Michelle

No! When I read about the Battle of The Hot Gates, my inner Warrior is stirred. When I read about Roman waterworks, flush toilets, straight roads on which the chariots and wagons Ran On Time, it touches my Inner Fascist. I mean this quite sincerely. When the United States missed its One Great Opportunity to establish the Pax Americana after WW2, the world was let in for an age of pain and destruction. We blew it Big Time. Our society is doomed (as is every other great society) to fail, whither and die. But we could have put the world into proper shape with the Pax Americana. Rome was the first great (nearly) global economy and society. The Romans showed what could be done by binding the nations with roads and trade. We did not get back to this level until the mid 19th century with steam locomotives and fast traveling ships. As for Sparta, as screwed up as the Spartans were, they showed what military might could accomplish. Every great society since the Spartans has adopted Spartan military tropes as their organizing princple for making war and keeping the peace. Ba'al Chatzaf Ancient Rome and Sparta are older equivalents of some of the totalitarian movements which arose in the twentieth century. Their societies were nationalistic (and thus collectivistic). Not conducive to any kind of liberty at all. Americans, as a whole, desire liberty and the right to pursue their own individual dreams. I don't see how throwing babies off of cliffs especially aids us as a people. And, personally, I've never understood this admiration for Sparta. So they were good at killing people. Woopee. By this standard, the Soviet Union was positively heroic. Maybe this requires some kind of testosterone-induced madness I'm (obviously) not susceptible to.

What do you mean 'spatial'? At a certain point, a child is developed enough to exist outside of the womb, but for a period of time before it is actually born. At this point, the major difference between a born and an unborn child is spatial in nature. One exists outside of the womb. The other inside.

Why are you thanking me?

Private individuals can discriminate if they want, but I don't believe in state-imposed discrimination. If you're going to recognize statutory marriages and the resultant benefits for heterosexuals, logically you should do the same for homosexuals. No, this is not 'leftist.' This is just you trying to use the 'guilt by association' tactic by associating this issue with leftism. It's dishonest. Fine. Do away with statutory marriage, and I'll shut up about statutory gay marriage. Provided the common-law marriage system didn't allow for the kinds of benefits which are available now to people married through a legal contract enforced by the state. But it is immoral to allow it for heterosexuals and not for homosexuals. As it stands, statutory marriage laws aren't going anywhere. Thus, my support for same-sex marriage. No, marriage has not been about children for quite a while in this country. Your conception of marriage is anti-individualistic, Ted. Why should we look at how other cultures are treating marriage? I tend to think America is a great country precisely because it does not subscribe to the kind of logic which states that marriage is about children. Being for a position which favors the welfare of the child and stating that your position favors the welfare of the child are two different things, Ted. No, Ted, the position that heterosexuals are more suitable in general to raise children than homosexuals is a priori. Just because you don't think gays could raise kids as well as heterosexuals does not make it a priori. It only makes it a personal bias of yours. This issue, being both one of psychological development and sociological efficiency, is purely a posteriori and only answerable through scientific research. And the statement: "The example of both a male and female adult in a household is beneficial to a child" is blatantly false. How does the example of a worthless mother and father benefit the child? My point is that it is not in the best interests of the child to say that a homosexual couple is any less suitable to raise a child than a heterosexual married couple without reviewing the two relationships as, no, having the example of a mother and a father in the household is not necessarily beneficial to the child. Now, if the heterosexual marriage is clean and respectable, and one of the persons in the gay couple is a popper-using degenerate, then obviously the child should go to the heterosexual couple. But if the reverse is true, that the gay couple is able to provide a stable, loving home, and that one of the persons in the heterosexual marriage is an unstable degenerate, then the child would clearly be better off going to the homosexual couple.

Darrell, you said: "It is therefore sometimes necessary to observe general characteristics of groups rather than individual characteristics." Judging how fit an individual or couple is to adopt a child based upon arbitrary shared characteristics between the individual and other individuals (such as which gender they prefer to engage romantically) is antithetical to the concept of being concerned for the welfare of the child. Consider how much more common divorce is among modern American heterosexuals, and consider how badly this can affect a child. Using your logic, why don't we say, then, that, based on the possibility of divorce, heterosexual married couples ought not to be allowed to adopt children? Does this make people here uncomfortable? If it does, stop and think for a second how this kind of thinking impacts homosexuals. If a homosexual couple is unfit to provide adequate care for a child, then, by all means, don't allow them to adopt. But extend this standard to heterosexuals on a case-by-case basis too. There are definitely a lot of gay couples who are unfit to raise a child, but I can tell you that a hell of a lot of heterosexual couples aren't fit to raise children either.

Actually, I think it is you who is using a non-standard meaning of 'marriage'. Ted, too. They're using this common-law definition like its the only one applicable to modern marriages.

I agree. Marriage is an ancient institution that should have lived out it's usefulness by now. I got married for legal reasons some 29 years ago but with the recognition of common law "marriages" even that is irrelevant now. You guys are confusing Weddings with Marriages. Marriage is a mating relationship over an extended time period. Ba'al Chatzaf You can have statutory marriage without a wedding. So, no.

Honestly, when the major difference between a born child with rights and an unborn child without rights is spacial in nature, I don't think a good argument can be made for abortion.

And, geez, am I the only person who doesn't think the Spartans and Romans were good models for social organization and emulation?

Germany, better examples might include Keating blackmailing Lucius Heyer, manipulating other employees to take their positions, etc.

You are talking about ceremonial weddings as opposed to marriages (long term mating of humans). I think I get that now. Ceremony is only a rite of passage and a sociable way to have a party. It is right up their along with graduation ceremonies and bar mitzvas. You are quite right. They are not absolutely necessary, but they can be fun (except for the bride, the groom and the bar mitzvah boy). Ba'al Chatzaf No, I'm not speaking of ceremony. I'm speaking of people who seek a government marriage license. Statutory marriage. There need not be a ceremony. For all intents and purposes, I'm not speaking of common-law marriage. Although even the thought of one life-long partner is somewhat depressing. I'm not really a romantic, in this regard. The world has far too many opportunities awaiting me to tie myself down to a person.

Field mice quicken in the womb. Does that make them persons? You're deliberately distorting the context of the argument to the point where it becomes meaningless. No. I am being an Aspie* I take everything I hear and read quite literally. I am genetically wired to be literal minded and I cannot help it anymore than you can help breathing. Context is what is in front of my nose. Did you bother reading what I wrote ( based on medical fact, by the way) about the undeveloped state of newborn humans? We come from the oven (so to speak) half-baked. It seems those who have reservations about abortion and infanticide tend to ignore the underlying fact of human under-development at birth. There is a good evolutionary reason for it, by the way. If humans stayed in the womb until their brains were nearly fully formed a woman would need a pelvic opening the twice the average diameter to give birth. Popping out infants half-baked is a survival characteristic selected for by Natural Selection. Being helpless for nearly two years is the price of our intelligence. Ba'al Chatzaf *one who as Asperger's Syndrome. I don't think the fact that newborns are not fully aware creatures gives one license to murder them.

Field mice quicken in the womb. Does that make them persons? You're deliberately distorting the context of the argument to the point where it becomes meaningless. No. I am being an Aspie* I take everything I hear and read quite literally. I am genetically wired to be literal minded and I cannot help it anymore than you can help breathing. Context is what is in front of my nose. Ba'al Chatzaf *one who as Asperger's Syndrome. Alright. Apologies. In view of this, I'll explain myself more precisely. A human being and a mouse are fundamentally different creatures on a biological level. Asking 'are they persons?' then about the mice, is not a question that delves deeper into the issue, but a question that distorts the biological context of human childbirth in the first place. The question is at what time do children become persons who have rights. I would say this is when they become conscious creatures, but many think this is only when they're aware enough to conceive of rights. Of course, this would leave children as creatures without rights for many years.

You will have friend for life and devoted to you, even unto death (and the other way reciprocally). That is if you marry well. A bad mating is another matter. That can be pretty dismal. A good marriage is a place where lust and friendship can flourish. If you are skeptical on this matter, nothing I can say will really convince you. It is one of those things where you just have To Be There. There is one Downside. If one spouse dies before the other. That is a rough ride. I have been married since 1957, and I am not looking forward to that day. I selfishly wish to be the first to go (shame on me!). But that would leave my good wife holding the bag and the grief. That is the one sad bad thing about a life-long relationship. Death ends it. Ba'al Chatzaf That is the tragedy of all deep human relationships. They're all ended by death. My point is that there need be nothing functionally different between living together as a married couple and "shacking up."

Field mice quicken in the womb. Does that make them persons? You're deliberately distorting the context of the argument to the point where it becomes meaningless.

Thoughts or feelings on this? Are you married? Going to be married? Want to be married? Don't want to be married? I don't take to the idea of marriage favorably myself. It seems like a useless formality to me. If you're going to be together for the rest of your lives, why do you need to make a contract to seal the deal? What changes? What's more respectable about roping yourself down to one person on a legal level than just living and sharing life with the other person? I can see myself being perfectly happy with boyfriends for the rest of my life. Maybe find some nice gay guy who wants company and live with him when I get old enough to not really want sex anymore. It's not been an overwhelming desire for me till this point in my life (21), anyway. All of my adventures in this territory have been motivated more by curiosity than lust, and have just left me wondering what in hell everybody's been making such a goddamn fuss about (amusingly enough, I remember a similar thought occurring to Ellsworth Toohey in The Fountainhead). Maybe that aspect will improve if I ever actually romantically desire somebody, but I don't see how I'll ever be sold on marriage. The baffling thing is that, whenever I relate these feelings to older women, they just laugh softly and say: "you'll understand one day." So, people who are happily married, I ask you: just what is the point of it all?

I like to smell at books too. I love both the musty smell of the old ones and the smell of the brand-new ones. I'often read several books at the same time, which is why it takes me long to finally finish one book. I'm currently reading Atlas Shrugged. I like to take my time with books, and often linger on sentences, reread passages, leaf back, etc. I'm an avid but not a fast reader, and sometimes envy my husband who can absorb large volumes in triple the speed. I can't read whole books online either, since my eyes hurt after a while from staring at the screen. I used to be awful. It had gotten to the point where I was reading seven books at once. Well, what would always inevitably happen is that I'd get more and more involved in one or two and less and less involved in the others, so I neglected them. The result is that a good portion of my unread books I've read 1/4 - 1/2 of. I limit myself now. Two nonfiction and one fiction is my max.

My family has never been terribly well-off, but I've still managed to work enough to build a decent library for myself. Two large bookshelves.

Galt I think we've advanced just a bit since the time of the Spartans. The time of quickening is not concerned with the organic humanity of the creature, but with its development of consciousness, when it thus becomes a person. Before consciousness, a developing child is no more a person than a cadaver. The only difference is that of potentiality. This makes me no less disturbed by abortion, but I think allowing abortion to that point and disallowing it afterward is a reasonable solution.

I don't know that I've ever been obsessed with disproving the existence of God or Demons or Unicorns. I just don't understand how people can possibly believe in them. The only 'mystical' thing I could see people even being slightly drawn toward is Buddhistic mysticism, with its emphasis of the nothingness of the present and maintaining a kind of preconceptual awareness (the goal of the Zen Buddhists, who wish to disappear completely into the great Present, the one reality, God, Brahman and Atman both). Or perhaps the eternally elusive Tao, which can never be understood because the moment you attempt to apprehend it you lose it. But God? Creator of Worlds, the big guy who plays cruel tricks on people like Job and Abraham? The God who magically impregnated Mary with Jesus Christ, who's destiny was to become a telepathic Jewish zombie? The guy who sent an angel to the Prophet Muhammad? The fellah who turned a woman into salt and flooded the world?

Michelle: semantics is an essential part of every philosophical discussion. Which is why I regret your choice of "being out" before we have gotten to the core of things. Read: semantics WITHOUT PROPER PHILOSOPHICAL CONTEXT. Different than just "semantics." But in all honesty, I'd like to work this through in my head a bit anyway before getting into it again. The major problem with Rand is that she was only an individualist in regard to herself. Every good character, on some level, is most likely a reflection of some aspect of Rand's psyche. And she demanded that others accept her individuality as their own. But can a person who forces their personality on others really be called a proper individualist? I think not. Individualism is fundamentally incompatible with orthodox Objectivism. Orthodox Objectivists, I believe, are simply individuals who are weak and seek to be empowered second-hand through Rand's philosophy. The problem is that Rand wrote a lot about reason and individualism that appeals to people like me, who can never be an Objectivist, or a member of a group in any fundamental way. Individualists are fundamentally their own role models, I think. This applies to me, at least. I don't seek my self-definition in others: I find it in my self, in my life, not the lives of others. This includes Rand and her supermen. Thus why I'll never be anything more than an 'admirer' of Ayn Rand. Consider how Galt functions in Objectivist circles in the same way that Jesus functions for Christians. Christians seek to be 'like Christ.' They 'done the clothes of Christ.' Christ is their moral ideal, so they seek to emulate him. The same applies to Objectivists. Note the behavior of Rand's inner circle in New York. From what I remember, they actually berated people for not smoking because smoking was moral and a symbol of 'fire tamed by man, the fire of the mind.' In reality, Dagny and Galt smoked a lot in ATLAS SHRUGGED, and this was apparently so big a deal to Rand that she made it a point to introduce a special type of cigarette which had a dollar sign printed on it as an early plot device to add mystery to the story, so naturally the cultists took up this habit in order to more completely emulate Galt and Friends. EDIT: If I even suggested on most other Objectivist forums what I have explicitly stated here multiple times, I would have been banned. In fact, I was, on some other Objectivist forum that I'd forgotten about. I see I made the correct choice in joining this forum: the people here are intelligent, rational, and devoted to reality, NOT to ideology.

It IS scary how similar our views are!

My problem is that, even if I wanted to support the anti-abortion movement, I probably wouldn't, because it seems to be linked directly to groups of fundamentalist Christians who want to impose religious laws on the people of America.

Thanks for the link!

What I mean is that our society is advancing on a technological level so quickly these days that I wouldn't be surprised if soonish a system arose which could make reliable predictions on as dynamic a system as our weather. Until something is known for certain, inaction is the best course. I think it is also fair to note that the burden of proof rests with the global warming people. Just as an atheist does not need to prove that no god exists, so a global warming critic does not need to prove that global warming isn't happening.