Marriage

[Paul J Gans]

In the US and many other nations, there are two forms of marriage. One
is called "civil marriage" (which is the only one recognized by the
government in the US) and "religious marriage" which is denominational
in scope.

There is no problem with religious marriage. In the US nobody,
including the government, can force a religious organization to
marry anyone it does not wish to.

However, there are people who wish to deny civil marriage to folks
whose lifestyle does not meet with their criteria. Many claim that
such marriages are "unnatural" or "against God" or whatever.

I really do not understand this. Most married folks have never
been asked to provide proof of a civil marriage. Thus nobody
knows if two women entering a shop to buy something are married,
good friends, or what.

Yet people object because they feel that their religion forbids
such marriages and so people of another religion shoud be forced
to live by their standards. They insinuate that allowing such
marriages would bring the end of civilization upon us and similar
benighted fantasies.

It would help if they read up a bit on the history of marriage.
And do this leaving out thee official registration of the upper
nobility that had a financial and political reason for caring whose
sperm went where --- all the time ignoring the fact that the ordinary
person lived with whom they wished, left them when they wished, and
had no benefit of civil registration or anything else.

Civilization did not fall.

What about civil marriages? The benefit of civil marriage is that
it carries a number of secular rights with it, inheritance, hospital
visitiation rights, tax benefits, and so on. Denying such things
to particular groups of people requires a well-reasoned argument as
to why some people should have these rights and other not; an
argument that should not in any way invoke religion.

And by the way, if you are afraid that your neighbor's behavior will
corrupt your morals, simply stop looking into their bedroom window
at night.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[broger...@gmail.com]

Completely agree, and hope that the US Supreme Court will settle the issue for god in the next few weeks. At least for the U.S.

[Dana Tweedy]

On 5/14/15 10:43 AM, Paul J Gans wrote:


snip


Dat Bwessed Awaingement, dat dweem within a dweem.

(Sorry, Princess Bride flashback)


DJT

[Burkhard]

in the category: God's own country

[Robert Camp]

Schadenfreudian slip?

[broger...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 1:48:57 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
> in the category: God's own country
>
> >
> > Completely agree, and hope that the US Supreme Court will settle the issue for god in the next few weeks. At least for the U.S.
> >

Oops!

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 14 May 2015 16:43:09 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Paul J Gans
<gan...@panix.com>:

As far as I can see there is no such argument, at least not
a valid one.

So would you support the idea floated in the "Posting
problems" thread (yeah, off-topic), that the term "marriage"
be stricken from civil law and reserved as a
social/religious term, to be used as desired by anyone? ISTM
that this would solve the problem handily, although
implementation would be a bit time-consuming, since I doubt
a single law ("All references to marriage in all laws of
this polity shall henceforth be read as references to civil
union, and 'marriage' shall henceforth not be used in any
law") would be acceptable.

>And by the way, if you are afraid that your neighbor's behavior will
>corrupt your morals, simply stop looking into their bedroom window
>at night.

That would never work; the "Here, you have to use these
binoculars" busybody syndrome is well entrenched in a
certain type of personality.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[broger...@gmail.com]

That would be acceptable to me, but I think it's unnecessary, as there's an excellent chance that very soon the Supreme Court will make marriage equality the law of the land, and the issue will be moot.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

That would be valid if those things were being denied but they aren't,
at least not here in Ireland* where the debate is about the *meaning*
of marriage rather than the rights it confers.


[*] Burkhard has produced a list elsewhere from one of the groups
campaigning for same sex marriage which lists various areas of
legislation which they claim treat gay people unfairly. I am not well
enough versed in legislation to comment on the list but my general
understanding is that there are areas where legislation has not caught
up since the introduction of civil partnerships but that these are
gradually getting addressed and there is no constitutional difficulty
in addressing them. There is certainly no claim by the major campaign
groups about legislative rights, it is about what is loosely being
described as "recognition".

[Paul J Gans]

I'm afraid it won't, any more than the abortion debate was settled way
back then.

[Paul J Gans]

I write mainly of the US where there is a major case before the
Supreme Court right now, with various states trying to inser
their own rules. It is a very explosive issue in the US today
where, if the polls can be trusted, a minority is trying to impose
its will on a majority on the grounds that gay marriage is against
nature, against the bible, or against common sense.

>[*] Burkhard has produced a list elsewhere from one of the groups
>campaigning for same sex marriage which lists various areas of
>legislation which they claim treat gay people unfairly. I am not well
>enough versed in legislation to comment on the list but my general
>understanding is that there are areas where legislation has not caught
>up since the introduction of civil partnerships but that these are
>gradually getting addressed and there is no constitutional difficulty
>in addressing them. There is certainly no claim by the major campaign
>groups about legislative rights, it is about what is loosely being
>described as "recognition".
>>
>>And by the way, if you are afraid that your neighbor's behavior will
>>corrupt your morals, simply stop looking into their bedroom window
>>at night.
>>

[broger...@gmail.com]

I think it will, simply because public opinion has shifted so far and so quickly towards support for marriage equality. There's been no such large scale shift in public opinion on abortion, which is why people are still arguing about abortion.

Remember "Don't Ask Don't Tell"? Reversal of that policy was allegedly going to totally destroy moral in the Armed Forces by allowing gays to be uncloseted in the military. I was still in the Navy when the change came. We had a couple "General Military Education" classes on the change. And then forgot about it and went on with our business. Marriage equality will be the same. It will quickly seem so normal that everyone will forget that it was ever a big deal.

[*Hemidactylus*]

It may be a close 5-4 with Kennedy as the swing. Scalia, Thomas, and
perhaps Alito are given "no"s. Not sure about Roberts. Sotomayor, Kagan,
and Ginsburg, and Breyer are hopefully solidly yes.

Breyer seemed to waver a bit though:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/29/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage.html

[quote]“Suddenly you want nine people outside the ballot box to require
states that don’t want to do it to change what marriage is to include
gay people,” he said. “Why cannot those states at least wait and see
whether in fact doing so in the other states is or is not harmful to
marriage?” Later in the argument, though, Justice Breyer indicated
support for same-sex marriage as part of basic liberty. “Marriage is
about as basic a right as there is,” he said.

The other side’s argument, he said, was that “people have always done
it” in a certain fashion.

“You know,” he said, “you could have answered that one the same way we
talk about racial segregation.”[/quote]

Could be one of the most historic decisions ever.

[*Hemidactylus*]

I think this strategy was not well thought out. To ensure marriage
equality, there should have been a closely held corporation owned by
members of the LGBT community that wanted to assert its protected sexual
orientation rights under the Dictionary Act as a "person" and merge with
another LGBT corporation. Given these corporations are LGBT "persons"
that want to come together in corporate matrimony, they would have felt
discriminated against if one was incorporated in a gay-friendly state
and the other not. Since Lewis Powell, SCOTUS has salivated for
corporate rights and the recent Hobby Lobby and Citizens United
decisions have set precedents that lean inevitably toward protecting the
interests of gay corporations. The merger would be sanctioned by SCOTUS,
with Scalia doing the honors of the ceremony. Then marriage, merger,
contract law equality would apply to other persons, being people. *Fait
accompli*.

[*Hemidactylus*]

If the 14th amendment applied historically to railroad corporations (but
not the freed slaves as intended), it should apply to gay people.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-556q1_11o2.pdf

[quote] MS. BONAUTO: Two points on that, Your Honor. To the
extent that if you're talking about the fundamental right to marry as a
core male­female institution, I think when we look at the Fourteenth
Amendment, we know that it provides enduring guarantees in that what we
once viewed as the role of women, or even the role of gay people, is
something that has changed in our society. So in a sense, just as the
Lawrence court called out the Bowers court for not appreciating the
extent of the liberty at stake, in the same vein here, the question is
whether gay people share that same liberty to be ­­

JUSTICE KENNEDY: The problem ­­

MS. BONAUTO: ­­ able to form family relationships. [/quote]

[*Hemidactylus*]

There was this thing called coverture affecting status between men and
women:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Married_Women%27s_Property_Acts_in_the_United_States

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-556q1_11o2.pdf

[quote]JUSTICE GINSBURG: But you wouldn't be asking for this
relief if the law of marriage was what it was a millennium ago. I mean,
it wasn't possible. Same­sex unions would not have opted into the
pattern of marriage, which was a relationship, a dominant and a
subordinate relationship. Yes, it was marriage between a man and a
woman, but the man decided where the couple would be domiciled; it was
her obligation to follow him. There was a change in the institution of
Official marriage to make it egalitarian when it wasn't egalitarian.
And same­sex unions wouldn't ­­ wouldn't fit into what marriage was once.

MS. BONAUTO: That's correct. I mean, for centuries we had ­­ we
had and ­­ and Europe had this coverture system where a woman's legal
identity was absorbed into that of her husband and men and women had
different prescribed legal roles. And again, because of equality and
changing social circumstances, all of those gender differences in the
rights and responsibilities of the married pair have been eliminated.
And that, ofcourse, is a system in which committed, same­sex couples fit
quite well.[/quote]

[Inez]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014

My theory is that the anti-gay marriage movement is led by a bunch of gay or bisexual folks who have been taught that their urges are a sin. They can't stand to let other people have what they want but must deny themselves.

[*Hemidactylus*]

It is my experience that gay people potentially take offense when a
disgusting homophobe is accused of being closeted. You wind up
associating very unsavory types with being gay which is perhaps an
unintended calumny against LGBT folks but at some level it becomes an
insult to them.

[Inez]

Gay people have John Waters, Herman Melville and Michelangelo. They've got to take a few bad guys too.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 12:43:57 PM UTC-4, Paul J Gans wrote:

...a lot. Since I do not want to take up too much of YOUR time, Paul,
I am snipping a good bit of what you wrote and instead am posting
my comments to it in reply to broger...@gmail.com, who says he
completely agrees with what you wrote.

Of course, no one is stopping you from reading my reply to him.

> However, there are people who wish to deny civil marriage to folks
> whose lifestyle does not meet with their criteria. Many claim that
> such marriages are "unnatural" or "against God" or whatever.

That is not the issue in Ireland. The bishops are not fighting against
the rights of people in same-sex civil unions to have all the privileges
that marriage gives. They are not even fighting against the right
of people in civil unions to unofficially call themselves "married".
The only thing they are fighting against is the government officially
calling such civil unions "marriages."

> I really do not understand this.

Are you also unable to understand the Irish bishops' position? Then
just think of your reaction to anyone who calls abortion "murder".

> Yet people object because they feel that their religion forbids
> such marriages and so people of another religion shoud be forced
> to live by their standards.

I wonder whether this indeterminate number of people are what the
Irish press and the most-read Irish websites are playing up, while
conveniently refusing to print the information that the Irish bishops have
renounced all opposition to anything but making that label "married"
enshrined in law.

Similar things have happened before. Cardinal O'Connor told reporters
in interview after interview that the Archdiocese of New York would
give any woman, of any religion or no religion, all the help she
needs to raise her child rather than have that woman go for an abortion.

That comment never made it into any of the papers, perhaps because
the interviewer, or someone up the line, wanted to perpetrate the
myth that pro-lifers only care about women and children until the
child is born.

Admit it, Paul: you subscribe wholeheartedly to this myth and never
learned of O'Connor's offer, even though you are a New Yorker--right?

<snip>

> It would help if they read up a bit on the history of marriage.
> And do this leaving out thee official registration of the upper
> nobility that had a financial and political reason for caring whose
> sperm went where --- all the time ignoring the fact that the ordinary
> person lived with whom they wished, left them when they wished, and
> had no benefit of civil registration or anything else.

If you think that's what same-sex marriage is all about, you need to
wake up, Rip van Gans. This has been going on in the USA,
legally, ever since the US Supreme Court struck down all sodomy,
etc. laws.

> Civilization did not fall.
>
> What about civil marriages? The benefit of civil marriage is that
> it carries a number of secular rights with it, inheritance, hospital
> visitiation rights, tax benefits, and so on. Denying such things

...is NOT what the Irish bishops are for.

The Irish referendum is all about the right to call fetuses "babies"...
...whoops, wrong hot-button issue. I meant, of course, the right to call
these civil unions "marriages" as far as the law is concerned.

And, thanks to people who confuse the issue the way you do,
enough of the public just might swallow their propaganda
to make the referendum pass by a huge margin. story of what this

> And by the way, if you are afraid that your neighbor's behavior will
> corrupt your morals, simply stop looking into their bedroom window
> at night.

That reminds me...

If you are afraid you might get upset by a thread in soc.history.medieval
whose title is "Jews Should Forget the Holocaust" and whose theme is the
way Jews supposedly exploint the Holocaust unfairly, just keep on ignoring
the thread which has been going on for over two months, with Tiglath
and Mulain leading the charge.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

Since broger...@gmail.com "completely agree"s with what Gans writes,
some of what I would have written in my reply to Gans is written
after the appropriate passage in Gans's near-monopoly of the post
to which I am replying.

On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 12:53:58 PM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 12:43:57 PM UTC-4, Paul J Gans wrote:
> > In the US and many other nations, there are two forms of marriage. One
> > is called "civil marriage" (which is the only one recognized by the
> > government in the US) and "religious marriage" which is denominational
> > in scope.

Actually, the US is out of sync with a lot of European countries,
where priests and ministers do not have the right to unite people
in a marriage that is governmentally recognized. I attended the
marriage of a cousin in Hungary, and the couple were first married
at a nuptial Mass in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Then we
walked over to city hall [conveniently located on the same square]

> > There is no problem with religious marriage. In the US nobody,
> > including the government, can force a religious organization to
> > marry anyone it does not wish to.

That may come to an end with a same-sex couple crying "discrimination!"
if a priest refuses to exercise his civil privileges and give them
a civil marriage.

I've read of one justice of the peace who was forced to resign when
he refused to perform such a ceremony, it being contrary to his
religious convictions. It could be argued that a priest empowered
to perform civil marriages is thus in a capacity which makes him
subject to the same legal discipline.

If it ever came to such a case winning in court, the Catholic Church
in the USA would renounce the right of priests to contract civil marriage,
and confine themselves to administering the sacrament of matrimony,
as in those European countries.

<snip of things addressed in reply to Gans>

> > Most married folks have never
> > been asked to provide proof of a civil marriage.

The IRS could do it any time, to anyone filing "married, filing jointly"
because of the tax break that gives.

And what's a mere label like "marriage" compared to goodies like
that? Yet the label is so important to propagandists like Shrubber
(and you?) that I'm smeared again and again for opposing it.

> Thus nobody
> knows if two women entering a shop to buy something are married,
> good friends, or what.

Paul really likes to belabor the obvious, doesn't he?

> > Yet people ... insinuate that allowing such

> > marriages would bring the end of civilization upon us and similar
> > benighted fantasies.

Brogers, did Mark Isaak fool you into thinking I was one of these?

<snip of

> Completely agree, and hope that the US Supreme Court

> will settle the issue for [good] in the next few weeks.

I'd prefer to let the people decide. Since the wave of the future
seems to be going for same-sex marriage anyway, wouldn't you prefer
a decision more in the direction the USA being a government by the
people?

Peter Nyikos

[Chris Thompson]

On 5/14/2015 10:55 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> Since broger...@gmail.com "completely agree"s with what Gans writes,
> some of what I would have written in my reply to Gans is written
> after the appropriate passage in Gans's near-monopoly of the post
> to which I am replying.
>
> On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 12:53:58 PM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 12:43:57 PM UTC-4, Paul J Gans wrote:
>>> In the US and many other nations, there are two forms of marriage. One
>>> is called "civil marriage" (which is the only one recognized by the
>>> government in the US) and "religious marriage" which is denominational
>>> in scope.
>
> Actually, the US is out of sync with a lot of European countries,
> where priests and ministers do not have the right to unite people
> in a marriage that is governmentally recognized. I attended the
> marriage of a cousin in Hungary, and the couple were first married
> at a nuptial Mass in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Then we
> walked over to city hall [conveniently located on the same square]
>

Odd. Are masters of vessels at sea licensed to perform marriages?

>>> There is no problem with religious marriage. In the US nobody,
>>> including the government, can force a religious organization to
>>> marry anyone it does not wish to.
>
> That may come to an end with a same-sex couple crying "discrimination!"
> if a priest refuses to exercise his civil privileges and give them
> a civil marriage.
>

Nonsense and beyond nonsense. Total...words fail me. You are engaging in
alarmist propaganda in an attempt to bolster a failed position.

> I've read of one justice of the peace who was forced to resign when
> he refused to perform such a ceremony, it being contrary to his
> religious convictions.

I read about a county clerk (who was also a minister) who refused to
marry a gay couple for that reason. He referred them to a different
clerk who would perform the ceremony. I did not read that he lost his
job, although he should have. Perhaps a different case. Got a cite?

Note that might change since the Hobby Lobby Religious Discri^H^H
"Freedom" case.

> It could be argued that a priest empowered
> to perform civil marriages is thus in a capacity which makes him
> subject to the same legal discipline.

If he's a civil employee, that's in his job description. Are you in
favor of government employees not performing their jobs?

> If it ever came to such a case winning in court, the Catholic Church
> in the USA would renounce the right of priests to contract civil marriage,
> and confine themselves to administering the sacrament of matrimony,
> as in those European countries.
>

And that would just break my heart.

Maybe not. In fact, I could not care less.

Chris

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 11:48:55 PM UTC-4, Chris Thompson wrote:
> On 5/14/2015 10:55 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> > Actually, the US is out of sync with a lot of European countries,
> > where priests and ministers do not have the right to unite people
> > in a marriage that is governmentally recognized. I attended the
> > marriage of a cousin in Hungary, and the couple were first married
> > at a nuptial Mass in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Then we
> > walked over to city hall [conveniently located on the same square]
> >
>
> Odd. Are masters of vessels at sea licensed to perform marriages?

I've heard that this is a misconception.

> >>> There is no problem with religious marriage. In the US nobody,
> >>> including the government, can force a religious organization to
> >>> marry anyone it does not wish to.
> >
> > That may come to an end with a same-sex couple crying "discrimination!"
> > if a priest refuses to exercise his civil privileges and give them
> > a civil marriage.
> >
>
> Nonsense and beyond nonsense. Total...words fail me.

Maybe because you can't bring up reasoned arguments for your side.

> You are engaging in
> alarmist propaganda in an attempt to bolster a failed position.

Au contraire, what you are showing is that YOUR position is based
on emotion rather than reason, even to the point of calling
my position "failed" without trying to reason against it.

> > I've read of one justice of the peace who was forced to resign when
> > he refused to perform such a ceremony, it being contrary to his
> > religious convictions.
>
> I read about a county clerk (who was also a minister) who refused to
> marry a gay couple for that reason. He referred them to a different
> clerk who would perform the ceremony. I did not read that he lost his
> job, although he should have. Perhaps a different case. Got a cite?

Why do you ask for a cite, when you've run away three times from the
cites I gave you wrt your bluff and bluster about the Shroud?

___________excerpt from post___________________________

On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 3:50:24 PM UTC-4, Chris Thompson wrote:
> On 3/31/2015 4:23 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 8:44:02 PM UTC-7, Chris Thompson wrote:
<snip for focus>

> >> Ray has to hold that attitude because 14C dating unambiguously put the
> >> Shroud of Turin in the Middle Ages.
> >>
> >> So much the worse for the Shroud.
> >>
> >> Chris
> >
> > The veracity of that dating event has been effectively undermined. Do some research and see for yourself. Moreover, archaeologists from time to time uncover Egyptian tombs with intact mummies. They know when these tombs were sealed. Yet radio dating fails miserably.
> >
> > Ray
> >
> Are you referring to the "Invisible Repair"? The reweaving that was
> postulated only after the dating was done, and is still not discernible
> to any observer?
>
> Chris

You ran away from my request for documentation of this claim, but
I didn't run away from it. Here are four articles that will
show you how wrong you are about "not discernible".

1. Article claiming authenticity, some comments near top suggest otherwise:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/28/shroud-of-turin-real-jesus_n_2971850.html
2. polite heavy debating from less than a month ago (March 2015):
http://shroudstory.com/2015/03/08/a-rebuttal-of-jacksons-refutation-of-reweaving/
3. A scholarly paper quoting things from an expert named Rogers with
quotes used by the video of which I wrote:
p11.pdf obtained by googling "shroud turin reweave".
4. April 4, 2015 article claiming authenticity, giving reweave information:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/416411/what-does-shroud-turin-prove-about-eas\
ter-myra-adams

To give you the benefit of the doubt: you may have taken the
oft-used phrase "invisible reweaving" too literally.

Like I wrote, and you failed to take note: I believe the
jury is still out on this one.

Peter Nyikos
======================= end of excerpt from:
Subject: Re: Is OEC Even Worse than YEC? (ATTN: Ray Martinez)
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 13:18:39 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <2bcbe394-a134-43ac...@googlegroups.com>
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/sZm4VkscsBk/lA928tLa4VsJ

The second time you ran away was:

Subject: Chris Thompson can run, but he can't hide WAS: Re: Low IQ Simulations
of the Month (February)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 07:25:17 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4211974e-ba29-4af2...@googlegroups.com>
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/8YCvWhYFERQ/hkEy4ZQGbL8J

The third posting of the above from which you ran away was:

Subject: Chris Thompson can run, but he still can't hide WAS: Re: Re-explained
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 13:19:58 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <bec40192-2947-4149...@googlegroups.com>
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/L-osBYOr3Oo/5mjO1WEKbvAJ

This is getting to be a running gag. Want to make it four times?

Peter Nyikos

[Burkhard]

:o) Great spoof on Hobby Lobby, but I have to point out ("have to" in
the sense of psychological compulsion) that despite reports to the
contrary, HobbyLobby did not extend religious rights to corporations as
legal persons. There wee in my view lots of things wrong with that
decision, but that wasn't it.

What it did rather was what is in corporate manslaughter or insolvency
cases called "piercing the corporate veil", that is the argument was
that even though formally, it was the corporation that acted, in reality
it was its owner, and here as in some other cases, the law sets aside
the corporate fiction and follows reality.

[Burkhard]

Chris Thompson wrote:
> On 5/14/2015 10:55 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> Since broger...@gmail.com "completely agree"s with what Gans writes,
>> some of what I would have written in my reply to Gans is written
>> after the appropriate passage in Gans's near-monopoly of the post
>> to which I am replying.
>>
>> On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 12:53:58 PM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 12:43:57 PM UTC-4, Paul J Gans wrote:
>>>> In the US and many other nations, there are two forms of marriage. One
>>>> is called "civil marriage" (which is the only one recognized by the
>>>> government in the US) and "religious marriage" which is denominational
>>>> in scope.
>>
>> Actually, the US is out of sync with a lot of European countries,
>> where priests and ministers do not have the right to unite people
>> in a marriage that is governmentally recognized. I attended the
>> marriage of a cousin in Hungary, and the couple were first married
>> at a nuptial Mass in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Then we
>> walked over to city hall [conveniently located on the same square]
>>
>
> Odd. Are masters of vessels at sea licensed to perform marriages?

Funny thing that. Simple answer is no, and never had. More complicated
answer: so many people "thought" a captain can do this, including
captains, that some of them performed the ceremony and everybody thought
hey were married. In one US case at least, Fisher v Fisher, the courts
used the old "common law marriage" idea to give validity to the ceremony
in this situation,effectively remedying the effect of the unlicensed
marriage and protecting the "genuine and reasonable reliance on" the
ceremony.

Other courts decided differently though, and some jurisdictions,
including I thing New York, went so far as to make it a criminal offense
for captains to perform marriage ceremonies. In the UK, an explicit
clarification was added to maritime law.

One of the cases where a rumor triggered legal consequences, and a great
case study when you teach jurisprudence and have to explain the relation
between (social) facts and (legal) norms.

<snip>

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Thu, 14 May 2015 23:10:06 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans

Fair enough, I thought you were referring to the Irish Constitutional
Referendum being discussed in another thread.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Hmmm. I'm not sure you are entirely correct. One could "pierce the
corporate veil" in the reductive sense, yet still set a jurisprudential
trend vis a vis "emergence" (hi jonathan if you're listening, feel free
to chime in in *your own words* not from websites) of corporate rights.
In _Religious Liberties for Corporations?: Hobby Lobby, the Affordable
Care Act, and the Constitution_:

http://www.amazon.com/Religious-Liberties-Corporations-Affordable-Constitution/dp/1137484675

....David Gans talks of Hobby Lobby "hav(ing) its cake and eat(ing) it
too." He says "The Court allows the Greens to hide behind the corporate
veil when sued, while also claiming fundamental, personal rights as
corporate owners. The result is a massive expansion in the rights and
power of corporations."

Could it be one of those Dawkinsian "necker cube" things, where
depending on how you look at the legal Franksteinian fiction of
corporate personhood via the Dictionary Act and that oddball post
Reconstruction railroad case from late 1800s, the Mayan veil becomes
less illusion and begins gathering steam to take on a life and cultural
evolutionary trajectory of its own?

And says Justice Alito:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf

[quote majority opinion]:
As we noted above, RFRA applies to “a person’s” exercise of religion, 42
U. S. C. §§2000bb–1(a), (b), and RFRA itself does not define the term
“person.” We therefore look to the Dictionary Act, which we must
consult “[i]n determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the
context indicates otherwise.” 1 U. S. C. §1.

Under the Dictionary Act, “the wor[d] ‘person’ . . . include[s]
corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies,
and joint stock companies, as well as individuals.”
Ibid.; see FCC v. AT&T Inc., 562 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., at 6)
(“We have no doubt that ‘person,’ in a legal setting, often
refers to artificial entities. The Dictionary Act makes that clear”).
Thus, unless there is something about the RFRA context that “indicates
otherwise,” the Dictionary Act provides a quick, clear, and affirmative
answer to the question whether the companies involved in these cases may
be heard.
[/end quote]

And I wonder what Milton "Fiduciary Responsibility Alone" Friedman would
say of the following:

[quoting as above]
For-profit corporations, with ownership approval, support a wide variety
of charitable causes, and it is not at all uncommon for such
corporations to further humanitarian and other altruistic objectives.
Many examples come readily to mind. So long as its owners agree, a
for-profit corporation may take costly pollution-control and energy
conservation measures that go beyond what the law requires. A
for-profit corporation that operates facilities in other countries may
exceed the requirements of local law regarding working conditions and
benefits. If for-profit corporations may pursue such worthy
objectives, there is no apparent reason why they may not further
religious objectives as well.
[/end quote]

This may be, idealistically, the plus side in that if corporations were
to start feigning to conscience in cases like Hooby Lobby, they would
actually develop a socially responsible Freudian superego and a guilt
complex about environmental and labor practices. In reality...my bubble
bursts. Corporations according to the came named documentary, tend
towards sociopathy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corporation_%28film%29

But our aside does make an OT comment more topical, touching on the
pseudo-organismic social construct of the corporation. 1st amendment
jurisprudence has dealt with creationism in the schools, which is more
topical. And we are an election cycle away from a new POTUS with justice
appointment abilities and Ginsburg and Breyer nearing retirement.
Creationism and prayer in schools just around the corner?

Back to Hobby Lobby, I wonder how close, yet how far Dartmouth College
v. Woodward would be:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartmouth_College_v._Woodward

I see it referenced in religious jurisprudence sources and corporate
charter/personhood sources. Nice dovetail.

[Burkhard]

He is totally right on the first part - the same point I made. Say of
you are an employee of HL, they go bankrupt and can;t pay your wages,
you are told: well, for the purpose of bankruptcy law, you were employed
by the corporation and its liability is limited. If on the other hand
you want money for contraception, you are told: oh no, for the pruposes
of the RFRA, you are not employed by the corporation, but by its owner
personally.

The second sentence is not wrong but misleading I'd say. As a question
of fact, HL expands the power of (some, for the time being)
corporations -but it is doing that by allowing their owners to pick and
chose when they want to frame a relation as a personal one, and when as
a corporate one. But that is still not the same as saying that in law,
corporations now have religious liberties.

True, but you read this in conjunction with sec 4, where he then
distinguishes "closely held" corporations from "publicly traded" ones -
there he makes clear that the entity that "holds" the religious belief
is the owner as a natural person, not the corporation as a legal entity.

Now I agree with your point above, that there is a danger that this
important distinction gets lost over time (and Alito does hint at some
"salami slices" that would go further into that direction, but for the
time being at least HL does not p this (not just in my view, but e.g.
Ilya Somins: The fundamental point here is that people organized as
corporations are people too.) Now, Justice Ginsburg in her dissent makes
exactly that point, that maintaining the distinction could be
problematic in the long run, but that is a different story for another
court to decide.

But private schools can do this already anyway - and they often will be
organised as corporate entities.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Yeah, the big publicly traded corporations are a different enough beast
from the closely held and that distinction might protect us, but I'd
almost like to see these behemoths find a true conscience. Google's
"don't be evil" mantra was a start, but depends on the quirky definition
of evil I guess.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil

Sniffing wifi traffic while doing street view was pretty damn nasty IMO.
Should at least get more purgatory for that, if not a stint in Hell.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/04/google-tells-supreme-court-its-legal-to-packet-sniff-open-wi-fi-networks/

Maybe I should have cut a new paragraph. My fears are that more Scalias
and Thomases would tilt the balance and open the floodgates for
overturning precedents where public schools become more overtly
religious among other fears of a more Christian nation.

[Mark Isaak]

Is there any doubt, though, that that is only the surface debate, and
the real issue driving that debate is personal feelings about whether
those hated homosexuals get to be treated like us?

Are the people wanting a "traditional" definition of marriage consistent
in wanting marriage defined to encompass polygamy? If not, then the
issue is not about the meaning of marriage.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[Mark Isaak]

There was a study once (sorry, too long ago for me to remember
references) that found that more anti-gay one's attitudes, the more one
was aroused by homosexual pornography.

[Burkhard]

sometimes claimed, but only weak support ever found, before finally
debunked:

MacInnis, Cara C., and Gordon Hodson. "Is homophobia associated with an
implicit same-sex attraction?." Journal of sex research 50, no. 8
(2013): 777-785

and

Meier, Brian P., et al. "A secret attraction or defensive loathing?
Homophobia, defense, and implicit cognition." Journal of Research in
Personality 40.4 (2006): 377-394.

Nice theory, but birds of a feather flock after all together

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 05/14/2015 12:49 PM, broger...@gmail.com wrote:

> Completely agree, and hope that the US Supreme Court will settle the issue for god in the next few weeks. At least for the U.S.

I am undoubtedly influenced by "Modern Family" here, but there are
married heterosexual couples who either don't have children for personal
reasons (career, money issues, whatever) or cannot due to fertility
issues. In the latter case some couples adopt children and raise them.
They don't procreate in the biological sense, but they raise children.
Now if same-sex couples can marry, they won't be able to procreate in
the biological sense, but they can adopt and marriage becomes an
institution that for them binds them as an obligation to raise adopted
children, that may not have had a chance to live in a caring, nurturing
environment otherwise. That's one way I perceive same-sex marriage.

And gay or lesbian couples cannot do anymore damage to the institution
of marriage than heterosexuals haven't already done.

[Paul J Gans]

I hope you are right about those areas that seem to be very resistant.
Practically every Republican presidential candidate is in favor of
restricting marriage to heterosexual couples only.

[Paul J Gans]

I suspect that you are right. But I am still saddened to think that
corporations have the rights of persons, but the owners of those
corporations have no direct say on the positions taken by those
corporations.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 14 May 2015 13:22:04 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by broger...@gmail.com:

>On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 4:08:57 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 May 2015 16:43:09 +0000 (UTC), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Paul J Gans
>> <gan...@panix.com>:
>>

>> As far as I can see there is no such argument, at least not
>> a valid one.
>>
>> So would you support the idea floated in the "Posting
>> problems" thread (yeah, off-topic), that the term "marriage"
>> be stricken from civil law and reserved as a
>> social/religious term, to be used as desired by anyone? ISTM
>> that this would solve the problem handily, although
>> implementation would be a bit time-consuming, since I doubt
>> a single law ("All references to marriage in all laws of
>> this polity shall henceforth be read as references to civil
>> union, and 'marriage' shall henceforth not be used in any
>> law") would be acceptable.

>That would be acceptable to me, but I think it's unnecessary, as there's an excellent chance that very soon the Supreme Court will make marriage equality the law of the land, and the issue will be moot.

Is the phrase "when hell freezes over" familiar to you?

As long as there are two sides, violently opposed, the issue
will never be moot. If you don't believe me, Google
"abortion" and/or "Roe vs. Wade".

The only way to remove contention from the term itself is to
cease use of the term in law. The contention about the
*practice* will remain, of course, but that's a separate
issue, and can only be clarified *as* an issue when the
chimera of the term "marriage" is removed from the
discussion.

>> >And by the way, if you are afraid that your neighbor's behavior will
>> >corrupt your morals, simply stop looking into their bedroom window
>> >at night.
>>

>> That would never work; the "Here, you have to use these
>> binoculars" busybody syndrome is well entrenched in a
>> certain type of personality.
>> --
>>
>> Bob C.
>>
>> "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
>> the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
>> 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
>>
>> - Isaac Asimov
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Paul J Gans]

I agree about the real issue.

>Are the people wanting a "traditional" definition of marriage consistent
>in wanting marriage defined to encompass polygamy? If not, then the
>issue is not about the meaning of marriage.

In my opinion the government should, and in the end will, get out of
the marriage business entirely. There will be laws that trigger on
the birth of a child aimed at protecting that child and a number of
similar things.

As for group marriages in various sized and sexed groups, that day is
already here. It floats just under the surface.

[jillery]

On Fri, 15 May 2015 17:37:19 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

But then there's all those outed gay bashers:

<http://www.ranker.com/list/top-10-anti-gay-activists-caught-being-gay/joanne>


--
Intelligence is never insulting.

[broger...@gmail.com]

We'll see in a few weeks.

>
> As long as there are two sides, violently opposed, the issue
> will never be moot. If you don't believe me, Google
> "abortion" and/or "Roe vs. Wade".

Public opinion has shifted far faster on gay rights and marriage equality than on abortion.

>
> The only way to remove contention from the term itself is to
> cease use of the term in law. The contention about the
> *practice* will remain, of course, but that's a separate
> issue, and can only be clarified *as* an issue when the
> chimera of the term "marriage" is removed from the
> discussion.

While I would have no problem with the change I suspect that the (fortunately shrinking) subset of people strongly opposed to gay marriage simply do not want legal equality for gay and straight partnerships, and they won't be fooled by changing the name. Indeed, it would arguably be more intrusive on straight marriage to take away the legal use of the word than it would be simply to extend it to gay marriages. I think "When Hell freezes over" might apply here fairly well.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Thu, 14 May 2015 19:55:40 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>Since broger...@gmail.com "completely agree"s with what Gans writes,
>some of what I would have written in my reply to Gans is written
>after the appropriate passage in Gans's near-monopoly of the post
>to which I am replying.
>
>On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 12:53:58 PM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 12:43:57 PM UTC-4, Paul J Gans wrote:
>> > In the US and many other nations, there are two forms of marriage. One
>> > is called "civil marriage" (which is the only one recognized by the
>> > government in the US) and "religious marriage" which is denominational
>> > in scope.
>
>Actually, the US is out of sync with a lot of European countries,
>where priests and ministers do not have the right to unite people
>in a marriage that is governmentally recognized. I attended the
>marriage of a cousin in Hungary, and the couple were first married
>at a nuptial Mass in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Then we
>walked over to city hall [conveniently located on the same square]
>
>> > There is no problem with religious marriage. In the US nobody,
>> > including the government, can force a religious organization to
>> > marry anyone it does not wish to.
>
>That may come to an end with a same-sex couple crying "discrimination!"
>if a priest refuses to exercise his civil privileges and give them
>a civil marriage.

It looks very possible in Ireland; the Irish Catholic bishops warned
the Constitutional Convention back iin 2013 that the church could no
longer perform the civil aspects of weddings if marriage is extended
to same-sex couples.

[...]

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

Homosexuals are not *hated* by the overwhelming majority of people in
Ireland as shown by their endorsement of civil partnerships and
support for equality in legislation.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 15 May 2015 13:43:03 -0700 (PDT), the following

I think you misinterpreted. I didn't mean that the USSC
wouldn't decide the issue, only that such decision wouldn't
end the controversy or make it moot; I thought my reference
to Roe vs. Wade, which is *still* a subject of controversy,
would have made that clear.

>> As long as there are two sides, violently opposed, the issue
>> will never be moot. If you don't believe me, Google
>> "abortion" and/or "Roe vs. Wade".
>
>Public opinion has shifted far faster on gay rights and marriage equality than on abortion.

Yes, and IMHO justifiably so; neither gay rights nor
marriage equality, unlike abortion, causes physical harm to
anyone. And no, I'm not interested in debating abortion,
since I have strongly mixed feelings on the subject.

>> The only way to remove contention from the term itself is to
>> cease use of the term in law. The contention about the
>> *practice* will remain, of course, but that's a separate
>> issue, and can only be clarified *as* an issue when the
>> chimera of the term "marriage" is removed from the
>> discussion.

>While I would have no problem with the change I suspect that the (fortunately shrinking) subset of people strongly opposed to gay marriage simply do not want legal equality for gay and straight partnerships, and they won't be fooled by changing the name.

I suspect you're correct, but it would be advantageous if
their true motives could no longer be cloaked.

> Indeed, it would arguably be more intrusive on straight marriage to take away the legal use of the word than it would be simply to extend it to gay marriages. I think "When Hell freezes over" might apply here fairly well.

I disagree; most of those who object most strongly to use of
the term do so for religious reasons, and feel that marriage
is a religious matter (as do most if not all Christian
churches, in which marriage is defined as a sacrament). And
marriage would continue to be a religious matter, albeit one
conferring no legal benefits.

[Ernest Major]

Beware of confirmation bias.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Burkhard]

.>

Sure. They are the ones why the idea was taken serious to start with,
something worth testing. It just turns out that it was probably due to
the high visibility of those who were later found to be gay that the
impression that that was a major factor came about (we just don't
remember all the heterosexual gaybashers that much).

There could also be a slightly different issue at stake here. The
studies, as far as I can see, looked at correlations between same sex
attraction and "hostile attitudes". 2 things to note: attitudes, not
actions, and all that in the safe environment of a study.

The hypothesis was that self-loathing translates into hostility to others.

There is however a different model that the reseaech I think would not
capture, when you focus more on actions outside a study environment. In
an environment hostile to homosexuals, with that hostility ranging from
discrimination to open violence, "showing you are not gay" could simply
be a survival instinct. And if you are gay, you might worry particularly
that you are outed, over-reacting to compensate. The difference to the
studies is that such a person is not hostile to homosexuals, he just
displays hostility for self-protection.

[jillery]

Of course. I don't imply, suggest or believe that all, or even most,
gay bashers are closet homosexuals. However, the mere fact that
*some* are is enough to refute any suggestion that *none* of them are.
And it's almost always too deliciously petard-hoising to resist outing
them.

[John Vreeland]

On Thu, 14 May 2015 21:22:12 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 11:48:55 PM UTC-4, Chris Thompson wrote:
>> On 5/14/2015 10:55 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
>> > Actually, the US is out of sync with a lot of European countries,
>> > where priests and ministers do not have the right to unite people
>> > in a marriage that is governmentally recognized. I attended the
>> > marriage of a cousin in Hungary, and the couple were first married
>> > at a nuptial Mass in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Then we
>> > walked over to city hall [conveniently located on the same square]
>> >
>>
>> Odd. Are masters of vessels at sea licensed to perform marriages?
>
>I've heard that this is a misconception

US Navy captains are prohibited by law from performing marriages, as
are captains of vessels registered in some states, such as New York.
Also Russian and UK ship captains are prohibited from doing this.

Cruise ship captains probably get mail order licences, and common-law
states will let you get married by a letter-carrier or the busboy, but
if it happens on a ship the captain must register it the ship's log.

Outside 24 miles the laws of the ship are the laws of the ship's flag,
Liberia, probably, so you would actually be allowed up to three or
four simultaneous traditional marriages, for men.

[jillery]

On Sat, 16 May 2015 19:52:11 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

I realize that completely different motives can inspire similar
behavior, much as different genotypes express similar phenotypes. And
I assume that people with different motives respond differently to the
same reaction to their behavior.

I also realize there are cases of those who act as double-agents, who
work from within the system to help those without. An example of that
would be Oskar Schindler, who acted as a respectable Nazi in order to
save thousands of Jews during WWII. I agree it's possible that some
of those identified by my cite fit that category.

At the same time, I know that public officials who behave to actively
undermine the legal and social status of targeted groups cause similar
problems for those targeted groups regardless of those officials'
motivations. So for the most part, their motivations don't make much
difference to the targeted groups.

[Mr. B1ack]

Why would one want three or four times the pain ? :-)

[chris thompson]

On Friday, May 15, 2015 at 12:23:56 AM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 11:48:55 PM UTC-4, Chris Thompson wrote:
> > On 5/14/2015 10:55 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> > > Actually, the US is out of sync with a lot of European countries,
> > > where priests and ministers do not have the right to unite people
> > > in a marriage that is governmentally recognized. I attended the
> > > marriage of a cousin in Hungary, and the couple were first married
> > > at a nuptial Mass in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Then we
> > > walked over to city hall [conveniently located on the same square]
> > >
> >
> > Odd. Are masters of vessels at sea licensed to perform marriages?
>

> I've heard that this is a misconception.

Partially. Some polities recognize ships' masters as being able to marry, some do not.

> > >>> There is no problem with religious marriage. In the US nobody,
> > >>> including the government, can force a religious organization to
> > >>> marry anyone it does not wish to.
> > >

> > > That may come to an end with a same-sex couple crying "discrimination!"
> > > if a priest refuses to exercise his civil privileges and give them
> > > a civil marriage.
> > >
> >

> > Nonsense and beyond nonsense. Total...words fail me.
>
> Maybe because you can't bring up reasoned arguments for your side.
>

You mean other than the First Amendment?

> > You are engaging in
> > alarmist propaganda in an attempt to bolster a failed position.
>
> Au contraire, what you are showing is that YOUR position is based
> on emotion rather than reason, even to the point of calling
> my position "failed" without trying to reason against it.
>

It is failed, before it was out of the gate. There is simply no chance that any cleric will ever be forced to perform a wedding that goes against his or her religious beliefs. To cap it off, you don't even have a single instance where this has occurred, nor even a single instance where a suit was brought where there were no additional complications, such as the one I mentioned (a minister was also a county clerk, and it was his job as a government employee to perform all legal weddings.)
>
> > > I've read of one justice of the peace who was forced to resign when
> > > he refused to perform such a ceremony, it being contrary to his
> > > religious convictions.
> >
> > I read about a county clerk (who was also a minister) who refused to
> > marry a gay couple for that reason. He referred them to a different
> > clerk who would perform the ceremony. I did not read that he lost his
> > job, although he should have. Perhaps a different case. Got a cite?
>
> Why do you ask for a cite, when you've run away three times from the
> cites I gave you wrt your bluff and bluster about the Shroud?
>

I asked for a cite because I wanted more information.

I didn't bother responding to your post about the shroud because there's nothing of substance there. It's all religious apologetics engaging in special pleading. The science is sound; the shroud dates from the middle ages, not ca. 2000 kya.

And honestly, another reason I didn't respond is that I find dealing with you distasteful. So I probably won't do it anymore. But please, feel free to stroke yourself with an unlimited number of self-referential posts.

Chris

> ___________excerpt from post___________________________
>
> On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 3:50:24 PM UTC-4, Chris Thompson wrote:
> > On 3/31/2015 4:23 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 8:44:02 PM UTC-7, Chris Thompson wrote:
> <snip for focus>
>
> > >> Ray has to hold that attitude because 14C dating unambiguously put the
> > >> Shroud of Turin in the Middle Ages.
> > >>
> > >> So much the worse for the Shroud.
> > >>
> > >> Chris
> > >
> > > The veracity of that dating event has been effectively undermined. Do some research and see for yourself. Moreover, archaeologists from time to time uncover Egyptian tombs with intact mummies. They know when these tombs were sealed. Yet radio dating fails miserably.
> > >
> > > Ray
> > >
> > Are you referring to the "Invisible Repair"? The reweaving that was
> > postulated only after the dating was done, and is still not discernible
> > to any observer?
> >
> > Chris
>
> You ran away from my request for documentation of this claim, but
> I didn't run away from it. Here are four articles that will
> show you how wrong you are about "not discernible".
>
> 1. Article claiming authenticity, some comments near top suggest otherwise:
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/28/shroud-of-turin-real-jesus_n_2971850.html
> 2. polite heavy debating from less than a month ago (March 2015):
> http://shroudstory.com/2015/03/08/a-rebuttal-of-jacksons-refutation-of-reweaving/
> 3. A scholarly paper quoting things from an expert named Rogers with
> quotes used by the video of which I wrote:
> p11.pdf obtained by googling "shroud turin reweave".
> 4. April 4, 2015 article claiming authenticity, giving reweave information:
> http://www.nationalreview.com/article/416411/what-does-shroud-turin-prove-about-eas\
> ter-myra-adams
>
> To give you the benefit of the doubt: you may have taken the
> oft-used phrase "invisible reweaving" too literally.
>
> Like I wrote, and you failed to take note: I believe the
> jury is still out on this one.
>
> Peter Nyikos
> ======================= end of excerpt from:
> Subject: Re: Is OEC Even Worse than YEC? (ATTN: Ray Martinez)
> Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 13:18:39 -0700 (PDT)
> Message-ID: <2bcbe394-a134-43ac...@googlegroups.com>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/sZm4VkscsBk/lA928tLa4VsJ
>
> The second time you ran away was:
>
> Subject: Chris Thompson can run, but he can't hide WAS: Re: Low IQ Simulations
> of the Month (February)
> Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 07:25:17 -0700 (PDT)
> Message-ID: <4211974e-ba29-4af2...@googlegroups.com>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/8YCvWhYFERQ/hkEy4ZQGbL8J
>
> The third posting of the above from which you ran away was:
>
> Subject: Chris Thompson can run, but he still can't hide WAS: Re: Re-explained
> Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 13:19:58 -0700 (PDT)
> Message-ID: <bec40192-2947-4149...@googlegroups.com>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/L-osBYOr3Oo/5mjO1WEKbvAJ
>
> This is getting to be a running gag. Want to make it four times?
>
> Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

Chris Thompson continues to run from the real issue dividing us wrt
the Shroud, but since he's announced that he will probably try to go back
into hiding, I guess I'll only be seeing him again on another thread,
when he again decides to apply his "free to fight another day" option.

On Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 5:28:35 PM UTC-4, chris thompson wrote:
> On Friday, May 15, 2015 at 12:23:56 AM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 11:48:55 PM UTC-4, Chris Thompson wrote:

<snip and cut to the chase>

> I didn't bother responding to your post about the shroud because there's
> nothing of substance there.

As he did the third time he ran away from the documentation I gave him,
Chris shows no sign of having looked at the contents. In fact,
he is running away even from my description of the contents when
he posts the following bullshit:

> It's all religious apologetics engaging in special pleading.

The Christian religion will not suffer if the shroud turns out
to be from the middle ages, which is what Chris alleges with the following
broken record routine:

> The science is sound; the shroud dates from the middle ages, not ca.
> 2000 kya.

I've indicated after one of Chris's runnings away that a possible
alternative is the 4th century. I'll explain again if anyone reading
this is interested.

More importantly, Chris is indulging in a dirty debating tactic that
I call The Dogmatism Reversal Attack. This consists of painting someone as
dogmatically alleging something when either the person is actually
either

1) holding out for documentation of something his/her adversaries
are dogmatically asserting without documentation;

or, as in this case,

2) explaining why the issue is unresolved when his/her adversaries
are dogmatically and arbitrarily claiming it is a done deal.

> And honestly, another reason I didn't respond is that I find dealing
> with you distasteful.

Of course, anyone who keeps running away from evidence would find
it distasteful if someone kept reminding him of it.

> So I probably won't do it anymore. But please, feel free to stroke
> yourself with an unlimited number of self-referential posts.

I content myself with confronting Chris with an unlimited
number of Chris-referential posts.

> > http://www.nationalreview.com/article/416411/what-does-shroud-turin-prove-about-easter-myra-adams

> >
> > To give you the benefit of the doubt: you may have taken the
> > oft-used phrase "invisible reweaving" too literally.
> >
> > Like I wrote, and you failed to take note: I believe the
> > jury is still out on this one.
> >
> > Peter Nyikos
> > ======================= end of excerpt from:
> > Subject: Re: Is OEC Even Worse than YEC? (ATTN: Ray Martinez)
> > Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 13:18:39 -0700 (PDT)
> > Message-ID: <2bcbe394-a134-43ac...@googlegroups.com>
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/sZm4VkscsBk/lA928tLa4VsJ
> >
> > The second time you ran away was:
> >
> > Subject: Chris Thompson can run, but he can't hide WAS: Re: Low IQ Simulations
> > of the Month (February)
> > Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 07:25:17 -0700 (PDT)
> > Message-ID: <4211974e-ba29-4af2...@googlegroups.com>
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/8YCvWhYFERQ/hkEy4ZQGbL8J
> >
> > The third posting of the above from which you ran away was:
> >
> > Subject: Chris Thompson can run, but he still can't hide WAS: Re: Re-explained
> > Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 13:19:58 -0700 (PDT)
> > Message-ID: <bec40192-2947-4149...@googlegroups.com>
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/L-osBYOr3Oo/5mjO1WEKbvAJ
> >
> > This is getting to be a running gag. Want to make it four times?

Chris said "Yes", in effect, up there. The joke is on him, of course.

Peter Nyikos

[Earle Jones27]

*
I myself am an ordained minister of the Universal Life Church. It cost
me $10.00.

I can legally solemnize marriage ceremonies.

The California Code (Family.Code Section 400-402) makes it very clear
that marriage is a "...personal relation arising out of a civil, and
not a religious, contract..."

It is not required that the marriage be anything more than this, but if
the marrying couple would like their marriage SOLEMNIZED, the Code
provides a list of who can perform that service.

The list of who can solemnize the marriage ceremony is long. Very
long. A full page of 8-point single-spaced type. From a priest,
minister, rabbi, etc. all the way down to the town clerk who may
appoint deputy commissioners to solemnize marriages. The long list
includes judges, magistrates, political electees, constitutional
officer (?), mayor, city clerk, and officials of nonprofit institutions.

My friend, a California State Park Ranger, performed the marriage
ceremony for a friend of mine.

And, as an ordained minister of the Universal Life Church, I will be
happy to consider solemnizing your marriage, if you can afford my rates!

earle
*

From pos...@giganews.com Mon May 25 21:55:41 2015

[Peter Nyikos]

What does "solemnize" mean in such a context? Does it include a ceremony
in which the minister makes a fictitious claim to "pronounce you man
and wife" or "pronounce you man and husband," etc. when the two are already
legally married through having signed a contract, and have no intention
of being sacramentally married in the eyes of their denomination?

Peter Nyikos

[Roger Shrubber]

I'd defer this question to Josh Duggar, because people who have been
held up as paragons of virtue by the Family Research Council, and
have repeatedly claimed that homosexuals are deviants who put children
at risk, and do so by misrepresenting evidence, while themselves being
guilty of having diddled young children, including their younger
siblings --- these are the types of people we want to listen to. We
want to listen to them in order to run in the opposite direction from
whatever they advocate. Because at some point, the trend becomes
very obvious. "doth protest too much, methinks". How I wish the
correlation did not reaffirm itself so vigorously! But there you have
it, a spokesman for one of the major opponents of same-sex marriage,
who repeatedly cited concerns that homosexuals would abuse children
was himself guilty of abusing children. You should run, and hide, and
crawl under a rock, in light of these facts. But you have no shame.
And as I've pointed out, the Catholic church has no credibility on
this front either, given how they have historically abused children
who were conceived out of wedlock, and supported a culture of abuse
of children born out of wedlock, and abused and supported a culture
of abuse of women who bore children out of wedlock. And yet the
Catholic Church was a major voice against sanctioning same sex
marriage in Ireland. In response, you will ignore the specifics
and make some broad-brush claim that I am some particular form of
zealot, again, ignoring the verifiable specifics. Go ahead, further
demonstrate your lack of integrety and perspective.

[Rodjk #613]

From the Oxford Dictionary:

solemnize
[ ˈsɒləmnʌɪz ]
VERB: solemnize · third person present: solemnizes · past tense: solemnized · past participle: solemnized · present participle: solemnizing · verb: solemnise · third person present: solemnises · past tense: solemnised · past participle: solemnised · present participle: solemnising

duly perform (a ceremony, especially that of marriage).

"they needed only to find a priest to solemnize their marriage"
synonyms: perform · celebrate · ceremonialize · formalize · officiate at

HTH
Rodjk #613

[Peter Nyikos]

The following seems to confirm that the answer to my question,
even with its extra baggage, is "Yes":

> From the Oxford Dictionary:
>
> solemnize
> [ ˈsɒləmnʌɪz ]
> VERB: solemnize · third person present: solemnizes · past tense: solemnized · past participle: solemnized · present participle: solemnizing · verb: solemnise · third person present: solemnises · past tense: solemnised · past participle: solemnised · present participle: solemnising
>
> duly perform (a ceremony, especially that of marriage).
>
> "they needed only to find a priest to solemnize their marriage"
> synonyms: perform · celebrate · ceremonialize · formalize · officiate at
>
> HTH
> Rodjk #613

Thank you, Rodjk #613. It's nice to see someone actually answering the
question instead of going off on a long guilt-by-association tirade,
like Shrubber did.

Shrubber's been careening between studied nonchalance and (feigned?)
rage ever since I asked RSNorman three very loosely connected questions
last week. I advise that you not get too tangled up in the debate
between "Roger Shrubber" [not his real name, as anyone familiar with
Monty Python lore should know] and myself. At least, not until the
dust settles and people are able to see the issues clearly, despite
the dense and multi-colored smokescreens Shrubber produces.

Peter Nyikos

[Earle Jones27]

*
Very frankly, Peter, I am not really sure. The word 'solemnize'
appears in the California Code, which makes clear that marriage is a
civil contract. You go to the court house, pay your $12.00 (that is
what is was in 1961), sign the paperwork and you are married.

The solemnization has nothing to do with the effect of the marriage,
except to make the mothers happy and bring a few dollars to the church.

It is the civil contract that allows the happy couple to file a joint
return and thereby save money on their income taxes.

earle
*

[James Beck]

Why would it mean something other than that the occurrence of the
ceremony establishes a fixed date marked thereafter by an anniversary?

[snip]

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 1:17:59 AM UTC-4, Earle Jones27 wrote:
> On 2015-05-29 02:39:00 +0000, Peter Nyikos said:
>
> > On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 2:05:46 PM UTC-4, Earle Jones27 wrote:

<snip lines for posts not quoted from below>

> >>>>>> On 5/14/2015 10:55 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> Actually, the US is out of sync with a lot of European countries,
> >>>>>>> where priests and ministers do not have the right to unite people
> >>>>>>> in a marriage that is governmentally recognized. I attended the
> >>>>>>> marriage of a cousin in Hungary, and the couple were first married
> >>>>>>> at a nuptial Mass in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Then we
> >>>>>>> walked over to city hall [conveniently located on the same square]

......where we went through a para-religious ceremony [1] that
"solemnized," for the *first* time, my cousin's civil marriage.
A woman who represented the government wore a colorful official sash
and the ceremony was fairly long and solemn.

IIRC the marriage license was signed and sealed in the middle of
the civil ceremony.

[1] a term I use in a parallel way to "para-military uniform" as worn by
Boy Scouts and many other groups of people.

For my cousin and his wife, there were two very distinct kinds of marriage
involved and two different solemnizations. If Ireland doesn't have
this yet, it is only a matter of time. And if the Supreme Court decides
to take matters out of the hands of the people, it is also only a
matter of time here.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 11:23:13 PM UTC-4, Roger Shrubber wrote:
> Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 2:05:46 PM UTC-4, Earle Jones27 wrote:

> >> And, as an ordained minister of the Universal Life Church, I will be
> >> happy to consider solemnizing your marriage, if you can afford my rates!
> >>
> >> earle
> >
> > What does "solemnize" mean in such a context? Does it include a ceremony
> > in which the minister makes a fictitious claim to "pronounce you man
> > and wife" or "pronounce you man and husband," etc. when the two are already
> > legally married through having signed a contract, and have no intention
> > of being sacramentally married in the eyes of their denomination?

When you posted the following, you were still in full fanatic mode;
you have, in the last two days, re-donned your mask of reasonableness,
but anyone who is familiar with your behavior on May 28 when you wrote this,
knows how artificial that is.

You began with an obviously blatant *non sequitur*:

> I'd defer this question to Josh Duggar, because people who have been
> held up as paragons of virtue by the Family Research Council, and
> have repeatedly claimed that homosexuals are deviants who put children
> at risk,

No qualifying adjectives. But that's to be expected from a propagandist
like you.

> and do so by misrepresenting evidence, while themselves being
> guilty of having diddled young children, including their younger
> siblings

Why the plural? 1 + n = n+1 is true, but 1 diddler and n people
covering up does not add up to n+1 diddlers.

But I'm with you otherwise: 1 diddler is 1 too many. To say the least.

> --- these are the types of people we want to listen to. We
> want to listen to them in order to run in the opposite direction from
> whatever they advocate.

The true voice of *ad hominem* fallaciousness.

> Because at some point, the trend becomes
> very obvious. "doth protest too much, methinks". How I wish the
> correlation did not reaffirm itself so vigorously!

Are you one of those who think gay-bashers "do protest too much"?
Have you ever lifted a finger against your kind of politically correct
jerks who predictably taunt them by charging a similar correlation
without a smidgin of evidence against the specific person?
Or are you one of them?

You left similar issues untouched in a June 3 post, by which time
you had made up your mind as to which of your many masks to don.

Another such issue, on the flip side, was that of politically correct
jerks drooling about how priests are a poison to children and adolescents.
Of course, you'd never dream of accusing such jerks as being closet
pedophiles or fearful of the emotions little children might arouse in them.

"doth protest too much, methinks" is a knife that cuts only one
way where polemical opportunists like you are concerned, isn't it?

Yes, you did imply yesterday, in a roundabout way, that you weren't one of
these second variety of drooling jerks, but is it not a fact that
you play "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" when you see
one of them in action?

Concluded in next reply.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 11:23:13 PM UTC-4, Roger Shrubber wrote:

> But there you have
> it, a spokesman for one of the major opponents of same-sex marriage,
> who repeatedly cited concerns that homosexuals would abuse children
> was himself guilty of abusing children. You should run, and hide, and
> crawl under a rock, in light of these facts.

Why? I hardly know anything about the Duggars, never read anything they
wrote, never saw them on TV and only once in one public appearance where
they didn't hold forth on the kinds of things you talked about.
I only read one article about them before the scandal broke. And that
one article had to do with restrictions that I wouldn't dream of
imposing on my children.

I know you love to indulge in guilt by association, but this is a stretch
even for you.

> But you have no shame.
> And as I've pointed out, the Catholic church has no credibility on
> this front either, given how they have historically abused children
> who were conceived out of wedlock, and supported a culture of abuse
> of children born out of wedlock, and abused and supported a culture
> of abuse of women who bore children out of wedlock. And yet the
> Catholic Church was a major voice against sanctioning same sex
> marriage in Ireland.

And Stalin was a major foe of Hitler.

Get the analogy? you are ignoring my OWN reasons and acting as though a
bunch of old injustices about which I never had any control somehow made
all arguments against same sex marriage invalid, especially mine.

And you whine about being accused of *ad hominem* fallacies
and guilt by association!

> In response, you will ignore the specifics

Why should I give YOUR irrelevant specifics special treatment?
What makes you so special?

> and make some broad-brush claim that I am some particular form of
> zealot, again, ignoring the verifiable specifics. Go ahead, further
> demonstrate your lack of integrety and perspective.

How irrational and illogical can a person with a lifetime of training
and experience in the scientific method get? Your ranting is giving us all
a lesson about the answer to that question.

Peter Nyikos

[Roger Shrubber]

Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 11:23:13 PM UTC-4, Roger Shrubber wrote:
>> Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 2:05:46 PM UTC-4, Earle Jones27 wrote:
>
>>>> And, as an ordained minister of the Universal Life Church, I will be
>>>> happy to consider solemnizing your marriage, if you can afford my rates!
>>>>
>>>> earle
>>>
>>> What does "solemnize" mean in such a context? Does it include a ceremony
>>> in which the minister makes a fictitious claim to "pronounce you man
>>> and wife" or "pronounce you man and husband," etc. when the two are already
>>> legally married through having signed a contract, and have no intention
>>> of being sacramentally married in the eyes of their denomination?
>
> When you posted the following, you were still in full fanatic mode;
> you have, in the last two days, re-donned your mask of reasonableness,
> but anyone who is familiar with your behavior on May 28 when you wrote this,
> knows how artificial that is.
>
> You began with an obviously blatant *non sequitur*:

nope

>> I'd defer this question to Josh Duggar, because people who have been
>> held up as paragons of virtue by the Family Research Council, and
>> have repeatedly claimed that homosexuals are deviants who put children
>> at risk,
>
> No qualifying adjectives. But that's to be expected from a propagandist
> like you.
>
>> and do so by misrepresenting evidence, while themselves being
>> guilty of having diddled young children, including their younger
>> siblings
>
> Why the plural? 1 + n = n+1 is true, but 1 diddler and n people
> covering up does not add up to n+1 diddlers.
>
> But I'm with you otherwise: 1 diddler is 1 too many. To say the least.

so whatever minor nitpick typo of perhaps getting a plural wrong
is completely pointless and you were just writing for the pleasure
of reading your own words. You are confused by "themselves"? You're
not even a good grammar nazi.

>> --- these are the types of people we want to listen to. We
>> want to listen to them in order to run in the opposite direction from
>> whatever they advocate.
>
> The true voice of *ad hominem* fallaciousness.

Of course it isn't an ad hominem fallacy. The voice of those
who molest children is contextually relevant to their trustworthiness
regarding protecting children. An ad hominem fallacy is a fallacy
of irrelevance. The relevance is prima facie obvious. If you
have a record of harming children, I have every reason to
distrust your words about caring for children. If you molest children
while hiding behind claims of religious virtue and moral superiority,
I have every reason to defame your claims about how some group
you don't like are child molesters. If you think otherwise
your are far far beyond deluded.

>> Because at some point, the trend becomes
>> very obvious. "doth protest too much, methinks". How I wish the
>> correlation did not reaffirm itself so vigorously!
>
> Are you one of those who think gay-bashers "do protest too much"?
> Have you ever lifted a finger against your kind of politically correct
> jerks who predictably taunt them by charging a similar correlation
> without a smidgin of evidence against the specific person?
> Or are you one of them?

I deal in facts of specific cases. You deal in what you imagine
about me and others. Deal with it. I did not make claims about
Duggar being a child molester until the evidence came out. You
however make accusations against me without evidence. That's the
difference.

> You left similar issues untouched in a June 3 post, by which time
> you had made up your mind as to which of your many masks to don.

They are only masks to your warped perception. Your color commentary
only plays in your castles in the sky.

> Another such issue, on the flip side, was that of politically correct
> jerks drooling about how priests are a poison to children and adolescents.
> Of course, you'd never dream of accusing such jerks as being closet
> pedophiles or fearful of the emotions little children might arouse in them.
>
> "doth protest too much, methinks" is a knife that cuts only one
> way where polemical opportunists like you are concerned, isn't it?

Show me the facts, not just your speculations. As I said above,

How I wish the correlation did not reaffirm itself so vigorously!

You just don't seem able to differentiate between actual examples
and the things you imagine. That's probably why you spend so
much time accusing me of things I've never said, just things
that you think I might say.

> Yes, you did imply yesterday, in a roundabout way, that you weren't one of
> these second variety of drooling jerks, but is it not a fact that
> you play "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" when you see
> one of them in action?

So I've said I don't do that, and I haven't done that, but you
feel compelled to suggest I'm somebody likely to do that.

You are Peter the Invidious. You miss few opportunities to
accuse people of all sorts of things under the guise of
conditionals. And yet, you have just made a big deal about
how I might be somebody who would suggest that people might
be guilty of something as if that were despicable.
So let me revise.

Peter the Invidious Hypocrite. Own it. It fits.

[Roger Shrubber]

Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 11:23:13 PM UTC-4, Roger Shrubber wrote:
>
>> But there you have
>> it, a spokesman for one of the major opponents of same-sex marriage,
>> who repeatedly cited concerns that homosexuals would abuse children
>> was himself guilty of abusing children. You should run, and hide, and
>> crawl under a rock, in light of these facts.
>
> Why? I hardly know anything about the Duggars, never read anything they
> wrote, never saw them on TV and only once in one public appearance where
> they didn't hold forth on the kinds of things you talked about.
> I only read one article about them before the scandal broke. And that
> one article had to do with restrictions that I wouldn't dream of
> imposing on my children.
>
> I know you love to indulge in guilt by association, but this is a stretch
> even for you.

Maybe. It is possible. I looked back and thought that you had put up
a stronger defense of the FRC when I invoked them as a voice against
not just same sex marriage, but civil unions and rights to things
like not losing ones job purely due to one's sexual orientation.
But you didn't so much defend them as attack me for the things you
claimed I might also believe.

So if you simply say you think they represent a bigoted view that
you heartily reject, you think they are bigoted to opposing even
same sex unions and opposing protections against firing someone
soley on the basis of their sexual orientation, I will apologize
for implying that you should feel any stain from the FRC's shame.

>> But you have no shame.
>> And as I've pointed out, the Catholic church has no credibility on
>> this front either, given how they have historically abused children
>> who were conceived out of wedlock, and supported a culture of abuse
>> of children born out of wedlock, and abused and supported a culture
>> of abuse of women who bore children out of wedlock. And yet the
>> Catholic Church was a major voice against sanctioning same sex
>> marriage in Ireland.
>
> And Stalin was a major foe of Hitler.
>
> Get the analogy? you are ignoring my OWN reasons and acting as though a
> bunch of old injustices about which I never had any control somehow made
> all arguments against same sex marriage invalid, especially mine.
>
> And you whine about being accused of *ad hominem* fallacies
> and guilt by association!
>
>> In response, you will ignore the specifics
>
> Why should I give YOUR irrelevant specifics special treatment?
> What makes you so special?

You force the wrong misreading. I take some blame but your
dissection of text contributes. The point, which has been
made in multiple posts, in multiple ways, is to recognize
the political thrust behind opposition to same sex marriage.
And to recognize the bigotry obvious in those major
institutions that lead the opposition. And it is obvious.

When any of us find yourself allied with bigots, there
are questions to be asked. And on this, you have failed
to provide a respectable answer. Why oppose same sex
marriage? Your claims about 'foundation of civilization'
are ahistorical. Your 'concern' about what future generations
will think are laughable. And I think they are the best
you got.

Now your mind will leap to thinking that I should question
my support because you can identify bigots who support
same sex marriage. And I think there are extremists who
advocate for gay rights and like to play pay back with
terms like "breeders" that they intend to be derogatory.
And I've concluded such are minor characters who justify
their tit-for-tat abuse as self-defense. They are damaged
people who I have a small, but only small bit of sympathy
for. Meanwhile, most who support same sex marriage, the
loudest political voices, and my own reasons align.
Individuals who have pair bonded, and in some cases are
raising children, should have equal rights, for their
personal well being, any children's well being, and
for the principle of equality. My reasons are superior
to your reasons.

>> and make some broad-brush claim that I am some particular form of
>> zealot, again, ignoring the verifiable specifics. Go ahead, further

>> demonstrate your lack of integrity and perspective.

>
> How irrational and illogical can a person with a lifetime of training
> and experience in the scientific method get? Your ranting is giving us all
> a lesson about the answer to that question.

Only when you force your very personal misreading. Perhaps
it was fed by me pushing your defense of the FRC beyond
what you intended. It seemed to me you had denied their
bigotry but that was only implicit and I could have been wrong.
So again, tell me you don't defend their bigoted stances
and I retract all the claims I made based on a potentially
false assertion that you defend them. And I will even preemptively
state that I'm sorry if I did so misread you about your support
for the FRC.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, June 4, 2015 at 10:37:50 PM UTC-4, Roger Shrubber wrote:
> Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 11:23:13 PM UTC-4, Roger Shrubber wrote:

About Josh Duggar, and NOT about the FRC *per se*:

> >> But there you have
> >> it, a spokesman for one of the major opponents of same-sex marriage,
> >> who repeatedly cited concerns that homosexuals would abuse children
> >> was himself guilty of abusing children. You should run, and hide, and
> >> crawl under a rock, in light of these facts.
> >
> > Why? I hardly know anything about the Duggars, never read anything they
> > wrote, never saw them on TV and only once in one public appearance where
> > they didn't hold forth on the kinds of things you talked about.
> > I only read one article about them before the scandal broke. And that
> > one article had to do with restrictions that I wouldn't dream of
> > imposing on my children.
> >
> > I know you love to indulge in guilt by association, but this is a stretch
> > even for you.
>
> Maybe. It is possible.

It is evident. You baited me with Josh Duggar, and seeing how your
attempt to link me with him failed miserably, you NOW switch to
the FRC.

Wait--are you suggesting the FRC knew about the diddling, but
made Josh one of their main spokespersons in spite that? THEN
this switch would make sense--but I seriously doubt the FRC
is that stupid and self-destructive.

> I looked back and thought that you had put up
> a stronger defense of the FRC when I invoked them as a voice against
> not just same sex marriage, but civil unions and rights to things
> like not losing ones job purely due to one's sexual orientation.
> But you didn't so much defend them as attack me for the things you
> claimed I might also believe.

I can't recall the exchange at all. Do you remember what thread
it was on, and the approximate dates?

> So if you simply say you think they represent a bigoted view that
> you heartily reject, you think they are bigoted to opposing even
> same sex unions and opposing protections against firing someone
> soley on the basis of their sexual orientation, I will apologize
> for implying that you should feel any stain from the FRC's shame.

You mean Josh Duggar's shame, you bait and switch scammer. As for the
FRC, you STILL don't get as specific about them as you did about the
Duggars.

Continued in next reply.

Peter Nyikos

PS: You once hated my practice of splitting replies, even threatened
to killfile me if I kept doing it. Was that because you wanted me to
do such long replies to you, nobody else would bother to read them
all the way through?

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, June 4, 2015 at 10:37:50 PM UTC-4, Roger Shrubber wrote:
> Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 11:23:13 PM UTC-4, Roger Shrubber wrote:

> >> But you have no shame.

This is rich, coming from someone who shamelessly switched from
Josh Duggar to FRC and acted as though the FRC was what he had been
talking about all along.

> >> And as I've pointed out, the Catholic church has no credibility on
> >> this front either, given how they have historically abused children
> >> who were conceived out of wedlock, and supported a culture of abuse
> >> of children born out of wedlock, and abused and supported a culture
> >> of abuse of women who bore children out of wedlock.

You are stuck in the sixties--mostly the early sixties, prior to Vatican II.
Roe v. Wade, and the late sixties abortion-on-demand in New York
and California, decisively re-oriented thinking, first about the children
and then about the women. "Can't we love them both?" has been the operative
pro-life slogan for about a decade now.

> >> And yet the
> >> Catholic Church was a major voice against sanctioning same sex
> >> marriage in Ireland.
> >
> > And Stalin was a major foe of Hitler.
> >
> > Get the analogy? you are ignoring my OWN reasons and acting as though a
> > bunch of old injustices about which I never had any control somehow made
> > all arguments against same sex marriage invalid, especially mine.
> >
> > And you whine about being accused of *ad hominem* fallacies
> > and guilt by association!
> >
> >> In response, you will ignore the specifics
> >
> > Why should I give YOUR irrelevant specifics special treatment?
> > What makes you so special?
>
> You force the wrong misreading.

All the specifics in your first rant were about Josh Duggar. Even now,
you gave no specifics on where exactly the FRC stands on the two issues
where you charge them with bigotry. Can you give me their policy in their
own words?

> I take some blame but your
> dissection of text contributes. The point, which has been
> made in multiple posts, in multiple ways, is to recognize
> the political thrust behind opposition to same sex marriage.

Irrelevant as to my own reasons, and the political thrust is
about as varied, IMHO, as the thrust, political and personal,
behind opposition to abortion and support of restrictions on abortion.
You don't tar all pro-lifers with the actions of a handful who make
a mockery of the very term "pro-life" by murdering abortionists,
do you?

<snip more attempts at guilt by association, to get to:>

>your 'concern' about what future generations
> will think are laughable.

"Do you laugh, Polus? Well, this is a new kind of refutation --
when any one says anything, instead of refuting him to laugh at him."
--Socrates in Plato's "Gorgias"
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/gorgias.1b.txt

Hint: I am not just a Professor, I am an educator who has taught
history to my daughters and who is deeply concerned about the way
history is often egregiously rewritten by the victors.

Remainder deleted, to be replied to if it appears relevant to do so.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, June 4, 2015 at 9:57:50 PM UTC-4, Roger Shrubber wrote:
> Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 11:23:13 PM UTC-4, Roger Shrubber wrote:
> >> Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 2:05:46 PM UTC-4, Earle Jones27 wrote:
> >
> >>>> And, as an ordained minister of the Universal Life Church, I will be
> >>>> happy to consider solemnizing your marriage, if you can afford my rates!
> >>>>
> >>>> earle
> >>>
> >>> What does "solemnize" mean in such a context? Does it include a ceremony
> >>> in which the minister makes a fictitious claim to "pronounce you man
> >>> and wife" or "pronounce you man and husband," etc. when the two are already
> >>> legally married through having signed a contract, and have no intention
> >>> of being sacramentally married in the eyes of their denomination?
> >
> > When you posted the following, you were still in full fanatic mode;
> > you have, in the last two days, re-donned your mask of reasonableness,
> > but anyone who is familiar with your behavior on May 28 when you wrote this,
> > knows how artificial that is.
> >
> > You began with an obviously blatant *non sequitur*:
>
> nope

It was a non sequitur in the social sense of the term--no connection
with what I had been writing. If your "nope" meant the logical
sense of your deducing something improper from what I wrote,
then you are exonerated of a blatant falsehood.

> >> I'd defer this question to Josh Duggar, because people who have been
> >> held up as paragons of virtue by the Family Research Council, and
> >> have repeatedly claimed that homosexuals are deviants who put children
> >> at risk,
> >
> > No qualifying adjectives. But that's to be expected from a propagandist
> > like you.
> >
> >> and do so by misrepresenting evidence, while themselves being
> >> guilty of having diddled young children, including their younger
> >> siblings
> >
> > Why the plural? 1 + n = n+1 is true, but 1 diddler and n people
> > covering up does not add up to n+1 diddlers.
> >
> > But I'm with you otherwise: 1 diddler is 1 too many. To say the least.
>
> so whatever minor nitpick typo of perhaps getting a plural wrong

"perhaps" suggests that you were up to no good, and are now
backpedaling because I've pointed out the error, which can
only be called a "typo" by stretching that word beyond reason.

> is completely pointless and you were just writing for the pleasure
> of reading your own words. You are confused by "themselves"? You're
> not even a good grammar nazi.

You indulged in a bait and switch scam, telling me that I should
hang my head in shame on account of some evildoing by Josh
Duggar, then tried to make it look like you had been actually
referring to the FRC, then admitted that you may have misunderstood
something I'd written but made an apology contingent on me kowtowing
to your anti-FRC agenda.

I've replied to that bait and switch, and you have not replied
(yet?). Here you are far more arrogant and condescending, because
the error in which I caught you above is insignificant in comparison.

>
> >> --- these are the types of people we want to listen to. We
> >> want to listen to them in order to run in the opposite direction from
> >> whatever they advocate.
> >
> > The true voice of *ad hominem* fallaciousness.
>
> Of course it isn't an ad hominem fallacy. The voice of those
> who molest children is contextually relevant to their trustworthiness
> regarding protecting children.

"whatever they advocate" is laying it on far too thick. If people were
to apply the same standards to you and Ray Martinez, you'd both be
complete outcasts. As it is, Martinez has lots of people willing
to soften the blows of his untrustworthiness, including you and
"brogers", and I am still willing to discuss on-topic issues with you.

> An ad hominem fallacy is a fallacy
> of irrelevance. The relevance is prima facie obvious. If you
> have a record of harming children, I have every reason to
> distrust your words about caring for children. If you molest children
> while hiding behind claims of religious virtue and moral superiority,
> I have every reason to defame your claims about how some group
> you don't like are child molesters. If you think otherwise
> your are far far beyond deluded.

Apply those standards to yourself, and everything you've said by
way of mitigating the charges of dishonesty and insanity against
Ray Martinez goes flying out the window.

You haven't reared your ugly head on the thread,

Subject: Re: OT: Ray Martinez's brand of "Christianity" unmasked?

and I expect you to continue giving it a wide berth, because
it is very difficult to escape the conclusion that the bulk
of what he has posted there makes a *prima facie* case for him
being highly dishonest and/or insane.

> >> Because at some point, the trend becomes
> >> very obvious. "doth protest too much, methinks". How I wish the
> >> correlation did not reaffirm itself so vigorously!
> >
> > Are you one of those who think gay-bashers "do protest too much"?
> > Have you ever lifted a finger against your kind of politically correct
> > jerks who predictably taunt them by charging a similar correlation
> > without a smidgin of evidence against the specific person?
> > Or are you one of them?
>
> I deal in facts of specific cases.

Not always, not by a long shot. You made the claim that I had called
Martinez a liar many times, and when I asked you to find a single example
outside the thread that we were posting to, you haughtily refused.

> You deal in what you imagine
> about me and others. Deal with it.

I deal with it by denying it, and I challenge you to find a
single plausible example.

> I did not make claims about
> Duggar being a child molester until the evidence came out. You
> however make accusations against me without evidence.

Name me one that you can document and defend your interpretation of.

And don't try to play games with the word "evidence" the way
Martinez and Okimoto do, to mean "evidence so overwhelming that even
I cannot deny it."

> > You left similar issues untouched in a June 3 post, by which time
> > you had made up your mind as to which of your many masks to don.
>
> They are only masks to your warped perception. Your color commentary
> only plays in your castles in the sky.

You mean all that talk about me having a sexual fascination for
chimps was NOT a mask? I'm referring to your performance on the
Santorum thread, which I've thoroughly dissected in two posts,
neither of which you have replied to yet.

The second one was really telling:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/DkBlo2tp3tY/7aaAn4bpL84J
Message-ID: <e9b8f77a-b537-4220...@googlegroups.com>

> > Another such issue, on the flip side, was that of politically correct
> > jerks drooling about how priests are a poison to children and adolescents.
> > Of course, you'd never dream of accusing such jerks as being closet
> > pedophiles or fearful of the emotions little children might arouse in them.
> >
> > "doth protest too much, methinks" is a knife that cuts only one
> > way where polemical opportunists like you are concerned, isn't it?
>
> Show me the facts, not just your speculations.

I note that you gave no hint of ever having done the thing I'd said
you wouldn't dream of doing, nor a denial that you've seen many
such jerks in action.

> As I said above,
> How I wish the correlation did not reaffirm itself so vigorously!

Actions speak louder than words.

> You just don't seem able to differentiate between actual examples
> and the things you imagine.

Big words from someone who told me,

"You should run, and hide, and
crawl under a rock, in light of these facts."

Can you truthfully tell me what you had in mind when you wrote that?

Remainder deleted, to be replied to if you go on being the arrogant
condescending jerk that you've been all through this post.

Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Thu, 14 May 2015 16:43:09 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
<gan...@panix.com> wrote:

>In the US and many other nations, there are two forms of marriage. One
>is called "civil marriage" (which is the only one recognized by the
>government in the US) and "religious marriage" which is denominational
>in scope.
>

>There is no problem with religious marriage. In the US nobody,
>including the government, can force a religious organization to
>marry anyone it does not wish to.
>

Since posting to months-old topics seem to be de rigueur:

<http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/tenn-judge-refuses-to-grant-straight-couple-a-divorce-because-%E2%80%A6-gay-marriage/ar-AAdXgz7>

<http://tinyurl.com/qaw876o>

Short version: In an apparent protest of the recent SCOTUS decision
over gay marriage, Tennessee state court judge Jeffrey M. Atherton has
decided this mean states have no say whatsoever in civil marriages,
including their dissolution.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Paul J Gans]

Perhaps I should wait several months before replying, but I shan't.

Atherton's notion, quoted here from the URL above, seems to be this:

"The Tennessee Court of Appeals has noted that Obergefell v. Hodges
... affected what is, and must be recognized as, a lawful marriage
in the State of Tennessee," Atherton began. "This leaves a mere
trial level Tennessee state court judge in a bit of a quandary.
With the U.S. Supreme Court having defined what must be recognized
as a marriage, it would appear that Tennessee's judiciary must now
await the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court as to what is not a
marriage, or better stated, when a marriage is no longer a marriage."

which I decode as meaning that since what he thought were the rules for
marriage had now been changed, the rules for the dissolution of marriage
must therefore also have been changed. And since he did not know what
the new rules for divorce were, he could not grant one.

This fails on so many levels that it almost isn't worth discussing.
Briefly, why does he think that gay divorce rules would be any different
from straight divorce rules. And why can't he take a hint from how
other states have handled this? And that's just two reasons.

For me, more to the point, is the case of the county clerk in, IIRC,
Kentucky, who feels that she can't grant a marriage license to a gay
couple, because her religion forbids gay marriage.

This directly goes to my month's old point that the Constitution is
supreme in the US and religion must bow to it. Denying gay's marriage
rights is now the same as denying a religous group the right of
human sacrifice to ensure a good harvest.

As I believe Paul Krugman recently wrote (I think it was him) in one
of his columns, what we have going on in the US is a minority of
people who want to turn the US into a religion-based nation comparable
to Saudi Arabia or ISIS. They of course would be incensed by such
a notion, but indeed it does come down to that.

I only wonder which religion would be viewed as Supreme. And note
that "Christianity" isn't a proper answer since beliefs vary widely
among Christian groups.

--
---- Paul J. Gans

[jillery]

On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 21:11:47 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans

But then doing so might not be as fashionable then as now.

>Atherton's notion, quoted here from the URL above, seems to be this:
>
> "The Tennessee Court of Appeals has noted that Obergefell v. Hodges
> ... affected what is, and must be recognized as, a lawful marriage
> in the State of Tennessee," Atherton began. "This leaves a mere
> trial level Tennessee state court judge in a bit of a quandary.
> With the U.S. Supreme Court having defined what must be recognized
> as a marriage, it would appear that Tennessee's judiciary must now
> await the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court as to what is not a
> marriage, or better stated, when a marriage is no longer a marriage."
>
>which I decode as meaning that since what he thought were the rules for
>marriage had now been changed, the rules for the dissolution of marriage
>must therefore also have been changed. And since he did not know what
>the new rules for divorce were, he could not grant one.

Yes, but his expressed concern is not that the rules changed, but that
they were imposed from above his domain, ie SCOTUS. It's almost
certain the good judge had accommodated past SCOTUS decisions, and he
doesn't say why he treats this decision any differently.

>This fails on so many levels that it almost isn't worth discussing.
>Briefly, why does he think that gay divorce rules would be any different
>from straight divorce rules. And why can't he take a hint from how
>other states have handled this? And that's just two reasons.

If the Tennessee legislature had passed a statute effecting similar
changes, my impression is the good judge would still have objected to
them, but he would have had to come up with an entirely different
excuse for doing so.

>For me, more to the point, is the case of the county clerk in, IIRC,
>Kentucky, who feels that she can't grant a marriage license to a gay
>couple, because her religion forbids gay marriage.
>
>This directly goes to my month's old point that the Constitution is
>supreme in the US and religion must bow to it. Denying gay's marriage
>rights is now the same as denying a religous group the right of
>human sacrifice to ensure a good harvest.
>
>As I believe Paul Krugman recently wrote (I think it was him) in one
>of his columns, what we have going on in the US is a minority of
>people who want to turn the US into a religion-based nation comparable
>to Saudi Arabia or ISIS. They of course would be incensed by such
>a notion, but indeed it does come down to that.
>
>I only wonder which religion would be viewed as Supreme. And note
>that "Christianity" isn't a proper answer since beliefs vary widely
>among Christian groups.
--

[Paul J Gans]

You are quite right about that.

>>This fails on so many levels that it almost isn't worth discussing.
>>Briefly, why does he think that gay divorce rules would be any different
>>from straight divorce rules. And why can't he take a hint from how
>>other states have handled this? And that's just two reasons.


>If the Tennessee legislature had passed a statute effecting similar
>changes, my impression is the good judge would still have objected to
>them, but he would have had to come up with an entirely different
>excuse for doing so.

Yes. His comfort zone has been upset and he's reacting badly to
that.

This happens to everyone, especially if they live long enough. The
addition of "under God" to the Pledge of Alligiance surely upset my
comfort zone, and that's just one example.

>>For me, more to the point, is the case of the county clerk in, IIRC,
>>Kentucky, who feels that she can't grant a marriage license to a gay
>>couple, because her religion forbids gay marriage.
>>
>>This directly goes to my month's old point that the Constitution is
>>supreme in the US and religion must bow to it. Denying gay's marriage
>>rights is now the same as denying a religous group the right of
>>human sacrifice to ensure a good harvest.
>>
>>As I believe Paul Krugman recently wrote (I think it was him) in one
>>of his columns, what we have going on in the US is a minority of
>>people who want to turn the US into a religion-based nation comparable
>>to Saudi Arabia or ISIS. They of course would be incensed by such
>>a notion, but indeed it does come down to that.
>>
>>I only wonder which religion would be viewed as Supreme. And note
>>that "Christianity" isn't a proper answer since beliefs vary widely
>>among Christian groups.


--

--- Paul J. Gans

[Walter Bushell]

In article <msflqj$jkf$1...@reader1.panix.com>,

Indeed, there are many groups claiming to be Christian, for which I
can see no element of Christianity in their praxis, beyond perhaps
saying Jesus was a very good man and praising him.

Could a group calling itself Christian claim Jesus to be a very good
woman in drag for practical reasons? I would say all else being
equal, why not?!

--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.

[Earle Jones27]

On 2015-09-08 17:06:54 +0000, Walter Bushell said:

> In article <msflqj$jkf$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> I only wonder which religion would be viewed as Supreme. And note
>> that "Christianity" isn't a proper answer since beliefs vary widely
>> among Christian groups.
>
> Indeed, there are many groups claiming to be Christian, for which I
> can see no element of Christianity in their praxis, beyond perhaps
> saying Jesus was a very good man and praising him.
>
> Could a group calling itself Christian claim Jesus to be a very good
> woman in drag for practical reasons? I would say all else being
> equal, why not?!

*
In fact, it should be pretty obvious that, having no Y-chromosome,
Jesus was a woman.

earle
*

[Paul J Gans]

Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <msflqj$jkf$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

>> I only wonder which religion would be viewed as Supreme. And note
>> that "Christianity" isn't a proper answer since beliefs vary widely
>> among Christian groups.

>Indeed, there are many groups claiming to be Christian, for which I
>can see no element of Christianity in their praxis, beyond perhaps
>saying Jesus was a very good man and praising him.

>Could a group calling itself Christian claim Jesus to be a very good
>woman in drag for practical reasons? I would say all else being
>equal, why not?!

Of course. The fabulous founding fathers (f^3) knew this, which is
why they made secular law supreme.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <mso090$kqn$1...@reader1.panix.com>,

Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

Tried reaching you by email at above address, the message bounced.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <2015090810213365679-earlejones@comcastnet>,

Related to that, is the reason his middle initial is "H". Jesus
Haploid Christ.

[Harry K]

Thank you. I always wondered what it was. Heard my father refer to him many times.

Harry K

[Earle Jones27]

*
I always thought that the 'H' was for 'Harold."

"Our Father who art in Heaven; Harold be thy name."

earle
*

[Paul J Gans]

And here I thought it stood for "Herbert". Silly me.

[Mike Duffy]

On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 20:39:44 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans wrote:

> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:

>>Related to that, is the reason his middle initial is "H". Jesus
>>Haploid Christ.
>
> And here I thought it stood for "Herbert". Silly me.

It was the aramaic name "Haloud".

Our father who art in heaven. Haloud be thy name.

[Paul J Gans]

By gosh, I think you've got it! I shall not only stand corrected,
I shall sit that way too.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, September 18, 2015 at 2:02:20 PM UTC-4, Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article <2015090810213365679-earlejones@comcastnet>,
> Earle Jones27 <earle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On 2015-09-08 17:06:54 +0000, Walter Bushell said:
> >
> > > In article <msflqj$jkf$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> > > Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I only wonder which religion would be viewed as Supreme. And note
> > >> that "Christianity" isn't a proper answer since beliefs vary widely
> > >> among Christian groups.
> > >
> > > Indeed, there are many groups claiming to be Christian, for which I
> > > can see no element of Christianity in their praxis, beyond perhaps
> > > saying Jesus was a very good man and praising him.
> > >
> > > Could a group calling itself Christian claim Jesus to be a very good
> > > woman in drag for practical reasons? I would say all else being
> > > equal, why not?!
> >
> > *
> > In fact, it should be pretty obvious that, having no Y-chromosome,
> > Jesus was a woman.

Not so fast. C.S. Lewis opined that the Holy Spirit created a
sperm with a Y-chromosome which then joined with an oocyte
in Mary's womb.

A simpler explanation consistent with Christian dogma is that
an oocyte was miraculously infused with male DNA.

Earle's comment, of course, would be typical of an atheist who
uncharacteristically takes the virgin birth seriously. But
I doubt that Earle is such an atheist.

[Trivia: is "uncharacteristically" the longest English word
in common use, as opposed to scientific and semi-scientific
terms like "electroencephalographic" and artificially concocted
words like "antidisestablishmentarianism"?]

> > earle
> > *
>
> Related to that, is the reason his middle initial is "H". Jesus
> Haploid Christ.

The only middle initial I've ever heard ascribed to Jesus Christ was "F".
[Sorry, bad joke.]

But seriously, "Jesus Christ" is not a name but a name with a title
added, the anglo-graeco-latinized version of "Yeshua Messiah".

Peter Nyikos