Republicans: torture good, marriage bad [Archive]

05-17-2004, 11:15 AM

But, as its not likely to happen DtC, aren't you ranting for no reason at all? I love this part:

And if he actually believes in this garbage (we all know Clinton didn't give a crap, it was just coldly political with him. He was far too intelligent to really care about homosexuality) then he's a moron.

So, Clinton was just being brilliant and coldly political, but Bush is a moron. This in spite of the fact that Bush probably DOES realize this ammendment has about a snowballs chance in hell of getting through. To me, I think it was slimy but pretty brilliant of Bush to do this, for the same reasons you are attributing to Clinton...it was a good political move for him to rally the support of the right while being totally meaningless in the end as its not go a hope in hell of getting passed.

Yet Bush is a moron and Clinton is a cold genius. Its this kind of underestimation of Bush thats going to get him 4 more years in office.

Yeah, this is the corner your precious Bushco has backed you into now: you have to defend the torture at Abu Ghraib as just a bunch of fraternity hazings, or as a necessary adjunct to the war on terror (even though most at Abu Ghraib are innocent of any terrorist activity) and attack the right of two people of the same sex to express their love through marriage.

Strawman much? Why would anyone have to either defend or excuse what happened at Abu Ghraib? It was a crime, its being punished as a crime. Its not representative of our military, no more than a guy robbing a corner 7-11 or a sicko serial killer wacking nuns is representative of our citizens. Both are simply criminal activity.

As to the other, well I seriously doubt more Bush supporters needed HIM to tell them to be against same sex marriage. At least most Bush supporters of the paleo-republican stripe. Bush didn't pronounce from on high and they suddenly saw the light and became anti-gay. :rolleyes: Bush is capitalizing on the fact that the majority of Americans are (stupidly) against gay unions at this time for political reasons, not the other way around. Sheesh.

So remember: torture good, marriage bad. And if you get a funny feeling when you say that, it's just what's left of your sense of morality trying to survive.

You've obviously never been married. :) Also, this kind of 'debate' belongs better in The Pit, IMO. Its kind of thin, and mostly full of hand waving and vitriol. Perfect for The Pit. Why don't you try that out next time you feel the need to howl at the moon?

-XT

Mr. Moto

05-17-2004, 11:19 AM

That's why I specified a "class" of citizens. Prohibition was not discriminatory, it applied to everyone equally. Bush's proposed amendment singles out a specific group of people and says that should be treated differently than everybody else.

You might want to check out some of the literature used to sell Prohibition to the public. It was very discriminatory and inflaminatory, especially against "drunken Irish".

Apos

05-17-2004, 11:41 AM

marriage = bad

torture = good

but marriage = torture, therefore bad = good.

Crap, John Mace just frickin broke the universe. We don't have long...

Diogenes the Cynic

05-17-2004, 11:42 AM

You might want to check out some of the literature used to sell Prohibition to the public. It was very discriminatory and inflaminatory, especially against "drunken Irish".
Nevertheless, it was not discriminatory in its application. It did not say that alcohol was only forbidden for the Irish. It forbid it for everyone.

Bush wants an amendment which will forbid a civil right only to a specific group of people.

xtisme, I said DOMA was stupid and wrong and that Clinton was wrong to sign it. I didn't say it was "brilliant" for him to do so, only that it was calculating. My comment about his intelligence was only as it pertained to his personal feelings. Even Clinton's worst enemies acknowledge that he has a brilliant intellect. I think BC was too smart to think that gay marriage was really a threat to anyone (and I reiterate, BC didn't try to ban it).

By contrast, GWB really believes that homos are going to hurt him. He is not an intelligent man. Don't forget, this is the same guy who thinks Jews can't go to Heaven and that the "jury is still out" on evolution. He also thinks God wants him to kill brown people. I see no evidence of self-reflection hidden intellectual acumen.

Moreover, a proposal to actively ban same-sex marriage on a Constitutional level is fundamentally different than a federal law which only says that states may choose to honor them or not at their own discretion.

John Mace

05-17-2004, 12:01 PM

Bush has many flaws. It really isn't necessary to invent non-existent ones:

By contrast, GWB really believes that homos are going to hurt him.

Huh? Got any evidence to back that claim up?

He is not an intelligent man.

Your opinion-- and not suported by the facts. We've been over this at least half a dozen times, and it just doesn't stand up to even casual scrutiny.

Don't forget, this is the same guy who thinks Jews can't go to Heaven

I'm not sure if he actually believes this, but if I were a Christian, I would believe it, too. It's a logical extension of Christian doctrine. Otherwise, why get Baptized?

and that the "jury is still out" on evolution.

I'll grant you that one, although we still lack a fleshed-out understanding of exactly what Bush's "beliefs" are about evolution. Many religious people have a tortured belief system to accomodate the obvious scientific facts and their own religious convictions.

He also thinks God wants him to kill brown people.

So gross an exageration that it borders on outright lying.

alaricthegoth

05-17-2004, 12:23 PM

DOMA, while stupid, does not actually forbid s provides a loophole in the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which means that anti-gay states don't have to recognize gay marriages from other states.
n the US Constitution.

fortunately, they were merely pissing into the wind, when they passed DOMA

Even as we post. happy couples are fanning out across the nation to file in federal district court to enforce full faith and credit.

you cannot create a loophole in the constitution via legislative action.

That's why they call it a Constitution.

Shodan

05-17-2004, 12:34 PM

He also thinks God wants him to kill brown people.
So gross an exageration that it borders on outright lying.
Borders on? It's smack-dab in the middle of downtown, like practically every other word Diogenes or Evil Captor posts about Bush or Republicans.

Perhaps a moderator could move this piece of shit to the Pit, where it can receive the responses it deserves.
Americans are just backwards morons for the most part.Not all of us, Diogenes. Maybe it's just you.

Thank God this is the quality of people who hate Bush. At least he is pissing off the right people.

athelas

05-17-2004, 12:35 PM

Nevertheless, it was not discriminatory in its application. It did not say that alcohol was only forbidden for the Irish. It forbid it for everyone.

Bush wants an amendment which will forbid a civil right only to a specific group of people.

Not true. Bush's amendment doesn't just forbid gay marriage to gay people; it forbids gay marriage to everyone. Similarly, gay people have the same rights to marry someone of the opposite sex as anyone else.

05-17-2004, 12:35 PM

Well, I had a nice long post in reply to DtC...that has just been eaten by the hamsters on the board. Not sure if I have the energy to re-do it all, but looks like John Mace hit the high points anyway.

xtisme, I said DOMA was stupid and wrong and that Clinton was wrong to sign it. I didn't say it was "brilliant" for him to do so, only that it was calculating

See, and I'm NOT saying it was either stupid or wrong (in the political sense) for Clinton to do what he did. In fact, it WAS realitively 'brilliant' in that it achieved his political goals without much substance.

Even Clinton's worst enemies acknowledge that he has a brilliant intellect. I think BC was too smart to think that gay marriage was really a threat to anyone (and I reiterate, BC didn't try to ban it).

Well, I don't think he has a brilliant intellect, but he was certainly no dummy, and I'd say he was a pretty brilliant POLITICIAN and political manipulator. BC did what he felt was political expediant to his carreer. You realize this, while being totally blind to the fact that GW is cut from similar clothe. Bush might be proposing something that COULD ban gay marriage...but thats only if you actually think the ammendment has any hope in hell of getting passed, which it doesn't. So, in effect he is getting a free ride on this one. He gets to rally the troops behind him (from the paleo crowd), without it actually meaning anything.

And then you go off the deepend of the bias pool...

By contrast, GWB really believes that homos are going to hurt him.

Horseshit. You are ASSUMING this is the case, you don't know it. Unless you'd like to provide a cite?

He is not an intelligent man.

You knows what you knows, and thats what you knows. :rolleyes: Don't you even see how far your bias has taken you with the man? Its taken you to the point where you totally underestimate him. And on this one he's totally pulling the wool over your eyes...again. Keep it up and you and the other Bush howling crowd will get to complain about him for 4 MORE years on this board.

Don't forget, this is the same guy who thinks Jews can't go to Heaven

:rolleyes: Again, this is your ASSUMPTION of his beliefs, unless you want to back some of this bullshit up.

and that the "jury is still out" on evolution.

Well, in fact he DID appearently say this stupid thing. Then again, he IS a politician, so it doesn't necessarily follow that he really believes this (either way).

In the thread they discussed this it was pretty appearent that no one had anything more substantive to say on his beliefs because he hasn't made them general public knowledge. So, who gives a fuck what he believes as long as he doesn't act on it. And as far as I know, he's been in office 4 years without doing anything about this at all. As to his quote about letting the local school boards decide, it also came out that Gore AND Clinton had made similar statements.

He also thinks God wants him to kill brown people.

You forgot the fact he enjoys boiling puppy's alive, pushing baby chicks into ponds full of croc's, and sodomizing sheep. :rolleyes:

I see no evidence of self-reflection hidden intellectual acumen.

Well there is a shocker from so obviously an unbiased judge of the man as you are. :rolleyes: You better hope and pray that you PARTY isn't being as blindly stupid as you are, or Kerry is going down due to underestimating Bush.

Moreover, a proposal to actively ban same-sex marriage on a Constitutional level is fundamentally different than a federal law which only says that states may choose to honor them or not at their own discretion.

Sure it is, not saying otherwise. It was political pandering on an astonishing level IMO. However, as it has nearly zero chance of getting through, who cares? It WAS political pandering to more securely bring the far right into the fold for the election, and motivate the troops to get out and vote for Bush. Brilliant though slimy, as I said. Hell, I'm betting Clinton is green with envy on this to be honest...I bet HE see's whats going on.

-XT

Steve MB

05-17-2004, 01:22 PM

Prohibition was not discriminatory, it applied to everyone equally.

Saying that prohibition "applied to everyone equally" because habitual drunks and righeous teatotalers were equally forbidden to purchase alcohol is like saying that a same-sex marriage ban "applied to everyone equally" because gays and straights are equally forbidden to marry someone of the same sex.

Diogenes the Cynic

05-17-2004, 01:24 PM

Bush has many flaws. It really isn't necessary to invent non-existent ones:

Huh? Got any evidence to back that claim up?
My evidence is that he wants an amendement to the Constution to "protect" traditional marriage. Protect it from what? If he really believes he needs "protection," he's a moron. If he doesn't believe it, he's a liar. Pick your poison.
Your opinion-- and not suported by the facts. We've been over this at least half a dozen times, and it just doesn't stand up to even casual scrutiny.
I already cited some characteristics that indicate a gross lack of intellect. Anyone who ever in his life thinks that Jews can't go to Heaven is a moron. It's just as stupid as thinking the earth is flat. It's impossible to be intelligent and believe something like this.
I'm not sure if he actually believes this, but if I were a Christian, I would believe it, too. It's a logical extension of Christian doctrine. Otherwise, why get Baptized?
He's on record at least three times as stating that he does believe it, once to a paper in Austin, once before his first visit to Isreal when he told reporters that he was going to tell the Isrealis "they're all going to hell" (he later explained that he was joking) and once in a discussion with his mother in which she says he was arguing with her about whether Jews go to hell (she said they didn't). They called Billy Graham to settle it and he sided with Shrub that Jews DO go to Hell but that Georgie shouldn't worry about it.

It's not a universal Christian belief and even if it were that would just make Christianity a universally stupid religion. Just because a belief is religious doesn't mean it's not stupid.
So gross an exageration that it borders on outright lying.
I disagree. He has literally said that he was "chosen by God" to fight his dumbass wars against people who just happen to be a different religion than he is. He has even used the word "crusade" to describe his grandiose delusions. His victims are mostly brown. Their skin color may be incidental rather than causal but the fact renains; Bush looks across the ocean at Muslim countries and believes that God wants him to kill them.

sqweels

05-17-2004, 01:39 PM

xtisme:
Its not representative of our military, no more than a guy robbing a corner 7-11 or a sicko serial killer wacking nuns is representative of our citizens. Both are simply criminal activity.

The analogy I use is it's like holding an airline responsible when one of its planes crashes because it's maintenance personnel were a bunch of goof-offs.

New Iskander

05-17-2004, 01:47 PM

So remember: torture good, marriage bad.Bush never said "marriage bad", he said it was "sacred".

Bush never said "torture good", he denounced it as "un-American" and so on.

When you propose a debate, try to make it real.

furt

05-17-2004, 01:48 PM

Anyone who ever in his life thinks that Jews can't go to Heaven is a moron. Ah, yes, this is the kind of shoot-from-the-hip wild generalization that DtC is famous for. The Eternal Sophomore.

The idea that Christ is the exclusive route to salvation has been standard doctrine for most of the last 2000 years. Do you want a list of all of the great minds you're calling idiots?

furt

05-17-2004, 01:51 PM

I disagree. He has literally said that he was "chosen by God" to fight his dumbass wars against people who just happen to be a different religion than he is.Don't suppose you'd want to hear what people like Lincoln and Washington had to say about "Providence" and their presidencies, would you?

John Mace

05-17-2004, 01:52 PM

Leaving aside the other stuff for a moment:

I disagree. He has literally said that he was "chosen by God" to fight his dumbass wars against people who just happen to be a different religion than he is. He has even used the word "crusade" to describe his grandiose delusions. His victims are mostly brown. Their skin color may be incidental rather than causal but the fact renains; Bush looks across the ocean at Muslim countries and believes that God wants him to kill them.

This is simply false. Bush has NEVER even hinted that he was fighting a war against Muslims. And if that's what he's doing, he's failing miserably. He could easily have caused 100x the death toll if that was his actual goal in either Afghanistan or Iraq.

Honestly, you argument is about as serious as a Beavis and Butthead act: "heh-heh... heh-heh-heh. He said "crusade", heh-heh-heh." BFD, he slipped up and used the word "crusade". It's common in everyday usage to describe actions as a "crusade against such-and-such".

Diogenes the Cynic

05-17-2004, 02:14 PM

Don't suppose you'd want to hear what people like Lincoln and Washington had to say about "Providence" and their presidencies, would you?
Washington and Lincoln were both atheists. Any allusions to "providence" were completely non-religious. They used it in the sense of "luck" or "fate," not God. They didn't believe in God.
The idea that Christ is the exclusive route to salvation has been standard doctrine for most of the last 2000 years.
I disagree that it's standard. There have usually always been loopholes. And any belief that Jesus is the only way to Heaven is stupid. It's intellectually indefensible.
Do you want a list of all of the great minds you're calling idiots?
Most of the smart ones were able to work their way past the "exclusivist" stuff. They had to because it's a stupid thing to believe.

05-17-2004, 02:21 PM

The analogy I use is it's like holding an airline responsible when one of its planes crashes because it's maintenance personnel were a bunch of goof-offs.

Right, but we are talking about two different things here, sqweels. I said that it wasn't REPRESENTITIVE of the military that they have a few people who committed crimina acts, the same way it doesn't REPRESENT our citizenry because we have a people who commit criminal acts. You are talking about responsibility, and I certainly agree that not only is the military responsible, so is the government...and ultimately, so are you and I as citizens of this country (I assume you are a US citizen).

-XT

Mr. Moto

05-17-2004, 02:23 PM

Washington was an Episcopalian, Diogenes. His pew at Christ Church in Alexandria is clearly marked.

http://www.historicchristchurch.org/history.htm

Also, the use of the word "crusade" to denote a nonreligious struggle is a longstanding one in standard English. As an example, note Dwight D. Eisenhower's memoir, Crusade in Europe. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/080185668X/qid=1084821303/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-4401126-1411830?v=glance&s=books)

UncleBeer

05-17-2004, 02:31 PM

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves, and with all nations.
Abraham Lincoln - Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1865.
Having thus chosen our course, without guile and with pure purpose, let us renew our trust in God, and go forward without fear and with manly hearts.

Abraham Lincoln - Message to Congress, July 4, 1861.

Now what's this hubbub about Lincoln's [i]atheism?

Diogenes the Cynic

05-17-2004, 02:42 PM

Religious beliefs of Lincoln and Washington (http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/steiner0.htm)

Washington attended church infrequently and never prayed. His closest friends and associates said that he had "no religious feelings" and they never saw him pray even in private.

Lincoln might have been more accurately called an agnostic and his use of the word "God" was more symbolic than religious. From a private letter quoted in my linked page:
If he had been asked the plain question, "Do you know that a God exists?" he would have said: "I do not know that a God exists."

At one moment of his life I know that he was an Atheist. I was preparing a speech on Kansas, and in it, like nearly all reformers, I invoked God. He made me wipe out that word and substitute the word Maker, affirming that said Maker was a principle of the universe. When he went to Washington he did the same to a friend there.
Lincoln was a rationalist. He did not beleive in miracles or the divinity of Christ and he once called Jesus an "illegitimate child."

Read the link. If either of these guys was religious it wasn't so's you could notice it.

And more to my original point, neither of them was delusional or stupid enough to think that they had been "chosen by God."

Evil Captor

05-17-2004, 02:48 PM

As if he's the only one... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act)But, of course, it's all Bush's fault that the majority of the country is against gay marriage, because somehow he had the clout, even as Governor of Texas, to have a law passed in an attempt to restrict gay marriage. Oh, wait a second, that law was signed by a Democrat you say? Never mind, then... :rolleyes:

Is this the same "majority" that elected Bush president?

In any event your point is moot. The fact that some Dems pander to bigots doesn't nullify the fact that Bushco panders to bigots BIG TIME. And as you can't say the Dems are responsible for the torture at Abu Ghraib (and wherever we'll find it next) so it remains a strictly Republican phenom.

05-17-2004, 02:50 PM

See, what we are supposed to do is not go by their words but by what the MEANT. So, Clinton didn't REALLY mean it with his Defense of Marriage Act, he was just being a canny politician. Lincoln and Washington didn't REALLY believe in god, they were just mouthing platitudes for political reasons.

But GW, who also happens to be a politician, means every word of it of course. Not only that, be he means it SO much we can make basic assumptions about hit too because of this real belief. (he only 'lies' when we WANT him to have lied of course...but this is a different subject I'm sure).

For instance, we can know he's stupid and a moron. We can know he hates jews and 'brown people'. We can know without a shadow of a doubt he believes in creationism of the YEC variety. We can know that he hates gays. Hell, we can probably divine what he ate this morning and what time he took a crap based on this too! We don't need the benifit of his actual positions, of statements he might have made, because we KNOW he really believes this stuff, as opposed to just mouthing it for the benifit of the unwashed masses.

:rolleyes:

Maybe this thread SHOULD be in the pit. The one thing about this board that never ceases to amaze me is how I get dragged into defending a man I can't stand because others feel the need to fly off the handle about him.

-XT

Evil Captor

05-17-2004, 02:53 PM

Bullshit. You haven't posted one of your thinly-veiled rants in some time, and were feeling a need to do so. Remember your stupid 'If you are a Republican, you are racist' thread?

Yes, very well. I thought I made some good points, but I can see why you had bad memories of it. In any event, posting what should be self-evident hardly constitutes a rant. The raw juxtaposition of these two elements is what really makes them work, don't you agree?

John Mace

05-17-2004, 03:02 PM

cheddarsnax

05-17-2004, 03:10 PM

But, of course, it's all Bush's fault that the majority of the country is against gay marriage...
Newsweek Poll (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/05-15-2004/0002174969&EDATE=): Majority (51%) Now Supports Gay Marriage (28%) Or Civil Unions (23%); 43 Percent Oppose All Legal Recognition

Yes, you did use "marriage" in your post, but I think this deserves some clarification.

Diogenes the Cynic

05-17-2004, 03:11 PM

Frankly, this tangent about Washington and Lincoln is beside the point.

I'd like to see DtC offer his evidence that Bush thinks he is chose by God to kill Muslims (as Muslims). He certainly is in a war against Terror (with a capital "T"), but he'll need to show that Bush equates Islam with Terror.
I didn't say he did. I suspect that he does, but I don't know that. All I know for sure is that he thinks God wants him to start wars and that the victims of those wars are mostly Muslims.

"War on Terror" is pretty much a semantically vacant phrase, btw. We haven't formally declared any such war, nor have we defined an enemy, nor have we defined any goals for such a "war." The "War on Terror" is no more meaningful that the "war on drugs" or the "war on poverty." It's just a catchprase.

Dewey Cheatem Undhow

05-17-2004, 03:18 PM

UncleBeer

05-17-2004, 03:23 PM

Read the link. If either of these guys was religious it wasn't so's you could notice it.
Great. But agnostic does not equal atheist. You said Lincoln was an atheist. Your cite does not say that. Perhaps when making claims of fact, such as you did here, you will learn to be a bit more circumspect.

Diogenes the Cynic

05-17-2004, 03:38 PM

Great. But agnostic does not equal atheist. You said Lincoln was an atheist. Your cite does not say that. Perhaps when making claims of fact, such as you did here, you will learn to be a bit more circumspect.
Surely you've been around the SDMB long enough to know that "atheist" does not have to imply a positive denial of theism, It just means "not theistic," "Weak" atheism is virtually identical to agnosticism.

Polerius

05-17-2004, 03:54 PM

He is not an intelligent manWe've been over this at least half a dozen times, and it just doesn't stand up to even casual scrutiny
Actually, I think it stands up quite well even to deeper scrutiny.

Its this kind of underestimation of Bush thats going to get him 4 more years in office.
No, its the fact that there are too many stupid people that don't see how stupid he is that's going to get him 4 more years in office.

The idea that Christ is the exclusive route to salvation has been standard doctrine for most of the last 2000 years. Do you want a list of all of the great minds you're calling idiots?
Actually, some sects teach that non-Christians could go to heaven. For example someone who never heard about Christianity but led a good and moral life, would go to heaven.

Also, just because someone is a "great mind", doesn't mean they can't hold a couple beliefs that are stupid.

05-17-2004, 04:07 PM

Actually, I think it stands up quite well even to deeper scrutiny.

Enlighten us then, Oh sage and eminient SDMB junky, because my recollection of the two threads in GD dealing with the Bush is a stupid moron topic, the pro-Bush is stupid arguements were pretty weak and mostly biased (*waving hands* 'He's stupid because he is! Plus he talks funny too!'). If it stands up to even 'deeper scrutiny' you must be privy to some data that didn't make it into the threads I remember...please feel free to share and enjoy.

No, its the fact that there are too many stupid people that don't see how stupid he is that's going to get him 4 more years in office.

:rolleyes: Of course Bush wouldn't get re-elected otherwise. Hell, he's too stupid to tie his shoes. He just kind of wandered into becoming president...sort of fell into it really. And only morons would vote for him anyway.

Nice the way folks tend to demonize the political opposition around here and make it seem like a debate.

All I know for sure is that he thinks God wants him to start wars and that the victims of those wars are mostly Muslims.

Hell, if you KNOW this, the GW REALLY thinks God personally wanted him/told him to start wars, I'd like to see the cite. Dont hold out on us DtC.

-XT

cmkeller

05-17-2004, 04:32 PM

Diogenes:

I didn't say he did. I suspect that he does, but I don't know that. All I know for sure is that he thinks God wants him to start wars and that the victims of those wars are mostly Muslims.

That's a hell of a lot different from what you said earlier, Diogenes.

In addition, that's quite an arguable point. He has engaged in wars on two fronts: Afghanistan and Iraq. The war in Afghanistan certainly can't be described as started by him, as they were sheltering the people who attacked the US on 9/11. While it's somewhat flimsy to tie the Iraq war to the war on terror in general, Iraq's violations of the terms of its 1991 surrender could have been considered acts of war as well.

Polerius

05-17-2004, 04:48 PM

Enlighten us then, Oh sage and eminient SDMB junky
Not that this has anything to do with the discussion, but: I'm the SDMB junky?
xtisme: Total Posts: 1,403 (3.49 posts per day)
Polerius: Total Posts: 76 (2.72 posts per day)

because my recollection of the two threads in GD dealing with the Bush is a stupid moron topic, the pro-Bush is stupid arguements were pretty weak and mostly biased (*waving hands* 'He's stupid because he is! Plus he talks funny too!'). If it stands up to even 'deeper scrutiny' you must be privy to some data that didn't make it into the threads I remember...please feel free to share and enjoy.
You obviously don't understand the most basic fact:
You and the "Bush is not stupid" camp think the "Bush is stupid" arguments were pretty weak and mostly biased.
The "Bush is stupid" camp thought the "Bush is not stupid" arguments were weak and mostly biased.

So, were does that leave us? No side has convinced the other, so it was wrong of John Mace to claim "it just doesn't stand up to even casual scrutiny",
because that was just his personal opinion. There was no consensus at the end of any post where the "Bush is stupid" camp said: "You know guys, we were wrong, Bush is not stupid"

When I said that the "Bush is stupid" arguments stand up to even deeper scrutiny, I was being sarcastic in response to John Mace's statement.

And by claiming that only the "Bush is stupid" arguments were weak and biased, while ignoring the possibility that the other arguments might be weak and biased shows not only how biased you are, but how lacking you are in self-examination
("I'm not being convinced, but neither are they. Therefore, their arguments must be weak and biased")

John Mace

05-17-2004, 04:50 PM

I'd like to see DtC offer his evidence that Bush thinks he is chose by God to kill Muslims...

I didn't say he did.
You most certainly did:

Bush looks across the ocean at Muslim countries and believes that God wants him to kill them.

05-17-2004, 05:07 PM

Not that this has anything to do with the discussion, but: I'm the SDMB junky?

Sorry, it was an obscure Dark Tower reference...sometimes I say wierd things just to amuse myself. It wasn't meant as anything at all, just tickled my fancy. I'm over it now. :)

You and the "Bush is not stupid" camp think the "Bush is stupid" arguments were pretty weak and mostly biased.

Not at all. I can't stand the man...I certainly never voted for him. I'm perfectly willing to be convinced that Bush is stupid. However, all the 'proof' I saw was horseshit. It broke down mostly to the fact that Bush isn't a very good public speaker, so he's obviously stupid. Then it went round and round as to what exactly 'stupid' was.

So, were does that leave us? No side has convinced the other, so it was wrong of John Mace to claim "it just doesn't stand up to even casual scrutiny",
because that was just his personal opinion. There was no consensus at the end of any post where the "Bush is stupid" camp said: "You know guys, we were wrong, Bush is not stupid"QUOTE]

But see, again you are wrong. On 'casual scrutiny' it DOESN'T stand up that Bush is stupid. He's a freaking college graduate for gods sake. Ok, that doesn't necessarily mean anything, but I don't know of many people at 'moron' intellegence level that have graduated from a respected college. He was also a fighter pilot, so he had to be at least semi-literate and intellegent. So, looking at it casually, I'd say that a normal unbiased person would agree the person in question was neither a 'moron' (which means of well below average intellegence) nor 'stupid' (which has no direct definition).

In addition, SOMEONE with a brain is certainly running the shop, because I've seen some very good political manuvering from Bush since he's been in office. Sure, it might not be him, but then again it might be. So, on CASUAL scrutiny, the statement that Bush is stupid DOESN'T HOLD UP.

[QUOTE=Polerius]When I said that the "Bush is stupid" arguments stand up to even deeper scrutiny, I was being sarcastic in response to John Mace's statement.

Oh. Well, use :rolleyes: or :dubious: next time...I totally missed this whoosh. When addressing my gaffs, I recommend using this :wally as its pretty appropriate sometimes. :)

And by claiming that only the "Bush is stupid" arguments were weak and biased, while ignoring the possibility that the other arguments might be weak and biased shows not only how biased you are, but how lacking you are in self-examination
("I'm not being convinced, but neither are they. Therefore, their arguments must be weak and biased")

But you are making the unfounded assumption I AM biased towards GW. I'm not. I can certainly be convinced...but I need more than 'he talks funny' or 'well, I just know he is'. Show me test scores indicating he has below normal cognative abilities. Show me evaluations by doctors, or teachers...hell, ANYTHING. But don't use invective and hyperbole and expect me to be convinced. I certainly saw nothing remotely convincing in the various threads on this topic.

-XT

05-17-2004, 05:15 PM

Yikes! Boy, did I mess up the coding there. Lets see...it SHOULD have been:

So, were does that leave us? No side has convinced the other, so it was wrong of John Mace to claim "it just doesn't stand up to even casual scrutiny",

But see, again you are wrong. On 'casual scrutiny' it DOESN'T stand up that Bush is stupid. He's a freaking college graduate for gods sake. Ok, that doesn't necessarily mean anything, but I don't know of many people at 'moron' intellegence level that have graduated from a respected college. He was also a fighter pilot, so he had to be at least semi-literate and intellegent. So, looking at it casually, I'd say that a normal unbiased person would agree the person in question was neither a 'moron' (which means of well below average intellegence) nor 'stupid' (which has no direct definition).

In addition, SOMEONE with a brain is certainly running the shop, because I've seen some very good political manuvering from Bush since he's been in office. Sure, it might not be him, but then again it might be. So, on CASUAL scrutiny, the statement that Bush is stupid DOESN'T HOLD UP.

When I said that the "Bush is stupid" arguments stand up to even deeper scrutiny, I was being sarcastic in response to John Mace's statement.

Oh. Well, use :rolleyes: or :dubious: next time...I totally missed this whoosh. When (you are) addressing my gaffs (in future), I recommend using this ( :wally ) as its pretty appropriate sometimes.

Sorry about that if there was any confusion. I usually let my own errors go, but didn't want anything I was saying to be interpereted as an insult....it kind of looked that way when I read it with the screwed up encoding.

Reguards,
XT

treis

05-18-2004, 01:49 AM

Diogenes the Cynic, Just a friendly reminder that you still haven't provided cites for these statements. I have even bolded specifically what I feel you need cites for.

He's on record at least three times as stating that he does believe it, once to a paper in Austin, once before his first visit to Isreal when he told reporters that he was going to tell the Isrealis "they're all going to hell" (he later explained that he was joking) [b] and once in a discussion with his mother in which she says he was arguing with her about whether Jews go to hell (she said they didn't). [b] They called Billy Graham to settle it and he sided with Shrub that Jews DO go to Hell but that Georgie shouldn't worry about it.

I disagree. He has literally said that he was "chosen by God" to fight his dumbass wars against people who just happen to be a different religion than he is. He has even used the word "crusade" to describe his grandiose delusions. His victims are mostly brown. Their skin color may be incidental rather than causal but the fact renains; Bush looks across the ocean at Muslim countries and believes that God wants him to kill them.

PatriotX

05-18-2004, 02:06 AM

Everyone should've known from the title and OP that this'd be a trainwreck fo a thread.

Zoe

05-18-2004, 02:21 AM

xtisme: Show me evaluations by doctors, or teachers...hell, ANYTHING.

With a degree from a university with a reputable education research program, twenty years in a high school classroom and post graduate work in educational psychology, I feel a little qualified to speculate. (It's a little like diagnosing a patient without fulling examining him.)

President Bush is not a moron. I would think that he is probably on the higher end of average with an I.Q. of perhaps 110. His level of verbal skill may reflect both his thinking processes and psychological makeup.

President Clinton has an I.Q. probably around 165. (He was a Rhodes Scholar.) I think that he and President Bush share one thing in common besides Yale. Both are, in their own ways, still stranded in adolescence either emotionally or morally. President Clinton is more manipulative; President Bush is more stubborn and vindictive.

xtisme: The one thing about this board that never ceases to amaze me is how I get dragged into defending a man I can't stand because others feel the need to fly off the handle about him.

Why are you so easily manipulated by the opinions of others about someone you dislike? Acknowledge and xercise self-control. No one is dragging you anywhere.

b]xtisme[/b]: Its taken you to the point where you totally underestimate him.

Again, this is just my personal opinion, but I think that it is actually an impossibility to underestimate President Bush.

DtC: They called Billy Graham to settle it and he sided with Shrub that Jews DO go to Hell but that Georgie shouldn't worry about it.

No jab at you personally, but this story sounds totally bogus. I don't think that Barbara Bush would tolerate disturbing the Rev. Graham with such a question. I cannot imagine it. Further, and more to the point, these are not the views that I have heard the Rev. Billy Graham express. He believes that there will be many in heaven who are not known to us as Christians. The scripture that he uses to back this up is "Many sheep have I that are not of this fold." These are views that I have heard expressed by Billy Graham's son, the Rev. Franklin Graham. He and his father disagree.

Evil Captor

05-18-2004, 06:35 AM

Everyone should've known from the title and OP that this'd be a trainwreck fo a thread.

it's not a trainwreck, it's a hijack, but everyone appears to be having fun, so I'm cool with it. :cool:

Diogenes the Cynic

05-18-2004, 09:29 AM

No jab at you personally, but this story sounds totally bogus. I don't think that Barbara Bush would tolerate disturbing the Rev. Graham with such a question. I cannot imagine it. Further, and more to the point, these are not the views that I have heard the Rev. Billy Graham express. He believes that there will be many in heaven who are not known to us as Christians. The scripture that he uses to back this up is "Many sheep have I that are not of this fold." These are views that I have heard expressed by Billy Graham's son, the Rev. Franklin Graham. He and his father disagree.
The story comes from GWB himself in an interview with the NY Times Magazine and was widely picked up by other publications during the 2000 campaign. Here's a summary of the story from Jewish World Review (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1298/bush1.asp).
Bush, a leading contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000, first caused controversy when he told a story about his religious faith in an interview published in The Houston Post during his 1994 campaign for governor, and he recounted that story in a New York Times Magazine profile this September.

Bush said he was visiting his parents in the White House and, having at that time recently recommitted to religion, began to discuss “who goes to heaven” with his mother, Barbara. Bush pointed to a passage in the Christian Bible which said that “only Christians had a place in heaven.”

Barbara disagreed, saying, “Surely, God will accept others,” but Bush said, “Mom, here’s what the New Testament says.” So Barbara called Billy Graham, and, said Bush, “Billy said, ‘From a personal perspective, I agree with what George is saying, the New Testament has been my guide. But I want to caution you both. Don’t play God. Who are you two to be God?’ ”
I'd also like to remind you about an oval office tape (http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/02/02/Graham_Nixon.html) which recorded a conversation between Graham and Richard Nixon in which the two traded anti-semitic comments:
Rev. Billy Graham openly voiced a belief that Jews control the American media, calling it a "stranglehold" during a 1972 conversation with President Richard Nixon, according to a tape of the Oval Office meeting released Thursday by the National Archives.

"This stranglehold has got to be broken or the country's going down the drain," the nation's best-known preacher declared as he agreed with a stream of bigoted Nixon comments about Jews and their perceived influence in American life.

"You believe that?" says Nixon after the "stranglehold" comment.

"Yes, sir," says Graham.

"Oh, boy," replies Nixon. "So do I. I can't ever say that but I believe it."

"No, but if you get elected a second time, then we might be able to do something," replies Graham.

Later, Graham mentions that he has friends in the media who are Jewish, saying they "swarm around me and are friendly to me." But, he confides to Nixon, "They don't know how I really feel about what they're doing to this country."
I used to think Billy Graham was different than the rest. I don't anymore.

furt

05-18-2004, 09:53 AM

President Clinton has an I.Q. probably around 165.Which woul;d make him one of the 2000 smartest men in America. Not friggin' likely.

http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/IQtable.html

05-18-2004, 10:15 AM

President Bush is not a moron. I would think that he is probably on the higher end of average with an I.Q. of perhaps 110. His level of verbal skill may reflect both his thinking processes and psychological makeup.

What are you basing this on? Do you have any of Bush's IQ exam scores? I'm not sure whether this is a wild ass guess or you have some data on this. If its a wild ass guess, tell me what you think my IQ is and I'll decide how good you are at cold evaluations from someone you never met.

President Clinton has an I.Q. probably around 165. (He was a Rhodes Scholar.) I think that he and President Bush share one thing in common besides Yale. Both are, in their own ways, still stranded in adolescence either emotionally or morally. President Clinton is more manipulative; President Bush is more stubborn and vindictive.

Again, where do you get this IQ...its pretty much in the 'genus' category. Do you have a cite for this or is it again a WAG on your part?

Why are you so easily manipulated by the opinions of others about someone you dislike? Acknowledge and xercise self-control. No one is dragging you anywhere.

I like to argue...thats why I come on this board. I don't like to run with the herd. I also don't like unfounded attacks. I've defended Clinton too (someone else I'm not exactly enamored with), and argued both sides of the war in Iraq when folks felt the need to bring in false positions. You are right though...no one is dragging me in. Its my own stuborness and vindictiveness. :) I'm also manipulative. But I've never stained a blue dress that wasn't my wifes, nor have I gotten us into a war we didn't need to be involved in, so I do have my redeeming points.

Again, this is just my personal opinion, but I think that it is actually an impossibility to underestimate President Bush.

Suit yourself. I think you are wrong about him, and its this kind of attitude that scares me in people. I think he's a hell of a lot more canny than folks give him credit for. All they see is the the exterior, and I think he plays up the 'good ole boy' bit intentionally so that folks like you will underestimate him. Well, I suppose we'll see in November.

-XT

PatriotX

05-18-2004, 10:19 AM

it's not a trainwreck, it's a hijack, but everyone appears to be having fun, so I'm cool with it. :cool:
Starting off with a condemnation of people by means of a straw man definitely constitutes a train wreck.

furt

05-18-2004, 10:43 AM

Washington and Lincoln were both atheists. Any allusions to "providence" were completely non-religious.Sorry, chuckles. GW and most of the founding Fathers were deists; which involves a) belief in a creator or lawgiver and/or b) a belief that there are moral laws and absolutes, and usually c) a belief that human life has a destiny or purpose. GWB's belief that he has been "chosen" for this moment in history -- whether you want to call it Fate or God or Providence -- is by no means out of the mainstream of their thought.

http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/g/ge/george_washington.html

http://www.deism.com/washington.htm

http://www.deism.org/abrahamlincoln.htm

Most of the smart ones were able to work their way past the "exclusivist" stuff. They had to because it's a stupid thing to believe.Pascal? (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11511a.htm)

The larger point is that many, many brilliant people hold to beliefs that are, to others, "stupid." I give you Bobby Fischer (although I suppose you could argue that he's just mentally ill; nevertheless I think you get my point). Anyone who has lived to thirty and is at all thoughtful has had the experience of meeting highly intelligent people with whom you disagree, and moreover of having some of their own ideas and beliefs change with time.

The mature adult's response to this is to realize that good, intelligent people can disagree -- even over seemingly fundamental and "obvious truths," and that they can do so respectfully. Unfortunately, that is not your pattern.

Diogenes the Cynic

05-18-2004, 11:43 AM

Which woul;d make him one of the 2000 smartest men in America. Not friggin' likely.

http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/IQtable.html
Why isn't it likely? He got scholarships to Yale and Oxford purely on academic merit. people who knew him in college say that he barely put forth any effort and got straight A's. He has an unbelievable memory and for a while it was a bit of a game in the Washington press corps to try to stump him with more and more obscure and esoteric questions about domestic or foreign policy and his ability to retrieve the most arcane and trivial facts about Energy policy or economic forecasts in Upper Volta was uncanny. Even his most bitter political enemies say that he has one of the most brilliant minds they've ever seen.

I'm curious why you think he can't be a genius. Why the hell not.

Oh...and not to brag or anything, but I tested out at 165 when I was in high school (and no, it was NOT an online test, it was a series of formal tests with a real psychologist). It resulted in an accelerated high school schedule for me and an early graduation. I was still an underachiever, though. I blew off a lot of classes and skated through by acing tests. I'm not saying all this to brag (I actually wondrer about the veracity of those tests since I don't think I have an extraordinary intellect. I feel like I'm bright, amybe smarter than most, but I don't think I'm brilliant like Einstein or Hawkings or Shakespeare. I suspect that it's not that hard to score above 160 on an IQ test. I've known others who scored higher than me (Mensa types). It can't be that unusual.

Diogenes the Cynic

05-18-2004, 12:00 PM

I just want to add for the record that I doubt that I'm even in the top ten percent for this MB, much less one of the 2000 smartest people in America.

And though she's never been tested, I think that my wife would score higher than I did.

Airman Doors, USAF

05-18-2004, 12:35 PM

I just want to add for the record that I doubt that I'm even in the top ten percent for this MB, much less one of the 2000 smartest people in America.

I doubt it too. Don't feel bad, though. Not everybody can be as smart as I am. ;)

And though she's never been tested, I think that my wife would score higher than I did.

Must...refrain...from...making...obvious...wife...joke...

Evil Captor

05-18-2004, 01:12 PM

Starting off with a condemnation of people by means of a straw man definitely constitutes a train wreck.

Sorry, no strawmen here. The Bush Administration and the Republican Party in general definitely oppose gay marriage. The Bush Administration has definitely sanctioned torture, and some Republican apologists have definitely defended the torture at Abu Ghraib. So torture good, marriage bad. It's not a straw man if there's substance to it.

RickJay

05-18-2004, 01:18 PM

Why isn't it likely? He got scholarships to Yale and Oxford purely on academic merit. people who knew him in college say that he barely put forth any effort and got straight A's.
There are tens of thousands of people with equivalent or superior academic qualifications. Unless there is some other evidence Clinton has a 165 IQ, the statement that it is "not likely" is logically correct; unless you have a reason to claim he is smarter than the thousands and thousands of people with equivalent or better academic records, it is likely he is not in the top 165.

05-18-2004, 01:50 PM

Probably a hijack, but I didn't think there was a direct correlation between grades in school and what you test out as far as IQ goes (I recall people in mensa that were plumbers or store clerks and such..who never WENT to college). So, there is no real way to judge what someone's IQ is (not that IQ is a meaningful score with reguards to intellegence anyway, IMO) from merely looking at their grades. I know in my own case, I scored very high in IQ and on my SAT and other college entrance exams, but my grades were merely adaquate...I spent more time laying about in the sun or getting over a hangover than I did cracking books.

-XT

Squink

05-18-2004, 01:53 PM

some Republican apologists have definitely defended the torture at Abu Ghraib. Perhaps the apologists aren't all republican. Has any one seen any numbers on the size of America's pro-torture contingent? Are we talking about 5% of the voting population here, or 25%?

New Iskander

05-18-2004, 02:12 PM

Tigers2B1

05-18-2004, 02:41 PM

...President Bush is not a moron. I would think that he is probably on the higher end of average with an I.Q. of perhaps 110. His level of verbal skill may reflect both his thinking processes and psychological makeup...

From Cecil, Bush made a 1206 on his SAT. A 566 on the verbal and 640 on the math

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/010622.html

... and with a 1206 on his SAT GWB's IQ is about 124 according to this SAT to IQ conversion table.

http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/SATIQ.html

furt

05-18-2004, 02:50 PM

I'm curious why you think he can't be a genius. Why the hell not.Well, I worded that a little more strongly than I should have. As Rickjay, said, though, while WJC is unquestionably very gifted, I think "High Genius" is an exceptional claim needing exceptional proof. Top one-half of one percent, I'll buy, even top 0.1%. Anything more than that is guesswork unless we hear from an expert.

Oh...and not to brag or anything, but I tested out at 165 when I was in high school ... I suspect that it's not that hard to score above 160 on an IQ test. I've known others who scored higher than me (Mensa types). It can't be that unusual.Well, it depends on the test. Some vary widely, especially at the upper end of the scale. Not that I think those IQ tests are really worth a whole lot in the real world, but a GRE score in the top 1% qualifies for Mensa, but only works out to an IQ of 132 or something like that. So 165 is truly exceptional.

I just want to add for the record that I doubt that I'm even in the top ten percent for this MB, Yes you are, easily, and I don't need an IQ score to tell me that. Now if we could just add some wisdom to that ...

John Mace

05-18-2004, 02:58 PM

From Cecil, Bush made a 1206 on his SAT. A 566 on the verbal and 640 on the math

Which EASILY puts him at least at the 75th percentile in a group (SAT takers) that already is pre-selected towards intelligence (or academic performance). With that objective evidence available, anyone claiming Bush is "not intelligent" is himself "not intelligent".

Tigers2B1

05-18-2004, 03:10 PM

Which EASILY puts him at least at the 75th percentile in a group (SAT takers) that already is pre-selected towards intelligence (or academic performance)...

Not that I'm equating IQ and knowledge or even pre-1994 SAT and knowledge -but according to the Straightdope article linked --- after the pre-1994 SAT scores were “recentered” Bush would score at 88th and 86th percentile for verbal and math respectively - for those entering college today.

Here's that quote from Cecil --

…Doing the same for Bush gives him 640 on both verbal and math, good enough for 88th percentile on the verbal and 86th in math were he entering college now.

05-18-2004, 03:27 PM

Wow, I didn't know about that pre-1994 adjustment. Jumps me up to nearly maxing both. Nice. :) I'm happy that I beat Al Gores adjusted scores with my base scores as well...thats a comfort. Anyone have any of Clintons scores available at all?

I must have missed this article by The Master...thanks Tigers2B1. I'll have to remember this link next time this question pops up here in GD. :)

-XT

New Iskander

05-18-2004, 03:30 PM

It's not a straw man if there's substance to it.It's not a straw man if there's straw in it.

Rashak Mani

05-18-2004, 03:32 PM

Diogenes the Cynic

05-18-2004, 03:34 PM

After much googling, I can't find any definititive cite for Cinton's IQ. There are claims ranging from 137 on this (http://www.aceviper.net/aceviper_net/ace_intelligence/aceviper_famous_people_iq_list/aceviper_famous_people_iq_list.html) cite, which purports to have "estimated IQ's for famous people. I have no idea what criteria they used. The same site puts GWB at 125.

Other sites tend to claim some rather gaudy scores for Clinton. I found claims for 160, 165 and 182. The latter claim is a debunked part of a spurious list of Presidential IQ's which also listed GWB at 90.

I don't know if there's any legit cite for BC's IQ or if he's ever even been tested. I do know that they don't hand out those Rhodes Scholarships, though.

I wouldn't put much stock in SAT scores, btw. Anyone who knows how to prepare for them can get a decent score. They don't really measure innate intelligence.

Polerius

05-18-2004, 03:40 PM

Which EASILY puts him at least at the 75th percentile in a group (SAT takers) that already is pre-selected towards intelligence (or academic performance). With that objective evidence available, anyone claiming Bush is "not intelligent" is himself "not intelligent".
Does SAT measure intelligence? Cite please.

I had several classmates in high school that were great test-takers but widely aknowledged as not very intelligent.

Of course, it all depends on your definition of 'intelligence'. If you define it as performing well on standardized tests, then he might be somewhat intelligent.

But test-taking is not what intelligence is all about. It is about being able to make correct decisions and correct and clear arguments to support those decisions. And that's all we really ask for in a president, not if he did well on his SAT's.

I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader whether Bush has made good decisions during his tenure, and whether he has made clear and correct arguments to support those decisions (hint: think "Iraq")

05-18-2004, 03:51 PM

Does SAT measure intelligence?

Probably not...but then, the IQ tests would fall into the same category, no? So, do THEY measure intellegence? Not IMO. Like you, I know a lot of folks that are just good at taking tests (I'm one of them). What does that tell us about their intellegence? Nothing much really.

However, its the only empirical piece of evidence we have on GW. As to "I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader whether Bush has made good decisions during his tenure, and whether he has made clear and correct arguments to support those decisions" now we are into total partisanship. I can think of myriad mistakes Clinton made too...does that make him stupid?

All presidents make mistake, but the magnitude of their mistakes doesn't equate to their intellegence either. A smart man can make major mistakes and gaffs...and a stupid one might not make such huge mistakes, depending on circumstances. There is no way to draw a correlation between if GW is intellegent or not based whether he made good decisions (or not) while in office, as your interperatation of what constitutes a 'good decision' is different from mine...and both of ours are different from a Republican supporter of the president.

Personally, this whole arguement is just silly. Why people feel the need to make GW into a slobbering moron with a 90 IQ is beyond me. He could be a genius and still not be the guy you want for president, still make major fuckups and have policies opposed to your world view. Isn't THAT what counts?

-XT

Tigers2B1

05-18-2004, 03:54 PM

Does SAT measure intelligence? Cite please.

I had several classmates in high school that were great test-takers but widely aknowledged as not very intelligent.

Of course, it all depends on your definition of 'intelligence'. If you define it as performing well on standardized tests, then he might be somewhat intelligent.

But test-taking is not what intelligence is all about. It is about being able to make correct decisions and correct and clear arguments to support those decisions. And that's all we really ask for in a president, not if he did well on his SAT's...

I don’t think that IQ is designed to measure “intelligence,” if by that you mean acquired knowledge. As I understand, IQ tests verbal and abstract reasoning. How you use that ability is up to the individual.

The MENSA site uses pre-1994 SAT scores to qualify. SAT scores obtained in 1994 and after apparently do not correlate with IQ and can't be used.

http://www.us.mensa.org/join_mensa/testscores.php3

John Mace

05-18-2004, 04:05 PM

Does SAT measure intelligence? Cite please.

Well, why don't you tell us how to measure it then. People on this board routinely state that Bush is "not intelligent." No one knows how to measure that quality, but the only quantitative measures that we have (however good or bad) indicate that Bush is intelligent. "Has a political viewpoint different from mine" is not a valid argument against intelligence.

If you would prefer, we can take the position that we have no way of knowing how intelligent anyone is. But you can't have it both ways. You can't claim to be unable to measure intelligence, and yet somehow know that Bush isn't intelligent.

Tigers2B1

05-18-2004, 04:24 PM

Also, if you’ll look at the link that Diogenes the Cynic provided, the link with the estimated IQs, you’ll notice the name William Sidis. I've heard of Sidis before and he was apparently well know during the early 1900s. Despite having an extremely high IQ, Sidis, in his adult life was 'socially backward’ to the point he accomplished very little. Not that Sidis didn’t show early promise. By age five Sidis was reading in Russian, French, and German. By eight, he had passed the entrance exams for both MIT and Harvard. As an adult, Sidis never married, held the most menial of jobs, and simply did his best to disappear. So no, IQ ability doesn’t necessarily translate beyond the scope of what it measures ---- even though it does correlate with quite a few things that might be surprising to most. Including, in some cases, your pending death. :eek:

Polerius

05-18-2004, 04:46 PM

Well, why don't you tell us how to measure it then.
I didn't provide a way to measure it, but I did provide a way to recognize it:
It is about being able to make correct decisions and correct and clear arguments to support those decisions.

You can't claim to be unable to measure intelligence, and yet somehow know that Bush isn't intelligent.
I think you certainly can. If you wake up in and look out the window, you will be able to tell whether it is day or night, even if you don't know what time it is.

Similarly, based on the intelligence "rule" I gave above, I can see that several people on this board that I disagree with on several issues, like xtisme and you John, are indeed intelligent because they can explain their positions in a clear and logical way. I don't have to know your IQ scores or SAT scores to deduce that.

IMHO, Bush fails the above intelligence rule.

PatriotX

05-18-2004, 05:28 PM

Sorry, no strawmen here. The Bush Administration and the Republican Party in general definitely oppose gay marriage. The Bush Administration has definitely sanctioned torture, and some Republican apologists have definitely defended the torture at Abu Ghraib. So torture good, marriage bad. It's not a straw man if there's substance to it.

Yeah, this is the corner your precious Bushco has backed you into now"Bushco" isn't precious to me, nor have they backed me into anything.
you have to defend the torture at Abu Ghraib as just a bunch of fraternity hazings, or as a necessary adjunct to the war on terrorBullshit. I don't have to do any such thing.
[you have to]...attack the right of two people of the same sex to express their love through marriage.More bullshit. I don't have to do anything of the sort.
So the whole first paragraph is strawmen from start to finish.
Next paragraph:
So remember: torture good, marriage bad.Nonsensical, unrelated hogwash as explained above.
And if you get a funny feeling when you say that, it's just what's left of your sense of morality trying to survive.More bullshit. The funny feeling's the minor stress associated with honoring GD rules after reading a unfounded, prejudiced, public assault on my character as a member of the GOP.
And try not to let your heads explode while you're at it.If there were a chance of this sort of thing happening, then there would be a chance that this is not a straw man. However....

In short, the OP's a congealed glob of ad hom attacks against a group. Solely because it's against a group rather than me personally it's doesn't go against the letter of GD rules.
It's obvious that you're just trying to rouse some ire and raise some hackles for own meager amusement with the confrontational language and abusive tone.

Next time you get the urge to write and OP like this, why don't you cram it right up The Pit? Cause it's not a debate.

John Mace

05-18-2004, 07:45 PM

I didn't provide a way to measure it, but I did provide a way to recognize it:

An entirely subjective method which presupposes the existence of a "correct answer" to real life question. By that method, Kennedy and Johnson are not intelligent (Vietnam War), Gordon Moore is not intelligent (there is no market for a personal computer), Gore is not intelligent (he should have known he would lose the election), etc. etc. etc.

Which is precisely why we DO use standardize tests to measure intelligence. It's only in that type of controlled situation when there IS a correct answer.

Evil Captor

05-18-2004, 10:28 PM

Some Democrats started KKK and some Democrats dropped A-bombs on civilian population. So remember, all Democrats are racist mass murderers.

"It's not a straw man if there's substance to it."

Thanks for making my point for me, Iskander.

In 1945, lots of Democrats WERE racists. The whole Republican Southern Strategy was about wooing the southern racists who HAD been in the Democratic Party (the Yellow Dog democrats) over to the Republican Party -- and it succeeded very well.

And while dropping the A-bombs was a mass slaughter, I don't know that it can be characterized as a murder, as part of the rationale for it is one I find convincing: that taking the Japanese mainland via a land invasion would likely cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers. It was a cold, hard decision to have to make, and they made it, and I don't envy them at all for having had to make it.

But it definitely wouldn't have been a strawman to say a lot of Dems were KKKers back in the first half of the 1900s. Not at all.

Evil Captor

05-18-2004, 10:43 PM

"Bushco" isn't precious to me, nor have they backed me into anything.
Bullshit. I don't have to do any such thing.
More bullshit. I don't have to do anything of the sort.
So the whole first paragraph is strawmen from start to finish.
Next paragraph:
Nonsensical, unrelated hogwash as explained above.
More bullshit. The funny feeling's the minor stress associated with honoring GD rules after reading a unfounded, prejudiced, public assault on my character as a member of the GOP.
If there were a chance of this sort of thing happening, then there would be a chance that this is not a straw man. However....

Calling something hogwash and bullshit without backing it up with an explanation is an expression of opinion. It's not an argument.

In short, the OP's a congealed glob of ad hom attacks against a group. Solely because it's against a group rather than me personally it's doesn't go against the letter of GD rules.

Actually, it doesn't go against GD rules at all, in letter or in spirit. I'm not attacking an individual, I'm making assertions and backing them up with logic. I made the rhetorical point that the Bush Administration's use of torture forces the Republicans who support the Bush Administration to defend them. Seymour Hirsch has information to the effect that Rumsfeld and Condoleeza Rice both signed off on the use of torture at Abu Ghraib, and if you don't think members of Congress won't be gunning for them now you're sadly mistaken. People are going to have to defend them. Republican people. Or Rumsfeld and Rice will have to fall on their swords to preserve King George. It'll be fun to watch -- I'm looking forward to it either way.

And the Republicans are clearly against marriage .... wait for it ... wait for it ... wait for it ... for gays.

It's obvious that you're just trying to rouse some ire and raise some hackles for own meager amusement with the confrontational language and abusive tone.

I want to make clear the moral bankruptcy that the Republican Party is being driven to by the Bush Admin, which has been squandering moral credibility quite wildly of late. How upset you do or don't get as a result of my clear and forceful statements is of little interest to me.

Cause it's not a debate.

It can be Pit material or GD material either way, depending on how it's handled. I'm keeping things GD for my part.

PatriotX

05-18-2004, 11:17 PM

Calling something hogwash and bullshit without backing it up with an explanation is an expression of opinion. It's not an argument. I clearly explained right after each exclamation of hogwash and bullshit. I'm a Republican, and: I'm not backed into anything by the Bush Admin; I don't have to defend the horrible actions at Abu Ghraib, (or anywhere else for that matter); I don't have to make any attacks re people's right to get married.

Try it like this:
Yeah, this is the corner your precious Bushco has backed you into now:Citation for "Bushco" being precious to me, please.
Citation for me being backed into a corner by "Bushco," please.
you have to defend the torture at Abu Ghraib as just a bunch of fraternity hazings, or as a necessary adjunct to the war on terrorCitation for me having to "defend the torture at Abu Ghraib," please.
[you have to]...attack the right of two people of the same sex to express their love through marriageCitation for this being a necessity of mine, please
And if you get a funny feeling when you say that, it's just what's left of your sense of morality trying to survive.Citation for your assessment of the condition of my sense of morality, please.
And try not to let your heads explode while you're at it.Cite for any of what's been mentioned above having the potential to make my head explode, please

There. Those are you assertions. You back the nasty little shits up with something.
AFAICT, you're wrong from start to finish. I don't do any of those things so it's hardly reasonable to say that I "have to" do any of them.

Actually, it doesn't go against GD rules at all, in letter or in spirit. I'm not attacking an individual, I'm making assertions and backing them up with logic.Think so do you? It seems that you've merely levelled grossly inaccurate and utterly unfounded attacks against me as a member of the GOP.
What logic did you use to back up the above mentioned assertions about me that're irrefutably false? As far as I can see you just made baseless assertions about my character and the state of my morals.
If you're able, please back up your assertions with citations in the appropriate places as indicated above.

I made the rhetorical point that the Bush Administration's use of torture forces the Republicans who support the Bush Administration to defend them.
This is circular logic. Those who supprt the Bush Admin defend the Bush Admin by definition. There's no need to insert any other variable into the statement.

Seymour Hirsch has information to the effect that Rumsfeld and Condoleeza Rice both signed off on the use of torture at Abu Ghraib, and if you don't think members of Congress won't be gunning for them now you're sadly mistaken.Why the hell wouldn't I think that members of Congress smell blood in the water? (Some of them smell it everyday on account of their bloody noses.) What the hell does this have to do with the accusations you've made against me as a Republican?
It can be Pit material or GD material either way, depending on how it's handled. I'm keeping things GD for my part.Cool. Then you're all set and ready buckle up to the bar with those citations I've asked for, right cowboy?

Diogenes the Cynic

05-18-2004, 11:35 PM

Evil Captor, I'm going to have to defend SimonX, I think. There are Republicans on and off thos board who deserve some criticism for thei mindless fealty to Bush but SimonX isn't one of them. He's been pretty vocal in his condemnations of Bushco and his dismay at what this administration has done to his party. SimonX may be a Republican but he's no toady for Bush. I don't think it's inconsistent for him to want to be loyal to his party but to want to get Bushco out of the leadership. I don't think it's fair to suggest that all Republicans support the anti-gay marriage amendment (I think more than a few are embarrassed by it) and it certainly isn't fair to say that they support the torture policies at Abu Ghraib. It's possible to be a Republican- and to want to remain a Republican- without supporting Bush as the face of the party.

(SimonX, I hope I'm presenting an accurate reflection of your views. It's my impression from reading many of posts. Please correct me if I got anything wrong).

Polerius

05-19-2004, 03:23 AM

[QUOTE]By that method, Kennedy and Johnson are not intelligent (Vietnam War), Gordon Moore is not intelligent (there is no market for a personal computer), Gore is not intelligent (he should have known he would lose the election), etc. etc. etc.
[QUOTE]
I did not say that intelligent people are infallible. Sure, we all make mistakes, it's just that, on average, an intelligent person is expected to make better decisions than a less intelligent one.

Also, you are leaving out the second part of the rule: to be able to use clear and logical arguments to defend your actions.

Bush's "because they hate freedom" "logic" is no logic at all.

Left Hand of Dorkness

05-19-2004, 09:26 AM

Ick. Evil Captor, never make me defend Republicans again, m'kay?

The OP is intellectually corrupt, and it didn't have to be. Yes, Bush is negligent--criminally negligent, IMO--in how he's handled the post-invasion occupation of Iraq. Worse, it's seeming more and more as if he was actively malicious: if the buck passes any further up the chain of command, it could turn out that Bush himself approved the use of torture on prisoners. I hasten to add that the buck has NOT passed this far; right now Rumsfeld is holding it. But it's been moving steadily upward since the scandal broke.

And yes, some Republicans have, in a horrifying display of callousness, dismissed the seriousness of the torture. Some Republicans have acted as if the prisoners deserved the torture. Pour your contempt on those Republicans with my blessing. If you find any Democrats acting the same way, hold them in equal contempt.

HOWEVER! Bush has NOT downplayed the seriousness of the scandal. He has issued what I believe is the first apology of his presidency, and possibly of his political life. He shows every sign of understanding how terrible this situation is. Moreover, Republicans in general (with the exceptions mentioned above) has demonstrated that they understand the same thing. Have you not been paying attention to the Republican-led hearings in Congress over the past couple weeks?

Your overbroad accusations serve one primary purpose: they alienate people from the Democratic party, give people the impression that Democrats are irrational and shrill.

Please stop it.

This isn't to say that the Republican party isn't open to attacks on both these issues. I agree with you on the issue of gay mariage, of course; attack away on this front, as it's the right thing to do. And keep Bush's feet to the fire about the treatment of prisoners in Iraq, about his misplaced trust in Rumsfeld, about his cavalier dismissal of the Geneva Conventions, about the deceptive means by which he dragged us into this war, and so forth.

Just quit painting all Republicans with the same brush, and quit attacking Bush with inacuracies.

Daniel

John Mace

05-19-2004, 09:46 AM

[QUOTE]I did not say that intelligent people are infallible. Sure, we all make mistakes, it's just that, on average, an intelligent person is expected to make better decisions than a less intelligent one.

OK. Can you give us a list of all the decisions Bush has made and score them correct/incorrect so we can see how he does "on average"? Be sure not to leave any out.

Also, you are leaving out the second part of the rule: to be able to use clear and logical arguments to defend your actions.

Bush's "because they hate freedom" "logic" is no logic at all.

Since we're talking about Iraq, Bush apparantly was able to use enough of a logical argument to get a vote of 77 to 23 in the Senate and 296 to 133 in the House to authorize him to use force against Iraq. (http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/) Maybe he lied to get the job done. If so, I'd submit that it takes more intelligence to accomplish something like that by lying than by telling the truth. Or are you suggesting that any old dumb-ass can get the Congress to vote for war?

The "because they hate freedom" soundbite is just that-- a political soundbite. If that's all he used to convince Congress, then certainly we can agree that Bush is more intelligent than 75% of the members of Congress.

Left Hand of Dorkness

05-19-2004, 09:51 AM

Or are you suggesting that any old dumb-ass can get the Congress to vote for war?

I am. :) Or do you want to point to the last president whose request for war authorization was turned down by Congress?

Voting against war is broadly considered political suicide in the US. It's like voting against increasing criminal penalties or something.

Not saying Bush is a dumbass; I'm also not saying he's NOT a dumbass. I'm just saying that being the president makes it pretty easy to get Congress to vote for whatever dumbshit military exercise you want to engage in.

Daniel

John Mace

05-19-2004, 10:05 AM

I am. :) Or do you want to point to the last president whose request for war authorization was turned down by Congress?

There's also the matter of a president not submitting a resolution unless he's damn sure it'll pass, so I don't think your point is well taken.

FDR wanted us involved in WWII like nobody's business. I don't know that he actually pushed Congress to vote for it, but if not, he knew better than to try until Pearl Harbor.

And although everyone probably thinks GHWB sailed his Gulf War resolution thru congress easily, it only passed the Senate by 52 to 47.

Left Hand of Dorkness

05-19-2004, 10:10 AM

There's also the matter of a president not submitting a resolution unless he's damn sure it'll pass, so I don't think your point is well taken.

Fair enough. Still and all, it's disturbingly easy to get such resolutions passed; without a steady history of rejected resolutions (or failed attempts at getting support for such resolutions), your point that getting a war resolution passed points to W's intelligence also isn't well taken.

Daniel

tracer

05-19-2004, 10:29 AM

DOMA, while stupid, does not actually forbid states from legalizing gay marriage, it only provides a loophole in the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which means that anti-gay states don't have to recognize gay marriages from other states.
It also (AFAIK) prevents same-sex marriages -- even those performed in gay-marriage-allowing states -- from being recognized at the Federal level. This means that legitimate same-sex married couples will still have to file Federal Income Tax returns with a filing status of "single," with the higher tax rates that entails.

John Mace

05-19-2004, 10:30 AM

Fair enough. Still and all, it's disturbingly easy to get such resolutions passed...

True. But can you give an example when a resolution was passed by the Senate with a larger majority than Bush II got? If not, I submit the point IS well taken.

Left Hand of Dorkness

05-19-2004, 10:33 AM

True. But can you give an example when a resolution was passed by the Senate with a larger majority than Bush II got? If not, I submit the point IS well taken.

I'm a little confused. Are you arguing that he got an extraordinarily large majority in support of his war, especially when compared to the support a president gets from a Congress controlled by his same party?

If so, it's your job to show that. I'm just saying that the point isn't supported so far, because you've not shown that Bush accomplished anything extraordinary.

Daniel

Diogenes the Cynic

05-19-2004, 10:40 AM

Congress vote the way it does based on individual constituencies. Like Tip O'Neil once said, "all politics is local."

In the wake of 9/11 American bloodthirst and bumper sticker patriotism was at a fever pitch. Individual senators were afraid to look like pussies to their constituents. Bush got them to vote right before the congressional elections so that anyone who voted against it could be politically tarred by the Pubs as "unpatriotic."

Bush himself was all but irrelevant to the process. Congress voted for the war out of fear of the voters not because of any statesmanship by Bush.

John Mace

05-19-2004, 10:55 AM

Bush himself was all but irrelevant to the process. Congress voted for the war out of fear of the voters not because of any statesmanship by Bush.

We're talking about intelligence, not statesmenship. I wouldn't argue that Bush was a good example of the latter. He wanted war in Iraq, and he was able to take advantage of the circumstances to get it. As far is intelligence goes, that's all that really matters.

When you're playing poker with someone, you can only pull the "you're just winning because you get lucky cards" line a few times before you should realize that maybe the other guy is a better poker player.

treis

05-19-2004, 11:07 AM

In the wake of 9/11 American bloodthirst and bumper sticker patriotism was at a fever pitch. Individual senators were afraid to look like pussies to their constituents. Bush got them to vote right before the congressional elections so that anyone who voted against it could be politically tarred by the Pubs as "unpatriotic."

Wouldn't a smart senators realize that Bush was lying to them and the war was illegal and unjustified? For example Kerry can't say shit about the war being unjustified or illegal becuas he voted for the war.

Evil Captor

05-19-2004, 11:10 AM

Ick. Evil Captor, never make me defend Republicans again, m'kay?

I'll try but I'm making no promises.

The OP is intellectually corrupt, and it didn't have to be.

Is NOT! Sure, SimonX and a bunch of other cafeteria Republicans are saying they disagree with this or that policy of Bush's or that they dont' like the Bush admin. as a whole. I feel their pain. Some of the things Bill Clinton did while in office for political reasons just had me gritting my teeth in frustration. Clinton's "triangulation" approach led him to sign on to stuff that was clearly Republican in nature, and contrary to the best interests of the country.

That said, I can distinctly remember when Clinton was Prez cries of "The Dems are doing this" and "The Dems are doing that" from Republicans who weren't happy about Clinton's policies. They didn't bother to distinguish between Dems who liked this Clinton policy and disliked that Clinton policy, they just said "The Dems."

Frankly, this strikes me as fair to an extent. Why do you have to use mealy-mouthed, watered-down phrases such as, "Some elements of the Republican Party who support the Bush Admin." when "the Republicans" is so much shorter and to the point? Did the Republican Party as a whole not work to get Dubya elected? Is he not their man? If they don't like his policies, let them nominate someone else for Prez in 2004. THAT would shut me up pretty good!

HOWEVER! Bush has NOT downplayed the seriousness of the scandal. He has issued what I believe is the first apology of his presidency, and possibly of his political life. He shows every sign of understanding how terrible this situation is. Moreover, Republicans in general (with the exceptions mentioned above) has demonstrated that they understand the same thing. Have you not been paying attention to the Republican-led hearings in Congress over the past couple weeks?

Bush minions commit vile acts and get caught, then Bush apoligizes ... I hope you'll forgive me if I don't take his apoligies at face value. 'Cause I'd feel pretty durned stupid if I did.

Your overbroad accusations serve one primary purpose: they alienate people from the Democratic party, give people the impression that Democrats are irrational and shrill.

I think they're a fine way to alert the undecideds about the vile moral status of the Bush admin in particular and the Republicans in general.

Please stop it.

Your argument does not convince.

John Mace

05-19-2004, 11:23 AM

I think they're a fine way to alert the undecideds about the vile moral status of the Bush admin in particular and the Republicans in general.

My bolding.

Yeah, that'll win the undecideds over to your way of thinking...

Diogenes the Cynic

05-19-2004, 11:30 AM

Wouldn't a smart senators realize that Bush was lying to them and the war was illegal and unjustified? For example Kerry can't say shit about the war being unjustified or illegal becuas he voted for the war.
What does legal or justified have to do with politics? The voters didn't give a shit about legal or justified so why would congress have had to take such things into consideration?

And no, I don't think they realized or believed that Bush would lie to them as baldly and as shamelessly as he did. It seemed like a safe bet at the time that Bush would find some WMDs, or WMD programs or something in Iraq which would retroactively justify their votes and make them look smart. I don't cut the Dems any slack for voting for the war. They're almost as guilty as Bush (but not quite as guilty because Bush knew he was lying) I criticized them for the pandering cowards they were in voting for the war (but I'm proud to say that one of the most notable dissenters was my own state's Paul Wellstone who voted against the war in the midst of a neck and neck election campaign. Wellstone was the moral exception which proves the rule in congress).

Kerry is now forced to simply attack Bush's handling of the war rather than the initiation of the war. That's what he gets for not having any political balls when it counts, but my point is that Kerry et al did not vote the way they did because Bush is intelligent but because they had to pander to their bloodthirsty constituencies. Legality and morality are only as important as the voters think they are and in this case the voters didn't give a shit for either one.

05-19-2004, 12:04 PM

DtC, your position makes no sense. If Bush was lieing, then he KNEW there were no WMD, correct? I mean, if he thought there were, then he wasn't lieing, was he?? Or maybe you mean he was lieing about something else but not about his belief there were WMD? On the assumption you mean Bush was lieing about the WMD, how does this statement by you make any sense at all??

It seemed like a safe bet at the time that Bush would find some WMDs, or WMD programs or something in Iraq which would retroactively justify their votes and make them look smart.

Why did it seem a safe bet? Because Bush was the only one (except for Saddam of course and maybe a few others 'in the know' who didn't have any solid proof) that Iraq had no WMD?? I'm really trying to understand the whole 'Bush lied about WMD' logic here. I can see that Bush et al cherry picked the data to present a clearer picture than what they actually had to influence things. I'll buy that as its pretty much a given IMO. But why WOULD Bush lie about WMD in Iraq if he KNEW there weren't any?? He would have to know it would come back and bite him on the ass...as it in fact has.

Why isn't it more reasonable that Bush et al had indications that Iraq still had WMD, but that the data wasn't firm, and they manipulated the presentation and emphasis of that data to make the case appear more cut and dried? To me its a much simpler explaination than trying to say Bush knew there were no WMD but chose to emphasis that there WERE, repeatedly and often in the publics eye, but figured it would all go away if none were ever found. To me, that makes zero sense by anyone even remotely familiar with how the US operates.

-XT

Diogenes the Cynic

05-19-2004, 12:36 PM

Everybody thought Iraq probably still had WMDs. Bush said he knew it, that he knew where they were and they demanded an immediate preemtive attack. That's what he was lying about and what he knew he was lying about. He inflated the evidence beyond what it truly was. Essentially, he lied- and he knew he was lying- when he said he had proof that Iraq was an imminent threat to the US. That's not the same as saying he knew there were no WMDs. I didn't mean to imply that. What I meant was that he knew it had not been proven that they did.

I see it like this:

BUSH: Hey, we just found out the Iraqis have a whole damn bunch of WMDs pointed right at us. We need to invade them sumbitches like yesterday.

CONGRESS: Yeah, well we all sort of figured he had something left over but we never knew for sure.

BUSH: We know for damn sure fellas. It ain't just old stuff either. They're bulding brand new stuff as we speak. They're even trying to get them some uranium from Africa. They're fixing to blow us all to hell.

CONGRESS: Well, hell, maybe we should see this new info.

BUSH: Well, you know, that's all top secret and classificated but I can show you some summaries and highlights that Mr. Cheney wrote down for me.

CONGRESS: Well this stuff looks sort of scary....maybe we should take a poll and see how we feel.

VOTERS: Kill! Kill! Kill!

CONGRESS: We are outraged. We must stop this threat to America (you're sure you're going to find something, right?)

BUSH: I know right where all them nuc-u-lar bombs and Saran wrap gas cans is at at. Them Iraqis is gonna dance in the streets once we liberate 'em.

CONGRESS: Well, they probably have something. Find it quick, ok.

Left Hand of Dorkness

05-19-2004, 12:49 PM

We're talking about intelligence, not statesmenship. I wouldn't argue that Bush was a good example of the latter. He wanted war in Iraq, and he was able to take advantage of the circumstances to get it. As far is intelligence goes, that's all that really matters.

As an alternate take on this issue, lemme ask this: does anyone deny that Wolfowitz, Cheney, and Rove are like an unholy trinity of genius? (Scratch "unholy" if necessary :) ). It seems plausible to me, even likely, that Bush depends on their political acumen for most of his decisions: when he's without their guidance seems to be when he makes his most flagrant mistakes (during speeches, during press conferences, running baseball teams, etc.)

His strengths seem to me to be an ability to inspire tremendous devotion in underlings, an ability to connect very quickly with individuals, and an ability to choose canny grand viziers. These don't necessarily indicate a mammoth intellect.

Daniel

John Mace

05-19-2004, 12:50 PM

05-19-2004, 12:57 PM

DtC: Ok, I see where you are coming from now. Thanks for clarifying that, as I've often heard people say 'Bush lied about WMD' and never really understood where they were coming from.

I agree Bush DID say he 'knew' they had them and 'knew' where they were, and 'knew' they were being manufactured. Thats all true. It doesn't necessarily follow that he lied, he could have simply been wrong, but I see where you are coming from on this now and it doesn't seem the ridiculous position I thought it was.

The one problem I have with your Bush/Congress conversation is this:

BUSH: Well, you know, that's all top secret and classificated but I can show you some summaries and highlights that Mr. Cheney wrote down for me.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't there a Congressional sub-committee that deals with top secret stuff like this, so that Congress is informed about it, but all the information isn't diseminated to all of Congress? And wasn't that committe informed of all the information Bush had? I remember they talking about this before the war...that a bi-partisan sub-committee of Congress was up to date on all available intellegence.

-XT

Left Hand of Dorkness

05-19-2004, 01:14 PM

PatriotX

05-19-2004, 01:22 PM

Frankly, this strikes me as fair to an extent. Why do you have to use mealy-mouthed, watered-down phrases such as, "Some elements of the Republican Party who support the Bush Admin." when "the Republicans" is so much shorter and to the point?You say "mealy-mouthed, watered-down," I say intellectually honest and accurate. Of course if all you want to do is issue taunts, then it doesn't matter even one flying fuck how honest or accurate you are. Since you've obviously only an intent to taunt, it doesn't matter.

PatriotX

05-19-2004, 01:25 PM

Clothahump

05-19-2004, 01:44 PM

That's why I specified a "class" of citizens. Prohibition was not discriminatory, it applied to everyone equally. Bush's proposed amendment singles out a specific group of people and says that should be treated differently than everybody else.

No, it doesn't. It specifically does not specify special treatment for anyone. Marriage is defined as 1 man, 1 woman; any man is free to marry any woman (if she accepts the proposal) and vice-versa.

What it specifically does NOT do is reward deviant behaviour and that is what all the whining is about.

Engineer Dude

05-19-2004, 01:44 PM

What's really amazing is that Bush was able to convince most of Congress, most of the American people of this lie even though he's a terrible public speaker and has been proven by this board to be NOT INTELLIGENT!

Who in here loves President Bush because he is such an eloquent public speaker?

...*circkets*...

I didn't think so. And although Cecil's column proved that Bush is intelligent more than anything, we'll just ignore that point for a second.

It is possible for someone to be a bad public speaker and uninteligent, because people are polarized by strong core beliefs and morals, something that GWB has.

Engineer Dude

05-19-2004, 01:51 PM

This is actually how it should read:

It is possible for someone to be a bad public speaker and unintelligent [but still be effective to the public and to Congress], because people are polarized by strong core beliefs and morals, something that GWB has.

Diogenes the Cynic

05-19-2004, 01:58 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't there a Congressional sub-committee that deals with top secret stuff like this, so that Congress is informed about it, but all the information isn't diseminated to all of Congress? And wasn't that committe informed of all the information Bush had? I remember they talking about this before the war...that a bi-partisan sub-committee of Congress was up to date on all available intellegence.

-XT
Yeah, they're the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. They concluded in September that the intelligence was weak (http://pages.zdnet.com/trimb/id170.html)
Leaders of the House intelligence committee have criticized the U.S. intelligence community for using largely outdated, "circumstantial" and "fragmentary" information with "too many uncertainties" to conclude that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and ties to al Qaeda.

Top members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which spent four months combing through 19 volumes of classified material used by the Bush administration to make its case for the war on Iraq, found "significant deficiencies" in the community's ability to collect fresh intelligence on Iraq, and said it had to rely on "past assessments" dating to when U.N. inspectors left Iraq in 1998 and on "some new 'piecemeal' intelligence," both of which "were not challenged as a routine matter."
It looks like the House Committee was impressed by the presentation of the intel at first but that they were misled about the confidence of a lot of it.
The committee reviewed the underlying information used by U.S. intelligence agencies to write a classified October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq. The NIE was the most comprehensive assessment of Iraq available to lawmakers before the war, and many based their approval of Bush's war resolution on it.

The letter acknowledges one sharp difference between the two committee leaders. Harman, the letter indicated, believes the NIE judgments "were deficient with regard to the analysis and presentation." Goss believes the judgments were not deficient and were properly couched to reflect the incomplete nature of the intelligence. A congressional source said Goss "does not believe that [the intelligence] community's judgments were inaccurate."

As to Iraq's ties to terrorists, the committee scrutinized three volumes of data and found "substantial gaps" in credible information from human sources that would have allowed U.S. intelligence agencies "to give policymakers a clear understanding of the nature of the relationship." Instead, the agencies had a "low threshold" or "no threshold" on using information the intelligence community obtained on Iraq's alleged ties to al Qaeda.

"As a result, intelligence reports that might have been screened out by a more rigorous vetting process made their way to the analysts' desks, providing ample room for vagary to intrude," the letter states. The agencies did not clarify which of their reports "were from sources that were credible and which were from sources that would otherwise be dismissed in the absence of any other corroborating intelligence."

[Note: My link is to a liberal website but the article is reprinted directly from the Washington Post. For some reason I couldn't get it to load correctly from the Post site.]

Diogenes the Cynic

05-19-2004, 02:03 PM

No, it doesn't. It specifically does not specify special treatment for anyone. Marriage is defined as 1 man, 1 woman; any man is free to marry any woman (if she accepts the proposal) and vice-versa.

What it specifically does NOT do is reward deviant behaviour and that is what all the whining is about.
Your "definition" is a tautology, and a discriminatory and stupid one at that. You're saying only a woman has the right to marry a man and that discriminates against men.

Cite that homosexuality is "deviant?"

Engineer Dude

05-19-2004, 03:02 PM

Your "definition" is a tautology, and a discriminatory and stupid one at that. You're saying only a woman has the right to marry a man and that discriminates against men.

Because marriage is traditionally defined as "a union between a man and a woman", you're right. By the traditional definition, this would forbid anything other than a woman from marrying a man. Men and women, however, are not forbidden from being joined together in a way in a strong relationship. It's just can't be marriage. It has to be civil unions or whatever terminology you want to use.

Cite that homosexuality is "deviant?"

Our society is predominately Christian. Therefore, anything that goes against Christian beliefs is going to be considered (by Christians, the majority) to be deviant. This Bible passage spells it out:

1 Corinthians: 6
9 Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals
10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.
11 That is what some of you used to be; but now you have had yourselves washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Also, combine this belief with the fact that a small minority of people are homosexual. Anything that goes against the majority is deviant (being left-handed is deviating from the normal).

Homosexuality may or may not be moral, depending on your beliefs, but it is deviant.

cmkeller

05-19-2004, 03:08 PM

Boy, and I thought this thread was a train wreck before...

Rashak Mani

05-19-2004, 03:18 PM

Also, combine this belief with the fact that a small minority of people are homosexual. Anything that goes against the majority is deviant (being left-handed is deviating from the normal).

Homosexuality may or may not be moral, depending on your beliefs, but it is deviant.

I haven't followed the rest of the thread... but your logic seems fine as far as determining that Homos are "deviants" and anti-christian. Sex out of marriage was deviant before, divorce was deviant before, bastard kids were deviants, anal sex, having lovers was deviant behaviour. All of these are common now. So even if the number of gays remains small isn't there a chance that they are like all these former anti-christian behaviours that Gays will become "common" ?

Rashak Mani

05-19-2004, 03:20 PM

Proof that Bush doesn't like Marriage: A U.S. helicopter fired on a Iraqi wedding party (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040519/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_attack_6)

They did a similar mistake in Afghanistan...

Diogenes the Cynic

05-19-2004, 03:31 PM

Because marriage is traditionally defined as "a union between a man and a woman", you're right. By the traditional definition, this would forbid anything other than a woman from marrying a man. Men and women, however, are not forbidden from being joined together in a way in a strong relationship. It's just can't be marriage. It has to be civil unions or whatever terminology you want to use.
That's what makes it a tauology. You're saying that marriage is (in your narrow opinion) between a man and a woman therefore it must be defined as being between a man and a woman. That's just garbage as an argument.
Our society is predominately Christian. Therefore, anything that goes against Christian beliefs is going to be considered (by Christians, the majority) to be deviant.
That is quite possibly the most specious thing I've ever seen posted on this message board.

Just so you know: we are a secular country. Putting your own absurd definition of "deviant" aside , the Constitution does not recognize any difference between Christians or non-Christians and does not allow for any difference in the rights of either.

Furthermore, Christianity is irrelevant to the conversation. Homosexuality is not a deviation from Christianity but an innate orienation. Not that it would matter anyway because Christian belief has no bearing whatsoever on American law.
This Bible passage spells it out:
Your Bible passage is not only mistranslated (the word "homosexual" does not appear in the Bible. The word translated as "boy prostitute" is also incorrect. We just had a thread which analyzed those translations. The verse you quoted does not condemn homosexuality.

More importantly, though, it's simply irrelevant. The Bible has no more legal authority than the Cat in the Hat. It has no bearing on US law or on civil rights.
Also, combine this belief with the fact that a small minority of people are homosexual. Anything that goes against the majority is deviant (being left-handed is deviating from the normal).

Homosexuality may or may not be moral, depending on your beliefs, but it is deviant.
"Deviant" in conjunction with sexuality implies something that is abnormal or unhealthy. Homosexuality is both normal and healthy. You should come up with a different word so as to avoid giving the impression of ignorance and bogotry.

treis

05-19-2004, 04:06 PM

My main problem with your reasoning, Diogenes the Cynic , is that presumbly congress or a committee in congress had access to the same intelligence that Bush had and concluded the same thing yet Bush lied about it and Congress was just mistaken.

Blalron

05-19-2004, 05:41 PM

True. But can you give an example when a resolution was passed by the Senate with a larger majority than Bush II got? If not, I submit the point IS well taken.

The Golf Of Tonkin Resolution back in 1964 which helped escalate the Vietnam conflict. It passed in the house unanimously and only received two "no" votes in the Senate.

John Mace

05-19-2004, 05:44 PM

Nothing amazing about that whatsoever, as I've been saying all along.

You've proposed an alternate hypothesis, but no facts to support it. All of the objective facts available indicate that Bush IS intelligent (ie, more than average).

Senggüm

05-19-2004, 05:53 PM

Who in here loves President Bush because he is such an eloquent public speaker? ...
Me, it's from the heart, like President Reagan. No crickets here ...

JFK - Marriage is Profitable

________________
Son of Ong, at least I tried ...

PatriotX

05-19-2004, 06:05 PM

Here, EC, I suppose that I have Pitted (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=257087) you.
It's a sort of non-traditional rebuttal.
Enjoy.

Engineer Dude

05-19-2004, 06:37 PM

"Deviant" in conjunction with sexuality implies something that is abnormal or unhealthy. Homosexuality is both normal and healthy. You should come up with a different word so as to avoid giving the impression of ignorance and bogotry.

I use the word deviant as defined by my American Heritage Dictionary:

deviant adj. Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of society; deviating.

If you consider that word to have a negative connotation, rather than going by the denotation given in the dictionary, then I can understand how that would give you the impression that I am ignorant and bigoted. I'll use a more PC word: different.

What it specifically does NOT do is reward deviant behaviour and that is what all the whining is about.

Is "What it specifically does NOT do is reward differing behaviour and that is what all the whining is about" better?

Your Bible passage is not only mistranslated (the word "homosexual" does not appear in the Bible. The word translated as "boy prostitute" is also incorrect. We just had a thread which analyzed those translations. The verse you quoted does not condemn homosexuality.

Try this one, then, which is from my King James version:

Romans 1
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature.
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

The oldest version of the Bible (in English) used in America specifically spells out that a man's natural use is the woman. If this Bible passage is also "mistranslated", then that's a different argument. I'm not the one doing the translating, and I'm pretty sure that neither of us have taken Greek (or Hebrew or Aramaic).

More importantly, though, it's simply irrelevant. The Bible has no more legal authority than the Cat in the Hat. It has no bearing on US law or on civil rights.

The Bible has no direct authority on U.S. law. The congressmen that we elect have morals (often based on the Bible), and these morals influence their decision on whether or not to pass certain laws.

The Constitution does not recognize any difference between Christians or non-Christians and does not allow for any difference in the rights of either.

Which is why it is unfortunate that some homosexuals who are in loving, committed relationships cannot have the same things that married heterosexuals have, such as joint filing of taxes and the ability to adopt a child.

That's what makes it a tauology. You're saying that marriage is (in your narrow opinion) between a man and a woman therefore it must be defined as being between a man and a woman.

Marriage is, IMNO, between a man and a woman because of not only the two Bible passages that I’ve given you, but also because of 1) The reproductive structure that makes man and woman complimentary partners, 2) The fact that only a man and a woman can produce new life, and 3) The fact that marriages have traditionally been between men and women. Do you want to redefine marriage as a “union between two people of any sex?” Then you are being restrictive, just as I am. What about joining three or four people together? What about joining a man and a goat together? Where do you draw the line?

That's just garbage as an argument.

It is not garbage. Allowing gays to join in a union, with the same tax-rights, child-rearing rights, and whatever other rights you want to throw in there, without calling it “marriage”, is a solution that would make both sides happy. It would allow gays to have the same civil rights as heterosexuals. It would also allow Christians (and other people that think homosexuality is wrong) not to be reminded of what they consider sinful behavior, every time the word “marriage” is mentioned.

Diogenes the Cynic

05-19-2004, 07:33 PM

I use the word deviant as defined by my American Heritage Dictionary:

If you consider that word to have a negative connotation, rather than going by the denotation given in the dictionary, then I can understand how that would give you the impression that I am ignorant and bigoted. I'll use a more PC word: different.
Interesting. By that definition homosexuality is excluded. Homosexuality does not "differ from the norm." It is part of the normal range of human sexuality.
Is "What it specifically does NOT do is reward differing behaviour and that is what all the whining is about" better?
No, because no one is asking to be rewarded. What Bush wants to do is punish differing behavior.
Try this one, then, which is from my King James version:
Still wrong. The KJV is one of the worst translations out there.
The oldest version of the Bible (in English) used in America specifically spells out that a man's natural use is the woman. If this Bible passage is also "mistranslated", then that's a different argument. I'm not the one doing the translating, and I'm pretty sure that neither of us have taken Greek (or Hebrew or Aramaic).
You are mistaken in your assumption. I have taken Greek and can do my own translating. Rather than go into my whole Corinthians song and dance which I've done a number of times on this board I'll just link you to this (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=254930&highlight=corinthians) thread in which I discuss the translation extensively.
The Bible has no direct authority on U.S. law. The congressmen that we elect have morals (often based on the Bible), and these morals influence their decision on whether or not to pass certain laws.
Their "morals' do not give them the right or authority to abridge the civil rights of others through legislation. The Bible cannot be used to justify legal discrimination and it has no place in the debate. It cannot even be consulted. Any arguments must be framed in non-religious terms. Just because you think your religion says that something is immoral doesn't give you the right to make it illegal.
Which is why it is unfortunate that some homosexuals who are in loving, committed relationships cannot have the same things that married heterosexuals have, such as joint filing of taxes and the ability to adopt a child.
I have no idea what your point is here. It sounds like you agree that the law is discriminatory but I don't see what it has to do with my point about equal protection.
Marriage is, IMNO, between a man and a woman because of not only the two Bible passages that I’ve given you,
The Bible is irrelevant and has no legal authority as I mentioned. It is illegal for lawmakers even to consider it.
but also because of 1) The reproductive structure that makes man and woman complimentary partners,
How about the prostate gland that makes men "complimenatry partners?" :rolleyes:

This is a nonsense argument. Actually, I don't even really know what the argument is. Are you attempting to make some sort of teleological argument about sex? If so, it's lame, inaccurate and legally irrelevant.
2) The fact that only a man and a woman can produce new life,
What does reproducing have to do with the price of rice in Thailand? Is it your contention that reproduction must be a result or a reason for marriage? Should it be illegal for infertile couples to marry? How about senior citizens? How about people who just don't want kids? What the hell do marital rights have to do with sexual reproduction?
and 3) The fact that marriages have traditionally been between men and women.[/quote]
There's that tautology again. "It's between a man and a woman because it's between a man and a woman." It's no argument at all but a restatement of an opinion.
Do you want to redefine marriage as a “union between two people of any sex?” Then you are being restrictive, just as I am. What about joining three or four people together? What about joining a man and a goat together? Where do you draw the line?[/quote]
Watch out for banana peels on that slippery slope.

we stop at any two consenting adults for now. That's no more arbitrary or subject to slippage than the way marriage is defined now. The key words are "consenting" (which lets out animals or children) and "adults" (which lets out animals or children).

Polygamy is another debate. Frankly, there isn't any groundswell of support for it right now so I don't think you have to fear it. There is no legal mechanism which would necissitate the recognition of polygamous marriages if same-sex marriages were recognized. It's a fallacious argument and it is not an excuse for the government to discriminate based on genetalia.
It is not garbage.
Yes it is. To argue that X is true because it's true is tautological, circular garbage. Allowing gays to join in a union, with the same tax-rights, child-rearing rights, and whatever other rights you want to throw in there, without calling it “marriage”, is a solution that would make both sides happy.
I would accept that, but I would personally call it marriage. I think most gay people would accept that too. It's basically what they wanyt and the public can still call it marriage regardless of what it says on the paperwork.
quote]It would allow gays to have the same civil rights as heterosexuals. It would also allow Christians (and other people that think homosexuality is wrong) not to be reminded of what they consider sinful behavior, every time the word “marriage” is mentioned.[/QUOTE]
Do Christians have some sort of guaranteed right not be "reminded of sinful behavior?" Where is that in the Constitution?

Blalron

05-19-2004, 08:51 PM

I think gay marriage opponents always try the slippery slope argument because they know they can't argue against the merits of gay marriage all by itself. That's why they try bringing out the polygamy and bestiality boogeymen.

Engineer Dude

05-19-2004, 11:02 PM

Interesting. By that definition homosexuality is excluded. Homosexuality does not "differ from the norm." It is part of the normal range of human sexuality.

But homosexuality does differ from the norm, in that well into the 90th percentile of people are heterosexuals. (note: I said nothing about wrong or right)

No, because no one is asking to be rewarded. What Bush wants to do is punish differing behavior.

What Bush wants to do is protect the institution of marriage. If you see it as punishing differing behavior, then that’s just your way of looking at it.

Still wrong. The KJV is one of the worst translations out there.

Funny, you’d think an older version would be more accurate, and a newer version would be more politically correct and overly-simplified. If you want to use The New Revised Standard Edition or The Contemporary English version, be my guest. Those are the three versions I have, and in all three cases, Romans 1 condemns homosexuality.

You are mistaken in your assumption. I have taken Greek and can do my own translating. Rather than go into my whole Corinthians song and dance which I've done a number of times on this board I'll just link you to this (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=254930&highlight=corinthians) thread in which I discuss the translation extensively.

It’s nice to know that you have taken Greek, and I suppose that you have the right to make your own translation, now that you know the full meanings of printed Greek words. But it’s the word of three major groups of Bible translators (the ones who did the KJV, the NRSE, and the ECV) against yours.

Their "morals' do not give them the right or authority to abridge the civil rights of others through legislation.

I agree, which is why we should give homosexuals joined in union (but not marriage) the same civil rights (taxation without representation, being able to adopt a child, etc.) as married heterosexuals.

The Bible cannot be used to justify legal discrimination and it has no place in the debate. It cannot even be consulted. Any arguments must be framed in non-religious terms. Just because you think your religion says that something is immoral doesn't give you the right to make it illegal.

One shouldn’t consult the Bible when deciding whether or not to pass a law? Makes sense to me, but how would you enforce that? I’m sure Moses’ “Thou shall not kill” commandment had somewhat of an influence in making murder illegal. As I’ve already said, it’s impossible to remove the Bible’s influence on lawmakers making things illegal, because they often base their vote on their own morals, which often stem from the Bible.

The Bible is irrelevant and has no legal authority as I mentioned. It is illegal for lawmakers even to consider it.

And I’ve already mentioned that the Bible is relevant and has indirect authority. If you want to base public policy solely on the interests of people, and not use any of the Bible’s language in consideration, fine. But the interests of people (such as the interests of many not to allow gay marriage) are often based on the Bible.

How about the prostate gland that makes men "complimenatry partners?" :rolleyes:

How does that make them complimentary? Complimentary things are opposite. Green and red, which are opposite on the color wheel, are complimentary. Men and women are complimentary because they are opposite sexes and have differing reproductive systems. Two men are not complimentary because they are the same sex and have the same type of gland: the prostate. By the same token, red and red are like colors, not complimentary colors, because they are the same.

This is a nonsense argument. Actually, I don't even really know what the argument is. Are you attempting to make some sort of teleological argument about sex? If so, it's lame, inaccurate and legally irrelevant.

I am making a teleological argument. I am explaining sex by its end (purpose), which is creating life. If you consider it lame, then that’s an opinion. It’s not inaccurate: only heterosexual intercourse produces new life. It is legally irrelevant, but I wasn’t saying that gay marriage should be illegal because of the sex argument. I was listing my personal beliefs of why gay marriage is wrong. These beliefs are shared by many others and are part of the reason that much of the public is against gay marriage.

What does reproducing have to do with the price of rice in Thailand? Is it your contention that reproduction must be a result or a reason for marriage? Should it be illegal for infertile couples to marry? How about senior citizens? How about people who just don't want kids? What the hell do marital rights have to do with sexual reproduction?

Again, I was listing my personal beliefs of why gay marriage is wrong, not making a legal argument. However, these beliefs are shared by many others and are part of the reason that much of the public is against gay marriage.

There's that tautology again. "It's between a man and a woman because it's between a man and a woman." It's no argument at all but a restatement of an opinion.

And a restatement of a large part of public opinions and traditions. And as I’ve said, public policy should be the result of the interests of the public (i.e. the public interest of not making gay marriage legal).

Watch out for banana peels on that slippery slope.

It’s good that you recognize that polygamy or marriage of man and animals is of a higher degree than gay marriage, but the point was not lost on you.

We stop at any two consenting adults for now. That's no more arbitrary or subject to slippage than the way marriage is defined now.

“For now” are the operative words in that sentence.

The key words are "consenting" (which lets out animals or children) and "adults" (which lets out animals or children).

Where did you get those key words?

It's a fallacious argument and it is not an excuse for the government to discriminate based on genetalia.

The government is not discriminating based on genitalia. That is an oversimplification. They are discriminating based on their personal beliefs and the desires of a large part of the public.

Yes it is. To argue that X is true because it's true is tautological, circular garbage.

I’m not saying it’s not garbage based on anything having to do with truth. I’m proposing a solution that would overall, solve the problem on both sides.

I would accept that, but I would personally call it marriage. I think most gay people would accept that too. It's basically what they want and the public can still call it marriage regardless of what it says on the paperwork.

You and the public are free to call it marriage, regardless of whatever term comes about (freedom of speech). But if it’s called something else, then Christians can talk among themselves about marriage without being reminded every time of what they consider sinful behavior (homosexuality).

Do Christians have some sort of guaranteed right not be "reminded of sinful behavior?" Where is that in the Constitution?

They don’t have that Constitutional right. However, as I said earlier, public policy should be the result of the interests of the public (i.e. the public interest of Christians of not making gay marriage legal). IMO, the public interest of Christians of not wanting to make gay marriage legal (we’d still make gay unions with full civil rights legal) far outweighs the public interests of gays wanting to nitpick and call their union “marriage” rather than something else.

Blalron

05-20-2004, 12:27 AM

But homosexuality does differ from the norm, in that well into the 90th percentile of people are heterosexuals. (note: I said nothing about wrong or right)

Interracial marriage differs from the norm also. According to the Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/p20-537.pdf) , only about 4 percent of marriages are interracial.

Would you describe those relationships as deviate? Just a reminder on the definition of that word:

deviate (http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=deviant)

n : a person whose behavior deviates from what is acceptable especially in sexual behavior [syn: pervert, deviant, degenerate] v 1: turn aside; turn away from [syn: divert] 2: be at variance with; be out of line with [syn: vary, diverge, depart] [ant: conform] 3: cause to turn away from a previous or expected course; "The river was deviated to prevent flooding" 4: turn aside [syn: deflect]

Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

When it could be technically accurate to describe homosexuality as being at variance with what is normal, there is a strong connotation that you are calling the homosexuality itself unacceptable. Notice what the first listing is for that word.

What Bush wants to do is protect the institution of marriage. If you see it as punishing differing behavior, then that’s just your way of looking at it.

Not only does Bush want to prevent gays from ever getting married, the Constitutional Amendment he supports would even prevent gays from getting the benefits of marriage under a different name like "Civil Unions."

Text of the Musgrave Amendment (http://www.aclj.org/resources/musgrave_amendment.asp) that Bush Supports (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37276)

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."[emphasis mine]

Diogenes the Cynic

05-20-2004, 12:44 AM

But homosexuality does differ from the norm, in that well into the 90th percentile of people are heterosexuals. (note: I said nothing about wrong or right)
Sexuality isn't that simple. It's a continuum. not a dichotomy. The entire spectrum is normal. Exclusive homosexuality is a perfectly normal and healthy orientation within the normal spectrum of human sexuality. Numbers are irrelevant.
What Bush wants to do is protect the institution of marriage.
Protect it from what? How is my marriage threatened if gay folks get married too?
If you see it as punishing differing behavior, then that’s just your way of looking at it.
That is factually what it is. It's the withholding of a basic civil right from a specific class of people. Discrimination is punishment.
Funny, you’d think an older version would be more accurate, and a newer version would be more politically correct and overly-simplified.
Why would you think that? The KJV is actually riddled with mistranslations and even some interpolations that don't exist in the original text. Newer translations run the gamut. Some are very good and very thorough. Oxford Annotated is the standard academic translation and it's quite good. I also like the NET (http://www.bible.org/netbible/) which is heavily annotated. They still get Corinthians wrong, though. You are right that any number of modern translations are absolutely wretched, especially the ones that tend to paraphrase (with heavy theological bias) in "modern language."
If you want to use The New Revised Standard Edition or The Contemporary English version, be my guest. Those are the three versions I have, and in all three cases, Romans 1 condemns homosexuality.
Actually, Romans was not the translations I meant to quibble with (I confess that I scanned your last post a little too quickly and thought you were posting the KJV translation for Corinthians 6. I guess I didn't bother to actually read the verse since I knew the KJV has Corinthians wrong- my apologies. I got a little too dismissive and sloppy). With Romans it's a matter of interpretation. It's not a settled fact that it represents a flat condemnation of homosexuality but I'm not here to argue about that in this thread. (I just got done with two other threads discussing alleged Biblical condemnations of homosexuality). You're welcome to interpret it however you want. My point in this thread is that the Bible is irrelevant to the legal questions about same-sex marriage.
It’s nice to know that you have taken Greek, and I suppose that you have the right to make your own translation, now that you know the full meanings of printed Greek words. But it’s the word of three major groups of Bible translators (the ones who did the KJV, the NRSE, and the ECV) against yours.
Not just mine but a number of contemporary scholars. If you read the thread I linked to it contains a thorough discussion complete with cites to other scholars and books.
I agree, which is why we should give homosexuals joined in union (but not marriage) the same civil rights (taxation without representation, being able to adopt a child, etc.) as married heterosexuals.
Fine by me. I think I'll call it "marriage." You can call it whatever you want.
One shouldn’t consult the Bible when deciding whether or not to pass a law? Makes sense to me, but how would you enforce that?
Judicial review works for me. You can't legislate purely religious mores into law. You have to provide some other raeson than a religious one to circumscribe civil rights for a specific class of people. It is for the Judicial branch to determine if a law is unfairly discriminatory.
I’m sure Moses’ “Thou shall not kill” commandment had somewhat of an influence in making murder illegal.
It might surprise you to know that virtually all societies have prohibited murder (however it is defined) both before and after "Moses." It's pretty much a universal and entirely pragmatic human custom. Murder is not prohibited in the US becuaes Moses said so. It's prohibited because it's necessary in order to maintain an intact society.
As I’ve already said, it’s impossible to remove the Bible’s influence on lawmakers making things illegal, because they often base their vote on their own morals, which often stem from the Bible.
Basic spirutality and faith is one thing. Specific religious rules are another. The government cannot force everybody to follow the laws of any one religion. You think Christianity condemns homosexuality (which is actually not a universal part of Christian doctrine. Some Christians condemn it, some don't). That's fine for you, but you don't have a right to force anyone else to conform to that belief any more than Hindus have the right to forbid you to eat cows.
And I’ve already mentioned that the Bible is relevant and has indirect authority.
No it doesn't. The Constitution says so.
If you want to base public policy solely on the interests of people, and not use any of the Bible’s language in consideration, fine. But the interests of people (such as the interests of many not to allow gay marriage) are often based on the Bible.
There is no public interest which is served by allowing one group of people to force everyone else to conform to its own religious beliefs. Just the opposite, in fact. The public interest is damaged if one group endeavors to curtail the rights of others based on a purely religious belief. How do we decide which religion is right? What do you do if the Bible is in conflict with the Koran? The Constitution says the government can't take sides. It can't endorse one religion over another.

Your free practice of religion begins and ends with you alone. I have no obligation whatever to live by your beliefs.
How does that make them complimentary? Complimentary things are opposite. Green and red, which are opposite on the color wheel, are complimentary. Men and women are complimentary because they are opposite sexes and have differing reproductive systems. Two men are not complimentary because they are the same sex and have the same type of gland: the prostate. By the same token, red and red are like colors, not complimentary colors, because they are the same.
It was a joke. The prostate gland (so I'm told) when stimulated by, say, a penis is reputedly a pleasant sensation. There's your teleology. I was being sarcastic.
I am making a teleological argument. I am explaining sex by its end (purpose), which is creating life.
I disagree that this is the only purpose of sex or that sex necessarily has any purpose at all other than whatever individual humans arbitrarily choose to ascribe to it. It is ceratinly not the purpose of government to decide why people can have sex and why they can't.
If you consider it lame, then that’s an opinion. It’s not inaccurate:
It's inaccurate if you want to suggest that there's anything unnatural about it. It's perfectly natural and commonplace throughout the animal world.
only heterosexual intercourse produces new life.
So what?
It is legally irrelevant, but I wasn’t saying that gay marriage should be illegal because of the sex argument. I was listing my personal beliefs of why gay marriage is wrong. These beliefs are shared by many others and are part of the reason that much of the public is against gay marriage.
Frankly, I'm only interested in legal arguments since the ostensible topic of this thread, at least in part, is the proposed amendment to ban gay marriage. Moral arguments are completely subjective, and really, I don't care.
Again, I was listing my personal beliefs of why gay marriage is wrong, not making a legal argument. However, these beliefs are shared by many others and are part of the reason that much of the public is against gay marriage.
Ad populum arguments are a very poor reason to abridge civil rights. There was a time when most of the public opposed interracial marriages. Did that justify laws against it?
And a restatement of a large part of public opinions and traditions. And as I’ve said, public policy should be the result of the interests of the public (i.e. the public interest of not making gay marriage legal).
You would have to show that legalizing gay marriage is somehow a threat to the public interest before that argument would fly. I would contend that it is hardly in the public interest to abridge the civil rights of others simply to avoid scandalizing Christians.
It’s good that you recognize that polygamy or marriage of man and animals is of a higher degree than gay marriage, but the point was not lost on you.
Bestiality is just a red herring. Polygamy is another matter and I'm undecided about it. Personally, I find it distasteful but I recognize that my personal distaste is not an adequate reason, per se to prohibit it.

I would say, though, that a ban on polygamy is not discrimatory. It applies equally to everyone. It does not create a special class of people to exclude from certain benefits as bans on same-sex marriage do.
“For now” are the operative words in that sentence.
Yep, but only as it pertains to polygamy.
Where did you get those key words?
They are the typical red herrings which are normally thrown down as part of the slippery slope argument. You only tossed out the "beastiality" fish though.
The government is not discriminating based on genitalia. That is an oversimplification. They are discriminating based on their personal beliefs and the desires of a large part of the public.
Your second sentence describes something which is specifically prohibited by the US Constitution.
I’m not saying it’s not garbage based on anything having to do with truth. I’m proposing a solution that would overall, solve the problem on both sides.

You and the public are free to call it marriage, regardless of whatever term comes about (freedom of speech). But if it’s called something else, then Christians can talk among themselves about marriage without being reminded every time of what they consider sinful behavior (homosexuality).
Christians are free not to call it marriage either way. It's no skin off my nose. It's my guess that the word "marriage" would become the common vernacular soon enough, no matter what it says on the paperwork. You may call it whatever you wish. It's no skin off my nose.
They don’t have that Constitutional right. However, as I said earlier, public policy should be the result of the interests of the public (i.e. the public interest of Christians of not making gay marriage legal). IMO, the public interest of Christians of not wanting to make gay marriage legal (we’d still make gay unions with full civil rights legal) far outweighs the public interests of gays wanting to nitpick and call their union “marriage” rather than something else.
I don't think you've demonstrated that any public interest is served by pandering to anti-gay religious sensibilities but I think we can agree that civil unions are a reasonable compromise.

Polerius

05-20-2004, 06:11 AM

Is it your contention that reproduction must be a result or a reason for marriage? Should it be illegal for infertile couples to marry? How about senior citizens? How about people who just don't want kids? What the hell do marital rights have to do with sexual reproduction?
Again, I was listing my personal beliefs of why gay marriage is wrong, not making a legal argument. However, these beliefs are shared by many others and are part of the reason that much of the public is against gay marriage.
You actually did not answer Diogenes' question. Even if you are not making a legal argument and this is "just a reason" to be against gay marriage, the reproduction rebuttal by Diogenes made your "reason" seem illogical, and you chose not to defend it.

IMO, the public interest of Christians of not wanting to make gay marriage legal (we’d still make gay unions with full civil rights legal) far outweighs the public interests of gays wanting to nitpick and call their union “marriage” rather than something else.
This is like a white racist saying in the 1950s:
"IMO, the public interest of whites not wanting to sit in the front of the bus with blacks far outweighs the public interests of blacks wanting to nitpick and sit in the front of the bus rather than in the back of the bus."

The common things in this analogy are: the Christians really have no "public interest" in not allowing gays to call their union "marriage", and just as the legal system finally realized that you cannot be called a truly free and democratic society if you force blacks to the back of the bus (even if some people considered this a nitpick: "who cares? you get to ride the bus don't you?"), so hopefully the legal system will realize that you cannot force unions of gays to be called something other than marriage.

I don't want to speculate on the "morality" of homosexuality (it is an entirely different subject), but if society allows gays to live together and have sex with each other, then there is no logical or legal basis for saying their union cannot be called marriage.

Since the law does not punish single mothers for having kids out of wedlock (which is a sin according to Christians) can you say: "Their descendants should have all the rights of the children of married couples, but can only be called 'dependants', because calling them 'children' would remind Christians of what they consider sinful behavior every time they use the term 'child' "?

Does this make sense? No! The case for allowing "civil unions" for gays but not calling them "marriage" is similarly insane.

Left Hand of Dorkness

05-20-2004, 08:57 AM

You've proposed an alternate hypothesis, but no facts to support it. All of the objective facts available indicate that Bush IS intelligent (ie, more than average).

If I take your post at exactly literal value, then I'll concede the point: Bush is probably more intelligent than the average schmoe. I've seen no evidence, however, suggesting that he's more intelligent than the average mayor, let alone the average president. Given that we tend to want extraordinary values in our leaders, I think it's fair to hold him to a higher standard.

I do realize that we've probably been arguing different things: I've been assuming we were looking at whether he was a smart guy for a president, or for any other leadership position.

Daniel

cmkeller

05-20-2004, 11:38 AM

PatriotX

05-20-2004, 11:48 AM

At the risk of making this thread more of a hijack than it already is - why wouldn't you say that a ban on polygamy is discriminatory, as the effects are felt by Mormoms and Muslims (and perhaps some other religions' adherents) than on non-Mormon Christians and on Jews?
I think that only sects loosely(?) or maybe 'creatively' based on actual Mormon doctrine practice polygamy.

How's Elizabeth Smart these days?

Engineer Dude

05-20-2004, 11:56 AM

I’m going to make an attempt to try and start condensing my posts, since post-lenghts are growing exponentially on both sides. I’m sure we all have jobs and families that we’re busy with. Anyhoo:

Not only does Bush want to prevent gays from ever getting married, the Constitutional Amendment he supports would even prevent gays from getting the benefits of marriage under a different name like "Civil Unions."

Which is why I disagree with President Bush on his stance. As I’ve said,

Which is why it is unfortunate that some homosexuals who are in loving, committed relationships cannot have the same things that married heterosexuals have, such as joint filing of taxes and the ability to adopt a child.

I was actually not defending President Bush when I responded to the assertion that he wants to discriminate against gays and said that Bush does not want to punish differing behavior. I was making a distinction. It is true that the amendment does, in fact, effectively discriminate against gays and punishes differing behavior. But it’s not like “time to pass a law to punish those evil deviants” is what runs through Bush’s head. And the non-sensical phrase in the header “Republicans: marriage bad” does not do justice to republican stances on the issue.

That is factually what it is. It's the withholding of a basic civil right from a specific class of people. Discrimination is punishment.

You’re right. See above.

Interracial marriage differs from the norm also. According to the Census Bureau , only about 4 percent of marriages are interracial.

Would you describe those relationships as deviate? Just a reminder on the definition of that word:

When it could be technically accurate to describe homosexuality as being at variance with what is normal, there is a strong connotation that you are calling the homosexuality itself unacceptable. Notice what the first listing is for that word.

I have already explained my use of the word deviant, and have said that if you want to use a word such as “differing”, feel free to. I was going by one of the definitions in my dictionary, not the definition that you bolded from your dictionary.

You actually did not answer Diogenes' question. Even if you are not making a legal argument and this is "just a reason" to be against gay marriage, the reproduction rebuttal by Diogenes made your "reason" seem illogical, and you chose not to defend it.

You’re right; my reason does seem illogical. That’s because it’s a faith-based reason, and not a legally-based-reason, but it is an explanation of a reason why it is in the public interest (59% of Americans are against gay marriage) (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/24/national/main601828.shtml) not to make gay marriage legal.

I don't want to speculate on the "morality" of homosexuality (it is an entirely different subject), but if society allows gays to live together and have sex with each other, then there is no logical or legal basis for saying their union cannot be called marriage.

There is a logical basis: public interest.

Since the law does not punish single mothers for having kids out of wedlock (which is a sin according to Christians) can you say: "Their descendants should have all the rights of the children of married couples, but can only be called 'dependants', because calling them 'children' would remind Christians of what they consider sinful behavior every time they use the term 'child' "?

Does this make sense? No! The case for allowing "civil unions" for gays but not calling them "marriage" is similarly insane.

If there were a big enough public outcry over calling wedlocked children “children”, then I would have no problem legally changing the term to “dependents”, because it would be in the public interest.

Currently, the word “offspring”, by traditional definition, is restricted to biological children of parents (single or married). By the same token, the word “marriage”, by traditional definition, is restricted to the union of a man and a woman. Changing the definition of the word “marriage” to include gay unions would be like changing the definition of the word “offspring” to include non-biological (adopted) children of parents.

This is like a white racist saying in the 1950s:
"IMO, the public interest of whites not wanting to sit in the front of the bus with blacks far outweighs the public interests of blacks wanting to nitpick and sit in the front of the bus rather than in the back of the bus."

The common things in this analogy are: the Christians really have no "public interest" in not allowing gays to call their union "marriage", and just as the legal system finally realized that you cannot be called a truly free and democratic society if you force blacks to the back of the bus (even if some people considered this a nitpick: "who cares? you get to ride the bus don't you?"), so hopefully the legal system will realize that you cannot force unions of gays to be called something other than marriage.

Ad populum arguments are a very poor reason to abridge civil rights. There was a time when most of the public opposed interracial marriages. Did that justify laws against it?

Which is why the laws have changed: because people came to their senses and realized that being black is neither bad nor sinful. Because of this realization, the public interest has changed. As for public interest against gay marriage, the public has a reason to think that gay marriage is bad and sinful: The Bible. Which is why it’s going to be harder to convince people to change that law.

Protect it from what? How is my marriage threatened if gay folks get married too?

Your marriage is not threatened, but the term “marriage” is corrupted if gays are allowed to join in a union coined by the term “marriage”, because traditionally, marriage has been restricted to being between a man and a woman. Just look at a current marriage appliation (http://www.cbs.gov.on.ca/pdf/org/11018_e.pdf). You’ll see that the terms “groom” and “bridegroom” are on either side. A groom is male. A bridegroom is female.

Sexuality isn't that simple. It's a continuum. not a dichotomy. The entire spectrum is normal. Exclusive homosexuality is a perfectly normal and healthy orientation within the normal spectrum of human sexuality. Numbers are irrelevant.

Let’s say I sexually preferred redheads more than most people. Well then, I’d be part of the continuum of sexuality and part of a minority, just as gays are. Whether of not my preference would be healthy is debatable. However, it would be abnormal, just as homosexuality is, just because of the fact that I am part of the minority.

Why would you think that? The KJV is actually riddled with mistranslations and even some interpolations that don't exist in the original text. Newer translations run the gamut. Some are very good and very thorough. Oxford Annotated is the standard academic translation and it's quite good. I also like the NET which is heavily annotated. They still get Corinthians wrong, though. You are right that any number of modern translations are absolutely wretched, especially the ones that tend to paraphrase (with heavy theological bias) in "modern language."

Romans was not the translations I meant to quibble with (I confess that I scanned your last post a little too quickly and thought you were posting the KJV translation for Corinthians 6. I guess I didn't bother to actually read the verse since I knew the KJV has Corinthians wrong- my apologies. I got a little too dismissive and sloppy). With Romans it's a matter of interpretation. It's not a settled fact that it represents a flat condemnation of homosexuality but I'm not here to argue about that in this thread. (I just got done with two other threads discussing alleged Biblical condemnations of homosexuality). You're welcome to interpret it however you want. My point in this thread is that the Bible is irrelevant to the legal questions about same-sex marriage.

Not just my [Greek translation] but a number of contemporary scholars. If you read the thread I linked to it contains a thorough discussion complete with cites to other scholars and books.

Obviously, you and I will have to agree to disagree on our personal beliefs about homosexuality. I was listing my personal beliefs, as well as what is probably a large part of the basis of the public’s interest against gay marriage. There are more important Biblical things to focus on, such as loving your neighbor, following the Golden Rule, obeying the Ten Commandments, and accepting Jesus as your Savior.

Murder is not prohibited in the US because Moses said so.

I’m pretty sure that, in America, Moses’ law was among the long list of reasons that politicians decided to vote for making it illegal, though.

There is no public interest which is served by allowing one group of people to force everyone else to conform to its own religious beliefs

There is a public interest which is served by allowing one group of people to force everyone else to conform to its own religious beliefs. The interests of a majority of the public not to allow gay marriage is served by passing laws forbidding it. Whether or not a majority of the public is morally right or not doesn’t matter. Our political process for determining what is right or wrong is the established method of how a bill becomes a law, including the judicial review that you mentioned (to keep congressmen and the President in-check).

They are the typical red herrings which are normally thrown down as part of the slippery slope argument. You only tossed out the "beastiality" fish though.

I think gay marriage opponents always try the slippery slope argument because they know they can't argue against the merits of gay marriage all by itself. That's why they try bringing out the polygamy and bestiality boogeymen.

I use the argument, which I admit is slippery slope, to point out that a union called “marriage” between gays is a less extreme example of deviating from the traditional definition than a union called “marriage” between polygamists or beasts.

How do we decide which religion is right? What do you do if the Bible is in conflict with the Koran? The Constitution says the government can't take sides. It can't endorse one religion over another.

But the government does take sides. Our New Year is a federal holiday. The Hijrah (muslim) New Year is not. Separation of church and state does not forbid the government from making laws based on their own personal beliefs (which are often based on the Bible). It does, however, forbid the government from establishing one religion as the religion that everybody in the country has to follow.

Your second sentence The government is not discriminating based on genitalia. That is an oversimplification. They are discriminating based on their personal beliefs and the desires of a large part of the public. describes something which is specifically prohibited by the US Constitution.

I’m not defending what the government is doing: I’m saying that discriminating solely on the basis of genitalia is an oversimplification.

Fine by me. I think I'll call it "marriage." You can call it whatever you want.

Christians are free not to call it marriage either way. It's no skin off my nose. It's my guess that the word "marriage" would become the common vernacular soon enough, no matter what it says on the paperwork. You may call it whatever you wish. It's no skin off my nose.

I don't think you've demonstrated that any public interest is served by pandering to anti-gay religious sensibilities but I think we can agree that civil unions are a reasonable compromise.

Then we agree? Cool.

I’m going to make an attempt to try and start condensing my posts, since post-lenghts are growing exponentially on both sides.

My apologies; I guess I failed in that regard. This post is exceptionally long and sloppy.

Gaudere

05-20-2004, 12:09 PM

[Moderator Hat ON]

Rashak Mani, use of the Putz smilie is considered a personal insult. Don't do it again.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

spectrum

05-20-2004, 01:15 PM

Engineer Dude

05-20-2004, 01:36 PM

Engineer Dude seems to have no concept of the difference between "public interest" and "public opinion." Just because the majority of the public wants something, that doesn't mean that it's in the "public interest."

I fully understand the difference. But anyone can write off anything that the public is opposed to as being in the "public interest" anyway. A good way of trying to go about truly determining what is in the public interest is by doing something that we do everyday in our free society: polling people for public opinion.

And just because the public wants something by a wide margin doesn't make it right.

As I said earlier:

Whether or not a majority of the public is morally right or not doesn’t matter. Our political process for determining what is right or wrong is the established method of how a bill becomes a law, including the judicial review that you mentioned (to keep congressmen and the President in-check).

Perhaps one day, the Public will decide that not allowing gays to marry is wrong (just as they, along with politicians, decided in the 50's/60's that not treating blacks equally with whites was wrong). That day, obviously, has not come yet. And as I said earlier, people came to their senses and realized that being black is neither bad nor sinful. Because of this realization, things have changed. As for gay marriage, the public has a reason to think that gay marriage is bad and sinful: The Bible. Which is why it’s going to be harder to convince people to change that law.

Lilairen

05-20-2004, 01:38 PM

Diogenes:
I would say, though, that a ban on polygamy is not discrimatory. It applies equally to everyone. It does not create a special class of people to exclude from certain benefits as bans on same-sex marriage do.
At the risk of making this thread more of a hijack than it already is - why wouldn't you say that a ban on polygamy is discriminatory, as the effects are felt by Mormoms and Muslims (and perhaps some other religions' adherents) than on non-Mormon Christians and on Jews?

It's not a religious thing; I know a large number of people who would have multiple spouses if they could and none of them have religious reasons.

Personally, though my arguments are of course strongly influenced by the fact that this is a personal thing for me (as someone with two spousal-equivalent relationships), I consider 'you have the same right to marry one person as any monogamous person' to be discriminatory on about the same level as 'you have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as a straight person'.

The gay polyfolks get it twice over. :/

Diogenes the Cynic

05-20-2004, 02:59 PM

Diogenes:

At the risk of making this thread more of a hijack than it already is - why wouldn't you say that a ban on polygamy is discriminatory, as the effects are felt by Mormoms and Muslims (and perhaps some other religions' adherents) than on non-Mormon Christians and on Jews?
Polygamy is forbidden by the LDS church, and while not completely prohibited in Islam, it is not mandatory and is actually discouraged by the Koran. Polygamy among Muslims is pretty much a cultural practice, not a religious one and it's far from universal.

So no abridgement of religious rights accrues to either Mormons or Muslims by banning polygamy. Theoritically, of course, that doesn't mean that a religion couldn't madate polygamy and sue for the right under the first amendment, but I still wouldn't say they were being discriminated against. They would have exactly the same rights as any other religion so there wouldn't be any equal protection issue.

Like I said, I'm personally up in the air about polygamy. I see a potential for for exploitation of women, economic drains on the public for indigent, polygamous families, instability for children with revolving door "parents," etc. On the other hand, I'm not sure that the government has a compelling case to deny the right to polyamorous marriages outright. I'm just on the fence about it. I personally am in no hurry to see it legalized but I don't know that I could make a lead pipe argument not to make it legal.

Polerius

05-20-2004, 03:01 PM

Perhaps one day, the Public will decide that not allowing gays to marry is wrong (just as they, along with politicians, decided in the 50's/60's that not treating blacks equally with whites was wrong).
I don't think the "Public" in the South decided any such thing. It was the National Guard that forced it upon them.

From http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=89
Executive Order 10730: Desegregation of Central High School (1957)

With Executive Order 10730, the President placed the Arkansas National Guard under Federal control and sent 1,000 U.S. Army paratroopers from the 101st Airborne Division to assist them in restoring order in Little Rock

Engineer Dude

05-20-2004, 03:57 PM

I don't think the "Public" in the South decided any such thing. It was the National Guard that forced it upon them.

Which is why I added the words (that you chose not to bold) "along with politicians". It is true that at first, the Public did not want equality of blacks and whites, but a politician (the President) decided to call the National Guard and desegregate the high school. But after a while, the public in the south did realize that not treating blacks equally with whites was wrong, and their hearts and minds were won over.

Polerius

05-20-2004, 04:03 PM

It is true that at first, the Public did not want equality of blacks and whites, but a politician (the President) decided to call the National Guard and desegregate the high school. But after a while, the public in the south did realize that not treating blacks equally with whites was wrong, and their hearts and minds were won over.
Thanks for proving my point.

Why can't this top-down approach work in the case of gay marriage? (i.e. politicians decide what is right despite what the people want, then the people eventually realize that they had been wrong.)

Engineer Dude

05-20-2004, 04:50 PM

Thanks for proving my point.

Why can't this top-down approach work in the case of gay marriage? (i.e. politicians decide what is right despite what the people want, then the people eventually realize that they had been wrong.)

It's a lot less likely to work in the case of gay marriage, because the people's beliefs are firmly rooted in the Bible and the morals, while racism and unequal rights of blacks and whites was rooted in people's irrational fears.

As for the ethics involved with this approach (as well as the executive order you mentioned), the end is not justified by the means.

Engineer Dude

05-20-2004, 04:56 PM

The end does not justify the means.

Lilairen

05-20-2004, 05:31 PM

It's a lot less likely to work in the case of gay marriage, because the people's beliefs are firmly rooted in the Bible and the morals, while racism and unequal rights of blacks and whites was rooted in people's irrational fears.

The Bible was used to back up segregation too. (The reference I've seen is to the Babel tale, and the notion that the involved god separated the peoples of the Earth at that point for a reason, thus that a mixed marriage was direct defiance of the will of the divinity.)

rjung

05-20-2004, 06:20 PM

As for the ethics involved with this approach (as well as the executive order you mentioned), the end is not justified by the means.
Unless, of course, Iraq is involved. ;)

Engineer Dude

05-20-2004, 09:33 PM

The Bible was used to back up segregation too. (The reference I've seen is to the Babel tale, and the notion that the involved god separated the peoples of the Earth at that point for a reason, thus that a mixed marriage was direct defiance of the will of the divinity.)

But the Bible was also used to denounce segregation:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus’ (Gal. 3:28).

The above is proof that Jesus does not see any one race (Jew nor Greek) or sex (neither male nor female) as superior to another. It also proves that God's word cannot be used to promote slavery (there is neither bond nor free).

However, there is no counter-verse that is much stronger (than 1 Corinthians 5+6 or Romans 1) that says that homosexuality should be allowed. Which is why I think that it will be harder to sway people to allow gay marriage than it was to sway people to condemn racism.

Unless, of course, Iraq is involved. ;)

Damn, I should've just shut up after the first part of that post. I walked right into that one :smack:

cmkeller

05-20-2004, 11:07 PM

Diogenes:

Polygamy among Muslims is pretty much a cultural practice, not a religious one and it's far from universal.

So no abridgement of religious rights accrues to either Mormons or Muslims by banning polygamy.

But I'm not asking from the point of view of religious abridgement. I'm asking based onthe following statement that you made:

I would say, though, that a ban on polygamy is not discrimatory. It applies equally to everyone. It does not create a special class of people to exclude from certain benefits as bans on same-sex marriage do.

It seems to me that the laws apply equally to everyone - the only difference (with gay marriage) is that homosexuals want to marry someone of the same sex, and heterosexuals do not. By the same token, everyone is forbidden from being polygamous - but presumably those whose religion allows polygamy have a greater desire to engage in the practice than those who've been culturally/religiously raised to reject it.

Just a thought.

Diogenes the Cynic

05-20-2004, 11:44 PM

Diogenes:

But I'm not asking from the point of view of religious abridgement. I'm asking based onthe following statement that you made:

It seems to me that the laws apply equally to everyone - the only difference (with gay marriage) is that homosexuals want to marry someone of the same sex, and heterosexuals do not. By the same token, everyone is forbidden from being polygamous - but presumably those whose religion allows polygamy have a greater desire to engage in the practice than those who've been culturally/religiously raised to reject it.

Just a thought.
Polygamy is not a religious practice, so there is no first amendment right to engage in it.

And unlike homosexualty, there is no biological, fixed orientation for polyamory. Gay people do not "want to" be attracted to those of the same sex, they have no choice about it. They do not have the option of a loving heterosexual marriage.

I'll put it this way. Marriage is a contract which allows two people to conjoin their household, finances and certain legal rights. The law- as it stands- dictates what type of genetalia must be possessed by any individual another individual wants to marry. There is no compelling reason in the oublic interest to do this. Gay people have the same right to enter into a contract with the person they love as heteros do.

Ironically, the governments makes no requirements at all about the level of emotional attachment or love which must be present for heteros. The law cares much more about a couple's respective genetalia than it does about emotional committment. Something is wrong with that.

Tell me, cm, Wheteher you call it marriage or not do you think that same-sex couple should be entitled to visit each other in the hospital, leave each other money. etc. in the same respect that married couples are.

I just can't see it as anything but cruel to withhold those things based on what is, frankly, a religious bias and nothing more.

Lilairen

05-21-2004, 12:14 AM

And unlike homosexualty, there is no biological, fixed orientation for polyamory.

I'm not sure there's been any research into the subject at all, let alone something so conclusive.

There are a large number of people who perceive their orientation along the mono/poly axis as fixed.

John Mace

05-21-2004, 12:24 AM

I'm not sure there's been any research into the subject at all, let alone something so conclusive.

Good point. In fact, you can make a pretty strong case that humans are "naturally" polygamous. Whether or not you want to codify that into law is another matter. But I think we can certainly say that the evidence that polygamy is "biologically fixed" would be at least as good, if not better, than the evidence that homosexuality is 'biologically fixed".

Personally, though, I don't think it really should matter. If two people want to get married, why should we stop them? Same for three or more...

Squink

05-21-2004, 12:46 AM

Good point. In fact, you can make a pretty strong case that humans are "naturally" polygamous. We've got pretty small balls for a polygamous species.
(There's a ref in here (http://www.google.com/search?as_q=polygamy+testes+size&num=10&hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=off) somewhere but it's too late for me to dig through tonight)

John Mace

05-21-2004, 12:52 AM

We've got pretty small balls for a polygamous species.
(There's a ref in here (http://www.google.com/search?as_q=polygamy+testes+size&num=10&hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=off) somewhere but it's too late for me to dig through tonight)

The size of the testes is only related to how promiscuous the females are. In a stable polygamous situation, that's not an issue. Compare chimp, human, and gorilla ball sizes and you'll see. Link. (http://www.neoteny.org/a/testiclesize.html)

Chimps have very large testes (lots of promiscuous mating), gorillas have pretty small testes, and human are somewhere inbetween.

05-21-2004, 12:53 AM

Boy did THIS thread change. Turn your back for a day and it goes off the deep end. :)

We've got pretty small balls for a polygamous species.

From my half remembered anthropology in college I seem to recall our balls are somewhere in between gorillas (small) and chimps (large). In otherwords it can go either way. Sort of like our teeth is how my college prof explained it...they are good for meat AND veggies, a general design that is adaquate for either.

I certainly remember Morris banging on about all the evolutionary tricks both sexes have to cope with polygamy on TLC or History Channel. No idea if he's even vaguely credible, but it SOUNDED good.

Personally, like with the gay marriage thing I think its different strokes for different folks. If the legalistic matters could be solved, I say let people do as they please. What do I care what happens in THEIR bedrooms?? :eek:

-XT

05-21-2004, 12:57 AM

Chimps have very large testes (lots of promiscuous mating), gorillas have pretty small testes, and human are somewhere inbetween.

Beat me too it John. :)

-XT

Lilairen

05-21-2004, 01:06 AM

I certainly remember Morris banging on about all the evolutionary tricks both sexes have to cope with polygamy on TLC or History Channel. No idea if he's even vaguely credible, but it SOUNDED good.

He often sounds good, except when he sounds like a complete raving crackpot.

My favorite raving crackpot notion is his argument that breasts evolved so that human women would have something that looked like buttocks on the front side, because related primate species tend to mate facing the backside. (Never mind that buttocks are a result of bipedalism, and thus not something that pre-hominids would have the sort of instinctual attraction to that he argued for.)

But really, the looniness of it is encapsulated in the notion that breasts in the wild look like ass. Perhaps early hominids stalked the wild corset in its natural environment.

pervert

05-21-2004, 01:07 AM

Well, for the record, the OP did contain references to gay marriage, so that particular tangent was not really that far off. The way it has recent oozed into the realm of ball size is truly astonishing.

Differetn strokes. I love that one. :)

05-21-2004, 01:26 AM

Differetn strokes. I love that one.

Turn your back for a day and it goes off the deep end.

I was kind of fond of this, but it might be too obscure in retrospect. Or it might not translate in english how I intended it too.

Turning ones back/deep end can be taken as...well, never mind. I could have a lot of fun with the ball thing too, but I don't think that translates the same (ball size is comparable to intellegence...large balls indicate you are stupid).

He often sounds good, except when he sounds like a complete raving crackpot.

I remember the thing about the breasts and thinking the same exact thing. lol. Still, the one he did when the boyfriend went out of town and the girlfriend cheated on him, and he compared sperm count (both of the boyfriend before he left, low, the cheating lover, higher, and the boyfriend on return after a week, highest)...not only was it funny, but that seemed pretty telling. I remember something similar in biology/anthropology in school, so he can't be ALL bonkers (and I believe thats what John is also refering too).

-XT

John Mace

05-21-2004, 09:54 AM

He often sounds good, except when he sounds like a complete raving crackpot.

My thoughts exactly. How he got to his position of prominence is beyond me.

Left Hand of Dorkness

05-21-2004, 10:22 AM

I agree that polygamous relationships ought not be forbidden by law, and eventually should get legal recognition. I prefer to separate them from gay marriage for two reasons:

1) Allowing gay marriages is as easy as changing a couple pronouns in the straight-marriage laws. The infrastructure is in place, the case law is in place, everything's in place for allowing it. Polygamous marriages with their more-than-two-people interrelationships are a whole nother kettle of fish and will take quite a while to sort out. By separating the two issues, we allow the simple stuff to go ahead now while we work out the complex stuff later.

2) Whereas gay couples in marriage can pretty much go for a "one size fits all" set
of legal rights, my perception is that polygamous relationships come in all kinds of different forms, from patriarchal religious settings in which property rights will pass down to male children, to hippy free-love settings in which all children are raised communally and in which the notion of property is itself rejected. Ultimately, there may not be just one polygamous marriage model that we can enshrine in the law and satisfy everyone; we may need to deal with polygamous marriage through private contracts unique to each relationship.

Daniel

05-21-2004, 03:10 PM

Well, since this debate has been turned on its ear and also seems to be winding down, maybe someone can answer something thats puzzled me for a long time. Why do people feel threatened by such differences like gay marriage or polygamous marriage? From a religious standpoint, don't they feel that if God disapproves the people will be going to hell anyway? Are there any other angles that people feel threatened by this that aren't religious based? There must be, but what are they?

Why is it a concern? Why do people seem to care what happens in their neighbors bedrooms when its none of their business? Why is monogamy (and heterosexual monogamy at that) the ONLY acceptable choice?

I'd really like to know this, as I really and truely don't understand. Anyone want to take a shot at ending my ignorance on this one?

-XT

Lilairen

05-21-2004, 05:08 PM

Why is it a concern? Why do people seem to care what happens in their neighbors bedrooms when its none of their business? Why is monogamy (and heterosexual monogamy at that) the ONLY acceptable choice?

I'd really like to know this, as I really and truely don't understand. Anyone want to take a shot at ending my ignorance on this one?

There are a couple of factors I've seen involved here; I'm not sure how coherent I can get at them.

One of them is basic xenophobia: different, alien, wrong, scary. This is the sort of reaction that tends to change over time by the different people demonstrating themselves to be just people, with different customs or whatever. (Among those people who are willing to give the consideration of observation, at least.) This is related to the statistics about how people who actually know some gay people are much more likely to be in favor of civil rights for gays, because it's not "scary alien concept person" so much as "oh, like Bob".

One of them is basic social norm protecting. It's not just the gay people and the polyfolks who get this, you see the child-free folks getting this sort of flak, various religious minorities, subcultures like goth stuff, that sort of thing. Fair numbers of people in that situation wind up finding communities where they can establish their 'thing' as a social norm; unfortunately, this tends in some cases to lead to an infection with contempt for the mainstream which only strains interactions further. (One of these days I'll snap and go around beating the holier-than-thou 'polyamory is more highly evolved' people to bloody pulps. They're not helping.)

Then there's a certain form of lack of imagination. I can illustrate this with myself more readily than anyone else: I fundamentally do not understand how anyone could be attracted to a woman. I just don't get it. I manage to avoid going socially glitchy on some aspects of this because, well, I'm a woman; if people weren't attracted to women, I wouldn't have relationships. So I sort of blithely accept that it's the case that this is how some people are, and take advantage of that fact. ;) But if I had gotten that different, and fundamentally didn't understand how someone could be attracted to someone of the same sex, I might have come away with, instead of that blithe, "Okay, that's different" feeling, a suspicion that people who had same-sex attractions were somehow broken. Because in that case, I couldn't imagine how it would work that way, right? People are funky like that.

Then you've got people who had a bad experience and thus (again, I suppose, this is the same sort of lack of imagination) presume that it's not possible to have a good experience. I think this is more common as a poly thing than a gay thing, but I wouldn't count on it -- I know people who've been hit on by folks who wouldn't take 'no' for an answer. But people who tried open relationships of some form and had it blow up in their face (either because they're not oriented that way, or because the relationship system was flawed somehow) may wind up blaming the openness of it; people who have been cheated on may likewise feel that the entire idea is one that leaves them open to getting burned.

Then you have . . . well, I guess the best word for it is jealousy. Some people get outraged at folks who aren't subscribing to particular social norms because they want to break those norms, but never thought they were allowed. So there's a "How dare they think they're allowed (when I never thought I had a chance)!" aspect to it. Think of a bi guy who had a potential for a male love-of-his-life who didn't take it because he was supposed to get married, have kids, what have you. Or a woman who had to make a horrible choice between two people she loved very much, and who's always regretted having to do so, stumbling across a happy triadic relationship. Imagine getting smacked with "Those things you thought you had to do, you didn't. You could have made different choices" -- a lot of people get pissed off that people made choices that they thought they didn't have. I guess it's easier than getting pissed at themselves for not seeing that they had a choice, or something.

It leads me to some deeply weird conversations, though. A friend of mine and I were joking around a few years ago, and she asked me if she could be my husband's mistress after we got married. (Logic being that he couldn't have a mistress before he was married.) I mentioned this in a random conversation a bit later and had this response:

"DH, that's fucked up."
". . . would it have been less fucked up if she hadn't asked, and just gone and done it?"
"Well, yeah."

I don't understand humans, y'know? :} I think that one's social norming -- it's normal to cheat in a monogamous relationship, that's still playing the monogamy game . . .