homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam

The Geek Culture Forums


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Geek Culture Forums   » News, Reviews, Views!   » Politics/Religion/Current Affairs   » Don't Divorce us (slideshow) (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!  
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
Author Topic: Don't Divorce us (slideshow)
Stereo

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 748

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted December 30, 2008 07:01      Profile for Stereo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Erbo, regarding 1) when the first tax was instituted, the state size was minimal. Are you ready to have the 10% tax cap, but no more social net, hardly any road, no census or federal-sponsored statistics taking, few policemen, little innovation, and schooling only to those who can afford it? Because all a 10% cap would allow for is army, and the capitol upkeep. So taxes, even if over 10%, brought a lot of positive changes to society.

2) The statistics used show only one part of the equation. The missing part is the statistics about illegal abortions, forced marriages, baby given into adoption against the mother's will, and such. Are you willing to go back to a society which deny "sinful" citizens a right over their body and their offsprings? It is widely known that teen pregnancy rates are far higher in the poorer groups. When this particular law was passed, blacks were still largely segregated, making them more often than not the poorest ones. It should come to no surprise that given the chance to keep their illegetimate children and care for them (rather than abort or give them into orphanage where they may grow up without love, and often, whithout hope) unwed mothers would do so, hence the rise in the statistics. More love, less heartbreaking decisions? I'd say society improved from this change.

3) You say you've been divorced once. Please take a moment, and think about who you would be now if divorce was still widely frown upon - to the point of social discrimination. Would you still be married to your first wife? Would you be the husband on the run and missing father that gave such a bad name to men for a long time? Or would you have chosen to still divorce, then move far away, and lie to your new neighbours about your past life? Now, put that into numbers: 50% of marriages now end out in divorces. (From easy boredom? From not taking time to know the person? From excessive expectations? Who cares?) That mean that before divorce, 30-40% of people (I'm taking into account the serial divorcers) had to cope one way or another - and the examples I gave are just a few of the solutions. (Killing a spouse one now hates from being stuck too long with him/her? Better 20 years in jail rather than 50 with this ennemy by one's side.) Isn't divorce a social progress, after all?

So, do we really all miss the point? I'd rather say that we are willing to accept that society evolves, and that our society is at a point where marriage should not be restricted to man+woman, but any two consenting adults. This way, all can share the same responsibilities and advantages, without discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation or age - as long as they are adult and consenting: a 20y.o. + a 80y.y? That's usually money seekers, but that's legal.

(Please note: polygamy and polyandry can, and should, be treated separately; their legal status would not be affected by a change of definition of marriage. They are multiple concurrent marriages, not a 1+x, x in {1..n} marriage.)

Yes, there will be consequences. The best one is a better, fairer society.

(Of course, feel free to go live a couple of years in Sudan. They may be closer to your ideal of a moral society. Then come back and tell us if you have changed your mind.)

--------------------
Eppur, si muove!

Galileo Galilei

Posts: 2289 | From: Gatineau, Quebec, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mac Geek
Geek-in-Training
Member # 25023

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted December 31, 2008 16:20      Profile for Mac Geek   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Erbo:
And, once again, everyone completely misses my point.

Go back and read the posting by Megan McArdle/Jane Galt again. Or, since it's obvious none of you bothered to do so when I posted it the first time, I'll summarize.
<snip>

[/QUOTE]

But then Again, Who is Jane Galt?
(I guess Atlas was gay too, he shrugged)

Jonathan

--------------------
Mac Geek Member # 25023
"I am not a Number, I am a FREE MAN"

Posts: 33 | From: Brooklyn, NY | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted December 31, 2008 19:25      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Erbo:
And, once again, everyone completely misses my point.

I think we all got the point quite clearly.

quote:
Originally posted by Erbo:
since it's obvious none of you bothered to do so when I posted it the first time, I'll summarize.

No, allow me to summarize...

quote:
Allowing gays the same rights as the rest of us would be change.

Here's some examples of other change that (in the authors opinion) had negative side-effects.

Conclusion: change is dangerous, so it's easier/safer to just continue denying these people I don't like their basic human rights.

 
 
Or, to put it even more briefly...
quote:
I have no rational argument to support my bigotry, so I'll appeal to the basis of all bigotry - irrational fear

 
The "all change is dangerous" mantra is one the flimsiest debating tricks you ever see anyone use, and it's only ever used when people have no real argument to back up their position.

Galt is a Libertarian, she wants to change the society in which she lives. I wonder how she'd take to my hanging out on her web site, opposing every change she advocates by quoting her own words back at her.

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10680 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged


All times are Eastern Time
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | Geek Culture Home Page

2015 Geek Culture

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.4.0


homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam