Election Thread

[Griselda]

I'm curious. How do you explain the fact that Asians as a group are so successful? I mean, they came to the US just like so many other immigrants, poor with no language skills.-A

I'm actually not talking about immigrants at all. I was referring to families who have been living in poverty in the USA for several generations. Although many immigrants come from significantly more impoverished backgrounds than the poor here in the USA, in order to become immigrants somebody had to make a decision to change their circumstances. That takes a level of hopefulness that I just don't see in families that have been in this country and poor for as long as anybody can remember.

[Chesspiece_face]

Yet they've got to be the most prosperous and successful group in this country.

...

I, of course know why this is the case. Your explanation?

-A

By all means, show me the population data you are referencing and i'm sure i could come up with about 100 explanations. unfortunately as far as i know there is little to no data to support what you claim. more likely you are just referencing what you percieve, or feel should be "correct".

[kandrathe]

And then there's the Atheists to worry about. If you make marriage a religious-exclusive right, you are going a step further than gay marriage issues are now--that is, gays are being excluded on the basis that they were never included in the first place, but if you take away atheist (or other non-accepted religion) marriage, you're actively taking something away. There will be an outcry. Shots will be fired. Heads will be torn off. It won't be pretty, and I suspect, at the end, the Atheists (myself included, so take this with a grain of salt) will have their way without a constitutional redefinition of marriage, which will open the doors (for better or worse) for just about everything else.

Marriage has been, since the inception of the state, as far as I know, a tool of the state, mainly for definition of household. Maybe it is a religious ceremony as well--that's not my area of expertise, but do we really want marriage law getting more complicated than it is? Do we want to discriminate against non-religious folks (as they will see it, anyway) just to keep the so-called sanctity of marriage (and let's face it, if this sanctity is/was threatened by governmental marriages, it's been non-sacred for hundreds of years by now)?

--me

If you are an atheist, then you shouldn't believe in marriage. From the atheist point of view, marriage is an anachronism of treating woman as the property of the husband. Perhaps you would not even believe in that quaint old notion of monogamy. Biologically, it is only the women who desires monogamy to attract the beefiest bull to hang around to insure her progeny survive. The male is driven to pollinate as many flowers as are blooming. Please forgive the mixing of metaphors.

Marriage, for the believer, is a holy union by God of a man and a woman, where spiritually the two become one. To religious people, it is a sacred spiritual bonding recognized by the church, and then secularly described as a contract and licensed by the state. The latter part being rooted in the tradition of law, property, and the protection of the "estate" and inheritance by the surviving family. Note that the church's role, and the ceremony, just as with baptism, are just a way to recognize a spiritual transformation.

And then, with homosexuality, there is that problem of the act being described scripturally as an abomination. This is why even within individual churches confronting this issue means invalidating portions of scripture, which is tantamount to contravening the founding fathers of Christianity. When you tell your believers that the Bible is the book of truth, then its hard to go back and use white out on the parts you don't like anymore.

My recommendation would be to do nothing to marriage. Leave it as the mish mash of tangled traditions that it has become. The state has no problems if they create their own things, call it civil union, then license it and recognize it in the states purview to be equal to marriage. Marriage can remain untainted for the religious, and civil unions can exist for everyone else. Messing with marriage is to religious people the same as declaring that baptisms will now only be done in bars from 11 to midnight, but with beer instead of holy water.

[Urza-DSF]

Marriage, for the believer, is a holy union by God of a man and a woman, where spiritually the two become one. To religious people, it is a sacred spiritual bonding recognized by the church, and then secularly described as a contract and licensed by the state. The latter part being rooted in the tradition of law, property, and the protection of the "estate" and inheritance by the surviving family. Note that the church's role, and the ceremony, just as with baptism, are just a way to recognize a spiritual transformation.

And then, with homosexuality, there is that problem of the act being described scripturally as an abomination. This is why even within individual churches confronting this issue means invalidating portions of scripture, which is tantamount to contravening the founding fathers of Christianity. When you tell your believers that the Bible is the book of truth, then its hard to go back and use white out on the parts you don't like anymore.

My recommendation would be to do nothing to marriage. Leave it as the mish mash of tangled traditions that it has become. The state has no problems if they create their own things, call it civil union, then license it and recognize it in the states purview to be equal to marriage. Marriage can remain untainted for the religious, and civil unions can exist for everyone else. Messing with marriage is to religious people the same as declaring that baptisms will now only be done in bars from 11 to midnight, but with beer instead of holy water.

I think you've got it a bit backwards here: the christian notion of marriage should not be tied to the state *period*. The fact that there is something other than a contract (note here, contract: something that can only be agreed upon by consenting adults) declaring all of those arrangements for inheritance and whatnot. I don't care what religion you or anyone else belongs to, archaic ritual has no place in what is suppost to be a fair governing body.

[Doc]

Or redefine what a marriage is.

My wife and I have a Covenant Marriage. There is no option at all for divorce. Or marriage is a legally binding contract of "till death do we part." The vows were serious, and a legally binding contract of obligation. We entered in to this willingly to make a statement. Because of this we treat our marriage with a great deal of respect. Rules. Verbal agreements as to what is allowed. Like, no yelling at each other unless the house is on fire. No going to bed angry. Etc. We enforce these rules, we are each personally responsible for policing our selves. I can't lie and say everything has been a bed of roses, but, I will say that any bones of contention are dealt with while they are small and mostly harmless. That way, they do not form a serious problem that may defeat us later. I hesitate to apply a biblical sense here, (even though it is biblical sense) but my wife and I really do look at each other as one flesh. There is no "I". Only "we".

I look at most marriage arrangements now with feelings of loathing and disgust. I see people married and divorced in six months and it makes me sick. Instead of dealing with problems and troubles, they just take the easy way out.

Love is an effort, a continual work in progress. It takes dedication. It takes will. I can honestly say I love my wife even more now than the day I married her. Every day I think to my self to make sure and show my wife, to do something that is tangible with actions, so she is reminded as to why she loves me. And I know she does the same. It may be a post it note with a brief message stuck to my computer screen, or she may come waltzing through the room and drop a woven crown of daisies on my skull while I work. (Last time she did this she had it timed where the Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairies played on the stereo and she came bouncing through the room in time to the music. Sigh. Which may be why she is pregnant now)

I do not know what I feel about civil unions for gays. Er, homosexuals. Which is the pc word for it now? It changes so often. Queers? I know that was pc for a while with the Queer Eye for the Straight Guy crap. I'd venture that I'd warm up to the idea of these civil unions if the couple involved in said civil union only got to do it once. That's it, no more. One civil union per customer, no ands, ifs, or buts. No exceptions. That way, if they were going to do it, they would at least be serious about it and it wouldn't just be an attention whoring stunt for the media or whatever. People would think about it before they did it and decide if it was really the right thing to do, and if they were seriously committed to their partner. It would weed out a lot of undesireable elements to this whole process I feel. My morals and ethics don't particularly care for homosexuals, but they have a right to a life of peace, love, and happiness and I would not wish to take that from anyone. (And if it came right down to it, I'd stuff my morals and ethics in my sporran and go to bat for them to make sure they had those rights, even if I personally do not agree with them.)

[Occhidiangela]

I think you've got it a bit backwards here: the christian notion of marriage should not be tied to the state *period*. The fact that there is something other than a contract (note here, contract: something that can only be agreed upon by consenting adults) declaring all of those arrangements for inheritance and whatnot. I don't care what religion you or anyone else belongs to, archaic ritual has no place in what is suppost to be a fair governing body.

The ritual and custom of marriage far predates "the state." He does not have it backwards.

Occhi

[Urza-DSF]

The ritual and custom of marriage far predates "the state." He does not have it backwards.

Occhi

Be that as it may, it still has no business in an institution that is designed to promote freedom and equality for all. Keep your rituals inside of your churches and stop trying to foist them out onto those who have the audacity to not agree with your personal beliefs. I didn't say you couldn't or shouldn't have them, but the specific ritual has no place in a system where all religions and beliefs should be respected equally.

[Ashock]

I'm actually not talking about immigrants at all. I was referring to families who have been living in poverty in the USA for several generations. Although many immigrants come from significantly more impoverished backgrounds than the poor here in the USA, in order to become immigrants somebody had to make a decision to change their circumstances. That takes a level of hopefulness that I just don't see in families that have been in this country and poor for as long as anybody can remember.

So you think that social programs that for generations gave them something for doing nothing had nothing to do with their lack of desire to better themselves?

-A

[Chesspiece_face]

The ritual and custom of marriage far predates "the state." He does not have it backwards.

Occhi

lifelong monogamous relationships also far predates any type of human culture, religion, or humanity in general. the factors that contribute to why a social unit maintains these types of relationships is vast. being that the argument towards religion is only a couple thousand years old whereas monogamous relationships have existed for millenia reveals the argument for what it is: ad hoc. not only ad hoc but fairly hypocritical, the argument itself supports and reinforces the religion itself more than it supports and reinforces marriages

there are massive societal reprocussions to altering the form of relationships the individual units maintain within our society. 99.99999999% of these would still exist even if there were no religions. We as a society, have a great level of interest in seeing that we maintain the status quo. And thereing lies the problem with the religious concept of marriage. you've got a group of approximately 10% of your population essentially saying "hey, we agree with you, marriage is important and we want to be a part of this as well." they want to contribute to this idea of the value of marriage and to society as well. the use of the religious argument pushes this group into an underground and in turn further breaks down the motivation for individuals to adhere to the idea of lifelong monogamous relationships. if religions really cared about preserving these relationships and maintaining them they would be inclusive to anyone anywhere that wanted to support it. instead they sacrifice reinforcing marriage in exchange for ideology and dogma.

[Ashock]

By all means, show me the population data you are referencing and i'm sure i could come up with about 100 explanations. unfortunately as far as i know there is little to no data to support what you claim. more likely you are just referencing what you percieve, or feel should be "correct".

You're kidding, right? If you live in the US, the only way you would question that is if you also question that generally speaking, eating yellow snow is not a good idea.

While I'm at it, should I also provide you with data to support that the Earth is round? This is not even worth responding to.

-A

[Chesspiece_face]

You're kidding, right? If you live in the US, the only way you would question that is if you also question that generally speaking, eating yellow snow is not a good idea.

This is not even worth a response.

-A

and yet you respond. no i'm not freaking kidding. you constantly throw out these ideas that are supposedy "obvious" to you without offering any type of data to back it up. Show me the data. if it is so obvious it shouldnt take you more than five minutes to find it. instead of being rhetorically insulting put your money where your mouth is and give me a link...

i'm waiting.

[LemmingofGlory]

If you are an atheist, then you shouldn't believe in marriage. From the atheist point of view, marriage is an anachronism of treating woman as the property of the husband. Perhaps you would not even believe in that quaint old notion of monogamy. Biologically, it is only the women who desires monogamy to attract the beefiest bull to hang around to insure her progeny survive. The male is driven to pollinate as many flowers as are blooming. Please forgive the mixing of metaphors.

I find terms like "believe in" terribly vague, as they convey no meaning to me.

Now, how are you qualified to state what an atheist should believe? More correctly, you might say this: A religious marriage does not have the same meaning to an atheist as to an adherent of that religion. However, the ritual is not necessarily without meaning to the atheist (especially because the atheist may be married to an adherent). For example, a married atheist may view such a marriage as a lifelong commitment to his/her mate or as a symbol of his/her relationship.

Additionally, there is no singular "atheist point of view." To say that someone is atheist means exactly one thing, and that does not have anything whatsoever to do with egalitarian notions. That is to say, being an atheist and viewing women as property are not contradictory notions. It's not even accurate to say "To the atheist, marriage is a religious notion." because, culturally, the term marriage is used in reference to both courthouse and churchhouse marriages. But it is accurate to say that many adherents are suddenly wanting to distinguish between the two types because they find one of the notions (at the very least) distasteful when it involves people of the same sex.

The greatest problem in this debate is the fact that the word "marriage" does carry two meanings. One side wants courthouse marriage and the other side argues it in terms of churchhouse marriage. In terms of courthouse marriage, the same-sex marriage problem is not homosexuality but that the license is allowed to discriminate on the basis of the gender of the licensees. In terms of churchhouse marriage, the same-sex marriage problem is religious teachings regarding sex between people of the same sex (sidenote: I've never heard any Biblical quotes regarding about same-sex romantic relationships -- just quotes about sex). And so, the two camps never seem to communicate effectively because as soon as someone says "marriage" the other side isn't thinking about the same thing.

My recommendation would be to do nothing to marriage. Leave it as the mish mash of tangled traditions that it has become. The state has no problems if they create their own things, call it civil union, then license it and recognize it in the states purview to be equal to marriage. Marriage can remain untainted for the religious, and civil unions can exist for everyone else. Messing with marriage is to religious people the same as declaring that baptisms will now only be done in bars from 11 to midnight, but with beer instead of holy water.

I do think that a change of terminology is in order so that people understand the subject under discussion, because miscommunicating is going nowhere. After such a change, however, I am curious as to whether couples who enter into civil unions would call themselves "married" and whether doing so would vex religious folk.

-Lem

[Chesspiece_face]

Biologically, it is only the women who desires monogamy to attract the beefiest bull to hang around to insure her progeny survive. The male is driven to pollinate as many flowers as are blooming. Please forgive the mixing of metaphors.

Actually, biologically speaking, women don't desire monogamy any more than men do. women desire K-selected breeding strategies which entail fewer offspring and increased parental care for these offspring. Males desire r-selected breeding strategies which is the opposite with large numbers of offspring and little parental care.

All primates operate under K-selected breeding strategies. unfortunately for your argument above, not all primate social groups utilize monogamous relationships. thus the choice of breeding strategies and the relationships within social groups operate independant from each other.

[kandrathe]

I find terms like "believe in" terribly vague, as they convey no meaning to me.

Now, how are you qualified to state what an atheist should believe? ...

The same way that I am qualified to reflect on other philosophical concepts, like beauty. I don't need to be beautiful to know what is generally considered to be beautiful. But then, everyone has their own standard. We could pick apart that one statement, or agree that their is a generally agreed upon understanding of Atheistic philosophy. I've read most of the primary works, including Feuerbach, Marx, Engels, Nietzche, Dietzgen, Voltaire, Thomas Paine, Bertrand Russell, Chapman Cohen, Ayn Rand, and a few others...

So, am I qualified?

[kandrathe]

Actually, biologically speaking, women don't desire monogamy any more than men do. women desire K-selected breeding strategies which entail fewer offspring and increased parental care for these offspring. Males desire r-selected breeding strategies which is the opposite with large numbers of offspring and little parental care.

All primates operate under K-selected breeding strategies. unfortunately for your argument above, not all primate social groups utilize monogamous relationships. thus the choice of breeding strategies and the relationships within social groups operate independant from each other.

I agree. I didn't want to go tangential into primate breeding behavior. But, thanks for the clarification.

[kandrathe]

Be that as it may, it still has no business in an institution that is designed to promote freedom and equality for all. Keep your rituals inside of your churches and stop trying to foist them out onto those who have the audacity to not agree with your personal beliefs. I didn't say you couldn't or shouldn't have them, but the specific ritual has no place in a system where all religions and beliefs should be respected equally.

So the state should not be able to hijack the religious sacrament of marriage, anymore than it should be able to co-opt any other religious dogma. If the state wants to rewrite the definitions of things to include groups which religions oppose, then they should make up their own word for marriage.

[rant]
On a side note: This is the very kind of inwardly focused BS that brought down the Roman Empire. I'd suggest we look outward at the neo-barbarians at the gates who want to destroy us for the very perceived moral depravity we are discussing. In the global world of troubles, we might want to spend some effort attempting to convince islamacists not to impose 12th century tribal justice on homosexuals without trials, rather than worsen our standing with them by rewriting even more social contracts to make them more permissive. We may not like Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell, but at least they don't hate us and urge their followers to make bombs to kill us. It boggles my mind that in the USA we are arguing the nuances of acceptable interrogation techniques and the rights of non-citizens to Constitutional protections, while the pan-islamic world is engineering the means to make nuclear weapons with which to destroy us. I'm not saying that those nuances of what is or is not torture, or what constitutes a fair trial are not important, but some people need to get their heads from betwixt their buttocks and wake up to that guy pointing the gun to your head. Nero fiddled... We listen to Ipods...
[/rant]

[SwissMercenary]

Barbarians at the gates again?

Terrorism, at this point in time quite arguably has a smaller direct impact on Americans then most of these ah, trivial domestic issues.

[Urza-DSF]

So the state should not be able to hijack the religious sacrament of marriage, anymore than it should be able to co-opt any other religious dogma. If the state wants to rewrite the definitions of things to include groups which religions oppose, then they should make up their own word for marriage.

[rant]
On a side note: This is the very kind of inwardly focused BS that brought down the Roman Empire. I'd suggest we look outward at the neo-barbarians at the gates who want to destroy us for the very perceived moral depravity we are discussing. In the global world of troubles, we might want to spend some effort attempting to convince islamacists not to impose 12th century tribal justice on homosexuals without trials, rather than worsen our standing with them by rewriting even more social contracts to make them more permissive. We may not like Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell, but at least they don't hate us and urge their followers to make bombs to kill us. It boggles my mind that in the USA we are arguing the nuances of acceptable interrogation techniques and the rights of non-citizens to Constitutional protections, while the pan-islamic world is engineering the means to make nuclear weapons with which to destroy us. I'm not saying that those nuances of what is or is not torture, or what constitutes a fair trial are not important, but some people need to get their heads from betwixt their buttocks and wake up to that guy pointing the gun to your head. Nero fiddled... We listen to Ipods...
[/rant]

You have to be kidding me here. First off, I thought I made it clear that the state has no business being involved with a religious scarament in any form. It's favoritism, essentially stating that this one belief system is more acceptable than any other. Now you may believe that "seperate but equal" is a workable idea, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find any minorities who have already had to throw off that yolk to back you, along with the people who helped them do it.

The point is this: yours or anyone elses religion have no place whatsoever in a governing body that claims to be impartial to all races, types and creeds. Rename it in the state, call it a civil union, but throw off all of the BS that has no meaning *whatsoever* to us "heathens" who practice their right to freedom of religion. If you can sign a contract you should be able to enter into an agreement with another individual who can also sign.

Also, I love the defeatest attitude you've got in that rant. Rather than defend US citizens who are practicing the rights that men paid for in blood, you'd side with a group of people who would rather see every other man, woman and child on earth converted to their own beliefs or dead, with no leeway in between. Injustice in *any* form is not acceptable, and the fact that we deal with people who force other human beings into horrific acts because it is their "religion" is beyond asinine.

You are free to do whatever you want in my opinion, as long as your actions don't interfere with someone elses freedom.

[Griselda]

So you think that social programs that for generations gave them something for doing nothing had nothing to do with their lack of desire to better themselves?

-A

If you don't see bettering yourself as a realistic option, then social programs aren't really even relevant.

[Mithrandir]

Hi Mith, long time no see. Remember me? I was/am the Andover grad... :-)

The perspective at that other school (being MSU) in the James Madison College (which is a policy-based res. college) is pretty similar. The issue that people have brought up in contention with my opinion is that the policy is being completely abandoned, not replaced. I personally am an advocate for help for the poor based on their economic status, not on their race.

My problem with the policies is that help on the basis of race is simple - I went to one of the premier public schools in the state in the most affluent county in the state. I saw many minorities gain admission into premier universities from my school, kids who have had every advantage. How is affirmative action helping those that need help, if it is not helping the poor? It is helping the affluent minorities make more inroads into better schools. If a school is attempting to fill a quota and all things are equal, will that school take the African-American student from the great school, or will that school take the African-American student from the poor inner city school?

The same issue applies to hiring situations. Interviewing a candidate, are you going to even look at the new graduate who came out of Oakland University when you have a candidate from the University of Michigan applying for the same job?

I always have felt that affirmative action needed to be changed, I just felt that this was the best way to get to that point...

-Baylan

Hey Baylan, I agree completely.

I fully support an individual's economic situation to be taken into consideration during the application process. I fully support increased funding for inner city elementary, middle, and high schools. I do *not* support giving Bobby 20 extra points on his college application just because his skin is dark.

I feel as though people latching onto affirmative action are more concerned with patting themselves on the back for instituting a band-aid fix to an incredibly complex problem.