Ky Clerk Jailed for refusing to issue marriage license to LGBT couples.

[MoonShadow]

gay activists are calling for a woman with deeply held convictions to be put in jail for it

Except, as has repeatedly been shown to you (and you even admitted earlier - see below) . . . she's not in jail for her convictions.

she was put in jail for refusing a court order.

She refused the court order due to her convictions.  Your argument is invalid!

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/masonry/000/596/327/e6e.jpg

[GuitarStv]

Actions do not equal convictions.  She was jailed for her actions.  She could have held her conviction and taken other courses of action (resignation, simply allowing the other clerks in her office to sign on certificates, etc.)  She didn't have to condone or endorse the marriages in any way, just confirm that the information was accurate and that the couple was legally allowed to marry.

[MoonShadow]

Actions do not equal convictions.  She was jailed for her actions.  She could have held her conviction and taken other courses of action (resignation, simply allowing the other clerks in her office to sign on certificates, etc.)  She didn't have to condone or endorse the marriages in any way, just confirm that the information was accurate and that the couple was legally allowed to marry.

Fair enough, she could have; and I agree that her choice of actions were the root cause of the incarceration.  That doesn't change anything about what I've been saying though.  You do not have to agree with her convictions, motivations or choice of actions to tolerate her.  A better course of action is to let her flail in the dark.  Work around her, and let people like herself quietly lose the next election.  I promise that she is unlikely to lose her next election now.  Hell, she might even run for a state level office next.  These activists have managed to hand this woman a bullhorn, and her political career is brighter for it.  For that matter, that might have been her true motivation all along.  She has wide name recognition now.

[GuitarStv]

Tolerance of her bigotry isn't the issue.  As has been mentioned, homophobia is the norm where she lives.  She can flail around in the dark all that she wants.  It was only when she was out in the open, hurting others in the name of the US Government that this got much attention.

[Sailor Sam]

And why not?  For decades gay activists have demanded tolerance of their lifestyles and beliefs from everyone else, and as soon as they actually achieve that goal (legally) on a national level; other gay activists are calling for a woman with deeply held convictions to be put in jail for it.  Tolerance goes both ways. 

And I think that there is another issue here that hasn't really been addressed.  It may not be in the best interests of the gay community to push so hard, so early.  The end goal here seems to be to compel opponents of gay marriage to "shut up and do your job", but the opposition to gay marriage runs deep in some areas.  By forcing these clerks to issue same sex marriage licenses in each county, some are going to hold some degree of resentment, and this (in effect) builds a rather convenient database of self-described homosexuals within the county, should any particularly corrupt local politician decide to 'disenfranchise' that homosexual population come election day.  Perhaps there could be a rather close race between an opponent and advocate for gay rights, for example; that local list of names and addresses, along with a small cadre of supporters willing to challenge the votes of those people, or worse, and that might be enough to swing an election.  Also, we are still only a few generations from an age that being 'outed' as homosexual could get you beaten up or killed.  What if, in another generation or two, the KKK manages to have a resurgence in the area?  It wasn't just black families they targeted 50-60 years ago, is it so far fetched an idea that the KKK (or a similar group) could make headway in a region that is so very religious & rather rapidly being pushed towards cultural change?

I understand the desire for justice and equality, but some activists just push too hard.  Cultural clashes can often lead to violence, and more often than not, that violence has been organized by the agents representing local governments in the past.

MoonShadow! I find the cut of your jib extremely troubling.

You stated upthread an opinion that the gentlemen did not need to single out Ms Davis' office. That their choice was more indicative of rabble rousing than a strict desire to get married. And that their choice was ill-advised, because the rabble should have had some time to rest before being stirred back up. I can give you this one; it's entirely possible the men were looking for a fight.  But now you reiterate the theory, and up the ante of the backlash to the the KKK. That alone is upsetting.

You have also said Davis' should not be put in jail for voicing her religious beliefs, nor should she be forced to sign marriage licenses that wrinkle the brow of those convictions.

You've said you're supportive of gay marriage, but your posts do not seem to back up this stance. As an advocate, you seem to be taking a strange tack. Is it possible you're rousing your own rabble?

Edit: improper use of you're vs your

[Zx]

I admire her courage.  A lesser person would have caved to the gaystapo.

I do, too. A lot of the opinions I've read on here reflect bleeding hearted liberal rage, which amuses me to no end.

Our "president" and his side kick, Joke Biden, along with Eric Holder, have flaunted the laws of the land and have been applauded for it. They just don't use "religion" to justify their actions, but a supposed higher moral code that just won't allow them to enforce laws already on the books. As if there's a difference. The same people whose liberal pique is enraged because of the lowly clerk's actions aren't angered at all by elite liberal politicians doing the same thing.

But it's not just the current "president" and his lawless sidekicks, all the "presidents" of the past 50 years should be in jail if judged by the same standard as this clerk. What the leftist media isn't telling anyone is that she asked to be recused of her duties and not grant marriage licenses AT ALL until this is resolved. The judge told her to keep doing her job. She refused. Leftists do this and are applauded by leftists. Evil right wingers do this and are applauded by evil right wingers.

She has a different world view, one which holds that homosexuality is wickedness and an abomination in God's sight, and she doesn't want to support that in any way any more than she'd support bestiality or fraud or any other perversion the humans practice.

If she's guilty of other sins condemned by her religion, then she's guilty as judged by the standard she's using to refuse to grant marriage licenses to homos. But to call her a hypocrite is silly.

We ALL are hypocrites, every last one of us. NOBODY is perfectly consistent all the time in what they say they believe and how they behave. Nobody. That's why it's so funny to hear people accuse B Hussein of being a hypocrite. Well, yes, he is. A huge one. But so is everyone else. What is your point?

Homo marriage just happens to be the hot button topic now, and her actions defy the politically correct will of politically correct people. You can't say it's the law and so she should do it, because B Hussein, Biden, and Holder don't...and you don't rage on them for it. You can't very well declare her to be a hypocrite, because you are one yourself. You can't very well judge her because you think her beliefs are asinine, because she thinks YOUR beliefs are asinine.

We are just human beings, not enlightened angelic creatures of love and light only wanting good for other people. Given the right circumstances, we are all very capable of the ugliest, meanest, most depraved actions anyone can conceive of...whether that be mocking Christians to the applause of your fellows or denying homosexuals the right to marry one another, also to the applause of your fellows.

But don't pretend you live by a higher standard and therefore can judge her, because you don't. Your world view, whatever it is, is no more valid than hers or mine or anyone else's. If she's violated the law then she'll get what's coming to her for doing that, and you can rejoice while B Hussein, Joke Biden, Eric Holder, George W Bush, Cheney, Slick Willie and Hillary Clinton ALL violate the law yet go on with their lives.

[matchewed]

I admire her courage.  A lesser person would have caved to the gaystapo.

I do, too. A lot of the opinions I've read on here reflect bleeding hearted liberal rage, which amuses me to no end.

Our "president" and his side kick, Joke Biden, along with Eric Holder, have flaunted the laws of the land and have been applauded for it. They just don't use "religion" to justify their actions, but a supposed higher moral code that just won't allow them to enforce laws already on the books. As if there's a difference. The same people whose liberal pique is enraged because of the lowly clerk's actions aren't angered at all by elite liberal politicians doing the same thing.

But it's not just the current "president" and his lawless sidekicks, all the "presidents" of the past 50 years should be in jail if judged by the same standard as this clerk. What the leftist media isn't telling anyone is that she asked to be recused of her duties and not grant marriage licenses AT ALL until this is resolved. The judge told her to keep doing her job. She refused. Leftists do this and are applauded by leftists. Evil right wingers do this and are applauded by evil right wingers.

She has a different world view, one which holds that homosexuality is wickedness and an abomination in God's sight, and she doesn't want to support that in any way any more than she'd support bestiality or fraud or any other perversion the humans practice.

If she's guilty of other sins condemned by her religion, then she's guilty as judged by the standard she's using to refuse to grant marriage licenses to homos. But to call her a hypocrite is silly.

We ALL are hypocrites, every last one of us. NOBODY is perfectly consistent all the time in what they say they believe and how they behave. Nobody. That's why it's so funny to hear people accuse B Hussein of being a hypocrite. Well, yes, he is. A huge one. But so is everyone else. What is your point?

Homo marriage just happens to be the hot button topic now, and her actions defy the politically correct will of politically correct people. You can't say it's the law and so she should do it, because B Hussein, Biden, and Holder don't...and you don't rage on them for it. You can't very well declare her to be a hypocrite, because you are one yourself. You can't very well judge her because you think her beliefs are asinine, because she thinks YOUR beliefs are asinine.

We are just human beings, not enlightened angelic creatures of love and light only wanting good for other people. Given the right circumstances, we are all very capable of the ugliest, meanest, most depraved actions anyone can conceive of...whether that be mocking Christians to the applause of your fellows or denying homosexuals the right to marry one another, also to the applause of your fellows.

But don't pretend you live by a higher standard and therefore can judge her, because you don't. Your world view, whatever it is, is no more valid than hers or mine or anyone else's. If she's violated the law then she'll get what's coming to her for doing that, and you can rejoice while B Hussein, Joke Biden, Eric Holder, George W Bush, Cheney, Slick Willie and Hillary Clinton ALL violate the law yet go on with their lives.

So other peoples perceived wrongs make her wrong ok?

[Cathy]

I think there's a future for dagiffy1 as a staff writer on The Onion. He took a one line parody post and spun it into an extended and brilliant piece of satire. It hits all of the buttons: references to Obama by his middle name, "homo marriage", "bleeding heart liberal rage"... really, that post was a work of art.

[forummm]

arity

You say some great things Cathy. Word of the day.

[Kris]

Actions do not equal convictions.  She was jailed for her actions.  She could have held her conviction and taken other courses of action (resignation, simply allowing the other clerks in her office to sign on certificates, etc.)  She didn't have to condone or endorse the marriages in any way, just confirm that the information was accurate and that the couple was legally allowed to marry.

Exactly.  In fact, arguably, her convictions would be shown to be stronger if she had had the courage to resign rather than participate in a system that condones gay marriage -- which she does not -- by continuing to expect a paycheck from it. 

[EscapeVelocity2020]

Actions do not equal convictions.  She was jailed for her actions.  She could have held her conviction and taken other courses of action (resignation, simply allowing the other clerks in her office to sign on certificates, etc.)  She didn't have to condone or endorse the marriages in any way, just confirm that the information was accurate and that the couple was legally allowed to marry.

Exactly.  In fact, arguably, her convictions would be shown to be stronger if she had had the courage to resign rather than participate in a system that condones gay marriage -- which she does not -- by continuing to expect a paycheck from it.

Uh, this Davis wacko made this headline news (that we are now discussing at length here) by standing her ground.  Resigning would in no way have made her convictions stronger, I cannot accept any of this line of reasoning, it simply does not line up with reality.  There are probably tens (hundreds) that simply resigned and I doubt they feel like their convictions were appreciated in any way.  They probably feel like they should have done more when they had a platform to stand on.  At least that's the lesson I'm getting from all of this.

[MDM]

I think there's a future for dagiffy1 as a staff writer on The Onion. He took a one line parody post and spun it into an extended and brilliant piece of satire. It hits all of the buttons: references to Obama by his middle name, "homo marriage", "bleeding heart liberal rage"... really, that post was a work of art.

One might also guess the intent was to suggest that current admin is flouting laws instead of flaunting them, but that speculation might be better received in http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/grammar-nazi/.

OTOH, there is some validity to the "sore winners" idea (e.g., well articulated here by sheepstache).  In other words, the tide is coming in and some historical practices are being washed away like so many sand castles.  Going around and kicking at those castles isn't likely to affect the end result in any significant way, so why bother?

[MoonShadow]

MoonShadow! I find the cut of your jib extremely troubling.

Sorry?

You stated upthread an opinion that the gentlemen did not need to single out Ms Davis' office. That their choice was more indicative of rabble rousing than a strict desire to get married. And that their choice was ill-advised, because the rabble should have had some time to rest before being stirred back up. I can give you this one; it's entirely possible the men were looking for a fight.

This part upthread was based upon the statements of the activists themselves.

  But now you reiterate the theory, and up the ante of the backlash to the the KKK. That alone is upsetting.

Here I'm theorizing.  I really don't have any experience with hate groups, but I'd expect that their odds of recruitment increase due to very public conflicts such as this one.

You have also said Davis' should not be put in jail for voicing her religious beliefs, nor should she be forced to sign marriage licenses that wrinkle the brow of those convictions.

You've said you're supportive of gay marriage, but you're posts do not seem to back up this stance. As an advocate, you seem to be taking a strange tack.

I guess it can seem strange, because I am strange.  I think differently than most people, so it doesn't seem strange to myself.  I'm an INTP...

http://www.16personalities.com/intp-personality

The following effect might be what you are seeing in me here...

"They love patterns, and spotting discrepancies between statements could almost be described as a hobby, making it a bad idea to lie to an INTP. This makes it ironic that INTPs' word should always be taken with a grain of salt – it's not that they are dishonest, but people with the INTP personality type tend to share thoughts that are not fully developed, using others as a sounding board for ideas and theories in a debate against themselves rather than as actual conversation partners."

I do this too much, methinks.

Is it possible you're rousing your own rabble?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here, but I don't have any hidden agenda; not in this thread anyway.  I've already been warned that I'm not permitted to experiment with the emotional states of forum members anymore.

[Sailor Sam]

Sorry?

Yeah, too flowery. I was enjoying playing with language. I should have simply stated I found the content of your post troubling.

This part upthread was based upon the statements of the activists themselves.

I'm content to take your word on the fact that the men were seeking conflict by going to Davis. I'm still of the opinion that Davis does not have the right to claim religious beliefs from her county clerk seat. 

Here I'm theorizing.  I really don't have any experience with hate groups, but I'd expect that their odds of recruitment increase due to very public conflicts such as this one.

Okay. I still find the implications troubling.

<snip>INTP "They love patterns, and spotting discrepancies between statements<snip>

Again, okay. I get this - you are interested in the underlying pattern of accepting vs rejecting civil disobedience based on your own belief set. But your posts align very heavily with Davis.  Would you be interested in stating your position plainly? A short sentence saying I am pro/anti gay-marriage, or I don't care either way. I'm not gathering ammunition to attack you, at this point I'm just curious.   

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here, but I don't have any hidden agenda; not in this thread anyway.  I've already been warned that I'm not permitted to experiment with the emotional states of forum members anymore.

You got it. You seem coy with your baseline opinion, and have made statements to both sides. Those patterns are often associated with the dreaded, rabble rousing, troll.
 

[Kris]

Actions do not equal convictions.  She was jailed for her actions.  She could have held her conviction and taken other courses of action (resignation, simply allowing the other clerks in her office to sign on certificates, etc.)  She didn't have to condone or endorse the marriages in any way, just confirm that the information was accurate and that the couple was legally allowed to marry.

Exactly.  In fact, arguably, her convictions would be shown to be stronger if she had had the courage to resign rather than participate in a system that condones gay marriage -- which she does not -- by continuing to expect a paycheck from it.

Uh, this Davis wacko made this headline news (that we are now discussing at length here) by standing her ground.  Resigning would in no way have made her convictions stronger, I cannot accept any of this line of reasoning, it simply does not line up with reality.  There are probably tens (hundreds) that simply resigned and I doubt they feel like their convictions were appreciated in any way.  They probably feel like they should have done more when they had a platform to stand on.  At least that's the lesson I'm getting from all of this.

I don't think we disagree here.  Yes, absolutely Davis made headline news (and probably a crapload of money and a future paycheck as a conservative darling) by standing her ground.  I am not actually saying that resigning would have made her convictions stronger (though I realize it could have sounded that way).  I was agreeing with an earlier poster that actions and convictions don't necessarily always align.  My point, not plainly stated enough, was that at a basic level, some people (me being one of them) could read this as smacking of hypocrisy to expect to continue drawing a paycheck from a system one is fundamentally opposed to.  In my opinion, if I were so in disagreement with the laws I was expected to uphold, I would find the prospect of being paid by such a disgusting and corrupt system unbearable.  I believe I would resign as a matter of conscience.

My point is, those who support her doubtless read her actions as aligned with her convictions.  But that is not the only way to read them.

[MoonShadow]

<snip>INTP "They love patterns, and spotting discrepancies between statements<snip>

Again, okay. I get this - you are interested in the underlying pattern of accepting vs rejecting civil disobedience based on your own belief set. But your posts align very heavily with Davis.

That is mostly because I'm a contrarian thinker.  I don't typicly voice my agreements with other posts, as that really sounds like noise to me.  I won't have a lot to say unless I disagree with someone, and there is a lot to disagree with in this thread.

  Would you be interested in stating your position plainly? A short sentence saying I am pro/anti gay-marriage, or I don't care either way. I'm not gathering ammunition to attack you, at this point I'm just curious.   

I'm not gifted with brevity.  But in short (ha!), my own opinions agree with most libertarians here, that governments never had any business regulating personal relationships to begin with.  So, to myself, it's really irrelevant what Davis believes, nor what her opponents believe; neither viewpoint is correct or productive.  And all they do, in the long run, is provide support for the idea that governments should be allowed to expand regulatory control over an area they never should have been involved in.

You got it. You seem coy with your baseline opinion, and have made statements to both sides. Those patterns are often associated with the dreaded, rabble rousing, troll.

This is because I'm not even on the same political spectrum as most people here.  Perhaps you don't understand where I'm coming from, because you have never really been exposed to libertarian philosophy before?

[MoonShadow]

I just read the latest post from Scott Adams, and while this is actually related to Don Trump, I think that this effect applies to a lot of issues....

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/128844698316/who-is-smarter-the-smart-people-or-the-dumb

"In the investment world, the person who understands that the available information is not credible is the smart one. That person plays the odds correctly and invests in an indexed mutual fund with low fees. Every study says that is the smart play.

Most of my readers already know that what I just said about investing is true. And unlike most topics, this one really does not have well-informed critics. All informed people hold the same view: Individuals should not do their own research and buy stocks based on that research.

But you still think smart people can research political policy options and come to reasonable and useful conclusions… even though you observe that half of the population disagrees with the other half no matter how much research anyone does.

<snip>

The popular media is staffed mostly by writers and art majors and other people who tend to believe in magic. It is no surprise that they don’t see how absurd it is to expect citizens to have useful opinions based on the misinformation that that same media provides around the clock."

[Sailor Sam]

But in short (ha!), my own opinions agree with most libertarians here, that governments never had any business regulating personal relationships to begin with.

This is because I'm not even on the same political spectrum as most people here.  Perhaps you don't understand where I'm coming from, because you have never really been exposed to libertarian philosophy before?

I promise the bold is not nitpicking, but the contradiction between the two statements legitimately confuses me. I remember reading that the form leads libertarian...? Were you saying your embracement of libertarian ideals moves past most people on the forum, despite the shared party?

Perhaps you don't understand where I'm coming from, because you have never really been exposed to libertarian philosophy before?

Nah, I'm a good left leaning libertarian. Fiscally conservative, socially liberal. That's me! Despite out shared party, we're obviously on different levels regarding the institution of marriage. I'm good with leaving the debate here. We're unlikely to change each other's stances, and anything further would probably be more argument than debate. Plus I have to go to Costco.

[Kris]

But in short (ha!), my own opinions agree with most libertarians here, that governments never had any business regulating personal relationships to begin with.

This is because I'm not even on the same political spectrum as most people here.  Perhaps you don't understand where I'm coming from, because you have never really been exposed to libertarian philosophy before?

I promise the bold is not nitpicking, but the contradiction between the two statements legitimately confuses me. I remember reading that the form leads libertarian...? Were you saying your embracement of libertarian ideals moves past most people on the forum, despite the shared party?

Perhaps you don't understand where I'm coming from, because you have never really been exposed to libertarian philosophy before?

Nah, I'm a good left leaning libertarian. Fiscally conservative, socially liberal. That's me! Despite out shared party, we're obviously on different levels regarding the institution of marriage. I'm good with leaving the debate here. We're unlikely to change each other's stances, and anything further would probably be more argument than debate. Plus I have to go to Costco.

You're a sailor, plus you seem consistent in you world view, so you're okay in my book, Sailor Sam.

[MoonShadow]

This is because I'm not even on the same political spectrum as most people here.  Perhaps you don't understand where I'm coming from, because you have never really been exposed to libertarian philosophy before?

I promise the bold is not nitpicking, but the contradiction between the two statements legitimately confuses me. I remember reading that the form leads libertarian...? Were you saying your embracement of libertarian ideals moves past most people on the forum, despite the shared party?

Ah, no.  This forum leans hard liberal, not libertarian.

[beltim]

This is because I'm not even on the same political spectrum as most people here.  Perhaps you don't understand where I'm coming from, because you have never really been exposed to libertarian philosophy before?

I promise the bold is not nitpicking, but the contradiction between the two statements legitimately confuses me. I remember reading that the form leads libertarian...? Were you saying your embracement of libertarian ideals moves past most people on the forum, despite the shared party?

Ah, no.  This forum leans hard liberal, not libertarian.

Compared to what?  If you're comparing to the general population, the forum definitely leans libertarian.

[MoonShadow]

You're a sailor, plus you seem consistent in you world view, so you're okay in my book, Sailor Sam.

And what do you base this opinion upon, Kris?  The fact that he has voiced a general disagreement with my stance on marriage?  It's not like Sailor Sam has been very forthcoming on his own views, and if he really is a libertarian, I doubt that you are going to find that much daylight between my views and his.  You lump me in with the conservatives because that's what you can see, but you haven't really seen much of me, yet.

[MoonShadow]

This is because I'm not even on the same political spectrum as most people here.  Perhaps you don't understand where I'm coming from, because you have never really been exposed to libertarian philosophy before?

I promise the bold is not nitpicking, but the contradiction between the two statements legitimately confuses me. I remember reading that the form leads libertarian...? Were you saying your embracement of libertarian ideals moves past most people on the forum, despite the shared party?

Ah, no.  This forum leans hard liberal, not libertarian.

Compared to what?  If you're comparing to the general population, the forum definitely leans libertarian.

Not based upon what I've seen so far, although that's exactly what I expected to find before I arrived.  What do you know that I don't?

[Tyson]

I admire her courage.  A lesser person would have caved to the gaystapo.

I do, too. A lot of the opinions I've read on here reflect bleeding hearted liberal rage, which amuses me to no end.

Our "president" and his side kick, Joke Biden, along with Eric Holder, have flaunted the laws of the land and have been applauded for it. They just don't use "religion" to justify their actions, but a supposed higher moral code that just won't allow them to enforce laws already on the books. As if there's a difference. The same people whose liberal pique is enraged because of the lowly clerk's actions aren't angered at all by elite liberal politicians doing the same thing.

But it's not just the current "president" and his lawless sidekicks, all the "presidents" of the past 50 years should be in jail if judged by the same standard as this clerk. What the leftist media isn't telling anyone is that she asked to be recused of her duties and not grant marriage licenses AT ALL until this is resolved. The judge told her to keep doing her job. She refused. Leftists do this and are applauded by leftists. Evil right wingers do this and are applauded by evil right wingers.

She has a different world view, one which holds that homosexuality is wickedness and an abomination in God's sight, and she doesn't want to support that in any way any more than she'd support bestiality or fraud or any other perversion the humans practice.

If she's guilty of other sins condemned by her religion, then she's guilty as judged by the standard she's using to refuse to grant marriage licenses to homos. But to call her a hypocrite is silly.

We ALL are hypocrites, every last one of us. NOBODY is perfectly consistent all the time in what they say they believe and how they behave. Nobody. That's why it's so funny to hear people accuse B Hussein of being a hypocrite. Well, yes, he is. A huge one. But so is everyone else. What is your point?

Homo marriage just happens to be the hot button topic now, and her actions defy the politically correct will of politically correct people. You can't say it's the law and so she should do it, because B Hussein, Biden, and Holder don't...and you don't rage on them for it. You can't very well declare her to be a hypocrite, because you are one yourself. You can't very well judge her because you think her beliefs are asinine, because she thinks YOUR beliefs are asinine.

We are just human beings, not enlightened angelic creatures of love and light only wanting good for other people. Given the right circumstances, we are all very capable of the ugliest, meanest, most depraved actions anyone can conceive of...whether that be mocking Christians to the applause of your fellows or denying homosexuals the right to marry one another, also to the applause of your fellows.

But don't pretend you live by a higher standard and therefore can judge her, because you don't. Your world view, whatever it is, is no more valid than hers or mine or anyone else's. If she's violated the law then she'll get what's coming to her for doing that, and you can rejoice while B Hussein, Joke Biden, Eric Holder, George W Bush, Cheney, Slick Willie and Hillary Clinton ALL violate the law yet go on with their lives.

You forgot..........BENGHAZI!!!!!!!

[beltim]

This is because I'm not even on the same political spectrum as most people here.  Perhaps you don't understand where I'm coming from, because you have never really been exposed to libertarian philosophy before?

I promise the bold is not nitpicking, but the contradiction between the two statements legitimately confuses me. I remember reading that the form leads libertarian...? Were you saying your embracement of libertarian ideals moves past most people on the forum, despite the shared party?

Ah, no.  This forum leans hard liberal, not libertarian.

Compared to what?  If you're comparing to the general population, the forum definitely leans libertarian.

Not based upon what I've seen so far, although that's exactly what I expected to find before I arrived.  What do you know that I don't?

Lots of threads.  For example: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/mustachianism-as-libertarian-or-progressive-or-a-little-of-both/35/

Also, a poll showing >70% identifying a libertarians of one strip or another:
http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/political-leanings-of-mustachians/

Also, much higher support for Ron and Rand Paul than the general population (admittedly not a perfect indicator, but the numbers support it):
http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/2016-presidential-candidate/?viewresults

You can google more, but it's pretty obvious.

[MoonShadow]

Lots of threads.  For example: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/mustachianism-as-libertarian-or-progressive-or-a-little-of-both/35/

Also, a poll showing >70% identifying a libertarians of one strip or another:
http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/political-leanings-of-mustachians/

Also, much higher support for Ron and Rand Paul than the general population (admittedly not a perfect indicator, but the numbers support it):
http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/2016-presidential-candidate/?viewresults

You can google more, but it's pretty obvious.

I don't think it's obvious.  There may very well be more libertarians here than the general population, but this poll's results still say that this forum is dominated by liberals, no matter how many identify as libertarians.

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/2016-presidential-candidate/

EDIT:  So the poll shows a strong lead for a 'left-libertarian', which I guess I can see well enough.  But from my perspective, saying 'left-libertarian' or 'conservative libertarian' don't really mean anything except "I agree with the libertarian view generally, but...".  Which is something I get from just about everyone I talk too.  Americans just aren't authoritarian by nature.  Every time I have ever taken any variation of the Nolan chart, long or short, I always end up 100% libertarian.  Dead center, neither with a left or right slant; so I suppose I can easier see the differences than the similarities to those who are on this forum.

[beltim]

Lots of threads.  For example: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/mustachianism-as-libertarian-or-progressive-or-a-little-of-both/35/

Also, a poll showing >70% identifying a libertarians of one strip or another:
http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/political-leanings-of-mustachians/

Also, much higher support for Ron and Rand Paul than the general population (admittedly not a perfect indicator, but the numbers support it):
http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/2016-presidential-candidate/?viewresults

You can google more, but it's pretty obvious.

I don't think it's obvious.  There may very well be more libertarians here than the general population, but this poll's results still say that this forum is dominated by liberals, no matter how many identify as libertarians.

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/2016-presidential-candidate/

Did you seriously respond to my links with one of the very links that I posted?

Wow, that's the best indication I've ever seen that you didn't read my links.

[justajane]

This is because I'm not even on the same political spectrum as most people here.  Perhaps you don't understand where I'm coming from, because you have never really been exposed to libertarian philosophy before?

I promise the bold is not nitpicking, but the contradiction between the two statements legitimately confuses me. I remember reading that the form leads libertarian...? Were you saying your embracement of libertarian ideals moves past most people on the forum, despite the shared party?

Ah, no.  This forum leans hard liberal, not libertarian.

Compared to what?  If you're comparing to the general population, the forum definitely leans libertarian.

Not based upon what I've seen so far, although that's exactly what I expected to find before I arrived.  What do you know that I don't?

Lots of threads.  For example: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/mustachianism-as-libertarian-or-progressive-or-a-little-of-both/35/

Also, a poll showing >70% identifying a libertarians of one strip or another:
http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/political-leanings-of-mustachians/

Also, much higher support for Ron and Rand Paul than the general population (admittedly not a perfect indicator, but the numbers support it):
http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/2016-presidential-candidate/?viewresults

You can google more, but it's pretty obvious.

I also recall a thread once about what your favorite books are, and I was surprised by how many listed Atlas Shrugged. Of course, objectivism and libertarianism are not one in the same but many Americans collapse them.

[Sailor Sam]

You're a sailor, plus you seem consistent in you world view, so you're okay in my book, Sailor Sam.

Aw shucks, ma'am.

[MoonShadow]

Lots of threads.  For example: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/mustachianism-as-libertarian-or-progressive-or-a-little-of-both/35/

Also, a poll showing >70% identifying a libertarians of one strip or another:
http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/political-leanings-of-mustachians/

Also, much higher support for Ron and Rand Paul than the general population (admittedly not a perfect indicator, but the numbers support it):
http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/2016-presidential-candidate/?viewresults

You can google more, but it's pretty obvious.

I don't think it's obvious.  There may very well be more libertarians here than the general population, but this poll's results still say that this forum is dominated by liberals, no matter how many identify as libertarians.

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/2016-presidential-candidate/

Did you seriously respond to my links with one of the very links that I posted?

Wow, that's the best indication I've ever seen that you didn't read my links.

I didn't read them all before I posted, no, but I did read them.

[CaveDweller]

...

Yeeeahhh....the thing about that is that I've never met someone who was sincerely, honestly born polygamist. I've met plenty of people who were born gay though. And I know that for them equality of marriage is all about dignity. The dignity of being who they are, and of not having to hide the way they feel about the one person who is most important to them in this world.

Anyone who wants legal polygamy - I can't help but be skeptical of their motives. Is it for financial/tax purposes? Is it mostly just a sex fetish? Or the expression of a massive, gargantuan ego? Or is it possible that 98% of people who advocate polygamy are actually just homophobes in sheep's clothing, grasping at vicarious rhetorical straws?

All I can say is, I've never seen or heard an example of polygamy that was based on true love between equals. Whereas I've seen countless examples among straight and gay couples. Still though, I'm willing to allow that there could be authentic cases I haven't encountered. Feel free to point out one if you feel so strongly about it. What's more, I really could care less what polygamists do. Who gives a shit right? As long as no one is being coerced or harmed, go for it. Or I'd also be fine with the government no longer licensing interpersonal relationships altogether, like you said. That works too.

Only please do not equate gay people with polygamy. It's fucking offensive.

I found your post to be incredibly offensive (which is why I quoted it in full even though I normally excerpt posts that I reply to). Being in a dyadic homosexual relationship is not in any way more moral or virtuous than being in a loving polyamorous relationship between more than two consenting adults. Different adults design different consensual agreements to meet their needs for love, companionship, and friendship. Your suggestion that dyadic relationships are superior to polyadic relationships (such that it is allegedly "offensive" to suggest that both deserve equal rights) shows you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the value that guided the decision in Obergefell -- namely freedom for all. You do not get to sit in judgment and insinuate a moral superiority of one form of consenting adult relationship compared to another.

To address another part of your post, the idea of being "born gay", even if true, is not the reason why people who identify as gay are entitled to equal rights. They are entitled to equal rights because they are human beings like everybody else and they are not doing anything that hurts other people, and it's really that simple. Natal predisposition is not a sound basis for granting rights. Various murderers and paedophiles experience their crimes as being out of their control as a result of urges visited upon them at birth -- similar to how people who identify as gay experience their sexual and romantic preferences as having existed since birth. The moral difference there has to do with the substance of each alleged natal disposition; the fact that they are both natal dispositions is pretty much morally irrelevant. In other words, whether or not somebody claims to have been born gay is not relevant to what rights they are entitled to in a free and democratic society.

Cathy,

I'm happy to concede your point that sincere polyamorous relationships are indeed possible, and anyone in one deserves to be treated with equal respect, the same as we give to all people.

Obviously I have to take strong issue with your second point. You contradict yourself by first saying "(gay people) are entitled to equal rights because they are human beings....and they are not doing anything that hurts other people" Then, absurdly, you go on to equate being born gay with a predisposition to murder or molest kids. Call me crazy, but there seems to be a fairly enormous difference there. Namely the "NOT DOING ANYTHING THAT HURTS OTHER PEOPLE" part. Natal predisposition, personal identity, or whatever you want to call it, sounds like a perfectly acceptable criteria for granting equal rights, with the key stipulation of not hurting other people. THAT is the significant moral difference, and not the "substance of each alleged disposition" or whatever such nonsense you're suggesting. I don't think any more needs to be said about that.

As far as my being offended by comparing gay people with polygamists - I take offense when it's neither a gay person or polygamist, but in fact a bigot, making those comparisons, and specifically in the context of a "slippery slope" argument. The argument seems to go: "If we let gay people marry, we have to let polygamists marry. And if polygamists can marry, then we have to let people marry their hamsters. And pretty soon we're all having sex with our toaster ovens, and society starts to crumble." It's that well-worn pattern of argument that I find offensive, and the comment I was responding to was one I found to be well within that pattern. If I misinterpreted the sentiment, then I apologize.

I'm sure that loving relationships among more than 2 people, do in fact exist. And if so, then they deserve our respect and equal treatment. In fact, I'd say anyone who is following his or her heart's desire, and NOT HURTING ANYONE ELSE, always deserves our respect and equal treatment. Does that sound like something approaching common ground??? Hopefully so. But then again this is the internet, so perhaps not right?

[Cathy]

...Then, absurdly, you go on to equate being born gay with a predisposition to murder or molest kids....

Actually, I obviously didn't "equate" these. That is an inflammatory and preposterous misreading of my post. The whole point of the comparison was to show that whether there is a natal predisposition to the behaviour is irrelevant to whether the allegedly predisposed behaviour is moral or whether it deserves our respect. Murder and paedophilia are wrong regardless of whether they are the result of a claimed natal predisposition. Conversely, there's nothing wrong with consensual adult same-gender relations, regardless of whether the participants claim to have been "born gay".

It was a pretty straightforward argument. I'm aware you disagreed with my argument for other reasons as well, but I felt the need to respond specifically to your allegation that I had "equated" things that I did not equate.

Other reasons why natal predisposition is not a sound basis for granting rights include:

• The concept is poorly defined such that its truth value is unknowable even with an omniscient grasp of the facts.
• Even if a rigorous definition is put forth (which I have never seen), it's totally unverifiable as applied to any particular person, even by the person making the claim. In other words, somebody might earnestly believe they were born "born gay", but it is simply not an empirical claim and not one that can be proved with evidence as applied to their own specific case.
• Using natal predisposition as the litmus test suggests that if a particular person engages in same-gender relations and does not claim a natal predisposition to do so, then they are not entitled to equal rights. I reject that implied proposition.

For all those reasons, and for other reasons, I prefer not to base arguments for rights on alleged natal predispositions.

[NICE!]

Well said, Cathy.

[Cressida]

Well said, Cathy.

+1. I certainly understand why the LGBT movement went the "born this way" route, and I think it helped (which I'm all for), BUT it shouldn't have been necessary.

[Metta]

...Then, absurdly, you go on to equate being born gay with a predisposition to murder or molest kids....

Actually, I obviously didn't "equate" these. That is an inflammatory and preposterous misreading of my post. The whole point of the comparison was to show that whether there is a natal predisposition to the behaviour is irrelevant to whether the allegedly predisposed behaviour is moral or whether it deserves our respect. Murder and paedophilia are wrong regardless of whether they are the result of a claimed natal predisposition. Conversely, there's nothing wrong with consensual adult same-gender relations, regardless of whether the participants claim to have been "born gay".

It was a pretty straightforward argument. I'm aware you disagreed with my argument for other reasons as well, but I felt the need to respond specifically to your allegation that I had "equated" things that I did not equate.

Other reasons why natal predisposition is not a sound basis for granting rights include:

• The concept is poorly defined such that its truth value is unknowable even with an omniscient grasp of the facts.
• Even if a rigorous definition is put forth (which I have never seen), it's totally unverifiable as applied to any particular person, even by the person making the claim. In other words, somebody might earnestly believe they were born "born gay", but it is simply not an empirical claim and not one that can be proved with evidence as applied to their own specific case.
• Using natal predisposition as the litmus test suggests that if a particular person engages in same-gender relations and does not claim a natal predisposition to do so, then they are not entitled to equal rights. I reject that implied proposition.

For all those reasons, and for other reasons, I prefer not to base arguments for rights on alleged natal predispositions.

I love your posts!

[Bob W]

So yeah,  I think if you polled a wide range of people 90% of them would be opposed to polygamous relationships without really knowing why they think this way.  For some reason it is concerned PC to accept two men boning each other in the butt but not for a woman to have two husbands.   

1) I don't care if people want to be polygamous, personally.  If such a thing were to become legal ( another thing I don't care about and which is frankly none of my business because it affects me approximately 0.000%) my only consideration would be that the tax implications be fair to all.

2) I personally think it diminishes your point to reduce same-sex relationships to "two men boning each other in the butt," since obviously the sexual act itself has little or nothing to do with the push for acceptance.  What I and others like me accept is that two people of the same gender can feel the same affection and commitment to one another as a mixed-gender couple can, and that they should be afforded the same privileges by the government as any other marriage. 

If the idea is to have others accept polygamous relationships-- something which I could see myself being fine with, assuming we're all on a level playing field, and all participants are consenting adults-- then perhaps consider trying to rally support by stating rational points, not diminishing or deriding parallel viewpoints. "You guys let this thing which I clearly find gross happen, but what about my thing?" is weak, whereas "Now that we've all agreed on this topic, let me explain why polygamy should be permissible on the same basis" is strong.

I'm not trying to rally support for polygamy?   I'm saying the government needs to get the fuck out of other people's business and right to associate. 

BFing seems to be what all my so called gay friends are into.  Maybe I'm living in a bubble?  I guess there are a certain percentage of male homosexuals and bisexuals who are not into it?  Not that hetros don't enjoy an occasional hetro bf.  But I'm guessing the so called Christian multiple partner hag isn't into bfing.   She would probably issue the licenses  if there was not sex involved.    I think the sex part is pretty much what bothers certain wings of the Christian cults.

 I'm pretty sure there are brands of Christianity that are totally o.k. with bfing.   I can't remember is it the Episcopalians?  Methodists?  Lutherans?   I could be wrong on everything I just wrote of course as always.  I was raised Catholic so pretty much all my priests and brothers were gay.  Oddly they took marriage vows to Jesus and wore wedding rings.  Yeah,  I know,  weird as shit! 

[ncornilsen]

...SNIP...

I'm sure that loving relationships among more than 2 people, do in fact exist. And if so, then they deserve our respect and equal treatment. In fact, I'd say anyone who is following his or her heart's desire, and NOT HURTING ANYONE ELSE, always deserves our respect and equal treatment. Does that sound like something approaching common ground??? Hopefully so. But then again this is the internet, so perhaps not right?

I would argue that polygamist relationships, were they to become common, would be incredibly and materially harmful to society.  Think about what would happen if 25% of the male population had no partner, the energies that would be redirected to damaging behavior. I cannot comment on it's legitimacy, but I've heard it said that the middle east has such a steady supply of pissed of young people willing to be a terrorist for exactly this reason. It's probable that this wouldn't become common enough be a problem, and there may be enough women wanting multiple partners to balancing it out, but I'd say it warrants some study before we legalize polygamy. (Since we're having that conversation...)

[Annamal]

...SNIP...

I'm sure that loving relationships among more than 2 people, do in fact exist. And if so, then they deserve our respect and equal treatment. In fact, I'd say anyone who is following his or her heart's desire, and NOT HURTING ANYONE ELSE, always deserves our respect and equal treatment. Does that sound like something approaching common ground??? Hopefully so. But then again this is the internet, so perhaps not right?

I would argue that polygamist relationships, were they to become common, would be incredibly and materially harmful to society.  Think about what would happen if 25% of the male population had no partner, the energies that would be redirected to damaging behavior. I cannot comment on it's legitimacy, but I've heard it said that the middle east has such a steady supply of pissed of young people willing to be a terrorist for exactly this reason. It's probable that this wouldn't become common enough be a problem, and there may be enough women wanting multiple partners to balancing it out, but I'd say it warrants some study before we legalize polygamy. (Since we're having that conversation...)

I think the chances of multiple marriages becoming common enough to cause the problems you describe are very low .


However I also think property law and the custody and support of children are issues which would have to be considered super-carefully if polygamy/polygyny is to be formalised ( gay marriage was straight-forward in this regard since there is very little material difference between gay couples and straight couples).

I think they are definitely issues which could be resolved and might sometimes even work to benefit children (for example having more than two adults who feel obligated to provide support for a kid could be a bonus) but they are not quite as simple or as clear cut. I don't think that "it's hard" is an acceptable excuse to stop people from engaging in consensual adult relationships but I recognise that setting up any kind of legal framework would take a while even outside of other considerations.

[Cressida]

I would argue that polygamist relationships, were they to become common, would be incredibly and materially harmful to society.  Think about what would happen if 25% of the male population had no partner, the energies that would be redirected to damaging behavior.

WHAT

just

WHAT


So now we need to make sure every dude is provided with a sex slave to keep him from shooting up the place? jesus motherfucking christ on toast. I cannot express how dehumanizing this comment is.

[Flyingkea]

I would argue that polygamist relationships, were they to become common, would be incredibly and materially harmful to society.  Think about what would happen if 25% of the male population had no partner, the energies that would be redirected to damaging behavior.

WHAT

just

WHAT


So now we need to make sure every dude is provided with a sex slave to keep him from shooting up the place? jesus motherfucking christ on toast. I cannot express how dehumanizing this comment is.

+ 1000
Agree so so much.

[gimp]

I highly disagree, cressida.

A population of young males, who think they have no possibility of attracting women, are very dangerous.

[MoonShadow]

I would argue that polygamist relationships, were they to become common, would be incredibly and materially harmful to society.  Think about what would happen if 25% of the male population had no partner, the energies that would be redirected to damaging behavior.

WHAT

just

WHAT


So now we need to make sure every dude is provided with a sex slave to keep him from shooting up the place? jesus motherfucking christ on toast. I cannot express how dehumanizing this comment is.

This may be dehumanizing in this context, but it is a fact that the typical young adult male's primary motivation in all life is to improve the odds of securing the affections of a mate.  This is an undercurrent topic of the fiction book, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.  There is also the theory that this effect is a contributing factor in major social insurrections over the course of history.  In the fiction book above, this effect is recognized, and managed via the 'line marriage' social structure & prostitution.  In real life polygamist societies, the resulting unattached young men become a destablizing social force, and are often forced out of their own communities under some pretext.  A lot of petty crime is committed by unattached young males, for example; this however is a corrolation, and is not actual proof of the above concept.  This might not actually be an issue in a world with nearly costless access to porn.

[Cressida]

I wonder when all the dudes who bitched about a woman who expressed frustration over some men who don't do enough housework will chime in here and denounce the objectification and othering of women that's happening in this thread.

[Cathy]

Aside from being misogynistic, the ncornilsen post is offensive to men too. Do men really believe that they are so governed by sex that they are biologically compelled to engage in senseless violence if denied access to their preferred form of conjugal activity? That seems like a rather offensive view of men to me. I would never suggest anything sexist like that. Anti-feminists frequently have a much dimmer view of men than feminists do, and this is a good example of that.

I personally think the sex-craved narrative that passes for normal is a bit ridiculous anyway. The great thing about humans is that we've benefited from thousands of years of evolution and through that process of differential selection, we have very luckily ended up with cognitive skills that allow us to chart our own paths in life. We've built cities and civilisations. We've created systems of law and justice. For those of us lucky enough to be born in certain countries, libertarianism and capitalism have led to modern societies where we can basically do whatever we want. We can choose to spend our time composing music, studying chess, writing books, crafting art, walking through parks, studying physics, engineering bridges, designing infrastructure, or curing illnesses. Our biology allows us to do any of that.

Despite the centuries of evidence suggesting that humans are capable of higher-order thinking and advanced intellectual tasks, many people nonetheless insist on claiming that sex -- an arbitrary linking of bodies -- has some mystical, important significance. This is purely a social construct. People have always been socially conditioned to believe certain things. In this community, we focus on deconstructing and surpassing one particular social construct -- namely, that people should spend all their money and work until they are 65+. To people who have not yet escaped their conditioning, consumerist spending "just feels right" and anything else is crazy. Sex is much the same way. From our earliest years, we are rigorously taught that sex is super duper important and something we should aspire to engage in. Pop culture media extols the virtues of sex, just like it extols the virtues of purchasing a brand new SUV. We're even taught the absurd narrative that sex is somehow repressed, which only serves to increase the significance ascribed to it.

Informing people that sex is just not that important usually meets the same sort of reactions that spreading the gospel of Mustachianism to the uninformed is likely to receive: much sceptism, deep defensiveness, and totally bogus arguments. A favourite bogus argument is a some variety of biological determinism, usually phrased as, "but we're biologically driven to be obsessed with sex!". To these people, we humans are apparently little more than ladybugs, equipt with machinery sufficient to find a partner to fuck and create as many offspring as possible. It is true that we are nothing more than machines, computers implementing an algorithm. But it is a very sophisticated algorithm (created through the capricious operation of natural selection). It demonstrably is not limited to seeking out sex partners. That might have been optimal for the "selfish gene", but it's not what evolution actually gave us. It gave us instead the ability to make our own destinies, to do whatever we want.

I am so tired, personally, of people holding up sex as if it was just so obviously important and meaningful, to the point of making the ludicrous claim that deprival of it would lead to mass mayhem. The fact is that sex does not matter very much. I have never had sex in my life and I never plan to have any because it does not matter. I have better things to do be doing, and so do the 25% of the men mentioned in ncornilsen's silly post. Just like you can stop spending $800 per month on a truck payment, you can stop being obsessed with sex and start making the world a better place instead. If sex is really so important that a lack of it threatens to unleash destruction upon society, the solution is to change our social conditioning so that people stop being taught that it is the most important thing ever.

I have no objection to people having sex if that is what they want to do, just like I have no objection to people playing a game of scrabble. However, the narrative attaching extreme significance to sex is misplaced and harmful, and I hope that we can change it.

[ncornilsen]

-Never said anything about sex slaves.
-Never implied men were entitled to sex as a matter of course.
-never even said sex! It's a component of what I was thinking, but I really was thinking about the whole relationship package.
-Did say we probably would never get to that extreme

You can disagree with what I said, but I don't see how its dehumanizing anyone.

I don't envision that all men would become raging lunatics who turn over cars and shoot up the place, but I do thing the following are real possibilities, IFF polygamy were to become so prevalent that an unspecified, but significant portion of men didn't have a partner:
-low-status men would be sexually marginalized.
-It would create an underlying tension/dissatisfaction in those individuals, that when aggregated to a larger group, could be exploited to do harm. Maybe of the men would ever so much as throw a rock, but maybe they, as a group, rally to support some extremist who wanted to go war, or whatever.

Cathy, I don't know what your motivations for never having, or ever wanting sex, are, but they are yours, and you certainly have a right to them. But having never had sex, how do you know it ISN'T what it's cracked up to be? And, How can you tell me what's important to me? Femsplaining much?  I, for one, certainly felt something was missing when I was single and not seeing anyone. I wasn't on the verge of doing anything violent, but it was a real void in my life. Yeah, I distracted myself by working out, building a house, and racing motorcycles, but it didn't fill the void. (and was consciously and unconsciously intended to attract a woman, but that should be obvious.)  It may not have been the sex, it may have merely been the lack of companionship.

The narrative of sex being unimportant is delusional, misguided, and harmful, and I believe it does go deeper than social conditioning. At the very least, I can't see how you can be SO certain you can condemn me for having an opposing view.

[MoonShadow]

Aside from being misogynistic, the ncornilsen post is offensive to men too. Do men really believe that they are so governed by sex that they are biologically compelled to engage in senseless violence if denied access to their preferred form of conjugal activity?

I stopped reading right here, because I know that this was directed at my own post, and this is not what I was talking about. No, men are not mindless animals driven only by instinct.  However this is a significant motivation for many decisions for almost all (99.9%+) of the male population between about 16 and 25, as well as the dominant motivation in just about every decision for a non-zero percentage minority of the male population of any culture in that same age group. The sexual disenfranchisement (for lack of a better term) of any significant portion of this age group is a dangerous, socially destablizing force.  Young men of all socio-economic classes must perceive that there is a reasonable possibility of finding a mate in their future, or many will subconsciously come to the conclusion that the society that they exist within offers them little, and therefore they have no particular vested interest in that society's continued existence as such.  This is quite similar to societies that have subjugated minorities groups into a second class citizen status in the past, such as apartheid in South Africa.  Many black people didn't grow up with much vested interest in the status quo, for justifiable reasons, and as a result a portion of that minority group were either economicly compelled towards, or simply not constrained by social taboos to avoid, engaging in criminal activity both for personal gain and to undermine the status quo.  If there were ever to develop, for whatever reason, a substantial minority of young men without any real prospects of developing healthy sexual relationships; their individual responses could be as benign as what we politely call "youthful rebellion", but could only deteriorate from there.  Over a period of many years, without a change in that trend, such "youthful rebellion" is bound to turn into real rebellion, given the right form of organizing force.  And if history is any determination, there will always arise some charismatic leader & movement to give form to such repressed (ha!) angst.

[Cathy]

At the very least, I can't see how you can be SO certain you can condemn me for having an opposing view.

I didn't "condemn" anybody. In fact, as a libertarian, I support freedom for all (subject to certain social restrictions, like prohibiting crime; the details do not need to be specified here). That includes the freedom to have sex if that is what you want to do (so long as your partner is consenting and of full capacity). It also includes the freedom to purchase a $70,000 truck, even though I would never purchase one myself. It includes the freedom to enter into a loving relationship with any partner you want, or even several partners if that is what you all want. It includes the freedom to play any game that tickles your fancy, including Scrabble, Dominion, Monopoly, or Mario Party 5. Indeed, I will even confess that in my youth, I played probably around a thousand games of Monopoly. I don't "condemn" people for any of these choices, because I support freedom.

What I have a problem with is the narrative that sex is singularly more important than Settlers of Catan or any other activity. That narrative operates as a psychological block that actually makes us all less free, much like consumerism makes us slaves to a salary.

[Cressida]

Women are individuals. We are not an interchangeable pool of happiness-makers for dudes. Based on their posts here, neither ncornilsen nor MoonShadow has given any indication of understanding this. This is a demonstration of emotional and social ignorance.

[MoonShadow]

Women are individuals. We are not an interchangeable pool of happiness-makers for dudes. Based on their posts here, neither ncornilsen nor MoonShadow has given any indication of understanding this. This is a demonstration of emotional and social ignorance.

Neither of us have implied any such thing, so this post simply highlights an ignorance, willful I believe, of the influence of the drive for both sex and human companionship of the male psyche.  The typical woman has a deep, primal desire for security; both for herself and her offspring, do they not?  This drive expresses itself in our modern world in many ways; the preference for a dependable source of income (FIRE being one fine example), the desire for sufficient insurance coverage against medical or financial hardship, the desire for a stable (read conventional) home environment (as opposed to a nomadic life in an RV, for example), excetera.  None of these primal needs actually require an ongoing sexual relationship, nor does such a generality apply to all women.  However, these are not what drives the typical male towards these goals; but instead, the desires and drives of his mate, along with her ongoing affections, are that which drives the typical adult male to work towards securing and maintaining these desired ends, for both himself & his mate.  The ambition towards financial and/or career success, for the sole profit and comfort of a single adult male (without the future desire of a mate as a driving force of it's own) is a truly rare quality, and often not an admirable one.  These drives may be downright primal, when examined without any individual context, but that does not mean that they are pursuits without their own merits.  One definition of freedom is the liberty to pursue one's own happiness (so long as it doesn't infringe on the human rights of others; i.e. it's not criminal in the murder/theft/fraud category), it's not a requirement that such personal happiness be unique from our physical or primal desires.  Our point is that, very often, the very definition of happiness is the simple satisfaction of such primal desires; and the systemic interference of such a pursuit of individual happiness can manifest itself as a negative trait collectively.  One that is hostile to the status quo that maintains such a systemic interference in their pursuit of happiness.

Truly, the book The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress explains this concept very well as fiction, and is a very good read as well.

[Annamal]

Truly, the book The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress explains this concept very well as fiction, and is a very good read as well.

I don't think Heinlein is a particularly sound reference for the kinds of generalisations you're making about society and men. I mean if nothing else at least pick books by an author capable of writing more than one type of female character (he does ok for his time but his view of more than half of the human population is pretty limited).

Do you have any evidence for your assertion other than a science fiction novel?