need not go into the discussion of whether polygamy really does lead to the downfall of society. If you have convincing proof that it does, then trust that I'll give you my vote against polygamy.

Such proof would need to be more than, "this guy was born into polygamy; look how that turned out!". However, if it was there without the fallacies you have employed in this thread, I would defer to your facts.

Rusty was trying to determine if I would declare polygamy as an act which should be illegal based on morality. Based on morality alone, I would not.

Whether or not you want to make illogical statements to support that polygamy is wrong isn't really relevant.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8598 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/16/2003 6:11 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Ortman wrote:

You have failed to establish that polygamy breeds terrorists. Even if it was the direct cause in that one case (which hasn't been provedn), that says nothing of the overall population.

I'm not going to go there.

We have plenty of ignored children in traditional families.

How many traditional families do you know of with multiple wives and 52 children? I don't know of any.

And, you assume that polygamists don't give a rat's patoot about their children. That's a blanket assumption.

No, I didn't. In that case it was true. But even if not true in the extreme, it's true that a man with several wives and several children is not going to be able to devote as much time or attention to each one of those children and each one of those wives. That's just a fact. You can slice it however you wish, but time is finite commodity.

Why? Because you don't like it? It's simply recreation. Money spent for entertainment. In that manner it's no different than DVDs, video games, etc.

Because gambling is destructive. When people gamble away all of their money, their dependents are also left without any money and are then on the public dole. By that time, it's too late to do anything about it. You can't get the money back. If you don't want to make gambling illegal, than you better consider making the consequences of excessive gambling as shameful and as severe as a DUI because it's very nearly as harmful. But I don't think it will help to put anyone in jail, since the dependents will still be without means. So, yes, I would make it illegal.

I was speaking more to the fact that SUVs are much more likley to kill people; both inside the car and outside.

You meant the driver, didn't you? SUVs don't do anything by themselves. As I see it there are two problems here: a) design issues and b) people driving SUVs like a regular car, which is exactly why they get into trouble.

But the act of drinking, so long as you aren't being a public nuisance, is legal. And you seem fine with that.

I am fine with that, so long as the only one that has to bear the consequences of a hangover is the person doing the drinking. Given that we are a society of drivers, it's a lot more difficult to hide this addiction than gambling.

First, you aren't consistent from what I can see. Why should smoking and liquor be legal, but not gambling?

Why is consistency required? You haven't demonstrated that it is required. These are different situations with different effects and consequences which therefore point to different solutions.

At least I'm consistent; let them do what they want. :)

No matter who it harms. Yes. You're consistent. But at what price?

CCSand

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8599 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/16/2003 6:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
prometheuss wrote:

Actually, teens spread more STDs than prostitutes. So by this logic we should make teens illegal.

Different problems, different solutions. That you contain one source of spread doesn't mean you don't do something about other sources of spread.

CCSand

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8600 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/16/2003 6:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Ortman wrote:

And to extend that, the Catholic church is still against condom use. They say that the viruses simply slip through the wall of the condom anyway, as they are so small.

Condoms leak. They have holes in them. If you want to trust your life to the efficacy and safety of a piece of latex go right ahead, but I think it's frankly foolish to give that kind of control over your life to an inanimate object.

Can we make Catholisicm illegal? :)

That's already been tried in several parts of the world, including Europe and the Middle East. It didn't and hasn't worked.

CCSand

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8601 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/16/2003 6:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
EJDubya

I'm not saying you're wrong, for I don't know the answer...

Then we can stop right there, can't we? If you don't know the answer, or at least have one that works better than the way things are now, you have no basis for preferring your views over the ones that have been tested by time and by civilization.

Here's what I believe will really screw up the next generation: teach them to hate, teach them that anyone who looks or acts differently than themselves must be screwed up and is someone to fear and hate.

They have already been taught this concept well by the do-gooders of the planet. Anyone who disagrees with them is labeled hateful (not wanting gay marriage somehow equates to hating gay people) and subject to being banned (banning Catholicism or any Christian viewpoint).

CCSand

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ortman Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8602 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/16/2003 6:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
<And to extend that, the Catholic church is still against condom use. They say that the viruses simply slip through the wall of the condom anyway, as they are so small.

Condoms leak. They have holes in them. If you want to trust your life to the efficacy and safety of a piece of latex go right ahead, but I think it's frankly foolish to give that kind of control over your life to an inanimate object.

Feisty today, heh? :)

Yes, condoms fail some times. They are not fool proof.

However, the catholic church as offered the view that condoms don't work - period. Not that they don't work 100% of the time, but that they simply don't work. The reason is that the germs are somehow small enough to slip through the molecular structure of the condom wall, apparently.

In fact, the article I read cited a church offical telling a member (who was HIV positive) not to where a condom while taking their spouse to bed. Apparently, sperm required to impregnate is too large to slip through the molecules in the condom wall, but AIDS is not. As such, all you would be doing would be to piss off God while providing yourself with no protection from transmitting the disease.

I was taking an easy shot at the church in jest. I honestly didn't expect you to take the comment seriously, or step up to their defense.

-Ortman

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8603 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/16/2003 6:28 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Ortman wrote:

Yes, condoms fail some times. They are not fool proof.

They are way less than fool proof.

However, the catholic church as offered the view that condoms don't work - period.

I'm sure you believe everything you read in the newspapers too.

CCSand

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ortman Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8604 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/16/2003 6:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Yes, condoms fail some times. They are not fool proof.

They are way less than fool proof.

Ok, I'm really curious now. What do you assert the failure rate for condoms to be? I've read quite a few studies. While the failure rate is larger than zero (as such, I wouldn't sleep around with people I didn't trust), but it's still much, much better than going without.

Are you adopting that churches stance; that condoms are essentially worthless in hindering the transmission of AIDS?

However, the catholic church as offered the view that condoms don't work - period.

I'm sure you believe everything you read in the newspapers too.

I have no idea what you are saying here. Are you trying to say that my summary of the church's statement was incorrect - that they didn't come out and say that condoms don't work.

Wow; all this from a passing shot at the church.

-Ortman


Print the post Back To Top
Author: prometheuss Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8605 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/16/2003 6:47 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Different problems, different solutions. That you contain one source of spread doesn't mean you don't do something about other sources of spread.

CCSand


Same problem and the source is the same: sex. Why not apply the same solution since you think you can solve the spread of STDs by teens despite the fact that no one has managed that over the past many thousands of years. Or is the STD issue a red herring because you object to prostitution on other grounds?

In fact, I think that the legal brothels in Nevada claim to have extremely low incidences of STDs so you should be calling for the legalization of prostitution if preventing STDs is your main concern. Right?

It seems to me that some people look for any excuse to regulate the behavior of others. Is that what's going on here?

Prometheuss
(Reminds me of the red herring 'cost to society' associated with helmet laws and motorcycles?)


Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8606 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/16/2003 6:49 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Ortman wrote:

While the failure rate is larger than zero (as such, I wouldn't sleep around with people I didn't trust), but it's still much, much better than going without.

Is that better than just saying no? Is it therefore better to give control of your life over to a piece of latex? Because if you're wrong and it slips or it leaks or whatever and you wind up with a child or a fatal disease, life as you know it will be changed rather considerably.

I don't believe that anyone has ever successfully argued that condoms were safe sex, only that they were safer sex. Well, safer than nothing to be sure. But not no risk. And not safest.

Are you adopting that churches stance; that condoms are essentially worthless in hindering the transmission of AIDS?

No. I'm saying that I don't take the newspapers word for it that this is what the church actually said. The mainstream media is rabidly anti-Christian and anti-Catholic.

I have no idea what you are saying here.

I'm saying that I doubt that what the church actually said was accurately reported in the media.

CCSand

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8607 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/16/2003 6:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Prometheuss wrote:

Why not apply the same solution since you think you can solve the spread of STDs by teens despite the fact that no one has managed that over the past many thousands of years.

Because it's not the same problem, despite your suggesting that it is.

What evidence do you have that STDs have been a huge issue for the past several thousand years? I don't think they became a huge issue (with some exceptions) until a) birth control (which didn't prevent STDs), b) the liberalization of attitudes regarding sexual customs, and c) a population sufficient to spread disease rapidly.

In fact, I think that the legal brothels in Nevada claim to have extremely low incidences of STDs so you should be calling for the legalization of prostitution if preventing STDs is your main concern. Right?

Low is not none.

CCSand

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ortman Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8608 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/16/2003 7:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Is that better than just saying no? Is it therefore better to give control of your life over to a piece of latex? Because if you're wrong and it slips or it leaks or whatever and you wind up with a child or a fatal disease, life as you know it will be changed rather considerably.

I don't believe that anyone has ever successfully argued that condoms were safe sex, only that they were safer sex. Well, safer than nothing to be sure. But not no risk. And not safest.


Nope; never said it was safe sex. The only completely safe sex is no sex, but when people aren't going to do that, condoms offer good results.

No. I'm saying that I don't take the newspapers word for it that this is what the church actually said. The mainstream media is rabidly anti-Christian and anti-Catholic.

A) Most of the time, likely for good reason. :)
B) They should issue press releases. I would read every one of them.

I'm saying that I doubt that what the church actually said was accurately reported in the media.

Ah, ok. For some reason, I didn't get that from your statement. That may or may not be the case. If there church's views are being misrepresented, then their publicist isn't doing a very good job of clearing that up.

-Ortman

Print the post Back To Top
Author: prometheuss Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8609 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/16/2003 7:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
What evidence do you have that STDs have been a huge issue for the past several thousand years? I don't think they became a huge issue (with some exceptions) until a) birth control (which didn't prevent STDs), b) the liberalization of attitudes regarding sexual customs, and c) a population sufficient to spread disease rapidly.

You really do not know much about this issue, do you? Folks have suffered and died of sexually transmitted diseases in great numbers for thousands of years. STD-related infertility has common. Diseases like syphilis were considered endemic until just recently much like herpes seems to be endemic in many places today. STDs ravaged Native American populations when the Europeans arrived in the "New World".

Folks have also been having promiscuous sex for thousands of years before the "liberalization of attitudes regarding sexual customs" that you seem to think happened for the first time in recent history. It would not be such a big issue in religious law and doctrine if it were a relatively new or minor problem. This is all in the history books. Research it for yourself, but back up one of your claims with evidence first before you ask others to do the same.

Prometheuss


Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8610 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/16/2003 8:09 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Ortman wrote:

The only completely safe sex is no sex, but when people aren't going to do that, condoms offer good results.

Of course the problem is that in offering condoms as a safer alternative to no protection at all, you risk the result which is sought to be avoided. And what if the condom doesn't work? What then? Is it going to make the person who is the victim of their own foolish belief that they won't be part of the 10% failure rate?

http://www.hivdent.org/publicp/inter/ppinURACD072003.htm

Which failure rate is apparently higher for teens.

Most of the time, likely for good reason. :)

And more often than not for no reason at all. :)

Ah, ok. For some reason, I didn't get that from your statement. That may or may not be the case. If there church's views are being misrepresented, then their publicist isn't doing a very good job of clearing that up.

I agree that they don't do a good job getting the word out, but it's not a word that a lot of people want to hear so there is lots of incentive for it to be distorted.

CCSand

Print the post Back To Top
Author: whafa Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8611 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/16/2003 8:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
It's true there's more to marriage than procreation and sex, but you don't need marriage if you aren't going to create children.

You don't need marriage if you ARE going to create children.

My dad had two kids with my mom while they were married, then left and had two kids with another woman but they were never married. My mom found my step-dad and remarried very before I was really aware. My dad left the second woman when he started having kids with another (a colorful life, to be sure, but I'm very happy to have my 9 brothers and sisters)

Point is, my sisters from the second woman are WAY more well-adjusted than I am. I had a great, loving mom and my step-dad was a great father. So I am at least one data point that suggests marriage is not necessarily associated with well-adjusted children.

Why should we care whether people have and raise healthy well-adjusted children?

Marriage isn't required for this, two loving parents are. The question is if they can both be the same gender and still raise a well-adjusted child. I would be interested in seeing any data that suggests this is not possible.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: whafa Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8612 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/16/2003 8:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Actually, teens spread more STDs than prostitutes. So by this logic we should make teens illegal.

Uh... They already are.

;)



Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8614 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/17/2003 12:48 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
whafa wrote:

My dad had two kids with my mom while they were married, then left and had two kids with another woman but they were never married. My mom found my step-dad and remarried very before I was really aware. My dad left the second woman when he started having kids with another (a colorful life, to be sure, but I'm very happy to have my 9 brothers and sisters)

I'm glad you have 9 brothers and sisters too, but I'm sure you would have preferred that this didn't come about in this way. How did your dad manage to support 9 children? Or did he?

Point is, my sisters from the second woman are WAY more well-adjusted than I am. I had a great, loving mom and my step-dad was a great father. So I am at least one data point that suggests marriage is not necessarily associated with well-adjusted children.

I don't know you and I don't know your sisters, so it's kind of difficult for me, an impartial observer, to say one way or the other.

I would not want to suggest that the lack of a marriage is a guarantee that children are going to be screwed up. There are a lot of factors that come into play. But marriage - not in the sense of going to some courthouse and getting a piece of paper, but in the sense of a lifelong full and complete commitment - definitely contributes to the health and well being of children.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0786886161/qid=1066364745/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-0011442-0230569?v=glance&s=books

In my view, and this comes from 5 years of working in the divorce field, there is no substitute for a lifelong, permanent commitment between two healthy and mature adults.

Marriage isn't required for this, two loving parents are. The question is if they can both be the same gender and still raise a well-adjusted child. I would be interested in seeing any data that suggests this is not possible.

There are very few studies which are not fatally flawed either methodologically or from small sample size. What studies there are suggest that there are differences both in behavior and attitudes of the children with regards to sexuality. It is not yet clear what these differences mean. There are studies which show a genetic component, but studies also suggest that there is a behavioral or learned component. The data is anything but clear.

I do not advocate making such a monumental change to an institution as basic as marriage without a lot of thought and without some idea as to what the unintended consequences might be.

Looking back on the last 40 years, we have more freedoms, but we have learned very little in the area of personal responsibility or how to handle some of these freedoms. A lot of this, in my opinion, is because the law and our new social mores now advocate that someone other than the actor be responsible for his/her actions.

CCSand

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8615 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/17/2003 3:08 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Prometheuss wrote:

You really do not know much about this issue, do you? Folks have suffered and died of sexually transmitted diseases in great numbers for thousands of years.

Never said they didn't, although upon review of what I wrote, my choice of words was indeed poor. Nevertheless, when was the last in history that people were dying in the millions of just one STD? Let alone all of the other ones. In Africa AIDS has cut life expectancies in half in some places. In places such as Uganda, where abstinence is a public policy, they are having success and much less disease.

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/TraffordUganda.htm

http://www.usaid.gov/press/releases/2002/pr020708.html

Failure to adapt is deadly.

Clearly, this is a lot worse than the odd case of syphillis or gonnorhea. The only thing I know of that comes close to this is the Black Plague - which was not an STD.

STD-related infertility has common. Diseases like syphilis were considered endemic until just recently much like herpes seems to be endemic in many places today. STDs ravaged Native American populations when the Europeans arrived in the "New World".

I am well aware that STDs ravaged the New World, but so did small pox - which all by itself accounted for the vast majority of the decline of Native American population on this continent. Again, that was not an STD. STDs are more preventable than other types of contagious diseases. You don't get the disease if you don't engage in the behavior.

Hawaii is a particularly horrific example of what happens when natives populations are exposed to STDs that they have no resistance to - like all of the other European diseases to which they had no immunity. The indigenous people, however, had a culture of fairly free sex, which given the change in circumstances (i.e., the introduction of STDs) and their failure to adapt to it, contributed to their near extinction. Gavan Daws talks about this in his book, Shoal of Time.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0824803248/qid=1066366648/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-0011442-0230569?v=glance&s=books

Folks have also been having promiscuous sex for thousands of years before the "liberalization of attitudes regarding sexual customs" that you seem to think happened for the first time in recent history. It would not be such a big issue in religious law and doctrine if it were a relatively new or minor problem. This is all in the history books. Research it for yourself, but back up one of your claims with evidence first before you ask others to do the same.

Now, I can and do read history. I read quite a bit of history, as a matter of fact.

In fact, I was talking about recent history. Specifically, the 1960s and forward. And in fact, you do see a dramatic increase in the incidence of STDs, including AIDS, from 1980 and on, with a slower but noticeable increase from the 1960s to that point. The decrease in older STDs can, in part, be attributed to good antibiotics and better medical care, not to an improvement in human behavior or self-control. But, as you are undoubtedly aware, there are now antibiotic resistant strains of syphillis so that is again on the rise too. Why? Because people are used to going to the doctor - some of them secretly - and getting a pill to take care of their "problem" so they won't have to change their behavior. If you don't think this is true, read "And the Band Played On" by Randy Shilts.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312241356/qid=1066370884/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/102-0011442-0230569

Shilts, who himself died of AIDS - I went to his memorial service - was very critical of the gay community because it failed to acknowledge the problem and change their behavior.

You may be referring to the "Great Scourge" but I don't see how you can look at that for evidence that self-control or personal responsibility has been tried and found wanting. They didn't even know what caused it, let alone how to treat it, until 1905. Back then, if you were a married woman, you wouldn't even be told of your condition. Hard to have any kind of self-control without that information. Men were not required to inform their wives that they had it. Gee, heaven forfend their wives might not want to have sex with them! Prostitution was not only legal, it was regulated, which did absolutely nothing to prevent the spread of disease because of the latency period. This, incidentally, was one of the reasons for the suffrage movement. Why should women be chaste and yet subject to diseases brought home by unchaste men?

It doesn't seem that we have learned much in the last couple hundred years. We figured out what caused AIDS faster than any other disease in human history, but even once we knew it was sexually transmitted, we still failed to get people to change their behavior.

29.4 million people with AIDS in sub-saharan Africa alone.

http://www.unaids.org/EN/other/functionalities/document.asp?href=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eunaids%2Eorg%2Fhtml%2Fpub%2FPublications%2FFact%2DSheets03%2FFS%5FAIDS%5Fin%5FAfrica%5F2003%5Fen%5Fdoc%2Ehtm&PDFHref=&FileSize=67072

The Black Death killed approximately 42 million people through out Europe. And it wasn't an STD.

Total AIDS deaths through 2002 are 21.8 million. But there are currently 42 million people throughout the world who are still alive and who have AIDS.

http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm

And still we have this strange notion that a piece of latex is going to be more effective than one's own self control. Haven't condoms been around for the last 40 years?

The issue isn't that people "can't" control themselves. They issue is they won't becaue they don't want to. It's no fun.

Death is, however, the ultimate change in behavior.

Excuse me while I take a time out and cry rivers of tears for the loss of life that is largely preventable but for human stupidity, ignorance and selfishness. And before you question my sincerity, my cousin is one of those statistics. He was a great guy and I do miss him a lot. He got it before they knew how it was transmitted.

You can, of course, go further back in time. You might want to read Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire as an example of what happens to a civilization when it loses its self-control (and also when its leaders suffer from lead poisoning). If you don't like Gibbon, go back to some of the original Roman authors in translation. Tacitus' Annals would be a good start.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0140440607/qid=1066371754/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/102-0011442-0230569?v=glance&s=books

History? Yes, I've read plenty of history. History is replete with examples of how human beings have acted without restraint or self control when that clearly would have been in everyone's best interest. I wish it weren't so, but Darwin's principle of natural selection is still at work. Those who fail to have self control expose themselves to the risk of getting a fatal STD and will be eliminated from the human gene pool if/when that risk becomes a reality. It may only be a 10% or otherwise small risk, but if you're in the 10%, that's cold consolation.

Research it for yourself, but back up one of your claims with evidence first before you ask others to do the same.

It is generally required that those who advocate a change in the law or in cultural norms shoulder the burden of proof. Not vice versa.

CCSand

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: whafa Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8616 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/17/2003 7:02 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I'm glad you have 9 brothers and sisters too, but I'm sure you would have preferred that this didn't come about in this way. How did your dad manage to support 9 children? Or did he?

Actually, I wouldn't wish for anything else. There's no way to know what I would be like if my parents had stayed together. Yes, my dad has supported all of his kids. He is a very successful, driven man, who got into CA real-estate in the early 70s. There may be something wrong with him, upstairs, but supporting his kids financially was never an issue. And we all still see him frequently and (for the most part) have a good relationship with him.

Anyway, didn't mean to meander so much from the topic at hand:

But marriage - not in the sense of going to some courthouse and getting a piece of paper, but in the sense of a lifelong full and complete commitment - definitely contributes to the health and well being of children. . .

In my view, and this comes from 5 years of working in the divorce field, there is no substitute for a lifelong, permanent commitment between two healthy and mature adults.


I don't think anyone could disagree with you on this. But I'm sure you know, being involved in the field (I assume you're divorce lawyer?), that a depressingly large number of marriages, maybe even the majority of marriages, do not result in a lifelong, permanent committment.

I think your concerns about the children raised from gay marriages are valid. But I don't think that, because it MIGHT not work, we should never try it. Perhaps, condoning and supporting institutional marriage for gay couples would actually HELP the children raised in such environments, because they would feel less different than their peers who were raised under same-sex, condoned marriages. Perhaps it's the taboo that contributes to the child's possible issues.

Let me ask you this: If raising children were not an issue (if married gay couples could never adopt, for instance, and assuming for simplicity neither one had a kid from an earlier hetero relationship), would you still have a problem with condoning gay marriage?



Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8618 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/17/2003 10:50 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
whafa wrote:

Actually, I wouldn't wish for anything else. There's no way to know what I would be like if my parents had stayed together. Yes, my dad has supported all of his kids. He is a very successful, driven man, who got into CA real-estate in the early 70s. There may be something wrong with him, upstairs, but supporting his kids financially was never an issue. And we all still see him frequently and (for the most part) have a good relationship with him.

That was a good time to get into real estate. I'm truly glad for you, but that is also very unusual.

I don't think anyone could disagree with you on this. But I'm sure you know, being involved in the field (I assume you're divorce lawyer?), that a depressingly large number of marriages, maybe even the majority of marriages, do not result in a lifelong, permanent committment.

Yes. There are a lot of reasons for this. The ease of obtaining a divorce if you choose unwisely. Abuse of drugs and alcohol. Infidelity. Inability to manage finances or discuss same. Domestic violence accounts for a fairly small percentage.

All of which are character issues.

I think your concerns about the children raised from gay marriages are valid. But I don't think that, because it MIGHT not work, we should never try it. Perhaps, condoning and supporting institutional marriage for gay couples would actually HELP the children raised in such environments, because they would feel less different than their peers who were raised under same-sex, condoned marriages. Perhaps it's the taboo that contributes to the child's possible issues.

I don't think so. Then you're saying that a piece of paper actually changes the nature of the relationship and I don't see this to be true. What studies there are of currently existing gay couples already show differences in attitudes and behavior with regard to sexuality in their children. But none of the research is comprehensive enough and all of it is methodologically flawed or suffers from a small sample sizes, so you really can't draw any safe conclusions from it.

There is no taboo anymore with respect to divorce and that has caused horrendous problems for children. Divorce hasn't solved the social ills it was supposed to solve. It's just created more problems.

Let me ask you this: If raising children were not an issue (if married gay couples could never adopt, for instance, and assuming for simplicity neither one had a kid from an earlier hetero relationship), would you still have a problem with condoning gay marriage?

I don't see a reason to support it. Once you say that marriage is between any two individuals, there's no reason it can't be between any three or more individuals. Why discriminate as to number if you can't say that the gender issue is important? I don't see polygamy as healthy for society, which is undoubtedly why it's not the dominant mode in the world. And what about unions between children and adults? Could you make any meaningful discrimination there? NAMBLA would be thrilled.

If this is about visiting someone in a hospital, use a durable power of attorney for health care which is something that heterosexual couples and individuals already do. If this is about inheritance rights, draft a will or a trust - which heterosexual couples and individuals already do. Failure to plan is not a good reason to extend marriage to same sex partners. If this is about benefits that are related primarily to child-rearing and a one-earner families, well, the benefit either isn't needed or doesn't further the purpose of the benefit. Social security survivor benefits, for example.

Further, once you allow gay marriage and/or require businesses to pay benefits to gay married partners - businesses owned and operated by people who don't want to do that will be effectively discriminated against. This places yet more pressure on business. Those businesses will go elsewhere. That was the point I was making that started this thread.

Turn the question around, for a minute: If marriage never had anything to do with reproduction or rearing the next generation, would there be any reason for the government to be involved in regulating or rewarding it? Would we tolerate the government intervening in such an intimate relationship, any more than if government defined the terms of who may be your “best friend?”

CCSand

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8619 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/17/2003 10:57 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
CC, which talk radio hosts do you find most worthwhile on this marriage issue?


Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8620 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/17/2003 11:29 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
sano asked:

CC, which talk radio hosts do you find most worthwhile on this marriage issue?

I don't.

CCSand

Print the post Back To Top
Author: prometheuss Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8621 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/17/2003 1:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
This is what you said, CC:

What evidence do you have that STDs have been a huge issue for the past several thousand years? I don't think they became a huge issue (with some exceptions) until a) birth control (which didn't prevent STDs), b) the liberalization of attitudes regarding sexual customs, and c) a population sufficient to spread disease rapidly.

I appreciate you doing research that strongly supports my counter claim that STDs have always been a big social problem though much of your post is only tangential to our topic. Your entire case for the issue being so much bigger today rests on two ill-founded notions. The first is the idea that there are many more cases today. You have scant historical data to use as a basis for comparison. I doubt that you can really make this case without extensive research and effort. Even then you would need a breakthrough in methodology worthy of a Ph.D. dissertation to credibly count historical cases. What evidence you cite bolsters the case for the problem being nearly as old as man.

The second pillar in your case is the claim that there are more AIDS cases since 1960. That's laughable since there were no known AIDS cases before 1960. I cannot believe you are serious when you cite this. It is not unusual for a new disease to run rampant in a population. Even here, most AIDS cases in third world countries are diagnosed based on the symptoms modern without testing. This is also where most of the deaths that you cite occur. AIDS is a relatively minor health problem in most developed countries with most cases occurring in distinct subgroups (homosexuals, IV drug users and folks who have sex with those folks). I remain unconvinced that the spread of AIDS is different in any significant way from the historical spread of diseases.

Then you change the subject:

History? Yes, I've read plenty of history. History is replete with examples of how human beings have acted without restraint or self control when that clearly would have been in everyone's best interest. I wish it weren't so, but Darwin's principle of natural selection is still at work. Those who fail to have self control expose themselves to the risk of getting a fatal STD and will be eliminated from the human gene pool if/when that risk becomes a reality. It may only be a 10% or otherwise small risk, but if you're in the 10%, that's cold consolation.

I am at a loss to understand why you are lecturing me about self-control. The issue is STDs and I am sad to report that most fatal STDs do not eliminate folks from the gene pool contrary to your claim. Elimination occurs after the infected individual has ample opportunity to reproduce. Otherwise, you do not make a case that self-control is any more or less in evidence today vice yesteryear.

And then you close with another non sequitur:

It is generally required that those who advocate a change in the law or in cultural norms shoulder the burden of proof. Not vice versa.

The topic was whether prostitution is a major factor in the spread of STDs and not changing the law or cultural norms. However, cultural norms have tolerated prostitution for thousands of years and that is a fact that your own research supports.

I do want to point out an extremely important point, though. Anyone who wants to make laws against personal behavior or champion the continuation of those laws ought to make a compelling case for that law having a positive effect that justifies taking away some freedoms from other folks. Branding folks as criminals for behavior that does not directly affect your person or property should not be easy. You should provide compelling direct evidence that the behavior harms society. The weak and anecdotal evidence that I have seen to date for criminalizing all sorts of behavior fall far short of this standard.

Furthermore, even when the harm is great it is still incumbent upon those who wish to criminalize the behavior to demonstrate that the laws will not cause equal or greater harm. Alcohol is a clear example. No matter how great the harm caused by the legal consumption of alcohol, the prohibition was worse. Prohibition of drugs has spawned more and greater violence. I wonder if the drugs are as harmful?

Of course, you can always criminalize behavior on moral grounds and then look the other way and not enforce the laws. That seems to be the case with prostitution. Open the phone book in any major city and you see "Escorts" and "Massage" services advertising their girls and guys. Ditto if you search the Internet. Meanwhile, the police in most cities spend what time they spend on "Vice" chasing the streetwalkers who are on the lowest, most visible rung of the ladder from one corner to another.

Anyway, I can see that you are passionate about your subject while my interest is purely intellectual. It seems like your real case is a moral case and not a legal case. I doubt that you will convince me that criminalizing behavior will suddenly start working when it never has. I would just like make my own moral plea for everyone to raise the standard required to criminalize behavior that does not affect your person or property. If you do so, then we will have a more just and fair society.

Regards,
Prometheuss


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8622 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/17/2003 5:38 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Prometheuss wrote:

I appreciate you doing research that strongly supports my counter claim that STDs have always been a big social problem though much of your post is only tangential to our topic.

I didn't do any more research other than to refer you to several books I've already read.

Since my claim is that the spread of STDs is linked to behavioral issues, which is true for STDs, and not true for small pox or the bubonic plague, what I have presented does support the proposition.

The first is the idea that there are many more cases today. You have scant historical data to use as a basis for comparison. I doubt that you can really make this case without extensive research and effort. Even then you would need a breakthrough in methodology worthy of a Ph.D. dissertation to credibly count historical cases. What evidence you cite bolsters the case for the problem being nearly as old as man.

I'll agree that there is not good historical data re mortality statistics but I was using the best estimate we have. What evidence we do have suggests that AIDS rivals the bubonic plague and similar epidemics. What makes AIDS different than small pox and bubonic plague is the method of transmission. There is therefore a behavioral component which you don't have to address in order to prevent small pox or plague.

The second pillar in your case is the claim that there are more AIDS cases since 1960....I remain unconvinced that the spread of AIDS is different in any significant way from the historical spread of diseases.

Nope. Since 1980. Read it again. The period between 1960 and 1980 showed a rise in non-AIDS STDs. (In fact, it showed that cases of Hepatitis C were rising.) And there were cases that were earlier than 1980, although not many. The earliest case for which there is evidence of AIDS is the late 1950s, which case is debatable, but there is also evidence of cases in the next two decades and prior to the 1980s.

http://www.aegis.com/news/sfe/1998/SE980201.html

The point is that STDs are transmitted differently than diseases such as small pox or bubonic plague or other diseases which have caused a similar numbers of deaths in populations. This means that since it is transmitted differently, i.e., sexually, that one of the ways to combat the disease is to alter behavior. Having said that, wearing a condom is going to help some, because it reduces the risk of transmission. But it does not completely eliminate the risk of transmission.

So where does that leave us? If you don't want to catch AIDS (or likely some other STD), don't do the behaviors that are risky for transmitting it. This is not rocket science. You don't need to do a lot of research to understand this.

I am at a loss to understand why you are lecturing me about self-control.

I am at a similar loss as to why you would lecture me about history.

It's not a personal thing, Prometheuss. :)

Otherwise, you do not make a case that self-control is any more or less in evidence today vice yesteryear.

And yes, AIDS does eliminate some people from the gene pool. My cousin did not reproduce. Neither did many of the children who got it from their mothers or from infected blood. Some people reproduce before they catch and later die of AIDS, but either way, they are just as surely dead. Which is more to the point.

Put this together with history. You have the sexual revolution happening in the 1960s and on and the gay rights revolution happening in the 1970s.

When the incidence of all STDs, as well as AIDS, show an increase that correlates to a liberalization of sexual mores, I think that's a pretty good argument that self-control remains important.

http://www.ccv.org/images/HPV-Epidemic.PDF

The topic was whether prostitution is a major factor in the spread of STDs and not changing the law or cultural norms.

Clearly, they both are. That was known during the "Great Scourge" but what they did failed to solve the problem because they didn't encourage self-control. They thought they could have their cake and eat it too. But it didn't work.

However, cultural norms have tolerated prostitution for thousands of years and that is a fact that your own research supports.

Which culture? Certainly that has not, for the most part, been true in America. Which is why the liberalization of sexual mores in the 1960s is significant.

I do want to point out an extremely important point, though. Anyone who wants to make laws against personal behavior or champion the continuation of those laws ought to make a compelling case for that law having a positive effect that justifies taking away some freedoms from other folks. Branding folks as criminals for behavior that does not directly affect your person or property should not be easy. You should provide compelling direct evidence that the behavior harms society. The weak and anecdotal evidence that I have seen to date for criminalizing all sorts of behavior fall far short of this standard.

When the behavior, such as prostitution, results in the spread of disease it does directly and indirectly affect people. It does harm society. The costs to society as a result of spread of STDs are quite high, both financially and otherwise. At any rate, what is the compelling reason to make prostitution legal that makes up for the cost to society? I can't think of one. The point is not to produce children. The point isn't to develop and maintain a relationship. The only point is to have a quickie.

Furthermore, even when the harm is great it is still incumbent upon those who wish to criminalize the behavior to demonstrate that the laws will not cause equal or greater harm.

Prostitution has been illegal for a great number of years in this country, so I can't see that it remaining criminal is going to cause huge problems.

As for alcohol, you know when you have a drink. You don't necessarily know when you have a disease because of the latency period.

Of course, you can always criminalize behavior on moral grounds and then look the other way and not enforce the laws.

That would not help and I do not advocate this.

I doubt that you will convince me that criminalizing behavior will suddenly start working when it never has.

Never has? STDs were not as great a problem in this country prior to the 1960s. Now they are. Standards of behavior have become far more lax than they once were. Certain behaviors, while not all criminalized (although prostitution was), were considered shameful by society and there was a strong disincentive. They aren't now.

CCSand

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8623 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/17/2003 6:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
You have the sexual revolution happening in the 1960s and on and the gay rights revolution happening in the 1970s.

History professor? Did Africa experience a 'sexual revolution' in the '1960's and on?"

Is that why Africas has such a high rate of HIV?

If condoms aren't effective 10% of the time, (did you say 10%?), then why not promote the heck out of them to get the 90% benefit?




Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8624 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/17/2003 7:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
sano asked:

History professor? Did Africa experience a 'sexual revolution' in the '1960's and on?"

Yes.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/002/2.38.html

Why has the AIDS virus been particularly virulent in Africa? In Africa AIDS is primarily a heterosexual disease. Much of the spread is because of social structures and instability. Many migrant men leave their rural homes and spend months working in mines, on construction projects or at jobs in the cities. While away from home, many visit prostitutes, of whom up to 90 percent in some areas carry the virus (in some cities, up to 50 percent of the population has AIDS). After becoming infected the men carry the virus back to their wives and others in their home villages.

http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/gn/gn031/orphans.html

And it's a mini-sexual revolution that is responding successfully to the problem:

Uganda, the place where AIDS first struck in Africa, now offers a model for combating the epidemic. The Ugandan government has helped bring about a mini-sexual revolution. In the mid 1980s, it began prevention campaigns on HIV/ AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, and started promoting sex education generally. President Yoweri Museveni personally championed the AIDS-control program. Meanwhile, some debt relief and the creation of an anti-poverty program has resulted in a revival of the health system.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Africa/Raise_Alarm_AIDS.html

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0074.html

For what it's worth, China and India are only just recently beginning to experience that sexual revolution which is causing rates there to begin to increase as well.

Also for what it's worth, I've been to Thailand and I've seen with my own eyes the conditions of the sex industry there. There are signs that say that the girls are checked every six weeks. But it's also widely known that the "checks" aren't any good. And Thailand has had a horrible time with AIDs. We saw girls with sores the size of silver dollars. It was one of the most shocking things I've ever seen.

If condoms aren't effective 10% of the time, (did you say 10%?), then why not promote the heck out of them to get the 90% benefit?

And what is your solution for the 10%? Just write them off?

"Well, we told you to do something that was only 90% effective. Sorry it didn't work. Later."

Of course, this will take care of the surplus population, right?

CCSand

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheJTrain Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8625 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/17/2003 7:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Wow. After laboring through this thread and the varied conversations that have evolved from it (whether same-sex marriages [or polygamy] produce maladjusted children, whether or not prostitution [or gambling] should be legal or illegal, and from there a huge discussion of STDs), I'd like to return to the original subject that spawned it all (whether the legislation signed by Gov. Davis requiring companies that do business with the state to offer the same marriage benefits to same-sex couples as they do to hetero couples is good or bad).

To my memory, two viewpoints were put forth, and (forgive me if I neglect to include the various subtleties that have been put forth so eloquently by my board-mates, I'm trying to distill the opposing sides to their original essence without picking a side myself) they were as follows:
A) the legislation is good 'cause it's wrong to discriminate against same-sex couples just 'cause they're gay - they should have the same rights and benefits as any other couple, hetero or otherwise;
B) the legislation is bad 'cause same-sex couples shouldn't (or can't) get married 'cause that in itself is bad (or illegal).

What surprises me, with the recent tendency of self-professed Libertarians revealing themselves (myself included), is that no one thought to present another position:
C) the legislation is bad 'cause the older bit of legislation that requires companies to offer those kind of benefits to anybody (married or single) is itself bad 'cause it's none of the state's business what benefits a company offers to the labor market as a whole to attempt to attract and retain employees.

How about instead of adding legislation either way (Prop 22 disallowing same-sex marriages, or this new one which is, IMO a workaround passed 'cause Prop 22 failed), we <gasp> reduce legislation and let companies offer whatever level of benefits they wish to whichever classes of people they wish (married or single, gay or straight) and let the labor market sort out which policies are effective and successful in the various industries, markets, and regions which comprise our great state of California?

Just my $.02,
JT

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: RustyMath Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8626 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/17/2003 7:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
If condoms aren't effective 10% of the time, (did you say 10%?), then why not promote the heck out of them to get the 90% benefit?

Care to play Russian Roulette with a 10 shot revolver? It's only one bullet...

Rusty

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheJTrain Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8627 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/17/2003 7:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
And can I add how impressed I am by all of the present debaters' rationality and courteousness over the last few days? It's great to see people say stuff like:

"You said this

I think you meant this

Am I right or am I misunderstanding?"

And even when Party A seems to think that Party B is just spouting off without really knowing what (s)he's talking about, Party A shows the restraint and diplomacy to tactfully confront the apparent disconnect and request more dialogue on the subject.

I know this doesn't really add much to the discussion, but I just wanted to applaud all the principals: ortman, CCsand, sano, prometheuss, RustyMath, whafa, EJDubya, etc. You guys rock.

JT

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ortman Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8628 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/17/2003 8:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
After laboring through this thread and the varied conversations that have evolved from it (whether same-sex marriages [or polygamy] produce maladjusted children

Sorry. I take partial blame. :(

What surprises me, with the recent tendency of self-professed Libertarians revealing themselves (myself included), is that no one thought to present another position:
C) the legislation is bad 'cause the older bit of legislation that requires companies to offer those kind of benefits to anybody (married or single) is itself bad 'cause it's none of the state's business what benefits a company offers to the labor market as a whole to attempt to attract and retain employees.


Is there current legislation making benefits mandatory? I didn't think there was, and that this legislation was to make it so that when you did offer benefits, you had to offer them to hetero and homo couples.

How about instead of adding legislation either way (Prop 22 disallowing same-sex marriages, or this new one which is, IMO a workaround passed 'cause Prop 22 failed), we <gasp> reduce legislation and let companies offer whatever level of benefits they wish to whichever classes of people they wish (married or single, gay or straight) and let the labor market sort out which policies are effective and successful...

Good point.

But then, what if company X decides to not give benefits to certain racial groups? Isn't this somewhat similar to employers deciding whether or not they want to extend benefits to same sex couples? Or should legislation be there to enforce equal treatment?

Also, this is a patch for Prop 22. That in itself makes the legislation suspect - even though I agree with the intent of the bill.

-Ortman

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8629 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/17/2003 11:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
JTrain wrote:

What surprises me, with the recent tendency of self-professed Libertarians revealing themselves (myself included), is that no one thought to present another position:
C) the legislation is bad 'cause the older bit of legislation that requires companies to offer those kind of benefits to anybody (married or single) is itself bad 'cause it's none of the state's business what benefits a company offers to the labor market as a whole to attempt to attract and retain employees.


That's a very good point. I made a similar point in that to "the extent you require the employer to pay for the benefit, you are requiring them to support it. This is just one more thing that will make California a less competitive environment for business."

http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=19715791

If the benefit isn't required to retain employees, than you are requiring business to shoulder a benefit that it doesn't need to, your cutting into profitability, and there is less of an incentive for business to come to or stay in the state.

How about instead of adding legislation either way (Prop 22 disallowing same-sex marriages, or this new one which is, IMO a workaround passed 'cause Prop 22 failed), we <gasp> reduce legislation and let companies offer whatever level of benefits they wish to whichever classes of people they wish (married or single, gay or straight) and let the labor market sort out which policies are effective and successful in the various industries, markets, and regions which comprise our great state of California?

Sounds good to me.

CCSand

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheJTrain Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8630 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/18/2003 12:04 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Is there current legislation making benefits mandatory? I didn't think there was

Yikes - it would be just like me to make that kind of colossal blunder with that kind of colossal assumption. I guess I have to confess that I don't know if there really is or not - I just figured there was, what with the state having its hands in so many other pies and such. Anyone know for sure? CA lawyers? Anyone? Bueller?

But then, what if company X decides to not give benefits to certain racial groups? Isn't this somewhat similar to employers deciding whether or not they want to extend benefits to same sex couples? Or should legislation be there to enforce equal treatment?

It's part of the Libertarian and free market worldview (that is, as I understand it - I have no idea what's officially on the Libertarian Party Platform) that companies should have every right to hire who they want, and compensate those people how they want, as long as they honor contracts. Other than the specifically enumerated power to enforce private contracts, the government should not have any say in the hiring and compensation practices of any business. However, it's also recognized by the same free market worldview that it would be monumentally stupid for a company to do something like that, as it would be unnecessarily and needlessly limiting the pool of talent and skill that it draws its employees from; e.g., if a company was interviewing for a critical position, and it had the choice between a [ethnic group A or straight] who barely graduated college and a [ethnic group B or gay] who was summa cum laude, and ended up hiring the first candidate based on their ethnic group or sexuality, leaving the second candidate to be hired by the competition, it's the company's own darn fault. The government should not legislate against stupid management.

The argument is sometimes made about the way companies compensate their employees, that some ethnic groups will be treated better than others. If certain employees get better pay or better benefits than others, that again is the company's mistake, and any employee is free to go to the competition if the pay or benefits are better. If a company makes an agreement or contract with a certain employee at the time of their hire, then fails to honor that agreement, then is the right time for the government to get involved, through its mandate to enforce private contracts.

Also, this is a patch for Prop 22. That in itself makes the legislation suspect - even though I agree with the intent of the bill.

This brings us back to intent of the legislation - if the labor market decides that offering same-sex couples a certain level of benefits (which could, for hypothetical purposes, even be better than what they offer hetero couples) is a competitive advantage to companies looking to hire talented, skilled employees (and which one isn't looking for those?), then a company would be just as stupid for losing its competitive hiring edge by not "keeping up with the times". The market should decide, not the government.

Sorry if it sounds like I'm on a soapbox - I just got kinda excited to have something that I felt confident to talk (type) intelligently about.

JT

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ortman Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8631 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/18/2003 3:36 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Other than the specifically enumerated power to enforce private contracts, the government should not have any say in the hiring and compensation practices of any business. However, it's also recognized by the same free market worldview that it would be monumentally stupid for a company to do something like that, as it would be unnecessarily and needlessly limiting the pool of talent and skill that it draws its employees from; e.g., if a company was interviewing for a critical position, and it had the choice between a [ethnic group A or straight] who barely graduated college and a [ethnic group B or gay] who was summa cum laude, and ended up hiring the first candidate based on their ethnic group or sexuality, leaving the second candidate to be hired by the competition, it's the company's own darn fault. The government should not legislate against stupid management.

I should have been more clear. I understand the underlying premise; what I meant was, do you have faith in that conclusion? And what sort of lag, if any, would there be necessary for the market to correct any inequitable treatment?

People don't always make the decision that makes the most sense economically. The Nasdaq was trading at 5,000 not too long ago. Somebody funded Pets.com. So, we don't always make the best decisions. And that's just when we're being stupid; toss a little racism in there and the potential for problems is bound to be greater.

Also, what if the group in question is unpopulare enough to make it costly to make the best decision. For example, I remember some religious groups attempting to organize a movement to not patronize Disney based upon their benefits to same sex couples. In a case like that, perhaps the increased cost of hiring a person from that group outweighs the benefit of their supeior qualifications. (I'm not sure if I'm stretching too far now).

While the Libertarian view seems logical to me in that regard, I have a hard time imagining it applied sucessfully (despite the fact that I want to).

I am asserting no opinions; just random thoughts. :)

-Ortman

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8632 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/18/2003 11:44 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Care to play Russian Roulette with a 10 shot revolver? It's only one bullet...

Lame analogy, but if you insist....

If a large percentage of a population played russin roulette on a daily basis, then, yes, playing with one bullet vs ten would provide a superior chance of survival.

Sex without the condom is like playing russin rouletter with nine vs one bullet in the cylinder.

Would you rather the game rules dictate nine rounds or one round?




Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheJTrain Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8633 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/18/2003 1:36 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
do you have faith in that conclusion?

Yes, I do. Companies already have programs in place to ensure that their hiring practices do not overlook a certain demographic, even to the point of self-enforced Affirmative Action. This they do in order to obtain favorable opinions from the public, and they do it at the risk of hiring a less-qualified person, so it seems that companies are taking it very seriously - with that in mind, I see little need for any more legislation (or even what's already there).

And what sort of lag, if any, would there be necessary for the market to correct any inequitable treatment?

Whatever lag there might be will be very short-term, IMO, and that lag will continue to shorten as technological advances like the Internet bring hirers and job applicants closer together. Just a few years ago it wasn't very easy to find what companies were hiring for certain positions, and it got exponentially harder, the further out in distance an applicant searched. Now, geography means very little and a job applicant who feels snubbed for his ethnic background can immediately find and apply for a similar position at a company he feels will value him closer to what he feels he's worth. These same technological advances are also speeding up the formulation of public opinion (which the companies in question want in their favor), so it is hastening the application of the policies I mentioned in the first paragraph.

People don't always make the decision that makes the most sense economically. The Nasdaq was trading at 5,000 not too long ago. Somebody funded Pets.com. So, we don't always make the best decisions. And that's just when we're being stupid; toss a little racism in there and the potential for problems is bound to be greater.

I agree that "people" don't always make the "makes the most sense" decision - but the chances of making that decision increase exponentially if it's a board of directors with all the right information and the wrath of the shareholders at stake. Pets.com (which I realize you just used as an example, but allow me to use it as well) was funded because of the intense speculation and the view that the market had become a "get rich quick" scheme - people in general did not do their due diligence to find out why Pets.com would have been a good place for their investment dollar, and when it turned out it wasn't a good place, they (hopefully) learned their lesson.

Also, what if the group in question is unpopulare enough to make it costly to make the best decision. For example, I remember some religious groups attempting to organize a movement to not patronize Disney based upon their benefits to same sex couples. In a case like that, perhaps the increased cost of hiring a person from that group outweighs the benefit of their supeior qualifications. (I'm not sure if I'm stretching too far now).

Companies are beholden to two groups of people, the shareholders 'cause they own the company, and the customers 'cause without them the company goes under. If a given company (Disney, in your example) finds that a certain business practice is costing it more in lost business than it is gaining by perpetuating that practice (the court of public opinion again), then they would be wise to discontinue the practice because the shareholders will be displeased at the loss of value - the free market at work. The court of public opinion has spoken and the company has a choice to either ignore it or heed it - the government passing legislation requiring the company to ignore it or heed it is redundant when the legislation matches public opinion, and counter-productive when they are at odds - and removes from the company the power to make decisions for itself in its quest to create wealth (growing the pie, not just the company's slice of it).

Look at it from the customers' point of view. The product or company boycott is a powerful tool when wielded by the hands of the consumers - it gives them a voice in the practices of a company by allowing them to "vote with their feet". If a demographic is large enough to cause a company financial pains when they do so, the company has a choice, again, to either ignore them or heed them, at its own peril. When the government passes legislation requiring companies to all act the same, that tool is taken out of the consuming public's hands, their voice quelled. It no longer matters what choice consumers make in that part of the market, because all companies are the same. I may be the one stretching a little bit now, but that slippery slope sounds a lot like the one leading to socialism.

I am asserting no opinions; just random thoughts. :)

No disclaimers needed for my benefit pal, just let it roll! I sat down to install Max Payne 2, but now I have to go mow the lawn before the wife gets home and sees me playing. ;-)

JT

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8635 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/18/2003 7:42 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
sano wrote:

Sex without the condom is like playing russin rouletter with nine vs one bullet in the cylinder.

Would you rather the game rules dictate nine rounds or one round?


Why the false dichotomy?

There are other choices that a person can make.

Abstinence is 100% effective at preventing STDs. Why play with 1 bullet out of 10 if you don't have to play at all?

(What's the number of this post? #7? :> )

CCSand

Print the post Back To Top
Author: RustyMath Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8636 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/18/2003 7:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Lame analogy, but if you insist....

Really? I've discussed this with others whose opinion I respect and we all think the analogy is right on point.

Sex without the condom is like playing russin rouletter with nine vs one bullet in the cylinder.
Would you rather the game rules dictate nine rounds or one round?


I would rather people not play life threatening games.

Rusty


Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8639 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/18/2003 8:14 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
There are other choices that a person can make.

Yep. You are right. But there is a reason the oldest profession has not flagged in popularity. It's human nature. You can preach "self-control" and "personal responsibility" for another thousand years but human nature will not change.

St. Mary Magdelene
Patroness of repentant prostitutes and Hairdressers

"Shall I then take Christ's members and make them the members of a prostitute? Of course not!” - 1 Corinthians 6:13-15

Famous Prostitutes of Zhong Hua Min Guo
http://www.yutopian.com/society/customs/prostitute1.html

SANO


Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8641 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/18/2003 8:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
I would rather people not play life threatening games.

I'd wager that more people die from popular life threatening games than from russian roulette.

What do sex and skydiving, scubadiving, car racing, bullfighting (gotta gore the latinos who can't afford formula 1), skiing, boating, hunting, snowmobiling, basejumping, bungee jumping, motocrossing, have in common?

All very pleasurable and very life-threatening activities.

When you are elected grand poobah you can ban all life threatening games.

Or you can recognize that human nature has not yielded to the preaching of the self-righteous, and try to make things safer for the inevitable sinning and gaming that is going to go on for as long as man walks the earth.

Whodda thunk all these people went out to play these games and ended up dead?


Print the post Back To Top
Author: RustyMath Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8642 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/18/2003 9:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
What do sex and skydiving, scubadiving, car racing, bullfighting (gotta gore the latinos who can't afford formula 1), skiing, boating, hunting, snowmobiling, basejumping, bungee jumping, motocrossing, have in common?
All very pleasurable and very life-threatening activities.


Yep. Done a few myself. Then I grew up, started a family, and realized thatI am responsible for their maintenence and took up golf.

And I would have no problem if people continued to participate in these activities and thereby weed out the gene pool. Unfortunately, somewhere along the way they made me responsible for their maintenence when they managed to mangle their own lives instead of end it. My medical paying taxes give me the right to be preachy and self-righteous. If you don't like it, just give me back my money and I'll shut the hell up!

Rusty - tired of this thread.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: RustyMath Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8643 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/18/2003 9:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Rusty - tired of this thread.

So tired - I negelected to check the formatting. Let's try again

What do sex and skydiving, scubadiving, car racing, bullfighting (gotta gore the latinos who can't afford formula 1), skiing, boating, hunting, snowmobiling, basejumping, bungee jumping, motocrossing, have in common?
All very pleasurable and very life-threatening activities.


Yep. Done a few myself. Then I grew up, started a family, realized that I am responsible for their maintenence and took up golf.

And I would have no problem if people continued to participate in these activities and thereby weed out the gene pool. Unfortunately, somewhere along the way they made me responsible for their maintenence when they managed to mangle their own life instead of end it. My medi-cal paying taxes give me the right to be preachy and self-righteous. If you don't like it, just give me back my money and I'll shut the hell up!

Rusty - tired of this thread.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8644 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/18/2003 9:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
sano wrote:

Yep. You are right. But there is a reason the oldest profession has not flagged in popularity. It's human nature. You can preach "self-control" and "personal responsibility" for another thousand years but human nature will not change.

Yup. So is death.

Those that lack the ability to control themselves in this regard may wind up dead from disease and thus remove themselves from the population.

That's human nature too.

You can hang around longer... or shorter.

It's your choice.

Funny how once the consequences of easy sex became deadly that Broadway (SF) cleaned up its act. Carol Doda's nightclub is now a sports bar. She now runs a lingerie shop. Funny how the popularity of prostitutes in Bangkok plummeted once critical mass was reached re awareness of how AIDS was transmitted.

Actions do have consequences. If you don't like the possible consequences, than don't take the action.

CCSand

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8645 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/19/2003 10:59 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Unfortunately, somewhere along the way they made me responsible for their maintenence when they managed to mangle their own lives instead of end it.

This is the one sentence in this sub-thread with which I sympathize. People need to be responsible for their follies, and if they won't do the safe thing, we, as a society have the right and obligation to say: you must enhance safety and mitigate the damages.

The most obvious, and I don't know why libertarians seem to chafe at this... are motor vehicle safety devices.... seat-belts, helmets, air-bags. The cost of accidents is huge. It is clear that safety devices significantly reduce the severity of injury.

It just makes sense to do whatever can be done to enhance safety in activities which are never going to be eliminated. I understand that nevada brothels require condoms. Nothing will ever be perfect, but a 90% improvement worthwhile.

SANO



Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8646 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/19/2003 12:49 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Actions do have consequences. If you don't like the possible consequences, than don't take the action.

#11

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ortman Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8647 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/19/2003 1:47 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
The most obvious, and I don't know why libertarians seem to chafe at this... are motor vehicle safety devices.... seat-belts, helmets, air-bags. The cost of accidents is huge. It is clear that safety devices significantly reduce the severity of injury.

But do the seat-belt laws actually work? I don't have much of an interest, but the last I recall reading was that traffic fatalities had not gone down. The explanation I've seen offered a couple of times is that people compensate for the enhanced safety by driving a bit more wreckless.

'The Armchair Economist' made the assertion that people would alter their driving in order to keep traffic fatalities to a level that is deemed acceptable. Somebody in a car with seat-belts and air bags may drive a bit faster. If you want somebody to drive with extra caution, mount a spear on the steering wheel pointing at their heart.

-Ortman

Print the post Back To Top
Author: prometheuss Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8648 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/19/2003 1:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
This is the one sentence in this sub-thread with which I sympathize. People need to be responsible for their follies, and if they won't do the safe thing, we, as a society have the right and obligation to say: you must enhance safety and mitigate the damages.

The most obvious, and I don't know why libertarians seem to chafe at this... are motor vehicle safety devices.... seat-belts, helmets, air-bags. The cost of accidents is huge. It is clear that safety devices significantly reduce the severity of injury.


By the same logic, it makes sense to restrict motor vehicle use to a select few. The benevolent government can select those few who most desserve to operate motor vehicles. It is clear that taking most drivers off the roads will have enormous benefits to society. The cost of accidents, building and maintaining more roads, importing oil for gas, etc. is huge. Society has a right and obligation to say: take public transit, ride a bicycle, or walk to enhance safety and mitigate damages.

The problem with your logic, SANO, is that it assumes that the individual has very limited rights and that society can impose arbitrary restrictions on the individual without demonstrating a compelling case. I have no problem passing the direct costs of certain behavior on to the individual who chooses to engage in that behavior. However, the claim that safety devices are intended to reduce the 'huge costs' of accidents is suspect when no cost/benefit analysis is done (usually the data and models to do this analysis does not even exist!) and no alternative (e.g., increased insurance) is considered. Instead we hear the anecdotal horror story (usually extremely rare or even contrived rather than actual) about the person with no auto insurance and no health insurance imposing a huge cost on society. The case for taking away the rights of individuals in the name of safety is too often presumed to be valid without any real evidence.

Libertarians believe that the purpose of government is to protect the rights of individuals and not to act in loco parentis for adult citizens. Libertarians assume that the individual has inalienable rights and that society must have a compelling justification to limit those rights even if the individual wants to do stupid things like jump out of an airplane or ride a motorcycle without a helmet. That's why creeping totalitarianism chaffs. Libertarians assume that the individual is responsible for his own actions and for taking actions that ensure his welfare even when the individual wants to do stupid things like take harmful drugs or waste his rent money gambling. That's why collectivism chaffs. If you have the opposite point of view on either front then it is not difficult to understand why you do not understand the Libertarian mind.

Regards,
Prometheuss


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: prometheuss Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8649 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/19/2003 2:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
But do the seat-belt laws actually work? I don't have much of an interest, but the last I recall reading was that traffic fatalities had not gone down. The explanation I've seen offered a couple of times is that people compensate for the enhanced safety by driving a bit more wreckless.

It does not matter if they work. In fact, that's the last thing that the folks who advocate restricting your behavior for your own good care about. Otherwise they would drop the stuff that does not work. What's important is that society cares enough to impose the restriction. What even more important is that they are making you do what they think is right.

Regards,
Prometheuss



Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8650 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/19/2003 2:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
If you want somebody to drive with extra caution, mount a spear on the steering wheel pointing at their heart.


ROFLMAO,,, a man after my own heart.

I'll rec that!

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.






Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8651 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/19/2003 3:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Latest seat belt statistics leave room for improvement
August 2003

<<<<The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has released the following seat belt statistics:

In 2002, 42,850 people died in traffic accidents. Of that number, 19, 103 were not wearing seat belts.

4,200 lives could be saved each year if 90% of the U.S. population wore seat belts.

Fatalities and accidents involving those not wearing seat belts costs the U.S. approximately $20 billion per year. Of that cost, 74% of the tab is paid for by the public.


One out of four Americans still doesn't wear a seat belt.
Convincing the American public to wear seat belts is a top priority for former emergency room physician, Jeffrey Runge. Dr. Runge is now the Administrator for the NHTSA. He is pushing for Congress to give states incentives to pass bills that would make not wearing a seat belt a primary offense. This means that a driver or passenger can be ticketed for not wearing a seat belt. The ticket would not have to accompany another violation, such as a speeding ticket.>>>>>


Print the post Back To Top
Author: RustyMath Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8652 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/19/2003 9:49 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Fatalities and accidents involving those not wearing seat belts costs the U.S. approximately $20 billion per year. Of that cost, 74% of the tab is paid for by the public.

That's not surprising when you consider the one and only reason we have mandatory seat belt laws is so insurance companies can deny a claim if they can prove contributory neglegence on your part for not wearing a seat belt.

Once again, the treasury has become the payor of last resort and thousands line up at the public teat.

Rusty

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8653 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/19/2003 11:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
RustyMath wrote:

That's not surprising when you consider the one and only reason we have mandatory seat belt laws is so insurance companies can deny a claim if they can prove contributory neglegence on your part for not wearing a seat belt.

Contributory negligence, which precluded any claim if the plaintiff was even a tiny bit at fault, is a minority rule in the U.S. Most states have comparative negligence which apportions fault based upon responsibility. So insurance companies wouldn't deny a claim based on lack of wearing a seatbelt. They would apportion fault and then only be responsible for a percentage of the claim. Having said that, your insurance company is on the hook to pay your auto damages no matter who's at fault. So is your medical insurance. So they would probably pay the whole thing and then seek reimbursement for the percentage that you weren't at fault. Unless there is a provision in the insurance contract that says they won't pay anything if you weren't wearing a seatbelt.

In real life, every one would be pointing fingers at the other person, no matter who did what and no matter their own recognition of their own liability.

It makes me sick. This is the kind of thing that turns otherwise liberals into conservatives.

CCSand

Print the post Back To Top
Author: stocksgoboink Three stars, 500 posts 10+ Year Anniversary! Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8654 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/20/2003 1:38 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
It makes me sick. This is the kind of thing that turns otherwise liberals into conservatives.

*pffffffffft*

*giggle*

*snort*



boink!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 8655 of 12880
Subject: Re: Our Lame Duck Date: 10/20/2003 2:20 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
stocksgoboink wrote:

*giggle* *snort*

You'll laugh a lot less when it happens to you. It happened to me and it cost us several thousand dollars.

CCSand


Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (107) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement