ot - looking at the slippery slope

Religions > Atheism > ot - looking at the slippery slope

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"nemo"
Date:	05 Nov 2004 09:00:09 PM
Object:	ot - looking at the slippery slope

We in America have been on the slippery slope ever since the
Constitution and the Bill of Rights were ratified. The fundies of the
day couldn't bear the idea that they weren't living in a "godly"
country. They started working tirelessly to convert America into the
Christian nation they desired.
All through the years since the day Jefferson coined the term
"separation of church and state," our presidents and congress were
assailed with actions designed to get rid of that offenseive concept.
But most presidents, even the most devout, worked to hold back the tide
of theocracy, to keep America as high on the slope as they could.
That is, they did until Reagan got into office, courting the most rabid,
fundamentalist people and givinng them their first real glimpses of the
political power they've sought for centuries. The slope started to curve
downward. Tuesday, we reached the last stages of the bottom of that
slope. The work of integrating church and state is progressing quite
rapidly now...which is why we are seeing such celebrations. These people
believe they are witnessing the culmination of the task started over 200
years ago.
I'd try to fight the slide into the long night... but there's not much
point. It would take an organized movement far more dedicated and
hard-working than anything that exists or is ever likely to exist.
Trouble is... if I live to see a real theocracy established, would that
theocracy allow the freedom of speech we would need to start chipping
away at the nation-church?
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.

User: "jwk"
Title: Re: ot - looking at the slippery slope	06 Nov 2004 05:55:09 PM

*nemo* <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote in message news:<nemo0037-282B50.22000705112004@news1.east.earthlink.net>...

We in America have been on the slippery slope ever since the
Constitution and the Bill of Rights were ratified. The fundies of the
day couldn't bear the idea that they weren't living in a "godly"
country. They started working tirelessly to convert America into the
Christian nation they desired.

All through the years since the day Jefferson coined the term
"separation of church and state," our presidents and congress were
assailed with actions designed to get rid of that offenseive concept.
But most presidents, even the most devout, worked to hold back the tide
of theocracy, to keep America as high on the slope as they could.

That is, they did until Reagan got into office, courting the most rabid,
fundamentalist people and givinng them their first real glimpses of the
political power they've sought for centuries. The slope started to curve
downward. Tuesday, we reached the last stages of the bottom of that
slope. The work of integrating church and state is progressing quite
rapidly now...which is why we are seeing such celebrations. These people
believe they are witnessing the culmination of the task started over 200
years ago.

I'd try to fight the slide into the long night... but there's not much
point. It would take an organized movement far more dedicated and
hard-working than anything that exists or is ever likely to exist.

Trouble is... if I live to see a real theocracy established, would that
theocracy allow the freedom of speech we would need to start chipping
away at the nation-church?

No, so start buying ammo now. When that dark day comes, fight and die
with me and the handful or true Americans who will be with us.
jwk
.

User: "stillsunny"
Title: Re: ot - looking at the slippery slope	06 Nov 2004 09:29:22 PM

*nemo* <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote in message news:<nemo0037-282B50.22000705112004@news1.east.earthlink.net>...

We in America have been on the slippery slope ever since the
Constitution and the Bill of Rights were ratified. The fundies of the
day couldn't bear the idea that they weren't living in a "godly"
country. They started working tirelessly to convert America into the
Christian nation they desired.

All through the years since the day Jefferson coined the term
"separation of church and state," our presidents and congress were
assailed with actions designed to get rid of that offenseive concept.
But most presidents, even the most devout, worked to hold back the tide
of theocracy, to keep America as high on the slope as they could.

That is, they did until Reagan got into office, courting the most rabid,
fundamentalist people and givinng them their first real glimpses of the
political power they've sought for centuries. The slope started to curve
downward. Tuesday, we reached the last stages of the bottom of that
slope. The work of integrating church and state is progressing quite
rapidly now...which is why we are seeing such celebrations. These people
believe they are witnessing the culmination of the task started over 200
years ago.

I'd try to fight the slide into the long night... but there's not much
point. It would take an organized movement far more dedicated and
hard-working than anything that exists or is ever likely to exist.

Trouble is... if I live to see a real theocracy established, would that
theocracy allow the freedom of speech we would need to start chipping
away at the nation-church?

Oh ye of little faith :-)
On that slippery slope since the Constitution and Bill of Rights were
ratified, Mormons have ceased being murdered for being Mormons, school
prayer has been declared unconstitutional, battles are fought yearly
over exactly where that nebulous "line of separation" lies, and the
19th amendment has actually helped eliminate state theocracies, etc,
etc, etc. I'm too tired to go through all the ways religious emblems
and expressions have been reigned in over the years, but if anything,
that slippery slope has been toward secularism.
What you're seeing as the slippery slope toward theocracy is, in large
part, a response to increasing secularization combined with the
natural fervor inspired by national periods of uncertainty. It's the
same sort of amorphous sense which gave us the "under God" and "in God
we trust," as an identifier of the US as different than those nappy
headed Russians. In this case, it's an identifier of the US as
different than nappy headed Osama.
And what you're forgetting is that, in the same way the colonists
thought of themselves happily as English until it rubbed them the
wrong way, even the most devout of Americans wouldn't stand long for
an actual theocracy. In other words, they'll consider themselves
Christian Americans, and be completely unperturbed by religious
expression from governmental agencies -- *until* those governmental
agencies run afoul of their particular religious perspective. Though
the US is a fairly young nation, we've got a rather consistent history
of religious liberty and even rebellion.
If you doubt that, consider how well <cough> Pat Robertson did in his
own bid for the presidency, immediately after those Reagan years. He
couldn't do it then, and he couldn't do it today, and he's not going
to do it tomorrow.
It's easy to get spooked, with the eleven state referendums on the gay
marriage issue, all the religious conflict simmering in the country
with Roy Moore and crowd, and emphatically Christian people in office
(though I note that all politicians become more religious as they
stretch for higher office). What's encouraging to me is that, exit
polls suggest that while roughly a third of those voting on the gay
marriage issue are flat out against it in all forms, just over a third
simply have the objection to the retranslation of the word "marriage,"
and have no real objection to some sort of civil recognition of rights
of partnership and so forth. Which means, to me, people are actually
*thinking* about it, instead of just reacting -- and that's a good
thing.
The ironic thing, to me, is that if the US ever came even close to
becoming a theocracy, I suspect we'd see the rebound that happened in
Europe. The deadening influence of governmental beaurocracy on
religious expression would kill it deader'n road kill barbecue in
<pick the state of your choice>. (So perhaps the EAC might be
covertly encouraging such a state -- it's a good conspiracy theory,
don't you think?)
European countries use tax dollars to fund approved churches, have
religious education, pray in classes, etc. The monarch of England
must be a member in good standing to the Church of England, for
instance. And the EU just got through a fairly acrimonious debate
about whether references to God/Christianity should be in their
constitution -- and it's not been in the US constitution for over 200
years, and we've been wrangling over what that means for about that
long.
Sunny
.

User: "William Boutwell"
Title: Re: ot - looking at the slippery slope	07 Nov 2004 06:46:18 AM

(stillsunny) wrote in
news:c472f5b5.0411061929.43aa7389@posting.google.com:

*nemo* <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:<nemo0037-282B50.22000705112004@news1.east.earthlink.net>...

<snip>

Trouble is... if I live to see a real theocracy established, would
that theocracy allow the freedom of speech we would need to start
chipping away at the nation-church?

Oh ye of little faith :-)

Goes without saying ;-)

On that slippery slope since the Constitution and Bill of Rights were
ratified, Mormons have ceased being murdered for being Mormons, school
prayer has been declared unconstitutional, battles are fought yearly
over exactly where that nebulous "line of separation" lies, and the
19th amendment has actually helped eliminate state theocracies, etc,
etc, etc. I'm too tired to go through all the ways religious emblems
and expressions have been reigned in over the years, but if anything,
that slippery slope has been toward secularism.

Secularism is seen as something evil, somehow, that must be resisted in
order for faith to remain strong here.
Odd, though, that there are so many sects flourishing. Typically, even
small towns have two or more churches and perhaps a synagogue as well.

What you're seeing as the slippery slope toward theocracy is, in large
part, a response to increasing secularization combined with the
natural fervor inspired by national periods of uncertainty. It's the
same sort of amorphous sense which gave us the "under God" and "in God
we trust," as an identifier of the US as different than those nappy
headed Russians. In this case, it's an identifier of the US as
different than nappy headed Osama.

I resent the implication of "under God" in the pledge. To me, it means
your first loyalty must be to God and only then to the Republic. It
undermines patriotism, rather than upholding it.
I have a different opinion of "In God We Trust." It's a lie. For
instance, we keep a standing military force, employ police and fire
departments, build dams, levees, put lighting arresters on buildings,
etc.
Sounds to me like "we" don't trust Him all that much...
"Out of many, one."
Far better.

And what you're forgetting is that, in the same way the colonists
thought of themselves happily as English until it rubbed them the
wrong way, even the most devout of Americans wouldn't stand long for
an actual theocracy. In other words, they'll consider themselves
Christian Americans, and be completely unperturbed by religious
expression from governmental agencies -- *until* those governmental
agencies run afoul of their particular religious perspective. Though
the US is a fairly young nation, we've got a rather consistent history
of religious liberty and even rebellion.

Much of what happens here is the pendulum swinging from one "extreme" to
the other. It does seem, though, that the pendulum isn't swinging as far
as it used to.
Attempts by government to regulate the behavior of folks don't really
have a good track record. Prohibition of alcoholic beverages comes to
mind, as does the "war" against drugs.
In both cases, the laws didn't eliminate crime, but encouraged it.
Emotions run high, but pragmatism eventually overcomes emotion.

If you doubt that, consider how well <cough> Pat Robertson did in his
own bid for the presidency, immediately after those Reagan years. He
couldn't do it then, and he couldn't do it today, and he's not going
to do it tomorrow.

It still gives me warm, fuzzy feelings when I recall just how badly he
failed.

It's easy to get spooked, with the eleven state referendums on the gay
marriage issue, all the religious conflict simmering in the country
with Roy Moore and crowd, and emphatically Christian people in office
(though I note that all politicians become more religious as they
stretch for higher office). What's encouraging to me is that, exit
polls suggest that while roughly a third of those voting on the gay
marriage issue are flat out against it in all forms, just over a third
simply have the objection to the retranslation of the word "marriage,"
and have no real objection to some sort of civil recognition of rights
of partnership and so forth. Which means, to me, people are actually
*thinking* about it, instead of just reacting -- and that's a good
thing.

There's no retranslation necessary. In the USA marriage is a legal
contract, a de-facto "civil union." Churches love to claim it is a
"sacrament" or "holy", but in fact it's a binding agreement between
consenting adults, enforced by the states.
It's not so much that marriage must be redefined, but folks attitudes
toward it.
Me? I'm of the opinion of a Thomas Jefferson quote on same-sex marriage.
"It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
If'n two men or two women want to sign a contract, let 'em! I'd just love
to see some of the divorce cases as they are being fought in court ;-)

The ironic thing, to me, is that if the US ever came even close to
becoming a theocracy, I suspect we'd see the rebound that happened in
Europe. The deadening influence of governmental beaurocracy on
religious expression would kill it deader'n road kill barbecue in
<pick the state of your choice>. (So perhaps the EAC might be
covertly encouraging such a state -- it's a good conspiracy theory,
don't you think?)

Good conspiracy theory? Is there such a thing?
Yes, the state-supported churches in Europe are losing the battle for
souls, it seems. Too bad <eg>

European countries use tax dollars to fund approved churches, have
religious education, pray in classes, etc. The monarch of England
must be a member in good standing to the Church of England, for
instance. And the EU just got through a fairly acrimonious debate
about whether references to God/Christianity should be in their
constitution -- and it's not been in the US constitution for over 200
years, and we've been wrangling over what that means for about that
long.

But Europe also suffered the religious wars of the Middle Ages, where the
USA has, so far, avoided much bloodshed over religion. Perhaps that's our
problem - so many religions vying for control that none of them can
consolidate enough power to begin eliminating their rivals.
It's a lot easier to ignore one religion than dozens of them ;-)
--
Dale.
aa #1969
"Man is the only animal that blushes, or needs to.", Mark Twain
.

User: "stillsunny"
Title: Re: ot - looking at the slippery slope	08 Nov 2004 10:02:13 AM

William Boutwell <dale-b@cfl.rrr.com> wrote in message news:<Xns959A4F1D31954dalebcflrrrcom@65.32.5.121>...

stillsunny1@yahoo.com (stillsunny) wrote in
news:c472f5b5.0411061929.43aa7389@posting.google.com:

Hi, Dale :-)

Secularism is seen as something evil, somehow, that must be resisted in
order for faith to remain strong here.

Odd, though, that there are so many sects flourishing. Typically, even
small towns have two or more churches and perhaps a synagogue as well.

Pwecisely.
Which is why I sincerely doubt a truly theocratic society will ever
develop in this country.

I resent the implication of "under God" in the pledge. To me, it means
your first loyalty must be to God and only then to the Republic. It
undermines patriotism, rather than upholding it.

I have a different opinion of "In God We Trust." It's a lie. For
instance, we keep a standing military force, employ police and fire
departments, build dams, levees, put lighting arresters on buildings,
etc.

Sounds to me like "we" don't trust Him all that much...

Praise the Lord and pass the amunition!
I understand your sentiments. It's just that those are the last two
actual "losses" of secularism I can think of, politically expedient
rhetoric notwithstanding.
I mean, our national anthem still isn't "God Save the President."

"Out of many, one."

Far better.

I think so, too.

Much of what happens here is the pendulum swinging from one "extreme" to
the other. It does seem, though, that the pendulum isn't swinging as far
as it used to.

Hm. In some ways, it seems to swing further. But then, the issues
change, too. It's not just a matter of self identification as "not
the other" at this point, nor a conflict over plainly religious
matters, but conflicts involving real issues which often divide along
theological lines (stem cell research, same sex marriage, etc.)

Attempts by government to regulate the behavior of folks don't really
have a good track record. Prohibition of alcoholic beverages comes to
mind, as does the "war" against drugs.

Some regulation is, I think, necessary, simply for order. Even when
the regulations involve personal behavior, if those regulations
reflect the underlying social conventions generally adhered to anyhow,
it's not usually much of a problem. It's when legal restrictions seem
to attempt to *impose* social conventions that there's an issue.
For instance, there are legal prohibitions against fornicating in
public. Fact is, social conventions generally inhibit the urge to
flop down on Main Street at noon and go to town, so it's not really
onerous, nor does it "create" criminals by legislative fiat. On the
other hand, prohibitions against what consenting adults do in private
*is* onerous, and counterproductive.

In both cases, the laws didn't eliminate crime, but encouraged it.

Emotions run high, but pragmatism eventually overcomes emotion.

Yeah. We eventually settle down :-)

I understand what you're saying, and am, in fact, an advocate for gay
marriage. In trying to understand the objections of the other side,
however, I have to say that most people simply associate "marriage"
with man/woman, family, church, etc, irrespective of whether the
ceremony is officiated in a religious setting or whether the couple is
ever going to have children. It's a social convention sort of thing
again, the associations people have with a particular word icon.
So, if the purpose is to achieve equal treatment under the law, and if
marriage is both a legal status and a religious/cultural/traditional
sort of thing, then it seems prudent to eliminate the emotion
generating language (marriage). I'm not saying this very well this
morning, but in legal terms, if a "marriage" is a civil union, then
pushing for civil unions between same sex couples isn't abandoning a
principle. It's simply achieving the desired effect by a less
confrontational route -- because it would be, in effect, a marriage.
Eventually, the notion becomes normalized in society, part of the
social fabric, and the whole objection disappears.

It's not so much that marriage must be redefined, but folks attitudes
toward it.

Same thing, I think. And I counter that you can't legislate
attitudes. You can't legislate social conventions. What you *can*
legislate is equal treatment under the law, and eventually, as the
landscape changes, the attitudes adjust with it, as they have with
respect to voting rights, for instance.

Me? I'm of the opinion of a Thomas Jefferson quote on same-sex marriage.
"It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

If'n two men or two women want to sign a contract, let 'em! I'd just love
to see some of the divorce cases as they are being fought in court ;-)

Oh, my...

Good conspiracy theory? Is there such a thing?

At least some are more entertaining than others.

Yes, the state-supported churches in Europe are losing the battle for
souls, it seems. Too bad <eg>

Tada!
It's a nearly perfect balance of power. No theocracy possible.

It's a lot easier to ignore one religion than dozens of them ;-)

There's a couple which moved to this area from Bulgaria. Lovely
people, quite delighted to be here, hardworking, etc. They are purely
puzzled over the sheer number of denominations. "You only need one!"
Sunny
.

User: "William Boutwell"
Title: Hm, should I change the topic? (was Re: ot - looking at the slippery slope)	08 Nov 2004 06:27:25 PM

(stillsunny) wrote in
news:c472f5b5.0411080802.2186d5d1@posting.google.com:

William Boutwell <dale-b@cfl.rrr.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns959A4F1D31954dalebcflrrrcom@65.32.5.121>...

(stillsunny) wrote in
news:c472f5b5.0411061929.43aa7389@posting.google.com:

Hi, Dale :-)

Hiya, Sunny one!

<snip>

Much of what happens here is the pendulum swinging from one "extreme"
to the other. It does seem, though, that the pendulum isn't swinging
as far as it used to.

I don't have ethical problems with either stem cell research or same sex
marriage.
My problem is with government funded research in the first place. In my
opinion, the private sector does a much better job of identifying and
exploiting promising areas of research. Call it the profit motive if you
like.
If stem cells have the potential some believe, investors will put their
money where their desires for profits are and leave tax-payers out of it.
I suspect stem cell research will be a bottomless pit for a long while.
Tossing money at it probably isn't something government should be involved
in.
Perhaps a private foundation could offer a prize - like the one Bert Rutan
just won - for the first practical application/cure to result from stem
cells.
Should it be something like a cure for macular degeneration, diabetes,
Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, I'm sure many folks would suddenly adjust their
ethics. Hm, I think I just coined a phrase: adjustable ethics.
Since marriage is a contract (changing gears once more), it strikes me that
most of what is considered marriage could be simulated quite well with
other contracts. Some of it can't, however.
For instance, spouses are considered "next of kin" (even though they're not
supposed to be related too closely) for purposes of legal notification in
case of death or injury.
In most places, I'm pretty sure the surviving spouse is automatically heir
to a deceased spouse's estate even absent a last will and testament.
These benefits are unavailable to couples (of whatever genders) living
together without benefit of government licensing.

Attempts by government to regulate the behavior of folks don't really
have a good track record. Prohibition of alcoholic beverages comes to
mind, as does the "war" against drugs.

Indeed. I see this as a problem, particularly with the Republicans in
charge in Washington right now. This isn't the same Republican party that
ran Barry Goldwater for president.
Hell, it's not the same Republican party that ran Dewey, even.
I've even heard someone say that Abraham Lincoln's administration was
"faith based." A base canard!
I honestly think that the current administration will attempt the DMA once
more, despite lacking the super-majority needed in Congress to pass it to
the states for ratification.
Fortunately for us, the founders made it very difficult to amend the
Constitution, quite deliberately.

For instance, there are legal prohibitions against fornicating in
public. Fact is, social conventions generally inhibit the urge to
flop down on Main Street at noon and go to town, so it's not really
onerous, nor does it "create" criminals by legislative fiat. On the
other hand, prohibitions against what consenting adults do in private
*is* onerous, and counterproductive.

There are laws on the books here in Florida that prohibit fornication or
co-habitation. Yes, they are totally ignored. Should one attempt
fornication in public, the "lewd and lascivious behavior" laws kick in,
instead.
So too are the laws concerning "crimes against nature" ignored. I'm of the
opinion that phrase should be reserved for environmental irresponsibility
rather than sexual behavior one disapproves of. As some wag once put it,
"the only unnatural sex act is one that you can't perform."
I happen to find laws against public nudity rather ludicrous, particularly
when they are discriminatory. For instance, men go bare chested on
Florida's beaches (and just about everywhere else) legally, while a woman
had best not...
Revoking the laws against women dropping their tops might go far to make us
less puerile. And ruin the market for Playboy and Penthouse. I'm pretty
sure social convention would make it rare, but it shouldn't be a "crime."
Prunella Prude and Percy Pecksniff would surely not approve. Think of the
children! <blech>
<snip>

So, if the purpose is to achieve equal treatment under the law, and if
marriage is both a legal status and a religious/cultural/traditional
sort of thing, then it seems prudent to eliminate the emotion
generating language (marriage). I'm not saying this very well this
morning, but in legal terms, if a "marriage" is a civil union, then
pushing for civil unions between same sex couples isn't abandoning a
principle. It's simply achieving the desired effect by a less
confrontational route -- because it would be, in effect, a marriage.
Eventually, the notion becomes normalized in society, part of the
social fabric, and the whole objection disappears.

I don't think a case can be made that homosexuals aren't treated equally
under the marriage laws. After all, a gay man can marry a woman. It might
not be his sexual preference to marry a woman, but he's got the same
marriage rights as any other man.
Since all marriages in the US are civil unions, making a big fuss over the
word "married" strikes me as counter-productive, too.
Seems there are some who just aren't happy unless there's someone they can
look down upon. Women got uppity and demanded suffrage. Negroes got uppity
and demanded civil rights. Just gotta draw the line at them fairy boys,
don't ya know!
A lot of the resistance is just reaction, I think, rather than serious
cogitation on the actual effects legally recognized homosexual unions will
have.
Besides, think of the field-day marriage coordinators, flower arrangers and
interior decorators will have! It'll be a positive boon to the economy, I
tells ye!

It's not so much that marriage must be redefined, but folks attitudes
toward it.

You're right, attitudes must change with time. Just as there are still
folks who disapprove of mixed skin color marriages (but far fewer than
there used to be), it'll take a while 'fore folks are used to the notion
that marriage is more about commitment than how genitals fit together.

<snip again>

(obligatory attempt to make post on topic for a.a.)
Ya know, that's part of what made me realize that atheism was viable and
stood a pretty darn good chance of being correct.
Going back to the two churches and a synagogue in the small town I
mentioned; the two churches teach differing versions of Christianity, each
telling their flock the folks in the other flock are hell bound and just
how the basket was woven wrong.
The synagogue teaches an older religion, one with neither a Heaven or Hell,
that was the root of the churches. The synagogue looks upon the churches
with mild contempt, considering them young upstarts with attitude problems.
Three theologies, all mutually contradictory. In one small town.
Decisions, decisions.
Concluding that it's all BS was relatively easy for me. Useful BS, as a
teaching tool for moral concepts maybe, but BS nonetheless.
(And he seems so reasonable, otherwise!)
If you've got a few minutes, er, hours, um, well, if you've got some time
to kill, you could check out some of the stories at http://exchristian.net/
Some of them brought tears to my eyes. Yes, I do have a sentimental side.
As always, a pleasure to communicate with you, Ma'am.
--
Dale.
aa #1969
"Man is the only animal that blushes, or needs to.", Mark Twain
.

User: "stillsunny"
Title: Re: Hm, should I change the topic? (was Re: ot - looking at the slippery slope)	11 Nov 2004 12:37:36 PM

William Boutwell <dale-b@cfl.rrr.com> wrote in message news:<Xns959BC6062310Fdalebcflrrrcom@65.32.5.121>...
<obviously, this didn't take the first time>
An expanding discussion!

I don't have ethical problems with either stem cell research or same sex
marriage.

Ow.
It's a risky thing to venture on this venue, but I *do* have an
ethical dilemma with stem cell research, when it's derived from
fertilized ovum. It's not a dilemma which automatically renders me
opposed to the research, but:
I'm pro-choice, and after a whole lot of thought and exploration of
the issue, remain so. I am not, however, pro-choice by virtue of the
expedient categorization of a developing fetus to a turnip or some
such. In other words, as near as I can tell, a human is a human when
it becomes a genetically distinct individual human, and the rest is
simply stages of development.
So while I have no real *empathy* for a fertilized egg, or a cluster
of cells, or anything else until its development approaches something
more recognizably like me, I am given pause at the notion of
harvesting from it for some purpose elsewhere, even if that purpose
has its own compassionate component.

My problem is with government funded research in the first place. In my
opinion, the private sector does a much better job of identifying and
exploiting promising areas of research. Call it the profit motive if you
like.

If stem cells have the potential some believe, investors will put their
money where their desires for profits are and leave tax-payers out of it.

I suspect stem cell research will be a bottomless pit for a long while.
Tossing money at it probably isn't something government should be involved
in.

Perhaps a private foundation could offer a prize - like the one Bert Rutan
just won - for the first practical application/cure to result from stem
cells.

Should it be something like a cure for macular degeneration, diabetes,
Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, I'm sure many folks would suddenly adjust their
ethics. Hm, I think I just coined a phrase: adjustable ethics.

You know, I think ethics are nearly always adjustable. In an
imperfect, changeable world, don't you think they have to be?
To hearken back to the earlier example, if the entire world was
suddenly afflicted with a disease which was killing everybody, and the
promised cure lay only in embryonic stem cells, my qualms about
harvesting from them would disappear, in the face of possible human
extinction. On the other extreme, however, there are the human
experiments done by Mengele et al -- which information is, in a
scientific sense, sometimes useful, but which experiments *still*
repulse me.

Since marriage is a contract (changing gears once more), it strikes me that
most of what is considered marriage could be simulated quite well with
other contracts. Some of it can't, however.

For instance, spouses are considered "next of kin" (even though they're not
supposed to be related too closely) for purposes of legal notification in
case of death or injury.

In most places, I'm pretty sure the surviving spouse is automatically heir
to a deceased spouse's estate even absent a last will and testament.

These benefits are unavailable to couples (of whatever genders) living
together without benefit of government licensing.

I know.

<snip>

I honestly think that the current administration will attempt the DMA once
more, despite lacking the super-majority needed in Congress to pass it to
the states for ratification.

Fortunately for us, the founders made it very difficult to amend the
Constitution, quite deliberately.

Which may be what they're counting on. This whole thing is very silly
to
me.
<snip>

I happen to find laws against public nudity rather ludicrous, particularly
when they are discriminatory. For instance, men go bare chested on
Florida's beaches (and just about everywhere else) legally, while a woman
had best not...

Revoking the laws against women dropping their tops might go far to make us
less puerile. And ruin the market for Playboy and Penthouse. I'm pretty
sure social convention would make it rare, but it shouldn't be a "crime."

Prunella Prude and Percy Pecksniff would surely not approve. Think of the
children! <blech>

On the one hand, I sort of agree, but I do think the "decency" laws
fall into the
category of "what most people would do anyhow", and have a whole lot
of
subconscious stuff all mixed in. It seems to sort of change on its
own, sort
of organically (and I'm grateful women's bathing suits aren't what
they were a
hundred years ago, but certainly wish it wasn't so hard to find one
appropriate
for a forty year old figure...)
It's sort of the same ambiguity I have regarding, for instance, strip
clubs. I
fully support the right of humans to make use of that which they own
(their
bodies) to earn a living. I also think a community has a right to
determine what
it finds offensive or objectionable within that community, and
disallow it. It's
not an easy tension, but there it is.
<snip>

I've heard that from those opposing gay marriage. It seems a little
sophomoric to
me. The *conservative in me wonders how the state can prohibit two
adult humans
from contracting together any way they wish. I keep wondering when
some couple
is goign to put together an actual *contract*, where all specifics are
laid out in legal terms
and both sign it, and then defy the state to say it's invalid.

Seems there are some who just aren't happy unless there's someone they can
look down upon. Women got uppity and demanded suffrage. Negroes got uppity
and demanded civil rights. Just gotta draw the line at them fairy boys,
don't ya know!
A lot of the resistance is just reaction, I think, rather than serious
cogitation on the actual effects legally recognized homosexual unions will
have.

One thing that I think gets lost in the whole debate is that gays
*fall in love*,
and have a normal human desire to publically proclaim that love, and
commit to it.
atheist@home is in a firestorm on another thread, because he's
frustrated with the
way some activists have allowed homosexuality to be depicted in the
public domain.
And the truth is, though I've seen more recently, there's very little
out there presented of plain
old gentle affection, romance, and falling in love compared to
consistent representation
of gays as solely focused on wild sex, all the time, with as many
people as possible.
*I* have a different perspective, but only because I happen to be
privileged to know
several of those "silent majority" who just hang out, go to work, pay
taxes, and cut
their grass -- and fall in love. But to a person who doesn't know any
gays (or doesn't
know they know any gays) that stereotypical flaming shouting guy
slinging condoms
as he parades in a g-string and feather boa becomes representative; it
defines the
stereotype, and cements it. And on a deeply emotional level, I think
that's part of the
objection to the word "marriage." What is, at least on its face, an
attempt to equalize
treatment under the law is seen as a push for acceptance of that guy
in the g-string
and anything he chooses to do. And for a whole lot of people, right
or wrong, good
or bad, there's a nearly insurmountable gut level negative response.

Besides, think of the field-day marriage coordinators, flower arrangers and
interior decorators will have! It'll be a positive boon to the economy, I
tells ye!

I'm already looking forward to performing those ceremonies.

(obligatory attempt to make post on topic for a.a.)

<snip>

If you've got a few minutes, er, hours, um, well, if you've got some time
to kill, you could check out some of the stories at http://exchristian.net/

Some of them brought tears to my eyes. Yes, I do have a sentimental side.

Oh, some of those are awful.

As always, a pleasure to communicate with you, Ma'am.

And you, kind sir!
Sunny
.

User: "William Boutwell"
Title: Re: Hm, should I change the topic? (was Re: ot - looking at the slippery slope)	11 Nov 2004 06:47:32 PM

(stillsunny) wrote in
news:c472f5b5.0411111037.558352a4@posting.google.com:

William Boutwell <dale-b@cfl.rrr.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns959BC6062310Fdalebcflrrrcom@65.32.5.121>...

<obviously, this didn't take the first time>

An expanding discussion!

Hm. In some ways, it seems to swing further. But then, the issues
change, too. It's not just a matter of self identification as "not
the other" at this point, nor a conflict over plainly religious
matters, but conflicts involving real issues which often divide
along theological lines (stem cell research, same sex marriage,
etc.)

I don't have ethical problems with either stem cell research or same
sex marriage.

It's difficult for me to be other than pro-choice. I'm male, so its one
of those things that, at best, I will be ancillary to. I'm not the one
who has to make the heart-wrenching decision to terminate a pregnancy.
I find the screaming and ranting on the part of the extremists tiresome,
my opinion being: if you don't want to abort, you don't have to.
Outlawing abortion, even when medically necessary for the safety of the
woman, strikes me as unjust.
On the other hand, abortion as a birth-control method leaves me entirely
cold.

So while I have no real *empathy* for a fertilized egg, or a cluster
of cells, or anything else until its development approaches something
more recognizably like me, I am given pause at the notion of
harvesting from it for some purpose elsewhere, even if that purpose
has its own compassionate component.

See paragraph below.

My problem is with government funded research in the first place. In
my opinion, the private sector does a much better job of identifying
and exploiting promising areas of research. Call it the profit motive
if you like.

If stem cells have the potential some believe, investors will put
their money where their desires for profits are and leave tax-payers
out of it.

I suspect stem cell research will be a bottomless pit for a long
while. Tossing money at it probably isn't something government should
be involved in.

Perhaps a private foundation could offer a prize - like the one Bert
Rutan just won - for the first practical application/cure to result
from stem cells.

Should it be something like a cure for macular degeneration,
diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, I'm sure many folks would
suddenly adjust their ethics. Hm, I think I just coined a phrase:
adjustable ethics.

You know, I think ethics are nearly always adjustable. In an
imperfect, changeable world, don't you think they have to be?

Yes.

To hearken back to the earlier example, if the entire world was
suddenly afflicted with a disease which was killing everybody, and the
promised cure lay only in embryonic stem cells, my qualms about
harvesting from them would disappear, in the face of possible human
extinction. On the other extreme, however, there are the human
experiments done by Mengele et al -- which information is, in a
scientific sense, sometimes useful, but which experiments *still*
repulse me.

Mengele was a monster, serving monsters. His notes should have been
destroyed and his memory should be obliterated forever more.
No, I take that back. His memory should live on as reminder of what
happens when people forget that humanity encompasses everyone, that
artificial distinctions between people used to dehumanize some dehumanize
us all.
There are those who'd object to embryonic research even if the "end of
the world" was upon us. In fact, there are plenty who are quite looking
forward to the end of the world. After all, it's God's will and all
that...
If the embryos are obtained through voluntary contributions of ova and
sperm, for instance as excess from in-vitro fertilization for couples
with problems conceiving, I have no ethical problem with how the excess
embryos are used, provided it isn't to perform genetic manipulation with
the aim of "improving" humanity. We're having enough ethical problems
with genetic engineering of plant species and cloning.
On the other hand, it gave me the creepy-crawlies when I read a story
about a woman who was bearing a child so that another of her children
would have a suitable match for a kidney transplant.
Far better, I think, to have the knowledge of how stem cells work to
regrow a kidney, than take the kidney of a newborn child for a sibling it
doesn't yet know. The notion of bearing a child for "spare parts" really
bothers me.

<snip>

I honestly think that the current administration will attempt the DMA
once more, despite lacking the super-majority needed in Congress to
pass it to the states for ratification.

Fortunately for us, the founders made it very difficult to amend the
Constitution, quite deliberately.

Which may be what they're counting on. This whole thing is very silly
to
me.

Ah, but you have a sense of humor, a dollop of compassion, a soupcon of
cogitative ability and a respect for truth.
You're also not worried about re-election to the House or Senate...
<snip>

Reminds me of a story my late mother-in-law told me. She was a fashion
model during the 30s and 40s (when she was in her twenties and thirties),
and was arrested in Louisianna for wearing a one-piece bathing costume
that did not cover her legs.
The charge? Indecent exposure.
Rae was quite the looker in her day.
Imagine the reaction she'd have had in a bikini back then!

It's sort of the same ambiguity I have regarding, for instance, strip
clubs. I
fully support the right of humans to make use of that which they own
(their
bodies) to earn a living. I also think a community has a right to
determine what
it finds offensive or objectionable within that community, and
disallow it. It's
not an easy tension, but there it is.

I'm not sure I agree, here. Communities do not have rights. Individuals
do.
Of course, there's the type of community standards that are enforced by
contract, such as home-owner's associations.
Governments do not have rights either - in fact, their powers are derived
from the rights of individuals. When government violates someone's
rights, there had better be a damned good reason for it.
Good reasons would be: initiating the use of force, or committing a
fraudulent act.
I'm pretty sure you violate the local nudity ordinances in your own home
quite regularly - and as a private citizen there should be no regulation
of the things you do in your own home, on your own property, unless it
involves the use of force or committing fraud.
So, by extension, a business owner has control over what goes on inside
his property, right?
So long as a nude dancer can't be seen from the street, as long as there
is no disturbance of the peace, I have a very hard time justifying
government intervention in the entertainment industry.
"Community standards" seems such a reasonable phrase, but what does it
really mean?
I'll draw on my memories of twenty years in Myrtle Beach for a moment -
the community standard there seems to be quite lax for part of the year,
does it not?
People go to MB to party, and boy-howdy, some of 'em whoop it up loud and
long.
And yet there were ordinances banning certain bathing suits. Thongs, as I
recall. Considering how skimpy many of the non-thong suits I saw were, it
just seemed silly to me to ban thongs. Better, I think, to restrict
bathing suits to the beaches and pools and require some sort of street
clothing in other locations.
Now, I'll agree that some people should not wear thong bathing suits, but
to pass ordinances banning one style of bathing attire strikes me as
somewhat, er, inconsistent with the image of MB as a party town.
I think there'd be much less to be pruriently interested in were folks a
bit more comfortable with their own bodies, and thereby less inclined to
be busy-bodies about the bodies of others.
This, however, looks to be an area where we might have to disagree
without being disagreeable.

<snip>

<I dropped out as a college senior, I'll have you know!>
Now that's a good idea!
I wonder, though, if perhaps such a contract couldn't be put together for
the equivelant of plural marriage, or other forms of polygamy, and what
the reactions would be.
If you think some folks are howling in outrage about same sex marriages
now, wait 'til they realize that more than two folks can sign a
contract...

<snip>

*I* have a different perspective, but only because I happen to be
privileged to know
several of those "silent majority" who just hang out, go to work, pay
taxes, and cut
their grass -- and fall in love. But to a person who doesn't know any
gays (or doesn't
know they know any gays) that stereotypical flaming shouting guy
slinging condoms
as he parades in a g-string and feather boa becomes representative; it
defines the
stereotype, and cements it. And on a deeply emotional level, I think
that's part of the
objection to the word "marriage." What is, at least on its face, an
attempt to equalize
treatment under the law is seen as a push for acceptance of that guy
in the g-string
and anything he chooses to do. And for a whole lot of people, right
or wrong, good
or bad, there's a nearly insurmountable gut level negative response.

Stereotypes are useful for those who refuse to think, I think.
Empathy, on the other hand, is difficult to implement. Yeah, it's easy to
condemn homosexuality, either on religious grounds or from age-old
prejudice, and most folks will try the easy path first.
I'm used to treading a harder path, and that sometimes makes it difficult
for me to empathize with those who have trouble with it. There are those
who, for various reasons, can not allow themselves to feel empathy for
those who are too "different"; either through fear that they will
encounter something that makes them doubt their world-view, or because it
will be too self-revealing, showing them something about themselves
they've masked or hidden away.
I suspect some of the most virulent homophobes are in denial about their
own sexuality. Driving homosexuals back into the closet, denying them the
emotional comforts all human beings wish for themselves, is a way of
coping with doubts and hidden desires.
I think it very telling that prejudice against male homosexuals is much
stronger than against female homosexuals.
Vivid images stick in the mind and memory, while every day ones do not.
The campy make up and feather boas outweigh the Dockers and golf shirts
in most folks' memories.
Exhibitionism isn't something I understand very well.
"Hey, look at me! Aren't I just the most outrageous thing you've ever
seen?"
Flamboyance might not be the best of images when acceptance is so recent
and fragile. On the other hand, a retreat to the closet, surrender, isn't
a good tack either.
I don't know the answer. I do know the polemic from all sides isn't
helping matters.

Besides, think of the field-day marriage coordinators, flower
arrangers and interior decorators will have! It'll be a positive boon
to the economy, I tells ye!

I'm already looking forward to performing those ceremonies.

Just remember, nothing exceeds like excess!

(obligatory attempt to make post on topic for a.a.)

<snip>

If you've got a few minutes, er, hours, um, well, if you've got some
time to kill, you could check out some of the stories at
http://exchristian.net/

Some of them brought tears to my eyes. Yes, I do have a sentimental
side.

Oh, some of those are awful.

I find many of the stories there to be touching, a few maddening. Some of
them make you want to grab someone 'round the neck and squeeze until your
palms meet.
Most of them have a sense of triumph about them, finding a measure of
peace, proud accomplishment after years of struggle.
I also find the comments to be generally supportive and kind. I'll admit,
though, a sort of guilty pleasure when some peasant gets his head handed
to him after a particularly nasty remark.
I guess I'm not quite domesticated yet...

As always, a pleasure to communicate with you, Ma'am.

And you, kind sir!

Sunny

--
Dale.
aa #1969
"Man is the only animal that blushes, or needs to.", Mark Twain
.

User: "stillsunny"
Title: Re: Hm, should I change the topic? (was Re: ot - looking at the slippery slope)	15 Nov 2004 12:09:17 PM

William Boutwell <dale-b@cfl.rrr.com> wrote in message news:<Xns959EC957C16E2dalebcflrrrcom@65.32.5.121>...

stillsunny1@yahoo.com (stillsunny) wrote in
news:c472f5b5.0411111037.558352a4@posting.google.com:

<snip>

If the embryos are obtained through voluntary contributions of ova and
sperm, for instance as excess from in-vitro fertilization for couples
with problems conceiving, I have no ethical problem with how the excess
embryos are used, provided it isn't to perform genetic manipulation with
the aim of "improving" humanity. We're having enough ethical problems
with genetic engineering of plant species and cloning.

I doubt it's possible to stop even that.
But my main stumbling block is the simple fact that we'd be harvesting
parts from a human, even if that human is in that earliest first stage
of development. That the blastocytes are going to expire or fail to
develop or something isn't really the point to me; rather like the
difference, in medicine, from withholding certain care in a terminal
patient and actively poisoning that patient. Fine line, I know, but
it still gives me pause. Or, to use a different example, I'm
pro-choice, but the notion of hypothetically harvesting ingredients
for cosmetics lotion from aborted fetuses makes me shudder.

On the other hand, it gave me the creepy-crawlies when I read a story
about a woman who was bearing a child so that another of her children
would have a suitable match for a kidney transplant.

Far better, I think, to have the knowledge of how stem cells work to
regrow a kidney, than take the kidney of a newborn child for a sibling it
doesn't yet know. The notion of bearing a child for "spare parts" really
bothers me.

I agree.
<snip>

I'm not sure I agree, here. Communities do not have rights. Individuals
do.

Communities as bodies of individuals do; hence, zoning regulations.
It's about protecting property value, and property rights are
foundational to the rest of the rights.
Out of curiosity (and as a weird aside) do you think communities have
a right to vote not to allow a Wal-Mart to open?

Of course, there's the type of community standards that are enforced by
contract, such as home-owner's associations.

Governments do not have rights either - in fact, their powers are derived
from the rights of individuals. When government violates someone's
rights, there had better be a damned good reason for it.

I agree.
However, I define "rights" of individuals fairly narrowly.
Additionally, I don't find municipal rules for orderly exercise of
those rights is a violation (though it can become so, if those rules
are too burdensome).

Good reasons would be: initiating the use of force, or committing a
fraudulent act.

I'm pretty sure you violate the local nudity ordinances in your own home
quite regularly - and as a private citizen there should be no regulation
of the things you do in your own home, on your own property, unless it
involves the use of force or committing fraud.

So, by extension, a business owner has control over what goes on inside
his property, right?

Presumably :-)

So long as a nude dancer can't be seen from the street, as long as there
is no disturbance of the peace, I have a very hard time justifying
government intervention in the entertainment industry.

Well, there's zoning, designed to protect property values. I suspect
one opening next to my home would impact the value of my home as a
residence, in addition to my enjoyment of peace and so forth.
The other thing is that there are things which accompany certain
businesses. I got pulled by a talkative state trooper some years
back, who, in lieu of a ticket, bent my ear for about thirty minutes
about how strip clubs tend to generate passionate drunks who drive
badly, drug users, and other assorted things you wouldn't want next
door if you were raising kids.

"Community standards" seems such a reasonable phrase, but what does it
really mean?

LOL!
I'll tell you to a reasonable degree of certainty :-)

I'll draw on my memories of twenty years in Myrtle Beach for a moment -
the community standard there seems to be quite lax for part of the year,
does it not?

People go to MB to party, and boy-howdy, some of 'em whoop it up loud and
long.

And yet there were ordinances banning certain bathing suits. Thongs, as I
recall. Considering how skimpy many of the non-thong suits I saw were, it
just seemed silly to me to ban thongs. Better, I think, to restrict
bathing suits to the beaches and pools and require some sort of street
clothing in other locations.

Now we're niggling about details, and you've already caved on the
community standards thing ;)
Because implicit in your suggestion is the understanding that it would
be unreasonable to propose that people should be free to wander around
naked wherever they want to.
The thong thing was silly, but I think it reflects the organic nature
of community standards. In twenty years, no one will care; a hundred
years back, a thong would have gotten someone flogged.

Now, I'll agree that some people should not wear thong bathing suits, but
to pass ordinances banning one style of bathing attire strikes me as
somewhat, er, inconsistent with the image of MB as a party town.

<ahem>
MB is a schizophrenic town. It is either a golf mecca, a party haven,
or a family beach, depending on which persona is the potential money
maker.

I think there'd be much less to be pruriently interested in were folks a
bit more comfortable with their own bodies, and thereby less inclined to
be busy-bodies about the bodies of others.

This, however, looks to be an area where we might have to disagree
without being disagreeable.

That's okay :-)
I'm not actually offended by thongs. But I'm sensitive to the fact
that there are other people -- like my granny, for instance -- who
have a different set of triggers.

<snip>

<I dropped out as a college senior, I'll have you know!>

Now that's a good idea!

I wonder, though, if perhaps such a contract couldn't be put together for
the equivelant of plural marriage, or other forms of polygamy, and what
the reactions would be.

If you think some folks are howling in outrage about same sex marriages
now, wait 'til they realize that more than two folks can sign a
contract...

To be honest, that's the only objection to same sex marriage that gave
me pause -- for about a minute.
I think the answer, again, is "what right does government have to
determine who will contract", or limit the number of spouses? Shoot,
if we're going to hearken back to "traditional" marriages, at very
least lots of wives are in order:-)
But on a pragmatic level, I suspect that actual marriage to more than
one person would prove complicated enough, financially and
emotionally, that there wouldn't be a big call for it in the first
place. There's simply no need for it, in most cases, and it doesn't
really reflect a deep human impulse.

I think it very telling that prejudice against male homosexuals is much
stronger than against female homosexuals.

No kidding -- particularly since I've read that the number one fantasy
of men is two women in bed with them.

Vivid images stick in the mind and memory, while every day ones do not.

The campy make up and feather boas outweigh the Dockers and golf shirts
in most folks' memories.

Exhibitionism isn't something I understand very well.

"Hey, look at me! Aren't I just the most outrageous thing you've ever
seen?"

Flamboyance might not be the best of images when acceptance is so recent
and fragile. On the other hand, a retreat to the closet, surrender, isn't
a good tack either.

I don't know the answer. I do know the polemic from all sides isn't
helping matters.

Probably flamboyant was a response to the closet. My youngest son
found a copy of "The Birdcage" the other day, and was rolling laughing
when I came home (we hadn't hidden it -- it just wasn't one we'd
pulled out to watch). "Mom," he said, "that guy thinks he's a woman!"
Now, he's twelve (just barely) and has known what "gay" meant for a
long time. It never crossed his mind that this movie was about a gay
couple. He just thought it was funny -- campy and silly and full of
visual comedy (the scene where Albert is trying to walk like John
Wayne is nearly priceless).
Yet it was a touching movie, too -- and the emotional aspect wasn't
threatening, because of the way it was presented in the middle of all
the humor. It sponsored some good conversations between my littlest
and me.
Sunny
.

User: "William Boutwell"
Title: Re: Hm, should I change the topic? (was Re: ot - looking at the slippery slope)	15 Nov 2004 07:57:14 PM

(stillsunny) wrote in
news:c472f5b5.0411151009.652f01c1@posting.google.com:

William Boutwell <dale-b@cfl.rrr.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns959EC957C16E2dalebcflrrrcom@65.32.5.121>...

(stillsunny) wrote in
news:c472f5b5.0411111037.558352a4@posting.google.com:

<snip>

If the embryos are obtained through voluntary contributions of ova
and sperm, for instance as excess from in-vitro fertilization for
couples with problems conceiving, I have no ethical problem with how
the excess embryos are used, provided it isn't to perform genetic
manipulation with the aim of "improving" humanity. We're having
enough ethical problems with genetic engineering of plant species and
cloning.

I doubt it's possible to stop even that.

Cloning? Maybe it can't be stopped. Perhaps we'll find out why the species
that propagate by cloning are generally small. (i.e., "simpler" than
chordates)
Genetic engineering has all the potential of Pandora's box, and little hope
of being beneficial, I think. We can't be sure of the long range effects of
plant manipulation yet. It doesn't surprise me that many folks are leery of
GM food stuffs.
We might well find out why it takes so long for genetic changes to become
fixed into species and for species to differentiate - in a less than
pleasant manner.
Already our accidental forays into gene manipulation (antibiotics come to
mind) are causing us considerable consternation. When we start doing it
deliberately, I hesitate to even guess at the limits of the horrors that
could result.
On the other hand, we might get it right the first time we try it... <yeah,
sure, as if that ever happens>

But my main stumbling block is the simple fact that we'd be harvesting
parts from a human, even if that human is in that earliest first stage
of development. That the blastocytes are going to expire or fail to
develop or something isn't really the point to me; rather like the
difference, in medicine, from withholding certain care in a terminal
patient and actively poisoning that patient. Fine line, I know, but
it still gives me pause. Or, to use a different example, I'm
pro-choice, but the notion of hypothetically harvesting ingredients
for cosmetics lotion from aborted fetuses makes me shudder.

I'm pretty sure I won't be using that face creme.
To a certain extent, I agree with you. However, when the embryos can not be
implanted in the donors, for whatever reason, tossing the Petri dish into
the autoclave seems a waste.
Seems to me the embryo is the property of the donors - if they wish to
donate the embryo for research it's no more distasteful than using a
cadaver to train medical students or study the decomposition of the human
body under different conditions.
Discarding the embryo, freezing it 'til such time as it might be used to
"carry on" a family line (which might never occur), or using it as research
material are all options. Throwing it away won't achieve any good result,
will it? Perhaps salve a conscience...
No child asks to be born. None of us were consulted whether or not we
wished to take on the mortal coil. Every pregnancy has its risks, with no
guarantee of success until gestation has ended. Even then, infant mortality
still rears its ugly head more often that it should.
I'm hoping each decision whether or not to abort will be based on sound
medical opinion. (I know, I know, not all of 'em are, but even us cynical
curmudgeons have an ideal or two)
Stem cell research could prevent many abortions - once we know how stem
cells work the knowledge could be used to palliate/treat some of the more
dangerous congenital defects.
Good? Bad? I don't know. Is the expense worth the benefit? It's too early
to tell. What price tag can be put on the smile of a joyful mother who's
just given birth to a healthy baby? Is it equal to the price she pays if
her child will only live a few days or months because of spina bifada or a
heart defect?
<snip>

It's sort of the same ambiguity I have regarding, for instance,
strip clubs. I
fully support the right of humans to make use of that which they
own (their
bodies) to earn a living. I also think a community has a right to
determine what
it finds offensive or objectionable within that community, and
disallow it. It's
not an easy tension, but there it is.

I'm not sure I agree, here. Communities do not have rights.
Individuals do.

Communities as bodies of individuals do; hence, zoning regulations.
It's about protecting property value, and property rights are
foundational to the rest of the rights.

Sure they are. Individual property rights. As a collective, no. That's why
democracy is unjust - a group of folks think they have some sort of right
to dictate to the smallest of minorities because they have numbers on their
side.
It boils down to control, no matter how you slice it. You control your own
property. You can sign a contract with the local homeowner's association if
you must/wish, and abide by its rules, but your association is voluntary.
Don't like the rules? Go somewhere else.
Now, if the zoning regulations were a contract... My objection would be
silly.
What I think, and the way things actually work, are two different things.

Out of curiosity (and as a weird aside) do you think communities have
a right to vote not to allow a Wal-Mart to open?

Perhaps not. But a city council could refuse to issue a business license to
such an entity.
Now that we know more about the impact such mega-boxes can have on a local
economy, it doesn't surprise me that so many people have become hostile.
The economic pie is only so big, after all...
Folks can refuse to sell their property to a developer intent on building
one. Provided they know to whom they are selling their property.
A recent trend upsets me; local governments invoke immanent (imminent?)
domain to seize private property, sell it to a developer to build a private
business that will increase tax revenues, and have the nerve to call it a
"public use."
So far, the courts have sided with the local governments.
<snip>

Well, there's zoning, designed to protect property values. I suspect
one opening next to my home would impact the value of my home as a
residence, in addition to my enjoyment of peace and so forth.

The same could be said of a 7-Eleven...

The other thing is that there are things which accompany certain
businesses. I got pulled by a talkative state trooper some years
back, who, in lieu of a ticket, bent my ear for about thirty minutes
about how strip clubs tend to generate passionate drunks who drive
badly, drug users, and other assorted things you wouldn't want next
door if you were raising kids.

Still and all, I believe in more freedom rather than less. Restrictions,
rules, laws, "standards", all are building up more and more. Yes, we can
reationalize the increasing burden of such rules and laws, but the
restrictions keep coming, the wiggle room grows less.
Can't fly a flag in your front yard, in some neighborhoods, because the
homeowner's association has its rules and you've signed a contract.
Can't protest the passage of the President's motorcade where he can see you
- gotta go to the "protest zone", safely out of his view, instead.

"Community standards" seems such a reasonable phrase, but what does
it really mean?

LOL!
I'll tell you to a reasonable degree of certainty :-)

<snip>

Well, I was trying to be funny, but perhaps I wasn't obvious enough. If you
can ban certain clothing choices from public view, you can also require
certain clothing choices while in public view.
The community standard seems arbitrary. The rationale seems less than
rational. That standards change, that the pendulum swings, is proof enough
there's more emotion involved than thought. (Some might say standards are
degenerating, but that's a different can o' worms entirely.)
Standards can be different in neighboring communities. Drive a few miles
and the standards are different. The banned thong is no longer banned. The
forbidden dance is all the rage...

I've seen lingerie less revealing than some bathing suits. A woman who'd
never consider wearing her pink teddy (without a house-coat) to retrieve
the newspaper from her porch has no qualms wearing a white string-bikini
while strolling down the beach in front of The Breakers.
Is one more revealing than the other? Not necessarily. That's not the
deciding factor at all.

The thong thing was silly, but I think it reflects the organic nature
of community standards. In twenty years, no one will care; a hundred
years back, a thong would have gotten someone flogged.

Now, I'll agree that some people should not wear thong bathing suits,
but to pass ordinances banning one style of bathing attire strikes me
as somewhat, er, inconsistent with the image of MB as a party town.

<ahem>

MB is a schizophrenic town. It is either a golf mecca, a party haven,
or a family beach, depending on which persona is the potential money
maker.

Schizophrenic? Not the way I'd have described it, but then I've been gone
for a few years ;-)
I never visited it, but there used to be a club in MB called "Off Shore
Drilling." My ex became something of a fag-hag and told me about the 300 lb
go-go "girl" dancing to "No Hippie Chicks." My mind's eye was blind for
weeks afterward.
No, that's not why she's my ex <eg>

<snip>

If you think some folks are howling in outrage about same sex
marriages now, wait 'til they realize that more than two folks can
sign a contract...

Lots of wives, lots of children, and plenty of mortality to go 'round
between 'em.
It might have been necessary back in the day, to insure progeny survived to
carry on the family line?
Governments have powers (I know, we've spaded this ground before). So long
as the governed accept the restrictions government places on them, well and
good. Otherwise, it's bye-bye government. To prevent the willy-nilly
overthrow of governments, some sort of document restricting government
power comes in very handy. It helps to have at least a few people
courageous enough to stand up and fight when the government oversteps the
bounds...
And you're right, what does government have to do with who can or can not
make a contract, provided it's consentual? Yup, set an minimum age for
consent and let free people be free!

But on a pragmatic level, I suspect that actual marriage to more than
one person would prove complicated enough, financially and
emotionally, that there wouldn't be a big call for it in the first
place. There's simply no need for it, in most cases, and it doesn't
really reflect a deep human impulse.

Oh, I don't know about that. We've changed from polygamy to serial
monogamy. Two marriages (or more) per person is much more common now than
it used to be.
Some women are great housekeepers. Every time they divorce, they keep the
house.

I think it very telling that prejudice against male homosexuals is
much stronger than against female homosexuals.

No kidding -- particularly since I've read that the number one fantasy
of men is two women in bed with them.

I've never had that particular fantasy... I've never known two women well
enough at the same time ;-)
I've never been all that fond of slaps to the face, either...
Besides, I, er, well, I'd be confused. One at a time, sure. Two at once?
Perhaps that's why it's a fantasy... Like most fantasies, probably more fun
to think about than to actually experience?

Vivid images stick in the mind and memory, while every day ones do
not.

The campy make up and feather boas outweigh the Dockers and golf
shirts in most folks' memories.

Exhibitionism isn't something I understand very well.

"Hey, look at me! Aren't I just the most outrageous thing you've ever
seen?"

Flamboyance might not be the best of images when acceptance is so
recent and fragile. On the other hand, a retreat to the closet,
surrender, isn't a good tack either.

I don't know the answer. I do know the polemic from all sides isn't
helping matters.

Nathan Lane swishes to near perfection, but Robin Williams is my personal
favorite in the movie.
You can tell how long-suffering he is - much like any other husband with a
high-maintenance spouse.
The message, to me, is that relationships don't differ all that much, no
matter the participants.
The film treats all of the characters with good-humored affection.

Now, he's twelve (just barely) and has known what "gay" meant for a
long time. It never crossed his mind that this movie was about a gay
couple. He just thought it was funny -- campy and silly and full of
visual comedy (the scene where Albert is trying to walk like John
Wayne is nearly priceless).

Being a "manly man" isn't for everyone...
Thank whatever gets your gratitude for that!

Yet it was a touching movie, too -- and the emotional aspect wasn't
threatening, because of the way it was presented in the middle of all
the humor. It sponsored some good conversations between my littlest
and me.

Les Cage aux Folles (The Cage of Fools), the movie it was based on, was
much the same. French dialog, English subtitles. Worth a cheap rental if
you can find it. The American version has much higher production values,
but there's always something about the original versus a remake.
--
Dale.
aa #1969
"Man is the only animal that blushes, or needs to.", Mark Twain
.

User: "stillsunny"
Title: Re: Hm, should I change the topic? (was Re: ot - looking at the slippery slope)	17 Nov 2004 10:39:40 AM

William Boutwell <dale-b@cfl.rrr.com> wrote in message news:<Xns95A2D52B4770dalebcflrrrcom@65.32.5.122>...

stillsunny1@yahoo.com (stillsunny) wrote in
news:c472f5b5.0411151009.652f01c1@posting.google.com:

<snip>

Communities as bodies of individuals do; hence, zoning regulations.
It's about protecting property value, and property rights are
foundational to the rest of the rights.

The antithesis is that the minority dictates to the majority, does it
not?

It boils down to control, no matter how you slice it. You control your own
property. You can sign a contract with the local homeowner's association if
you must/wish, and abide by its rules, but your association is voluntary.
Don't like the rules? Go somewhere else.

Now, if the zoning regulations were a contract... My objection would be
silly.

I'm a wee bit confused here. Does this mean you're opposed to zoning
regulations?
And yes, it does boil down to control. Democracy -- well, any form of
government -- has unjust aspects. But it's not a bad way to run
things, and I submit that, *unless and until* democratic regulations
violate those narrowly defined rights of an individual, then they're a
perfectly appropriate way to govern a community.
So, for instance, laws against thongs in public don't prohibit someone
exercising their right to wear a thong; they simply set aside public
areas as places those thongs can't be worn, to facilitate enjoyment of
those public areas for the maximum number of people. Disallowing
strip clubs in cities, or certain areas of cities, doesn't mean people
can't get naked. It means that a city doesn't choose to invite the
sort of change in culture which would accompany those sorts of
enterprises (and we've got the same fight happening here, with respect
to gambling boats). The areas outside the city are slap full of XXX
video stores and strip clubs and other sorts of enterprises. In fact,
if you want to be naked around a bunch of other naked people, there
are specific areas where you can exercise that option -- but not all
over the place, where someone else might find your nudity offensive.

What I think, and the way things actually work, are two different things.

Yeah, me too :-)

Out of curiosity (and as a weird aside) do you think communities have
a right to vote not to allow a Wal-Mart to open?

Perhaps not. But a city council could refuse to issue a business license to
such an entity.

If they refused to issue a license on grounds specific to the
situation, they'd be in violation of equal protection laws.

Now that we know more about the impact such mega-boxes can have on a local
economy, it doesn't surprise me that so many people have become hostile.
The economic pie is only so big, after all...

Folks can refuse to sell their property to a developer intent on building
one. Provided they know to whom they are selling their property.

A recent trend upsets me; local governments invoke immanent (imminent?)
domain to seize private property, sell it to a developer to build a private
business that will increase tax revenues, and have the nerve to call it a
"public use."

Oh, that's a *big* buggaboo to me, too.

So far, the courts have sided with the local governments.

<snip>

Well, there's zoning, designed to protect property values. I suspect
one opening next to my home would impact the value of my home as a
residence, in addition to my enjoyment of peace and so forth.

The same could be said of a 7-Eleven...

That's true, and zoning allows for that as well.

I agree with you, with this caveat.
*Some* order is necessary for any degree of freedom. Anarchy isn't
freedom; it's as oppressive as totalitarianism.
And I suspect it's a natural function of increasing numbers of people.
Having lived in an area which was a sleepy little small town nine
months of the year, party central three months out of the year, and
watched it grow to a sprawling metropolitan area, I will say that the
numbers of rules are proportionate to the population. Higher density
means people are more likely to bump into each other, and that an
activity engaged in without problem by small numbers becomes a problem
when it's a huge bunch of people.
Here's a way off fer-instance. It's a *huge* crime to pluck one sea
oat. Why?
Well, development along the beach made the dunes a lot more important;
the sea oats hold the dunes; and when a few sea oats are plucked for
decoration by a few people, the impact is minimal, but thousands of
people plucking just one can decimate those natural barriers to the
tide.

Can't fly a flag in your front yard, in some neighborhoods, because the
homeowner's association has its rules and you've signed a contract.

Can't protest the passage of the President's motorcade where he can see you
- gotta go to the "protest zone", safely out of his view, instead.

Oh, that's a big one to me, too, and I cannot for the life of me
figure out how it keeps passing constitutional muster when it's
challenged in court. I understand the rationale; it's been employed
for a long time in places such as San Francisco, and was *intended* to
make sure everyone's right to political speech/protest was protected,
while allowing for the reasonable functioning of the town. But it's
morphed into something much more Draconian (though I was encouraged to
see that it wasn't employed at the Republican convention in New York,
in contrast to the Democratic convention).

Well, of course, and that's part of the beauty of the free market.
Disallow something one place, and you create a market somewhere else.
<snip>

MB is a schizophrenic town. It is either a golf mecca, a party haven,
or a family beach, depending on which persona is the potential money
maker.

Schizophrenic? Not the way I'd have described it, but then I've been gone
for a few years ;-)

It's changed, not always for the better.

I never visited it, but there used to be a club in MB called "Off Shore
Drilling."

LOL!
I always thought that was the *funniest* name...
<snip>

I think the answer, again, is "what right does government have to
determine who will contract", or limit the number of spouses? Shoot,
if we're going to hearken back to "traditional" marriages, at very
least lots of wives are in order:-)

Lots of wives, lots of children, and plenty of mortality to go 'round
between 'em.

It might have been necessary back in the day, to insure progeny survived to
carry on the family line?

Governments have powers (I know, we've spaded this ground before). So long
as the governed accept the restrictions government places on them, well and
good. Otherwise, it's bye-bye government. To prevent the willy-nilly
overthrow of governments, some sort of document restricting government
power comes in very handy. It helps to have at least a few people
courageous enough to stand up and fight when the government oversteps the
bounds...

And you're right, what does government have to do with who can or can not
make a contract, provided it's consentual? Yup, set an minimum age for
consent and let free people be free!

You hippy radical :-)

Oh, I don't know about that. We've changed from polygamy to serial
monogamy. Two marriages (or more) per person is much more common now than
it used to be.

Which is sad to me.
But I think it also demonstrates the desire to have a committed
relationship, without perhaps having either the determination or skill
to hang onto that reliationship.
I think, if there was ever a surge in polyamorous relationships, it
might be time to start thinking about whether bigamy was an option.
Until it reaches some critical mass, I honestly don't think it's going
to be a factor.

Some women are great housekeepers. Every time they divorce, they keep the
house.

LOL!

I think it very telling that prejudice against male homosexuals is
much stronger than against female homosexuals.

No kidding -- particularly since I've read that the number one fantasy
of men is two women in bed with them.

I've never had that particular fantasy... I've never known two women well
enough at the same time ;-)

Truth is, I'm just going by what I've read -- and what certain male
friends have admitted to.

I've never been all that fond of slaps to the face, either...

Besides, I, er, well, I'd be confused. One at a time, sure. Two at once?
Perhaps that's why it's a fantasy... Like most fantasies, probably more fun
to think about than to actually experience?

Have no idea.
<snip>

Nathan Lane swishes to near perfection, but Robin Williams is my personal
favorite in the movie.

You can tell how long-suffering he is - much like any other husband with a
high-maintenance spouse.

The message, to me, is that relationships don't differ all that much, no
matter the participants.

Exactly!
And it wasn't about sex -- it was about the relationships, which meant
that the message could get through.

Sunny
.

User: "William Boutwell"
Title: Re: Hm, should I change the topic? (was Re: ot - looking at the slippery slope)	17 Nov 2004 06:51:34 PM

(stillsunny) wrote in
news:c472f5b5.0411170839.2ec96dd0@posting.google.com:

William Boutwell <dale-b@cfl.rrr.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns95A2D52B4770dalebcflrrrcom@65.32.5.122>...

(stillsunny) wrote in
news:c472f5b5.0411151009.652f01c1@posting.google.com:

<snip>

The antithesis is that the minority dictates to the majority, does it
not?

It isn't necessarily a binary situation here. It's not one or the other,
as there are gradations and variations aplenty between the extremes.
It's not as if there's only one size shoe in the store - requiring your
foot to be resized if you want to wear shoes, right? While I have no
doubt that the size chosen would be a reasonable "average", there would
be those for whom the fit would be too loose, and those for whom the shoe
is too tight.
Having always been a bit cantankerous, I dislike arbitrary edicts and