AD versus Common Era

[BillJ]

There's a difference between giving people tools to be successful and restricting their rights because you don't think they ought to be allowed to fail at something.

Most businesses fail. Do you also think it should be harder to start a business?

If there's potential for children to be involved and hurt? Then yes.

So now we should restrict someone's rights on the basis of the potential that someone could maybe possibly theoretically even though this is not certain be hurt?

Absolutely. Sometimes you have to make a person take the long view and understand what they're involving themselves in. And since the divorce rate is 50% in the U.S., I find it insulting that you dismiss it so casually, "could maybe possibly theoretically even though this is not certain" because it's far more likely than this comment would lead a person to believe. It's intellectually dishonest.

 

[BillJ]

http://worldvillage.com/10-shocking-statistics-about-children-and-divorce

But it's okay to damage the next generation of adults as long as the current generation has their "rights".

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Personally, I think that if one is going to throw out the AD and what it means, the entire calendar should be changed. Perhaps set the date at the first year for which we have written history that we KNOW exactly what year it is from. In other words, set the dividing line at or near the historic/prehistoric line...the beginning of civilization.

Not sure how scientifically feasible it would be to determine that--and of course if earlier evidence of writing is discovered, especially if it's in a different part of the world than where it was previously thought date-based recordkeeping began, you'll get a whole new brouhaha over that.

But my thought is, if you are going to use the Christian calendar, do so in full, just as one would use the Muslim calendar or any other religious-based calendar. Otherwise, a standardized system set up according to a secular date should be adopted. That way it is not simply, "We don't want to hear references to your religion, but we're going to keep using what you invented as a world standard," which is not a consistent position and also not a particularly respectful one.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Lessee....we've got a calendar with months named by the Romans, days of the week named by the Vikings, numbers from the Arabs, and a dividing line designated by a Catholic monk.

I'd say that's pretty fucking inclusive.

As for the gay marriage debate, I'd just like to, for once, be able to conduct an adult conversation without someone from the pro-gay marriage side accusing the other side of being some kind of Nazi for not readily acknowledging their worldview that "marriage is a right". Sorry, but marriage isn't any more a right than getting a driver's license.

 

[Sci]

Sorry, but marriage isn't any more a right than getting a driver's license.

The United States Supreme Court in the 1960s decided that you are wrong on this. It is a right, and if you don't like that, too bad.

If there's potential for children to be involved and hurt? Then yes.

So now we should restrict someone's rights on the basis of the potential that someone could maybe possibly theoretically even though this is not certain be hurt?

Absolutely. Sometimes you have to make a person take the long view and understand what they're involving themselves in.

Who the hell are you to be deciding what kinds of conditions are required for other people to marry?

And since the divorce rate is 50% in the U.S.,

People have the right to make mistakes. The government does not have a right to tell them who they can or cannot marry.

I find it insulting that you dismiss it so casually, "could maybe possibly theoretically even though this is not certain" because it's far more likely than this comment would lead a person to believe. It's intellectually dishonest.

No, it's not. It's based on the simple fact that you can't make laws penalizing someone for something they haven't done. Nor can you make laws regulating marriage on the basis of reproduction, since not all marriages are for, or lead to, reproduction, and not all reproduction involves marriage.

Simply put:

You can't socially engineer people's lives. Big Brother has no business in your living room, or deciding who can or cannot marry.

 

[BillJ]

You can't socially engineer people's lives. Big Brother has no business in your living room, or deciding who can or cannot marry.

So it's okay that we put millions of children at risk in the name of "rights"? You sound like a gun-nut who says we can't have any laws on guns 'cause they're violatin' our rights.

And your not "socially engineering" people's lives. Your simply creating some speed bumps to slow down the process.

It's okay. The United States will be a third-world nation within a century due to the pure fact that we put "rights" above common-sense.

 

[Sci]

You can't socially engineer people's lives. Big Brother has no business in your living room, or deciding who can or cannot marry.

So it's okay that we put millions of children at risk in the name of "rights"?

As I said before, you can't regulate marriage based upon reproduction, because not all marriages lead to reproduction and not all reproduction came from marriage. Children born out of wedlock are at risk of their parents breaking up, too -- should we therefore ban pre-marital sex? Or just non-marital reproduction? Should we make it harder for people to marry or divorce even if they plan never to have children? What about elderly couples who wish to marry, should they, too, be subject to stricter regulation?

I don't contest that divorce can have a negative impact on children, but I reject the idea that the solution is to more tightly regulate civil marriage. (In fact, I'm not convinced that this is a problem the government is capable of solving.) Doing so won't have any practical effect, in point of fact, since there's no real stigma to having children out of wedlock anymore. Relationships will succeed for fail on their own, irrelevant of whether the persons involved marry. It is therefore counter-productive to even try.

 

[Thestral]

I'm all for making marriage freely open to all couples but harder to do on-the-fly as well. Tennessee has an approach I like where couples who have taken some sort of premarital counseling pay less for their wedding license.

And lets face it, so long as marriage is a civil institution granting specific monetary benefits and as long as divorces use government resources, there's a case to be made for working to reduce the divorce rate. Since forcing people to stay together isn't an option, making sure it's something they're actually committed to is a better idea.

 

[captcalhoun]

but circumstances change over the years. look at the parents of Stephen Lawrence. they were married in love, had a son, everything was hunky-dory (so far as we know) and then their kid gets knifed and dies and their marriage broke down in the aftermath and they divorced.

no one who gets married knows how its going to end. no one can see the future.

 

[Thestral]

Of course. Nothing's going to stop divorce, especially when there's often very good reasons for it (abuse, infidelity), or people have changed so much that remaining together isn't reasonable. But if you could make sure people realize the commitment they're getting into - or at least make sure they're on the same page regarding that commitment, or perhaps even have people come to realize they're better off not married, then it would lessen the pain and cost (material and emotional) down the road. Ounce of prevention, pound of cure and all that.

It's the same reason you make condoms/birth control freely available from the health department. Are you gonna prevent all unintended pregnancies? No, of course not, but you can reduce the rate.

 

[Trilliam]

Since the question was directed at Steve Roby, it's only fair to allow him to answer it.

By the by... marriage probably shouldn't be a right for anyone. Might keep some people from making life altering decisions with their glands.

Just because SOME people can't make a 30+yr commitment based on their glands, should those of us who can walk the walk as well as talk the tallk, be penalised?

Right now, the U.S. divorce rate is around 50%.

I wasn't suggesting eliminating marriage/civil unions, more along the lines of making the process more involved than just going to the courthouse and getting a piece of paper.

Similar rate her, although not just as simple as going to court house (need to lodge"notice of intent to marry " no more than 3months before intended date of marriage and no less than 1month and 1 day). None of this "ooh, let's run off and get married tonight" a la Britney Speares

 

[Trilliam]

Of course. Nothing's going to stop divorce, especially when there's often very good reasons for it (abuse, infidelity), or people have changed so much that remaining together isn't reasonable. But if you could make sure people realize the commitment they're getting into - or at least make sure they're on the same page regarding that commitment, or perhaps even have people come to realize they're better off not married, then it would lessen the pain and cost (material and emotional) down the road. Ounce of prevention, pound of cure and all that.

Some people dont understand the vows they make.

It's the same reason you make condoms/birth control freely available from the health department. Are you gonna prevent all unintended pregnancies? No, of course not, but you can reduce the rate.

] Aren't these readily and inexpensively available from pharmacies? Service stations, supermarkets, family planning clinics?

 

[Rush Limborg]

As for the gay marriage debate, I'd just like to, for once, be able to conduct an adult conversation without someone from the pro-gay marriage side accusing the other side of being some kind of Nazi for not readily acknowledging their worldview that "marriage is a right".

QFT and ITA.

Sorry, but marriage isn't any more a right than getting a driver's license.

The United States Supreme Court in the 1960s decided that you are wrong on this. It is a right, and if you don't like that, too bad.

Let's see....

The Supreme Court also made the Dred Scott decision--that slaves were not citizens and were not protected by Constitutional rights, therefore runaways were to be returned to their masters. If someone didn't like it, too bad.

It also made the Buck v. Bell decision--which had denied the right of those deemed "mentally unfit" to refuse to be castrated against their will for purposes of eugenics. In Justice O. W. Holmes's words, "Three generations of imbeciles is enough." Again, if someone didn't like it--too bad.

I could go on--but the point is, just because the Supreme Court says it, doesn't make it true, let alone right.

 

[SicOne]

How in the world did we get from talking about AD versus Common Era to all of this marriage/civil union stuff?

It’s a corollary of Godwin. Given enough time, any thread will eventually devolve into a debate about politics, race, gay marriage, or abortion.

Or circumcision.

 

[SicOne]

Since the question was directed at Steve Roby, it's only fair to allow him to answer it.

By the by... marriage probably shouldn't be a right for anyone. Might keep some people from making life altering decisions with their glands.

Just because SOME people can't make a 30+yr commitment based on their glands, should those of us who can walk the walk as well as talk the tallk, be penalised?

Right now, the U.S. divorce rate is around 50%.

I wasn't suggesting eliminating marriage/civil unions, more along the lines of making the process more involved than just going to the courthouse and getting a piece of paper.

Now, THERE'S an example in which a 15-day waiting period will save some lives.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

I could go on--but the point is, just because the Supreme Court says it, doesn't make it true, let alone right.

Rush, there's a vast difference between gay marriage and Dred Scott or forced sterilization. Gay marriage celebrates humanity and its capacity for love, the other two denegrate humanity by depriving others of the joys of life. If there's anything at all relating to gay marriage that is like Dred Scott, it would be DOMA and state laws and constitutional amendments that prohibit gay marriage.

 

[BillJ]

Of course. Nothing's going to stop divorce, especially when there's often very good reasons for it (abuse, infidelity), or people have changed so much that remaining together isn't reasonable. But if you could make sure people realize the commitment they're getting into - or at least make sure they're on the same page regarding that commitment, or perhaps even have people come to realize they're better off not married, then it would lessen the pain and cost (material and emotional) down the road. Ounce of prevention, pound of cure and all that.

 

[Thestral]

It's the same reason you make condoms/birth control freely available from the health department. Are you gonna prevent all unintended pregnancies? No, of course not, but you can reduce the rate.

] Aren't these readily and inexpensively available from pharmacies? Service stations, supermarkets, family planning clinics?

Yes, but not everybody can afford even that. Plus some people don't want to be seen purchasing those.

 

[Rush Limborg]

I could go on--but the point is, just because the Supreme Court says it, doesn't make it true, let alone right.

Rush, there's a vast difference between gay marriage and Dred Scott or forced sterilization. Gay marriage celebrates humanity and its capacity for love, the other two denegrate humanity by depriving others of the joys of life. If there's anything at all relating to gay marriage that is like Dred Scott, it would be DOMA and state laws and constitutional amendments that prohibit gay marriage.

Unfortunately, emotional appeals concerning "celebrating humanity and its capacity for love" and "the joys of life" does not legal precedent make. Indeed, it should not, lest subjectivism creep in.

While we're on the subject of the Supreme Court, recall that the late Justice Hugo Black had to face off against the judicial doctrine of "fundamental fairness": if an action by law enforcement "shocks the conscience", then it's unconstitutional. Unfortunately, as Black often pointed out, that is a terrible standard, because it basically gives arbitrary power to the Court to determine policy on the bases of the judges' own emotions.

Once again, "marriage" is a term of tradition. It is "civil union" that is neutral, and therefore it is that which should be the government-recognized institution.

And my intent at bringing up those two cases, again, is simply that the Supreme Court saying something doesn't necessarily make it true. Judges are flawed human beings like the rest of us.

 

[Sci]

Sorry, but marriage isn't any more a right than getting a driver's license.

The United States Supreme Court in the 1960s decided that you are wrong on this. It is a right, and if you don't like that, too bad.

Let's see....

The Supreme Court also made the Dred Scott decision

Are you seriously going to compare a Supreme Court decision that empowers citizens to one that took away every single right a person had?

Seriously?

C'mon, man. There's an obvious difference between the natural right to marry and the racist belief that blacks aren't people.

I could go on--but the point is, just because the Supreme Court says it, doesn't make it true, let alone right.

Rush, there's a vast difference between gay marriage and Dred Scott or forced sterilization. Gay marriage celebrates humanity and its capacity for love, the other two denegrate humanity by depriving others of the joys of life. If there's anything at all relating to gay marriage that is like Dred Scott, it would be DOMA and state laws and constitutional amendments that prohibit gay marriage.

Unfortunately, emotional appeals concerning "celebrating humanity and its capacity for love" and "the joys of life" does not legal precedent make. Indeed, it should not, lest subjectivism creep in.

True. But recognizing the natural right of all citizens to marry and to have equal access to the institution of civil marriage does legal precedent make.

Why are you so invested in legal arguments that disempower citizens and restrict their rights?

Once again, "marriage" is a term of tradition.

No, it is not. Marriage "traditions" have been in a state of flux for centuries. When we talk about law, we're not talking about tradition, we're talking about civil marriage -- the institution to which all people have a natural right and equal access, the institution that doesn't require a white dress and tuxedo and bridesmaids and best man and a ring, the institution that lets atheists marry without requiring a church's assistance. Tradition is just not a factor when it comes to civil marriage, because, if it were, Loving v. Virginia would never have happened and it would still be illegal for blacks and whites to marry -- you know, because that violated the traditional definition of marriage.