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 s

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 co

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

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

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 stati

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 th

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 bias

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 th

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.