Peregrinator

You've claimed that a subset of polygamy can be consistent without same-sex marriage, but that is never what I said. You said that legal polygamy, to be consistent, requires legal same-sex marriage. In order to show that this is a false statement, only one counterexample is required. If you disagree with my counterexample (historical polygyny), then it is up to you to show that such marriage contracts are inconsistent with a rejection of same-sex marriage. Even legal group marriages need not require legal same-sex marriage. A man's marriage contract upon entering such a group might simply state that he is marrying all the women in the group, but not the men. Likewise for the women entering the group. And the contract might be dissolved upon the death of any of the spouses.

So atheists get attacked when they attack what others hold dear? And this is news? It's called blowback.

I use "polygamy" to mean "more than one spouse" because that's what it means. And I demonstrated, contra your assertion, that there exist forms of polygamy which do not require same-sex marriage and that these are not logically inconsistent. "Polygamy" does not always mean "group marriage," however much you might like it to be so; and historically it usually refers to polygyny (polyandry and group marriage being relatively uncommon). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy#Forms_of_polygamy "Historically, all three practices have been found, but polygyny is by far the most common. Confusion arises when the broad term "polygamy" is used when a specific form of polygamy is being referred to." I actually think group marriage is probably more common in science fiction than it has been in history. And why don't you ever read what I actually write? But I do. "To be consistent, legal polygamy requires legal same-sex marriage" I've shown (repeatedly) that this is not true.

You'll note I wrote "polygamy" there, not polygyny. "Polygyny" is one form of polygamy. You can substitute "polyandry" if you like. So to state that polygamy requires same-sex unions is to state that all the various forms of polygamy require them. "Polygamy" means more than one spouse, and that's how I use the word, whether it means multiple wives, husbands, or both. If, legally, you're going to allow multiple spouses, I see no good reason to limit either sex, so that means 1 man 2 women, 1 woman 2 men, 2 women 2 men, et cetera. And I would require consent of all parties, since they are all married to each other. You know, like multiple spouses, like the word "polygamy" means. I think if one is going to use a word in a manner inconsistent with its traditional meaning, one ought to state that up front.

You'll note that polygamy that I would agree with requires consent of all parties, not just the man, and I added "to be consistent". I don't see what is logically inconsistent with polygyny. I reject it on moral grounds but that doesn't mean that it is logically inconsistent. I figured you had some Heinleinian group marriage in mind.

To be consistent, legal polygamy requires legal same-sex marriage, for the simple fact that having one member of the marriage die does not remove the marriage relationship for the remaining members, even if the only remaining members are the same sex. You are wrong about that. Lia and Rachel were not married to one another; each was married to Jacob.

Yes Frankscout, it is the BSA's fault because it is the BSA's policy (and recent re-affirmation of that policy) that causes all of this upset. So the man in question's becoming/staying a Scout leader despite knowing the policy -- that wasn't a cause? Why isn't he at fault? He wasn't innocently ignorant of the policy.

The Catholic church has some brave souls. Indeed, those who are willing to uphold Church teaching in the face of opposition from society and the State are brave.

I am willing to entertain the possibility that individualism can ONLY produce this outcome But I've not said that. Of course the individual can choose to subordinate his goals to those of his family. And maybe the various systems of individualist philosophy (Objectivism excluded) even make allowance for that. The point is that individualist philosophy doesn't give any reason for it other than it makes one feel good. The error lies not in the fact that this is the ONLY outcome of individualism (it isn't) but rather that individualist philosophy has no basis for making a moral judgment when it IS the outcome. An individualist can't, for example, condemn a man who leaves his wife and children to start a new family with a younger wife -- at least not on moral grounds. He might find it distasteful but he can't say it's immoral.

Can you consider the possibility that individual enlightened self-interest CAN lead to a structured and ordered society? How does self-interest become enlightened? Who does the enlightening?

So what is the error? Individualism is the error, whether we're talking about egoism, hedonism, libertinism, objectivism, etc. Each of these forms of individualism teach that the goals of the individual are not subordinate to those of the family. You did state that opinion. That is not an explanation of your reasoning. But I did explain my reasoning, which I have just repeated above. That you don't accept my explanation doesn't mean I haven't explained.

What better way to argue that atheists are not genocidal than to courageously out oneself as an atheist?

Peregrinator, an open marriage is, nevertheless, a marriage. As long as it doesn't affect us, who are we, outsiders, to question a relationship that other people agree on? It might not be what WE have decided for ourselves but that is OUR individual choice, right? Why deny that freedom to others? I don't recall remarking on whether Ayn Rand's marriage was a real marriage or a sham. She and her husband were buried together for what it is worth. But I don't have any qualms with stating that adultery is wrong even if one has the permission of one's spouse. I don't have any qualms with stating that the O'Connors' marriage is a poor model to for other married couples to follow (the same can be said for the Brandens). As for family, there is no doubt in my mind about the emotional bond between, for example, parent and child. I can't explain instinct but I sense that it exists. I think a family is quite a bit more than an emotional bond. Wouldn't you agree? But your answer doesn't really explain an incompatibility between individualism and family. What you describe is how the individual 'relates' to or 'fits in' with family - in your ideal world. You refer to 'errors' of individualism. That's what I'd like you to explain. What are those errors and, if possible, how do they explain the incompatibility of individualism with family? I did not refer to the errors of individualism. I referred to the errors of individualism and collectivism -- that is, both individualism and collectivism are errors. I've already pointed out how individualism is incompatible with the family.

Rand had a long-term affair with Nathaniel Branden, her protege, apparently with the knowledge, if not the approval, of both of their spouses (Frank O'Connor and Barbara Branden, respectively). Rand later severed all ties with the Brandens and denounced them after Nathaniel Branden's affair with Patrecia Scott came to light. Why is individualism incompatible with 'family'? Because the needs and wants of the individual are subordinate to those of the family. I'm actually surprised I have to explain that. The family as the atomic unit of society avoids the errors of individualism on the one hand and collectivism on the other. (As an aside, although Rand stressed individualism, her original group of followers was about as collectivist as you can get -- at least prior to 1968 when she broke with the Brandens.)

Do conservatives think she is incorrect, that we DO have claims on others? I don't know whether so-called "conservatives" think she is correct or not. There is an awful strain of individualism in modern conservative thought. But the atomic unit of society isn't the individual but the family. I was hoping to be surprised to find out that she had eaten children or something. But other than being atheist, her philosophy of individual freedom seems well-suited as a conservative philosophy. Is prejudice against atheism THAT powerful in politics, really? I readily admit that I am biased against atheists holding public office, but as far as Rand is concerned her atheism is the icing on the cake (but then, it is hard to see how someone can claim selfishness is a "virtue" and not be an atheist). Do you think that wives and husbands don't have a claim one another? Does that strike you as something "conservatives" believe? Maybe conservatives are attracted to Rand's views on homosexual behavior. ;-)

Rand taught that people do not have claims on others, not even family members. (For an example of this, simply consider the portrayal of Lillian Rearden and Mother Rearden in Atlas Shrugged.) I don't think that's necessarily a logical consequence of atheism.

The issues with Ayn Rand go far, far beyond her atheism (which, in any case, was not modern tolerant patronizing atheism but dogmatic atheism).

Thus, between 1917 and 2007, the 52 atheist political leaders who held office during that time are responsible for (using a conservative estimate) about 148 million dead, which is three times more than every human being killed in war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire 20th century combined. So the historical record for atheist politicians, since their rise to power, is 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than the highest estimates for what is cited by atheists as the worst misdeed of Christianity, the Spanish Inquisition, even though atheists have had less than 1/20th of the number of opportunities to commit such crimes during the last millennium. So if there is a 58% chance that an atheist who becomes a political leader will murder a large portion of the population that is entrusted to his care, and despite that fact than not 1 in 1000 religious leaders have committed atrocities on such a scale, can you blame people if they are not inclined to view the rise of an atheist to a position of power with anything less than dread? I think the problem is not atheist individuals, or even atheist individuals in power, but rather when a State tries to make atheist materialism a basis for civilization. Atheism is a negation of religion; similarly, atheist civilization is a negation of civilization.

I don't know much about Sen. Ryan and his adherence to Ayn Rand's politics -- but it seems to me that if he were heavily influenced by Rand that he would not be in politics at all.

Via the 14th amendment, it applies to all state/county/city/etc offices as well. 14th Amendment ... never ratified and, even if it were, rotten from top to bottom. And discrimination based on religious bigotry IS a bad thing. "Bigotry" is a charged word, implying hatred and intolerance. Discrimination based on religion is not necessarily bigotry. If I discriminate against atheists it is because I don't believe they are good moral role models, not because I hate them or don't tolerate them.

Well, you seemed to approve of governmental discrimination against atheists in holding public office, which is what Article VI prohibits. Article VI is concerned with those who hold office in the federal government, not those in State or municipal government offices. You write "discrimination" as if it were a bad thing.

Why do you hate article VI of the US constitution, Peregrinator? I don't "hate" any part of the Constitution (certain Amendments excepted).

Good to see that a number of U.S. States agree with our Founder Baden-Powell: "No man is much good unless he believes in God and obeys His laws."

religions are so used to not being criticized Where do you get that idea?

I'm referring to quack medicine + successfully arguing that sufficient medical care was applied. And your theory is that only religious people do this? Where is a successful non-religious defense of something so stupid? http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2011/06/hlaw1-1106.html Scroll down to the story of Joseph Hofbauer.