ok, I was just joking there. never joke with an Objectivist. ok, if you have to have this conversation in the first place with siblings who wish to marry, what-are we on some remote island?! I'm a mother. my feelings start to kick in on siblings marrying or parent and grown child or ...

I know about her research papers and their publication in scientific journals. I like her. I know her background and have kept up with her career. I just was not aware that being published in a journal made someone an expert and therefore a scientist. our definition of "scientist" must be different, which is fine, but not something I care to discuss any further. differing definitions seem to be the basis of a lot of argument around here. hence my question. I didn't learn anything new about Portman today, but I did of you. thanks for the education.

Here! Here! They both need to be gone ASAP!

Polygamy is harmful to women... hmmm. So their choice to do so should be removed for their own good? It is harmful to smoke...to drink excessively, to gamble, to visit the in laws.... c'mon Maph! Would you stop with this "I'm okay with laws so long as their good for you" shit? And what? Is there no "harmful" gay relationships? They're all prefect and rosy and no one ever gets harmed?

In today's altruistically oriented society, the rest of us would have to bear the financial burden of their ignorance.

You made a great point, actually.

Still, I have somewhat of a problem with a few things... I mean, I'd rather not have the government involved with marriages in at all. Why should they have this kind of power of people's lives?

If we lived on a society like that, of course I wouldn't want, as a gay man, any additional laws of this kind. But since we do live in a society where the government does that... I'ts only just for gay people to get the same legal rights as straight people.

For instance, there were many cases of gay couples who couldn't be together on a hospital deathbed, as they were not really considered family. The partnership does nothing to solve unfortunate things like this one.

There are some other similar situations like this one, and the partnership, again, does nothing.

Again, this problem was created by the government. They gave at first this privilege to straight people, allowing them to enjoy their final moments together, and now we want the same. This created a problem, right? After us gay people, some other groups WILL want the same thing...

All this could've been avoided if they never got involved in the first place... The free market would sort things out. Some hospitals would still not allow gay partners there, but many other hospitals would flourish in order to attend this part of the population, right?

Really... To me all this sounds like: "from this day on, only white people will be able to enter certain places."

This creates additional and unnecessary problems. Black people, latinos, all others will eventually want the same 'right' to enter these places.

Same situation. Gay people, polygamists, and many others want the same 'rights' as straight people.

-X-

I'm positively writing a lot haha, sorry khalling! Please correct me if there's a flaw in my reasoning, okay? This kind of subject has the potential to make me a little blind sometimes...

Again, I'm sorry for writing a lot.

Minniepuck: ... what you don't know...

Thumbs down again. What succeeded the first time? And who is the proto-Objectivist with no taint of guilt? Robert Fulton petitioned for a MONOPOLY... which Cornelius Vanderbilt broke (not that he was worthy of a place in Atlas Shrugged). In order to understand what the Gulch is all about, you need to integrate the context of the present discussion with the essential distinguishing characteristics of objective reality in the human sphere.

Thumbs down.
She was in HIGH SCHOOL when she co-authored a peer-reviewed paper. What did YOU achieve in high school?

Either you recognize achievement, or you do not. I was open to some of your earlier quips and insights, but you have revealed yourself to be just another conservative, locked in to concretes and floating abstactions: rocks and clouds; and no element of human (rational) reality.

This sentence perfectly captures the difference between an individualist (me) and a collectivist (you). I believe that restaurant owners and their patrons should be trusted to conduct their trade free of any government interference. You collectivists believe business people are inherently corrupt and will serve their patrons harmful products unless a government official is watching over their shoulders.
But what if a restaurant owner becomes a government inspector? Does he become suddenly incorruptible as soon as he dons his government garb and ID? I think not. A society cannot persist half free and half slave to government. End all regulation now!

The Federal Reserve and the 16th Amendment have been a knife(one of many) in this countries back for a hundred years. Damn them all to hell!! (or whatever crap-hole one may believe in)

Stay in there BambiB. I, for one, after only reading your commentary for a few weeks find your thinking and speaking refreshing, honest, straight-forward, and needed.

"The 16th Amendment was about taxes, and did not address either collectivism or individualism."

Text of the 16th Amendment:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
Taxation without limits is precisely about individualism and collectivism. Indeed, in the 1950s the top marginal rate was 90%. The income of individuals belonged to the collective and the collective "allowed" top earners to keep 10%.
In 2011 or 2012, the British equivalent of our IRS proposed that all checks for employee income be sent directly to the government and the government would electronically deposit into citizen's accounts an amount the government deemed necessary for the citizen to survive.
.
If you think these two examples do not express individualism versus collectivism, we live on two different planets.

Sorry... that doesn't make sense to me... NOT informing them of the hazards would make it more likely that the branch WOULD reproduce, even if genetic problems might occur. Would that kill the branch? For the offspring, maybe, but it won't kill the branch of the married siblings and they just might try again and end up with a viable offspring...

Withholding such information deliberately is a contribution to society or is it intended as a punishment for the siblings?

What kinds of freely-entered-into contracts and relationships should be proscribed?

I think in the best interest of a society, siblings who wish to marry should NOT be informed of genetic deficiencies in offspring. don't you think that branch of the family tree should die out?

Everybody has an opinion on this. I believe that any business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone. Gay rights don't give them the right to force anyone to serve them. Who made them above anyone else. Do Blacks have a right to force their rights on someone else? It seems like gays and muslims are above the law because of political correctness. When are people going to wake up? This is nothing but the government using force to rule by tyranny.

I disagree on several levels, Maph... polygamy isn't harmful to women so long as they're not being forced into it. If they willingly want to "marry" one guy and willing to live in a situation where he also "marries" other women, why should the government prohibit it?

Now, the legalities of divorce, inheritance and shit like that are WAY behind the curve in handling such issues, but other than that, freedom to "marry" whom you want (or "whoms" you want) is darned important.

As for sibling marriage, often thrown into the soup by extremists, first, if a couple of siblings believe they truly love each other and want to "marry" the government shouldn't prevent it. Unless they're mentally handicapped themselves, the most that should happen is that they're clearly informed that if they have offspring, the offspring have a higher probability of genetic or developmental defects than if they'd married non-siblings.

If they're willing to take that risk, who the hell are you or I or the gumblement to stop them?

And back to the laws not keeping up, that's one of the only reasons that marrying your dog, cat, house or tree is a bit awkward, too.

You're assuming a 100% chance of "harm" in all of those scenarios, and that is NOT "logical."

Sorry.

western societys and cultures have held women back until the turn of the last century so don't be all high and mighty on me. My husband got a job offer from Bell Labs and instead took a job with McDonnell Douglas. He didn't want to live on the east coast. I think he somewhat regrets that 1st out of college job decision, but it was more consistent with his recreational life. what kind of engineer are you?

it is true that I have a hard time with famous ones-but shoot that's how it goes with all inventors. tehy are generally not put on pedestals. But if you look at the tradition of the US and colleges, the acceptance of females starts waaayyy later than males. maybe there is a catch-up period for role models and mentors. but the Black History month thing makes me smile. how about the woman who invented the modern concrete block?
http://inventors.about.com/library/inven...
http://santitafarella.wordpress.com/2009...
HEY! what are you famous for and how do we know how smart you are? Our female engineering clients are busily pursuing their inventions at hgh cost and against significant regulatory odds. Who is John Galt?

let me get comfy on the couch here. OK. They disagreed with me. But many of their arguments were feeling based. Here are the ones that I have some trouble figuring out a remedy for. teh hospital closest relative. The whole adoption process. That even though the partner who is not the birth mother has been there from teh start as a loving parent and obviously part of teh planning and saving for the special procedures, they still undergo the state sponsored are you a fit parent deal through social services to be deemed the housekeeping approval seal. what nonsense. as if birthing a child qualifies you as a fit parent. I am not sure now that Colorado (where I was from) now that they have legalized gay marriage , fixes this problem. I'll bet it doesn't. do you know? also, the marriage law has passed in Colorado and they still haven't legalized for themselves. Maybe after 12 years together, they realize it is a desire more than a practical solution to a problem or a right. they have the security of acknowledgement and the hospital issues never happened to them. actually, they benefited from the lack of recognition. My friend for several years qualified for earned income credit as a single mother, even though her partner provided for their household. I'm fine with that. stupid tax laws should be exploited for the citizen's benefit.
Ultimately, they want to be recognized as valid.in their choice to be in a relationship. that's an emotional argument and I can logically point out how they are validated every day in their lives by people who they discern as important or worthy. They both wear rings, which is a pretty significant and telling symbol of fidelity. They are respected members of our community and their church, I also stood up with them when both of their children were baptized- I just don't see a logical reason for trying to hijack the traditional meaning of a word-other than for emotional reasons. do NOT get me started on those baptism services. as part of the regular service one of the hymns was One Tin Soldier. I was furiously writing a "discussion" on the program and passing it to my mom-who drove in for one of the happy baptisms.