Our county has a lovely building they've been working on recently. It was built with funds from a resident, with the expectation that the county would finish it up for whatever use they had for it, and do something good with it. It's a fairly neat building, good for parties and meetings and so forth -- quite useful to the community.

Here's my problem, and it's not just about the building: they're intending the building to be a for-profit venture, with which the county can "make a few bucks on the side" -- if there were enough profit, you could imagine them lowering taxes or providing other services, because money's flowing in. More commonly, you'll find yourself paying fees for various government services -- registering a car, getting something assessed or inspected, and other such things. You'll pay the government to provide you with copies of a document (they get pretty hefty, and reams of paper aren't free) or to search a database for something at your request.

Fee-for-service is common. Imagine a world where we didn't force people to pay for the services they are provided with: some jerk would come in every few days abusing the system, forcing everyone else to wait, and he would do so with impunity. "Run that search for me again, just in case." "Can I have another copy of that 4000-page document? The last one got a stain on at least one page, I threw the whole thing out." Forcing people to pay a fee keeps the cost of abusing the system high, discouraging anyone but rich people with nothing better to do from doing so. The other nice thing about it is that you don't pay for what you don't need. Sure, it makes it more expensive for the people who do eventually need service, but that's no concern of yours.

We don't have governments because they're required by God or Nature or anything else. We have governments to simplify an otherwise nasty problem of cardinality. It's just easier to have a government, in most cases. In the computer industry, we hear a lot about "peer to peer" systems. You may not realize this, but the more "distributed" a system is, the less efficient it is (at least when we're talking about loosely distributed, adaptive networks like those used for file-sharing.) In the early days of piracy, we had servers: bulletin-board systems (BBS) were some of the first, followed by internet websites with FTP servers overflowing with pirated software, and later Napster, which held a central repository of available files (an indexing service, like a library's.) If you only have to look for something in one place, the problem of finding something is simple. If you have to look in multiple places, and even have to find out (each time) where to look, it gets expensive.

Governments serve as the central repository of lots of information, decision-making, and services. When you're running water pipes in a city because we've decided everyone should have water available at their house, it's simply easier to have a single agency handling the whole thing. Sure, you can (as a lot of places do) fake their being several different providers of the service, but they often do little more than have their own billing and technical support staff, while sharing (and leasing) the same central resources from city, county, state, or federal governments. It would be costly and dangerous to have anyone and everyone providing the service of running water pipes to your house -- who knows what might happen to the shared resource (damage to the line, leaks, poison, etc.)

What's my problem with the shared-building thing, then? It's that we have socialism disguised as capitalism. I grew up in europe; I'm quite accustomed to the idea of a government owning and running businesses for profit (at least in theory -- it's often at a loss) -- in the US, we have Amtrak as an example of a "corporation" run by the government. My problem is with the "run government like a business" idea, which is that businesses bring in money, and having the government engage in profitable trade would reduce the tax burden on the rest of us, therefore the government should supply itself with income through profitable trade on the side (that is, other than exactly the services it's already paid to provide.)

When a government decides to own a business, it is generally competing with other businesses. What profits it brings in are profits not being brought in by other companies or individuals, who would be paying taxes. A government's fundamental mission, however, is not profit: it is service. An ideal government would make no profit, take no loss, and cost exactly as much as is necessary to provide the services it is expected to provide (the list of which is another matter.) A government is just a public entity expected to receive funds and use them wisely for the public good, not its own. It is not expected to invent its own goals, nor to ignore the needs or wishes of the community. Businesses frequently re-invent themselves when they're no longer profitable, they branch out with new services of their own volition, they attempt to maximize profits by reducing costs while not reducing prices. Their motives are their own, not the community's.

On the positive side, we can consider the following. If a government is required to provide services which are already provided by one or more companies, such companies might be hired to provide those services. The companies being contracted would naturally want a profit, that is, a cost above and beyond the cost of materials and labor directly involved in rendering the services. A government-owned entity would not have such a requirement, and could provide the same services for cheaper. The public benefits from this in the form of lower taxes. Also, a government, at least when "by the people, for the people", may alter its practices to meet public demand, based on voted-for requirements. Capitalist ventures are not required to do so, and might not even have an incentive to do so (some public demands may not be financially advantageous to a company, or the risk involved in changing anything may seem too great; there is no guarantee that someone else will pick up on the gap and fill it in with a new company, only a vague hope.) A government is therefore better suited to making decisions to actively meet public demand, whereas businesses passively meet the demand by trial-and-error, and a lot of luck. You can petition your government and expect some useful reaction; you can petition a private business and expect it to continue to do as it pleases, whether or not that happens to be what you wanted.

There are different levels on which a government operates, and they should perhaps be considered separately. There are services which must be, within a given realm (state or federal boundaries,) rendered by exactly one entity. In those cases, the governing entity for the area sets up a system to provide that service. Unless it's a common "type" of service, there will likely only be one entity like it. It may, on the other hand, be a type of service which private companies could offer, as a slight modification (or specialization) of their existing business. One would need to be selected as the "official" provider of such services. Then there are services which are cheaper when provided by a central authority, such as water, gas, electricity, or other "public works." There are also services which we consider absolutely essential, even though they could be provided in the private sector, and which must be guaranteed to be available. In some countries, this includes health care: although private hospitals may exist, the government is required by its citizens to provide ample health services coverage, regardless of whether or not the private sector wishes to do so as well. Thus, the government may own quite a few hospitals which are run at low or no cost for medical necessities, while the private sector may "fill in the gap" for non-essential care, or for patients who simply don't like the services provided by the government.

[I now realize why this remained 'temporary' for so long -- I never decided where I was going with it. It might be helpful to note that 'libertarians' would prefer a world in which the government practically didn't exist and everything was privately owned, down to the last tree. Other parties vary on how much they believe should be privatized; you don't often hear of privatizing the army, nor of nationalizing all food production. But it's a fairly smooth spectrum, not a radical change in ideology.]

It's not really paper I guess but it'll do.

Seems to me that liberals spend their time talking about large scale problems in our country caused by the rich and powerful and conservatives, talking about small scale problems in people that cause large scale problems in our country.

Ah yes, "the issues." Healthcare. Education. The homeless. Racial issues. The economy (like most politicians know a thing about economics). So called "economic injustice." When they have solutions, they almost always involve taking money from the rich and throwing it at the problem oftentimes with too little effect (healthcare is a mess, education is a mess, these programs have huge budgets).

Conservatives like myself have our own problems. On issues like Healthcare, our solution is self reliance and discipline. Get a good education, work hard and you'll have the money. Education? We need better teachers. We need accountability. We need students to try harder and we need parents to push them harder; to take a hand in their kids education. The homeless? The homeless wouldn't be homeless if they, that's right, got an education and worked hard, had self discipline....etc. Its the same old mantra. We know it works because it worked for us. Yet, somewhere in our brains we know it won't ever happen, but we throw it out there....perhaps to console ourselves that since its not our fault it isn't our problem to fix.

Are both of these "solutions" merely an attempt to confront what these groups view as the Problem in our country? If I had a nickel everytime I heard a conservative talking about the downfall of our morality, of our discipline, and the other personal strength issues..I'd have a large stack of nickels. And if I had a nickel everytime I heard a liberal whining about "The Rich" getting richer and the poor getting poorer (as though even though these people desire to be rich, the rich were evil) I'd be pretty rich myself.

Anyway, both sides need to confront reality. The reality is that many people are weak. Their lack of self discipline or talent or both leads to all sorts of problems. Bad parents hurt their kids upbringing. Dumb people have little potential and undisciplined people (like myself) have huge difficulty meeting their potential. And the folks that have discipline and talent just don't seem to understand why the rest of us haven't yet achieved perfection that was practically granted them from birth.

Liberals: there simply aren't enough resources to go around. As soon as you take stuff away from people they tend to decide that the game isn't worth it anymore. And why not? If you guys achieved the equality you wanted, then hard work and talent merely mean that everyone else gets more. That'll just make everyone equally poor and it'll result in a poorer, less well defended nation (which will, in the long run, result in the nation crumbling to a world power that has mastered their own economy). Which do you think is scarier? A thief taking things from your house, or a government which extracts vast amounts of wealth from a portion of the population by threatening them with jail time? Or perhaps only The Rich deserve that kind of treatment...

Conservatives: people don't make very good building blocks. We can argue theory all day long; that if people didn't suck so bad things would be okay. That argument doesn't work much better for us than it does for Communists. I don't know what the solution is but we shouldn't lean on broken crutches. I personally believe the solution lies in a strong global economy and increasing world peace (i.e. stopping wars...by force not by sending them cards and flowers or with formal rebukes from on high like the UN). If we're ever going to get that we'd better stop ignoring small wars and tyrants in small countries as if the blood isn't on our hands because we haven't taken off our white gloves. I think these lousy arguments are made simply because our opponents aren't bright enough to strike them down and because we're happy with what we have: we don't want the liberals to break the economy and we're not brave enough or self-honest enough to talk truth about the economy. And why? Its our best strength.

Like I said, I haven't found the solution. If one exists, I'm pretty sure it'll involve technology we don't have. But it sure doesn't revolve around tossing out broken mantras as if they're going to protect you by power of repetition.

Compare what you have to what they had in the past. Many of those who live in "poverty" can listen to music whenever they want. I know because my wife and I officially live in poverty. Half of them have two cars. Myself, I have A/C in my apartment and a machine that washes my dishes for me. We didn't get here by equally dividing the candles and horses and grain and lumber...etc. We got here because people with brains and discipline invented these things (oftentimes with the financial backing of the rich and powerful) and then made them accessible.

~ensis

I did a thought experiment just now and I think it was fairly important. I'm publishing it here both so it can be read and so I can continue to work on it as a sort of ethical bridge for dialogs.

Imagine for a moment that you live in a small community. This community has no laws. It has no law enforcement officers. It has people who hunt. It has people who make clothes and shelter. People work according to their abilities and trade for other things they need. But there is no Law. People do as they please and as they think is right and fair.

Imagine these scenarios then:

Imagine a very strong man: we'll name him Bruce because Bruce is a funny name that sounds like a very strong name to me. Anyway, Bruce is a strong guy, strong enough to bully others and strong enough to kill them. Bruce has bullied several people into working for him. He feeds them and shelters them but he works them very hard and profits from their labor exclusively. One of these laborers is named Tim. Tim works hard but if he screws up or if Bruce is in a bad mood, Bruce beats Tim. These men have never tried to rise up because Bruce wears a sword at his hip and each has been threatened with it. There is no chance that these men, even working together, could escape or overthrow their master.

Imagine further another strong man, we'll name him Cyrus because Cyrus is a cool name for a hero. Cyrus also bears a sword but unlike Bruce, Cyrus knows how to use it very well. Cyrus also knows that Bruce isn't so good with the sword.

Imagine that you are Tim. You're being beaten brutally (again) by Bruce because Bruce is angry. You see Cyrus walking by to do whatever it is that Cyrus does and you see that Cyrus has noticed your plight. How do you feel? What is it you want Cyrus to do? If Cyrus didn't do it, how would you feel about Cyrus?

Imagine then that you are Cyrus a successful hunter and warrior. If you're anything like me, you aren't too pleased at the selfishness of Bruce, hurting other humans for his own gain. You probably want to help these poor men. But you're human too. If you fight with Bruce, there's always a chance that you could die. Really die. Seriously. You'd be dead. No more you. Forever. Think about it. There's also a chance that you could kill Bruce but that he would wound you in a way that would affect you for the rest of your life. What you'd really like (I imagine) is to force Bruce to free the men. You have more power then Bruce. You could do it. And then even Bruce could live. What would you do? Really do. Don't feel obligated to take on Bruce just because you want to be a hero in my story. What would you do? Why should you risk your life to free these men who won't risk their own lives? If these men wanted freedom enough, couldn't they kill Bruce in his sleep and flee? Besides, is it really your decision to make who lives and who dies? You wouldn't want to play God would you? Maybe these men ... maybe they aren't ready for freedom yet?

Lastly, imagine that you're Bruce. You're in a bad mood and you're beating the heck out of Tim. You look up to find Cyrus regarding you, watching how you beat your men. Who knows how Bruce is justifying this, all we need to know is that he's justifying it. Maybe he thinks these men wouldn't stand a chance by themselves and that he's protecting them. Or that some other strong man would make these men slaves if it wasn't him so it might as well be Bruce that profits. Make something up, you're smart. Anyway, there's Cyrus staring at you with that sword at his hip. But he wouldn't understand. You're a little afraid that Cyrus is going to kill you and I think that angers you. How dare Cyrus step in and use force where he isn't invited. When have you ever done that to someone else? Maybe as long as you don't buy what Bruce is selling, what these poor men are making you can keep your hands clean of the whole thing.

By now, reader, you are probably either amused and cheering for me or are irritated at my obvious attempt to justify a war you disagree with. Bear with me.

Imagine lastly that you are a neutral observer; maybe God. Maybe you value each of these men equally. One man is hording the power of 7 men and one other man can free those 7 men. What do you want done?

To me, these aren't difficult questions or thought provoking really. If I was Tim, I would want Cyrus to save me. If I was Cyrus, I would want to save them and I'd risk my life to do it. And if I was Bruce, I would know immediately that I had been undone. Personally, I'd give up, but based on what a nasty, arrogant person Bruce seems to be, I think Bruce might fight. It's very clear in this simple thought experiment what needs to be done. And if your Cyrus, that means you bear the cost of doing it. If you're Bruce, that means you bear the penalty for what you've done. And if you're Tim, you're a free man unless Bruce kills you before Cyrus can free you...

Seriously. If it's so clear here, why isn't it clear in Iraq? Hussein was wicked. The people were indeed oppressed and I don't think they could save themselves...and I'm almost sure they thought they couldn't. We had the power to free the Iraqis and continue to have that power (what they do as free people though...that could be troublesome no? What if these 7 men band together and begin robbing people? Then you've got a problem don't you Cyrus?).

The answer is clear.

So here's the thing that clouds it all up. Imagine if Cyrus was walking down the road, bow in hand. Cyrus is going hunting because hunting is cool and Cyrus is good at it. Cyrus sees Bruce beating Tim but Cyrus doesn't feel like he can just go killing people. So, just like every other day, Cyrus regards Bruce coldly and passes by. But on his way back, Tim approaches Cyrus and says "Bruce has a bow too. He hates you how you look at him and talks constantly of shooting you with it." He shows Cyrus one of Bruce's bows; somewhat crude but workable. "He's not as good a shot as you but..."

But what if he gets lucky? What if he has hires someone else to shoot you? Even a wound could mess up Cyrus' gig and if he kills Cyrus, who will feed and defend his wife and children? Besides, these men don't need to live like this. Cyrus has every reason to destroy Bruce now, or at least to force him to free his men and destroy his bow.

But imagine: Cyrus' wife is worried. If Cyrus just ignores Bruce, maybe Bruce will stop hating Cyrus! What if the people think Cyrus murdered Bruce and decide to kill him in the streets? Cyrus' wife loves Cyrus and doesn't want him to die so she advises him not to confront Bruce. When she sees that Cyrus' mind is made up, she advises him to tell the other villagers what he intends and why he is doing what he is doing. This is good advice. If Cyrus has to kill Bruce, its better that it doesn't come as a surprise.

I think it is likely that some of the villagers will agree with this plan and some will disagree. Isn't that the way of things? Some of the men agree to help Cyrus confront Bruce. But this is the biggest thing that has happened in ages, so everyone watches what happens next.

When Cyrus arrives, no one is in sight. That's odd. But then Cyrus sees Bruce peek around a corner of his house bow in hand. An ambush! There might be men on the roof with bows too. Cyrus didn't exactly come in secret, he has a whole crowd of people behind him and they would have been visible from far off. Bruce shouts "Leave Cyrus or you will die! You're only coming here to kill me and make off with my riches!" He shouts to his men "Cyrus is here to kill us!"

To make a long story somewhat less long, Cyrus shoots Bruce and Bruce dies. Bruce's men don't have bows or if they did they didn't have arrows. As a matter of fact, Bruce didn't have any arrows either. Strange....that.... Imagine what Cyrus would protest "The guy must have been crazy!" "He threatened to kill me!" "The...Tim. Yeah Tim, showed me his bow..what was I supposed to think?!?!"

This is very disconcerting to the entire town. Why would Bruce pretend to have power he didn't? Did Cyrus make up the story for some evil reason? Perhaps to take Cyrus ill gotten gains? Fortunately, there is no consensus about what happened. Cyrus loses the trust of half of the town and some of the trust of his wife. The men are free and most of them love Cyrus. And Cyrus won't have to fear being shot by Bruce.

Did Cyrus do well? And didn't the United States do well also? Iraq had tons of chemical suits but no chemicals. They had developed Ricin and were working on other chemicals. They have attempted to kill our president and give financial support to Palestinian suicide bombers. We know they used to have anthrax and we believe he gassed the Kurds and maybe the Kuwaitis too. There is debate as to whether or not Iraq had a delivery system like terrorists or a ICBM (a bow, an assassin, lots of slaves firing arrows) but there appears to be no WMD (arrows). The war was quick and clean as wars go. We've lost just over 1,000 men and women; very small losses as war and reconstruction goes. As war goes, this was a very good war. If you don't believe me, go study war. Even George Washington lost sometimes; lost badly. His brilliance was that he won against the odds. I think this is a fair analogy; almost analogous. ;)

The men are free and Cyrus' cost is minimal even if his wife will blame him and wonder if he lied. Bruce won't be missed. But suddenly, no one wants to help with the cleanup. Everybody wants a share of Bruce's stuff. Who should get Bruce's stuff? And these men...will they be able to find careers? Who will ensure they don't kill people or simply enslave each other? And when it goes wrong, who will they blame?

Was Cyrus a hero? A man who does what is right even if he might suffer?

What do you think is right? And do you have the courage to do it? Do you even have the courage to stand back and let others do it without publicly calling the morality of what they are doing into question?

And if you were Cyrus, what would you do with those people who had not only stood by and watched as you did all the work, not only heckled and prodded and stirred up others against you to make them doubt your actions, but had been secretly and purposefully buying the things that were being made by those poor men so that you could sell them in their stores for profit? Would you have the strength to smile at them and try to normalize things? I'm not sure I would. I'm not sure I'd care to.

Maybe you are one of those people who doesn't really do anything. Doesn't really even support anything. You've always been more of the thinking type. Just think and find problems with every single possibility, every single argument and don't put your weight behind any decision, any solution. Ooh. And talk about how bad the problem is, how you wish it didn't have to be that way. Is that you? If so, I'm sure this article has a flaw so tell me about it and forget you ever read it.

ensis

Okay. So you've got this guy, NK, who just got himself a gun. Scared, reclusive, and rather paranoid, he goes out and shouts to a gang of big guys down the street "I have a gun now! I don't have to be afraid of you anymore!" Rather than calm him down, assure him he's in no danger, offer to collectively hand over their guns as a sign of peace, the gang just tells him that guns are bad, that he's dangerous, and that they might have to do something about him if he doesn't get rid of it. Now then. Do you think this guy's going to think "gee, they seem nice after all, I should let them be the only ones with guns"?

I don't see us getting rid of our weapons. We still mistrust the rest of the world enough to keep a large stockpile of nukes. We're the only country to have used them "for" anything, twice, half a century ago. In fact, I'd say we're terrified of ever using "the bomb" again. We'll keep developing new types of nukes, but if the time comes, will we use them? I highly doubt it. And the fact that other countries might be thinking the same means that nukes aren't even a good deterrent anymore. But for "little" countries like Iran or North Korea, it's still a symbol of being one of the "big guys" of the world, of earning respect, adulthood, whatever. Besides, consider our own laws: you have a right to own a gun. Why? Not because you're really in much of any danger where a gun would be helpful to you (more than likely you'll just hurt yourself, have it taken away, kill someone you only meant to harm, only harm someone you meant to kill, and get your ass sued, or otherwise mis-use the darn thing.) It's just your right. You get to have weapons, your neighbors get to have weapons, and by the time it's all said and done, we're all too afraid of each other to do anything, or too insane to care (and therefore still dangerous.) How can a country that values self-defense so highly, and makes a point of giving its citizens the right to bear arms (supposedly of equal power to that of the "enemy"), tell another nation that nukes are a bad idea?

We're trying to negotiate. Well, the Europeans are; we're just sitting here telling them they're not forceful enough, as if that really makes the situation any better. Our previous arrangement with NK involved shipping oil to them as a substitute to their having their own nuclear reactors. We bribed them. The current negotiations also involve trade incentives. Wow. Let's bribe them again and see if that helps. Maybe we're too naive to realize this, but ... nukes make for better bargaining chips than they do weapons. Sure, you can take out a city with one, if you really want to. But you'll get yourself pounded so hard it won't matter. On the other hand, having a few around is good enough to be courted by the governments of the world offering your higher and higher prices for your disarmament. If the deal ever stops being good, you can just build another set of bombs, and start all over again. So long as you don't use them for anything, governments are just giving you "stuff" in exchange for a little peace of mind; the fact that they're worried is entirely their own problem. Pretty cool deal, if you ask me. And if it's cheaper to get nukes than to get the equivalent "incentives" you'll get out of negotiations, then it simply makes economic sense to build nukes and black-mail people. Do we really think Iran and North Korea aren't smart enough to realize this?

I propose we give Iran and North Korea the same deal we gave the CCCP: have all the nukes you want; stockpile them, have them for breakfast, build high towers out of them, whatever; we don't care, you won't get anything from us; but if you ever so much as twitch, and/or launch one anywhere, prepare to have your ass served to you on a radioactive platter." Mutually-assured destruction has worked before, and it still can. It's a sensible policy: if your neighbor does you no harm, you have no reason to harm your neighbor. As long as your neighbor feels safe, and feels that his safety is in his own realm of control (that is, you're sane, and his decisions actually decide whether or not he's safe from you), then he's unlikely to do anything foolish. If your neighbor thinks you're a wild-eyed cowboy with an itchy trigger finger, chances are he'll shoot first despite your lack of intervention. (Note: we apparently thought Saddam had an itchy finger, look what that got him!) North Korea has reason to fear us: we're fairly sane, they're fairly not, and things could go sour. But if we don't show some sign of restraint, there's no chance that a paranoid government will ever calm down. Mistrust will just spiral out of control, and someone will get nuked (or not, and we'll have to explain how our macho facade isn't the "real us".)

So the message is: "we promise not to attack you so long as you don't attack us; your fate is entirely in your own hands; if you do, however, screw up, prepare to be royally rewarded."

The problem is that we can't make that promise. We're itching to liberate people from tyranny. And at least for the sake of this argument, I have no problem with such intentions on our part. Freedom's neat, even though we're not terribly clear on what it is, how to enforce it, or whether or not liberating someone really makes them free. So really, we can't swear we won't invade their country. They have reason to fear us, reason to arm themselves, reason to warn us that they're armed.

Our fate (or rather, that of our allies in the area) is in our own hands, maybe. I'm not convinced the leadership of North Korea is entirely sane. The itchy finger could twitch. Maybe it won't. And there's no really good way for us to back down without also appearing to give into "terrorism" and "tyranny" ... but so long as we don't, we're the presumed future initiator of violence, even if it's for a "good cause."

We've got a potentially crazy guy holed up in an apartment building, holding a gun, yelling at everyone to leave him the hell alone. What do our street cops usually do in this case? It's hard to convince someone who feels threatened that they should just put down their guns when you're not doing so yourself. Did I hear someone say "sniper"?

Note that this applies equally well to Iran. Or anyone (past/present/future) else who thinks (I have no idea how they got this idea, of course) that we might be coming "after them" (particularly to "liberate" their people.)

I went to my childhood church this morning, not for the service, but rather for a tour of the new facilities that the church is close to completing. My parents still go to this church, and as I hadn't seen them for quite some time, I decided to eat lunch with them this afternoon. When my mom informed me that they would be attending this tour (preceded by a pot-luck lunch) I decided, "What the heck, I'll go too. What could it hurt?" My head, that's what.

The new facilities certainly were nice. We began the tour in what used to be called "the Atrium" when I attended this church. It had plants and skylights, so I suppose that name fit fairly well. Now the area has been renamed "Kid Zone," or something similar and equally catchy. Gone are the plain, light blue walls, plants, and skylights. Now the walls are covered in distinctly Disney-esque art work. The plants and skylight have been replaced by a mock tree house, which will eventually feature various platforms spiraling around it and the rest of the "Kid Zone." Down the hall, where I attended preschool through kindergarten sunday school, the walls have been painted a bright green color, and are adorned with large, 3'X 3' pictures of children of all races in poses which would indicate they are having a simply incredible amount of fun.

From the "Kid Zone" the tour continued up a stair well, painted in equally bright colors with even larger pictures of older kids having a (presumably) larger amount of fun. Once we topped the stairs, I was almost dismayed. The hallway and classrooms here looked almost exactly like they did when I attended first though fifth grade sunday school several years ago. Luckily the tour guide (the pastor of the church) assured us that this area would be decorated similarly to the "Kid Zone" below. *Whew* The theme up here would be "elementz" (all lower case, with a "z"). This is fortunate, because you and I both know how much modern first through fifth graders dig in-your-face misspellings.

Then we were guided through a set of double doors to the new sixth through twelfth grade facilities, named "The Factory." As that name would imply, the area looked much like a mock factory with exposed ducts and all that overhead. Hanging from this cleverly unfinished looking ceiling were several TVs. They displayed what I can only assume was the video portion of this morning's sunday school lesson...something relating Napoleon Dynamite to the Bible. The walls here are painted black, and they too have large pictures adorning them. Fittingly for the age group that meets in this area, these pictures are of racially diverse, distinctly urban looking teens, in poses that would indicate they are having the teenage equivalent of fun (angst). Up front was a moderately sized stage with amps and mics, and in back was a nice looking soundboard and computer to control everything. A little further into this area, there is a small table with a brand new Mac on top of it and an open room with several more TVs hooked to various video game consoles. Opposite the Mac table is a cafe type area with small, round tables, chairs, and what looked to be a counter from which food is likely served.

Through a couple more double doors we were guided to a wide-open reception area over looking a brand new gym. Underneath us is another area which will also be used for reception-like gatherings. From there people can access the new gym.

And what might all of this cost? In case the title of this article hasn't clued you in already, I'll tell you: $3,000,000.

Practically, I have at least one problem with all of this. At the moment, bright, ugly-ass green walls, large pictures, and the "street" look are all very in vogue. What happens when they fall out of vogue? Another $3,000,000 project?

Aside from that practical issue, I have other issues with all of this.

Why was all of this done? The primary reason given by the church leadership would be that this will attract unbelievers. They seem to be of the mentality that if you provide an incredibly fun, hip, and/or cool atmosphere, who wouldn't want to attend your church? I'm of the mentality that plenty of people wouldn't. While it certainly would be fun to go and listen to a live band, play some video games, and sip a latte from the cafe, the fact remains that this is a church, and people know it. They know that all of this comes at a cost of being preached at by someone, at least once. We're not going to fool anyone; they know that all of this amounts to bait. Even as a believer, I don't like feeling as though I'm being baited, and I have this suspicion that non-believers don't either. So the message that all of this sends to the unchurched isn't, "We love you, we care," it's "We're trying to trick you into something. Would you like to play our video games?"

Even if people don't get the impression that we're trying to bait them (which we are), they'll think we're lame for trying so damn hard to be edgy and cool. People who come to a church honestly seeking something aren't seeking to be a part of something edgy and cool. If they were, there are a number of places and groups that do it far better than we can. And if movies like "Saved!" are to be believed, quite a few unchurched people are pretty damn tired of us trying to be that way!

So all of this, I would argue, will be largely ineffective in actually helping anybody with anything...and we spent $3,000,000 on it. Meanwhile, my father and mother, members of this church, are teaching English to Spanish-speaking immigrants so that they can get better jobs with which to support their families. The church-owned building in which they do this is a ratty, dilapidated property with bathrooms that don't work and cause the entire place to reek of sewage. True, because the youth group of this church will move into part of the new facilities, their old meeting area will be used to host the Hispanic ministry. However, I imagine that a comparatively paltry $100,000 would have gone a long way to improve their old facilities and another $500,000 would have kept the youth group from feeling left out. But then again, while meeting Spanish-speaking people's needs is admirable, I suppose it lacks that in-your-face edge we so desperately crave.

Not surprisingly, the tour was ended with a prayer that God would help the people present to be faithful and obedient in giving to this endeavor so that God's work will be accomplished.

I realize I've done a lot of complaining and very little offering of alternatives or solutions. I don't have the answer. Certainly, I can see the need for a growing church to build new and larger facilities. And while I don't think that striving for edgy coolness will get us anywhere, I doubt that giving up and fully embracing boring, conservative "churchyness" will either. About the only thing I can think to suggest is that we just be honest with people and give up on trying to bait them into a church service. Then, when people come to our church honestly seeking whatever we have to offer, we should use our millions of dollars to help them, meet their needs, and then tell them why we're doing so. I doubt that would give us the rapid growth we seem to be seeking, but surely it would give us a more long-lasting growth that actually means something, presently and eternally.

Reading bits of a book Torrentor was pulling out of an old box got me going again on the topic of marriage and sexuality. It's called "The Love Killer", a "value added" book that is both story and sermon (the sermon bits have dedicated sub-chapters throughout the story, to make sure you get the already obvious points.) The title for this article comes from the book, where you're told you've been brainwashed by the safe-sex message and need to be re-educated.

This book, speeches given at the World AIDS conference, the speech given to highschoolers (audio available from this site), and many other sources have all done the same thing: they've tried to push an unnecessary agenda along with a useful message, and managed to mess both up. The agenda is to promote monogamous marriage with no extra-marital sexual contact, for religious reasons. The other message involves the risks of pregnancy and sexually-transmitted diseases (STDs), and the innefficacy of condoms, birth control pills, the rhythm method, and anything else you might have thought to use to mitigate those risks -- and particularly how naughty doctors, evil governments, and greedy pharmaceutical companies don't tell you about these risks.

The basic fallacy in all cases is a false dilemma between sex-before-marriage which (they will tell you) will almost assuredly result in pregnancy, disease, and unhappiness, and monogamous marriage and belief in a loving God which will prevent disease, benefit your career, and ... don't worry about the kids, at least they'll be born into a happy couple. (I kid you not.)

I always despise messages presented this way, because you create a dependency that will bite you in the arse later on. If you tie the message of safe (no) sexuality to God, then those who do not believe in your God may refuse your message, and those who accept it for now may reject it later if they reject your religion. If the goal is to help people by educating them, then it seems logical to present each bit individually and hope each of them does some amount of good.

So if it's a false dilemma, what are the actual facts? Well, they're still not good. I don't disagree with the authors in most cases involving statistics. Most birth-control methods (short of surgery or abstinence) fail to be 100% effective. The book (named above) gives what seem to me to be the "worst case" statistics, based on what I've found elsewhere. The effectiveness of birth control methods varies greatly by age, correct use, quality of products, consistency, and margins of errors, and of course the method chosen. I'm not sure it matters, but I've yet to see attached to these statistics any mention of "multiple methods at once" or "average number of sexual encounters per [time period] per person". I don't know about you, but I intuit there should be some statistical difference between people who have sex every day and those who might have sex once a month. But I'm just guessing.

Similarly, the effectiveness of condoms (male or female versions) or dental dams (or any other physical barrier) in preventing the spread of STD's also varies. Most sources make a point of reminding you that condoms do not always prevent the spread of AIDS, which seems consistent with the statistics at hand.

The book mentioned above went so far as to assert that the only ways to avoid AIDS were abstinence and a mutually faithful monogamous marriage with no extra-marital sexual contact. And that's just wrong. Maybe you don't remember, but people have in fact gotten AIDS from blood transfusions at hospitals and re-using needles (mostly in the case of illegal drugs.) Perhaps the authors think that abstinence and faithful marriages mean you'll never need a blood transfusion, but that kind of false message shouldn't be allowed to go unchecked. You can get AIDS other ways. And you may not necessarily get AIDS even if you're not perfectly faithful or abstinent. Go figure.

So here's the real set of facts, and the ones that matter in this case.

- Birth control methods may not necessarily prevent pregnancy. Plan accordingly. If you're going to have sex, recognize this as a risk you're taking, and understand that the methods you're using are only there to slightly reduce (but not eliminate) the chance that you'll have a kid on your hands. Ladies, understand that it's easier for the guy to ignore the child than it is for you.

- Condoms and other barriers will not necessarily prevent the spread of diseases between partners. As above, plan accordingly. If you don't want to get a disease via sexual intercourse, make sure you don't have sexual intercourse with anyone carrying the disease. Get tested, ask others to get tested, and even then accept that the tests aren't perfect. If you assume that the disease can only spread via sexual contact, apply basic graph theory: cut those with diseases off from those without, don't have sex with anyone who's had sex with anyone (etc.) who might have had it at the time.

- Even if you never have sex, you may still get one of these diseases. You could get it from your parents, blood transfusions, or some other vector. Some sexually transmitted diseases are not exclusively sexually transmitted, and there are plenty of diseases out there that are not at all sexually transmitted that will still kill you. You may now take the time to reflect on how dangerous our world is at the microbial level.

- Even if you're married, you may still have unwanted pregnancies.

- Even if you're not married, the same things apply to you as to married couples when it comes to the risks of sexuality and pregnancy. (With the added stigma of "out of wedlock" births, and the scorn that people feel they should direct at you for them. But that's not quite sticks and stones and diseases.)

- Even if you have sex with a million different people, you may avoid pregnancy and disease. Part of it is luck, part of it is planning. Knowing it's not all planning, you can still make use of what you know to help reduce the risk, lower the cost. Birth control methods do that. Physical barriers do that. Abstinence does that. Smart relationships do that.

Abstinence until marriage (and the same for your spouse) is just a short-cut, an easy way of applying some of the obvious principles above. It is neither guaranteed to be effective, nor the only semi-effective method out there. Understand it is only that: a short-cut.

And if you want to push for marriage because it makes people happier, results in better kids, "is just the way our society has been" (tradition), "because God says so", or any other reason ... please, feel free to do so. But do so independently, and don't rely on confusion to tie these issues together.

I also wouldn't mind it if authors would refrain from saying that STDs appeared out of nowhere recently, or even better, that sexual promiscuity is something new. I have a feeling there's some correlation without causation here: we probably only recently discovered STDs that had existed for a while, as they spread through existing channels of promiscuity. The issues are linked, but ... dang. (Plus, they're left saying either that some evolution of new strains of diseases does happen, which they likely won't like because it might support some forms of evolutionary theory, or they could say God's creating them ... and then you get to hear babbling about God punishing people for their promiscuity by creating new diseases that take advantage of this vector. But that's all just a bonus.)

[Sorry about the 'rythm' typo -- we got a lot of hits from people ignoring google's spellchecker. They deserve more reliable information.]

Unordained asked me to post the idiot tactics I was aware of which make debate unfair. I'll write them as I remember them. I'll also classify them to make them easier for you to study and use / avoid as you see fit. I'll warn you, this is long. Nobody ever said that winning a debate was easy. Therefore it must not be.

Political Tactics for Dummies

Perhaps this section will show us a little about why dummies get into office. Dummies use these tactics well and convince other dummies (there are a lot of them) to vote for them. Dialog is destroyed, reason ignored. Here are the tricks of the political trade!

Logical Fallacies

Memorize the list of logical fallacies and use them. Slippery slope, poisoning the well, and especially Post Hoc. These are the ultimate weapons!

Negative Spin

*New* Abstract and Equivocate This one is so classic, I can't believe I missed it the first time! It will make a powerful addition to your arsenal. Sometimes what your opponent is doing is just but you want it to look like its unjust. What oh what shall you do? The answer's simple. Find something that it is similar to that is negative and then just blurt it out. Hitler. Nazis. Racism. The Ku Klux Klan. Something with tons of emotional baggage. A good example is the War in Iraq. It is much like Viet Nam in many ways. Nevermind the fact that Viet Nam cost us roughly 50 times more human lives. The point is to win!

*New* Stab and run. Most arguments are about more than one subject at a time; each issue has sub issues. If your opponent has just made several well reasoned points that you don't want to address, you should stab and run (perhaps with an Abstract and Equivocate defense). "Well, Tom's comments only highlight the racist tendencies of the blah blah blah but let me get to the crux of the matter" or "Well, the Kerry camp is well known for the kind of spin you just heard but let me talk about the real issue here." The trick is to slander and then appear to rise above the fray by changing the subject.

Insane Accusations. Make accusations you can't back because you won't have to. Refer to documents no one has access to. Refer to "High Level Officials" who do not have to defend their beliefs..it only takes one!! Demonize demonize demonize. Remember. The worst thing your enemy can do tactically is to deny the charges. Nothing makes you look more guilty than denying your guilt.

Make your enemy unPC. If you can, tie your enemy to racial, gender or sexual discrimination. No one likes discrimination, we want politicians who are indiscriminate as possible. Once again, your enemy cannot deny the accusation without looking guilty! What is he (or she!!!) going to do, sue you for slander?

Get an Expert. Come on. Experts are practically free because you can give them 30 seconds to talk about their book. Liberals: use psychologists, gays, minorities, and statisticians. Conservatives: use economists, minorities and statisticians. Religious icons will be the death of you so bail on them unless they celebrate Samhein or something.

Make your Opponent out to be an Idiot. Ask your opponent lots of questions that have nothing to do with anything. If he answers one stupidly under the pressure, the press will eat him alive. Remember. The press is full of sharks so make sure your opponents blood is in the water and for goodness sake, don't actually engage your opponent's arguments. If you bleed, you'll be eaten. Remember the potato thing? Potatoe thing? Elections are like spelling bees except you choose the word and you can make fun of your opponents.

Deflection!!! If you don't like the question you are asked, rephrase the question mentally and turn it into an attack on your opponent. If you are asked "Why didn't you support the soldiers by okaying the funds they need to fight" don't answer the question. Your audience is too stupid to understand your reasoning. Say something like "I'm not the one not supporting the troops. President Bush is the one not supporting the troops by keeping them in that hell hole called Iraq." See how that works? Remember, your audience is not watching because they care about the issues (i mean, some are, but you won't convince them!). They are watching for entertainment. So don't bore them. Make sure it is a slugfest and make sure you criticize your opponent when he lowers himself (or herself!) to your level! Now, I didn't think of this one myself; I don't want to take credit for it. I'm no genius, I just watch the best and learn from them!

Use Trusted Icons. Hollywood loves cameras and there's an old saying that says something like "There's no such thing as bad publicity." With this idea under your belt, you can find the right entertainer, have him or her say the right things in the right place at the right time, and people all over the place will think (as close as thought is to such people) "Well, if So-And-So believes that, it must be correct." Now, remember, your enemy will use this tactic as well, but you can punish them for it! The key is to accuse your enemy of "owning the media." It doesn't matter if it is true, there's enough dumb people in the world that you don't need reason, you need motivation and Trusted Icons and Dramatic Debate motivate people!

Invert! If your opponent thinks he has done something right, simply assert that not only will it not work, it will work the opposite as was intended. This has worked for medical care, the economy, and forest preservation. You don't need evidence, just cloud the issue.

Lastly, remember to criticize anything your opponent does. Again, you don't need evidence, just cloud the issue. Heck, you don't even have to have a better way of doing things!!!

Simply UnAmerican Dude this one rocks. If someone does something you don't like, tell them it's unamerican, that it will hurt The Troops...whatever!

Simply Un-UN! This one rocks too. See, even some allied nations frequently don't really like each other. I mean, did you watch the UN meetings? "Mister speaker, I come from a very old nation." That was great. See, we look for opportunities to hurt each other all the time...in a positive way of course, or at least in a way that can't be seen...like trade. But stupid people don't know that there's bad feelings everywhere. So act shocked when other nations don't like what your opponent is doing. You and I both know that the UN is not God. But the voters don't!

Positive Spin

Be a unider not a divider. This is a strategy that may not be compatible with the crap above, but this mantra can work. Attempting the positive campaign strategy may make your enemies look like meanies or it may make you look weak. This strategy could be enough to win an election in and of itself but there are disadvantages. If you do anything to piss off your enemies (you will) they'll disagree with you (like they always do) and criticize you for being a hypocrite. It may be possible to repeat the mantra after this and it may not. It seems like this strategy may be better if your enemies have a lot of dirt on you. Many people have speculated (like...10 is many right?) that winning an election isn't so much about being capable as it is as sucking less than your opponents. That's why the positive thing works out I think. Note that if the unificating doesn't work you can blame this on the opposition!

Give the Majority Entitlements. The pocketbook is what wins elections. You think people care about a war which might be unjust? Nah. By and large, they want money. Use buzz phrases like "fiscally responsible," "economic justice," "supply side economics," or alternatively "voodoo economics." People will think you are smart. Did you notice how certain folks said that the tax cuts didn't benefit the poor? That didn't work. Then they said that they didn't benefit the middle class. That worked even though the economy rebounded. Did anyone notice? No. Aim for the middle class and higher or the middle class and lower. It'll be the bomb.

Never be against anything. Re-label your group in the most positive light possible: no one is for someone who is against something. Instead of "Democrats" which does not have an opposite, call your party "The Party for Smart People" so that your enemies are "The Party for Not Smart People" or even better, "Progressive" so that your enemies are instinctively thought of as "Regressive." I'm still waiting on one from the Conservatives / Right Wing. I guess there's no way to make being conservative hip or positive.

Make your opponent appear to be judgemental but don't be a martyr.

Use These In Combination!!! Lets do a hypothetical. If you are not smart, and someone attempts to question what you mean by "fiscally reponsible" just tell them that the American people deserve to have economic justice and that the are not properly represented. Maybe throw in a little jab at what your opponent is doing....and tell the audience that not only will it not work but that it will do the opposite that it intends. Lump in a bunch of catch phrases such as "special interest groups" and you've got yourself a winner.

The Balance of Idiocy and The Solution: Character Assassins

How to choose.... how to choose? Positive or negative? Well the good news is that your campaign can use both but only if you are careful and only if you have connections. And you do! What you need are character assassins. When you want to murder someone but you suck at murder you hire a hitman right? (Don't answer that question, the person that is using hitmen is your opponent remember? Gotta be sharp!) Anyway, character assassins are the "in" way to balance your campaign. They cost little of nothing and the stuff they say isn't coming from your mouth. Typically these people have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Use Comedians. Dude. Comedians are funny! It isn't funny to contradict people. Go on shows where no one will question you and pray that no one notices that no one questions you. If you go on the Factor you'll get torn a new one unless you know what you are talking about. If you can get a comedian to tout the party line he can deliver your crap right into people's homes and he'll get paid for it!

Use The Press Okay, yes, the press can be a real pool of hungry sharks. But ..whats better than a pool of hungry sharks? A pool of trained hungry sharks! This works exactly like the comedian thing. Remember to use this in combination with insistance that your opponents own the media.

That's all I can think of for now. Do all of this and you have a future in politics. Do it not, and your enemy will defeat you. Rush to the bottom anyone?

Every Day Debate

Most of you will not be in politics: you're too ethical. Some of the above apply, some don't. What you need is craptastic debate techniques that you can have ready...you know...for every day use. Here's my list of my favorite, tried-and-true tactics. Make sure you read Unordained's article; it contains the underlying strategy that you will be backing with these tactics. The essential idea is this: the only way to fairly convince someone is by using reason. Thus if you destroy your opponents ability to speak reasonably with you, you destroy your opponents ability to pursuade. With any luck, no one will be convinced! Now..these still work for politics and they are a good place to start. Have fun!

Use Sarcasm! Sarcasm is good because the only thing you are really talking about is what you don't believe. That's easy! If your enemy does this to you say "Oh sure! Use sarcasm..that makes you really smart...." Stupid people won't get the irony and smart people will be won over by your sense of humor.

Use Undefined words or Redefine words. This is very effective! If you redefine a word that is important to your opponent to be more inclusive than it was previously, he will look like a jerk head poopy face. And that's good. Nobody likes a JHPF.

The Parthian Tactic. This one is great and it sounds so cool. It is a defensive tactic. When your opponent is attempting to use reason, preempt him. Mess with his definitions. Draw him out with the tactics below. Use sarcasm with this. Your opponent will spend so much time delving into details, pursuing your little imaginary horse archers that he'll either run out of time or forget what he was saying. Then change the subject and go on the attack, hitting him in his exposed flank!!!!!

The Straw Man Army. This one is really hard. You have to understand lots of belief systems that you don't really believe. Then, haul them out against your opponent. He'll spend way too much time and energy hacking down a field of scarecrows and not enough time chopping up your beliefs. That way he'll get tired and you won't be. The harder to define the belief system is the better. Your mind will be sharp and you can go on the attack at a convenient time. Your opponent will not be ready for the vigor of your attack!!!

Interrupt. Use this to get your opponent emotionally involved. I use it all the time........on accident. Seriously.

Fillibuster. This has saved many the dedicated group. If you talk for a long time in a row you gain multiple advantages. 1) Your opponent will not be able to defend against all the crap you just spewed. 2) Your opponent will become bored. 3) If your opponent interrupts, call him on it. Geez, you don't have to tolerate that kind of stuff.

Ye Olde Switcharoo. Most people aren't smart enough to lay traps. So don't define your position...just hint at it. When your opponent attacks, he'll spend a lot of time attacking what you don't really believe. Then give him another hint. He'll feel stupid for going off on a tirade and then you can counterattack and criticize his beliefs. This is great with either the Straw Man Army or the Parthian Tactic.

Be the Reasonable party. Be careful with this one. The trick is obviously not to be reasonable, in fact the more unreasonable you are, the more emotionally charged your opponent will become. Then calmly ask him or her to lower her voice, stop interrupting...whatever. Gotta stay calm and say unfair things. This works well with a positive campaign. Thankfully, you can usually switch to this even after you've been angry and loud. The first one to become quiet wins! Editor's note: I'm told this worked well in a recent presidential debate! Learn from the pros!

Deflect on the Abstract! This one is complicated. Lets say your opponent asserts "I think the death penalty is essential." You can deflect on the abstract by saying "So, you're saying that the American government should just.....kill people to maintain order?" If they say "I think abortion is a right" you say "You think mothers have the right to kill people?" In some ways, yes that is what they said but the trick is to take what they are saying about a small group and apply it to a larger group! Many people won't understand what you just did allowing you to take the initiative. Even if the do get it, they'll have to explain to you logically why what you just did was unfair. If you do this enough times, your opponent will become emotionally charged, decreasing his reasoning and giving you the advantage.

Go Relativist/Absolutist on his/her buttocks. Okay, this really has little or nothing to do with relativism. Make things grey that are black and white for a nice open minded defense. Act like things are black and white that are grey for a nice overly simplistic defense. These are very frustrating and useful with the Parthian Tactic.

*Rephrase and Riposte! Your opponent has just phrased something pretty well and you feel trapped. What do you do? Lie. Rephrase what your opponent has said in a light that is worse than the worst reasonable light...but do so without giving him a chance to reply. Immediately destroy your new straw man with a flourish. People will applaud. They like bravado.

Poison the Well. I mentioned this above but it is so important that I must explain it. If you cannot attack what your opponent is doing, make up a really bad reason to do it and then attack his motivations. Most people are too stupid to realize what you've done and your opponent can only deny.

Torrentor: So, let me get this straight...Charlie Sheen can make a "porn family", Kelsey Grammer can end a 15 year marriage over the phone, Larry King can be on divorce #9, Britney Spears had a 55 hour marriage, Jesse James and Tiger Woods, while married, were having sex with EVERYONE. Yet, the idea of same-sex marriage is going to destroy the institution of marriage? Really? Re-post if you are proud to support equal rights.

---

Some Guy: Two wrongs don't make a right . . .

---

Torrentor: I support peoples' right to make the choice... even if it isn't the same one I'd make

---

Some Guy: What if a man wants the choice to marry his daughter? What if some lady wants the choice to marry her dog? What if someone wants the choice to murder someone they really hate?

My point? We all have a line that we can't agree should be allowed to cross. Where do you draw your line?

---

Poopysquirts: I really don't care if gay people want to get married. I don't know what the big deal is.

---

Torrentor: what if they do? Our system is structured so that if he wants that right he has recourse - he can pursue that legalization. So can she. The whole point is that lines are being drawn in the sand arbitrarily based on morality that not everyone shares. Even in the Bible, there's not much to be seen about trying to force people not to sin. There's a price for sin clearly stipulated but nothing about forcing people not to. Forcing someone to choose the Biblical way, forcing someone to do what you think is right takes away the value of the choice.

---

Phaedra: You draw the line at the same place you draw the line for all other contracts. Do we let a lady sign a contract with her dog? No. Marriage is simply a legal contract between two people and the government shouldn't be dictating what two people are allowed to make that contract if they agree to mutually agree to enter into it. Obviously a minor cannot sign a contract anyway. These arguments about letting someone murder someone else make no sense. At issue here is the fact that laws are preventing people from entering into a mutually agreed upon contract because of an arbitrary classification about that person. What if laws preventing a black person from marrying a white person? Or what if a man couldn't contract with another man to lay his carpet simply because he was male? These are the situations this compares to, not letting people murder someone.

---

Torrentor: kapow... direct hit! Phaedra 1, everyone else... some other number

---

Poopysquirts: would it make people happy if they weren't allowed to marry in a church wtf!

---

Phaedra: Forcing churches to marry same sex couples is a totally different issue. No, churches should not be required to perform a marriage ceremony for same sex couples if they so choose. They can already refuse to perform a marriage ceremony for any number of reasons, including just because the pastor doesn't think it's a good match. But couples can either find a church that will marry them or have their ceremony performed by the state. The same would be true of same sex couples. Of if you are lucky enough to live in a state that allows it (or want to drive to one), you can perform your own marriage ceremony with no witnesses.

---

Ensis: Bad behavior does not justify bad behavior. Or, for those of you who don't like the idea of an objective standard of bad behavior, here's the post-modern spin: if you don't like our politics, kill us. It won't matter a whit to the universe what you do to our particles.

---

Ensis: Phaedra,

We do not think marriage is merely a legally binding relationship. Saying this kind of thing over and over in a Facebook echo chamber doesn't make it true. And if we don't start at a point of common ground, there will never be dialog, only repetition. Bah. The above conversation reads like propaganda, propaganda I've heard about 1,000 times.

The truth is that, at a minimum, you're dealing with really ancient, really sacred traditions. These things are important to Christians. When you spit on marriage you spit on us. So when you're done publicly maligning and violating this holy thing, why don't you walk up to a Muslim and an Orthodox Jew and shove pork in their faces? After that, you can walk up to a devout Hindu person and shove a tasty, rare steak in their face. I mean, why stop with Christians?

Bottom line: Christians aren't taking lessons in "tolerance" from people who publicly malign them for being "intolerant."

Lets talk terms instead of firing broadsides at one another. We should have been able to work out a compromise a long time ago.

---

Phaedra: How is allowing gay marriage shoving it in your face any more so than allowing non-kosher food to be sold shoving pork in the face of a Jew? Fortunately we don't outlaw all food that is considered forbidden to some religion somewhere.

No one is saying that churches should be forced to perform services for gay weddings. In fact, they can consider the marriage invalid for religious purposes if they choose. I understand that you consider marriage to be a holy thing, but for legal purposes it is simply a contract. I am not clear on how wanting equal treatment for people is considered intolerant. I have no problem with any religious group refusing to perform marriages between any two people.

The problem is that with the current system of marriage, there is no common ground, so to speak. Either all people are treated equally under the law or they aren't. It is you that needs to be able to separate your "institution" of marriage from the purely legal definition. Would it help if religious leaders were no longer allowed to perform marriages and all semblance of it being a religious institution were removed? If we call it "civil unions" instead of marriage, would that make a difference. I don't mean between gays only, but between all people.

I don't appreciate the fact that discussing this topic at all is publicly maligning your religious views. Basically what you are saying is that we can't even have a discussion because I don't already agree with you and therefore I have violated your holy institution. Also, using the word "propaganda" to describe the opposing viewpoint is a nice way to try to make the argument seem invalid before it is even heard. Are you saying that because a point has been made before that it is propaganda? I could say the same about your points.

Blah, blah, blah.... the conversation above reads like religious propaganda, propaganda I have heard about 1,000 times. Do I get a +5 modifier to my side now?

---

Ensis: How is allowing gay marriage like that? Real freakin simple. Lets try to take another run at it.

For us, Marriage = holy. That's all. Gay marriage is profane in the eyes of a Christian. It doesn't matter whether it's in my church, it's wrong. So I can't support it. Simple. Put another way, we don't prohibit murder because we particularly dislike the effect it has on the particles of the victim. We dislike it because murder is wrong. We codify that moral imperative to protect the innocent against the wicked.

So understand me rightly: what is being proposed here is wrong and I can't support it in good conscience.

Now lets back up and talk about Law. All law should have a moral backing. Any law with no moral backing needlessly impinges on the freedom of a society and for no moral good. That, it could be argued, is evil.

Now, it is presumed by those that us that are fair minded that supporters of gay marriage are not out of their minds. They have a different moral system that they are working from. It is therefore presumed that their desire to make gay marriage iegal contains an implicit assertion it is only Right that it be so.

We Christians disagree. You and I should be able to have a pleasant discussion about that as friends.

Instead, we have self righteous, judgemental assertion above which implies that believing that marriage is holy is stupid in light of the abuses against it. And that springs from a moral system that decries any such hypocrisy. Why should I listen to that?

Lets start over and come to the table without starting with judgement, judgement that comes from a moral perspective that is not shared by those who are being judged.

---

Some Lady: A lot of hollywood marriages are made without God involved at all and that is why there is so much trouble with many of those marriages, even though they were heterosexual. Same sex marriages are not what God designed or sanctioned; rather was against activity of that nature. Ensis is right! Same sex couples cannot produce children, obviously. If man was meant to marry man, then humanity would be no human life left at all. No judgement, just reality.

---

Poopysquirts: So even if you are not a christian or go to church as long its a man and woman its ok?

---

Some Girl: man.... you just can't post this with out everyone getting their panties twisted. i say just let em marry and use the money to stimulate economy...

---

Some Girl: true the bible states another man shall not lay with another man as he does with a woman, but it also states we should not eat pork or shellfish, women are forbidden to wear red and boys to have bowl cuts. But where are such laws enforcing those? For being religious, by picking and choosing what we want to enforce aren't we effectively undermining God?

---

Phaedra: At issue here is not whether or not Christians believe (with good reason, I might add) that gay marriage is wrong. The question is whether or not something that one group believes to be wrong but another group does not should be illegal.

For example, in Islam, it is forbidden to marry a Christian or Jew. Does that mean we should have a law against marrying Christians or Jews? Should we have that law for only Muslims?

Mormans believe that the body is sacred and certain parts of the body should not be shown (such as women's shoulders). Should we have a law against tank tops?

A Buddist considers all life to be sacred and believes that no animals should be killed by humans. Should we outlaw the killing and selling of meat because this group believes life is sacred?

Muslims consider the sale and consumption of alcohol to be wrong. Should we outlaw this based on their belief?

Most Christians consider sex outside of marriage to be wrong. It violates the sacred marriage covenant (correct me if I'm wrong). The same is true of divorce. Should we outlaw these practices?

The point is that I believe that while some practices are forbidden by a particular religion, we should not take away the rights of other people based on the belief of one group. I am sure there are things that are legal now that many Christians find to be morally repugnant. But that does not mean that we take away the rights of others to practice them.

You speak of compromise, but clearly there is no point on which you can compromise. You feel that a certain group should have this right taken away from them. Either they have it or they don't. This is one issue where there is no middle ground to compromise on. Either this group is not treated equally and is lacking certain rights or they are not. For you it is the same. Either your sacred institution is being violated or it isn't. This is why I never have this discussion, either in public or private. So that was "my bad", so to speak, for trying to correct a logical fallacy in the beginning.

I might add that you were the one that jumped into this discussion and started placing judgements like "you are accusing me of being intolerant" with no basis. From the outset it was clear that you feel that any discussion of this issue is a slap in the face to Christians.

---

Ensis: Poopysquirts,

Many people don't really understand our religion at all. It's not about obeying rules and getting enough brownie points to make it to heaven. So going to church has nothing to do with marriage. Basically, God has a huge list of rules that we're breaking all the time. All of us. So having homosexual relations isn't sending us to hell any more or less than jaywalking is. God's rules are strict. Nobody is good enough. The good news isn't that God allows you to be super-good, to try really hard and obey really hard and live a good life. It has nothing to do with anything you can do alone. It's that atonement has been made. That's the whole thing Christians are trying to explain (and some of us make it very difficult because some of us are huge jerks).

Some Girl,

Your theology needs work. Women are not forbidden to wear red. There are some food laws in the OT, but they're nixed in the NT. I'd be glad to talk to you about how ceremonial law is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. I would also love to talk to you about religion. Jesus spent much of his ministry arguing with exceedingly religious people, exceedingly hypocritical people, telling them they were headed to hell. Ultimately, they murdered him. So you might understand how his disciples would be well warned against following that kind of pattern. Indeed, it is not up to me to enforce God's law. But I don't have to be a willing party to my country's descent.

Phaedra,

The issue is indeed whether or not something should be illegal if some people disagree.

The abstract and true answer is yes. It should still be illegal.

Morally, the answer is yes. Should we stand by while sociopaths (who totally don't live by society's rules man, they're like rebels and stuff) go around murdering people because sociopaths don't agree with our morality? No. We freaking kill them. Or, if we're feeling super nice, we throw them in jail to rot until they die.

Legally, the answer is yes. We elect officials to represent us. Those guys make laws to fulfill the will of the majority. The underlying assumption is that we're never going to be able to make laws that everyone agrees with (and history has born that out).

Now, you've called out a billion examples to try to deny what is, to me, obvious (and I've outlined above why I think so). But I do want to talk about whether a law against fornication is advisable. Afterall, it's against the moral code that we adhere to. I think it is not advisable. Here's why:

1) It is not the current law of the land. Outlawing gay marriage arguably is. 2) It's insanely hard to enforce. Like, dystopia hard. Outlawing gay marriage arguably is not.

I'll shortcut the conversation. I've studied diligently for decades to prepare myself for conversations like this and in that time I have found no self contradiction in my beliefs. It's going to be difficult for you to find one in a drive-by conversation on facebook.

Lastly, regarding compromise: I think there is room for compromise. In the gay marriage debate, there are many things desired by many people and most of them we can budge on.

1) Equality of status in the mind of society. Making it legal will not cause this. This shouldn't be on the table. 2) Equal access to the kinds of things married people get (health insurance from employers, tax stuff, etc). Frankly, I think this is a matter for a lawsuit against people that are giving benefits to specific classes of people. That's clearly unfair. 3) Government has it's nose in marriage. This used to make sense: marriage was the primary way in which families were created. We like families because our nation needs new citizens. It makes sense for our society to ensure that men are living up to their end of the deal in a marraige. Today, it is not so clear cut, especially since our government has made legally dissolving a marriage so easy.

Abstraction from marriage is desirable. Should the government care who has decided to form a family? No. Frankly, sex has nothing to do with it. Our society needs to take a hard look at what it is we want to ensure and then make that happen without stepping on the toes of numerous religious people. That's the starting point.

Let me finish by admitting something. Far too many Christians have seen a culture war brewing for a long time. They've been drawing lines in the sand and preparing rhetoric and muttering darkly to themselves about where our country is headed. That's not in line with our theology. It isn't our job to save this country. Vote your conscience? Fine. Save America through heated rhetoric? Probably not going to happen.

---

Phaedra: I'm sorry this conversation is kind of hard for me to continue since I left for vacation today, but I would be interested to hear your point of view on the few other examples I gave beyond the one you addressed. Is your rational for outlawing something whether or not it is easy to enforce? Or is it simply an issue of a certain percentage of people believing it is wrong? What is that number exactly? I know you think I am somehow trying to "trip you up", but that is not my goal. I do truly wonder what you think of other similar situations beyond the one you addressed where your reasoning is basically that it is "too hard".

I take offense to your assumption that I have not given this issue any thought or study simply because we've started a random conversation on Facebook. No, you did not say that but that is what you imply.

---

Phaedra: You probably disagree, but to me it seems that the prevalence of fornication, sex outside of marriage, cheating on one's partner, etc... would be a far greater threat to society. I'm not tying to use this as some sort of argument for allowing gay marriage, I'm just pointing out that it seems more destructive to families and society as a whole. And it seems to violate the institution of marriage in much the same way.

---

Phaedra: On an unrelated note, 5 != 1,000,000,000

---

Poopysquirts: Some Girl, my panties arent twisting, Ensis I grew up in a christian household. I am in a neutral standpoint. I really don't care if gays can get married or not I just have questions sometimes about peoples arguments on this subject.

---

Phaedra: I'm not clear on how your 3rd suggestion is any different than my question a few posts back about removing the institution of marriage from government entirely? This is something I would be completely in favor of as long as any two consenting adults were allowed to participate. And yes, I do extend that to situations that are currently illegal since it seems the only logical thing to do. In fact, it would be much preferable to our current system which is a weird, church/state hybrid... thing. Honestly it seems to change it mostly in name only so I'm not sure why you would agree to that.

---

insignis: Ensis, I'm curious how you'd propose to abstract from marriage and keep both parties happy. What are some examples of the compromises you see plenty of, that we can budge on?

---

Unordained: RE: Some Guy; Killing is a bad example of a line in the sand, because it can be consentual, in which case it's not rightfully murder. Assisted suicide, whether for a cancer patient for whom death is better than further treatment, or for a wounded soldier for whom suicide is better than being captured alive by the Taliban, should be respected as much as the potential 'victim' would want to be, trying to save what's left of their dignity. Of course there are limits, moreso when the potential 'victim' won't be around to testify; but just as the underage and the insane aren't allow to sign contracts to buy, sell, or marry, they wouldn't be allowed to for death or gay-marriage, either. The essence of who is allowed to partake in a transaction isn't the nature of the transaction, it's the parties' respective abilities to consent.

---

Unordained: RE: Ensis (1); We have a pluralistic secular government, with a wall of separation between church and state. The only break in that wall is the vote. What we're talking about here is marriage from the viewpoint of the government, which cannot, as a result of that separation, be about what is holy or sacred or spiritual or more-than-contract. That's like asking a physicist to include magic in his formulas. It's just not the right place for it. Sadly for our discussion, when we made marriage a government issue, we didn't invent a new noun for it. We didn't tell people there were "religious marriages" and "government marriages" with a clear split. We should have, because when it comes to implementation, they're wholly separate. Now it's too late. When we talk about allowing gay marriage, we're only talking about allowing gay civil unions, where civil unions are taken to be the same as government marriages. But renaming them is a problem: a while back, our Congress tried to hunt down all the language affected, and they weren't even sure then nearly 1000 benefits they counted (by searching the text for "spouse", "husband", "wife", "marriage", "married") were all that were out there. If we rename them all to "civil union", just so you can continue to use the word "marriage" in the religious sense, we have a lot of paperwork to fix. On the other hand, if you just stop conflating the two issues, we can save a few pennies.

---

Unordained: RE: Ensis (2); If you're going to argue that bad behavior doesn't justify bad behavior, or that two wrongs don't make a right, please don't also complain about supposedly-intolerant people pointing out your own intolerance.

---

Unordained: RE: Ensis (3); Law is based on the will of the people, whether moral or not. But rather than follow that up by saying that a law not based on the will of the people impinges on the freedom of society, I will instead assert that any law not based on protecting citizens or the commons (think: EPA) from the malice, greed, ignorance, or recklessness of others, needlessly impinges on the freedom of society. And yes, I fully intend that to allow for properly labeled drugs, prostitution, gay marriage, gambling, etc. And no, I don't agree with protecting citizens "from themselves" as you might argue is the case with gay-marriage; gay couples are no less consenting or aware than straight ones, and need as much protection as you and I do, and no more, from predators such as gold-diggers or suitors with ulterior motives. Because in the end, we can only form a cooperative society if we each grant each other the maximum freedoms that don't result in real, tangible harm. The harm caused to you by being offended by someone else's behavior isn't even in the same ballpark as the harm caused to gay partners who won't ever have visitation rights in prison, the automated ability to make medical decisions for each other, tax breaks that make sense in the context of a household, property ownership laws that only apply to married couples, survivorship benefits from social security or the military -- or while on the subject of the military, the possibility of their partners living on-base with them, like anyone else's partner would -- and any of the other 1000 or so benefits Congress is pretty sure only apply if truly married, and cannot be gained by any contract, no matter how you word it.

---

Unordained: RE: Ensis (4); Sure, let's compromise. Governments get civil unions, you get marriages, marriages are whatever holy thing you think they are, and governments keep treating civil unions as contracts for lack of any other possibility, and we open them up to anyone who can consent. It took us a while to open that up to mixed-race couples (which, by the way, has a lot to do with the government being involved in marriage licenses) and it may take a while yet for gay couples. You're uncomfortable. So are old white men in the south who are probably still mad about blacks being able to vote (if they're not still angry about women being able to vote, that is.) If conservatism is defined as moving forward very carefully, I understand. If it's merely an excuse to delay so old folks can get over it, then no, I'm sorry, we can't wait. There was a reason Jefferson believed laws should expire quickly (29 years?) -- the previous generation can't keep holding us back.

---

Unordained: RE: Some Lady; Heterosexual marriages already have a nearly 50% failure (divorce) rate, and that's been the case without the help of gays. We can hardly consider that a shining example of Christians keeping marriage vows "holy". The no-fault divorce has allowed heterosexuals to come and go as they please for decades, I think it's only fair that they allow gays to do the same. I won't claim that gays will have any better luck at picking and keeping their partners, but there is something to be said for cherishing hard-fought rights as opposed to those handed to you by tradition and culture. Maybe there will be a short honeymoon of longer-lasting gay marriages. (The 50% statistic is debatable not because the number is high, but because you're always comparing different years to each other, and nobody's quite sure what the most appropriate mathematical model is. But it's high, very high.)

---

Unordained: RE: Some Lady; The Catholic church has, in the past, held that only those seeking to procreate should marry; the old or infertile were in fact encouraged to cohabitate without being married. The Church hasn't, to my knowledge, held to that recently. But marriage isn't just about procreating. What of the heterosexual couple that wants to marry, then adopt? Should they not be allowed to do so? What, then, of the gay couple who wants to do the same? (If you object to gays adopting, please reconsider: if single mothers and single fathers can be good parents, and considering how many heterosexual parents are terrible, is it really so much worse to have two fathers, rather than only one, or none at all? The pro-life crowd should be happy to welcome eager adoptive parents, gay or otherwise, as long as they're reasonable, good people.) And there are a great deal of benefits of marriage that have nothing to do with children, and everything to do with life-partners and the rights and responsibilities they want to give to -- and exact from -- each other.

---

Unordained: RE: Ensis (5); Your "law of the land argument" boils down to "it should be the law, because it already is", which is absolute rubbish. Furthermore, your call for compromise, while it sounds nice, is really just the most appropriate tactic when your side already has what it wants. You can argue endlessly, thus preserving the status quo, if you can get your opponents to agree that pleasing you is a valid goal, and believe that you're negotiating with them in good faith. You get extra points if you avoid offering any alternatives of your own, forever asking your opponents to come up with some that are good enough to discuss. I believe the Republicans found the right counter-move: instead you attempt to smash everything indiscriminately (repeal obamacare!) then setup committees to decide how to rebuild it from scratch. In this case, that would mean repealing all laws concerning marriage, even for heterosexuals, and then forcing everyone to have the discussion again, from scratch. How does that sound to you?

---

Unordained: RE: Ensis (6); If your job is not to save the country, then please, stop trying. You are not your brother's keeper. You're just his neighbor.

---

Unordained: RE: Ensis (7); If you want something like localized Sharia law, I'm all for it. The Turks had a "Millet" system that allowed people of different faiths to operate under a unified system of law for anything that really mattered, but under their own faith-based laws for family matters. The UK allows something similar, where there's marriage in the eyes of the government, and beyond that, the partners sign up to have their vows monitored and arbitrated by an Imam. This would allow Christians to hand power over to their churches to keep them on the straight and narrow, chastising and punishing them as they think appropriate. Maybe you could even have private court systems that still think women should be fully subservient to their husbands, must keep their hair long, etc. under some penalty (within the limits of the law of the land, but as long as the parties legally consented, I don't see why that wouldn't include the likes of corporal punishment. Hey, some people are into that, and that's their own business as far as I'm concerned.)

---

Unordained: RE: Ensis (8); It's easy to have a self-consistent view. For example: "I'm always right." And in debate, you can always refuse to bow to the opposition, regardless of the evidence or the argument. It's no feat worthy of praise to go into a debate steadfast against changing your beliefs.