Catholic Church cuts off ACORN funding

[Murrican]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/13/acorn.catholics/

Catholic Church cuts off ACORN funding

By Drew Griffin and Kathleen Johnston
CNN Special Investigations Unit

(CNN) -- The Roman Catholic Church is cutting off funds to the community organizing group ACORN, citing complaints over its voter registration drives in the November 4 election as part of the reason.

Authorities raid a Las Vegas, Nevada, ACORN office after allegations of voter fraud.

The Catholic Campaign for Human Development froze its contributions to the group in June amid allegations that Dale Rathke, the brother of ACORN founder Wade Rathke, had embezzled nearly $1 million.

This week, as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops met in Baltimore, Maryland, the campaign's chairman said it was cutting all ties with the group.

"We simply had too many questions and concerns to permit further CCHD funding of ACORN groups," Roger Morin, the auxiliary bishop of New Orleans, Louisiana, told his colleagues in a letter to the conference.

The CCHD has donated more than $7.3 million to ACORN-related projects over the past decade, including $40,000 to an ACORN chapter in Las Vegas, Nevada, that was raided before the election in an investigation into fraudulent voter registration forms. Among other questionable documents, the ACORN chapter submitted registration forms for members of the Dallas Cowboys football team.

[db44]

But they have no trouble breaking the law themselves, financially sponsoring the push for Prop 8?

[ForeverRebel]

Well prop 8 is supposedly to save our souls so breaking the law then is okay.

Even when we don't believe our souls need saving.

[Incident]

But they have no trouble breaking the law themselves, financially sponsoring the push for Prop 8?


And how would that be breaking the law? Please cite which law you a referring to?

[lions1mew]

It's not actually against the law for religious institutions to either contribute to or get involved in political elections/propositions, etc. However, it IS going to cost the Catholic and Mormon religious institutions their tax-exempt status. Because THAT is against whetever statutes there are in place for churches/temples, etc.

[Incident]

It's not actually against the law for religious institutions to either contribute to or get involved in political elections/propositions, etc. However, it IS going to cost the Catholic and Mormon religious institutions their tax-exempt status. Because THAT is against whetever statutes there are in place for churches/temples, etc.


No it isn't. Religious organizations cannot support a political candidate (and maintain their tax-exempt Section 501(c)(3) status), but they are able to support (or oppose) ballot initiatives and participate in political lobbying as long as that participation is not the main purpose of their organization.


For further reading, if you care, an IRS publication on the matter. See specifically page 67 of .pdf file or page 401 of the publication.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopici02.pdf

[LesterX]

As much as I'd like to see it happen, I don't think they can be stripped of their tax-exempt status. It's a violation for churches to endorse candidates, but they can engage in lobbying for legislation, including ballot measures, as long as the lobbying doesn't constitute a "substantial" portion of their activities. There is no set definition for "substantial" but given how gigantic both the Catholic and Mormon Churches are, I'd be very surprised if their lobbying efforts were determined to be "substantial."

ETA: Sorry, Incident, I didn't see your post before responding.

[lions1mew]

I still think it is reprehensible for religion to get involved in any way in CIVIL RIGHTS matters.

[Incident]

I still think it is reprehensible for religion to get involved in any way in CIVIL RIGHTS matters.


So you would have opposed, for example, Martin Luther King's church and like minded churches advocacy of civil rights in the 1960's?

[pinky]

Hard to believe it, but I'm with Incident on this one. Advancement of civil rights has long been, and SHOULD BE, part of every church's mission.

[lions1mew]

So why don't they support civil rights for EVERYONE? Even those who go against what their backward religion believes? Civil rights is just that ... the right in this country to live as you please as long as you are not harming anyone else.

[pinky]

From a theological viewpoint, they have the right to believe that homosexual activity is wrong. As citizens, they have the right to try to persuade others of their beliefs.

From a biblical perspective, homosexual activity is wrong. Whether or not you accept that bible teaching, it IS the teaching.

Until it is proven conclusively that being gay is how people are born, I don't see the Catholic Church changing their position.

[Incident]

So why don't they support civil rights for EVERYONE? Even those who go against what their backward religion believes? Civil rights is just that ... the right in this country to live as you please as long as you are not harming anyone else.

So in your opinion, would mutilating cats and dogs (that you legally obtained) in the privacy of your own home be a civil right?

[lions1mew]

When did animals come into the discussion of gay marriage? You are twisting things around to make a stupid remark. Stick to the subject.

[Incident]

When did animals come into the discussion of gay marriage? You are twisting things around to make a stupid remark. Stick to the subject.

Just trying to get your definition of what a Civil Right is? You want Civil Rights for everyone. Does everyone include animal mutilators? Or can society decide that animal mutilators should not be a protected class?

[pinky]

Now you're being ridiculous. "Civil rights" doesn't include criminal acts.

Cruelty to animals is illegal. Marriage is not.

[Incident]

Now you're being ridiculous. "Civil rights" doesn't include criminal acts.

Cruelty to animals is illegal. Marriage is not.

Right so you a violating the civil rights of animal mutilators by making it illegal. By the definition listed above:
Civil rights is just that ... the right in this country to live as you please as long as you are not harming anyone else.

An extreme example, sure, but it points out the problem with the above definition of Civil Rights.

Do you agree with the above definition, or do you believe that society has the right to prohibit or regulate some individual actions even though those are private actions that do not harm another? eg. prostitution, use of narcotics etc..

Some believe that alcohol is a more dangerous drug than weed. Are a pothead's civil rights being violated just because his drug of choice happens to be illegal while an alchoholic's drug of choice is allowed? Some drug use is legal some is not, does society have the right to make that distinction?

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Civil rights is just that ... the right in this country to live as you please as long as you are not harming anyone else.

No, I don't think that is the definition of Civil Rights. I believe the definition is to be protected from discrimination based on gender, sexual identity, religion, race, age, etc. A ban on gay marriage violates that protection. That is the basis upon which some state courts have struck down these bans.

[Incident]

No, I don't think that is the definition of Civil Rights. I believe the definition is to be protected from discrimination based on gender, sexual identity, religion, race, age, etc. A ban on gay marriage violates that protection. That is the basis upon which some state courts have struck down these bans.

That is the question, isn't it? Whether sexual orientation qualifies as a protected class? Whether it is a protected class or not?

[lions1mew]

Of course THEY should be protected. THEY are human beings and citizens of this country. How can they be excluded?

[pinky]

Right so you a violating the civil rights of animal mutilators by making it illegal. By the definition listed above:


An extreme example, sure, but it points out the problem with the above definition of Civil Rights.

Do you agree with the above definition, or do you believe that society has the right to prohibit or regulate some individual actions even though those are private actions that do not harm another? eg. prostitution, use of narcotics etc..

Some believe that alcohol is a more dangerous drug than weed. Are a pothead's civil rights being violated just because his drug of choice happens to be illegal while an alchoholic's drug of choice is allowed? Some drug use is legal some is not, does society have the right to make that distinction?
I'm not about to get into a discussion that effectively compares law-abiding gay citizens with animal abusers or drug users. It's not the point of this thread. If you'd like to take up that discussion in another thread, be my guest, but brace yourself.

The discussion at hand is twofold: whether or not gays ought to have the same legal rights of marriage as heterosexuals, and whether or not organized religious organizations have the right to be active in that discussion. I happen to believe both rights ought to exist.

[Incident]

Of course THEY should be protected. THEY are human beings and citizens of this country. How can they be excluded?

What are your limits, do you have them? Should sisters whose sexual orientation is "incestual" be allowed to get married? Should we allow polygamy or group marriage for those whose sexual orientation is bi-sexual? Would you exclude these people? They are human beings too.

[pinky]

Group marriage and polygamy set up special legal conditions above and beyond marriage between two people, and are therefore not analogous to gay marriage between two consenting adults.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

That is the question, isn't it? Whether sexual orientation qualifies as a protected class? Whether it is a protected class or not?

I believe it is. Some would argue that we cannont grant protection for those with a different sexuality identity other than heterosexual until and if it is proven that homosexuality is genetic and not a "lifestyle choice," but I disagree. l If we are to grant protection under the law for religious beliefs, then the question of homosexualty's origins are moot. Relgious beliefs are a choice, not an inherited trait. If we are to grant basic protections for that choice, then we must grant basic protections to homosexuals now, even if absolute proof of the "gay gene" is absent.

I have heard the argument time and again that gay marriage will ruin the sanctity of (straight) marriage, ruin the cornerstone of America, the family. I do not see the evidence for this charge. We now have openly gay people in every corner of society. I don't see gay businessmen coming to work in studded dog collars instead of neckties. Gay teachers aren't recruiting our children in the classroom. Gay couples aren't moving in and lowering property values; in fact, in many communities, it's just the opposite. Where is this horrible social upheaval, this degradation of family values?

To continue to deny homosexuals the right to marry in this country makes us all look petty and small. As we cling to some nonexistant and rigid belief about the strength of the American families when divorce rates are at 50%, teenage pregnancies are soaring and single moms are raising kids on their own, I can't help to think how ridiculous we must look to the rest of the world in our righteousness.

I would argue that any two consenting adults, with certain restrictions, be allowed to marry and have all benefits of that institution allowed under the law. To do otherwise is to deny a basic legal right to an entire class of people. There is no signficant difference in disallowing gays to marry than there was disallowing those of different races to marry.

It is time for our country to move past this discrimination.

[lions1mew]

Well said DES! You have a better way with words than I do *nods*

[Incident]

Group marriage and polygamy set up special legal conditions above and beyond marriage between two people, and are therefore not analogous to gay marriage between two consenting adults.

Why because you say so? Why is two the magic number for marriage? If sexual orientation is your criteria for being a protected class, then it follows logically that a person whose sexual orientation would require both female and male partners is being discriminated against by you limiting marriage to couples. Right?

[Incident]

I believe it is. Some would argue that we cannont grant protection for those with a different sexuality identity other than heterosexual until and if it is proven that homosexuality is genetic and not a "lifestyle choice," but I disagree. l If we are to grant protection under the law for religious beliefs, then the question of homosexualty's origins are moot. Relgious beliefs are a choice, not an inherited trait. If we are to grant basic protections for that choice, then we must grant basic protections to homosexuals now, even if absolute proof of the "gay gene" is absent. .....

....

As to religion being a "lifestyle choice" possibly similar to homosexuality, I agree. But you are allowed, under limited circumstances, to discriminate against people because of their religious beliefs.

Though, I think it is likely, that on demand abortion will be opposed by liberals, if and when a gay gene is discovered and can be tested for in a fetus.

[pinky]

Why because you say so? Why is two the magic number for marriage? If sexual orientation is your criteria for being a protected class, then it follows logically that a person whose sexual orientation would require both female and male partners is being discriminated against by you limiting marriage to couples. Right?

No, not because I say so, but because there are financial arrangements for spouses that would be impacted by the existence of multiple spouses, as well as issues involving things like medical decision-making.

Keeping marriage defined as between two consenting adults doesn't discriminate against bisexuals who would be forced to choose than it does against heterosexuals or homosexuals who find themselves attracted to more than one person. Therefore, no discrimination against bisexuals exists.

[Incident]

...Keeping marriage defined as between two consenting adults doesn't discriminate against bisexuals who would be forced to choose than it does against heterosexuals or homosexuals who find themselves attracted to more than one person. Therefore, no discrimination against bisexuals exists.

No a true bisexual would be required to have partners of both the same sex and the opposite sex. And forcing that person to choose would be denying that person a complete marriage. So in effect you would be denying that person a true marriage.

[pinky]

Really?

I wonder just how you know so much about bisexuals? :devil:

[Incident]

No, not because I say so, but because there are financial arrangements for spouses that would be impacted by the existence of multiple spouses, as well as issues involving things like medical decision-making.

....

So then you would have no problem with a mother marrying her daughter if they both had an inscestual sexual orientation?

[DoubleEdgeSword]

So then you would have no problem with a mother marrying her daughter if they both had an inscestual sexual orientation?

Oh come on, Paul. That makes as much sense as asking if marriage is between "a man and a woman," then what's to stop a man marrying his mother?

[lions1mew]

You really are off the end on this question aren't you? You are like every other right-wing nutjob like my boss who thinks that if we allow gays to marry, then we'll let Bubba on the farm marry his goat.

It's pathetic. Two consenting unrelated adults should be allowed to join together in LOVE and marry and have the same rights as any other couple who want to be married.

Don't twist it. Just accept the question for what it is.

[Murrican]

I'm not religious, don't and won't attend any church, except for a funeral, but don't think those of "faith" need to be attacked as they are being. Maybe their "faith" ought to be questioned for that which it is -- "irrational" behaviour, based as it is on a non-rational worldview -- and a considered case made for why marriage has to be considered outside of religion, because it exists outside of religion (i.e. recognition by the state). Churches can choose to not marry same-sex couples, not snction their uniuons, oppose their marriage, etc., but the state can and should recognize what the state determines.

So how does the state determine what it determines? Well, sometimes by representative democracy and sometimes by direct democracy (and sometimes in the back rooms). States are big communities. The concept of "community standards" is opposed by a lot of folks of different politics, usually because they want universality of something or other. But we have to live in "communities" so having direct democratic votes on community standards, as long as they don't contravene the Constitution (which the courts determine) makes some sense.

The advocates for same-sex marriage in California should cool their jets, marry elsewhere if it's important, and get the issue back to a vote asap and organize and win. But they should stay off the "civil rights" argument because they demean the concept of civil rights by so doing. They actually want legal rights, they want legislated rights, not "civil" rights.

The Catholic Church is okay to cut off ACORN funding because of its straying from its stated purposes. Indeed, their financial support of ACORN could jeopardize their tax-free status.

ACORN needs to be dissolved and prosecutions pursued.

[Incident]

Oh come on, Paul. That makes as much sense as asking if marriage is between "a man and a woman," then what's to stop a man marrying his mother?

The only reason I used a same-sex incestous relationship as an example was I didn't want to hear the greater likelyhood of possible genetic problems as the objection to that example.

That said:

We prohibit marriage between closely related people. We don't prohibit sexual relations between closely related people. None-the-less we do by Pinky's standards discriminate against others based on their sexual orientation.

[Incident]

You really are off the end on this question aren't you? You are like every other right-wing nutjob like my boss who thinks that if we allow gays to marry, then we'll let Bubba on the farm marry his goat.

It's pathetic. Two consenting unrelated adults should be allowed to join together in LOVE and marry and have the same rights as any other couple who want to be married.

Don't twist it. Just accept the question for what it is.

Again I ask, why limit marriage to two people when it clearly discriminates against those who have other sexual identities..

[LesterX]

But they should stay off the "civil rights" argument because they demean the concept of civil rights by so doing. They actually want legal rights, they want legislated rights, not "civil" rights.


The California Supreme Court happens to disagree with you. From their ruling allowing gay marriage:

We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.
...

In recognizing, however,that the right to marry is a basic, constitutionally protected civil right — “a fundamental right of free men [and women]” (Perez, supra, 32 Cal.2d 711,714) —the governing California cases establish that this right embodies fundamental interests of an individual that are protected from abrogation or elimination by the state.
...
In light of this recognition, sections 1 and 7 of article I of the California Constitution cannot properly be interpreted to withhold from gay individuals the
same basic civil right of personal autonomy and liberty (including the right to establish, with the person of one’s choice, an officially recognized and sanctioned family) that the California Constitution affords to heterosexual individuals.


http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Again I ask, why limit marriage to two people when it clearly discriminates against those who have other sexual identities..


What are you talking about?

[ForeverRebel]

Again I ask, why limit marriage to two people when it clearly discriminates against those who have other sexual identities..

WTF are you talking about?

Drop the bisexual argument, it's not flying. Because I have plenty of friends who are bisexual, doesn't mean they believe in polygamy. "True" bisexuals, actually are never 50/50, it's always leaning more towards one sex, even if only slightly and they still prefer committed relationships with one person. The fact you're assuming otherwise is an insulting generalization with absolutely no backing.

By the way, polygamy, legally the financial rights marriage provides would have to be altered. If that happened, then hell I wouldn't care. There are societies that have polygamy that work fine. Also, polygamy is NOT a sexuality, so that argument is null and void anyway.

However incest is banned because it can cause genetic disorders. That therefore harms a person.

So tell me how consenting adults no matter what sexuality marrying harms each other. It doesn't.

[lions1mew]

You're making too much sense Rose. I don't think he can handle sense *nods*

[Murrican]

The California Supreme Court happens to disagree with you.

Thank you for this useful intervention. I do note however, that the bold type in your citations was not in the original. These were the expressed opinions of the majority, it wasn't a unanimous decision.

All should read the decision.

Let's look deeper into this case:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF

(Italics in original, bold type is mine.)

From the majority opinion:

These courts, often by a one-vote margin (see, post, pp. 114-115, fn. 70), have ruled upon the validity of statutory schemes that contrast with that of California, which in recent years has enacted comprehensive domestic partnership legislation under which a same-sex couple may enter into a legal relationship that affords the couple virtually all of the same substantive legal benefits and privileges, and imposes upon the couple virtually all of the same legal obligations and duties, that California law affords to and imposes upon a married couple.

...

It also is important to understand at the outset that our task in this proceeding is not to decide whether we believe, as a matter of policy, that the officially recognized relationship of a same-sex couple should be designated a marriage rather than a domestic partnership (or some other term), but instead only to determine whether the difference in the official names of the relationships violates the California Constitution.

And now let's look at the dissenting opinion by Judge Marvin Baxter, with concurrence by Judge Ming Chin -- the decision was 4 to 3, with Judge Carol Corrigan also dissenting:

The majority opinion reflects considerable research, thought, and effort on a significant and sensitive case, and I actually agree with several of the majority’s conclusions. However, I cannot join the majority’s holding that the California Constitution gives same-sex couples a right to marry. In reaching this decision, I believe, the majority violates the separation of powers, and thereby commits profound error.

Only one other American state recognizes the right the majority announces today. So far, Congress, and virtually every court to consider the issue, has rejected it. Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority’s startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage — an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law — is no longer valid. California statutes already recognize same-sex unions and grant them all the substantive legal rights this state can bestow. If there is to be a further sea change in the social and legal understanding of marriage itself, that evolution should occur by similar democratic means. The majority forecloses this ordinary democratic process, and, in doing so, oversteps its authority.

The majority’s mode of analysis is particularly troubling. The majority relies heavily on the Legislature’s adoption of progressive civil rights protections for gays and lesbians to find a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. In effect, the majority gives the Legislature indirectly power that body does not directly possess to amend the Constitution and repeal an initiative statute. I cannot subscribe to the majority’s reasoning, or to its result.

But a bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves. Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority, the majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from the ordinary process of legislative consideration. The majority finds that our Constitution suddenly demands no less than a permanent redefinition of marriage, regardless of the popular will.

[Murrican]

Again I ask, why limit marriage to two people when it clearly discriminates against those who have other sexual identities..

You're right. Different argument from mine, but I agree with your rationale.

[pinky]

What rationale would that be? :scratch:

[ForeverRebel]

You're right. Different argument from mine, but I agree with your rationale.

Polygamy isn't a sexual identity though. Good god.

It is a type of relationship, like dating or engagment.

So that rationale is a dead end argument.

[LesterX]

Thank you for this useful intervention. I do note however, that the bold type in your citations was not in the original. These were the expressed opinions of the majority, it wasn't a unanimous decision.


I never claimed it was a unanimous decision. The majority made gay marriage legal and based that decision, in part, on the fact that the right to marry is a civil right. Therefore, your statement that the advocates of same sex marriage should "stay off" the civil rights argument is ridiculous.

[Murrican]

What rationale would that be? :scratch:

Sorry, you may be out of your depth at this distance from shore. Move back inside the safety buoys...

[Murrican]

I never claimed it was a unanimous decision. The majority made gay marriage legal and based that decision, in part, on the fact that the right to marry is a civil right. Therefore, your statement that the advocates of same sex marriage should "stay off" the civil rights argument is ridiculous.

That's right, you didn't mention that...

But A HA! A 4 - 3 split in the Supreme Court is meaningful, when the judges are partisanly chosen, but a democratic decision by the public is not meaningful.

There goes your argument, based as it was on a vote by partisans, which is the same kind of vote you're opposing.

I suggest you examine the discussion about polygamy, bisexuality, etc. and try to argue that in a rational, constructivist manner, rather than relying on some vote, while you clearly oppose votes...

[Murrican]

"True" bisexuals, actually are never 50/50, it's always leaning more towards one sex, even if only slightly and they still prefer committed relationships with one person. The fact you're assuming otherwise is an insulting generalization with absolutely no backing.

Your source for this fact? Your backing for this assertion? Your basis for YOUR generalization?

It seems entirely reasonable to me that homosexuals, bisexuals and polysexuals can be of any mix of attitude, gender, genetics, persuasion, etc. No?

Of course, the foregoing is based on more than six decades of experience and anecdotal, observational evidence may be not as acceptable as the deep opinions found here...

[pinky]

Your arrogance is showing again.

[LesterX]

A HA! So a 4 - 3 split in the Supreme Court is meaningful, when the judges are partisanly chosen, but a democratic decision by the public is not meaningful.

There goes your argument, based as it was on a vote by partisans, which is the same kind of vote you're opposing.

I suggest you examine the discussion about polygamy, bisexuality, etc. and try to argue that in a rational, constructivist manner, rather than relying on some vote, while you clearly oppose votes...

I suggest you learn about what the judicial branch of the government is supposed to do. (Hint: It has something to do with interpreting the law.) Your argument is so ludicrous that it doesn't merit any serious discussion. Sorry, tyranny of the majority is not my cup of tea. I suppose you'd be okay with bringing back slavery if that's the "will of the people."

I further suggest that you not tell me what discussions I should examine or define the manner in which I should participate. For the record, I've had the same discussion with Incident in the past and am not interested in rehashing it. Your control issues are rearing their ugly head again. A therapist might be able to help with that, but I'm not sure there's any cure for pomposity.

[Incident]

What are you talking about?

Because two people seem to be the magic number for you guys. You seem to only want to protect as a class one type of deviant (as in deviating from the norm) sexual behavior, homosexuality. It is incumbant on you to explain why only this one form of deviant sexual orientation deserves this protection, wheras other forms between consenting adults don't?

[Murrican]

Your arrogance is showing again.


Your arrogance always shows, and now your lack of any answer but insult is also showing...

While others stay on topic and offer reasoning, you don't. Pity.

[Murrican]

I suggest you learn about what the judicial branch of the government is supposed to do. (Hint: It has something to do with interpreting the law.) Your argument is so ludicrous that it doesn't merit any serious discussion. Sorry, tyranny of the majority is not my cup of tea. I suppose you'd be okay with bringing back slavery if that's the "will of the people."

I further suggest that you not tell me in what discussions I should examine or define the manner in which I should participate. For the record, I've had the same discussion with Incident in the past and am not interested in rehashing it. Your control issues are rearing their ugly head again. A therapist might be able to help with that, but I'm not sure there's any cure for pomposity.

You are such a small-brained maroon.

Insults are all you can offer.

You know nothing and when presented with facts and reason offer ad hominem insults.

That's your pattern in any discussion.

I know more about the US Constitution and the governments in a dozen other countries and what judicicial and quasi-judical bodies are empowered to do than you clearly will ever know. But you are limited to small-minded attacks because you can't make your argument legitimately.

The decision was 4 - 3 and there's fodder for discussion from both sides. Did the court have the authority to determine what the majority said it did, and did? Or did it go beyond its boundaries?

You don't want that to go to the US Supreme Court until it's been partisanly packed, which shows the ultimate limitation of the US Supreme Court and why its decisions are a roller coaster, with each side picking the loop they like.

But try to discuss it outside of that and it's smear time for those people unable to marshall an argument.

<sheesh>

[LesterX]

^Priceless. There's nothing better than seeing the phrase "Insults are all you can offer" sandwiched between insults. The bottom line is that you are the one who stated that the the opponents of Proposition 8 should lay off the "civil rights" issue as if that were not a legitimate issue. Your rational basis for that statement is non-existent -- it's your personal opinion and nothing more.

Maybe you can focus your clearly voluminous free time on the all-important issue of getting the "babes" to post bigger pictures on Facebook (http://talk.livedaily.com/showthread.php?t=645816).

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Because two people seem to be the magic number for you guys. You seem to only want to protect as a class one type of deviant (as in deviating from the norm) sexual behavior, homosexuality. It is incumbant on you to explain why only this one form of deviant sexual orientation deserves this protection, wheras other forms between consenting adults don't?

You guys? I don't know about everyone else, but I'm advocating for the right for gays to marry. Two people. Let someone else advocate for multiple-partner marriages. Not my issue.

In fact, what does that even have to do with gay marriage? We aren't talking about polygamy, are we? Because if we are, then we'd have to include straight marriages, too, right?

[pinky]

Sorry, you may be out of your depth at this distance from shore. Move back inside the safety buoys...

Your arrogance always shows, and now your lack of any answer but insult is also showing...

While others stay on topic and offer reasoning, you don't. Pity.

Hello, Pot? Meet Kettle.

[pinky]

Because two people seem to be the magic number for you guys. You seem to only want to protect as a class one type of deviant (as in deviating from the norm) sexual behavior, homosexuality. It is incumbant on you to explain why only this one form of deviant sexual orientation deserves this protection, wheras other forms between consenting adults don't?
You're assuming that homosexuality is deviant. I don't. Just one more example of your bias.

[ForeverRebel]

Your source for this fact? Your backing for this assertion? Your basis for YOUR generalization?

It seems entirely reasonable to me that homosexuals, bisexuals and polysexuals can be of any mix of attitude, gender, genetics, persuasion, etc. No?

Of course, the foregoing is based on more than six decades of experience and anecdotal, observational evidence may be not as acceptable as the deep opinions found here...


Honestly? I had a very large gay community in high school, and remained close to them. I myself am straight, but because of them, I learned pretty much the basics of homosexuality. With new people who happened to be gay I met, those basics carried through.

But I noticed you completely ignored my argument that polygamy isn't a sexuality, rather it is a type of relationship such as marriage, dating, engagment, etc. Because it is such, it has no bearing in this argument anyway.

[ForeverRebel]

Because two people seem to be the magic number for you guys. You seem to only want to protect as a class one type of deviant (as in deviating from the norm) sexual behavior, homosexuality. It is incumbant on you to explain why only this one form of deviant sexual orientation deserves this protection, wheras other forms between consenting adults don't?


Here's the problem in your argument, a major flaw you persist on ignoring.

Polygamy isn't a sexual orientation, it is a type of relationship.

[Incident]

You're assuming that homosexuality is deviant. I don't. Just one more example of your bias.

As explained above Homosexuality is deviant. That is not even arguable. What is arguable is why you preference some forms of sexual deviancy under the law and not extend that protection to others?

[Incident]

Here's the problem in your argument, a major flaw you persist on ignoring.

Polygamy isn't a sexual orientation, it is a type of relationship.

Where did I argue that polygamy is a sexual orientation? I didn't. Simple. Since you consider that to be the major flaw in my argument, perhaps you should reevaluate your opinion of my argument. Right?

[ForeverRebel]

Where did I argue that polygamy is a sexual orientation? I didn't. Simple. Since you consider that to be the major flaw in my argument, perhaps you should reevaluate your opinion of my argument. Right?

Then how does it have any bearing here? It doesn't.

Again I ask, why limit marriage to two people when it clearly discriminates against those who have other sexual identities..

That implies polygamy is another sexual identity.

And if it didn't, it shouldn't have been brought up to begin with, seeing as there aren't any bisexuals advocating for polygamy rights that we're hearing about. And you're trying to also imply that only bisexuals would opt for polygamy, when in reality it's more of a straight couple issue.

The polygamy argument is distraction from the real issue, which in essence is, how does giving homosexual adult couples the right to marry harm anyone in such a way that they deserve that right?

I haven't seen an answer to that yet.

[Incident]

......And you're trying to also imply that only bisexuals would opt for polygamy, when in reality it's more of a straight couple issue. ....

.

Nothing you said in that post is even coherent, but the above statement has got to be one of the most ignorant statements in the history of this board, and that is saying something. Your statement makes no sense because it is completely illogical.

Clue for you ----- couple = two

How the hell:noway: can polygamy be a straight couple issue!?!

[LesterX]

Nothing you said in that post is even coherent, but the above statement has got to be one of the most ignorant statements in the history of this board, and that is saying something. Your statement makes no sense because it is completely illogical.

Clue for you ----- couple = two

How the hell:noway: can polygamy be a straight couple issue!?!

The person's post was not incoherent, illogical or ignorant. If you look at the history of polygamy, it can be described as primarily a straight couple issue. Let's take polygamist Mormon offshoot sect "marriages" as an example. The women are not married to one another, they are married to a common man. The "marriage" can be viewed as a series of concentric pairings with the man at the center. Each pairing is a "couple." Hence, the description of polygamy as a "straight couples" issue. Are there bisexual people who are sexually involved with one another as a group? Of course. However, that has not been the historically predominant "method" of practicing polygamy.

Of course, all of this is ultimately irrelevant to the issue of gay marriage. You can throw all the red herrings into the argument that you want, but the bottom line is that persons of one sexual orientation have marriage rights that persons of another sexual orientation do not. Since you have stated that you are not claiming that polygamy is a "sexual orientation," it is completely irrelevant. Sexual orientation is a protected class in California in the areas of employment (public and private), housing, and public accommodations. To argue that the same protection doesn't apply to marriage is hardly logical.

[pinky]

As explained above Homosexuality is deviant. That is not even arguable. What is arguable is why you preference some forms of sexual deviancy under the law and not extend that protection to others?

Deviant means departing from the "norm," or what is considered an acceptable "norm."

You therefore must consider homosexuality unacceptable. I do not.

What is "normal" for one person may be well withing the bounds of normal behavior.

[Murrican]

Deviant means departing from the "norm," or what is considered an acceptable "norm."

You therefore must consider homosexuality unacceptable. I do not.

What is "normal" for one person may be well withing the bounds of normal behavior.

Deviant is something that deviates, departs from the norm. After getting that right you're on thin ice.

Homosexuality, bisexuality, polygamy are are all deviant.

Why is one being singled out for a legal embrace and not the others? Why are the others being attacked and ridiculed here? Why don't you people know how to discuss something?

It has nothing to do with whether somebody considers "homosexuality unacceptable" and to use such innuendo against someone with whom you disagree once again tars your argument...

As the California Supreme Court minority opinion noted, all the rights except using the term "marriage" itself already exist for gay couples in California. So it's obviously not a material change that's being pursued.

The rioters are engaged in anti-democratic activities, literally. And their fellow travellers here won't answer why they would not extend their arguments to also embrace bisexuality and polygamy.

[Murrican]

The person's post was not incoherent, illogical or ignorant. If you look at the history of polygamy, it can be described as primarily a straight couple issue. Let's take polygamist Mormon offshoot sect "marriages" as an example.

err, yes it was incoherent, illogical and ignorant...

And by further muddying the waters you have changed nothing about any of those things.

What are your sources for your claims about polygamy? Your only example refers to Mormons.

Polygamy exists before and beyond Mormons and other sects in the US. It appears you have a US-centric view of the world, but the times they are a-changin', so it's time you broadened your knowledgebase enough that you don't look ridiculous in your straight-faced claims.

One place to start your study:

The term polygamy (a Greek word meaning "the practice of multiple marriage") is used in related ways in social anthropology, sociobiology, and sociology. Polygamy can be defined as any "form of marriage in which a person [has] more than one spouse."

In social anthropology, polygamy is the practice of marriage to more than one spouse simultaneously. Historically, polygamy has been practiced as polygyny (one man having more than one wife), or as polyandry (one woman having more than one husband), or, less commonly as group marriage (husbands having many wives and and those wives having many husbands). (See "Forms of Polygamy" below.) In contrast, monogamy is the practice of each person having only one spouse. Like monogamy, the term is often used in a de facto sense, applying regardless of whether the relationships are recognized by the state (see marriage for a discussion on the extent to which states can and do recognize potentially and actually polygamous forms as valid).

In sociobiology, polygamy is used in a broad sense to mean any form of multiple mating. In a narrower sense, used by zoologists, polygamy includes a pair bond, perhaps temporary.

Polyandry is a practice where a woman is married to more than one man at the same time. Fraternal polyandry was traditionally practiced among nomadic nepalieseans in Nepal and parts of China, in which two or more brothers share the same wife, with her having equal sexual access to them. Polyandry is believed to be more likely in societies with scarce environmental resources, as it is believed to limit human population growth and enhance child survival. A woman can only have so many children in her lifetime, no matter how many husbands she has. On the other hand, a child with many "fathers", all of whom provide resources, is more likely to survive. (In contrast, the number of children would be increased if polygyny were practiced, and a man had more than one wife. These wives could be simultaneously pregnant). It is a rare form of marriage that exists not only among poor families, but also within the elite.

According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of the 1231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry. At the same time, even within societies which allow polygyny, the actual practice of polygyny occurs relatively rarely. There are exceptions: in Senegal, for example, nearly 47 percent of marriages are multiple. To take on more than one wife often requires considerable resources: this may put polygamy beyond the means of the vast majority of people within those societies. Such appears the case in many traditional Islamic societies, and in Imperial China. Within polygynous societies, multiple wives often become a status symbol denoting wealth and power. Similarly, within societies that formally prohibit polygamy, social opinion may look favorably on persons maintaining mistresses or engaging in serial monogamy.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy

[DoubleEdgeSword]

What in the world does polygamy have to do with gay marriage?

[Murrican]

What in the world does polygamy have to do with gay marriage?

It's a long thread...

Polygamy can also be about marriage.

Politics, though, is about drawing lines. The question has been asked why the line is being drawn to include homosexuality, but not a range of other "marriages" that could include bisexuals and polysexuals.

Nobody has deemed to answer the question seriously, they have only heaped attacks on its poser, and rendered up counter-arguments which are very thin and narrow, if considered arguments at all.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

I answered it. It's not my issue. Someone else called it a red herring. What answer are you looking for? Polygamy has nothing to do with the issue of granting LGBT folks the rights and benefits of marriage. LGBT stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender. Legally, all are either male or female. All are looking to marry a partner of the same sex if that is their choice. What is so difficult to understand, here?

[DoubleEdgeSword]

In fact, let's make it even simpler. People want the right to marry another person of the same sex. Period. One person. That's it.

Now, if there is some nationwide movement of polygamists out there marching on courthouses that I'm unaware of, please, tell me.

[LesterX]

I answered it. It's not my issue. Someone else called it a red herring. What answer are you looking for?

He's looking only for answers that coincide with his opinions. Any answer that dares to challenge HRH is not deemed to be a "serious" answer. Never mind that homosexuals are a protected class in California and therefore a solid legal case -- besides the moral case -- can be made for why they should be allowed the same marriage rights as heterosexuals. Pesky little facts such as that are not "relevant."

[LesterX]

err, yes it was incoherent, illogical and ignorant...

Err...no, it wasn't. Maybe you simply don't understand what is being said. Heaven forbid that anyone accuse the genius Murrican of not comprehending something! My God, next thing you know I'll be calling you a maroon! Actually, I think I'll go with maroono.


Your only example refers to Mormons. Polygamy exists before and beyond Mormons and other sects in the US...

It was an example, hence my use of the phrase "as an example." I made no claim that Mormons were the sole practitioners of polygamy, so your snotty little lecture is completely unwarranted. Furthermore, I would think that an elite pseudo-intellectual such as yourself would recommend something other than the pedestrian Wikipedia. Oh, and because I cited an example of polygamy practices in the United States does not mean I have a US-centric view of the world. I don’t have the time nor the inclination to write term papers on a message board to avoid having ridiculous people throw silly accusations my way. I've had the privilege to travel extensively and my world view isn't formed by Google.

[pinky]

I don’t have the time nor the inclination to write term papers on a message board to avoid having ridiculous people throw silly accusations my way.
Plus, you're not getting paid to be here.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

I guess it beats bagging groceries. Not by much, but...

[LesterX]

Plus, you're not getting paid to be here.

Ha, I actually had that line in there as my final comment and deleted it!

[pinky]

You should have left it in. It would have been GREAT satire!

[Incident]

Warning Liberal Logic alert!!!!!!!!!!


Deviant means departing from the "norm," or what is considered an acceptable "norm."

You therefore must consider homosexuality unacceptable. I do not.

What is "normal" for one person may be well withing the bounds of normal behavior.

Time for fun.

Do you consider Homosexuality "unacceptable" for yourself?

Do you consider Homosexuality "unacceptable" for your husband?

The accepted as the "norm" for intelligence is an IQ of 100.

http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Images/NormalCurveSmall.gif

Do find people with dieviant IQ's those above 116 "unacceptable"?

Boy, what's that "standard deviation" thingy about anyway? Huh?

[DoubleEdgeSword]

Are you kidding? Nevermind. I know you're not.

Some wise person said, "Never argue with drunks or fools." I'm done.

[pinky]

There are no words.

[Incident]

What in the world does polygamy have to do with gay marriage?

It is a type of marriage? Duh. Even a liberal should not be that dense. Right?

Notice though DES has to put the qualifier of "gay" on marriage to differentiate it from other types of marriage. Meaning she at least sees some difference between regular (heterosexual) marriage and gay marriage. She does not just say marriage. Right?

[Murrican]

In fact, let's make it even simpler. People want the right to marry another person of the same sex. Period. One person. That's it.

Now, if there is some nationwide movement of polygamists out there marching on courthouses that I'm unaware of, please, tell me.

methinks you don't get it.

Apparently, somebody has to march with a placard to get your attention. Look out the window...

Or use your noggin. What is reality. What is a "civil" right, that is, a right that comes with agreeing to live in a "civil" society?

Where is the line drawn? When people march in the street? When some partisanly appointed judges play ping-pong with words? Or when the public speaks in a democratic election?

There is an underlying racist tone to the arguments here. That the African-Americans who voted against same-sex marriage are simply wrong. Are votes not equal as expressed at the ballot box?

Or better, how did ACORN fail when it came to Prop 8?

Loving the lack of love here....

[Murrican]

In fact, let's make it even simpler. People want the right to marry another person of the same sex. Period. One person. That's it.

They have that right in California, with the only exception that they can't call it "marriage".

They have all the other benefits of "marriage", as legislated by the lawmakers of California, as referenced in the Supreme Court decision of 2008. Now it's semantics. There are marches and what amount to riots over semantics... The vote was lost. Next time it may be won... If so, who will then march and/or riot? Let's have some respect for rule by law.

Hey, knock knock, it's 2008... Wake up...

[pinky]

Then we have, as well, lots of people trying to change state constitutions just on the basis of semantics.

Works both ways.

[ForeverRebel]

Nothing you said in that post is even coherent, but the above statement has got to be one of the most ignorant statements in the history of this board, and that is saying something. Your statement makes no sense because it is completely illogical.

Clue for you ----- couple = two

How the hell:noway: can polygamy be a straight couple issue!?!

The fact you chose that one section to post and tried to dismiss the rest of it as incoherent shows me that you either do not comprehend the point, or you're too blind to see it.

That said, the history of polygamy was more straight couple based rather than homesexuality based. Any basic anthropology course could tell you that.

However, I'm not about to waste my time posting an entire essay on this history of it, because your unwillingness to open yourself to a new viewpoint would deam it as "illogical" or "incoherent".