Gyroscopic Investing

MachineGhost wrote:

Desert wrote: Maybe I'm missing something.  Or maybe I'm just numb to the whole gay thing.  We're surrounded by sin of all kinds; I don't know why I need to worry excessively about one brand of sin, particularly one I'm not personally tempted by.  (sorry to bring religion into yet another thread)

You're not missing anything.  The whole hullabaloo is just a dog and pony political show so that their same sex true loves can get hospital, SS, veterans, etc. benefits.  It's more economically practical than The End Is Near.  Wake me up when this movie is over.

I suspect part of being a religious believer nowadays is you're going to have to learn to deal with increasing secularism and risk becoming ostracized if you act out about it.  Might or faith may not make right, but reason certainly does.

Christians have been persecuted by secularists, pagans, and other religions for 2000 years.  What's the big deal?  Just because we had a pretty good ride for a couple of hundred years in the USA, why should we expect anything different? - it is Scriptural to be persecuted and suffer for following Christ.  Man is born to naturally hate, reject, and dismiss God/Jesus/Holy Spirit.  It is only because our founding fathers had extensively studdied and bought into Martin Luther's "two kingdoms" idea and adopted it into separation of church and state that we muddled through in relative peace.  It's back to the old times again.  No biggie, no need to fear, the battle's been won for those who believe the promises - it's all good!

... Mountaineer

MachineGhost wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: Back to the original topic, or at least something related to it, who wants to make a gentleman's bet as to when plural marriage is legalized? All of the arguments against it are the same arguments made (and lost) against same-sex marriage.

I think it'll happen at about the same time marriage to artificial self-autonomous entities (i.e. robots) is legalized.  Give or take 25 years.

I like the idea of legally renaming marriages as civil unions so the religious types can have their fantasy unspoiled.

I'll take the under on that.

Desert wrote:

l82start wrote:

MachineGhost wrote:

I think it'll happen at about the same time marriage to artificial self-autonomous entities (i.e. robots) is legalized.  Give or take 25 years.

I like the idea of legally renaming marriages as civil unions so the religious types can have their fantasy unspoiled.

ditto... get government out of marriage altogether,  a contract is a contract is a contract... call it a civil union for everyone if you like, and let marriage be whatever the hell people define it as in their own minds.... no government definition or approval  required..

Yes!

+1

l82start wrote:

MachineGhost wrote:

I think it'll happen at about the same time marriage to artificial self-autonomous entities (i.e. robots) is legalized.  Give or take 25 years.

I like the idea of legally renaming marriages as civil unions so the religious types can have their fantasy unspoiled.

ditto... get government out of marriage altogether,  a contract is a contract is a contract... call it a civil union for everyone if you like, and let marriage be whatever the hell people define it as in their own minds.... no government definition or approval  required..

That might be a way that anti-same-sex-marriage could structure things in order to comply with this ruling.

Xan wrote:

l82start wrote:

MachineGhost wrote:

I think it'll happen at about the same time marriage to artificial self-autonomous entities (i.e. robots) is legalized.  Give or take 25 years.

I like the idea of legally renaming marriages as civil unions so the religious types can have their fantasy unspoiled.

ditto... get government out of marriage altogether,  a contract is a contract is a contract... call it a civil union for everyone if you like, and let marriage be whatever the hell people define it as in their own minds.... no government definition or approval  required..

That might be a way that anti-same-sex-marriage could structure things in order to comply with this ruling.

Yes, that has already been proposed by some conservatives (and libertarians) as a solution to this issue.

(By the way, I put up a poll with a name that is the same as the thread I put up about Roberts' comments on polygamy, which may be why no one has voted in it yet...)

Libertarian666 wrote:

rickb wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: Back to the original topic, or at least something related to it, who wants to make a gentleman's bet as to when plural marriage is legalized? All of the arguments against it are the same arguments made (and lost) against same-sex marriage.

Other than the silly one of "the tax laws don't allow for more than two spouses in one marriage", which would be obviated by the simple rule that you have to specify who you want to be your "tax spouse"...

Seems like you've perhaps missed the whole point here, which is that "marriage" brings a tremendous number of legal benefits to the spouses - starting with medical consent and survivor Social Security.  There are literally hundreds (if not thousands) of laws that create benefits that exist solely between spouses.  What SCOTUS has ruled is that denying these benefits to same sex couples is unconstitutional.  This has nothing whatsoever to do with polygamy or polyandry (or, since my guess is you'll bring these up next, bestiality or pedophilia).  SCOTUS has not, and cannot, rule that your church must condone or recognize same sex marriages, but rather that every state must afford the same legal benefits to same sex couples (i.e  "marriage") that they afford opposite sex couples.  In this context "marriage" is a legal term, which basically has nothing to do with whatever your church calls "marriage".  It is definitely confusing that the same term ("marriage") is used for both a religious union and a legal (civil) union - but what we're talking about here is the legal one, not the religious one.

The arguments against plural marriage are the same as those against same-sex marriage.
Neither of them has anything to do with bestiality or pedophilia, which lack the crucial element of consent. Of course, many "conservatives" (like Rick Santorum) seem to equate same-sex marriage (and plural marriage) with bestiality. Do you really want to be on the same side as him in this argument?

Actually, you're (intentionally?) confusing things here.  The arguments FOR plural marriage have nothing to do with the arguments FOR same-sex marriage.  Neither of them (pro or against) has anything to do with bestiality or pedophilia (so we agree on something), and many "conservatives" seem to equate same-sex marriage (and plural marriage) with bestiality.  I assumed you were of the "conservative" persuasion (given your posts here) which is why I preemptively brought this up.  How you can torture this into an assertion (phrased as a question) that I agree with Rick Santorum (about anything) seems like the kind of personal attack that gets people banned around here if they're expressing liberal opinions.

rickb wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote:

rickb wrote: Seems like you've perhaps missed the whole point here, which is that "marriage" brings a tremendous number of legal benefits to the spouses - starting with medical consent and survivor Social Security.  There are literally hundreds (if not thousands) of laws that create benefits that exist solely between spouses.  What SCOTUS has ruled is that denying these benefits to same sex couples is unconstitutional.  This has nothing whatsoever to do with polygamy or polyandry (or, since my guess is you'll bring these up next, bestiality or pedophilia).  SCOTUS has not, and cannot, rule that your church must condone or recognize same sex marriages, but rather that every state must afford the same legal benefits to same sex couples (i.e  "marriage") that they afford opposite sex couples.  In this context "marriage" is a legal term, which basically has nothing to do with whatever your church calls "marriage".  It is definitely confusing that the same term ("marriage") is used for both a religious union and a legal (civil) union - but what we're talking about here is the legal one, not the religious one.

The arguments against plural marriage are the same as those against same-sex marriage.
Neither of them has anything to do with bestiality or pedophilia, which lack the crucial element of consent. Of course, many "conservatives" (like Rick Santorum) seem to equate same-sex marriage (and plural marriage) with bestiality. Do you really want to be on the same side as him in this argument?

Actually, you're (intentionally?) confusing things here.  The arguments FOR plural marriage have nothing to do with the arguments FOR same-sex marriage.  Neither of them (pro or against) has anything to do with bestiality or pedophilia (so we agree on something), and many "conservatives" seem to equate same-sex marriage (and plural marriage) with bestiality.  I assumed you were of the "conservative" persuasion (given your posts here) which is why I preemptively brought this up.  How you can torture this into an assertion (phrased as a question) that I agree with Rick Santorum (about anything) seems like the kind of personal attack that gets people banned around here if they're expressing liberal opinions.

I am not a conservative. I am a libertarian.

Consequently, I believe that people should be free to marry whomever and however many they wish, whether male or female, so long as all participants are adult human beings.

This is actually a Ninth Amendment right, by the way, part of the freedom of association that (almost everyone agrees) is implied by the First Amendment:

'While the United States Constiution's First Amendment identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government, the text of the First Amendment does not make specific mention of a right to association. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Alabama that the freedom of association is an essential part of the Freedom of Speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others.[4]
Intimate association

A fundamental element of personal liberty is the right to choose to enter into and maintain certain intimate human relationships. These intimate human relationships are considered forms of "intimate association." The paradigmatic example of "intimate association" is the family. Depending on the jurisdiction it may also extend to abortion, birth control and private, adult, non-commercial and consensual sexual relationships.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_o ... nstitution

Libertarian666 wrote: I am not a conservative. I am a libertarian.

Consequently, I believe that people should be free to marry whomever and however many they wish, whether male or female, so long as all participants are adult human beings.

Ah - so you agree with the current decision but think it doesn't go far enough?

rickb wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: I am not a conservative. I am a libertarian.

Consequently, I believe that people should be free to marry whomever and however many they wish, whether male or female, so long as all participants are adult human beings.

Ah - so you agree with the current decision but think it doesn't go far enough?

I don't think the government has any valid role in marriage at all. It should be up to individuals at their discretion.

And I am not alone in that position; as I have already mentioned, some conservatives and libertarians have already pointed this out, Rand Paul among them.

MachineGhost wrote:

MediumTex wrote: He's the third person to be banned in four years and he's the first liberal.  Based on that track record, I'm not concerned that unpopular points of view are being stifled due to their content.

Who were the other two, besides KShartle?

Clive was banned after repeatedly accusing Craig and I of stealing from Harry Browne's widow because we wrote a book about Harry Browne's permanent portfolio investment strategy.  This was offensive to both of us, but probably especially so to Craig who I think has actually spoken with Harry Browne's widow and who has contributed immeasurably to keeping Harry Browne's memory alive.  We pointed out that the release of a new book on a topic tends to drive sales of earlier books on the same topic (and this forum has probably also sold quite a few Harry Browne books), but Clive didn't see it that way and we finally had to show him the door.

To my knowledge, KShartle, Clive and this new guy are the only ones who have been permanently banned other than spammers.

MediumTex wrote: Clive was banned after repeatedly accusing Craig and I of stealing from Harry Browne's widow because we wrote a book about Harry Browne's permanent portfolio investment strategy.  This was offensive to both of us, but probably especially so to Craig who I think has actually spoken with Harry Browne's widow and who has contributed immeasurably to keeping Harry Browne's memory alive.  We pointed out that the release of a new book on a topic tends to drive sales of earlier books on the same topic (and this forum has probably also sold quite a few Harry Browne books), but Clive didn't see it that way and we finally had to show him the door.

Hah!  I thought clive left of his own volition because he could not drum up belief in the PP despite trying and trying and trying...

MachineGhost wrote:

MediumTex wrote: Clive was banned after repeatedly accusing Craig and I of stealing from Harry Browne's widow because we wrote a book about Harry Browne's permanent portfolio investment strategy.  This was offensive to both of us, but probably especially so to Craig who I think has actually spoken with Harry Browne's widow and who has contributed immeasurably to keeping Harry Browne's memory alive.  We pointed out that the release of a new book on a topic tends to drive sales of earlier books on the same topic (and this forum has probably also sold quite a few Harry Browne books), but Clive didn't see it that way and we finally had to show him the door.

Hah!  I thought clive left of his own volition because he could not drum up belief in the PP despite trying and trying and trying...

He also started comparing PP investors to dogs that chase cars, and I thought that was in poor taste, especially since the PP is based upon NOT chasing returns, but instead just letting them come to you.

I was never really sure if Clive actually understood the philosophical and psychological underpinnings of the PP.  He seemed completely preoccupied with quant-like analysis of various modified versions of the PP without looking at the larger picture.  It was like listening to Dustin Hoffman talk about his underwear and Judge Wapner in Rain Man. 

With that said, Clive was obviously an immensely intelligent and knowledgeable person and I hated to see him turn surly. 

Will this count as surly?  (Just trying to understand the boundary conditions). 



... Mountaineer