Iowa: still fighting back

The Iowa Supreme Court issued its ruling allowing same-sex "marriage" in 2009 and set off a political firestorm that included debate over changing Iowa's merit-based judicial selection process. It also sparked the Iowa For Freedom campaign against the justices' retention.

Hanson (the original appellate judge who's decision was upheld in by the Iowa Supreme Court) said the effort is an attempt to politicize the bench.

"You're being asked to turn this retention vote into a referendum on one decision amongst hundreds of thousands of decisions," he said. "That's not what the retention system is intended to do."

Hanson is one of several judges up for retention this year, but there hasn't been any efforts to oust him. In 2007, a group of conservatives launched an unsuccessful attempt to have Hanson impeached.

Chuck Laudner, Iowa For Freedom's campaign manager, said Hanson's argument about the retention vote doesn't hold water.

"They're going to have a hard time explaining to me why I have the right to vote yes or no on a ballot, but if I vote no, somehow I'm abusing the system," Laudner said.

Laudner said both rulings overstepped their bounds by asserting "an entirely false premise" for their decision in Varnum by asserting the right to overturn a long-standing premise that marriage was between one man and one woman. That "turned the Constitution into a coaster," and threatened other rights, he said.

Companion Piece: Risible Racism vs. Gender Benders

Dafydd's analysis of the use of Loving v Virginia for neutering marriage is something to read. It falls nicely with the wealth of analysis we've provided over the years here at Opine under the "Loving v Virginia" tag. I quote only part of it to give our readership a taste of the whole thing...

I fully support the Court's decision in Loving v. Virginia: Given the clear meaning of the words of the Civil Rights Amendments and their obvious application to racial equality, the Court made the right decision. But I utterly reject its application to SSM.

Is this inconsistent or irrational? Not in the least: There is a bright line between the two that should be obvious, even to the activists themselves.

There is no possible compelling interest in preventing mixed-race marriages other than perpetuating "racial purity" and ultimately "racial supremacism." Yet there is no significant biological difference between the "races," and it's frequently hard even to distinguish between them.

"Sperm Donor Anonymity Sparks Controversy Among Offspring"

Sperm Donor Anonymity Sparks Controversy Among Offspring via Live Science Pardon me as I comment on several aspects of this article, my tone won't be charitable.

Melissa Singer always knew she didn't want to get married. It wasn't that she didn't like men, or relationships; she just never felt the desire for constant partnership. What she did want, however, was a child.

"Motherhood was the thing I wanted to do most in the world," said Singer, who lives in New York City. "I wanted to have a child. And what if the child wanted a father? I wanted to be able to pass along the traditions that my family had. And what if the child wanted to know the other half of her family traditions? I wanted to be able to give my parents a grandchild. Parents, as in plural, having two parents! Real nice that Ms. Singer has the joy of a complete kinship chart."

So, in her mid-30s, Singer went to her doctor and said she wanted to start a family. The doctor gave her the phone number of a local sperm bank. After nine months of trying to conceive, Singer became pregnant with her daughter, Jacqueline, now 14.

Because of one's desire to become a parent, this woman paid a man to merely be a donor and never desire to love his own child. Is this the right message we want to send to men?

"For a woman, the man is her sperm donor," Kramer said. "For a child, it's that child's biological father."

And don't forget not to mess around with mother nature here...

Kramer argues that donor anonymity benefits sperm banks instead of families, allowing the banks to sell sperm without tracking how many children are born as a result. About 1,200 donors are registered at her site, she said. One found out he'd fathered 125 children.

And people complain about the Duggars.

Throw Down: Refute This

This blog is littered with multiple challenges I have issued to proponents of neutering marriage through the years. Without exception these challenges have all gone unmet, many without even an attempt.

In the comment stream of another blog I made another challenge. I challenged another commenter to refute an argument against neutering marriage. He was not able to do so, but in the interest of fairness, I thought I'd give the readers here a shot. So here goes:

1. “Same-sex marriage” is irrational.
2. Laws should not be irrational.
3. Therefore we should not recognize “same-sex marriage.”

To refute that argument you need to either show that

1. “Same-sex marriage” is rational, or
2. Laws should be irrational

Your ignorance does not establish either point. That you disagree with, can’t see, can’t hear, or just plain don’t think you like a point does not prove its opposite. You need to actually state a rational case to establish either point. Introducing new points (aka tangents) other than the two possible refuting points neither refutes the above argument nor proves either point that does.

Note: For those who doubt the case for #1, above, we have made that case on this blog literally thousands of times, but for those who may be unfamiliar, the best place to start is with our seminal post written over 5 years ago, The 800lb Gorilla in the Room. That argument has stood the test of time. Despite the morphing and shifting arguments on the other side of this debate, from Goodridge to Perry, the 800lb Gorilla has never been changed and has never been countered.

Apples and Oranges

Michael Klarman, a professor at Harvard Law School, had a commentary in the Los Angeles Times. He actually tries to mirror homosexuality advocacy and neutering marriage to the struggle for African Americans to not be systematically enslaved, denied voting rights, lynched with impunity, and forcibly segregated. When was the last time an American was denied their right to vote because of they identified as homosexual, or when was the last time someone was murdered because they were homosexual and the clearly guilty straight suspects were acquitted by a straight jury?

After opinion polls found that the percentage of Americans ranking civil rights as the nation's No. 1 priority had increased to 52% from 4%, Kennedy went on national television to announce that civil rights was a "moral issue as old as the Scriptures and as clear as the American Constitution."

There’s a major difference here. Marriage neutering advocates have told everyone to keep the Scriptures and their morality and their church of out this (while they themselves appeal to Scriptures and morality and churches). Kennedy could rightly go to the American people and appeal to their convictions. Marriage neutering advocates ask the American people to stuff their convictions.

He goes on to cite fauxmentum:

One well-respected statistician has estimated that by 2012 or 2013, a majority of people in a majority of states will support [neutering] marriage.

Should Obama be reelected in 2012, he almost certainly will endorse gay marriage during his second term. By then, a majority of Americans, and an overwhelming majority of Democrats, will support the practice.

Maybe it will happen. Maybe it won't Let the voters at least know about this scenario.

[An example of a commenter after the jump.]

"Stephen J" is an example of a prolific commenter in favor of neutering marriage who demonstrates how, in order to do so, one must denigrate motherhood and fatherhood, masculinity and femininity, and obvious biology, and ignore actual arguments, instead addressing imagined arguments.

Here are some examples. 9:51 AM September 19, 2010:

The ability to procreate is not a requirement of marriage. If it were, it would be equally illegal for impotent men and barren women to marry. Celibate marraiges would be illegal. But clearly, this is not the case.

Yes, he compares a homosexual orientation to not having functioning body parts. Note - it is a disorder when they want it to be, but it isn't when they don't want it to be.

All scientificly credible studies, and I do mean ALL of them, have established, beyond any scientific doubt, that same sex couples are at least as effective as parents as are heteros -- in every single measurable way.

You can't argue with people like this. They choose the studies they like, and ignore the rest.

7:16 PM September 19, 2010:

I do not know how the word "prove" is defined on your planet. But here on Earth, heterosexuals being sexually attracted to the opposite sex and homosexuals being sexually attracted to the same sex does not "prove" that children do better with two parents of the opposite sex. Your lack of supporting rationale for connecting the two strongly indicates a lack of critical thinking skills.

That was his "response" to my statement: You can try to deny all of the studies that show the importance of fathers and the importance of mothers. Fine. But unless you are neutrally bisexual, your own desires and actions PROVE there is a difference in personal relationships between men and women. If those differences are important enough to lovers, they have to be important enough to children.

9:45 AM September 19, 2010

There is no demonstrable difference between the pairing of two women, two men, and the pairing of a man and a woman. Please provide explicit examples of the "differences" you feel are so demonstrable so they may be examined critically.

I cited the ability to naturally procreate, but he continued to ignore biological fact.

GLBTQ couples can adopt, foster, raise step children, and participate in all manner of other arrangements to acquire children to raise.

Which, of course, I didn’t deny in the first place.

Throughout history and accross civilizations humans have cohabited as:

1. One man and one woman

2. One man and multiple women

3. One woman and multiple men

4. One man and one man

5. One woman and one woman

6. Multiple men and multiple women

It is obvious that one man and one woman is only one of several ways to describe the conjugal members of a family.

He completely ignores the biological fact that sperm from one man unites with the egg of one woman.

Again, the bottom line is...

It is Constitutional, practical, and necessary to treat different behaviors and different kinds of relationships differently. All of our laws do so. The pairing of two men or two women is a demonstrably different kind of behavior and different kind of relationship than the pairing of a bride and a groom. While not all will, the pairing of a bride and a groom is the only KIND that IS ABLE to naturally produce new citizens (who did not consent to the arrangement) AND provide those new citizens with a legally, financially, and socially bound role model and bonding guardian from each of the two sexes that comprise all of society, cooperating with each other for the good of the children.

When comparing behavior to skin color, we're talking apples and oranges. But perhaps we are dealing with people who deny that apples and oranges are different from each other, while at the same time insisting they can only consume one, but not the other.

Did Boies and Olson Make a Tactical Mistake?

Maura Dolan had a couple of updates on the LATimes.blog about the appeal of Judge Walker's decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the federal case regarding California's marriage amendment, voted in as Proposition 8. ProtectMarriage.com submitted arguments to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals calling for Walker's decision to be overturned (thus keeping the marriage amendment in place). Absent that, they argue that Imperial County should be allowed to defend the amendment. As you know, Governor Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Brown have abandoned their responsibility to defend the state constitution.

But here was an interesting twist I did not expect.

Failing that, the group argued, the court should rule that the Aug. 4 decision affects only the couples named in the suit because it was not filed as a class action on behalf of all gays and lesbians, ProtectMarriage argued.

We have noted elsewhere that this isn’t just about homosexual people. Everyone has the same access to a state marriage license, regardless of sexual orientation. So if two men can get a marriage license, they don't have to indentify as homosexual to get it together. But the more important thing here is the argument that this should be a limited to the plaintiffs. I was skeptical (having only seen the LATimes.com coverage), but notice this:

UC Davis Law Professor Vikram Amar, a constitutional law professor, said he believed ProtectMarriage was legally correct in contending that Walker’s ruling would have to be limited to the four people who filed the lawsuit against Proposition 8.

And...

"Under Supreme Court precedent, there's no way a judge can protect plaintiffs other than the named plaintiffs absent a class action," said Amar, who voted against Proposition 8. He said "Boies and Olson foolishly failed to certify" a class in the case.

If this concept were to be accepted and were to stand, another court case would no doubt be filed ASAP to correct that tactical error- or, perhaps the state legislature and Governor would pass an amendment to repeal the amendment passed by voters, with a "judicial mandate" as their justification to override the vote of the people.

Given the combined experience of Boies and Olson, my guess is that there is some reason they did things the way they did, and that this isn't a forgotten mistake on their part.

Shortage of Single Ladies Drives Men to Commit

"Shortage of Single Ladies Drives Men to Commit" via Live Science

After controlling for income and race, Kruger found that in areas where women were scarce, women married slightly earlier. Men's average age of marriage didn't change relative to the abundance of potential mates, but they did show more variability in the age when they married than women did. That's likely because guys who can snag a women will settle down quickly, Kruger said, but because women can be more choosey, other men may have to build up their finances and social status before they can catch a bride.

The Notman Cometh

An attorney in Bermuda, Stephen Notman, has written a lengthy defense of the bride+groom requirement in state marriage licensing, both from a secular perspective and from his Christian convictions. It was prompted after he posted a link on Facebook to he National Review article "The Case For Traditional Marriage". Someone he assigns the name Red Sonja rebutted his endorsement of the article. He analyzed her response, and it is worth a read. (Hat Tip: Wintery Knight)

In the quotes I provide below, I mostly stick to Notman's secular arguments. If you click through to his piece, you can see the rest.

[The quotes are after the jump.]

She contended that marriage about an emotional union more than procreation. Notman pointed out:

The Article's secular argument is a simple facts of life argument based in biology. Marriage exists to provide a satisfactory arrangement to deal with the fact that heterosexual sex often produces children, who in turn, are in need of protection.

And...

The most weak and a vulnerable person in the family is the one in need of most protection and thus the law strives to protect the child’s best interests. Of course, this does not prevent infertile couples from marrying or couples that do not choose to have children, but marriage is defined a certain way so that it can provide the best possible structure for child-raising.

He goes on to offer:

In fact, it is quite clear from listening to the words of many activists that the effort to establish same sex marriage is really not about securing marital rights for homosexuals, so much as it is about deconstructing the traditional concept of marriage. If judicial activism succeeds in ratifying homosexual marriages so that it gains the sponsorship and protection of the State, they will have deconstructed the traditional notion of marriage between a man and a woman and opened the door for virtually any kind of relationship to count as a marriage. Once the essence of marriage as between a man and a woman is eradicated, it can be defined any way that people want and so marriage will become whatever anyone wants it to be.

Red Sonja brings up the infertility argument, and asks if we are going to prevent disabled people from getting married because they will be more limited in parenting or prevent people from getting married at all because divorce hurts children, and they can’t divorce if they were never married.

Unfortunately Sonja has woefully misstated the Article's argument and knocked down a straw man. The argument acknowledges that the law has never prevented heterosexual people from getting married because they would risk splitting up, or prevented heterosexual disabled people getting married because they could not give optimal care for children. Rather, the argument is that marriage exists because men and women typically tend to procreate and thus to acknowledge this fact it is built in to the definition of marriage.

Red Sonja asked:

How can the Article equate a same-sex partnership with cohabiting friends or ‘elderly brothers’? What sort of flawed logic exists? Surely the difference between platonic and romantic relationships is understood?

Notman responds:

The Article summarizes the legal issues that will logically arise as a consequence of denying marriage of its procreative nature and stripping the definition of marriage of its gender requirement. Red Sonja has denied that marriage is essentially procreative in nature. Instead, she believes its primary focus is the emotional union and devotion between loving adults. Fine, but what the Article points out is that elderly brothers can have an emotional union and be devoted to one another. Co-habiting friends can do the same. So why can they not get married? “Because they’re platonic”, cries Sonja. But if marriage’s focus is fixated on devotion and not the procreative element, then why discriminate against two brothers who love each other dearly and want to express that love with a marriage, simply because they are not having sex? On her criterion, she ends up making non-procreative gay sex the determinant criterion for a same sex marriage. And that does not seem logically consistent, since she does not seek to exclude celibate or non-procreative hetero couples from getting married.

Notman notes the inconsistency in saying that morality should not be used in the argument, while subsequently appealing to morality.

The National Review has attempted to present a case for traditional marriage without reference at all to the moral question. But Red Sonja repeatedly couches her objections in moral language. She speaks of rights to marriage, that gay people ought to be able to marry and ought not have to suffer social ostracism. She believes firmly that there is nothing inherently immoral in the homosexual lifestyle and that gay sex is certainly not immoral. Recall that even if she did think it was immoral but thought tolerance was appropriate, the response would be that sodomy is not illegal, civil partnerships are available and marriage goes beyond mere tolerance and into open approval, at the price of tolerance for religious freedom of expression and the optimal environment for raising children.

She clearly believes that gay marriage is an objective good and that denying it to homosexuals is a real moral evil. In order to rationally hold these positions, she must believe in the existence of objective moral values. She cannot simply believe that moral truth is relative ie. True for you, but not for me. For if moral truth is merely relative, it logically leaves her with no legitimate grounding to impose her personal beliefs on anyone outside of herself.

Red Sonja asked:

The Article states that supporters of same-sex marriage are in denial that it would cause a 'radical change in American law or society.' What radical change would this be? He doesn’t elaborate on this point, merely begins to theorise on the purpose of marriage.

Okay, one quote about where Christians are coming from. Notman responds:

Redefining marriage will have a profound social and legal impact on our freedom of religious expression. Virtually all major religions proscribe against homosexual forms of sex. But apparently, thousands of years of collected wisdom is wrong and all major religious figures and followers alike are a bunch of bigoted homophobes. This is the point that some might doff their Biblical scholar’s cap and demand to know where Jesus said homosexuality was wrong. I would remind them however that He never directly addressed paedophilia either and that ‘arguments from silence’ are logical fallacies. Moreover, the Bible never condemns homosexuality in terms of orientation. Rather, it is explicit that homosexual sex is prohibited. While some liberal postmodern theologians have tried to reinterpret God’s law, virtually all Biblical scholars agree that homosexual sex is specifically condemned as an ‘abomination’ in the Old Testament in Leviticus and again condemned in the New Testament in the Book of Romans. Moreover, marriage is repeatedly described throughout the Bible as between one man and one woman.

Troubled Waters

John Waters, who proudly makes disgusting and usually low-grossing motion pictures but gets lots of attention and praise because of his homosexuality and cross-dressing advocacy, is in the news for his suggestion about how to push for marriage neutering.

His suggestion at the North Louisiana Gay and Lesbian Film Festival in Shreveport? "I think we should just try to make heterosexual divorce illegal."

Oh, how original. See previous posts on this idea here, here, here, and here.

I have an idea on how to stop the push to neuter marriage: outlaw adultery.

Thank You, Los Angeles Times

I do occasionally find something presented by the Los Angeles Times editorial board that I can commend, and I like to point it out when I do, since I am constantly disagreeing with them in my blog posts.

Similar to something written by their columnist, George Skelton, the board ran an editorial that argues California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown have an obligation to defend the Proposition 8 (the California Marriage Amendment). The editorial board starts our reminding us that they don’t like Proposition 8.

But there's a difference between opinion journalists and the state's constitutional officers. California's top public lawyer and its chief executive have an obligation to defend the laws of the state whether they like them or not - and that should include the ban on same-sex marriage.

It's...not...a...ban.

Last week, a state court turned down a request by the Pacific Justice Institute to force Schwarzenegger and Brown to defend Proposition 8. Its decision was understandable; the governor and attorney general have a fair amount of discretion when it comes to determining their actions in particular cases. But just because the governor and attorney general made a legally defensible choice, that doesn't mean they made the ethical one. Proposition 8 was passed by voters and became California law. Voters have a right to expect the state to defend its laws.

Hooray for making sense!

Brown has his legal view as to whether Proposition 8 is constitutional or not, but it's up to the courts to make the determination on that. The state still has an obligation to give the law the best possible defense.

At this point, the state could best fulfill its obligation by hiring an outside attorney to represent it in the appeal.

Agreed.

I'll just take this opportunity to remind people who are (or are eligible to be) registered voters in California that it may make a difference who is elected Governor and who is elected Attorney General. Jerry Brown and Kamala Harris have made it clear they will not defend the state constitution as amended by the voters. Meg Whitman and Steve Cooley, if I recall correctly, have both indicated they will defend the state constitution in this matter if given the chance.

[A little more after the jump.]

Many of the comments that follow the editorial on the website attempt to counter with "but Prop 8 is unconstitutional." Isn't that precisely the matter in question? It's like saying, "Of course the defense attorney shouldn't appeal the conviction. The defendant is guilty." If for no other reason, Schwarzenegger and Brown should defend the state constitution against a federal judge who is going against precedent.

It is Constitutional, practical, and necessary to treat different behaviors and different kinds of relationships differently. All of our laws do so. The pairing of two men or two women is a demonstrably different kind of behavior and different kind of relationship than the pairing of a bride and a groom. While not all will, the pairing of a bride and a groom is the only KIND that IS ABLE to naturally produce new citizens (who did not consent to the arrangement) AND provide those new citizens with a legally, financially, and socially bound role model and bonding guardian from each of the two sexes that comprise all of society, cooperating with each other for the good of the children.

An Open Letter to Mark...

A lone comment on another blog has arisen my interest. Come listen in on a commenter who is expressing the kind of chagrin on this argument that I think many feel:

I totally agree with you, I do not think emotion should decide this issue. But that’s really all the anti-SSM group has to go on. They cannot defend their actions let alone exactly define marriage and explain why it needs to be defended. They do, occasionally, show their true colors which area group of people who wish to deny gays in this country equal rights.

Ah, now that is type of argument suited for an Opine discussion. Hello, commenter. Meet Opine Editorials, where we do what you say cannot be done.

Follow the "Read More" link to read the rest.

That same commenter left some distinct questions. I'll give my own answers, honed in decades of debate and never have they been refuted. (I've altered the question numbering).

1. What is your definition of marriage
1. [A]nd how does SSM “destroy it”.
2. Why do you feel a need to “defend” marriage?
1. If it is a good institution, won’t it stand on its own?

What is the definition of marriage? It is the legal union of a man and a woman. The effect SSM would have would be to neuters it in more ways than one. It removes the reference to gender from that definition -- the reference to equal gender representation in marriage, and I'll speak of the other a little later.

I feel a great need to defend marriage, and by that I mean specifically the equal expectation of both genders in each marriage. I feel that need because I believe in marriage equality, of course. Integrating both genders, and expecting their equal representation and participation is required for marriage equality. Don't let anyone fool you on that point.

The purpose of marriage is best served when we recognize that both genders play a crucial role, and their rights and responsibilities need to be equally recognized. And that is for the sake of a third party. A third party I'll mention a bit later, but it is the perspective of this third party which makes this make sense.

Marriage is a good institution. But it can only help people as much as they invest in it. Someone who opens up a bank account but doesn't put any money into it will never get a return. Someone who gets married but doesn't invest the love and tolerance of the other gender that it requires, will not get the return that we expect from marriage. The institution suffers marginally as fewer people make that investment, but the people who missed out on the opportunity suffer the most. And for the people who do not invest because they no longer recognize the institution for what it is, the institution is as good as destroyed.

But there is a third party which suffers. A third party who is entitled a number of rights which are only ensured where there is love and tolerance of both genders in marriage. And that third party is the children who are potentially created by a man and a woman.

When a child is created, their identity is not shared with just one person, but two. And an institution which promotes the equal love, tolerance, and devotion of the other gender -- specifically the person one created a child with -- is the best way to ensure that the child loves and recognizes their own identity. It is the most humanitarian cause in the world. It is the child who naturally identifies with the two people who created it, it is the two who created a child which identify with that child, and it is that bond of kinship which provides the best environment for that child.

In fact, even without the marriage institution, the two people are blood related through their children. Marriage simply recognizes the potential for such a bond for the sake of the children.

Thanks for reading. Please, share your thoughts in the comment section below.

If You Loved Me You Would.

Often the debate about neutering marriage comes down to this fallacious and obviously manipulative argument. Sometimes it's stated overtly just as in the title. More often it's expressed more subtly as in "I know that you hate me, and that you hate and fear the acceptance of sexual minorities...And I know that the love that is in you is far more powerful than any sense of hatred or fear that can develop." Most often, however, the manipulation is expressed as the barely articulate and entirely unthinking epithet "Bigot!" But it is all the same manipulation: If you abandon your principles, you can gain the approval of the manipulator. Like dealing with terrorists, however, once the manipulator finds out you value their acceptance, they will never let you have it but rather continue to manipulate you with it.

It would be more honest for the manipulator to have said "If you loved me as much as I love me, you would." Someone pulling a manipulation like this is expressing no kind of love whatsoever for the other party, but rather contempt. The other's values, wants, and wishes are all supposed to be subservient to the manipulators own to prove their love. If that is how the manipulator is going to define love that's certainly not what they are expressing when they tell you their wants are more meaningful than your own.

It is only the most generous reading of the curse "Bigot!" that puts it in the same category as the simple manipulations, though. Most often the curse simply means that one wishes to quash thought rather than confront it. As humans, we are all flawed and so any decision can be based on a human foible. Finding a potential fault that could be hidden behind what someone else says therefore becomes easier than confronting the actual flaws in one's own motivations and arguments. That is typically what is meant when someone throws charged language about like "bigot" or "homophobe," but if that is not what is intended, the most that can be intended is as I have said. It is an expression of disapproval that can only be countered by giving in to what the person saying it wants.

Yes, it is possible that someone could be opposed to neutering marriage out of hatred. But in order to see that reason, one has to first be willing to look past the fact that it is a massive change that is being proposed. Marriage is and has been about procreation. It's not about social security benefits, hospital visitation rights, or a shortcut to writing a will. Turning it into something so much more trivial runs the very real risk of getting rid of marriage entirely. In fact, I have yet to talk to an activist for neutering marriage who wouldn't also be willing to just get rid of marriage entirely or at least from secular life, as if only religious society is impacted by disorder in reproduction.

Don't believe me? What do you think of marrying your sister? If your first thought is "Ick!" then you clearly tie marriage with procreation. There is nothing "icky" about your sister getting social security benefits, visiting you in the hospital, or inheriting from your estate. Further, concepts like hospitals, inheritance, and social security are also not nearly as universal across cultures as marriage has been therefore they cannot have been the motivations behind it.

So the next time someone throws a flavor of this manipulation at you, just remember what you are trading away, marriage, and what they are hoping you want more, their mere approval. Even if someone so manipulative were willing to give you something once they find out you want it, would you really want the approval of such a person? Would you be willing to sacrifice future generations to get it? Anyone truly interested in marriage would be willing to talk about the most important parts of it, not try to find a mote in your eye to discuss instead. Just walk away. That person has nothing to offer. If they did, they wouldn't be trying to manipulate you instead.

Why everyone needs a full and complete kinship chart.

From Lamebook....

The Temple of Dagon

News that an environmental activist has taken over the Discovery Channel headquarters to demand an end to “filthy human babies” reminds us that religion can take a number of guises. [...]

But one way to detect logical fallacies is to see what happens when you scale them up. Those harmless ideas when projected onto a horizon ten miles high and fifty miles wide are so awe-inspiringly crazy that either you say “what the f**k?” or “why not?” James Lee said “why not”. When the cops finally take down James Lee and people go back to carrying out the same program in small but unnoticeable ways, who will dare to say, “a prophet, now there was a prophet!” [emphasis, mine]

Read the rest...