July 26, 2006

When Freepers Fight It seems that the North Carolina anti-cohabitation law being ruled constitutional (not to mention unenforcable) as set the Freepers against each other. Mainly, the Freepers who live with their girlfriends Vs Freepers who live with their moms. Pandagan has the greatest hits from the feeding frenzy.
  • I didn't know NC even had a law like this on the books. When was the last time it was successfully invoked? Conservatives are allowed to have differences of opinion ya know. But it is a fun little catfight. Chickenhawk fight? Whatever.
  • Wow that is some compassionate conservatism.
  • Six, the law has been on the book 201 til the recent court decision. USA Today article has background. The scary thing is there are Freepers in this day and age who want to enforce it. If conservatives had Republicans push this (wish I don't see happening) then Democrats will win elections. Easily. John Kerry would have to decide whether he's for or against cohabitation. HE'S BOTH!
  • I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again until I’m blue in the face and nobody will listen to me anymore. *Checks mirror, compares skin to Dutch Boy Cerulean #54* The institution of marriage in the U.S. needs an overhaul. I;ve always hated that people who are attractive enough to find a mate pay less taxes and have better access to health benefits, that religious institutions have been entrusted with the power to grant these privileges, that even though married people have so many advantages the divorce rate still hovers in the neighborhood of 50%, that my best friend has the choice of either never having these benefits or going back into the closet... And yet I still got choked up every time I saw a pair of newlyweds in Vegas or Niagara Falls. Silly old romantic fool, me.
  • The scary thing is there are Freepers in this day and age who want to enforce it. Although I don't know if it was enforced much in later years, the last state law banning interracial marriage was only repealed as recently as 2000, and the vote was 60-40. Monkeys outside the U.S. - what are the local attitudes about cohabitation vs. marriage?
  • Mark another issue down on the wedge issues for conservatives list. It's a pure wedge issue in the way abortion or stem cell research isn't since it is a pretty clear instance of legislating morality, all the poorly informed sociological babble from the freepers notwithstanding. It nicely splits the libertarian end of the conservative movement from the social conservatives. Anti-miscegenation legislation during the civil rights era was similar and I suspect that the morning after pill fight has potential. No Democrats left with the guts to actually run that sort of campaign though.
  • Yay! Always nice to see something that splits conservative opinion. Maybe some of these Freepi even think contraception should remain legal too. Damn liberals! UPM> Not sure what you mean by this bit: that religious institutions have been entrusted with the power to grant these privileges While most people have religious officiants at their weddings, that is not at all necessary. You can get married at city hall. As long as your marriage is legal, even if every church, synagogue, and mosque in the nation refuses to marry you, you can still visit a justice of the peace. Despite what most people think, marriage is a secular institution.
  • And I look at this and say "How is it even possible that they are arguing?" The level of insanity shown by these guys, the whole "who somebody I don't know associates with in his own home personally affects me" angle. Its borderline orbital mind-control laser paranoia. How can anyone hold.. how .. activist judge??? but... GAH! Aren't there laws about being a danger to yourself and others that could get these guys institutionalized?
  • I love how stupid people act like Christianity invented marriage, and therefore the rules of Christianity should dictate the parameters of marriage. I am so glad I live in a blue state.
  • I think what TUM was trying to say was that most of the arguments against same-sex marriage are religious in nature, with the idea that marriage is a sacrament to be protected. You can get married at city hall, but the definition of "marriage" is still defined religiously.
  • I tend to favor a system where churches can grant marriages, but the state can only grant domestic partnerships... and must grant them to same or different sex couples.
  • Call me crazy, but when I was a kid i was always told that republicans wanted fewer laws and less government oversight and it was the democrats that wanted more laws and bigger government. So now we have two parties who both want more laws and bigger government but just different laws and bigger in different ways?
  • Oh! Hey! Sullivan!
  • Mackerel: in some states, only people with religious affiliations can perform marriages. They can be pretty wacky religious affiliations, though. (I actually know this because I considered getting married in Vegas, and Nevada is one of those states.)
  • A religious affiliation includes a number of churches that aren't ... picky ..., so I wouldn't get too bent out of shape. Send in your money, get a certificate declaring you a minister in the church of the subgenius or eris, or the church of satan.
  • > Monkeys outside the U.S. - what are the local attitudes about cohabitation vs. marriage? never a country accused of shirking on its bureaucracy, france has a four-tier system: cohabitation, concubinage, pacs, marriage. concubinage is a declaration of a "free union", and can be made at the local town hall. mrs roryk and i did this initially to add her to my health insurance. we've since married for tax purposes*, as concubinage wasn't sufficient for us to share tax credits. it's a shame, i liked having a concubine. a pacs (pacte civil de solidarité) is more formal and can enable a couple to share tax credits. both concubinage and pacs are open to any couple. marriage is currently the preserve of opposite sex couples, but it is primarily a civil institution. if the socialists get their act together, france might elect ségolène royal as its first woman president next year. in addition to her feminitude, she's not married to her partner of almost 30 years, with whom she's had four children. *yes, i'm an incurable romantic
  • My point about religion is, that I don't think religious leaders should be allowed to grant civil privileges at all, even to members of their own congregations. If the government is going to grant certain rights to married couples, then religion should poke its nose out. Make ALL legal marriages the "civil union" type. Let people have the option of having their union blessed by the church of their choice if they like, but don't give the pastor/priest/shaman the power to sign the legal marriage certificate. To me, it smacks of non-separation of chuch and state.
  • Well, the fact is there are a growing number of religions that don't have any problem marrying two people of the same sex, so even those who say it is ungodly or whatever are, as always, only talking about their religion...
  • > Make ALL legal marriages the "civil union" type. yep. render unto caesar and all that.
  • Call me crazy, but when I was a kid i was always told that republicans wanted fewer laws and less government oversight and it was the democrats that wanted more laws and bigger government. I maintain that Republicans *never* wanted fewer laws. They wanted different laws that supported the wealthy, white Christian lifestyle -- social equality be damned. Lowering taxes is a big deal that greatly benefits the rich; therefore, it's a GOP platform. Hell, in a lot of cases, they want MORE laws, locally, to help enforce the GOP lifestyle. (Or, more correctly, they want states to be free from federal oversight to pass discriminatory laws, e.g., anti-gay laws, Jim Crow-ish laws, anti-affirmative action, etc.) The "small govt" rhetoric is just that -- rhetoric, marketing, packaging. I suspect that they spend every bit as much as Democrats -- more, lately. Check out that crazy debt! Republicans just borrow to fund their programs, rather than taxing, passing the "buck" to the next candidate and the next generation. "Look at me -- I did all these great things, and didn't raise your taxes to do it!" Strikes me as damned fiscally-irresponsible, deferring payment for future generations. But then again, I don't have kids, so I suppose I shouldn't let it bother me. Fuck the children, right? (Just working out my GOP talking points...)
  • when I was a kid i was always told that republicans wanted fewer laws and less government oversight Some still do.
  • Some still do. See, I disagree. They want less federal oversight so that local governments can pass more restrictive laws without interference. (Ironically, this is what a lot of "libertarians" want, too -- well that, plus guns and pot.) Don't believe the hype.
  • As always, I think it's important to differentiate between the traditional (classic?) conservative viewpoint and the neo-conservative viewpoint. These aren't the same, and I think a lot of what's being discussed here concerns neo-cons. Both viewpoints differ from my own, but it does no good to falsely lump them together.
  • And, although I've often noticed a tendency among many members of the Republican party to uphold the party line whether it's what they themselves believe or not (and as much as I wouldn't do it myself, it's one of the reasons they've managed to accomplish so much of the party's agenda) maybe it's better to differentiate between individual Republicans and the party itself. Or not. I'm gonna go eat some soup.
  • Soup! My hoosband and I are registered Republicans, but that's more for irony than for anything else. We don't spew any party nonsense, and when those little fliers come in the mail that instruct us on how to vote, we laugh and wipe our butts with them. As thinking creatures, we like to deal with each issue individually on the merits of the issue only, and being that we are not theists, the pressures of religion never come into play. This whole bipartisan thing is so antiquated and retarded. Furthermore, I am astonished at how people are becoming more and more stupid about politics in this age of freely-available information.
  • I don't hold it against registered Republicans who primarily want to vote on local issues and in primaries. This election, any official at any level who has an R after their name is not getting my vote. They stood up to be counted with the enemy. Its sad that its come to this, but in voting people in on their merits, the first merit is being able to tell who you should be siding with. Anyone who still stands up and runs on a platform of tacit support for the people who gave us the war, the debt, and can say to a womans face that she can't have an abortion even to save her life, to a parapalegic that they can't have any stem cell research from a discarded 64 cell zygote, that their religions tenets should be enshrined in law, that their organizations can discriminate and get public money and mine can't, that they believe the earth is less than 6000 years old and the scientists are lying, that they don't belive carbon dioxide raises the temperature of the earth and the scientists are lying, that New Orleans was unfortunate but not the fault of the incompetent fools the President appointed, that fear of terrorism means my phones can be tapped without oversight, that fear of terrorism means I can't photograph a bridge, that illegal immigrants can't recieve any public health services (because diseases respect nationality) etc...........................
  • nunia: I think people are becoming more stupid because there is so much information around. It's overwhelming at times. The noise coming from the extreme wings of BOTH SIDES is outweighing the astonishing lack of noise coming from the middle, where people are more or less saying: hey, whatever floats your boat, man, just don't involve me in your kinky games, you kinky little weasels.
  • DMN, I agree. Furthermore, I contend that most people like others to think for them, and have their information spoonfed to them in tidy, clever soundbites. Additionally, sex with weasels is wrong.
  • Unless you yourself also happen to be a member of the genus Mustela.
  • Oh, Mord, you forgot the part where BushCorp can come in and seize your land--and we're voting to let them do it. MonkeyFilter: It's borderline orbital mind-control laser paranoia. MonkeyFilter: just don't involve me in your kinky games, you kinky little weasels And, as usual, Buck Fush
  • I contend that most people like others to think for them, and have their information spoonfed to them in tidy, clever soundbites. It think it's not so much as it is that most people have other things to do than sit around thinking about whether we should or should not have a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning, for example. For 99.99999% of the population, it's not something they will likely ever do. They may or may not think burning a flag is a shitty/awesome thing to do, but beyond that, they could give a tin shit. They have LIVES to LEAD. Unless you're one of those people on the afoermentioned extreme ends, doing a lot of major league thinking about macro-political crapola is something that, generally speaking, people with lots of free time do.
  • I have no opinion one way or the other about the weasel sex.
  • Well yeah, Fes, I can see where you're going with that. However, we're talking about how a political party expects its members to shut up and do what they're told. Granted, flag burning is not a real hot topic, but something like whether or not creation should be taught in school is. The arguments people spew from both sides tend to be regurges of what others have told them. They might have lives to live and no time to really consider both sides, but it is important to choose your battles and make sure you know what you're saying before you make a stance on a topic. It has been my experience that very few people think through their opinions before expressing them, and instead just ramble off what others have said before them.
  • And I mean "you" in the general sense, and not you specifically, Fes.
  • it is important to choose your battles and make sure you know what you're saying before you make a stance on a topic. I wonder if it is truly important, in the general scheme of things. Perhaps you and I, we think over our opinions, because as an intellectual exercise it's enjoyable, and we hone our debating skills, because it is also intellectually stimulating, but really: is it important? Have you ever changed someone's mind? I mean, really changed their mind, based on rational arguments that you have made to them in conversation? I haven't. I used to try - I used to get riled up, fight the good fight. I never changed anyone's mind about anything. And I came to the conclusion that people believe what they believe, and by and large rational argument and debate affects those beliefs not a whit. And then I realized that, for all my intellectual vanity, all my thoughtful reflection on the issues of the day and my opinions on them, that all of it was just, like the cognitively dissonant philosophies of my acquaintances, opinion. There's no blacks and whites, no good guys and bad guys, nothing but stuff that grows increasingly gray and complex, the more you examine it. In the end, what my own intellectual exercise has done is shrink the surety with which I hold my opinions. Once I knew with certainty what was right and how the world ought to be. Today? not so much. My rigor only highlights and exacerbates my ignorance. So I hold and hone my own opinions, but know in the pit of my heart that they could easily be as wrong, or as right, as the man who parrots his preacher's last diatribe, and that regardless of what he says or believes, or what I say or believe, the world will wend its way across the years as it has always done. We are fortunate to live in this time, where the fodder of intellectual exercise is so easily obtainable. But to imagine that my opinions will change anything, for anyone... well, I am a vain man, but that is not one of my vanities.
  • is it important? Is anything? Have you ever changed someone's mind? Yes. Many times. And no, I am not exaggerating. Ask my husband. It's one thing to hold a perspective, and something else entirely to present that perspective to another in such a way that beguiles them to consider it. I'm not so much interested in being right as I am in being correct, and many times I have conceded that another person had a better handle on things than I did. As a scientist, I have a certain threshold of evidence that sways me, which is higher than many because I like to see the bare bones and I take no man at his word. However, when presented information that proves me wrong, I recant in an instant. It is a far greater prize for me to have a better understanding of a topic than for others to see me as some smarty pants. One aspect of debate that is often overlooked (and is taught as the first step in critical thinking courses) is that both parties must first decide what the debate is on, and then find a common set of definitions for the terms. Many arguments start too far from the roots, with both sides thinking that they are talking about the same thing, when in fact they are talking in tangents. The best example I can think of is the use of the word "science" as used in the debate between creationists and scientists (or evolutionists). Both see the word in different lights, but both use is as though the other understands it the way they themselves do. I only bother to persuade another person toward my way of thinking if I feel that A) my perspective is correct (and I have the means to back it up), and B) either I or the person I am informing will benefit from the outcome. This is where "choosing your battles" comes in. It's basic opportunity-cost analysis. Man, that was verbose. If any of you read that, you deserve a gold star.
  • I suspect that, like your scientists and creationists, we are speaking of two different things using the same terms.
  • Jaja, I hear you, man. It's all good.
  • > If any of you read that, you deserve a gold star. i lost at the penultimate paragraph. can i have a silver?
  • Nunja's a scientist? Cool! Is it too much to hope for that you're a MAD scientist?
  • nunia's a scientist. nunja is a female cleric who specializes in martial arts for the defense of the convent.
  • i lost at the penultimate paragraph. can i have a silver? Being second place means you're the first to lose. But I'll send you an astral brownie. Is it too much to hope for that you're a MAD scientist? Spontaneous generation is a SOLID THEORY. I know I can make it work. Now, if you all will excuse me, I have to slip into my habit and kill Mothra. *pulls out nuniachaku and gold ninja stars*
  • Please don't. It would ruin my plans for the weekend.
  • *lights candle for mothra* *decides that might not be the best way to show tribute. puts out candle.* *proffers wooly jumper*
  • *puts up defensive Wall of Ennui*
  • nunia is destined to win, because habits are heard to break! see its a play on habit, ya know she meant a different sort of.... it's funn..ha ha
  • Hey, those aren't gold ninja stars; they're nunia stars with gold decoupage. I want my money back.
  • The Sullinator!
  • We do not offer refunds. It says so on the box, Mord. Please don't. It would ruin my plans for the weekend. Don't take it personally, Mothra. This is a directive straight from the Vatican, and you know how that goes. *cracks knuckles, knees, and nose*
  • Um, I just wandered in, must of taken a wrong turn some place. Can someone point me to the exit?
  • EXIT <------ no problem or I can point you to some bananas, if you prefer (((( <-----
  • When Freepers Attack (by sending powder through the mail).