Well, either atheist is the default for an objectivist, in which case the combination is redundant, or it is not the default but is irrelevant to what an objectivist things about this.

As we all hold that individuals and organizations of individuals outside the odd organization called government should be able to act on their own reasoning, such as it may or may not be, it is literally none of our business what Amazon choses to sell or not sell as long as it is doing no demonstrable harm and not by initiation of force violating anyone's rights.

That si the key point. .

The question was about Amazon where the poster said they won't list sex books. I thought the just type in 'sex' would have meant type it into Amazon's book page and not into some other search engine. Perhaps jdg is in one of those countries which Amazon has to be careful about sex books?

I agree, with so many thinking the grass is greener
or the irreconcilable differences. The amicable seperation would be more common and that is a good thing.
Have a good day!

Wow. I leave for the weekend and come back to all of this. Great discussions on here and a lot to process. My thoughts about many of these posts in a nutshell:

1. I agree wholeheartedly that Amazon should absolutely have the right to ban or not ban anything they want. One poster discussed the idea that perhaps Amazon simply has a standing policy of banning something if it gets enough negative feedback, regardless. I can at least see some logic coming from Amazon if this were the case. The number of Catholics complaining about a nun costume are likely quite small, so it would make sense to only ban the burka. I can reduce my personal discontent with Amazon if this is the case.

2. Not sure why an objectivist would care about gay marriage. Marriage should simply be a contract between two consenting individuals capable of making a rational decision. Government should have nothing to do with it. Regardless of how weird "gayness" might seem to a straight person, why would you care? The only reason an Objectivist should care about this is if there is property being taken from you (taxes) and given to promote an agenda. Doesn't matter what that agenda is, nothing should ever be forcefully taken from an individual to promote something to society. Marrying animals cannot work however, because they cannot enter into a contract. You can say you are married to your cat all you want, but it's not a contract.

3. I consider myself both an atheist and agnostic simultaneously. I read something about this once and feel like it is the most logical solution. I am agnostic because I do not "know" there isn't a higher being. I am atheist because I "believe" there is not, based on evidence presented to my senses. In my opinion one cannot be an Objectivist and believe in a higher power, but at the same time, because I am an Objectivist, I don't care if someone else combines their religious dogma with Objectivism, as long as they are not taking away any of my freedoms or property. Additionally, I cannot know what another individual has experienced with their own senses. If someone claims to have "spoken to Jesus", how can I prove them wrong? While I might certainly "believe" they are lying or mistaken due to hallucination, doesn't mean I am right. I can only experience what my own rational senses and thoughts tell me.

4. While a "sexy burka" costume might sound like a contradiction in terms, if it were worn by Candice Swanepoel, it would automatically fall under the uncontradictable "sexy" category. This is fact and cannot be unproven, even by an Objectivist... ;)

Thank you awebb!

As a matter of fact, figuring out how partners would end a "failed" relationship (to use your term) before marriage makes great sense. If you can't rationally divide things, power and responsibilities when and while you like each other then what chance do you have of doing it once you dislike/hate each other.
It would be great if marriages lasted "'til death do us part" (in very old age), but about half end differently. If we had a five year renewable marriage contract for example, I believe fewer marriages would end in divorce. Those that did not renew, could at least move on without the typical animosity the current, adversarial system engenders.
There are always alternatives.

If this is the best route for you to have an escape route for a failed relationship set up the agreement in advance with your partner.
Any plan for me or others with an expected benefit for society requires someone to enforce or encourage compliance. Time and time again someone else is deciding what is best for the individual. It doesn't work unless it is a parent guiding a child.

kRandy, I'm not sure what being voted on means, but I find the commentary useful in fleshing out my ideas and learning how to present them to other thoughtful folks. Brevity and clarity sometimes conflict (in my case) and others will not interpret what I say in any way I thought they would. I am always looking to learn how to say it better. The Content/Process issue is always relevant.

As a pack animal what we do does impact "society" though as Ms. Rand would no doubt say we should behave to benefit ourselves.
To paraphrase somebody or other about something or other: you may not be interested in society but society is interested in you.
As far as the three marriage plan, I think it is interesting for a lot of reasons and -- as I would with governmental programs -- I think planned obsolescence may beat having to fight for divorce and making lawyers rich and clogging up the courts. Just build the dissolution settlement into the original contract (subject to review every 5 years to remain current with the realities of life.

I agree with the maturing brain and the voting age,

You lost me with "the plan to benefit society."
The individual should make his own plan to benefit
him or herself.

Nicely stated. Of course, here is a convenient point to note the absolute evil of income taxation. The 13th and 14th Amendments ended the peculiar institution (in America -- slavery remains rampant in other parts of the world). The 16th Amendment reinstated slavery in America (but on a much broader population). The FairTax Act and the Convention of States effort stand a solid chance or re-eliminating slavery in America.

The sciences of Developmental Psychogy and Neurology pretty much document that the human brain in a child (less than 20ish) is different in structure and function from an older brain (and it does continue to change over time with or without disease processes). Over the millennium most cultures have come to agree that being mature enough to comply with interpersonal obligations (contracts) does not happen until some (admittedly somewhat arbitrary) age and we do not hold people as able to enter into contracts until that age. Personally I think the founders got it closer to right when they stipulated voting required an age of 21 (and therefore the country got it wrong when we lowered the voting age to 18). The older I get and the more I see how limited young people really are I come to believe voting age should be quite a bit higher -- though I would allow anyone in the military to vote!
To return to one of my earliest stipulations, marriage is a function of religion, not government and I can see no reason to "license" it. Register your contract with each other if you are so inclined, but a license is unnecessary (and I read once only began to be law in the 20's (but I don't know where I read that)).
A friend of mine posited that society could benefit if at age 20 or so you married someone about 40, then at 40ish that marriage dissolved and you married someone 20ish. At 60ish the second marriage would dissolve and you would marry someone 60ish. His thinking such an arrangement would facilitate emotional and financial stability and benefit children.f I can see lots of good in such a plan.

If estate tan and marriage enhancing part of income taxes were abolished, there would be little reason for state sponsored marriage at all

I admit my use of the term "religion" is quite loose. A set of beliefs which essentially boils down to two sets of rules. The rules as to how we treat "God." and the rules for how we treat each other. If in your belief system there is not "God," then those rules are a pretty small chapter. (Most, if not all, "religions" have a creation myth to explain how we got to here and now, but the most important part is the sets of rules. The Ten Commandments are pretty clear, the writing of Confusious, the Quran, etc. lay down the basics from which "state" creates the specifics.

Certainly not in the forms presented by the major religions. Their concepts and ritual and altering of history make it laughable in light of science and common sense. If we were to obey the Jews we would be roasting oxen in sacrifice. Or look at Catholic ritual. Does any of it have anything to do with Jesus as portrayed in the bible" Even the name Jesus is bogus it would never have come from a Jewish carpenter's family. Must I go on? The most I will concede is that the earth is an astonishing miracle that came together through a series of almost impossible coincidences. But the universe is so unimaginably huge that it allows for that. But there's no white bearded fellow in a white robe conducting it all and in particular listening and observing all 7 billion lives as well as the probable lives on trillions of planets surrounding billions of stars.

As to a higher power: I can assert nothing except what science has learned so far. When I was born the depths to which quantum physics has gone would have been unimaginable. Since then more knowledge has accumulated at a faster and faster rate. Will the discovery of the "God Particle" lead to a clue about creation? What about a hundred years from now - or a thousand years from now? I exclude nothing, but I don't include anything that is unprovable relying strictly on faith. As my grandpa said many times to me, "Vait a vile and ve shall see."

s o you can positively assert there is no "higher power"?

The burden of proof rests on the person or persons that make a positive assertion. It is not the responsibility of the person who listens to the assertion.

What you are doing is an old debating trick called arguing a negative.I say that there are Coca-Cola factories on Venus, but they are hidden from view. No way to prove or disprove. In that case, a person should discount the statement by saying what it is and move on. There are some things that are theoretical but unproven, and those are things that are usually pursued in order to prove them. Einstein's theories a case in point. As to what caused intelligence to develop is a fairly easy theory based on survival of the fittest and evolution. There are a ton of books on the subject. What we don't know as yet is just what consciousness is, but that is being pursued as well. I believe, if we survive and given enough time, humanity will know the answers to everything. We have come a long way in in virtually the blink of an eye relative to universe time.

Folks may continue to vote me down, at will. Sticks and stones...it won't change my views on the subject and will most likely strengthen them. The most you can hope to achieve is get me blocked from commenting, due to a low score. Freedom of Speech be damned...right?

I agree. What gets me is even after same sex marriage was "legal" the "state" attempted to assure that those involved in that arrangement would not receive the same benefits as an opposite sex marriage. I blame it on the vote-pandering politicians who were so afraid to chase off a small percent of voters they were still following the anti-gay policies if the conservative religious establishment. So much for separation of church and state, eh?

Add to this the group on this forum who parrot the same conservative religious doctrine and then claim to be atheist. And no matter what one says, A=A. One cannot claim A=A except when it conflicts with ones personal belief system...

I figured someone would find a hole in my statement. My terminology was probably wrong for the point I was trying to get across.

At least, I still have the right to boycott Amazon, Target and any other liberal organization that chooses to advance policies that I disagree with...at least, until the government decrees that I must patronize these groups (Directive 10-289, anyone?).

Really nothing. Legal marriage I think at this point in time is an anachronism. Anyone who wants to make a deal with another person should be free to do it, period. The real problem is taxation, both for income taxes and estate taxes. Those are the only attractions to legal marriage. Get rid of estate taxes and the marriage penalty or advantage, and the free market will take care of the rest.

Re: “To ‘Believe’ is to accept on faith and without evidence.” That’s not the full or only definition of belief. Dictionary.com also defines it as “confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.” So there might be some evidence for a belief without conclusive proof. For example, “Based on the available evidence, I believe that so-and-so.” Most religious people will attempt to justify their beliefs with what they consider to be evidence or logical proofs. I’ve never encountered anyone who claims to need no evidence whatsoever to justify their belief in God.

And yes, I know my Venusian 672,500 year ago thing is silly - but the point is, can you PROVE otherwise?

Most Atheists are against some form of organized religion, or a set of ancient writings or fables or legends versus what they believe in. I've had atheists use the silly "sky daddy" argument to try to persuade others to their brand of non-belief... just like some bands of theists use selected snippets of a 1800 year old book to persuade others to theirs.

Here's one for you... what if "intelligent life" was a genetic experiment on Venus 672,500 years ago, and shipped to other planets to spread intelligence before the planet killed itself? Can you prove or disprove it?

Personally - if you are atheist because of the "sky daddy throwing lightening bolts" myth, then you kinda sorta DON'T get it. Belief systems WAY predate a partial set of 1800 year old writings by some desert Bedouin ancestors. And if you don't BELIEVE in a Theism - that still means you DO have beliefs.

And trying to link ANY beliefs about the truly unknown and objectivism falls flat. Objectivism is about what we KNOW - and if you KNOW what happened 672,500 years ago, or what caused intelligence to develop - beyond a shadow of a doubt - I want your secret squirrel time travel device.