(V): Its true.... again the gay marriage debate... The courts made their rulings on it, and then the legislation is made, then the people vote it all down! But if we had not voted it down, then the courts would have definite influence on the law.

Artful Dodger:

>  Examples

The NSA and CIA have declassified many of their documents.  George Washington University has been sifting through the over 1 million declassified documents and slowly releasing salient examples of CIA and military involvement around the world.  In many of these we see gross examples of human rights violations, assasinations, torture, disappearenaces, etc.  You can find the documents here.  If you click on "documents" or do a search then you can find many examples of different kinds.  Many of the documents are "excised" meaning that many parts are blacked out because the American government wanted to protect individuals mentioned in the files (so much for accountability).

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/

Some specific examples.

Guatemalan intelligence officers (in the CIA payroll) organized themselves to kidnap, torture, and interrogate suspected communists.  The document also describes the assasination of two individuals:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB32/06-01.htm

The Guatemalan military would abduct, torture and kill civilians (among them communists, disidents, anyone opposing the regime).  This is from an NSA document produced in 1994.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB32/42-01.htm

The following is a document (in Spanish unfortunately) compiled by a death squad.  It lists people "processed" (meaning disappeared) by the squad, as well as lists of communists, communist sympathizers, and anyone suspected of opposing capitalism.  An interesting portion is page 15, which lists newspapers and the journalists that lead them.  Pages 16 to 19 list homes that were targetted and the people captured in each home.  From pages 20 to 74 there are photographs and information of people captured, tortured interrogated and/or killed by the death squad.  The death squad reported to the CIA, and it is why the document exists.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB15/dossier-color.pdf

Here is an entire section from Mexico on the killing and disappearance of both civilians and suspected militants.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB180/

I can keep looking for files all day long, but I will post a last one.  This one signed by John Negroponte, a former ambassador to Honduras, the UN and Iraq, as well as  Deputy Secretary of State, and Director of National Intelligence.  He discusses in how to best support the Honduran military.  In case anyone doubts direct involvement by the American government, it doesn't get clearer than this.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB151/part2/00000001.pdf

In fairness, it must be understood that it was not only the US that was involved, but many other countires.  The extermination of communism involved the participation of most western powers, and the governments they controlled politically and economically.  Very often we see the CIA helping governments to stop communism, and then the CIA would find itself unable to manage the situation and the rising levels of killing and violence.  By the time they were thorugh, Guatemala had 300,000 dead and 90,00 disappeared.  El Salvador had about 400,00 dead.  Honduras had about 300,000 dead.  Nicaragua, 300,000.  Etc. etc.  It went on all over Latin America.  Capitalism exterminated its millions of its dissidents, along with civilians, insurgents, moderates, radicals, etc.

Artful Dodger: A legal precedent can lead to complete law changes or ways things are done in the judicial system. It may not be intentional law making, but can lead to it.

Artful Dodger: Courts can make legal precedent. I'm reasonably positive this is not the only way courts can influence law.

Artful Dodger: .. A stone makes ripples in a pond, they say through six people we know everyone.

In other words.. how sure that where there appears to be no shared interest there is no shared interest or an indirect effect.

Artful Dodger:

>  the US promotes self-rule and opposes oppressive governments (when it is able)

Nothing could be further away from the historical truth.  During the 19th century the United States was generally busy building its territory and expanding militarily.  After the Spanish-American War the United States turned its attention to Latin America and it set out to impose its political and economic system on Latinamerican nations.  For most of the 20th century, both before and during the Cold War, the American government supported oppresive fascist dictatorships in Latin America in order to gain an economic advantage.  After WW II the CIA pursued a very aggressive fascist agenda in Latin America, Asia and Africa.

The United States as a promoter of democracy is a myth born out of the Regan administration.  Ronald Regan had to contend with the ever inquisitive eye of the media and its effect on the American public.  Before CNN was created the American government would literally get away with murder (for example, the murder of Salvador Allende in Chile).  As the American public became exposed to an ever increasing and faster flow of news, it became more and more difficult to carry out covert operations in Latin America.  So the Regan Administration set out to create the myth that American foreign policy was promoting democracy around the world while at the same time they were giving money and weapons to some of the most brutal dictatorships in the western hemisphere.  Americans have willfully ignored the role that the CIA played in dictatorships in Latin American over the 20th century because it is more comfortable to believe that capitalists are the good guys rather than promoters of fascism.

>  And I do think it's bad policy for any country to impose its own ideals on others unless they ask for the help.
>  At least when the US does it, there is freedom in view.

The ultimate result of American foreign policy during the Cold War was to impose the American political and economic system.  Today many Latin American countries are opting for left-wing governments that are not in line with American political and economic interests.  Several Latin American countries have chosen democratically elected governments with very strong leanings to the left.  The American brand of right wing governments was imposed, as the popular will in Latin America has showed.  Now the CIA does not know what to do, and a return to fascism seems as the only solution left to them, as the recent coup d'etat in Honduras has shown.

>  Take East Berlin for an example ...   If a country were to impose its ideals on another, one is certainly
>  preferred over the other.

Both communists and Capitalits sent millions to their deaths in order to keep their systems alive.  Capitalism also murdered its disidents, by the millions.  Capitalists can raise the finger and point to Communists, but that is merely the hypocrysy of the system we live under.

>  That said, I say leave other countries alone unless they ask for help. 
>  And to that I'd include any $$ help as well.  I'd give the world exactly what they want. 
>  Stay out of their business except where it concerns our shared interests.

I think that western governments keep being self-righteous and trying to tell others how to govern, how to run the economy, what to consume, what weapons to build, etc.  Our governments do it because it is profitable to do so.  Staying out of other countries would be excellent policy, even if the capitalist economy were to shrink by 80%.

Artful Dodger:

>  In a Democracy, if you have a majority of "stupid people" then they can rule the minority.
>  In a Republic, all voices can be heard.  Even a minority can pass rulings over the objections
>  of the majority.  It's the reason a Republican form of government is better than a Democratic form.
>  They differ in that one aspect.

Not all democracies are republics, and not all republics are democracies.

The UK is a democracy, but not a republic.  The Soviet Union was made of republics, but they were not democracies.  I think that you are referring to James Madison's definition of a republic as a representative democracy, in contrast to a direct democracy.

Well, we can edify ourselves if we have some patience to read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

One thing I will say, make sure you don't confuse republicanism with the Republican Party, and democracy with the Democratic Party.  The names of those parties have little to do with the actual definition of republic or democracy.

Artful Dodger: So can we over here. Our laws allow a civilian to put forward proposals and law changes through their MP or a campaign, etc.

"t least when the US does it, there is freedom in view. Take East Berlin for an example."

The cold war caused oppressive dictatorial governments to be set up/supported by both the free west and the communist east. Who's freedom? If a country is used in order to maintain one's borders it's not free. People flocked to the UK after WWII and still do, even though other Euro states will take them, the UK is the preferred destination.

"Stay out of their business except where it concerns our shared interests."

ChAoS theory applies to such a view.

Ferris Bueller: Throwback to slavery unfortunately, still the idea that white is God.. or as in today's world.. hetro and American.

(V):   "The masses" could do some stupid & dangerous things long before we had this infiltration of the right-wing radicals poisoning the airwaves.  The masses in the Southern US voted consistently for segregation of blacks & whites in the 40s, 50s, & 60s.  They also voted against interacial marraige by huge majorities.  It took "activist" courts to purge the nation of such overt discrimination.  Fast forward to today & the "activist" courts may have to provide similar protection for Gays.  Its called a system of checks & balances.

Übergeek 바둑이: the masses ain't stupid, nowadays there is no such thing as a totally contolled media, even in 'restricted' populations. Misled at times.. yes. Fear is a powerful tool and can result in a 'don't care' situation where governments can do things that are 'invisible' ..

That time is ending.. the internet saw to that, as does the old word of mouth. Communities talk, just wish the media moguls would stop perverting events.

Artful Dodger: If you are not a democracy, and you find as such "impossible to sustain"...

.. why does your governments go putting it on others. And as such, a republice is just a variation on democracy surely. A representative democracy instead of a direct one or a deliberative democracy.

And these days.. is there such a thing as a pure democracy?

Übergeek 바둑이: now you are a man that KNOWS what he is talking about instead of the usual CCP...thank god, it is so refreshing

Artful Dodger: Yes, unfortunately, I don't think a lot of people actually research who they are voting for. Many people go with a name just because they've heard of it. (All those people waving signs at intersections right around election days). Or they know their friend/mom/uncle/boss is voting for someone, so they go the same way.

Or with incumbents, people won't actually find out what their voting record is, and ask themselves if that is the way they want the person representing them to vote.

Or people get "stuck" in their party. I imagine there are a lot of moderate republicans, or moderate democrats who might actually find there is someone in the "opposite" party who would actually be a good match. (I'm not a big fan of the 2 party system)

In other words, there just aren't enough responsible voters.

Plus, let's face it, the majority isn't always "correct".. They just have the numbers.

(V):

I was trying to get to the fact that those who right now are telling us that the majority is stupid will be the first to complain about "big" government and the government "telling us what to do".

I grew up in Guatemala under a real distatorship.  The kind that sent tanks into the streets, made people disappear and massacred 300,000 people just to keep the capitalist elite in power.  Anybody who thinks that the majority is stupid is just arrogant.  Just because the majority of the people hold a view opposite to mine it does not mean that they are stupid.  It is like saying "I am smart and the rest of the world is stupid".  It is just arrogance.

The masses might not be well informed.  They might hold backward views.  They might be easily manipulated by demagogues and the media they control.  They might choose undesirable people to lead them.  However, if the masses are stupid, then why promote democracy or freedom?  Why send 1.5 million Iraqis to their deaths?  1.4 million Afghans?  6 million Vietnamese? 3 million North Koreans?  If the masses are stupid, then it is impossible to justify those wars fought to "protect freedom and democracy".

Übergeek 바둑이: Someone said, democracy is not perfect, but it's the best system so far.

The majority are use to being played, in certain respects they play on our hard wiring.. Thinking is discouraged in certain areas. Politicians play the game and so do the media.. and of course... the adverts selling stuff.

... a tv show did a test re in-store advertising on 'special offers'. To cut a long story short.. make sure they are real 'special offers', as most of those put to the test didn't and spent more then just going for regular stock.

Pedro Martínez: Yes it is.. but there is also the consideration on how much money does one need? A couple over here won £45 million in the Euro lottery. That's £2 million a year in interest. Footballers wanting £100K a week in wages. One got slammed for moving club over being paid only £55K a week.

I don't think those who've got 100's of millions+ would miss a 0.1% contribution to a local scheme, whether local council or to local charities.

Artful Dodger:

In other words, since the masses are stupid, it is better to let the oligarchic elite make all the decisions while the masses are merely convinced that they have political power when in reality they don't.

I imagine then that Obama passing legislation for health care reform through Congress can be justified.  The majority of the American public opposed the legislation, but then the majority is rather stupid so Obama is justified in forcing through unpopular legislation.  Then the complaints we hear from the public are nothing more than a reflection of their ignorance and stupidity.

If this is the case, imposing an unpopular policy over the population is acceptable when the masses are ignorant and fail to understand the policy.  Subverting democracy is justified for the greater good.

Pedro Martínez:

>  it proves to me again that the majority of people are complete idiots

If that is the case, can democracy be justified?  If the majority are idiots, isn't dictatorship better then?

Czuch:
KMFDM
Keine Mitgleid für die Mehrheit
No pity for the majority

Pedro Martínez:

OMG!!!! I was totally ready to give a quick post about how stupid the majority of the people are, and then I read your and ADs posts.... LMFAO!!!!

(V): And there is very strong support around the world for governments to distribute wealth more evenly. That is backed by majorities in 22 of the 27 countries.

This sounds scary. And it proves to me again that the majority of people are complete idiots.

Ahhhh on a survey of 27 countries around the world by the BBC only 11% were happy with the way capitalism is at the mo. the majority by far feel we need more regulation and reform.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/8347409.stm

Ferris Bueller: Well.. it is the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall. And this week our government face quite a kick up the butt over the principle that independent advisers do have the right to have a view. They are facing a possibility of a major walk out by various expert independent groups.

Ferris Bueller: You keep saying that we are interfering with personal lives, but the issue is, if it is such a personal thing, then why make a big stink about not being included in such a public thing as marriage?????

Übergeek 바둑이: The OT has many laws that have been interpreted as laws on homosexuality. Many law interpretations based on the idea that God is purely male.. though it is clear when you read Jewish concepts that God is only male in regards to our relation with God, ie God the Father.

Certain texts are against rape of men by men as happened in Sodom, certain texts are to keep reminding the early Jews against being like the Canaanites. The laws on homosexuality some deem are purely on rape and temple based prostitution, and in some respects based on that man's seed was how babies came into being as at that time the female egg was not known.

How much comes from other religions is vague. It is to remembered that Moses learnt much from the Egyptians (see Corpus Hermeticum) .

As to NT texts, again interpretation is a problem. I would again say (based on OT) that the condemnations were on hetro people abusing same sex ie rape.

As to being modern interpretations... I cannot agree, so much we've lost from the early days through the killings and burnings during the formation of the Roman church.

(V):
> Not true. Some do, some don't. there has been quite a debate within the
Anglican church over being gay and the roles as such within the church.

> Judaism does not condemn gay orientation, and depending on the
persons views does not condemn homosexual acts. Lesbian acts are not
condemned by the Torah at all.

All I will say is that acceptance of homosexuals by the church (or religious organizations, to be more general) is a very new concept.  If we go back 25 years most churches rejected homosexuals and it would have been inconceivable for a homosexual to become a member of the clergy.  The same was true of women in many religions.  Equal rights for women and homosexuals is a relatively new concept.

The Old Testament (what we call the Pentateuch, or more correctly, the Torah) has examples of condemnation of homosexuality.  The most clear example is in Leviticus (called Vayikra in Hebrew).  It is from these 5 books of the Bible that the Judeo-Christian taboo of male homosexuality arose.  The Old Testament makes little mention of female homosexuality, but in the New Testament the Book of Romans condemns lesbianism.

The Judeo-Christian religions are changing.  Modern interpretations do not take a literal view of the Bible any more, and the rights of women and homosexuals are being recognized, not by all churches, but at least by the more progressive ones.

Artful Dodger:

>  When is the cutoff?  You date a girl named Jane for a week and then move in with her.  You live together for a month ... etc.  

Depending on where you live, the law defines common law marriages, domestic relationships, etc.  In many places the law is clear.  For example, in Canada the definition is clear:

a) the couple have been living in a conjugal relationship for at least 12 continuous months;

b) the couple are parents of a child by birth or adoption; or

c) one of the couple has custody and control of the child (or had custody and control immediately before the child turned 19 years of age) and the child is wholly dependent on that person for support.

Some provinces also include a further definition such as both partners owning together property or financial assets.

In the United States 11 states and the District of Columbia recognize common law marriages.  26 states recognized common law marriages in the past but no longer recognize them.  13 states never recognized common law marriages.  The definition varies from state to state, and often under different conditions for different states.

So it is more than a matter of just "shacking up together".  Legally speaking a couple can find themselves receiving all benefits of married couples in one state while in other states they would not.  Earlier I said that in some cases common law couple can find themselves discriminated by the law.  By this I mean that not all couples are treated equally.

Czuch:
> Gay couples cannot have 5 children to add to the tax revenues for the
state.... single parent families are
> traditionally not as stable, and
therefore less likely to produce productive tax paying members of
society...
> The state isnt discriminating against gay families
etc, as much as they are simply giving extra reward and incentives
> for
what they think will benefit the state more!

This argument is weak.  In North America and Europe approximately 25% of all couple experience problems conceiving children, and as many as 10% of all couples will not have children in spite of all the reproductive technologies available today.  A combination of environmental and social factors has left many couples childless.  Should their "marriages" be called "civil unions" because they cannot conceive a child and should they lose all rights that married couples have?

As for single parent families, that is an entirely different problem.  Marriages fail, and some individuals never assume responsibility for their children.  My mother was a single mother (my father died when I was 6).  All three of her children went to university.  I am a scientist, my brother is a business executive and my sister is a professional artist.  Are we less productive tax payers?  Some single parent families have serious problems, and other succeed.  This argument was weak also.

The bottom line is:  heterosexuals don't want the concept of "marriage" to be "tarnished" by allowing homosexuals to be able to use the term "marriage" when referring to their committed relationships.  The govenment does not want to allow it for two reasons: to make those I just mentioned happy, and to avoid the extra expense of giving homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals.  As always, it boils down to money and politics.

Artful Dodger: One that i know of is that we own a couple of property together, but the tax breaks we can get from the taxes and insurance on the mortgages is not the same for us now as if we were married???

Czuch: I know... old laws that are so messed up and ignorant of today's real world. In some respects our laws are still very Victorian in nature.

Marriage in general does not mean what it use to, especially when considering today's divorce rates.

(V): Well, I can marry a woman who is not even a legal resident, even if I never met her before, and tomorrow she is legal and we have all the rights and benefits of marriage, and we can get divorced anytime we want to as well....

Artful Dodger: Well, you dont have to be married to get a tax deduction for kids under 18.... What exactly is the reason the state gives rights and breaks to marrieds anyway?

Übergeek 바둑이: Not true. Some do, some don't. there has been quite a debate within the Anglican church over being gay and the roles as such within the church.

Judaism does not condemn gay orientation, and depending on the persons views does not condemn homosexual acts. Lesbian acts are not condemned by the Torah at all.

As for "heterosexual marriage is diminished or reduced in meaning."... a documentary blamed much on the pill and that this contraceptive method made 'men' less secure.

Czuch: Equal rights is all most minorities ask for. Ok... you get fringe groups asking to be special, but as a rule. Ignore them. The high majority just want to be treated the same.

And I agree.. common law man and wife ought to have the same rights as married couples. But a certain minimal length of being together has to be in place to stop tax and other fraud.

Artful Dodger: I think ubergeek said it already, but there is a portion of the gay marriage movement that is less interested in rights as they are in just making homosexuality more legitimate, and they are interested in all the semantics as well as changing the definition of marriage and the trimmings that would go with that.

Artful Dodger: Yes we have a will and other legal means to make up for a lot of things... there are a few sticky issues still, like inheritance tax and gifting money come to mind.... but except for the time and expense in drawing up legal documents, we can basically get most what we want done, as can gay unmarried couples!

Artful Dodger: Really... what are you doing for the state, as a married person, that I am not doing as an unmarried person? You pay them a fee for a license, thats one. What else? Its not like it is against the law for you to get a divorce. What does the state get in exchange for your marriage vows? Have you promised to raise x amount of children? Tell me the advantage the state gets in exchange for your tax breaks and other benefits?

Artful Dodger: Easy dude... read what I have written.... the only thing I ever said is that I have a right to fight for more rights... I also said that it was not discrimination to deny me those rights, and i also said that things are not always equal, nor do they need to be, and that a state has the right (with permission from its voters) to do whatever they believe is in their best interest!


I also never wanted anything just by living with someone, there has to be some form of intent and contract involved.


Question... do you believe that I should not be able to legally set up assurances that my girlfriend will inherit and any other rights I want to infer (or whatever the word should be) upon her?

Übergeek 바둑이: Forget marriage...lets fight for equal rights!


I am with you..... but I cannot sit here and say, that as an unmarried couple, we are discriminated against by the state

Another example.... the state gives out tax credits etc. if I do energy efficient upgrades to my home. Is it discrimination because someone who doesnt meet these criteria dont get the same tax benefits????

Übergeek 바둑이: As it is, the law discriminates against homosexuals, and in some states against unmarried couples living together.

But, isnt there some merit to the argument that the states have a right to promote certain lifestyles that they believe will benefit them? If I have a good job and a healthy life style and have 5 children who grow up with a good education and these children end up productive, tax paying members in my state, then that is a good thing, as far as my state is concerned.

States already give tax incentives and other benefits to certain businesses that they want to attract to do business in that state. The state does not have to give the same incentives to a business they do not want. I might want a wind farm company in my state, but not a tobacco company, so I give incentives to the wind company to come here.

Well, they have the same right to promote families the way they want to as well. They give certain incentives for families that meet the criteria they want to promote, and those that dont meet that criteria, they dont give those incentives.

Gay couples cannot have 5 children to add to the tax revenues for the state.... single parent families are traditionally not as stable, and therefore less likely to produce productive tax paying members of society...

The state isnt discriminating against gay families etc, as much as they are simply giving extra reward and incentives for what they think will benefit the state more!

So to the state, gay families are akin to a tobacco company, and traditional families are like the wind farm

Czuch:
>  Forget marriage...lets fight for equal rights!
 and


Artful Dodger:

>  You already do have equal rights tho.

First, if marriage is just a label, then it should not matter what the union is called: marriage, civil union, common-law marriage, shacking up together, etc.  The problem is not just using marriage as a word, but rather how the law is structured.

Unfortunately, in most countries there are many laws that relate specifically to marriage (in the US there are 1138 statutes).  In some countries marriages require registration and documentation, while other countries accept "common law" marriages which are defined as people cohabiting in the same residence or owning property together.

In the United States not all states recognize common-law (or similar) marriages.  For that reason not all states give equal rights to unmarried couples living together.

Of course, as we all know, there is opposition to allowing a change in the legal definition of marriage to allow homosexuals to marry.  The opposition comes from a confusion between the legal definition of marriage and how individuals define marriage outside of the legal context.

Since people cannot separate their own concept of marriage from the definition in the law, they insist in keeping the legal definition as a union between a man and a woman.  The perception is that if homosexuals are allowed to marry, then somehow heterosexual marriage is diminished or reduced in meaning.

There was a time when it was impossible for people to marry outside of the church.  If people were not married by some member of the clergy, then their marriages were not legal.  Civil marriages (those outside the church) took a long time to be recognized and became acceptable as the separation of the church and the state became the norm in many countries around the world.  As it is, the law discriminates against homosexuals, and in some states against unmarried couples living together. Those remnants of prejudice and iscrimination will take a long time to overcome because as individuals we impose our own morality on the law, and western Judeo-Christian morality still sees homosexuality as an abnormal, unnatural taboo.  The process of accepting homosexual marriage will be as long as accepting marriage outside the church.

Tuesday: I understand that gays are hard wired that way, and that they wonder how someone could be attracted to the opposite sex in the same way we (heterosexuals) do not understand how anyone could be attracted to the same sex.....


But now talk about someone being hard wired to be attracted to children, everyone thinks that is abnormal and against what nature intended, (except for ubergeek, who seems to only have an issue with the consent issue) That is a clear example where nature has messed up, and it is not a hard leap to feel the same about being hard wired attracted to the same sex either

Czuch: I just got your facetious vs factitious reference. I thought it was a typo.
Brilliant!

Czuch: LOL
I've heard tht gays say being with the opposite sex is as abnormal for them as a hetero being with the same sex.......I think it has to do with environment and maybe levels of hormones? not sure. I barely like women enough to be friends with them. Can't imagine anything else with them.......

Tuesday: I dont know for sure, except that for me it seems more like I am hard wired to be attracted to women, not men, and I know gay people say the same about themselves.

I also know that nature has evolved us to be attracted to the opposite sex so we will propagate our species.... I dont know, maybe being gay is just another step forward in our evolution, and we are to evolve into a being that doesnt require sex to propagate our species, in which case, all of us still hard wired to be heterosexuals are someday going to be the abnormal ones.... EW! making babies by having intercourse with the opposite sex, how disgusting!

Czuch: I may need to do some back reading of this board but do you think sexual orientation is a choice or birth?

Tuesday: BTW we are above the other species right?

I thought you might be being factitious...

Because of the advancement in our brains, yes we are above other species.... and that does make us unique in nature, and in that regard it is somewhat like comparing apples to oranges when you try to talk about humans and other parts of nature.