Article

2004-08-23 Home Front: Culture Wars

Harshness of red marks has students seeing purple

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2004-08-23 3:07:24 PM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Just a question: once upon a time red was thought to be a pretty colour. How did it happen to acquire the connotation of harshness, and how can we prevent the same thing from happening to purple (Hint: don't use it for correcting students' work, you silly people!).

Honestly, in these troubled times, you'd think they had something better to think about.

Posted by trailing wife 2004-08-23 3:31:49 PM|| 2004-08-23 3:31:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 I knew a sneaky teacher who used an "anti-curve" on his students--and they never caught on. The A's and B's he graded correctly, but with low C's, D's, and F's, he made it a point to miss a wrong question. That is, he would mark an incorrect question correct, intentionally. His logic was that they would spot the "gimmee" and not complain, thinking they were "getting over". And he was always very generous to the rare honest student, letting them keep the point since it was "his fault." Students remembered him fondly.

Posted by Anonymoose 2004-08-23 4:55:55 PM|| 2004-08-23 4:55:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 "If you see a whole paper of red, it looks pretty frightening,"

Maybe that's because it means you're dumber than a sack full of hammers. Being that stupid should frighten anybody.

Just a question: once upon a time red was thought to be a pretty colour. How did it happen to acquire the connotation of harshness ...

Probably a result of how underedumahcated criminals have learned to dislike the color of those annoying strobe lights on their black and white taxis. Other people may connect this wave of "crimsophobia" with the overall dumbing down of society by "social promotion" of dipstick idiots who should have been held back in kindergarten until they reached drinking age. Personally, I blame "Tailgunner" Joe McCarthy.

Posted by Zenster 2004-08-23 8:22:46 PM|| 2004-08-23 8:22:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 rather than dedicate herself to educating the students to the point that they don't make errors - she changes colors so as to not offend them with their errors...I feel so sensitive and in touch with feelings after reading that...fire her

Posted by Frank G 2004-08-23 8:29:20 PM|| 2004-08-23 8:29:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 McCarthy? McCarthy?

A moron to the right of Atila the Hun? Lol! That's an incredible pile of bullshit, heh.

It's the LLL PC Agenda. The same one that applauded Stanford when they decided to drop 'Failed' and convert it to 'Incomplete'. And in a tidal wave of PCism a large chunk of the LLL's viral immune host, the Edumacation System, jumped on the bandwagon.

It's a brilliant ploy to get more money, in the form of tuition for those re-taking a class. If only the effect stopped there. It doesn't. This inanity is an abdication of responsibility and a raw betrayal that undermines and devalues the efforts of all who do work and study to actually *learn*.

How long will it be until all of these institutions of socialism adopt a Pass / Incomplete system?

Posted by .com 2004-08-23 8:40:59 PM|| 2004-08-23 8:40:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 There was a time when "harshness of red marks" meant something completely different...

Ya know, the marks weren't on papers...

Posted by True German Ally 2004-08-23 8:49:50 PM|| 2004-08-23 8:49:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 TGA - And that was probably the first mis-step leading to this situation - good call!

Posted by .com 2004-08-23 8:53:56 PM|| 2004-08-23 8:53:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 "If you see a whole paper of red, it looks pretty frightening,"

.com, then and now: THIS IS THE WHOLE POINT!

Posted by True German Ally 2004-08-23 9:01:47 PM|| 2004-08-23 9:01:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 #5 McCarthy? McCarthy?

.com, I can only suppose you're too young to remember "The Red Scare."

Now, about that wooshing sound in your ears ...

Posted by Zenster 2004-08-23 9:08:10 PM|| 2004-08-23 9:08:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 TGA - Amen. I got "licks" (whacked with a paddle) at school (I held the record in my schools for the 4th and 7th Grades, lol!) when I misbehaved or fooled around. And then, to add insult to injury, bringing home bad marks earned a belt.

Eventually, I figured it out, heh. I kept misbehaving at school - cuz the girls thought I was a tough guy for taking the licks and I got a lot of good attention to go along with the bad. But I started getting straight A's because there was no positive stimulus at home - just serious grief!

Now, we call it the ClueBat, lol!

Posted by .com 2004-08-23 9:09:09 PM|| 2004-08-23 9:09:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Zen - Nice arcane / obtuse red reference - give Dennis Miller a call.

However, I still stand by every word. The real thing in the real world is your LLL buddies.

Posted by .com 2004-08-23 9:10:54 PM|| 2004-08-23 9:10:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Be advised, .com, the "underedumahcated" and "black and white taxis" references should have cued you up for incoming humor. I don't use emoticons or netspeak. As to "your LLL buddies," that looks a lot like the "baiting" that you supposedly eschew. Nice going there, duly noted.

Posted by Zenster 2004-08-23 9:17:43 PM|| 2004-08-23 9:17:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 "McCarthy? McCarthy? A moron to the right of Atila the Hun? Lol! That's an incredible pile of bullshit, heh. It's the LLL PC Agenda."

Yeah, it's the LLL PC Agenda, alright; but in my opinion it was Joe McCarthy's excesses that resulted in the moral disarmament which allowed the LLL PC Agenda to insinuate itself into our institutions-- like the schools-- over the last half-century. Hell, you can't even raise the subject of communism in America with most people even today, fifty years later, without getting called a McCarthyite-- either in ridicule or in alarm.

I don't know whether that was Zenster's point; but I can tell you that I myself mainly blame Joe McCarthy for our present inability to counter the LLL. That stupid sonofabitch unwittingly did far more to advance the cause of communism in America than Gus Hall ever did.

Posted by Dave D. 2004-08-23 9:20:27 PM|| 2004-08-23 9:20:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 They're not your buddies?

Let's ask a simple question: Why don't you post on the political threads?

I know. Because you are a ABB screecher. Just because you recognize the dangers posed by the Islamists, Mad Mullahs, and Chinese Commies doesn't make you an ally. That only indicates you're not consciously suicidal.

The WoT threats must be faced. Who will face them, Zenster? Let's hear some straight talk. Don't write a book and leave the pneumatic prose aside, be clear and concise, for a change.

Posted by .com 2004-08-23 9:25:36 PM|| 2004-08-23 9:25:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Dave D - So you're saying the excesses on the Right gave the Left the high road to their own excesses? I can handle some of that - you have a good point.

But Zenster is something else, Dave. He's a very smart stealth screecher. I have the links and quotes to prove the point. Let's see if he's got the balls to "out" himself. Being snarky sometimes does not pay off, eh Zen?

Posted by .com 2004-08-23 9:28:24 PM|| 2004-08-23 9:28:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Why don't you post on the political threads?

Ever consider the fact that maybe, just maybe, politicians of every stripe make me f&%king puke? Dave D.'s point about McCarthy is quite well made. My reference to Tailgunner Joe was strictly in the form of humor, which was entirely lost on you, .com and I could give a royal sh!t about being your ally.

Posted by Zenster 2004-08-23 9:37:16 PM|| 2004-08-23 9:37:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 That's it? Lol! You must really be frightened - as you should be. You're a fraud and a coward.

Posted by .com 2004-08-23 9:41:04 PM|| 2004-08-23 9:41:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 The only thing that frightens me is how America remains so totally blind to the way that both sides of the aisle are selling this nation down the river. Whether it's multiculti horseshit or how the White House "loves commerce more than it loathes communism," I'm disgusted. Live with it.

Posted by Zenster 2004-08-23 9:45:43 PM|| 2004-08-23 9:45:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Disgusting is closer. Someone who can't even accept that President Bush is, indeed, the President of the United States is more than a little off the mark.

It's Selected Not Elected & Shrub. Right?

Posted by .com 2004-08-23 9:49:02 PM|| 2004-08-23 9:49:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Still got Jen's knickers twisted in your crotch, eh? My heart pumps piss.

Posted by Zenster 2004-08-23 9:53:15 PM|| 2004-08-23 9:53:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Still no response to the point and reverting to ad hominem. Getting close, Mr Ethicality?

You're a fraud and coward.

Posted by .com 2004-08-23 9:55:00 PM|| 2004-08-23 9:55:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 my cat likes milk

Posted by spiffo 2004-08-23 10:04:43 PM|| 2004-08-23 10:04:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 You're a laugh riot, .com. You, a self-proclaimed atheist, have no problem supporting a family whose scion has openly declared, "No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots."

Feed the hand that slaps you ... speaking of fraud and cowardice.

Posted by Zenster 2004-08-23 10:15:09 PM|| 2004-08-23 10:15:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 I'm a Roman Catholic, Zen, and I'd feel more comfortable with PD's relaxed "morals"/strong principles guiding my offspring than th e alternative. My boys and girl have to hold their tongues for fear of alienating the grading professoriate

Posted by Frank G 2004-08-23 10:22:18 PM|| 2004-08-23 10:22:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 Geo41 doesn't frighten me - I believe in the constitution. I believe he fucked up rather big-time, in fact.

That's diversion. You're the dishonest and frightened asshat here.

Whatever belief system helps people sleep at night, gives them peace of mind, and is not imposed upon others is fine by me and the constitution.

C'mon, man, who is the President of the US?

What have you to fear? That people will find out you're one helluvalot like rex?

Posted by .com 2004-08-23 10:27:16 PM|| 2004-08-23 10:27:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 My boys and girl have to hold their tongues for fear of alienating the grading professoriate

Which is not just moral and ethical fraud, but essentially criminal.

Posted by Zenster 2004-08-23 10:28:09 PM|| 2004-08-23 10:28:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 Thank you, Frank. That's about the highest compliment I could possibly receive, IMO. I had more fun, and took more seriously, being a Dad than anything else I've ever done. Awesome fun! And awesome responsibility, too.

Posted by .com 2004-08-23 10:31:18 PM|| 2004-08-23 10:31:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 Whatever belief system helps people sleep at night, gives them peace of mind, and is not imposed upon others is fine by me and the constitution.

.com, your willing blindness towards how the current administration has done more to blur America's separation of church and state than any other in recent history seriously degrades your credibility.

Posted by Zenster 2004-08-23 10:36:01 PM|| 2004-08-23 10:36:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 In whose eyes, Shrubster?

I know you have a bucket-load of DU Talking points - which ring true in your dysfunctional mind - regards all of the dangerous (Oooo!) and sneaky things the Evil Bush Dynasty has done / is doing.

You stated:
"Jen, only when and if he is ever properly elected will I then be grudgingly obliged to address him as you wish I would. His intentional blurring of the separation between church and state while simultaneously attempting to constitutionalize discrimination gets nothing but scorn from me.

Thank goodness we live in a country where we can disagree on this matter. Please know that you indeed have the privilege to dislike me for what I say, that is entirely your right. Understand one thing though, I don't do this to intentionally anger or offend you or anybody else.

As a proud American I cannot abide the White House's ham-fisted tampering with both the duties of executive office or our beloved constitution. Whatever proper intransigence might be shown for terrorism (as is demanded of all worthy commander in chiefs) still in no way confers any right to enshrine religious commandment as constitutional law, especially not in a nation wholly founded upon secular ideals. This is what he's attempting and my own ethicality demands that I consider it to be nothing less than malfeasance of office. Hence my scorn."

You're fucked up, son. I don't know if professional help is called for - I don't much care. I just know you're a fraud here on RB. People do not realize just how fucked up you are.

Posted by .com 2004-08-23 10:42:40 PM|| 2004-08-23 10:42:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 yw PD - I detect a principled bedrock and that (for all my flaws) is what I've been driven to provide to my 3. From all reports (and contrary to my ex's expectations) - I've done that. May not have always known how I succeeded (otherwise I'd be the new Dr Phil) but I did

Posted by Frank G 2004-08-23 10:56:58 PM|| 2004-08-23 10:56:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 "... sneaky things the Evil Bush Dynasty has done / is doing."

List them (whatever they are), since you have all the links.

If you equate a detestation of theocracy with the democratic underground, it's your moral compass that is demagnetized.

Posted by Zenster 2004-08-23 11:00:39 PM|| 2004-08-23 11:00:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 Frank - As a practial matter, I just copied the main tenets that I saw in how my grandfather dealt with me. Boiled down, it was a 2-part approach that made sense to me.

1) Be predictable / consistent - never arbitrary. The "line" was always in the same place, no matter what my mood or the perceived transgression.

2) The default answer was "yes". If I decided it should be "no" then I'd martial my reasoning, explain it until she got it - and brook no argument.

That was it, really, heh. Made me take a deep breath, slow down, think it through, then speak calmly and without talking down. It worked. She "got it" and never did or asked to do anything that put her in serious harm's way (the real nightmare of parenting) or made her think she could put something over on others - without blowback.

It worked. I was a lucky SOB, I guess! She's a pretty awesome person, practical, honest, not full of herself or someone else's hot air, thinks for herself, and no one can push her buttons.

My personal theory is they start out, as a norm, perfect. It takes fucked up adults to teach them to be fucked up. But there isn't anything terribly practical in that, in terms of do this & don't do that, so I followed the example of the guy I respected most.

One of the cool things is that my daughter has told me many times how sorry she is that she never met him. She said, after I told her the above, that I was a mere copy - she wanted to meet the Real Deal, lol!

Posted by .com 2004-08-23 11:18:57 PM|| 2004-08-23 11:18:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 YIKES! I posted this thinking it would provide a little light relief.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2004-08-23 11:21:21 PM|| 2004-08-23 11:21:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 Zen - I don't have your DU links, dumbass, you do. You posted buckets of shit when I tried to find common ground and collaborate on what to do about Iran. I gave up - you're a fraud.

Moral compass? WTF are you talking about Mr Ethicality?

Shit. This is like a Lie Detector session. Let's establish what your squiggles look like when telling the truth so we'll know when you're lying:

Who's the President, Dood?

Posted by .com 2004-08-23 11:24:39 PM|| 2004-08-23 11:24:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 No sweat, AC - just outting an LLL freak. Lol!

Posted by .com 2004-08-23 11:25:22 PM|| 2004-08-23 11:25:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 Damn I know I shouldn't join the fight but curiosity just kills me now:

Zenster, you said: "any right to enshrine religious commandment as constitutional law"

When did that happen?

Posted by True German Ally 2004-08-23 11:53:49 PM|| 2004-08-23 11:53:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 TGA, under American federal law, discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation is a legal violation. The Defense of Marriage Amendment seeks to exclude a portion of US citizens from having the same rights, in terms of designating who may make medical decisions about their partners or receiving medical benefits under workplace regulations for married couples.

This is a naked attempt to inject religious interpretation into a secular nation's constitution and is nothing less than than theocracy by any other name. Numerous religions that are legally practiced in America have no such restrictions upon their own definition of marriage. How is it that this one particular Christian bit of doctrine should be enshrined as law when so many other religions' articles are specifically excluded? This relates directly to many of the arguments here at Rantburg about Canada and other nations eroding their own legal systems by adoption of part or all of Sharia law. There is no difference.

Posted by Zenster 2004-08-24 2:11:34 AM|| 2004-08-24 2:11:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#38 Zenster, I wouldn't exclude some religious motivation but the idea that marriage is a union between a man and a woman is not a religious concept, let alone one that the Christians invented. The examples of discriminations you quote do not require marriage, they can easily be eliminated by certain laws.
We're talking "marriage" here, not "legal unions or partnerships".
Monogamy is more closely associated with the Christian idea of partnership and marriage. Do you think Muslims should legally be allowed to marry up to 4 women in the U.S.? Would you protest if there was a constitutional amendmend about marriage being between two persons (and not three or four?).

Posted by True German Ally 2004-08-24 2:27:14 AM|| 2004-08-24 2:27:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#39 TGA, thank you for responding. The only reason why marriage is currently defined as being between a man and a woman is due to millenia of those who did not conform to this social more being killed. There are other cultures on the face of this earth that have always recognized same sex partnerships without the hysteria and phobia that is seen to surround America's current uproar about this. Mind you, I do not advocate all of this "I have two mommies" educational exposure at the kindergarten level, but there certainly has to be some acceptance of partnerships that in no way violate the law.

Monogamy is more closely associated with the Christian idea of partnership and marriage.

I dispute this. Monogamistic partnerships have extisted down through the ages. Christianity does not have a lock on marital fidelity. The only reason it seems to be so is because of its predominance within western cultures. So long as America is a secular nation, Christianity's own interpretations of how to define marriage belong in the Bible and not in our constitution.

Would you protest if there was a constitutional amendmend about marriage being between two persons (and not three or four?).

I congratulate you upon asking a truly relevant question. Because of the Judeo-Christian bias in my own upbringing, I have an intrinsic dislike for polygamy. My preferences in no way invalidate its practice or moral propriety. Numerous people circumvent the legal prohibitions on polygamy by merely have unofficial multiple marriages to suit their tastes.

Because of the incredible abuses seen in, for instance, American Mormon polygamy and Islamic polygamous marriage, I have a disinclination towards approving of it, but that is my own personal bias and I have the courage to admit it.

From a strictly legalistic standpoint, polygamy opens up a Pandora's box of extremely thorny civil and judicial issues per estates, inheritance and many other readily disputed precedents. For the sake of simplicity alone, there may be merits to defining marriage as being strictly between two people. As I said, because of my own personal preferences, I am inclined to agree with such legal recognition of fidelitously paired couples.

I wouldn't exclude some religious motivation

Then I trust you see how this can readily be viewed as entirely inappropriate in terms of being incorporated into constitutional law. This is where I have intensely strong opposition.

There are other quasi-theocratic issues at stake besides the DOMA. Hiring practices by religious organizations which receive federal funding is another vital question. Again, new inroads are being attempted at permitting such hiring to discriminate against prospective employees based upon their religious affiliation.

Can religious organizations choose to hire only people who share their beliefs? The issue is heating up again. Last December, President Bush issued an executive order allowing such discretion to faith-based organizations receiving federal funds. Similar provisions are being added to legislation including Head Start and the Workforce Investment Act. And the rhetoric is rising.

Some opponents claim that allowing faith-based organizations to use religious criteria in hiring is "government-sponsored bigotry" or a "roll-back on civil rights protections." Proponents answer that those who oppose it are trying "to torpedo funding for thousands of faith-based organizations." Neither is the case. The first step toward a solution is to identify the real questions.

This is an issue where deeply held values come into conflict and must be balanced. There are three important principles at stake. First, faith-based partnerships have an important role in finding new solutions to overcoming poverty. Second, the ability of faith-based organizations to maintain their religious identity and the freedom to hire people who share their religious mission, especially at leadership levels, is often vital to their effectiveness and integrity. Third, civil rights and anti-discrimination laws in the United States are fundamentally important. Any resolution must take all three principles seriously.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act's prohibition on employment discrimination allowed religious organizations to use religious criteria in hiring "ministerial" employees. That exemption was expanded in 1972 to include all employees of a faith-based organization. Since then, the issue has been raised in a variety of litigationâall of which upheld the exemption. It's not a new issue.

The new question is whether the exemption applies when a religious organization receives federal funding. That has not been addressed by the Supreme Court, and that is what the new executive order and legislation attempt to answer.

It is precisely issues like the above that I find so repulsive. America's greatness stems directly from its secular foundations. I believe that the White House is eroding this vital aspect of our nation and find it tantamount to treason. I would relish hearing your own observations regarding this, TGA. I can only expect that you have had adequate exposure to European state sanctioned religion to have formed an opinion regarding this. I do not feel it is necessary for me to detail the enormous outrages perpetrated in the name of state sanctioned religion. It is this that I am railing against.

Posted by Zenster 2004-08-24 3:41:28 AM|| 2004-08-24 3:41:28 AM|| Front Page Top

#40 Zenster, first of all, as a German, I don't feel qualified to make recommendation about what should be in the U.S. constitution and what not. I do believe that marriage (marriage in the way our society has seen it for millenia) is between a man and a woman. I don't find it necessary to have a Constitutional amendment for that but as I said, that's up to the Americans to decide. I would not favor an inclusion in the German Basic Law. Regular civil law will do for me.
I simply don't believe that marriage and partnership are exactly the same thing. I have no problem with two men (or women) stating their intent of living together in a legally protected partnership, with all the consequences. But for me, at least, the primary intent of marriage was not so much the mutual protection of the partners, but of the children. Christianity has of course no monopole on monogamy but I think I'm right when I say monogamy is closer associated with the (Judeo)Christian faith than with others. But in the end, marriage and monogamy are both defined by social consensus. This consensus can change. Homosexuality was widespread, tolerated and even encouraged in Ancient Greece, but yet there was no concept of a "homosexual marriage". You may dig up some remote tribes where this is the case but neither Western nor Eastern civilisations have had that concept. Homosexual love (often brutally suppressed) yes, homosexual partnership, yes... but marriage in the sense that society has defined it for centuries if not millenia? Only in recent decades has this become an issue. In a free society homosexual partners can expect to be tolerated, not discriminated, accepted by society, but they can not expect to force a different concept of marriage, which a few years ago didn't exist, onto the overwhelming majority. Historically (heterosexual) polygamy had more social acceptance than homosexual marriage, yet here you don't want to open Pandora's box. Why is it so much easier with a monogamous homosexual "marriage"? Germany calls homosexual unions "registered partnership", and most gays seem happy with it. Only the "fundamentalists" want to have "marriage" instead. Maybe our societies evolve so much that they change the concept, who knows. American society is obviously not ready for it.
When it comes to polygamy, you don't seem to follow through your own reasoning. It is not about YOUR personal inclination. So you just want monogamy because it's legally less complicated? Sharia seems to do just "fine" with polygamy.
As for the rest. Germany is a secular state. Yet every Catholic and Protestant has to pay church taxes levied by the State, and religious organisations can indeed chose only to hire persons who share the same faith (also they often only do that when faith plays an important role in what kind of work they do). I don't understand what it has to do with treason when the State funds a religious organisation without forcing it to accept to hire a person that does not share the beliefs and goals of that organization.
You wouldn't force a hospital to hire a nurse who states: "I find sick persons disgusting" either. Why should a Methodist church be forced to hire an Islamist just to keep federal funding?
And as long as the U.S. is a nation "under God", it simply isn't an entirely secular state. "God" may not be defined by a special religion but he certainly leaves atheists, who believe that there is no God, out in the cold.
In the end, I think we should see things a bit more relaxed. I once read that in a small U.S. town Jewish citizen protested against the public funding of a Christmas tree, because that went against the separation of church and state. That's where the whole issue starts to get ridiculous.

Posted by True German Ally 2004-08-24 5:07:40 AM|| 2004-08-24 5:07:40 AM|| Front Page Top

#41 Polygamy had been historically accepted in the way that it was historically accept for a master to have many slaves -- but a slave could not belong to more than one households. Likewise a man could have many wives, but a woman could not have many husbands. Or to put it differently, a woman entered her husband's household, but no person was allowed to be part of more than one household.

The *households*, the family units, still had to remain strictly discrete.

This wasn't "polygamy" on a gender-equal basis -- nor could it become such. If they allowed a man to have many women and *each* of the women to have many men, then marriage would no longer create a unit in society but rather a chain. With all the benefits, rights, and obligations that currently the state bestows on a married couple becoming hopelessly intermingled. Next-of-kin would no longer exist for example (unless perhaps you were to also implement the old concept of the "chief wife" that also existed in traditional polygamy, adding now that of the "chief husband"). Automatic transfer of children's custody to your spouse upon death could likewise not exist. (in historical polygamy this wasn't an issue, because a woman could not be simultaneously married to two men).

The nature and different concepts of polyamorous relationships make it practically impossible to define one *specific* set of appropriate rights/benefits to grant by the state to married partners. Sure, I'd have no problem with the partners themselves creating an elaborate contract that would bind them and grant each other rights and obligations, including a specific description of how divorce would work -- but that would by definition no longer be *state*-defined and state-sanctioned marriage, would it now? It would be a private contract.

Allowing same-sex marriages doesn't create any of the above problems because it's still only two people that deal with each other. But at the same time same-sex marriages could only be created in societies that consider the wedded partners to be equal -- *unlike* polygamy which can only function (it seems to me), in a society where the genders are *unequal*.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-08-24 7:50:51 AM|| 2004-08-24 7:50:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#42 How in the hell did this post on teachers grading papers turn into another episode of "How the Confused Liberals Turn," our favorite soap opera here at Rantburg?
Oh, wait! I know! Zenster and Katsaris showed up!
And Zenster, honey, you're gonna have a hell of a time voting this November!
It's clear that you hate President "Shrub" (as you and Molly Evil call him) because he's a Christian, yet neither sKeery nor Nader will go after radical Moooslims hammer and tongs like you'd like them to either.
Decisions, decisions...
sKerry doesn't care whom you marry as long as he's got Teresa and her billions sewed up for himself, so GO FOR IT--vote for Hanoi John!

Posted by GreatestJeneration 2004-08-24 8:05:08 AM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-08-24 8:05:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#43 #40 Regular civil law will do for me.

What happens when regular civil law does not confer equal protection and, in fact, is discriminatory? To date, people have been unwilling to remedy this by eliminating the "marriage clause" from work benefits allocation or changing the definition of a "spouse" who is empowered to make medical decisions for a partner. Neither of these are small issues and result in a lot of harm being done.

#40 I simply don't believe that marriage and partnership are exactly the same thing.

Neither do I, nor do American law or commercial business regulations. This is, in part, a core of my arguments regarding the discriminatory aspects of the DOMA.

#40 Homosexuality was widespread, tolerated and even encouraged in Ancient Greece, but yet there was no concept of a "homosexual marriage".

This is entirely incorrect. Whatever current lack of existing tradition can be attributed to proscriptions by those institutions which commandeered the ritual of marriage and placed the definition of it within their purview.

Among the evidence Boswell presents are Greek texts of the ceremonies, along with their English translations. The texts are clear. There is no doubt that the ceremonies sanction a union between two people of the same sex. Even before Boswell, historians who knew of the existence of the texts admitted as much. The accompanying prayers invoke the example of paired Christian saints of the same sex - in particular, the martyred Roman soldiers, Serge and Bacchus, who were the most famous and revered paired saints in early Christianity.

#40 Historically (heterosexual) polygamy had more social acceptance than homosexual marriage ...

This is comparing apples to oranges, unless you are specifically mentioning polygamous marriage as compared to homosexual marriage. I will need you to clarify about that. Otherwise, it is quite possible that homosexual marriage was far more common. While polygamous familial groupings most certainly predated monogamous marriage, be they heterosexual or homosexual, the case is much less substantial for stating that polygamous marriage was more frequent than homosexual unions of the same sort.

#40 You may dig up some remote tribes where this is the case but neither Western nor Eastern civilisations have had that concept.

Again you are entirely wrong.

Roots of Homosexual Marriage Go Way Back

Yale historian John Boswell researched the history of homosexual marriage and contended that such unions were legally sanctioned and religiously upheld for over 3,000 years in ancient African, Asian, Egyptian, Greek, Mesopotamian, Native American and Roman cultures.

Same-sex relationships did not gain widespread condemnation until the 13th century, according to Boswell, when religious orders labeled them immoral.

#40 Only in recent decades has this become an issue.

Again, this is totally incorrect.

#40 Historically (heterosexual) polygamy had more social acceptance than homosexual marriage, yet here you don't want to open Pandora's box. Why is it so much easier with a monogamous homosexual "marriage"?

This is due to such legal considerations as I mentioned before. Much of modern law relies upon patrilineal designation and primogeniture related status in determining inheritance and other issues of child custody and the like. Attempting to introduce polygamous marriage as a social norm would create gigantic gray areas, as noted by Aris.

#40 Maybe our societies evolve so much that they change the concept, who knows. American society is obviously not ready for it.

As can be seen from prior evidence, societal concepts have indeed evolved from an original acceptance of homosexual marriage to a more Puritanical definition of late. How is American society's inability to recognize homosexual marriage the fault of homosexuals? That would be blaming the victim and I challenge you to prove otherwise.

#40 When it comes to polygamy, you don't seem to follow through your own reasoning. It is not about YOUR personal inclination. So you just want monogamy because it's legally less complicated? Sharia seems to do just "fine" with polygamy.

The only reason "Sharia seems to do just 'fine' with polygamy" is because of that system's brutal oppression of women. Do you honestly think that the majority of Arabic women heartily endorse Muslim polygamy? If so, please introduce statistics to prove it. I have already admitted that my own personal inclinations have nothing to do with legal reasoning behind the prohibition of polygamy. There are substantial arguments in favor of banning polygamy solely because of the confusion of childrens rights that would result from its legalization. The potential for child abuse increases profoundly if numerous "parents" can legally administer corporal punishment to a child not of their own blood. This alone may well constitute sufficient reason to ban polygamy.

#40 Yet every Catholic and Protestant has to pay church taxes levied by the State, and religious organisations can indeed chose only to hire persons who share the same faith (also they often only do that when faith plays an important role in what kind of work they do). I don't understand what it has to do with treason when the State funds a religious organisation without forcing it to accept to hire a person that does not share the beliefs and goals of that organization.

It is amazing that the complications of such arrangements are not clear to you. Federal funding or sanction of any religion is prohibited by America's constitution and rightfully so. If one religion is promoted, so must all of them, from Shintoism to the Church of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. The DOMA seeks to enshrine the doctrine of a specific religion without allowing the marriage rituals of all religions to enjoy equal protection. Be it tyranny of the many or tyranny of the few, it remains tyranny and naught else.

If "marriage" is supposedly the sole province of Christian unions, what possible place could it have in a secular nation's constitution? If marriage is not categorized as a specific religious interpretation then it is open to all modes of interpretation and thereby becomes equally unfit for admission into constitutional law. Neither avenue warrants enactment as legal measure.

That religious organizations receive any federal funding is clearly a violation of the separation of church and state. Equal arguments may be made against public taxes being used to fund art and even the existence of public television. Even if government funding of a religious organization can somehow be justified (which it cannot), they would still have to conform to federally mandated hiring guidelines as regards discrimination. This is not happening with respect to programs being administered by the office of faith based giving and it is a direct violation of the American constitution.

#40 Why should a Methodist church be forced to hire an Islamist just to keep federal funding?

Just as justice must be blind, so must there be equal opportunity for all people regardless of religion, skin color or sexual orientation, among other delimitations, as mandated by federal law. I do not see what cogent arguments can be put forth in oppositon to this. It is for this exact reason that any and all governemnt support of religious organizations is a direct contravention of constitutional law.

#40 And as long as the U.S. is a nation "under God", it simply isn't an entirely secular state. "God" may not be defined by a special religion but he certainly leaves atheists, who believe that there is no God, out in the cold.

Precisely, and this is why such notions as the office of faith based giving are an outrage. They represent government sanctioned discrimination against atheists and agnostics, not to mention animists, Janists, Zen monks and a host of other practices.

#40 I once read that in a small U.S. town Jewish citizen protested against the public funding of a Christmas tree, because that went against the separation of church and state. That's where the whole issue starts to get ridiculous.

And when is it not "ridiculous?" When government funds are used to post the decalogue inside public courts of law or outside government buildings? It is far better to exclude all tax based funding of any religion than to turn a blind eye towards even seemingly small infractions.

Undermining the separation of church and state is to erode America's constitution. This is a form of sedition and must be opposed. How would Christians feel if Muslims were in the majority and sought to put in place Sharia law? Can you imagine the outcry? Consider for one moment the declaration of Ramadan as a national holiday. That Christmas is a national holiday and not Chanukah represents a similar violation. These practices, like heterosexual marriage, are not empowered by legal justification. They are entrenched by tradition without due consideration of their implications with respect to constitutional law.

Public school textbooks no longer refer to historical dates as BC (Before Christ). It is entirely unfair to expect that Buddhists, Hindus and other American citizens of alternate religions should pay their taxes to specifically promote sanctioned mention of a figure from one particular faith, yet not give equal time to all of them. This is why public schools should only have comparative religions courses. Recent public school classes dealing with one specific religion (i.e., Islam) are profoundly in violation of the law. It is a willingness to countenance the supremacy of one particular religion and import it into legal proceedings, like American Christianity, that then breeds up insanity like the Islamic sensitivity classes in public schools.

There are myriad faiths and deities. What possible justification is there for declaring one of them ascendant? Especially using government money to do so, even if it is only to show partiality to a few of these numerous faiths, it is still favoritism. Such an act merely empowers those who would declare otherwise. Islamist terrorism in pursuit of global Sharia law should serve as a glaring object lesson of how foolhardy such a notion is.

Posted by Zenster 2004-08-24 9:35:31 PM|| 2004-08-24 9:35:31 PM|| Front Page Top

13:28 Atomic Conspiracy
13:28 Atomic Conspiracy
13:29 Atomic Conspiracy
13:29 Atomic Conspiracy
03:41 dacau forever
03:34 dacau forever
04:21 dacau forever
21:35 Zenster
09:55 Anonymous6160
08:40 ed
08:05 GreatestJeneration
07:50 Aris Katsaris
05:07 True German Ally
03:41 Zenster
03:18 paracletes
02:27 True German Ally
02:17 .com
02:14 Super Hose
02:11 Zenster
01:47 Brewer
00:57 Super Hose
00:48 True German Ally
00:35 GreatestJeneration
00:32 .com