Merlyn_LeRoy

I was a cub scout for a couple of years about 45 years ago.

No. It isn't "arbitrary." You can characterize any change in the law as "arbitrary" (and therefore tyrannical) using that bizarre reasoning. I think you're confused about the definition of arbitrary: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arbitrary It's in direct response to same-sex couples wanting to marry. It's isn't "arbitrary." If a government has the authority to redefine words against their traditional meaning, or to redefine institutions that pre-date government, then government's power is truly unlimited -- arbitrary, tyrannical, despotic. The US government has done that all through its history. And your definition is ridiculous -- I guess no longer having some citizens count as 3/5 of a person any more is "despotic"? And the Loving decision was "despotic"? I would say that government has become your god BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Well SeattlePioneer, when I was a cub scout, the BSA certainly didn't make it clear that atheists weren't allowed, and when I omitted "under god" from the pledge (during a group mumble) either nobody noticed, or nobody cared. This was also in Minnesota, which as we've already seen isn't a stickler when it comes to kicking out people.

You don't find that redefining a word as something other than its traditional meaning, attempting to redefine an institution, etc. -- arbitrary? No. It isn't "arbitrary." You can characterize any change in the law as "arbitrary" (and therefore tyrannical) using that bizarre reasoning. Why would you claim that God is responsible for miscarriages if you do not believe in Him? Like jazz, if I have to explain it, you ain't never going to know.

Oh, I definitely agree that a tyrannical and oppressive government could commit "legalized" murder, just as a tyrannical and oppressive government could give "legal" "right" to men to "marry" other men and women to "marry" other women. But that would not change what marriage is. How is that "tyrannical"? "unjustly cruel, harsh, or severe; arbitrary or oppressive; despotic" And the debate is over marriage as a legal relationship, not a religious one, so if the government changes it, that's what it is. You might notice that the bible describes marriages with multiple wives and concubines, but the US doesn't recognize that kind of marriage. And no, gods are still myths.

The mothers of America and Europe have killed off more defenseless human beings than Stalin and Hitler combined But they still can't touch god's rate of ~30% miscarriages per pregnancy.

And "by definition" arguments fail, since humans create them and change them all the time. So do you think it would be possible for humans to change the definition of, say, murder, to make gay murder legal? You ask that as if it's hypothetical: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Executive_Order_44 Plus, of course, some abortion opponents claim it's been done for abortion. Now, since states set laws about murder, a state could pass a law to not classify killing someone who's gay as murder (or, classify someone killed by someone who's gay as murder, depending how you meant 'gay murder'), though that would almost certainly fail an equal protection challenge. And since you just ask about 'humans', history is rife with examples of murder of unpopular minorities being legal, and often helped by governments.

Except that marriage is between one man and one woman by definition No, they tried that TOO, and it failed. They claimed marriage was between one man and one woman of the same race. And "by definition" arguments fail, since humans create them and change them all the time. Seriously, the only response needed is "so what?"

The same argument was used to defend laws against mixed race marriages, and it didn't work.

Peregrinator writes: Peregrinator, you are also trying to take a part of what I referred to. I referred to "polygamy", meaning ALL forms. No cookie. That is precisely the problem. You made a generalization which does not apply in all circumstances. No, I was NOT making a generalization. I was referring to polygamy in ALL its forms, as in every possible combination of spouses. If you had written, "There exists a form of polygamy such that, if it were made legal, would also require same-sex marriage to be legal," then you might have a point. But that isn't what you wrote. You wrote that "legal polygamy" -- ALL FORMS!! -- " requires legal same-sex marriage." And you still don't understand.

Peregrinator writes: Well, we have this thing called the constitution, which prevents public schools from pushing religion. No it doesn't. Of course it does. Atheists won't stop until it IS non-existent. It will never be non-existent, certainly not if atheists continue to view minor inconveniences (which are faced by everyone) as impositions. Well then, expect this to continue forever. Kind of like this pointless argument.

Peregrinator writes: It was not important to me, so I forgot about it. But in this case it is even more ridiculous. It seems to me that it is much easier to avert one's eyes from a prayer banner than it is to eschew saying prayers when all one's classmates are saying them. Well, we have this thing called the constitution, which prevents public schools from pushing religion. I'm not excusing threats of death. Why not? It's just "blowback". I was referring to the "imposing" of religion upon atheists in this country, which is practically non-existent, Atheists won't stop until it IS non-existent. especially compared with historical impositions of religion and those that still exist in other parts of the world. That doesn't excuse ignoring the constitution here in the US.

Perergrinator writes: It isn't wrong. One can simply avoid going to the museum or avoid going to that particular display. In that case, nothing is ever "imposed" on anyone. In a school, one can simply eschew saying prayers. Well, now it's obvious you aren't even familiar with the prayer banner case, as reciting prayers wasn't part of the case AT ALL. Why do you insist on commenting out of total ignorance? Let me know when you get fined or imprisoned or killed for not assisting at religious services (like recusant Catholics in England under Queen Elizabeth I) and then we can talk. So threats of death are not good enough now? And just how can I let you know if I get killed? You plan on using a Ouija board? BTW: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Aan http://www.chron.com/news/article/Body-found-in-North-Texas-identified-as-soldier-3403078.php http://powerblogs.com/pipermail/volokh/2006-January/005168.html

Peregrinator writes: Having a cross in a public museum or prayer in a school does not impose anything on anyone. That's your opinion, and it's wrong. Besides, in the words of Kenneth Bronstein of NYC Atheists, "The cross is not a miracle. It is just a couple of rusty girders." Only an atheist would claim that something is a couple of rusty girders and then expect to be taken seriously when he says it is an imposition of religion. What kind of bizarre non-reasoning are you using now? Are you saying a couple of rusty girders can't be a cross? Or are you saying a cross isn't a religious icon?

Peregrinator whines: Good non-sequitur. None of the cited cases are opposed to the public expression of religion. Case 1 and 2 certainly are. That the atheists in question may have the law on their side doesn't change the nature of their protest. No, the "public expression of religion" does not include unlawful government imposition of religion. In addition to your statement being false, atheists have first amendment rights to oppose the public expression of religion. If you don't like that, that's just your bigotry showing. You throw that word ("bigotry") around so much in this forum that it's become meaningless. I use it against bigots like yourself. Stop whining.

Peregrinator, you are also trying to take a part of what I referred to. I referred to "polygamy", meaning ALL forms. No cookie.

Peregrinator writes: Opposing the public expression of religion is not demanding equal rights. Good non-sequitur. None of the cited cases are opposed to the public expression of religion. case 1 is about the 9/11 museum having some tower wreckage shaped like a cross, without anything similar memorializing non-Christians. case 2 is about removal of a banner with a school prayer on it; that's long established law (and the banner was unlawfully put up after the courts ruled against school prayers). case 3 is about atheists putting up billboards, and the guy who owns the land the billboard is on receiving death threats. In addition to your statement being false, atheists have first amendment rights to oppose the public expression of religion. If you don't like that, that's just your bigotry showing.

Peregrinator gaffs: In the set of "legal polygamy"; you limited the set by ONLY allowing polygyny Polygyny is a counterexample. Here's the proof: (1) Legal polygamy, to be consistent, requires legal same-sex marriage. Therefore: (2) All forms of legal polygamy require legal same-sex marriage. (3) Polygyny is a form of polygamy. (4) Legal polygyny does not require same-sex marriage. (5) Legal polygyny is not inconsistent in not requiring same-sex marriage. But this, with (4), contradicts (2); therefore (5) There is a form of legal polygamy that does not require legal same-sex marriage. (6) Therefore legal polygamy does not require same-sex marriage. Q.E.D. At (3), you are committing the fallacy of division http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division I say my car is heavy You point out that the knob on my car radio is not heavy You get a [golfclap] but no cookie

Peregrinator writes: You've claimed that a subset of polygamy can be consistent without same-sex marriage, but that is never what I said. You said that legal polygamy, to be consistent, requires legal same-sex marriage. In order to show that this is a false statement, only one counterexample is required. In the set of "legal polygamy"; you limited the set by ONLY allowing polygyny, which changes the situation (besides that, I don't agree with your assertions). You need to show it's inconsistent if ALL forms of polygamy are legal, because that's the situation I referred to. Even legal group marriages need not require legal same-sex marriage. A man's marriage contract upon entering such a group might simply state that he is marrying all the women in the group, but not the men. That's also not the situation I proposed.

Peregrinator writes: So atheists get attacked when they attack what others hold dear? And this is news? It's called blowback. No, it's when atheists demand equal rights, they often get death threats. It's called terrorism.

Peregrinator writes: "To be consistent, legal polygamy requires legal same-sex marriage" I've shown (repeatedly) that this is not true. No, you haven't. You've claimed that a subset of polygamy can be consistent without same-sex marriage, but that is never what I said. If you're going to change "polygamy" to mean something other than what it means, why not change it to "breakfast cereal." PS: packsaddle, read "Never Shake a Family Tree" by Donald E. Westlake(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

BS-87 writes: But human polygyny is much different from primate polgyny because the measure of power for primates is size, whereas the measure of power for modern humans is intellect and wealth. It's not that the females are attracted to powerful males; the males fought each other. Intellect might help a bit, but if humans were recently polygynous, the males would probably be built more like Andre the Giant, simply because only males of that size would have had the opportunity to reproduce (and size is heritable). Peregrinator writes: "Polygyny" is one form of polygamy. You can substitute "polyandry" if you like. Only if you want to change the meaning. Different words mean different things. So to state that polygamy requires same-sex unions is to state that all the various forms of polygamy require them. And why don't you ever read what I actually write? "To be consistent, legal polygamy requires legal same-sex marriage" I think if one is going to use a word in a manner inconsistent with its traditional meaning, one ought to state that up front. I use "polygamy" to mean "more than one spouse" because that's what it means.

You'll note that polygamy that I would agree with requires consent of all parties, not just the man, and I added "to be consistent". I don't see what is logically inconsistent with polygyny. You'll note I wrote "polygamy" there, not polygyny. "Polygamy" means more than one spouse, and that's how I use the word, whether it means multiple wives, husbands, or both. If, legally, you're going to allow multiple spouses, I see no good reason to limit either sex, so that means 1 man 2 women, 1 woman 2 men, 2 women 2 men, et cetera. And I would require consent of all parties, since they are all married to each other. You know, like multiple spouses, like the word "polygamy" means. I used "polygyny" later to refer only to one male, multiple females as there are actual examples in primates (including Lucy), and the males are always quite large in living species (which is why I conclude it was not the common family model in humans, at least not recently in evolutionary timescales).

You'll note that polygamy that I would agree with requires consent of all parties, not just the man, and I added "to be consistent". I'm well aware that consistency is not usually a feature of laws.

I have no problem with legal polygamy (all parties have to agree, of course, since they are all married to each other). To be consistent, legal polygamy requires legal same-sex marriage, for the simple fact that having one member of the marriage die does not remove the marriage relationship for the remaining members, even if the only remaining members are the same sex. Natural selection hasn't made polygyny common in humans, though; in every primate species where polygyny is the rule, the males are always much larger than the females (because only large males get to reproduce).