Posting Problems - Not Google Groups

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

I use news.individual.net (NIN) as my newsserver and have done for a
long time. Since the problems with Darwin a few weeks ago, I have been
unable to post to TO using NIN.

I set up an account on eterenal-september on another PC and I can post
throgh that (this post is an example) and the posts appear okay on my
NIN server so it is obviously picking up the newsfeed; if I reply to
them from there, the replies disappear into a black hole.

Is anyone else posting here successfully using NIN at the moment or,
can anyone suggest what the problem might be?

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

I meant to add that I am having to problems posting to other
nesgroups.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

D'oh ... "I am having NO problems posting to other newsgroups."

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 10 May 2015 15:31:43 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by AlwaysAskingQuestions
<allthesp...@gmail.com>:

On the off chance that the timing is coincidental, did NIN
have a recent upgrade? I ask because, due to the nature of
moderation used in t.o, there have been incidents in the
past when a news service failed to correctly configure t.o
as moderated and dropped messages as a result. Hasn't
happened since sometime in the 90's AFAIK, but...

But why not just switch to Eternal September? Quite a few
who post here have said they're happy with it; if I didn't
have a "grandfathered" rate at Supernews I'd probably do
that.
--

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

[David Canzi]

I notice this in your message header:

Return-Path: <pos...@giganews.com>
by darwin.ediacara.org (8.15.1/8.14.9) with ESMTPS id t4AHtDBg044851
(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO)
for <talk-o...@ediacara.org>; Sun, 10 May 2015 13:55:14 -0400 (EDT)
(envelope-from pos...@giganews.com)
by moderators.individual.net (Exim 4.85)
for talk-o...@moderators.isc.org with esmtp
(envelope-from <pos...@giganews.com>)
id <1YrVQh-003Had-Pb>; Sun, 10 May 2015 19:54:20 +0200
by mailstar.serv3.aus.datafoundry.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 186B93205FC
for <talk-o...@moderators.isc.org>; Sun, 10 May 2015 12:54:19 -0500 (CDT)
by serv2.dca1.giganews.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C090C1A005F
for <talk-o...@moderators.isc.org>; Sun, 10 May 2015 12:54:18 -0500 (CDT)
by serv2.dca1.giganews.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id t4AHsF0D005950;
Sun, 10 May 2015 12:54:15 -0500

This shows the path by which your message arrived at darwin.
It contains the contents of the e-mail's Received headers pasted
together into one big header. It's 906 bytes long. There is
a limit of 998 bytes on the size of a single header in a USENET
article. Some articles, such as perhaps those from NIN, may be
arriving at darwin by a long enough route that the Return-Path
header the moderation software constructs exceeds this size limit.
Then many news servers would reject them, possibly including
darwin itself.

--
David Canzi | "No single raindrop believes it is to blame for the flood."
| http://www.despair.com/irresponsibility.html

[jillery]

Just to avoid confusion, I understand your comments above to refer to
the maximum length of a *line* in a Usenet header, per RFC 2822. But,
as you almost certainly know, there is no specified limit on the size
of the header itself.

The return-path: field you copied is from Bob Casanova's post. But
the poster who's having problems is AAQ. Looking at AAQ's headers,
there are no header lines anywhere near that long. So whatever AAQ's
problem is, it is likely not what you describe.

A helpful diagnostic would be for a NIN user to post the same message
to both T.O. and to some other specified unmoderated group.

--
Intelligence is never insulting.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Sun, 10 May 2015 10:54:23 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Sun, 10 May 2015 15:31:43 +0100, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by AlwaysAskingQuestions
><allthesp...@gmail.com>:
>
>>I use news.individual.net (NIN) as my newsserver and have done for a
>>long time. Since the problems with Darwin a few weeks ago, I have been
>>unable to post to TO using NIN.
>>
>>I set up an account on eterenal-september on another PC and I can post
>>throgh that (this post is an example) and the posts appear okay on my
>>NIN server so it is obviously picking up the newsfeed; if I reply to
>>them from there, the replies disappear into a black hole.
>>
>>Is anyone else posting here successfully using NIN at the moment or,
>>can anyone suggest what the problem might be?
>
>On the off chance that the timing is coincidental, did NIN
>have a recent upgrade? I ask because, due to the nature of
>moderation used in t.o, there have been incidents in the
>past when a news service failed to correctly configure t.o
>as moderated and dropped messages as a result. Hasn't
>happened since sometime in the 90's AFAIK, but...
>
>But why not just switch to Eternal September? Quite a few
>who post here have said they're happy with it; if I didn't
>have a "grandfathered" rate at Supernews I'd probably do
>that.

I am reluctant to simply discard something that has served me
perfectly well for the best part of 20 years and continues to do so
everywhere else except TO, a group, to be honest, where I have found
my interest waning anyway over the last while.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, May 11, 2015 at 2:29:08 AM UTC-4, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> On Sun, 10 May 2015 10:54:23 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

> >But why not just switch to Eternal September? Quite a few
> >who post here have said they're happy with it; if I didn't
> >have a "grandfathered" rate at Supernews I'd probably do
> >that.
>
> I am reluctant to simply discard something that has served me
> perfectly well for the best part of 20 years and continues to do so
> everywhere else except TO, a group, to be honest, where I have found
> my interest waning anyway over the last while.

I'd miss you very much if you were to leave, AAQ. You and Dana Tweedy
are my two favorite posters to talk.origins.

Off topic, but still of interest to both of us: I see that the referendum
in Ireland for normalizing same-sex marriage seems likely to pass.

If the Roman Catholic hierarchy hadn't been so reluctant to
punish those of its members who had covered up for priestly
pedophilia and other atrocities by Roman Catholic clergy,
they might have been able to stem the tide.

They might still be able to do it if they were to bite the bullet
and say that they would have no objections if ALL privileges now
enjoyed by married couples were to be granted to same-sex
civil unions, but that the WORD "marriage" should be restricted
to what it has always been restricted in Ireland up to now.

There is no fundamental civil right to a label.

Peter Nyikos

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 11 May 2015 07:25:57 +0100, the following appeared

That's certainly your prerogative, but did you check with
NIN to see if they'd upgraded recently?

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

That is what they are saying.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Mon, 11 May 2015 06:20:48 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Monday, May 11, 2015 at 2:29:08 AM UTC-4, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 May 2015 10:54:23 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>
>> >But why not just switch to Eternal September? Quite a few
>> >who post here have said they're happy with it; if I didn't
>> >have a "grandfathered" rate at Supernews I'd probably do
>> >that.
>>
>> I am reluctant to simply discard something that has served me
>> perfectly well for the best part of 20 years and continues to do so
>> everywhere else except TO, a group, to be honest, where I have found
>> my interest waning anyway over the last while.
>
>I'd miss you very much if you were to leave, AAQ.

It's not that I have lost interest in the subject matter, I just
think the ng is slowly running out of steam.

The long established posters have been over the same arguments so
often that any position changing that is likely to occur has occurred
by now; like most of Usenet, there's virtually no new blood coming
into to revitalise debate.

[...]

>

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 10 May 2015 20:06:28 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Agreed; such a test would narrow the problem parameters,
although he *did* say that only t.o exhibits the problem.

Regarding your clarification, I looked up the relevant
article...

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2822.html

....from which, with your indulgence, I quote the relevant
paragraph here:

"2.1.1. Line Length Limits

There are two limits that this standard places on the
number of characters in a line. Each line of characters MUST
be no more than 998 characters, and SHOULD be no more than
78 characters, excluding the CRLF.

The 998 character limit is due to limitations in many
implementations which send, receive, or store Internet
Message Format messages that simply cannot handle more than
998 characters on a line. Receiving implementations would do
well to handle an arbitrarily large number of characters in
a line for robustness sake. However, there are so many
implementations which (in compliance with the transport
requirements of [RFC2821]) do not accept messages containing
more than 1000 character including the CR and LF per line,
it is important for implementations not to create such
messages.

The more conservative 78 character recommendation is to
accommodate the many implementations of user interfaces that
display these messages which may truncate, or disastrously
wrap, the display of more than 78 characters per line, in
spite of the fact that such implementations are
non-conformant to the intent of this specification (and that
of [RFC2821] if they actually cause information to be lost).
Again, even though this limitation is put on messages, it is
encumbant upon implementations which display messages to
handle an arbitrarily large number of characters in a line
(certainly at least up to the 998 character limit) for the
sake of robustness."

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Mon, 11 May 2015 11:01:40 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

I've justs done so, I will let you know when I get a response. Seems
something of a coincidence, though, that this started at the time of
the Darwin problems.

[jillery]

Of course, you could always post some new topics yourself. That ought
to be an obvious solution for someone sporting your nic.

[jillery]

On Mon, 11 May 2015 11:10:20 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

What makes the diagnostic helpful isn't just *that* another group gets
the same post, but that the headers can be examined there by multiple
interested parties.

As another source of data, Darwin might keep a trash file of cancelled
posts.

Yeppers. The many threads about "must" and "should" outcompeted
anything on T.O. in terms of beating a pedantic dead horse beyond
reincarnation.

[Robert Camp]

A notion that would undermine the attempt by heterosexuals to reserve
the label "marriage" for themselves, no?

Being willing to grant all the privileges of marriage while reserving
use of the label doesn't remove the inherent bigotry. It highlights the
petty selfishness of the advantaged class.

[David Canzi]

I didn't know that. I had read the relevant part of the rfc but
apparently not carefully enough.

>The return-path: field you copied is from Bob Casanova's post. But
>the poster who's having problems is AAQ. Looking at AAQ's headers,
>there are no header lines anywhere near that long. So whatever AAQ's
>problem is, it is likely not what you describe.

AAQ's complaint is that articles he posts from NIN are not
showing up. The article you see from AAQ was not posted from NIN.

The last article from news.individual.net that I can see in t.o.
was posted by AAQ at 09 Apr 2015 21:37:32 +0100. The first
article I see containing contents from Received headers was
a test article posted by DIG at 11 Apr 2015 18:54:33 +0000.
These events are close enough in time and space that they may be
related, but are not necessarily related.

>A helpful diagnostic would be for a NIN user to post the same message
>to both T.O. and to some other specified unmoderated group.
>
--

[jillery]

On Mon, 11 May 2015 20:08:43 +0000 (UTC), "David Canzi"

Give me some credit. Of course if I looked at AAQ's most recent
posts, they would not show the problem, as they came via Eternal
September. But I looked at AAQ's older posts, which have the
individual.net identification. My previous conclusion above is based
on their headers.

>The last article from news.individual.net that I can see in t.o.
>was posted by AAQ at 09 Apr 2015 21:37:32 +0100. The first
>article I see containing contents from Received headers was
>a test article posted by DIG at 11 Apr 2015 18:54:33 +0000.
>These events are close enough in time and space that they may be
>related, but are not necessarily related.

That's the last one I find as well.

>>A helpful diagnostic would be for a NIN user to post the same message
>>to both T.O. and to some other specified unmoderated group.

I wonder if AAQ is still too pouty to accept a good suggestion from
me.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

From NIN:

<quote>

>On Mon, 11 May 2015 (19:14 +0100), xxx wrote:
>
>> Has the system been upgraded or changed recently?
>
>No, everything is fine here, and we don't have any reports from other
>users.
>
>> I am a regular contributor to the talk.origins newsgroup. I have
>> never had any problems with this but for the last few weeks, I have
>> been unable to post through NIN although NIN shows posts I have made
>> through an alternate newsserver.
>>
>> I've asked for suggestions in the newsgroup and the first one has
>> been to check if there has been a recent upgrade to the NIN software
>> or systems.
>>
>> It is a moderated newsgroup; I don't know if that matters.
>
>Postings to moderated newsgroups are a bit tricky to debug because
>they are not published here, but mailed to the moderator of the group.
>
>Our system logs show that your postings (I checked the latest two)
>were delivered successfully to the moderator's mail system (*), so you
>need to contact the moderator of talk.origins and ask him what
>happened after the postings / mails left our system.
>
>Regards, Bettina Fink
>
>(*)
>
>Newsserver:
>
>| May 10 11:33:27 [...]: 86-40-215-40-dynamic.b-ras2.rtd.sligo.eircom.net post ok 1/100 (mailed to moderator for talk.origins) ([166912])
>
>Mailserver:
>
>| 2015-05-10 11:33:31 1YrNc3-002lfG-K7 <= mod-s...@uni-berlin.de H=outpost5.zedat.fu-berlin.de [130.133.4.89] I=[130.133.4.7]:25 P=esmtp S=1937 id=id9ukatq24ti3587d...@4ax.com from <mod-s...@uni-berlin.de> for talk-o...@moderators.individual.net
>| 2015-05-10 11:33:34 1YrNc3-002lfG-K7 => talk-o...@ediacara.org (talk-o...@ediacara.org, talk-o...@moderators.individual.net) <talk-o...@moderators.individual.net> F=<mod-s...@uni-berlin.de> R=dnslookup T=remote_smtp S=1982 H=darwin.ediacara.org [128.100.83.246]:25 X=TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256 DN="/C=XX/ST=Some-state/L=Some-city/O=Some-org/CN=darwin" C="250 2.0.0 t4A9YNMc032301 Message accepted for delivery" QT=3s
>
>Newsserver:
>
>| May 8 23:19:18 [...]: 86-40-215-40-dynamic.b-ras2.rtd.sligo.eircom.net post ok 1/100 (mailed to moderator for talk.origins) ([166912])
>
>Mailserver:
>
>| 2015-05-08 23:19:20 1Yqpg0-000XG3-Se <= mod-s...@uni-berlin.de H=outpost5.zedat.fu-berlin.de [130.133.4.89] I=[130.133.4.7]:25 P=esmtp S=1940 id=a0aqka5c254q124qh...@4ax.com from <mod-s...@uni-berlin.de> for talk-o...@moderators.individual.net
>| 2015-05-08 23:19:23 1Yqpg0-000XG3-Se => talk-o...@ediacara.org (talk-o...@ediacara.org, talk-o...@moderators.individual.net) <talk-o...@moderators.individual.net> F=<mod-s...@uni-berlin.de> R=dnslookup T=remote_smtp S=1987 H=darwin.ediacara.org [128.100.83.246]:25 X=TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256 DN="/C=XX/ST=Some-state/L=Some-city/O=Some-org/CN=darwin" C="250 2.0.0 t48LK8mR074656 Message accepted for delivery" QT=3s

</quote>

I notice that the second line in each of the Mailserver reports above
is 443 characters in length though I'm not sure if that is the
Mailserver or Gmail.

If the former, then it *may* be part of the problem but, if so, it
looks like that is something to do with the latest incarnation of
Darwin as there has been no change on NIN from what it was doing
previously.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 11 May 2015 12:17:20 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Robert Camp
<rober...@hotmail.com>:

<snip>

>Being willing to grant all the privileges of marriage while reserving
>use of the label doesn't remove the inherent bigotry. It highlights the
>petty selfishness of the advantaged class.

While your first statement *may* be true (although I see no
evidence that it is in general), your second is a non
sequitur, and illogical in the bargain. How does granting
all the privileges of a traditional union to those in a
non-traditional one indicate "petty selfishness" merely
because the traditional term is reserved for the traditional
relationship? IOW, exactly what are they being "selfish"
about? And if both types of union enjoy equal benefits, how
is one "advantaged" over the other?

[Robert Camp]

On 5/12/15 10:42 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 11 May 2015 12:17:20 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Robert Camp
> <rober...@hotmail.com>:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Being willing to grant all the privileges of marriage while reserving
>> use of the label doesn't remove the inherent bigotry. It highlights the
>> petty selfishness of the advantaged class.
>
> While your first statement *may* be true (although I see no
> evidence that it is in general),

On the off chance that there's a disagreement in there somewhere, I'll
suggest you might think about why someone would wish to reserve that
label for their particular class in the first place. When you come up
with a reason - other than bigotry - that makes sense in the context of
this issue, I'll be glad to hear it.

> your second is a non
> sequitur, and illogical in the bargain. How does granting
> all the privileges of a traditional union to those in a
> non-traditional one indicate "petty selfishness" merely
> because the traditional term is reserved for the traditional
> relationship?

Because it's not "granting all the privileges," it's granting all the
privileges but one - use of the label. You may consider this particular
privilege unimportant, even extraneous, but that's not your call. For
some, it means a great deal, included in which is the notion that their
union is seen, not just by the law but by society, as equivalent, and
deserving of the same respect.

> IOW, exactly what are they being "selfish"
> about? And if both types of union enjoy equal benefits, how
> is one "advantaged" over the other?

Consider the absurdity of being willing to grant the civil rights of
marriage to an interracial couple while at the same time refusing to
allow use of the label. It shouldn't be too hard to see the selfishness
in such an analogous case. Nor can I imagine anyone would have
difficulty identifying possible prejudices underlying that attitude.

"Separate but equal" never seems to work out too well for the disadvantaged.

[Don Cates]

On 12/05/2015 12:42 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 11 May 2015 12:17:20 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Robert Camp
> <rober...@hotmail.com>:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Being willing to grant all the privileges of marriage while reserving
>> use of the label doesn't remove the inherent bigotry. It highlights the
>> petty selfishness of the advantaged class.
>
> While your first statement *may* be true (although I see no
> evidence that it is in general), your second is a non
> sequitur, and illogical in the bargain. How does granting
> all the privileges of a traditional union to those in a
> non-traditional one indicate "petty selfishness" merely
> because the traditional term is reserved for the traditional
> relationship? IOW, exactly what are they being "selfish"
> about? And if both types of union enjoy equal benefits, how
> is one "advantaged" over the other?
>

The problem is that in historical practice, 'separate but equal' means
'separate and different/unequal'. The only solution I see is to have all
*legal* references be changed to something like 'registered
cohabitation' and the term marriage restricted to a community recognized
relationship with no legal standing.
Do you think the traditionalists would go for that?

--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)

[Peter Nyikos]

> the label "marriage" for themselves.

There is no such attempt. Your clueless comment may be due to
thinking the words "gay marriage" [a misnomer which I never used]
every time you see the words "same-sex marriage" written down.

But do you really expect me to think that you are so clueless
about what is going on around you that you don't realize that
my comment is a dig on the slogan that same-sex marriage is
a "fundamental human right"?

> Being willing to grant all the privileges of marriage while reserving
> use of the label doesn't remove the inherent bigotry. It highlights the
> petty selfishness of the advantaged class.

Imagine that! You are so wrapped up in polemical reflexes that you
don't even realize how utterly surrealistic this propaganda of
yours is.

Fortunately, not everyone in this ng is as brainwashed as you are.
That includes Bob Casanova, who may have a chance of getting
through to you, while your animosity towards me precludes you ever
seeing any merit in what I am saying to you.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 4:14:03 PM UTC-4, Don Cates wrote:
> On 12/05/2015 12:42 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 May 2015 12:17:20 -0700, the following appeared
> > in talk.origins, posted by Robert Camp
> > <rober...@hotmail.com>:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> Being willing to grant all the privileges of marriage while reserving
> >> use of the label doesn't remove the inherent bigotry. It highlights the
> >> petty selfishness of the advantaged class.
> >
> > While your first statement *may* be true (although I see no
> > evidence that it is in general), your second is a non
> > sequitur, and illogical in the bargain. How does granting
> > all the privileges of a traditional union to those in a
> > non-traditional one indicate "petty selfishness" merely
> > because the traditional term is reserved for the traditional
> > relationship? IOW, exactly what are they being "selfish"
> > about? And if both types of union enjoy equal benefits, how
> > is one "advantaged" over the other?

Ever the reflexive polemicist, Camp makes a "privilege" of using
the label "marriage" as being an enormous "advantage" over being
unable to use it while having alternatives like the one
you suggest below, Don.

> The problem is that in historical practice, 'separate but equal' means
> 'separate and different/unequal'.

The only example I know of was where white bigotry and supremacy prevented
public schools for blacks being given the same financial, etc. support as
public schools for whites.

But there is nothing comparable here, unless it
is bigotry in the other direction: Catholic adoption agencies being
forced to close because they will not place children with same-sex
couples or singles, but nothing to stop agencies from placing them ONLY with
same-sex couples or singles. Or bakers being forced to decorate cakes with
messages celebrating a same-sex marriage while other bakers are
not required to decorate cakes with messages that go against their
principles. Et cetera.

> The only solution I see is to have all
> *legal* references be changed to something like 'registered
> cohabitation' and the term marriage restricted to a community recognized
> relationship with no legal standing.
> Do you think the traditionalists would go for that?

I think they would love it. Because, that would effectively "take
the government out of the marriage business" and just make it a
promoter of certain kinds of contracts; and contract law is a well
established part of the legal profession.

As it is, the Catholic, Orthodox, etc. Churches may have to renounce the
privilege of sealing marriage contracts. The result would be something
that is already widespread in Europe: couples going to city hall to get
civil marriages while having a sacramental celebration in church. For
centuries, those Church members who contract the former but not the
latter have been "unmarried in the eyes of God." The only change in the
USA and Ireland would be that those who contract the latter but not the
former will be "unmarried for tax, inheritance, permanent resident alien, ..."
purposes.

How's that for "separation of Church and State," eh?

> Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)

Old comment by me, now applicable to lots of people besides you (and
maybe not you any more).

Peter Nyikos

[Greg Guarino]

On 5/11/2015 9:20 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> They might still be able to do it if they were to bite the bullet
> and say that they would have no objections if ALL privileges now
> enjoyed by married couples were to be granted to same-sex
> civil unions, but that the WORD "marriage" should be restricted
> to what it has always been restricted in Ireland up to now.
>
> There is no fundamental civil right to a label.

As I wrote once before:

=====================================
... in the Irish case it is not clear that the issue is simply
one of labeling.

The Irish Constitution makes specific reference to protection for
"families", and a body of law has grown from that constitutional
language. The Irish courts have ruled that families headed by a same-sex
couple do not (constitutionally) qualify as a "family", as the "framers"
would not have envisioned such families when the constitution was written.

The Constitutional amendment is designed to remedy this, defining
same-sex-led families as explicitly covered by the Constitution's
"family" protections, the body of law that has followed from them, and
(importantly) any changes that may follow in the future.

Amending "civil union" law to *imitate* the current understanding of
marriage protections, even if the intent is to mimic them perfectly, is
bound (in my opinion) to result in different treatment as case law
develops. The only way to achieve practical equal treatment is to rely
on the same body of law.

I think it is difficult to defend the idea of "equal treatment with
unequal labeling", even if the treatment were truly equal. But I cannot
see how two classes of people can derive the same rights from entirely
different sets of laws, especially as those two sets of legal language
are interpreted over time.
========================================

I'll expand on that just a little. Beyond the practical implications of
jury-rigging a set of entirely different laws to mimic an existing body
of case law, there is the sheer inefficiency of it; and for what? With a
simple avenue to accomplish equal treatment, what argument is there for
doing it laboriously, piece-by piece?

As an aside, my family has been officially invited to a same-sex
wedding. We like the couple and intend to go. I think that more and more
people will begin to realize that it's not really an abstract issue of
"same sex marriage", it's Bob and Claudio marriage, it's Annette and
Gina marriage. It's the guys in 5H. It's my accountant and his partner.
It's people that seem in most ways very much like me and my wife, and in
no way seem like a threat.

[Roger Shrubber]

Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 11 May 2015 12:17:20 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Robert Camp
> <rober...@hotmail.com>:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Being willing to grant all the privileges of marriage while reserving
>> use of the label doesn't remove the inherent bigotry. It highlights the
>> petty selfishness of the advantaged class.
>
> While your first statement *may* be true (although I see no
> evidence that it is in general), your second is a non
> sequitur, and illogical in the bargain. How does granting
> all the privileges of a traditional union to those in a
> non-traditional one indicate "petty selfishness" merely
> because the traditional term is reserved for the traditional
> relationship? IOW, exactly what are they being "selfish"
> about? And if both types of union enjoy equal benefits, how
> is one "advantaged" over the other?

Perhaps in some cultural vacuum, your comment might make
some sense. Let's let some fresh air in. Marriage rights
are being granted to same sex unions. You have to be deaf
dumb and blind to not see that. It is inevitable.

Meanwhile, groups like the Family Research Council and
American Family Association continue to fight it tooth
and nail. They oppose making it illegal to fire someone
based on their sexual orientation. They oppose letting
same-sex couples adopt children. They maintain their
message that homosexuality is wrong. They remain the leaders
of opposition to same sex marriage, not just in name but
in most aspects. They have even attempted to go outside of
the US and influence the upcoming vote in Ireland.

But they know they are losing. And they are pressing to
hold back anything that they can with this little bit about
'at least don't call it a marriage' being their last resort
compromise.

Now there are certainly others on the sidelines that may
be less anti-gay, and perhaps even some oddballs who have
some linguistic peccadilloes that they, for some reason,
have so far failed to justify. I'm discounting out of hand
the appeals about the "sanctity of marriage" given the
absurdity of it being advocated by people on their third
marriage with various example of infidelity behind them.
It's just too much hypocrisy for anything other than ridicule.
And as you invoked logic, whether or not those two ladies
that live a few houses down the road are "married" or not
simply doesn't impact on the marital lives of anybody else
on the street much less in the broader world.

Recapping, given the reality of those who are loudest in
the call to withhold the label "marriage" for same sex
unions, that are in almost every other respect the same
as relationships we call marriage without blinking an eye,
denying their bigoted agenda is the ad-hoc absurdity.

[broger...@gmail.com]

If the label "marriage" is unimportant, once all the legal rights are covered, why fuss about allowing same sex-couples to be called married? On the other hand, if it *is* important, and adds something additional to the simple legal rights, how is it fair to deny it to same-sex couples?

[Don Cates]

Can you name any instance of a 'separate but equal' arrangement that
*did* work out as intended?

> But there is nothing comparable here, unless it
> is bigotry in the other direction: Catholic adoption agencies being
> forced to close because they will not place children with same-sex
> couples or singles

As I recall, they were not forced to close but did lose their public
funding. They were free to continue using their own funds.

, but nothing to stop agencies from placing them ONLY with
> same-sex couples or singles.

Cite? AFAIK there are no such agencies and were posited by by the
catholic agency's defenders as a possibility with no evidence that such
would happen.

Or bakers being forced to decorate cakes with
> messages celebrating a same-sex marriage while other bakers are
> not required to decorate cakes with messages that go against their
> principles. Et cetera.

The decoratioin not important. They were refused the cake. A similar
case had someone order a cake decorated with an extreme homophobic or
racist message and were refused but offered an iced cake and a bag of
decorating icing to do with as they wished. That was deemed okay.

>
>> The only solution I see is to have all
>> *legal* references be changed to something like 'registered
>> cohabitation' and the term marriage restricted to a community recognized
>> relationship with no legal standing.
>> Do you think the traditionalists would go for that?
>
> I think they would love it. Because, that would effectively "take
> the government out of the marriage business" and just make it a
> promoter of certain kinds of contracts; and contract law is a well
> established part of the legal profession.
>

I suspect you are very wrong about this. Possibly a very same number of
people would go along, but reading the extreme rhetoric being spouted, I
think it rare.
I think it is clear that they don't want the government to treat
opposite sex and same sex relationships the same.
Do you think that they would be happy if a same sex couple formed the
legal relationship and then (loudly) called themselves 'married and had
that accepted within their own community.

> As it is, the Catholic, Orthodox, etc. Churches may have to renounce the
> privilege of sealing marriage contracts.

Why?

The result would be something
> that is already widespread in Europe: couples going to city hall to get
> civil marriages while having a sacramental celebration in church. For
> centuries, those Church members who contract the former but not the
> latter have been "unmarried in the eyes of God." The only change in the
> USA and Ireland would be that those who contract the latter but not the
> former will be "unmarried for tax, inheritance, permanent resident alien, ..."
> purposes.

Isn't that the case now. Where i am, the religious marriage ceremony
includes a signing of the papers that make it a legal marriage.

>
> How's that for "separation of Church and State," eh?
>
>> Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)
>
> Old comment by me, now applicable to lots of people besides you (and
> maybe not you any more).

I've discussed why I like it before. You can ignore it.

>
> Peter Nyikos

--
--

[Robert Camp]

Really? Then what does, "the WORD "marriage" should be restricted to
what it has always been restricted" mean?

> Your clueless comment may be due to
> thinking the words "gay marriage" [a misnomer which I never used]
> every time you see the words "same-sex marriage" written down.
>
> But do you really expect me to think that you are so clueless
> about what is going on around you that you don't realize that
> my comment is a dig on the slogan that same-sex marriage is
> a "fundamental human right"?

I'll skip past your charges of cluelessness (it's like Ray accusing
someone of being illogical) and go ahead and explain to you that when
your "digs" depend upon the assumed truth of personal presumptions it's
entirely likely others may not clue in.

In other words, you're not self-aware enough for cleverness. Try to
restrict yourself to direct and unequivocal language.

>> Being willing to grant all the privileges of marriage while reserving
>> use of the label doesn't remove the inherent bigotry. It highlights the
>> petty selfishness of the advantaged class.

<snip irrelevance>

> ...through to you, while your animosity towards me precludes you ever

> seeing any merit in what I am saying to you.

I have no animosity towards you (that would require much more interest
than I can muster). I do think you need help, though, and again urge you
to seek it out.

[jillery]

"Separate but equal" doesn't work because it's almost never equal. The
whole point of "separate" is to make it easier to deal differently
with separate people. History shows that different labels focuses
people's minds on the differences, and that perceived difference more
easily becomes custom and law.

[Barba]

I use NIN too, and a followup I did to this thread did not appear either.
This is from EternalSep.

I tried a couple of other moderated groups and some worked (it.test.moderato)
some didn't (misc.test.moderated) posts to non moderated groups all worked.

I don't remember if I tried posts to other moderated groups before so I cannot
make a comparison, but it seems it depends on how moderation is made.

I'll contact Indi with this info...

B

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Tue, 12 May 2015 17:27:10 -0400, Greg Guarino <gdgu...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 5/11/2015 9:20 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> They might still be able to do it if they were to bite the bullet
>> and say that they would have no objections if ALL privileges now
>> enjoyed by married couples were to be granted to same-sex
>> civil unions, but that the WORD "marriage" should be restricted
>> to what it has always been restricted in Ireland up to now.
>>
>> There is no fundamental civil right to a label.
>
>As I wrote once before:
>
>=====================================
>... in the Irish case it is not clear that the issue is simply
>one of labeling.
>
>The Irish Constitution makes specific reference to protection for
>"families", and a body of law has grown from that constitutional
>language. The Irish courts have ruled that families headed by a same-sex
>couple do not (constitutionally) qualify as a "family", as the "framers"
>would not have envisioned such families when the constitution was written.
>
>The Constitutional amendment is designed to remedy this, defining
>same-sex-led families as explicitly covered by the Constitution's
>"family" protections, the body of law that has followed from them, and
>(importantly) any changes that may follow in the future.

I live in Ireland and I am not aware of any existing or proposed law
that cannot be applied to same sex couples *for constitutional
reasons*, perhaps you can give some examples of what you are referring
to.

[...]

[Greg Guarino]

It is my understanding that Article 41 of the Constitution, which begins
as follows:

ARTICLE 41

1 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and
fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing
inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all
positive law.

... was ruled NOT to apply to families headed by a same sex couple. And
thus the protections that have their basis in this article do not apply
to such families. If the goal is to provide the same protections, the
same "inalienable and imprescriptible rights", why not use the the most
efficient method - and the only method that can be sure to meet that
goal now and in the future?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Tue, 12 May 2015 14:59:58 -0700 (PDT), broger...@gmail.com
wrote:

[...]

>If the label "marriage" is unimportant, once all the legal rights are covered, why fuss about allowing same sex-couples to be called married?

IME, the vast majority of people - on both sides of the same sex
marriage debate, do refer those in civil partnerships as married.

What this referendum is about is that the Irish Constitution places a
special recognition on the *family* as the fundamental unit of
society. The Irish Courts have determined that "family" in the
Constitution as it stands means the traditional family of
father/mother/children. This referendum is to change the constitution
to make same sex marriages equal to traditional marriages and thus
give them the same special recognition.

What does it change in legal or direct equality terms? Nothing that I
can see.

[broger...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 8:49:01 AM UTC-4, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> On Tue, 12 May 2015 14:59:58 -0700 (PDT), broger...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >If the label "marriage" is unimportant, once all the legal rights are covered, why fuss about allowing same sex-couples to be called married?
>
> IME, the vast majority of people - on both sides of the same sex
> marriage debate, do refer those in civil partnerships as married.

I'm more concerned that the law not make a distinction between marriage (limited to straight couples) and civil union. What word people use in conversation is less important.

>
> What this referendum is about is that the Irish Constitution places a
> special recognition on the *family* as the fundamental unit of
> society.

I was not talking about the referendum at all.

>The Irish Courts have determined that "family" in the
> Constitution as it stands means the traditional family of
> father/mother/children. This referendum is to change the constitution
> to make same sex marriages equal to traditional marriages and thus
> give them the same special recognition.

Well, if I were Irish and could vote in the referendum I would certainly vote for that amendment. But I'm not and I can't.

>
> What does it change in legal or direct equality terms? Nothing that I
> can see.

Well, if it changes nothing much and yet seems important to those in favor of the amendment, why not?

My argument is not with you. Only with those who say "What's the big deal? Civil union gives you all the legal rights. No need to let same sex couples use the legal word 'marriage.'" My answer is, if it's no big deal, then go ahead and let them use it, why not? On the other hand, if the use of the word does add something to the legal protections afforded by civil union, how is it fair to deny the legal use of the term to same sex couples?

[Peter Nyikos]

<small snip>

> If the label "marriage" is unimportant,

It IS very important, but not because it is a fundamental civil
right to be claimed by any movement that has enough political influence.

On the contrary, it designates a certain kind of relationship which
has been one of the foundations of civilization for as far back as
historical records go. One does not make radical changes in its meaning
without taking possible repercussions into account.

> once all the legal rights are covered, why fuss about allowing
> same sex-couples to be called married?

The fuss has to do with the way the historical understanding of
future generations might be seriously warped by this change.

We've BEEN through this before, you and I. Here is something
I wrote in reply to you back in August:

My concern is that EVERYONE except historians who make
a special study of it will be taught that people up to
very recent times were bigots for excluding a set of people
from what "everyone knows to be marriage." They may even look
upon everything prior to the 21st century as little better
than the middle ages.

Subject: Re: Kenneth Miller Thread part 2
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/M9ejHUVSdL8/uop8eKId_MkJ
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 09:47:47 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <02ca6257-31ba-4f25...@googlegroups.com>

You never replied directly to that post, did you? Instead
you linked us to a debate between a propagandist on the
side of same-sex marriage and a somewhat clueless person on
the other side, arguing a case in front of a judge who
is so biased, he should have recused himself.

I pointed out some shameless spin-doctoring by the propagandist
and bias by the judge:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/M9ejHUVSdL8/ETmvKhOKWEMJ

In reply, you finally addressed the above argument:

Admittedly, they didn't come up with your idea of the harm caused by the
possibility that future generations might think that earlier generations were
bigoted for not allowing same-sex marriage all along. Somehow, though, that just
doesn't seem a serious enough harm to balance out the harms done to same-sex
families when you don't allow the same-sex couples to get married.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/M9ejHUVSdL8/yjF_fk9JlDcJ

Of course, that is not the issue being debated here;
the issue is whether the label is so important when
all privileges besides the label itself are granted to
same sex couples. I am immensely relieved to learn that
the bishops of Ireland have drawn a line in the sand right here.

If the referendum still goes for radically redefining
the word "marriage", it will be a huge victory for shameless
polemic masquerading as righteous indignation and/or
an ignominious defeat for those unable to focus on the line
that has been drawn.

On the other hand, if it *is* important, and adds something additional to the
simple legal rights, how is it fair to deny it to same-sex couples?

The following exchange in the post referenced above
addresses one facet of that issue:

_______________________________excerpt____________________
> It's pretty obvious now that gays should have the same right to marry
> as anyone else.

Try applying that to single people caring for aging parents no longer
able to reproduce. Why would you want to deny them such privileges
as "married, filing jointly" on their income tax?
____________________________end of excerpt____________________

You never addressed that facet of things, did you?

Peter Nyikos

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 12 May 2015 11:38:28 -0700, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Robert Camp
<rober...@hotmail.com>:

>On 5/12/15 10:42 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 May 2015 12:17:20 -0700, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Robert Camp
>> <rober...@hotmail.com>:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Being willing to grant all the privileges of marriage while reserving
>>> use of the label doesn't remove the inherent bigotry. It highlights the
>>> petty selfishness of the advantaged class.
>>
>> While your first statement *may* be true (although I see no
>> evidence that it is in general),
>
>On the off chance that there's a disagreement in there somewhere, I'll
>suggest you might think about why someone would wish to reserve that
>label for their particular class in the first place. When you come up
>with a reason - other than bigotry - that makes sense in the context of
>this issue, I'll be glad to hear it.

As noted below, traditional usage; bigotry not required.

>> your second is a non
>> sequitur, and illogical in the bargain. How does granting
>> all the privileges of a traditional union to those in a
>> non-traditional one indicate "petty selfishness" merely
>> because the traditional term is reserved for the traditional
>> relationship?

>Because it's not "granting all the privileges," it's granting all the
>privileges but one - use of the label. You may consider this particular
>privilege unimportant, even extraneous, but that's not your call.

Sorry to contradict you, but whether I see it as trivial
*is* my call.

> For
>some, it means a great deal, included in which is the notion that their
>union is seen, not just by the law but by society, as equivalent, and
>deserving of the same respect.

....and nothing about the term "civil union" indicates
disrespect or inequality, although it does indicate
acceptance that there's a basic difference between
traditional marriage and gay unions; if nothing else, the
fact that the latter *cannot* have children without
assistance is a major one. And yes, that *is* an important
distinction to many.

>> IOW, exactly what are they being "selfish"
>> about? And if both types of union enjoy equal benefits, how
>> is one "advantaged" over the other?

>Consider the absurdity of being willing to grant the civil rights of
>marriage to an interracial couple while at the same time refusing to
>allow use of the label. It shouldn't be too hard to see the selfishness
>in such an analogous case. Nor can I imagine anyone would have
>difficulty identifying possible prejudices underlying that attitude.

Prejudices, perhaps, but I'm beginning to think we are using
different meanings for "selfish" and "disadvantaged".

And FWIW, I agree that your example would constitute an
absurdity, since "interracial", as you use it, is a purely
local and recent idea not shared over most of the world for
most of history, unlike the idea of male-female unions. Even
classical-era Greece, which fully accepted homosexual
relationships, did not have such a thing (AFAIK) as
homosexual marriage. And Rome didn't care about "race"; if
one comported oneself as was expected of a civilized
individual one was usually treated as such.

>"Separate but equal" never seems to work out too well for the disadvantaged.

Somehow I knew that particular canard would appear. Just
FYI, "separate but equal" was used to enforce policies the
results of which, by intent, were anything *but* equal; not
the case in this scenario, in which *all* rights and
privileges, with the trivial exception of the term used to
describe the relationship, are shared equally.

FWIW, I support the rights of individuals to have whatever
relationships they want, from none to line or group
marriage. I don't support the hijacking of a term, used for
thousands of years in multiple cultures, to make the
hijackers "feel good".

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 12 May 2015 15:10:39 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Don Cates
<cate...@hotmail.com.invalid>:

I would, and have suggested something similar in the past;
completely separate the legal status from the cultural one
and use "civil union" (or similar; "registered cohabitation"
would work) for the former, and let local cultural norms,
whether religious or otherwise, determine the latter. BTW, I
conclude that this is a good idea because I got hit from
*both* sides when I suggested it. ;-)

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 12 May 2015 17:25:25 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Roger Shrubber
<rog.sh...@gmail.com>:

>Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 May 2015 12:17:20 -0700, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Robert Camp
>> <rober...@hotmail.com>:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Being willing to grant all the privileges of marriage while reserving
>>> use of the label doesn't remove the inherent bigotry. It highlights the
>>> petty selfishness of the advantaged class.
>>
>> While your first statement *may* be true (although I see no
>> evidence that it is in general), your second is a non
>> sequitur, and illogical in the bargain. How does granting
>> all the privileges of a traditional union to those in a
>> non-traditional one indicate "petty selfishness" merely
>> because the traditional term is reserved for the traditional
>> relationship? IOW, exactly what are they being "selfish"
>> about? And if both types of union enjoy equal benefits, how
>> is one "advantaged" over the other?
>
>Perhaps in some cultural vacuum, your comment might make
>some sense. Let's let some fresh air in. Marriage rights
>are being granted to same sex unions. You have to be deaf
>dumb and blind to not see that. It is inevitable.

Of course it is, and I have no quarrel with that.

>Meanwhile, groups like the Family Research Council and
>American Family Association continue to fight it tooth
>and nail. They oppose making it illegal to fire someone
>based on their sexual orientation. They oppose letting
>same-sex couples adopt children. They maintain their
>message that homosexuality is wrong. They remain the leaders
>of opposition to same sex marriage, not just in name but
>in most aspects. They have even attempted to go outside of
>the US and influence the upcoming vote in Ireland.

....none of which, although true, addresses what I wrote.

>But they know they are losing. And they are pressing to
>hold back anything that they can with this little bit about
>'at least don't call it a marriage' being their last resort
>compromise.

So? This smells remarkably like a classic ad hominem.

>Now there are certainly others on the sidelines that may
>be less anti-gay, and perhaps even some oddballs who have
>some linguistic peccadilloes that they, for some reason,
>have so far failed to justify. I'm discounting out of hand
>the appeals about the "sanctity of marriage" given the
>absurdity of it being advocated by people on their third
>marriage with various example of infidelity behind them.
>It's just too much hypocrisy for anything other than ridicule.
>And as you invoked logic, whether or not those two ladies
>that live a few houses down the road are "married" or not
>simply doesn't impact on the marital lives of anybody else
>on the street much less in the broader world.
>
>Recapping, given the reality of those who are loudest in
>the call to withhold the label "marriage" for same sex
>unions, that are in almost every other respect the same
>as relationships we call marriage without blinking an eye,
>denying their bigoted agenda is the ad-hoc absurdity.

I don't deny that some idiots have such an agenda. I *do*
deny that constitutes a reason to reject a workable
compromise. And from what I've read on the subject, one of
the primary initial reasons for "official" marriage, in
whatever form it took, was the production and nurturing of
children, something impossible in any homosexual union
without outside participation. Is that one of the "not
almost every respect" items you were thinking of?

But in summation, your argument reduces to "Since those
idiots are in favor of it, it should be rejected without
consideration, regardless of possible merit"; again, classic
ad hominem argument.

OK.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 13 May 2015 06:16:29 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by broger...@gmail.com:

>On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 8:49:01 AM UTC-4, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 May 2015 14:59:58 -0700 (PDT), broger...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >If the label "marriage" is unimportant, once all the legal rights are covered, why fuss about allowing same sex-couples to be called married?
>>
>> IME, the vast majority of people - on both sides of the same sex
>> marriage debate, do refer those in civil partnerships as married.
>
>I'm more concerned that the law not make a distinction between marriage (limited to straight couples) and civil union. What word people use in conversation is less important.

Then you should agree with Don Cates (and myself) that the
optimum solution is to remove *all* references to marriage
in law and substitute "civil union" (or similar), reserving
"marriage" as an term for religion and/or local culture to
use as desired. Of course, all such legal unions would be
certified by law and not by religion, and treated as legal
contracts like any other, but the relevant religious
ceremonies could be celebrated as desired.

>> What this referendum is about is that the Irish Constitution places a
>> special recognition on the *family* as the fundamental unit of
>> society.
>
>I was not talking about the referendum at all.
>
>>The Irish Courts have determined that "family" in the
>> Constitution as it stands means the traditional family of
>> father/mother/children. This referendum is to change the constitution
>> to make same sex marriages equal to traditional marriages and thus
>> give them the same special recognition.
>
>Well, if I were Irish and could vote in the referendum I would certainly vote for that amendment. But I'm not and I can't.
>>
>> What does it change in legal or direct equality terms? Nothing that I
>> can see.
>
>Well, if it changes nothing much and yet seems important to those in favor of the amendment, why not?
>
>My argument is not with you. Only with those who say "What's the big deal? Civil union gives you all the legal rights. No need to let same sex couples use the legal word 'marriage.'" My answer is, if it's no big deal, then go ahead and let them use it, why not? On the other hand, if the use of the word does add something to the legal protections afforded by civil union, how is it fair to deny the legal use of the term to same sex couples?
>
>>
>>
>> > On the other hand, if it *is* important, and adds something additional to the simple legal rights, how is it fair to deny it to same-sex couples?
>

[Peter Nyikos]

Your (feigned?) cluelessness is staggering. Did not the following
statement by me clue you in to the fallacy in your propagandistic
allegation?

> > Your clueless comment may be due to
> > thinking the words "gay marriage" [a misnomer which I never used]
> > every time you see the words "same-sex marriage" written down.
> >
> > But do you really expect me to think that you are so clueless
> > about what is going on around you that you don't realize that
> > my comment is a dig on the slogan that same-sex marriage is
> > a "fundamental human right"?
>
> I'll skip past your charges of cluelessness (it's like Ray accusing
> someone of being illogical)

Like hell it is. But thanks for letting me know how self-satisfied
and self-important you are in the teeth of what transpired above.

If I didn't know any better, I'd think you were being deliberately
illogical so as to make it a bit easier to believe that all of
Ray's dishonest behavior were due only to insanity and thus to
absolve him [and by extension, yourself] of dishonesty.

Different degrees of both insanity and dishonesty are involved, of course.

> and go ahead and explain to you that when
> your "digs" depend upon the assumed truth of personal presumptions it's
> entirely likely others may not clue in.

You continue to show yourself a master of polemic, and of projecting
your personal presumptions [same-sex marriage = gay marriage is just
one ridiculous presumption you make above] onto people towards
whom you are antagonistic.

> In other words, you're not self-aware enough for cleverness. Try to
> restrict yourself to direct and unequivocal language.

What a bloated stuffed shirt you are!

> >> Being willing to grant all the privileges of marriage while reserving
> >> use of the label doesn't remove the inherent bigotry. It highlights the
> >> petty selfishness of the advantaged class.
>
> <snip irrelevance>

Couldn't think of a way to explain why your propaganda was NOT
surrealistic, so you had to snip the following and indulge in
TbBA, eh?

[repost]

Imagine that! You are so wrapped up in polemical reflexes that you
don't even realize how utterly surrealistic this propaganda of
yours is.

[end of repost]

> > ...through to you, while your animosity towards me precludes you ever
> > seeing any merit in what I am saying to you.
>
> I have no animosity towards you (that would require much more interest
> than I can muster).

And selling me the Brookly Bridge would require more dishonesty
than even you can muster, eh?

I've reminded you, time and again, about how you once feigned neutrality
in the issue of directed panspermia [DP], even giving a long laundry
list of things you CLAIMED you weren't doing...

...and then the laundry list went up in flames when you revealed
your contempt for the idea of directed panspermia.

> I do think you need help, though, and again urge you
> to seek it out.

Says a man who behaved "like a stockyard bully" [1] all through that long
exchange on DP. For instance, you loaded paragraph after paragraph with a
panoply of different allegations and then pretended to believe that
my interrupting you after each fresh allegation before the end created
the impression of dishonesty.

Physician, heal thyself!

That old insinuation of dishonesty was a classic example, by the way,
of polemical opportunism: making up things on the spur of the moment
that create the illusion of being principles but which are, at bottom,
illogical.

[1] Thomas More in "A Man for All Seasons," with Thomas Cromwell
the target.

Peter Nyikos

[Roger Shrubber]

> .....none of which, although true, addresses what I wrote.

No Bob, that is not my argument. Don't pull a Ray.
My argument is that in this case, the motivatin behind the
call to withhold the label of "marriage" is specifically
revealed by the specific people who advocate for it.
That is not an ad hominem fallacy. If we paid attention
to the antihomosexual agenda of FRC and AFA to comment on
their position regarding the Keystone pipeline, that would
be an ad hominem fallacy, because their agenda is irrelevant
to that issue. But when racists support "separate but equal",
it would have been perfectly logically valid to conclude
that they intended to use it to continue racist oppression.
Similarly, the most vocal advocates around withholding the
use of the term marriage to describe same-sex unions advocate
policies that discriminate against people involved in same-
sex unions.

If I said we should dismiss them because they are creationists,
that would be an ad hominem fallacy. You really should understand
these things better after all your years on talk.origins.

[Robert Camp]

On 5/13/15 10:41 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, 12 May 2015 11:38:28 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Robert Camp
> <rober...@hotmail.com>:
>
>> On 5/12/15 10:42 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Mon, 11 May 2015 12:17:20 -0700, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by Robert Camp
>>> <rober...@hotmail.com>:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Being willing to grant all the privileges of marriage while reserving
>>>> use of the label doesn't remove the inherent bigotry. It highlights the
>>>> petty selfishness of the advantaged class.
>>>
>>> While your first statement *may* be true (although I see no
>>> evidence that it is in general),
>>
>> On the off chance that there's a disagreement in there somewhere, I'll
>> suggest you might think about why someone would wish to reserve that
>> label for their particular class in the first place. When you come up
>> with a reason - other than bigotry - that makes sense in the context of
>> this issue, I'll be glad to hear it.
>
> As noted below, traditional usage; bigotry not required.

I look forward to finding it below. But leaning on "tradition" is hardly
encouraging.

>>> your second is a non
>>> sequitur, and illogical in the bargain. How does granting
>>> all the privileges of a traditional union to those in a
>>> non-traditional one indicate "petty selfishness" merely
>>> because the traditional term is reserved for the traditional
>>> relationship?
>
>> Because it's not "granting all the privileges," it's granting all the
>> privileges but one - use of the label. You may consider this particular
>> privilege unimportant, even extraneous, but that's not your call.
>
> Sorry to contradict you, but whether I see it as trivial
> *is* my call.

Too obvious a misinterpretation to merit a reply.

>> For
>> some, it means a great deal, included in which is the notion that their
>> union is seen, not just by the law but by society, as equivalent, and
>> deserving of the same respect.
>
> ....and nothing about the term "civil union" indicates
> disrespect or inequality, although it does indicate
> acceptance that there's a basic difference between
> traditional marriage and gay unions; if nothing else, the
> fact that the latter *cannot* have children without
> assistance is a major one. And yes, that *is* an important
> distinction to many.

Important enough to deny use of the label? If so how about the "basic
difference" that interracial couples cannot have "pure race" children.
Is that an important distinction, and should it have served as a reason
not to grant use of the word marriage in that case?

>>> IOW, exactly what are they being "selfish"
>>> about? And if both types of union enjoy equal benefits, how
>>> is one "advantaged" over the other?
>
>> Consider the absurdity of being willing to grant the civil rights of
>> marriage to an interracial couple while at the same time refusing to
>> allow use of the label. It shouldn't be too hard to see the selfishness
>> in such an analogous case. Nor can I imagine anyone would have
>> difficulty identifying possible prejudices underlying that attitude.
>
> Prejudices, perhaps, but I'm beginning to think we are using
> different meanings for "selfish" and "disadvantaged".

Only if you think suffering second-class status doesn't qualify as being
disadvantaged and being denied something granted to others.

Am I right in taking your answer to mean that you would not characterize
denial of the use of the label "marriage" to interracial couples as
either selfish or disadvantageous? I don't want to put words in your
mouth, but considering your response it's the only position that makes
sense.

> And FWIW, I agree that your example would constitute an
> absurdity, since "interracial", as you use it, is a purely
> local and recent idea not shared over most of the world for
> most of history, unlike the idea of male-female unions.

In most of the world for most of history races did not have the
opportunity to mix (not that any of the above is actually relevant to
the issue here). And if you think the modern notion of "male-female
unions" is in any way generalizable to what has happened throughout
"most of history" you really need to revisit history. Tradition is no
friend of marriage-rights bigots.

> Even
> classical-era Greece, which fully accepted homosexual
> relationships, did not have such a thing (AFAIK) as
> homosexual marriage. And Rome didn't care about "race"; if
> one comported oneself as was expected of a civilized
> individual one was usually treated as such.

The first is irrelevant. The second is both irrelevant and, I suspect,
naive.

>> "Separate but equal" never seems to work out too well for the disadvantaged.
>
> Somehow I knew that particular canard would appear. Just
> FYI, "separate but equal" was used to enforce policies the
> results of which, by intent, were anything *but* equal; not
> the case in this scenario, in which *all* rights and
> privileges, with the trivial exception of the term used to
> describe the relationship, are shared equally.

You're going to a lot of trouble to ignore a direct response to my
analogy. Would it have been reasonable to deny use of the label
"marriage" to interracial couples given that all other privileges were
equal? It's a simple question.

And it's generous of you to inform me of the intent of "separate but
equal," but you seem to have substantially missed the lessons learned.
The purpose of the doctrine was to enable governmental mandate of
equality of facilities etc. The outcome in many cases, unfortunately,
was to provide cover for maintenance of second-class status. Thus there
were different "intents" involved. Your comparison of the stated intent
of the doctrine in one case with the intent of those hoping to maintain
the status quo in the other, is specious.

> FWIW, I support the rights of individuals to have whatever
> relationships they want, from none to line or group
> marriage. I don't support the hijacking of a term, used for
> thousands of years in multiple cultures, to make the
> hijackers "feel good".

I'm sorry you feel that way. That opinion seems, to me, to be based upon
little more than bigotry, considering that it doesn't pass the history
test ("used for thousands of years in multiple cultures"), the empathy
test (it's disturbing that you can reduce an entire class of
individuals' desire for equality to wanting to "feel good"), and
apparently cannot stand the light of a simple analogy.

[Robert Camp]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

>>> Your clueless comment may be due to
>>> thinking the words "gay marriage" [a misnomer which I never used]
>>> every time you see the words "same-sex marriage" written down.
>>>
>>> But do you really expect me to think that you are so clueless
>>> about what is going on around you that you don't realize that
>>> my comment is a dig on the slogan that same-sex marriage is
>>> a "fundamental human right"?
>>
>> I'll skip past your charges of cluelessness (it's like Ray accusing
>> someone of being illogical)
>
> Like hell it is. But thanks for letting me know how self-satisfied
> and self-important you are in the teeth of what transpired above.
>
> If I didn't know any better, I'd think you were being deliberately
> illogical so as to make it a bit easier to believe that all of
> Ray's dishonest behavior were due only to insanity and thus to
> absolve him [and by extension, yourself] of dishonesty.
>
> Different degrees of both insanity and dishonesty are involved, of course.

Really, I have no idea what you're going on about. With you there are
times I'm not entirely sure we're speaking the same language.

>> and go ahead and explain to you that when
>> your "digs" depend upon the assumed truth of personal presumptions it's
>> entirely likely others may not clue in.
>
> You continue to show yourself a master of polemic, and of projecting
> your personal presumptions [same-sex marriage = gay marriage is just
> one ridiculous presumption you make above] onto people towards
> whom you are antagonistic.

>> In other words, you're not self-aware enough for cleverness. Try to
>> restrict yourself to direct and unequivocal language.
>
> What a bloated stuffed shirt you are!

Good job! That's what I'm talking about. You are capable of direct, if
crude, communication when you avoid the whole cleverness thing.

<snip more of Peter's trolley going off the rails>

[Roger Shrubber]

Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 6:04:03 PM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:

...

>> If the label "marriage" is unimportant,
>
> It IS very important, but not because it is a fundamental civil
> right to be claimed by any movement that has enough political influence.
>
> On the contrary, it designates a certain kind of relationship which
> has been one of the foundations of civilization for as far back as
> historical records go. One does not make radical changes in its meaning
> without taking possible repercussions into account.

That is codswallop. And frankly, it's morally offensive.
It invokes this idyllic fantasy of a Mum and Da raising
their wee bairns while asserting that such a scheme is the
foundation of civilization. It seems to me that it has nothing
to do with civilization at all, and if one goes back over
civilization, what we have instead is the fact that such
simplistic monogamous pair bonding is practically an exception
rather than a rule. Further, the way that "civilization"
has often treated children other than those born to the
sanctioned wives of property owners is the type of thing one
should be horrified by.

Civilization is a history of slaves bearing children to their
owners, servants bearing children to their masters, and
such children being outcast and abused in many cases. That's
the facts of civilization as we've recorded it and it's
hardly a model to hold up as something sacred. And in recent
history we have too many examples of things like the Magdalene
Laundries in Ireland where women who became pregnant outside
of "Holy Wedlock" were effectively forced into servitude to
the Catholic Church with their babies forcibly taken away.

You can't invoke history that is rife with such abuse in
the name of promoting the archetype nuclear family and expect
to be taken seriously.

Now before you leap into a false dichotomy, none of this attacks
nuclear families themselves. It attacks the attempt to put them
on a pedestal to the purpose of discriminating against anyone
else. And given the history of discrimination against children
and women who do not partake of this archetype family of wedded
Mother, Father and children, it's really disgusting that you
invoke history in defense of your desire to play this petty
game of withouting the "sacred" term marriage.

[Burkhard]

AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> On Tue, 12 May 2015 14:59:58 -0700 (PDT), broger...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> If the label "marriage" is unimportant, once all the legal rights are covered, why fuss about allowing same sex-couples to be called married?
>
> IME, the vast majority of people - on both sides of the same sex
> marriage debate, do refer those in civil partnerships as married.
>
> What this referendum is about is that the Irish Constitution places a
> special recognition on the *family* as the fundamental unit of
> society. The Irish Courts have determined that "family" in the
> Constitution as it stands means the traditional family of
> father/mother/children. This referendum is to change the constitution
> to make same sex marriages equal to traditional marriages and thus
> give them the same special recognition.
>
> What does it change in legal or direct equality terms? Nothing that I
> can see.

You might have to look closer. I think there are still around 100
provisions on the statute books whose interpretation of "family" is
affected by this, from the Family Home Protection Act 1976 as amended,
e.g. cf 28 which can cause problems for children after the breakup of a
partnership, to the Land Act 2005 to the EC (Free Movement of Persons)
Regulation 2006 to the Children Act 2001 to the Proceeds of Crime Act
(spousal privilege) to some more obscure laws such as the International
Criminal Court Act 2006 (Family of court officials)

[Burkhard]

For those who remain confused, this chart might be helpful:
https://thenib.com/are-you-against-gay-marriage-because-the-bible-f67c2d12231c

[D. Spencer Hines]

"Same-Sex Marriage" Is An Oxymoron.

So is "Homosexual Marriage"...

...As is "Gay Marriage".

'Nuff Said.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John
VIII:32 KJV

[Roger Shrubber]

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
> "Same-Sex Marriage" Is An Oxymoron.
>
> So is "Homosexual Marriage"...
>

> ....As is "Gay Marriage".
>
> 'Nuff Said.

Indeed. "Nuff Said" in the sense of not having ever
had anything more to say. In fact, such naked assertions seem
to be all some can muster. Perhaps moreso from those who
fantasize to come from the noble tradition of noble marriages,
probably from the Hapsburg line where marriage was so sacred
they kept it all in the family, duly blessed and sanctified
by Church authorities. Truly one of the foundations of civilization,
at least for certain conceptualizations of what is civilized
or worthy of the appellation.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Wed, 13 May 2015 22:32:25 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

How many of those require a change in the constitution for new laws to
be passed?

[Burkhard]

Require? Possibly none (baring the Cuirt Uachtarach throwing the spanner
in the works and interpreting the provision as prohibiting material
equality between the two forms) You could amend each of them
individually, through separate legislative procedures, going through all
five stages and vote in both houses of the Oireachtas, bogging it down
for the next few years. And then all the other laws you find that
aren't on that list yet. And then in future check each law that it
explicitly includes civil unions.

Or, just as a thought, you settle the issue in one fell swoop, once and
for all

[Don Cates]

If one wants to keep it for traditional reasons then get it out of the
legal system. Then anyone can use, or deny acceptance of, the term for
whatever reason they find personally compelling.

>> Because it's not "granting all the privileges," it's granting all the
>> privileges but one - use of the label. You may consider this particular
>> privilege unimportant, even extraneous, but that's not your call.
>
> Sorry to contradict you, but whether I see it as trivial
> *is* my call.
>
>> For
>> some, it means a great deal, included in which is the notion that their
>> union is seen, not just by the law but by society, as equivalent, and
>> deserving of the same respect.
>
> ....and nothing about the term "civil union" indicates
> disrespect or inequality, although it does indicate
> acceptance that there's a basic difference between
> traditional marriage and gay unions; if nothing else, the
> fact that the latter *cannot* have children without
> assistance is a major one. And yes, that *is* an important
> distinction to many.
>

And yet same sex couples who, for one reason or another, *cannot* have
children don't face the same restrictions.

What makes you believe this would be any different? ISTM that any
'separate will eventually be exploited to create an 'unequal'.

> FWIW, I support the rights of individuals to have whatever
> relationships they want, from none to line or group
> marriage. I don't support the hijacking of a term, used for
> thousands of years in multiple cultures, to make the
> hijackers "feel good".
>

That history gives the term profound cultural and *legal* consequences
and so these non-traditional groups want the term to apply to them. Note
that at present there is nothing stopping them from *calling* themselves
married and nothing stopping other groups from not the claim. but the
traditionalists don't want the *government* to recognize rhe new
application of the term. They are already quite within their rights to
not recognize any claim of marriage as legitimate. If they don't want
the government to recognize some 'marriages' then they should work to
get *all* references to the term removed from the law/government and
make it strickly cultural.

[Don Cates]

Ah, so the traditionalists were not okay with it. The only alternative
seems to be getting government to broaden the applicability of the term
within government and the law. People, *within their culture/community*,
can accept or deny recognition of the term (as they can do now).

[Mark Isaak]

Except, of course, that it is not a distinction. Quite a few
heterosexual unions cannot have children either. I know of nobody who
proposes that their marriages be demeaned on account of the fact.

Wanna bet? If equal were the goal, the laws would be written such that
there is no need for a "but".

--
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]

On 5/13/15 5:45 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> On Tue, 12 May 2015 14:59:58 -0700 (PDT), broger...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> If the label "marriage" is unimportant, once all the legal rights are covered, why fuss about allowing same sex-couples to be called married?
>
> IME, the vast majority of people - on both sides of the same sex
> marriage debate, do refer those in civil partnerships as married.
>
> What this referendum is about is that the Irish Constitution places a
> special recognition on the *family* as the fundamental unit of
> society. The Irish Courts have determined that "family" in the
> Constitution as it stands means the traditional family of
> father/mother/children. This referendum is to change the constitution
> to make same sex marriages equal to traditional marriages and thus
> give them the same special recognition.
>
> What does it change in legal or direct equality terms? Nothing that I
> can see.

Out of curiosity, does current or proposed law recognize
non-"traditional" but inescapable arrangements such as widowed
parent/children, father/mother/no children, guardian/children, and
father/mother-turned-male/children as families with the same special
recognition as father/mother/children?

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/13/15 12:54 PM, Roger Shrubber wrote:
> Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 6:04:03 PM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> ...
>>> If the label "marriage" is unimportant,
>>
>> It IS very important, but not because it is a fundamental civil
>> right to be claimed by any movement that has enough political influence.
>>
>> On the contrary, it designates a certain kind of relationship which
>> has been one of the foundations of civilization for as far back as
>> historical records go. One does not make radical changes in its meaning
>> without taking possible repercussions into account.
>
> That is codswallop. And frankly, it's morally offensive.
> It invokes this idyllic fantasy of a Mum and Da raising
> their wee bairns while asserting that such a scheme is the
> foundation of civilization. It seems to me that it has nothing
> to do with civilization at all, and if one goes back over
> civilization, what we have instead is the fact that such
> simplistic monogamous pair bonding is practically an exception
> rather than a rule. Further, the way that "civilization"
> has often treated children other than those born to the
> sanctioned wives of property owners is the type of thing one
> should be horrified by.

> [...]

I rather think Peter's goal is to weaken civilization by arbitrarily
denying a fundamental civil right to a significant proportion of the
population.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 5:29:06 PM UTC-4, Roger Shrubber wrote:
> Bob Casanova wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 May 2015 12:17:20 -0700, the following appeared
> > in talk.origins, posted by Robert Camp
> > <rober...@hotmail.com>:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> Being willing to grant all the privileges of marriage while reserving
> >> use of the label doesn't remove the inherent bigotry. It highlights the
> >> petty selfishness of the advantaged class.
> >
> > While your first statement *may* be true (although I see no

> > evidence that it is in general), your second is a non

> > sequitur, and illogical in the bargain. How does granting
> > all the privileges of a traditional union to those in a
> > non-traditional one indicate "petty selfishness" merely
> > because the traditional term is reserved for the traditional

> > relationship? IOW, exactly what are they being "selfish"

> > about? And if both types of union enjoy equal benefits, how
> > is one "advantaged" over the other?
>

> Perhaps in some cultural vacuum, your comment might make
> some sense. Let's let some fresh air in. Marriage rights
> are being granted to same sex unions. You have to be deaf
> dumb and blind to not see that. It is inevitable.
>

> Meanwhile, groups like the Family Research Council and
> American Family Association continue to fight it tooth
> and nail. They oppose making it illegal to fire someone
> based on their sexual orientation. They oppose letting
> same-sex couples adopt children. They maintain their
> message that homosexuality is wrong.

And then at the other extreme are people like you,
who accuse me of bigotry for the stand I am taking
on this thread. Your kind of people have co-opted
the word "hate," narrowing it down to bigotry, while
simultaneously expanding the word "bigotry" (and thus "hate")
to include arguing in favor of having the word "marriage"
continue to mean what it meant from as far back as history
has been recorded to about half a century ago, while
not going along with any of the things you claim the AFA
stands for.

> They remain the leaders
> of opposition to same sex marriage, not just in name but
> in most aspects. They have even attempted to go outside of
> the US and influence the upcoming vote in Ireland.

And I'm sure your kind in the US is just as busy supplying propaganda
for the ones who share the co-opted definition of the word "hate".

Unless, of course, the propaganda is old hat to their Irish
counterparts already. The internet is a most powerful medium
for spreading ideologies of all sorts, including the resurgence
of Stalinism in Russia and the "protection" of Russian minorities
in various countries that were once part of the Soviet Union.

> But they know they are losing. And they are pressing to
> hold back anything that they can with this little bit about
> 'at least don't call it a marriage' being their last resort
> compromise.

Sort of like, where abortion after 20 weeks is concerned,
'at least don't call it the killing of a human being'
for people of your ideology, isn't it?

But then, "hate" also includes opposition to any
abortion, even the abortion of a 40 week 9-pound overdue
baby, no matter whether it is for trivial reasons or no
reason at all, doesn't it?

<snip remainder of regurgitated propaganda by "Shrubber">

Peter Nyikos

[Earle Jones27]

On 2015-05-11 13:20:48 +0000, Peter Nyikos said:

> On Monday, May 11, 2015 at 2:29:08 AM UTC-4, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:

>> On Sun, 10 May 2015 10:54:23 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>
>>> But why not just switch to Eternal September? Quite a few
>>> who post here have said they're happy with it; if I didn't
>>> have a "grandfathered" rate at Supernews I'd probably do
>>> that.

>>
>> I am reluctant to simply discard something that has served me
>> perfectly well for the best part of 20 years and continues to do so
>> everywhere else except TO, a group, to be honest, where I have found
>> my interest waning anyway over the last while.
>
> I'd miss you very much if you were to leave, AAQ. You and Dana Tweedy
> are my two favorite posters to talk.origins.
>
> Off topic, but still of interest to both of us: I see that the referendum
> in Ireland for normalizing same-sex marriage seems likely to pass.
>
> If the Roman Catholic hierarchy hadn't been so reluctant to
> punish those of its members who had covered up for priestly
> pedophilia and other atrocities by Roman Catholic clergy,
> they might have been able to stem the tide.
>
> They might still be able to do it if they were to bite the bullet
> and say that they would have no objections if ALL privileges now
> enjoyed by married couples were to be granted to same-sex
> civil unions, but that the WORD "marriage" should be restricted
> to what it has always been restricted in Ireland up to now.
>

> There is no fundamental civil right to a label.
>
> Peter Nyikos
>

*
Having been married to the same woman for 47 years (before she died of
cholangiocarcinoma a few years ago) I tend to think of 'marriage' as
more than a label.

Why would the Catholic church in Ireland be OK for same-sex "civil
unions" but be so much against the label "marriage"?

earle
*

[D. Spencer Hines]

"Same-Sex Marriage" Is An Oxymoron.

So is "Homosexual Marriage"...

...As is "Gay Marriage".

'Nuff Said.

[John Vreeland]

On Wed, 13 May 2015 22:44:27 -1000, "D. Spencer Hines"
<d_spenc...@america.com> wrote:

>"Same-Sex Marriage" Is An Oxymoron.
>
>So is "Homosexual Marriage"...
>
>...As is "Gay Marriage".
>
>'Nuff Said.
>
>DSH

I hope you get better.

Incidentally, where is polygamy outlawed in the Bible?

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 13 May 2015 15:30:30 -0400, the following appeared

I understand your position; I simply disagree with it.

That aside, would you agree that the best way to resolve the
issue would be to remove the term "marriage" as a legal term
from *all* such relationships, and replace it with "civil
union" or some such? IOW, retain "marriage", if desired, but
as a term totally lacking in any sort of legal meaning, and
let those who wish to use it do so, for whatever reason they
felt appropriate. ISTM that this would remove any excuse for
contention from *both* sides.

This has been brought up at least twice in this thread, and
a few times in the past; AFAIK no one has commented on it.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 13 May 2015 12:41:43 -0700, the following appeared

No, and no.

>>>> IOW, exactly what are they being "selfish"
>>>> about? And if both types of union enjoy equal benefits, how
>>>> is one "advantaged" over the other?
>>
>>> Consider the absurdity of being willing to grant the civil rights of
>>> marriage to an interracial couple while at the same time refusing to
>>> allow use of the label. It shouldn't be too hard to see the selfishness
>>> in such an analogous case. Nor can I imagine anyone would have
>>> difficulty identifying possible prejudices underlying that attitude.
>>
>> Prejudices, perhaps, but I'm beginning to think we are using
>> different meanings for "selfish" and "disadvantaged".
>
>Only if you think suffering second-class status doesn't qualify as being
>disadvantaged and being denied something granted to others.

It's the fact that you regard the mere use of a particular
term to confer advantage, and withholding it to assure
disadvantage *all else being equal*, that I find
boggle-worthy.

>Am I right in taking your answer to mean that you would not characterize
>denial of the use of the label "marriage" to interracial couples as
>either selfish or disadvantageous? I don't want to put words in your
>mouth, but considering your response it's the only position that makes
>sense.

What I think is that it would make no difference in
conferring advantage, *as long as the law made no
distinction*.

>> And FWIW, I agree that your example would constitute an
>> absurdity, since "interracial", as you use it, is a purely
>> local and recent idea not shared over most of the world for
>> most of history, unlike the idea of male-female unions.
>
>In most of the world for most of history races did not have the
>opportunity to mix (not that any of the above is actually relevant to
>the issue here). And if you think the modern notion of "male-female
>unions" is in any way generalizable to what has happened throughout
>"most of history" you really need to revisit history.

You're probably correct, so I'm sure you can provide cites
to information regarding those many times and places in
history when and where "marriage" didn't involve both males
and females in such a union.

> Tradition is no
>friend of marriage-rights bigots.

>> Even
>> classical-era Greece, which fully accepted homosexual
>> relationships, did not have such a thing (AFAIK) as
>> homosexual marriage. And Rome didn't care about "race"; if
>> one comported oneself as was expected of a civilized
>> individual one was usually treated as such.
>
>The first is irrelevant.

Of course it is; mention of similar practices in the past is
obviously irrelevant.

> The second is both irrelevant and, I suspect,
>naive.

*You* brought up race, and the situation as I described it
is indeed how Rome purportedly worked.

>>> "Separate but equal" never seems to work out too well for the disadvantaged.
>>
>> Somehow I knew that particular canard would appear. Just
>> FYI, "separate but equal" was used to enforce policies the
>> results of which, by intent, were anything *but* equal; not
>> the case in this scenario, in which *all* rights and
>> privileges, with the trivial exception of the term used to
>> describe the relationship, are shared equally.
>
>You're going to a lot of trouble to ignore a direct response to my
>analogy. Would it have been reasonable to deny use of the label
>"marriage" to interracial couples given that all other privileges were
>equal? It's a simple question.

Reasonable? No, not really. But the point is irrelevant.

>And it's generous of you to inform me of the intent of "separate but
>equal," but you seem to have substantially missed the lessons learned.

Not really; I even stated that the effect of the policies
was by intent; I left it to you to know that the
(unofficial, but quite real) policies assured continuing
segregation and unequal treatment.

>The purpose of the doctrine was to enable governmental mandate of
>equality of facilities etc. The outcome in many cases, unfortunately,
>was to provide cover for maintenance of second-class status. Thus there
>were different "intents" involved. Your comparison of the stated intent
>of the doctrine in one case with the intent of those hoping to maintain
>the status quo in the other, is specious.

I didn't reference the *stated* intent; I assumed you'd know
that I was referring to the *actual* intent of those who
wanted to maintain the status quo ante. Apparently I should
have spelled that out; my bad.

>> FWIW, I support the rights of individuals to have whatever
>> relationships they want, from none to line or group
>> marriage. I don't support the hijacking of a term, used for
>> thousands of years in multiple cultures, to make the
>> hijackers "feel good".
>
>I'm sorry you feel that way. That opinion seems, to me, to be based upon
>little more than bigotry, considering that it doesn't pass the history
>test ("used for thousands of years in multiple cultures"), the empathy
>test (it's disturbing that you can reduce an entire class of
>individuals' desire for equality to wanting to "feel good"), and
>apparently cannot stand the light of a simple analogy.

I find it interesting that you assert without evidence that
marriage was not used for thousands of years in multiple
cultures, and that you feel that a term used is as important
(or perhaps even *more* important?) than the practice (and
that anyone who argues otherwise is by definition a "bigot"
regardless of the fact that that person fully supports the
practice in question, as I do).

Perhaps you could comment on the discussion elsethread, in
which the idea of completely removing reference to
"marriage" as a legal term *for everyone*, and letting
whoever wished to use it otherwise do so? Seems a win-win to
me...although it may not to anyone more intent on fomenting
discord than on making actual progress in social acceptance
and personal interactions.

[Earle Jones27]

*
By the way, what does the 'D' stand for that you would prefer 'Spencer.'

earle
*

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 13 May 2015 18:29:52 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Don Cates
<cate...@hotmail.com.invalid>:

>On 13/05/2015 12:41 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:

<snip>

["Marriage":]

>If one wants to keep it for traditional reasons then get it out of the
>legal system. Then anyone can use, or deny acceptance of, the term for
>whatever reason they find personally compelling.

Excellent idea, as we've both noted elsethread!

(You're apparently quite intelligent, using the traditional
criterion...) ;-)

<snip>

>> ....nothing about the term "civil union" indicates

>> disrespect or inequality, although it does indicate
>> acceptance that there's a basic difference between
>> traditional marriage and gay unions; if nothing else, the
>> fact that the latter *cannot* have children without
>> assistance is a major one. And yes, that *is* an important
>> distinction to many.

>And yet same sex couples who, for one reason or another, *cannot* have
>children don't face the same restrictions.

I believe you meant "two sex couples"... ;-)

Agreed, but that doesn't change the general purpose of
marriage, which for most of history has been about
consolidation of wealth and the nurturing of the children
needed to continue that consolidation within recognized
bloodlines, if for no other reason. But there are solid
biological reasons for doing so, of course; marriage in some
form is only the historically preferred(?) vehicle.


<snip>

>>> "Separate but equal" never seems to work out too well for the disadvantaged.

>> Somehow I knew that particular canard would appear. Just
>> FYI, "separate but equal" was used to enforce policies the
>> results of which, by intent, were anything *but* equal; not
>> the case in this scenario, in which *all* rights and
>> privileges, with the trivial exception of the term used to
>> describe the relationship, are shared equally.

>What makes you believe this would be any different? ISTM that any
>'separate will eventually be exploited to create an 'unequal'.

Could well be, which is why I (and you, IIRC) have suggested
removing the term "marriage" from law, and replacing it with
"civil union" or some such for *all* such relationships.

>> FWIW, I support the rights of individuals to have whatever
>> relationships they want, from none to line or group
>> marriage. I don't support the hijacking of a term, used for
>> thousands of years in multiple cultures, to make the
>> hijackers "feel good".

>That history gives the term profound cultural and *legal* consequences
>and so these non-traditional groups want the term to apply to them. Note
>that at present there is nothing stopping them from *calling* themselves
>married and nothing stopping other groups from not the claim. but the
>traditionalists don't want the *government* to recognize rhe new
>application of the term. They are already quite within their rights to
>not recognize any claim of marriage as legitimate. If they don't want
>the government to recognize some 'marriages' then they should work to
>get *all* references to the term removed from the law/government and
>make it strickly cultural.

Yep.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 13 May 2015 18:43:28 -0500, the following appeared

Actually, I'd rephrase that to "the fanatics on both sides
weren't OK with it".

>The only alternative
>seems to be getting government to broaden the applicability of the term
>within government and the law.

I disagree; the laws could be rewritten. The fact that some
fanatics would disagree is irrelevant (in principle; perhaps
less so in practice).

> People, *within their culture/community*,
>can accept or deny recognition of the term (as they can do now).

Of course they can, but the continuing inclusion of the term
in the laws guarantees that the controversy will continue;
only its complete removal as a legal definition can stop
that. I think it's a worthwhile goal, and embodies the best
sort of compromise.

[Mark Isaak]

What word do you think is appropriate for a person who thinks
maintaining an arbitrary tradition is more important than treating
people fairly and kindly?

[Roger Shrubber]

There's my position on calling same sex unions marriage.
That one can simply disagree with.
There's the nature of my argument. That you can claim to
have misunderstood, or that I presented it poorly but it
isn't something one simple disagrees with, not the nature
of logical form of it. You can reject it but it's form is
an objective thing.
And as to what an ad hominem fallacy is, that part was the
main thrust of my post. And if you "simply disagree" about
what an ad hominem fallacy is, you are modeling Ray.

> That aside, would you agree that the best way to resolve the
> issue would be to remove the term "marriage" as a legal term
> from *all* such relationships, and replace it with "civil
> union" or some such? IOW, retain "marriage", if desired, but
> as a term totally lacking in any sort of legal meaning, and
> let those who wish to use it do so, for whatever reason they
> felt appropriate. ISTM that this would remove any excuse for
> contention from *both* sides.
>
> This has been brought up at least twice in this thread, and
> a few times in the past; AFAIK no one has commented on it.

That seems to be an extremely contortionist effort to avoid
things entirely. If governments want to get out of the business
of recognizing interpersonal pair bonding as social structures
that impart certain presumptive rights, for example inheritance,
or presumptive guardianship, I think I'd object. It's the kind of
thing a government should do. If you're just worried about the
term "marriage", again, it's a silly argument that I can't take
seriously. And, as I've pointed out, its most vocal proponents
have an agenda I recognize as part of their attempt to relegate
some members of society to second class status.

And to push it home, noting a groups specific public agenda,
inferring that agenda is their motive for promoting specific,
and arguing against said legislation on the grounds of its
base motivation, is in no way an ad hominem fallacy. If you
continue to think otherwise, you should read up on logical
fallacies and correct your misconception.

[Roger Shrubber]

I did not cite you or your beliefs. But you jump in to accuse me of
all sorts of things and of being the type of person who accuses you
of all types of things. You remain a very silly person.

>> They remain the leaders of opposition to same sex marriage, not
>> just in name but in most aspects. They have even attempted to go
>> outside of the US and influence the upcoming vote in Ireland.
>
> And I'm sure your kind in the US is just as busy supplying
> propaganda for the ones who share the co-opted definition of the word
> "hate".
>
> Unless, of course, the propaganda is old hat to their Irish
> counterparts already. The internet is a most powerful medium for
> spreading ideologies of all sorts, including the resurgence of
> Stalinism in Russia and the "protection" of Russian minorities in
> various countries that were once part of the Soviet Union.
>
>> But they know they are losing. And they are pressing to hold back
>> anything that they can with this little bit about 'at least don't
>> call it a marriage' being their last resort compromise.
>
> Sort of like, where abortion after 20 weeks is concerned, 'at least
> don't call it the killing of a human being' for people of your
> ideology, isn't it?
>
> But then, "hate" also includes opposition to any abortion, even the
> abortion of a 40 week 9-pound overdue baby, no matter whether it is
> for trivial reasons or no reason at all, doesn't it?
>
> <snip remainder of regurgitated propaganda by "Shrubber">

Well you made all sort of accusations against me by inference to people
you assert are like me who make claims other than the ones I made.
All the while you didn't actually address the claims I did make.
Fascinating. Perhaps it made you feel better.

[Don Cates]

On 14/05/2015 1:35 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Wed, 13 May 2015 18:29:52 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Don Cates
> <cate...@hotmail.com.invalid>:
>
>> On 13/05/2015 12:41 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> ["Marriage":]
>
>> If one wants to keep it for traditional reasons then get it out of the
>> legal system. Then anyone can use, or deny acceptance of, the term for
>> whatever reason they find personally compelling.
>
> Excellent idea, as we've both noted elsethread!
>
> (You're apparently quite intelligent, using the traditional
> criterion...) ;-)
>

You were in doubt?? (:P

> <snip>
>
>>> ....nothing about the term "civil union" indicates
>>> disrespect or inequality, although it does indicate
>>> acceptance that there's a basic difference between
>>> traditional marriage and gay unions; if nothing else, the
>>> fact that the latter *cannot* have children without
>>> assistance is a major one. And yes, that *is* an important
>>> distinction to many.
>
>> And yet same sex couples who, for one reason or another, *cannot* have
>> children don't face the same restrictions.
>
> I believe you meant "two sex couples"... ;-)
>

You believe correctly. (Okay, above, you were in doubt)

> Agreed, but that doesn't change the general purpose of
> marriage, which for most of history has been about
> consolidation of wealth and the nurturing of the children
> needed to continue that consolidation within recognized
> bloodlines, if for no other reason. But there are solid
> biological reasons for doing so, of course; marriage in some
> form is only the historically preferred(?) vehicle.
>

So what? Do you have any examples (I suspect you might find a tiny
handfull) of anyone using the argument to deny marriage to same sex
couples who also wished to deny marriage to infertile same sex couples?
IOW, I believe that that argument is almost universally used as a cover
for baser reasons for denying marriage to same sex couples.

>
> <snip>
>
>>>> "Separate but equal" never seems to work out too well for the disadvantaged.
>
>>> Somehow I knew that particular canard would appear. Just
>>> FYI, "separate but equal" was used to enforce policies the
>>> results of which, by intent, were anything *but* equal; not
>>> the case in this scenario, in which *all* rights and
>>> privileges, with the trivial exception of the term used to
>>> describe the relationship, are shared equally.
>
>> What makes you believe this would be any different? ISTM that any
>> 'separate will eventually be exploited to create an 'unequal'.
>
> Could well be, which is why I (and you, IIRC) have suggested
> removing the term "marriage" from law, and replacing it with
> "civil union" or some such for *all* such relationships.
>

Which will never fly because almost all those against same sex
'marriage' want to deny them government/legal rights and protecting the
term is secondary.

>>> FWIW, I support the rights of individuals to have whatever
>>> relationships they want, from none to line or group
>>> marriage. I don't support the hijacking of a term, used for
>>> thousands of years in multiple cultures, to make the
>>> hijackers "feel good".
>
>> That history gives the term profound cultural and *legal* consequences
>> and so these non-traditional groups want the term to apply to them. Note
>> that at present there is nothing stopping them from *calling* themselves
>> married and nothing stopping other groups from not the claim. but the
>> traditionalists don't want the *government* to recognize rhe new
>> application of the term. They are already quite within their rights to
>> not recognize any claim of marriage as legitimate. If they don't want
>> the government to recognize some 'marriages' then they should work to
>> get *all* references to the term removed from the law/government and
>> make it strickly cultural.
>
> Yep.
>

And yet they don't.

[Don Cates]

Really? How many traditionalists did you come across who *were* okay
with it?

>
>> The only alternative
>> seems to be getting government to broaden the applicability of the term
>> within government and the law.
>
> I disagree; the laws could be rewritten. The fact that some
> fanatics would disagree is irrelevant (in principle; perhaps
> less so in practice).
>
>> People, *within their culture/community*,
>> can accept or deny recognition of the term (as they can do now).
>
> Of course they can, but the continuing inclusion of the term
> in the laws guarantees that the controversy will continue;
> only its complete removal as a legal definition can stop
> that. I think it's a worthwhile goal, and embodies the best
> sort of compromise.
>

You're a 'cockeyed optimist' to think this idea has a hope in hell of
being adopted. (:-)

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

It's the modern form of liberalism where the liberals believe in your
right to have an opinion so long as your opinion agrees with theirs.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Thu, 14 May 2015 00:17:07 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>

If that were an issue, those campaigning for YES vote would use it as
it would make their case more persuasive. They are not using it
because it is simply not an issue.

Also see my reply to Mark Isaak.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Wed, 13 May 2015 17:36:53 -0700, Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:

>On 5/13/15 5:45 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 May 2015 14:59:58 -0700 (PDT), broger...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> If the label "marriage" is unimportant, once all the legal rights are covered, why fuss about allowing same sex-couples to be called married?
>>
>> IME, the vast majority of people - on both sides of the same sex
>> marriage debate, do refer those in civil partnerships as married.
>>
>> What this referendum is about is that the Irish Constitution places a
>> special recognition on the *family* as the fundamental unit of
>> society. The Irish Courts have determined that "family" in the
>> Constitution as it stands means the traditional family of
>> father/mother/children. This referendum is to change the constitution
>> to make same sex marriages equal to traditional marriages and thus
>> give them the same special recognition.
>>
>> What does it change in legal or direct equality terms? Nothing that I
>> can see.
>
>Out of curiosity, does current or proposed law recognize
>non-"traditional" but inescapable arrangements such as widowed
>parent/children, father/mother/no children, guardian/children, and
>father/mother-turned-male/children as families with the same special
>recognition as father/mother/children?

You are confusing the constitution with legislation, they are tow
entirely different things although legislation must comply with the
latter.

All the constitution says is:

"The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and
fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution
possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and
superior to all positive law."

When there is a question about interpreting the constitution, the
matter gets referred to the high court. In a landmark decision in 1966
to do with adoption of an illegitimate child, the Supreme Court
decided that the constitution meaning of family is one based on
marriage.

There's a good and summary of the key issues by the Chairman of the
Referendum Commission who is legally obliged to be neutral and only
deal in facts, not opinions here:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/confused-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-marriage-referendum-1.2212840
http://tinyurl.com/oh8no68

His three explanations most relevant to the discussion here are:
<quote>
Q. Will a Yes vote redefine marriage?

A. No, it won’t redefine what marriage is. It will redefine clearly
the view as to who can marry. It will allow people of the opposite sex
and the same sex to marry. That’s the only difference. The same
constitutional protections in relation to the family will apply. A
married couple of the same sex will have precisely the same
constitutional status as a married couple of the opposite sex.


Q. What do you see as the key differences between civil partnership
and marriage?

A. The main difference is that a married couple enjoy constitutional
as well as legal protection. A civil partnership couple only enjoy
legal protection. Legal protection can be taken away, amended or
reduced by an Act of the Oireachtas. Constitutional protection can
only be taken away by a vote of the people. That’s the essential legal
difference between the two. There are other smaller differences, but
the essential difference is as I described it.


Q. You mentioned that a family enjoys protection under the
constitution. What does that mean?

A. The family, under the constitution, is given special status and
certain rights. It is described in great detail in Article 41. The
particular and practical application of those rights is something that
is more nebulous, and has been defined in various court cases.
Essentially what it means is a married couple cannot be treated less
well than an unmarried couple. That has applied in the past in certain
cases in relation to taxation, in relation to social welfare and the
like. A married couple have a legal status that cannot be disimproved
vis a vis the unmarried couple.

</quote>

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

That depends whether redefining marriage to include same sex marriage
is in fact unfair and unkind. It is *your opinion* that it is unfair
and unkind; other people, including Nyikos have a different opinion.
No matter how self righteous you feel, the fact that someone else
disagrees with you does not in itself make them a bigot.

Mind you, this seems to be a trait with you, I seem to recall you
labelling me a bigot too simply because I had not made up my mind on
this when the subject first came up a few months ago.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Thu, 14 May 2015 11:41:15 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

I'd be extremely wary about extrapolating anything from a handful of
replies on Usenet!

[Burkhard]

You seem again not to look to close enough
see e.g.

http://www.marriagequality.ie/marriageaudit/full-list

various groups have raised the point I made loud enough to be heard on
the other side of the Irish sea, how do you think I got to know about it?

Strange though that you never heard the argument....

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Wed, 13 May 2015 15:30:30 -0400, Roger Shrubber
<rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 May 2015 17:25:25 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Roger Shrubber
>> <rog.sh...@gmail.com>:

>>
>>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 11 May 2015 12:17:20 -0700, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by Robert Camp
>>>> <rober...@hotmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> Being willing to grant all the privileges of marriage while reserving
>>>>> use of the label doesn't remove the inherent bigotry. It highlights the
>>>>> petty selfishness of the advantaged class.
>>>>
>>>> While your first statement *may* be true (although I see no
>>>> evidence that it is in general), your second is a non
>>>> sequitur, and illogical in the bargain. How does granting
>>>> all the privileges of a traditional union to those in a
>>>> non-traditional one indicate "petty selfishness" merely
>>>> because the traditional term is reserved for the traditional
>>>> relationship? IOW, exactly what are they being "selfish"
>>>> about? And if both types of union enjoy equal benefits, how
>>>> is one "advantaged" over the other?
>>>

>>> Perhaps in some cultural vacuum, your comment might make
>>> some sense. Let's let some fresh air in. Marriage rights
>>> are being granted to same sex unions. You have to be deaf
>>> dumb and blind to not see that. It is inevitable.
>>

>> Of course it is, and I have no quarrel with that.
>>

>>> Meanwhile, groups like the Family Research Council and
>>> American Family Association continue to fight it tooth
>>> and nail. They oppose making it illegal to fire someone
>>> based on their sexual orientation. They oppose letting
>>> same-sex couples adopt children. They maintain their

>>> message that homosexuality is wrong. They remain the leaders

>>> of opposition to same sex marriage, not just in name but
>>> in most aspects. They have even attempted to go outside of
>>> the US and influence the upcoming vote in Ireland.
>>

>> .....none of which, although true, addresses what I wrote.
>>

>>> But they know they are losing. And they are pressing to
>>> hold back anything that they can with this little bit about
>>> 'at least don't call it a marriage' being their last resort
>>> compromise.
>>

You talk as if those against it form one homogenous group, they don't
which perhaps indicates your own bigotry.

In religious terms, there is a mixture of for and against - including
priests.

There are also some homosexuals - albeit a minority - who have come
out against the change for various reasons.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Thu, 14 May 2015 22:59:39 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>

Because it is simply not being discussed. With just a week to go, this
referendum is totally dominating the media and I have no read or heard
no mention of shortcomings in the law being part of the issue.

In my reply to Mark, I gave a link to a concise summary of the issues
by the Chairman of the Referendum Commission whose job it is to deal
with the facts; here it is again:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/confused-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-marriage-referendum-1.2212840
http://tinyurl.com/oh8no68

The things he deals with in that list are the ones that have been
getting public attention. Those legal issues don't even get amention -
do you think he isn't listening either?

[Roger Shrubber]

Except I made no claim that they are a homogenous group.
That's just you projecting. And your projection is well
outside of what would be logically required or indicated.

For example, the people who advocated for "separate but equal" in
the US included racists and people who were not at all racists
but truly felt that, given the realities of racial tension, education
would be best served by separating blacks and whites. And that
might even be meritorious in some environments just as having
separate schools for boys and girls has some demonstrable advantages.
However, the fact that racists also advocated for "separate but
equal" in name held obvious portent. And that was that those policies
would continue to be used to discriminate. Retrospectively, I'm
right. If you look back, people predicted the result contemporaneous
to the debate.

I think the parallel here is real. The same rational applies.

[Roger Shrubber]

You're right that just because somebody disagrees does not make
them a bigot. However, when the largest groups that support that
opinion espouse bigoted policies, it's fair to say that the main
political thrust is bigoted. You may remain an exception to the
general rule. At the same time, it's fair to call it a bigoted
policy given that we all understand that simply sharing some
of the views of bigots does not necessarily make one a bigot.
And to support the claim about bigoted policies, you just have to
look at the policies regarding whether or not an employer can
legally fire somebody just because they are gay. As noted elsewhere,
the principle antagonists to permitting the term "marriage" to
apply to same-sex unions oppose laws that make it illegal to fire
an employee on the basis of their sexual orientation.
That is bigoted policy.

Now, beyond that, the question that remains unanswered is what
is the legitimate justification for withholding the label?
I've yet to see a good one. We have been offered an incredibly
contorted attempt: that somehow applying the term is confuse future
generations about what the historical nature of marriage was.
One of the problems with this pathetic argument is that it is
so blind to what the historical nature of marriage was. It is
clearly pleading to support a false history regarding some fantasy
concept monogamous-pair-bonded-for-live couples raising children
as the right way, the best way, the only way, and the way it used
to be. And let's not forget "the foundation of civilization".

[Robert Camp]

On 5/14/15 11:19 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Wed, 13 May 2015 12:41:43 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Robert Camp
> <rober...@hotmail.com>:
>
>> On 5/13/15 10:41 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Tue, 12 May 2015 11:38:28 -0700, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by Robert Camp
>>> <rober...@hotmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> On 5/12/15 10:42 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 11 May 2015 12:17:20 -0700, the following appeared
>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by Robert Camp
>>>>> <rober...@hotmail.com>:

<snip>

In which case, if we're to extrapolate from this to the analogous
situation regarding interracial couples, you should have no problem with
reservation of the term "marriage" to apply only to same-race couples.

My guess is that you would not accept my extrapolation. My suspicion is
that your reasons for that would be similar to mine,

- because there may well be a justified desire on the part of
interracial couples to have their unions be seen as every bit as
deserving of respect as any other, and
- because there may well be intent lurking behind such a reservation
which would eventually manifest itself in less "apparently" benign ways

>> Am I right in taking your answer to mean that you would not characterize
>> denial of the use of the label "marriage" to interracial couples as
>> either selfish or disadvantageous? I don't want to put words in your
>> mouth, but considering your response it's the only position that makes
>> sense.
>
> What I think is that it would make no difference in
> conferring advantage, *as long as the law made no
> distinction*.

The history of separate-but-equal suggests otherwise.

>>> And FWIW, I agree that your example would constitute an
>>> absurdity, since "interracial", as you use it, is a purely
>>> local and recent idea not shared over most of the world for
>>> most of history, unlike the idea of male-female unions.
>>
>> In most of the world for most of history races did not have the
>> opportunity to mix (not that any of the above is actually relevant to
>> the issue here). And if you think the modern notion of "male-female
>> unions" is in any way generalizable to what has happened throughout
>> "most of history" you really need to revisit history.
>
> You're probably correct, so I'm sure you can provide cites
> to information regarding those many times and places in
> history when and where "marriage" didn't involve both males
> and females in such a union.

You appear to have misread. Let me repeat with emphasis - "if you think
the _modern notion_ of "male-female unions" is in any way generalizable

to what has happened throughout "most of history" you really need to
revisit history."

<snip>

>>>> "Separate but equal" never seems to work out too well for the disadvantaged.
>>>
>>> Somehow I knew that particular canard would appear. Just
>>> FYI, "separate but equal" was used to enforce policies the
>>> results of which, by intent, were anything *but* equal; not
>>> the case in this scenario, in which *all* rights and
>>> privileges, with the trivial exception of the term used to
>>> describe the relationship, are shared equally.
>>
>> You're going to a lot of trouble to ignore a direct response to my
>> analogy. Would it have been reasonable to deny use of the label
>> "marriage" to interracial couples given that all other privileges were
>> equal? It's a simple question.
>
> Reasonable? No, not really. But the point is irrelevant.

An interesting conclusion, considering it is directly analogous to the
issue we're discussing.

>> And it's generous of you to inform me of the intent of "separate but
>> equal," but you seem to have substantially missed the lessons learned.
>
> Not really; I even stated that the effect of the policies
> was by intent; I left it to you to know that the
> (unofficial, but quite real) policies assured continuing
> segregation and unequal treatment.

I'm having difficulty parsing this. I'm not sure it's worth pursuing,
but if you wish to clarify it might help.

>> The purpose of the doctrine was to enable governmental mandate of
>> equality of facilities etc. The outcome in many cases, unfortunately,
>> was to provide cover for maintenance of second-class status. Thus there
>> were different "intents" involved. Your comparison of the stated intent
>> of the doctrine in one case with the intent of those hoping to maintain
>> the status quo in the other, is specious.
>
> I didn't reference the *stated* intent; I assumed you'd know
> that I was referring to the *actual* intent of those who
> wanted to maintain the status quo ante. Apparently I should
> have spelled that out; my bad.

Still having trouble figuring out what you're saying. However I don't
think it will make much of a difference. If your point is to say that
the lessons of the era of separate-but-equal don't apply in this case
because of some fundamentally important difference between racial
prejudice and sexual-preference prejudice then I don't think you've made
that case.

>>> FWIW, I support the rights of individuals to have whatever
>>> relationships they want, from none to line or group
>>> marriage. I don't support the hijacking of a term, used for
>>> thousands of years in multiple cultures, to make the
>>> hijackers "feel good".
>>
>> I'm sorry you feel that way. That opinion seems, to me, to be based upon
>> little more than bigotry, considering that it doesn't pass the history
>> test ("used for thousands of years in multiple cultures"), the empathy
>> test (it's disturbing that you can reduce an entire class of
>> individuals' desire for equality to wanting to "feel good"), and
>> apparently cannot stand the light of a simple analogy.
>
> I find it interesting that you assert without evidence that
> marriage was not used for thousands of years in multiple
> cultures,

That was poor composition on my part. I meant to harken back to your
implication that what we know today as a male-female union is
generalizable to what happened for "thousands of years in multiple
cultures," but I left out important context. Suffice it to say that
lumping, say, the last two hundred years of marriage with the kind of
unions that preceded it, under the same label, as if that represents a
continuous tradition, is misguided at best.

> and that you feel that a term used is as important
> (or perhaps even *more* important?) than the practice (and
> that anyone who argues otherwise is by definition a "bigot"
> regardless of the fact that that person fully supports the
> practice in question, as I do).

I don't think I implied any of those things about the terms used.
Neither do I believe that anyone who argues otherwise is a bigot - I
assume I haven't heard all possible arguments.

But bigotry is a loaded term and I probably should have elaborated on my
remarks. We're all bigoted to some extent. I don't think it's reasonable
to expect there to be no bigotry, just that people attempt to understand
and mitigate those impulses. What prompted my assessment of your
attitude was the diminution of a just cause by use of terms like
"hijackers" and "feel good." That kind of evaluation seems, to me, to
come from a place of bitterness, not tolerance.

However, even if my assessment of your motives is accurate, I certainly
don't mean to suggest that it negates, or even mitigates to any great
extent, the totality of your position, which is obviously substantially
non-discriminatory.

> Perhaps you could comment on the discussion elsethread, in
> which the idea of completely removing reference to
> "marriage" as a legal term *for everyone*, and letting
> whoever wished to use it otherwise do so? Seems a win-win to
> me...although it may not to anyone more intent on fomenting
> discord than on making actual progress in social acceptance
> and personal interactions.

It may not. Of course the perception of who is fomenting discord is
clearly position-dependent.

In any case, your solution would be fine by me, if that's what was
desired by those seeking equality. My guess is that would not be
satisfactory to the homosexual community (though I can't say for sure).
You may rejoin that it is unfair not to take into account the
sensibilities of both sides, to which I would respond it most certainly
is not.

As far as I can tell there is nothing about recognition of same-sex
unions as "marriage" that in any way damages, denigrates, or even
inconveniences straight married couples, the institution of straight
marriage itself, or its societal ramifications. Same-sex marriage will
not trouble anything but the delicate sensibilities and restrictive
ideology of a narrow-minded group of people who interpret broad moral
progress as personal persecution (witness Nyikos' petty concerns about
how marriage-rights bigots will be perceived in the future).

Based on the arguments I've encountered so far, this all seems pretty
straightforward: one group wants something for which there is no
reasonable justification they should be denied - yet the other group
still wants to deny them. I have no difficulty understanding why gay
rights advocates might want to be a bit "uppity" in their pursuit of
equality.

[D. Spencer Hines]

"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]"

Peter Nyikos

> > 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. [Pogue Gans]

"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."

Peter Nyikos
------------------------------

Indeed.

D. Spencer Hines

[Peter Nyikos]

You speak movingly of the reality, but the label is not the reality.

A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet. It's just that I
don't want poppies to be suddenly called roses.

> Why would the Catholic church in Ireland be OK for same-sex "civil
> unions" but be so much against the label "marriage"?

That would take too long to explain here, and I am not the best person
to ask about the rationale of the Catholic Church. My suggestion is
to look up recent issues of _First Things_ if you want to know more
about that.

As for me, the best answer so far is what I wrote to "brogers":

My concern is that EVERYONE except historians who make
a special study of it will be taught that people up to
very recent times were bigots for excluding a set of people
from what "everyone knows to be marriage." They may even look
upon everything prior to the 21st century as little better
than the middle ages.

In short, they would have a highly distorted view of what
the institution of marriage was like for all those millennia.

By the way, Earle, I gave you a belated answer to a post on math
where you asked me about the relative ease of complex and real
analysis, this morning:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/j46RqnTXu4Y/xWoeNeFFWE8J

Peter Nyikos
> *

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 8:48:59 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:

> I rather think Peter's goal is to weaken civilization by arbitrarily
> denying a fundamental civil right to a significant proportion of the
> population.

You're just lampooning something I wrote, right?

In fact, if I were to take the above as your true opinion,
I would be accused of not being able to recognize sarcasm,
wouldn't I?

Peter Nyikos

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Thu, 14 May 2015 18:33:32 -0400, Roger Shrubber

If you accept that different people advocate against something for
very different reasons, how can you claim that the motivation for
advocating it is revealed by the people doing the advocating?

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

Do you therefore condemn Camp for labelling Nyikos a bigot and Isaak
for labelling Nyikos and me as bigots?

> However, when the largest groups that support that
>opinion espouse bigoted policies, it's fair to say that the main
>political thrust is bigoted. You may remain an exception to the
>general rule. At the same time, it's fair to call it a bigoted
>policy given that we all understand that simply sharing some
>of the views of bigots does not necessarily make one a bigot.
>And to support the claim about bigoted policies, you just have to
>look at the policies regarding whether or not an employer can
>legally fire somebody just because they are gay. As noted elsewhere,
>the principle antagonists to permitting the term "marriage" to
>apply to same-sex unions oppose laws that make it illegal to fire
>an employee on the basis of their sexual orientation.

None of which I see in Ireland. None of the groups advocating against
changing the constitution are advocating against gay people having the
same legal rights as heterosexual people, on the contrary, they have
all explicitly said they support the same rights.

>That is bigoted policy.
>
>Now, beyond that, the question that remains unanswered is what
>is the legitimate justification for withholding the label?
>I've yet to see a good one.

Just as I have yet to see a good one for changing it.

[Burkhard]

Erm. I gave you a link to the site of one of the advocacy groups that
did exactly that

It won't just disappear into nothingness because of your say so

With just a week to go, this
> referendum is totally dominating the media and I have no read or heard
> no mention of shortcomings in the law being part of the issue.

I just gave you a link

>
> In my reply to Mark, I gave a link to a concise summary of the issues
> by the Chairman of the Referendum Commission whose job it is to deal
> with the facts; here it is again:
>
> http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/confused-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-marriage-referendum-1.2212840
> http://tinyurl.com/oh8no68
>
> The things he deals with in that list are the ones that have been
> getting public attention. Those legal issues don't even get amention -
> do you think he isn't listening either?

First, he is replying to the questions given to him by the newspaper, he
is not delivering his own take
Second, being the neutral chairman, he only clarifies questions about
which people seem to be confused, he doesn't and must not take sides

Third, despite these two points, yes, the implications for the law are
in there: "Legal protection can be taken away, amended or reduced by an
Act of the Oireachtas." At the moment, there are around 100 provisions
whose effect it is to take legal protection away from same sex couples
vis a vis heterosexual couples, because of the law's terminology.

If you say that this is not what people want, you need to come clear on
how you plan to address this short of a constitutional amendment

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Fri, 15 May 2015 10:36:22 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>

I'm talking about the *mainstream* media, the national press, the
political parties - not the website for an obscure campaign group.

In regard to political parties, they are all supporting a YES vote
including the government ministers who are responsible for
implementing legislation. Why do you think they are not claiming that
the constitutional change will have any impact on that legislation?

>
>It won't just disappear into nothingness because of your say so
>
> With just a week to go, this
>> referendum is totally dominating the media and I have no read or heard
>> no mention of shortcomings in the law being part of the issue.
>
>I just gave you a link
>
>>
>> In my reply to Mark, I gave a link to a concise summary of the issues
>> by the Chairman of the Referendum Commission whose job it is to deal
>> with the facts; here it is again:
>>
>> http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/confused-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-marriage-referendum-1.2212840
>> http://tinyurl.com/oh8no68
>>
>> The things he deals with in that list are the ones that have been
>> getting public attention. Those legal issues don't even get amention -
>> do you think he isn't listening either?
>
>First, he is replying to the questions given to him by the newspaper, he
>is not delivering his own take

He is delivering his opinion as the head of the Commission Referendum
a role which is tightly legislated for and heavily scrutinised by all
sides as he can be legally challenged if he gives a wrong impression -
one of his predecessors was so challenged in a previous referendum.

>Second, being the neutral chairman, he only clarifies questions about
>which people seem to be confused, he doesn't and must not take sides
>
>Third, despite these two points, yes, the implications for the law are
>in there: "Legal protection can be taken away, amended or reduced by an
>Act of the Oireachtas."

Exactly - the legislation is entirely within the capacity of the
Oireachtas (the Irish parliament) and is not affected by the
constitutional clause that this referendum is seeking to change.

Your legal arguments are simply a red herring if not a straw man

[Burkhard]

Maybe you should have checked first who that "obscure campaign group" are?

>
> In regard to political parties, they are all supporting a YES vote
> including the government ministers who are responsible for
> implementing legislation. Why do you think they are not claiming that
> the constitutional change will have any impact on that legislation?

Well, since as you say they are all in favour of extending all the
rights to same sex couples, why should they, a yes vote is delivering
exactly what they want.

As for the no vote, they probably get more excited about the issue of
adoption (which they apparently misunderstand) than the status of the
partner of Irish citizen who serves on the panel of the International
Criminal Court, or the tax liability of children of a same-sex couple
who inherit a the house of their parents if these had separated before
one of them died intestate.

>
>>
>> It won't just disappear into nothingness because of your say so
>>
>> With just a week to go, this
>>> referendum is totally dominating the media and I have no read or heard
>>> no mention of shortcomings in the law being part of the issue.
>>
>> I just gave you a link
>>
>>>
>>> In my reply to Mark, I gave a link to a concise summary of the issues
>>> by the Chairman of the Referendum Commission whose job it is to deal
>>> with the facts; here it is again:
>>>
>>> http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/confused-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-marriage-referendum-1.2212840
>>> http://tinyurl.com/oh8no68
>>>
>>> The things he deals with in that list are the ones that have been
>>> getting public attention. Those legal issues don't even get amention -
>>> do you think he isn't listening either?
>>
>> First, he is replying to the questions given to him by the newspaper, he
>> is not delivering his own take
>
> He is delivering his opinion as the head of the Commission Referendum
> a role which is tightly legislated for and heavily scrutinised by all
> sides as he can be legally challenged if he gives a wrong impression -
> one of his predecessors was so challenged in a previous referendum.
>

Indeed, so he has very good reasons not to say anything on his own
volition, but respond to clarification of those and only those points
that he is asked to address.

>
>> Second, being the neutral chairman, he only clarifies questions about
>> which people seem to be confused, he doesn't and must not take sides
>>
>> Third, despite these two points, yes, the implications for the law are
>> in there: "Legal protection can be taken away, amended or reduced by an
>> Act of the Oireachtas."
>
> Exactly - the legislation is entirely within the capacity of the
> Oireachtas (the Irish parliament) and is not affected by the
> constitutional clause that this referendum is seeking to change.

Say what? Do you understand how the constitution works? Every ordinary
law in Ireland is affected by the constitution. That affect can take two
forms - under Art 5, every ordinary law is invalid if it conflicts with
the constitution (or part invalid if it can be "remedied" by separating
it from the rest of the clause) See e.g. Murphy v. The Attorney General
[1982] I.R. 241,which happened also to be a case about marriage and the
rights it confers.

Secondly, all ordinary statutes must be interpreted "in consistenty
with" the constitution - see McDonald v. Bord na gCon (No. 2) [1965]
I.R. 217.

That means that a change in the constitution triggers automatically a
change in the interpretation of all the ordinary laws that use the same
words or concepts.

There are at present close to 100 regulations where currently, same sex
couples do not enjoy the same protection as married couples, the list is
on the link I gave.

Constitutional reform automatically changes how they will be interpreted.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Fri, 15 May 2015 12:13:14 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>

I did. Here's a simple test for you - find another source of
information about them other than their own website.

>
>>
>> In regard to political parties, they are all supporting a YES vote
>> including the government ministers who are responsible for
>> implementing legislation. Why do you think they are not claiming that
>> the constitutional change will have any impact on that legislation?
>
>Well, since as you say they are all in favour of extending all the
>rights to same sex couples, why should they, a yes vote is delivering
>exactly what they want.

There is no certainty about that YES vote and pointing out where the
constitutional definition is causing legislative change would enhance
the prospect of achieving that.

>
>As for the no vote, they probably get more excited about the issue of
>adoption (which they apparently misunderstand) than the status of the
>partner of Irish citizen who serves on the panel of the International
>Criminal Court, or the tax liability of children of a same-sex couple
>who inherit a the house of their parents if these had separated before
>one of them died intestate.

Ah, right, attack the people making the argument instead of attacking
the argument.

As someone who lives in Ireland and has taken part in a series of
referenda over the years, I suspect that I understand it better than
you do.

> Every ordinary
>law in Ireland is affected by the constitution. That affect can take two
>forms - under Art 5, every ordinary law is invalid if it conflicts with
>the constitution (or part invalid if it can be "remedied" by separating
>it from the rest of the clause) See e.g. Murphy v. The Attorney General
>[1982] I.R. 241,which happened also to be a case about marriage and the
>rights it confers.
>
>Secondly, all ordinary statutes must be interpreted "in consistenty
>with" the constitution - see McDonald v. Bord na gCon (No. 2) [1965]
>I.R. 217.
>
>That means that a change in the constitution triggers automatically a
>change in the interpretation of all the ordinary laws that use the same
>words or concepts.

Apparently you understand the Irish Constitution better than the top
Irish constitution experts. Does it not strike you as rather odd that
you are depending on the website of a LGBT group rather than any
legally qualified spokesperson?

[Roger Shrubber]

AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> On Fri, 15 May 2015 12:13:14 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
> wrote:

snip

>> That means that a change in the constitution triggers automatically a
>> change in the interpretation of all the ordinary laws that use the same
>> words or concepts.
>
> Apparently you understand the Irish Constitution better than the top
> Irish constitution experts. Does it not strike you as rather odd that
> you are depending on the website of a LGBT group rather than any
> legally qualified spokesperson?

Would you accept the opinion of a Professor of Law? Perhaps they
are better able to understand the legal opinions that are being
offerred.

[Burkhard]

So you think lots of people in Ireland would say: Hey, yes, we really
get excited about the status of partners of ICC officials, that changes
everything for us and heavily influences how we will vote

>
>>
>> As for the no vote, they probably get more excited about the issue of
>> adoption (which they apparently misunderstand) than the status of the
>> partner of Irish citizen who serves on the panel of the International
>> Criminal Court, or the tax liability of children of a same-sex couple
>> who inherit a the house of their parents if these had separated before
>> one of them died intestate.
>
> Ah, right, attack the people making the argument instead of attacking
> the argument.

What people do I attack? Your own source says that the No vote
misunderstands the adoption issue. The rest is a reasonable explanation
of why the no-vote would not bring up the very technical legal
provisions that would be changed as a result of the referendum

Do you need to pass a knowledge test in Ireland before you participate
in a referendum? That would indeed be news to me.

>
>> Every ordinary
>> law in Ireland is affected by the constitution. That affect can take two
>> forms - under Art 5, every ordinary law is invalid if it conflicts with
>> the constitution (or part invalid if it can be "remedied" by separating
>> it from the rest of the clause) See e.g. Murphy v. The Attorney General
>> [1982] I.R. 241,which happened also to be a case about marriage and the
>> rights it confers.
>>
>> Secondly, all ordinary statutes must be interpreted "in consistenty
>> with" the constitution - see McDonald v. Bord na gCon (No. 2) [1965]
>> I.R. 217.
>>
>> That means that a change in the constitution triggers automatically a
>> change in the interpretation of all the ordinary laws that use the same
>> words or concepts.
>
> Apparently you understand the Irish Constitution better than the top
> Irish constitution experts.

As far as I know, none of the top Irish constitutional experts said
anythings that is inconsistent with what I wrote, if you think you have
one, feel free to cite him or her.

And anyhow, I've given you the raw data, that is the legally relevant
authorities. Art 5 of the constitution (you might want to read it at
some point) and McDonald v. Bord na gCon. For the second point, I could
also have cited East Donegal Co-Operative Livestock Mart Ltd. v.
Attorney General [1970] I.R. 317

Does it not strike you as rather odd that
> you are depending on the website of a LGBT group rather than any
> legally qualified spokesperson?

I've given you the citation to the relevant case law and the relevant
constitutional provision. The website I gave you lists the relevant
primary legislation. All the data is there that is needed to make up
your own mind.

[Burkhard]

:o) But as an argument from authority that still would not work here too
well, seeing that legal expertise is often linked to a jurisdiction (and
a sub-discipline) Now, a Professor of Law who happens to work in a
department where for all sorts of historical reasons, two of the
constitutional lawyers are Irish and have their offices next door, so
that he can check before he posts, that would be another matter
altogether...

But in any case, ultimately the relevant authorities here are the
statutes and the case law, as we keep reminding our own students, and I
gave citations to the relevant provisions and the case law.

[Roger Shrubber]

Oh my, you need more words.
The dominate political advocates for/against a piece of legislation (or
constitutional amendment) may be fairly judged by representing the
dominant motivations for that legislation.

And, even in the case where an agenda is picked up in a new
jurisdiction, the historical advocacy for that position may be a
reliable proxy for the motivation for that position, even if in
the new jurisdiction the prominent advocates are not explicitly
aligned with the historical advocates.

For example, in the US, at Dover, the advocates of Intelligent
Design were shown to have historically be advocates of teaching
creationism. Their attempts to introduce a particular variant
of intelligent design using a barely rewritten textbook called
_Of Pandas and People_ made this clear. As you may recall, the
textbook in question did some sloppy cutting and pasting to change
text from invoking a _Creator_ did this or that to an _Intelligent
Designer_ did the self-same this and that.

It could well be that there were some non-creationists in Dover
who knew nothing of the antecedents of the US Intelligent Design
movement of Phillip Johnson's ID movement and his Wedge Document.
Perhaps they were genuinely confused about the legitimate status
of the scientific theory of evolution. They may be personally
innocent. But as a matter of public policy, the undercurrent exists
and can be, and should be, rationally expected to be involved.

And I'll take this further toward the trap you want me to set
foot into. If I find myself advocating for some particular position
and look around myself at a rally of people advocating for that
position, and I notice that they are wearing white sheets and
pointy hoods I had better think about the company I keep. And
even if I find that I maintain my position after some intense
reflection, I better check to make sure that I'm not aiding and
abetting a group that may look for ways to subvert my goal.

For example, I kinda like the idea of "teach the controversy" in
a pure sense. Have kids really look at arguments for/against a
flat earth, geocentrism, a young earth, Noah's flood, special
creation. Except there are two problems. One, it's effect is rather
explicitly antagonistic to some people's religious beliefs and
I'm uncomfortable with that level of direct antagonism to
people's religions. And two, it would be very easy, and quite
likely for some teachers to abuse it or misuse it for or against
particular ideas, for it to turn into an exercise in ridicule
rather than an exercise in developing, testing and evaluating
alternative models. And I recognize that by looking at others
who advocate for "teach the controversy".

[Burkhard]

and yet...:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cCiuZanl_4

[Roger Shrubber]

Burkhard wrote:
> Roger Shrubber wrote:
>> AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>>> On Fri, 15 May 2015 12:13:14 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>>> That means that a change in the constitution triggers automatically a
>>>> change in the interpretation of all the ordinary laws that use the same
>>>> words or concepts.
>>>
>>> Apparently you understand the Irish Constitution better than the top
>>> Irish constitution experts. Does it not strike you as rather odd that
>>> you are depending on the website of a LGBT group rather than any
>>> legally qualified spokesperson?
>>
>> Would you accept the opinion of a Professor of Law? Perhaps they
>> are better able to understand the legal opinions that are being

>> offered.

>>
> :o) But as an argument from authority that still would not work here too
> well, seeing that legal expertise is often linked to a jurisdiction (and
> a sub-discipline) Now, a Professor of Law who happens to work in a
> department where for all sorts of historical reasons, two of the
> constitutional lawyers are Irish and have their offices next door, so
> that he can check before he posts, that would be another matter
> altogether...
>
> But in any case, ultimately the relevant authorities here are the
> statutes and the case law, as we keep reminding our own students, and I
> gave citations to the relevant provisions and the case law.

My second sentence did offer a qualified, yet likely germane
perspective. Reading and appreciating legal perspectives and
opinions, in my experience, requires extra skills. Moreso when
one gets them second hand through the "art" of journalism.

In "simple" things like contracts, you need to learn something
about the whys and wherefores of brands of deliberate ambiguity,
and deliberate over-specificity behind the words in black and
white if you want to convert constipated and entangled prose into
something most scientists can accurately parse and understand.
That, in turn, makes it easier and quicker to conclude a negotiation
with less time and money spent on lawyers. They hate that
so I found it fun and it became a thing I did for awhile.
But I digress.

The point at hand is that there is a skill in reading legal
opinions, and while the skill has subdivisions related to
subdisciplines and jurisdictions, certain people would be
expected to be much more skilled, and hopefully in a reverse of
how most invoke Dunning-Kruger, understand their own limitations.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Fri, 15 May 2015 08:49:58 -0400, Roger Shrubber
<rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:

>AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 May 2015 12:13:14 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
>> wrote:
>
>snip
>>> That means that a change in the constitution triggers automatically a
>>> change in the interpretation of all the ordinary laws that use the same
>>> words or concepts.
>>
>> Apparently you understand the Irish Constitution better than the top
>> Irish constitution experts. Does it not strike you as rather odd that
>> you are depending on the website of a LGBT group rather than any
>> legally qualified spokesperson?
>
>Would you accept the opinion of a Professor of Law?

I would certainly be inclined to give it greater consideration than
that of a LGBT website. Whether I would accept it would depend on the
usual factors such as his specific expertise (is he knowledgeable
about the Irish Constitution), the sources he cites and whether he is
a lone voice or supported by his peers - pretty much the same criteria
as would apply on TO to the opinion of a particular Professor of
Science in regard to a scientific matter.

Do you have one in mind?

[Roger Shrubber]

Burkhard wrote:

> and yet...:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cCiuZanl_4

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xxdth5_that-mitchell-and-webb-look-episode-4_fun

Blocked in the US.
However,
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xxdth5_that-mitchell-and-webb-look-episode-4_fun
From ~ 7:45 to 10:55 but the next skit was reasonably funny.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Fri, 15 May 2015 14:07:59 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>

Absence of response noted as speaking for itself.

>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> In regard to political parties, they are all supporting a YES vote
>>>> including the government ministers who are responsible for
>>>> implementing legislation. Why do you think they are not claiming that
>>>> the constitutional change will have any impact on that legislation?
>>>
>>> Well, since as you say they are all in favour of extending all the
>>> rights to same sex couples, why should they, a yes vote is delivering
>>> exactly what they want.
>>
>> There is no certainty about that YES vote and pointing out where the
>> constitutional definition is causing legislative change would enhance
>> the prospect of achieving that.
>
>So you think lots of people in Ireland would say: Hey, yes, we really
>get excited about the status of partners of ICC officials, that changes
>everything for us and heavily influences how we will vote

No, but the Irish people have a good track record of seeking equality
of treatment for *all* people in legislative matters and, if it were
to be shown that the constitution prevents equality of legislation,
then there is not a shadow of doubt in my mind that a change in the
constitution would be comfortably passed.

I have said that I have not yet seen a good reason for changing the
constitution - if it were shown to necessary to implement equal
legislation then I would have no hesitation in voting YES tomorrow
morning.

>
>>
>>>
>>> As for the no vote, they probably get more excited about the issue of
>>> adoption (which they apparently misunderstand) than the status of the
>>> partner of Irish citizen who serves on the panel of the International
>>> Criminal Court, or the tax liability of children of a same-sex couple
>>> who inherit a the house of their parents if these had separated before
>>> one of them died intestate.
>>
>> Ah, right, attack the people making the argument instead of attacking
>> the argument.
>
>What people do I attack? Your own source says that the No vote
>misunderstands the adoption issue.

Where does Justice Cross say that? Indeed, where does he refer
anywhere to the "No vote" as some sort of entity?

No, but if I am asked to support a change in our country's
constitution, than I treat that as a very serious matter and make sure
I understand both sides of the argument.

>
>>
>>> Every ordinary
>>> law in Ireland is affected by the constitution. That affect can take two
>>> forms - under Art 5, every ordinary law is invalid if it conflicts with
>>> the constitution (or part invalid if it can be "remedied" by separating
>>> it from the rest of the clause) See e.g. Murphy v. The Attorney General
>>> [1982] I.R. 241,which happened also to be a case about marriage and the
>>> rights it confers.
>>>
>>> Secondly, all ordinary statutes must be interpreted "in consistenty
>>> with" the constitution - see McDonald v. Bord na gCon (No. 2) [1965]
>>> I.R. 217.
>>>
>>> That means that a change in the constitution triggers automatically a
>>> change in the interpretation of all the ordinary laws that use the same
>>> words or concepts.
>>
>> Apparently you understand the Irish Constitution better than the top
>> Irish constitution experts.
>
>As far as I know, none of the top Irish constitutional experts said
>anythings that is inconsistent with what I wrote, if you think you have
>one, feel free to cite him or her.

I thought requests to prove negatives were kind of frowned upon in TO?

>
>And anyhow, I've given you the raw data, that is the legally relevant
>authorities. Art 5 of the constitution (you might want to read it at
>some point) and McDonald v. Bord na gCon. For the second point, I could
>also have cited East Donegal Co-Operative Livestock Mart Ltd. v.
>Attorney General [1970] I.R. 317

What have either of those cases to do with equality of treatment for
gay people?

>
>Does it not strike you as rather odd that
>> you are depending on the website of a LGBT group rather than any
>> legally qualified spokesperson?
>
>I've given you the citation to the relevant case law and the relevant
>constitutional provision. The website I gave you lists the relevant
>primary legislation. All the data is there that is needed to make up
>your own mind.

No, you have given no link to any case law *relevant to this debate*
which is whether or not a constitutional change is either necessary or
even the best approach to implementing equality in legislation.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Fri, 15 May 2015 09:18:04 -0400, Roger Shrubber

Well more words of explanation of the paradox in your argument might
have been useful but a history of Dover/ID/Panda's Thumb/the "Teach
the Controversy" ruse was not particularly useful.

[...]

>And I'll take this further toward the trap

I'm not setting any "traps", I'm simply asking you to reconcile the
paradox between your acceptance that different people advocate against

something for very different reasons, how can you claim that the

motivation foradvocating it is revealed by the people doing the
advocating.

>you want me to set
>foot into. If I find myself advocating for some particular position
>and look around myself at a rally of people advocating for that
>position, and I notice that they are wearing white sheets and
>pointy hoods I had better think about the company I keep.

Which gives the distinct impression that you regard the majority of
"NO" voters as the equivalent of the KKK. But you are not, of course,
the least bit bigoted yourself.