Jill Brown on why corporations get branded as 'evil'

Dec 07, 2010 by Jennifer Tucker

(PhysOrg.com) -- Expert discusses factors that lead people to describe corporations as 'greedy' or 'evil.'

People say “it’s business, it’s not personal,” but when it comes to how we feel about corporations, it really is personal. We hear corporations described as “greedy” and “evil” when they do wrong—the same terms we use to describe we don’t like. In fact, if you search “evil” and “corporation” on the Internet, a series of sites targeting specific companies, as well as some targeting all corporations, appear.

We spoke to Jill Brown, assistant professor of management, an Axelrod Fellow and an expert on corporate governance and ethics, about why this is happening.

Why are corporations, increasingly, portrayed as evil?

People tend to “anthropomorphize” companies, attributing human characteristics to them. When something goes wrong, people will revert to categorizing companies as “evil,” especially when they have been hurt by a company's actions—whether intentional or unintentional.

It is human nature to look for scapegoats when something wrong happens—and scapegoating is almost always emotional, and always negative. Second, corporations are an easy target to call "evil"—they have deep pockets and, therefore, there will be some response to allegations of "evil." Again, whether the allegations are true or not.

What effect do the recent corporate scandals have on this perception?

Recent history has given consumers good cause to default to thinking of corporations as “evil.” We have experienced over a decade of unethical behavior at an unparalleled magnitude, beginning with Enron and continuing today.

Research has shown that there are certain types of failures that elicit this type of reaction more than others. Product safety, human resource, and compensation issues, in particular, elicit emotional reactions from individuals, and lead them to “anthropomorphizing” the company.

The Internet has allowed people to know more about companies, but do we really know the truth?

Since the separation of ownership and control of corporations, consumers and even shareholders are more distanced from what actually goes on in a company and this information asymmetry continues to grow as corporations grow. Therefore, it is easier for people to think poorly of companies when something goes wrong. They truly have no idea about the inner workings, but they have knowledge and examples of "evil" through headline scandals in the media.

Explore further: Fear of losing money, not spending habits, affects investor risk tolerance, study finds

Provided by Lehigh University

2.7 /5 (9 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Study finds sick kids have fewer friends

Dec 07, 2010

A new study reveals that sick teens are more isolated than other kids, but they do not necessarily realize it and often think their friendships are stronger than they actually are.

Modern society made up of all types

Nov 04, 2010

Modern society has an intense interest in classifying people into ‘types’, according to a University of Melbourne Cultural Historian, leading to potentially catastrophic life-changing outcomes for those typed – ...

Broken bones and medication

Oct 05, 2010

Although one in four women over 50 develops osteoporosis, most are unaware they have the disease — something Professor Suzanne Cadarette would like to change.

Is the Internet lying to us?

Nov 25, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- University of Alberta scholars talk about the relativity of truth on the World Wide Web.

Recommended for you

Rural loss and ruin can be avoided

2 hours ago

An Australian Reconstruction Development Board needs to be established to help avoid more needless forcing of Australian farmers from their land, a QUT economist has said.

Narcissistic CEOs and financial performance

Jul 24, 2014

Narcissism, considered by some as the "dark side of the executive personality," may actually be a good thing when it comes to certain financial measures, with companies led by narcissistic CEOs outperforming those helmed ...

User comments : 75

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Shootist
1.9 / 5 (13) Dec 07, 2010
Jill Brown on why corporations get branded as 'evil'


Because 50% of the population has less than average intelligence?
geokstr
2.3 / 5 (16) Dec 07, 2010
Of course, the current attitudes about the "evil" corporations have absolutely nothing to do with 100 years of leftwing anti-business propaganda mongering by nearly all the media, Hollywood, the unions, and the teaching professions from kindergarten to grad school, do they?
Thrasymachus
3.7 / 5 (15) Dec 07, 2010
When corporations assert that they have the same rights of people, i.e. the right of expression, association, etc, they shouldn't be surprised that they get judged as if they were people. People who act like corporations do would be indisputably evil.
marjon
2.3 / 5 (12) Dec 07, 2010
How many of these 'evil' companies work hand in glove with the govt like Enron did?
But the govt is not considered evil?
I just saw an article from Consumer Reports that stated ATT was rated the worst wireless provider. Recall that ATT had a govt protected monopoly for decades and a similar agreement with Apple for their Iphones.
marjon
2.2 / 5 (11) Dec 07, 2010
"This can be attributed in part to a naïve assumption by the electorate that those in government, freed from the profit motive, could be trusted to do what was "right" for the community as a whole. "
"Instead, what we now can see is that elected officials, following a power motive, can be as greedy and irresponsible as anyone in the private sector. "
"As a consequence, they have willfully committed current and future taxpayer money to benefit those with political power at the expense of the community as a whole."
"One lesson is that to live in liberty requires an elevated level of diligence, oversight and skepticism of our elected officials. "
http://www.forbes...c_2.html
Of course the statist solution is to nationalize all assists and eliminate those evil capital markets that demand high interest rates and accountability.
marjon
1.7 / 5 (11) Dec 07, 2010
The real truth!
"But that’s all the more reason the president would do well—for himself and for the nation—to refuse to back down as Republicans hold jobless benefits hostage to government-destroying tax cuts for the wealthy."
http://www.thenat...vernment
'Government destroying tax cuts'
That explains it all why all you socialists oppose letting people keep their hard earned wealth.
Skultch
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 08, 2010
Everyone! Marjon is a shill.

That is all.
Raveon
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 08, 2010
I brand some evil because of what they do. Why not? The laws grant them status virtually equal to a person, it's only natural to judge them like a person. Some have morals, some don't. Some prey on people, some don't. Some will do anything for a buck, some won't. Some help people, some kill people.
Mandan
4 / 5 (4) Dec 08, 2010
Limited Liability Corporation, full rights before the law as "individuals". They want their cake and eat it too. But you can't have it both ways. Corporations care about one thing-- profits. This makes them inherently blind to the social consequences of their purpose.

Just as democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest, so capitalism is the worst form of economy, except for all the others.

But no machine humans have ever constructed can be allowed to operate without control mechanisms and regulation. We "harnessed" oxen and horses, we "harness" electricity, but when it comes to the out-of-control greed of millions of people participating in blind markets with only one thing on their mind, and no oversight, what else will appear but a steamroller crushing everything to rubble before the juggernaut?

What works best is small-- small farms, small businesses, small towns, and small government. Allowing asymmetry to reign begs tip-over.
Doug_Huffman
1 / 5 (2) Dec 08, 2010
Has no one learned anything from the Wikileaks? Trust no one over thirty, thirty years old, thirty employees, thirty miles away, ad nauseam

Be skeptical of geeks bearing gifts, of economics or technology.
marjon
2.5 / 5 (12) Dec 08, 2010
Corporations care about one thing-- profits. This makes them inherently blind to the social consequences of their purpose.

That is false. People want 'profits' too. They can acquire them legally by meeting the needs and wants of their customers, or via force (theft or fraud).
Any business is no different, unless they have the support of a govt to protect them from competition.
ArtflDgr
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 08, 2010
Does she mention that a ideology (mind virus) which changes how inputs are accepted and perspectives skewed to favor what can only be called the prophecy sans deity of Marx?
grayy1
5 / 5 (4) Dec 08, 2010
People don't attribute human aspects to corporations, the courts do!!! A corporation in court has the same rights as a human being and not just a business venture. Corporations use psychologists to do efficiency audits..., not just bean counters. A corporate entity is evil by definition. It is a being with narcissistic tendencies, self centered motivations and morally corrupt views. It is a profit driven machine that uses people to further it's own ends and people are generally taken for granted as consumers with no regard to health and safety unless forced by outside watchdog agencies which MUST exist to monitor corporations for the benefit of humans. What the hell was this guy thinking. Must be the paycheck he gets to write that drivel.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 08, 2010
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.
- Ambrose Bierce
marjon
2.2 / 5 (10) Dec 08, 2010
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.
- Ambrose Bierce

Govt bureaucracy: a devious method for acquiring individual power without individual responsibility.
Thrasymachus
3 / 5 (6) Dec 08, 2010
Now there's arrogance for you, thinking you are witty enough to coin a phrase to compete with Ambrose Bierce.
marjon
2 / 5 (12) Dec 08, 2010
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.
- Ambrose Bierce

This is demonstrably false. Enron, Arthur A Anderson are but two examples.
Profit demands responsibility and accountability in free markets
A great example is the pet food company that responded to the Chinese melamine contamination before governments did.
marjon
2.4 / 5 (11) Dec 08, 2010
Bierce had this right: "“The socialist notion appears to be that the world’s wealth is a fixed quantity, and A can acquire only by depriving B. He is fond of figuring the rich as living upon the poor—riding on their backs, as Tolstoi (staggering under the weight of his wife, to whom he had given his vast estate) was pleased to signify the situation”
"He observed that “the [socialist] ‘movement’ as a social and political force is, in this country, born of envy, the true purpose of its activities, revenge."
http://www.thefre...cialism/

Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (8) Dec 09, 2010
This is demonstrably false. Enron, Arthur A Anderson are but two examples.
That would be one example, and no one went to jail or paid fines for the ordeal. Many people went to jail or paid fines for all the other criminal crap they were pulling, insider trading, tax evasion, securities fraud, etc. No one went to jain for Enron's accounting fraud. Not even Arthur Andersen.
Profit demands responsibility and accountability in free markets
No it doesn't.
A great example is the pet food company that responded to the Chinese melamine contamination before governments did.
That would be because the Chinese government executed the CEO of the company that provided the tainted raw materials and warned that it would do the same to them.

Laughable Marjon, utterly laughable.
geokstr
1 / 5 (9) Dec 09, 2010
No one went to jain (sic) for Enron's accounting fraud. Not even Arthur Andersen.

Of course, AA was one of the most prestigious accounting companies on the planet, with 85,000 employees, and it now has 200, who are there just to continue the dissolution. Thousands of partners with decades of honorable service who had nothing to do with Enron were wiped out, even though their conviction was later overturned.

But for you, that's not enough punishment, is it? All greedy capitalist roaders must all die, right? Off with their heads!

Oh, and how can anyone take somebody seriously that can't even spell "jail" right?

:-)

See how easy it is to make fun of someone you disagree with over a specious issue like spelling, or maybe not getting their p's and (q/q)'s right on one post?
geokstr
1 / 5 (7) Dec 09, 2010
Profit demands responsibility and accountability in free markets

No it doesn't.

Oh, but socialist gummint, with no bottom line incentive whatsoever, provides sooooooooo much more accountability, right?

Socialism, and it genocidal twin-sister, communism, has now brought the world to the brink of financial collapse. It has overspent and overpromised everything to everybody (everybody who agrees with them, that is.)

But according to you, all those Euro countries (just a step ahead of the US) are at the brink now because of capitalism?

Now that's a laugher.
geokstr
1 / 5 (2) Dec 09, 2010
BTW, Skeptic_Heretic, didn't you used to hang around either the Talk.Origins or Sci.Physics blog several years back? The moniker sounds familiar.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 09, 2010
BTW, Skeptic_Heretic, didn't you used to hang around either the Talk.Origins or Sci.Physics blog several years back? The moniker sounds familiar.
No. Not exactly an uncommon moniker.
Oh, and how can anyone take somebody seriously that can't even spell "jail" right?
Yep, typos happen. Then again, I could always pull the old, English isn't my first language routine.
or maybe not getting their p's and (q/q)'s right on one post?
Teenage, WoW player I'm guessing.
Oh, but socialist gummint, with no bottom line incentive whatsoever, provides sooooooooo much more accountability, right?
Actually government accountability would be entirely dependent on the laws of that government and the actions taken by the people of that government. Want to give us an example and we can debate it within context?
Socialism, and it genocidal twin-sister, communism, has now brought the world to the brink of financial collapse.
That's why China is in the Black,and we're in the red?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 09, 2010
Now, I'm not a fan of communism, I don't prefer it. The laughable thing is that dumbasses, like you and Marjon, think the expiration of a temporary 3% tax cut is socialism. Would it be socialist if it was only 1.5%? Maybe .5%? What percentage makes it socialism?

Beyond that, you've had the Bush tax cuts for 10 years now, where are all the jobs and investment? Oh yeah, in China.
geokstr
1 / 5 (4) Dec 09, 2010
or maybe not getting their p's and (q/q)'s right on one post?

Teenage, WoW player I'm guessing.

no, as a matter of fact, you made fun of my incorrect use of "q" in a previous thread.
That's why China is in the Black,and we're in the red?

No, it's because they pay their "workers" two handfuls of rice a day, with few benefits, no unions, no EPA regulations, no workers or unemployment comp, and no lots of other things that make it expensive to actually, like, you know, manufacture things right here. This allows them to undercut the pricing of literally everything (this is a capitalist concept, by the way) so much that we can't hope to compete with them. Their much lower productivity is far offset by our higher costs per unit.

Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 09, 2010
This allows them to undercut the pricing of literally everything (this is a capitalist concept, by the way) so much that we can't hope to compete with them.
So that's what you want to do here? You want to start giving people two handfuls of rice for their pay? I'm not sure people are going to vote for that.

Your political ideology gets more and more convoluted and screwy as you talk about it. I'm willing to bet you're a believer in supply side economics too.
geokstr
1 / 5 (7) Dec 09, 2010
This allows them to undercut the pricing of literally everything (this is a capitalist concept, by the way) so much that we can't hope to compete with them.
So that's what you want to do here? You want to start giving people two handfuls of rice for their pay? I'm not sure people are going to vote for that.

So you admit my argument as to why they are able to prosper at our expense is correct? It certainly isn't because their far-left economics is so much more viable than capitalism.

Talk about ignorance of economics.

As far as what to do about it, I don't think anyone has any clue about how to fix that. Do you believe that socialism is somehow going to equalize the cost equation between China and the US? Given that they are still totalitarian, if we ever did begin to narrow the gap, they could just reduce the pay to 1 handful of rice/day. They themselves believe they've got half a billion too many people already, anyway.
geokstr
1 / 5 (6) Dec 09, 2010
Now, I'm not a fan of communism, I don't prefer it. The laughable thing is that dumbasses, like you and Marjon, think the expiration of a temporary 3% tax cut is socialism. Would it be socialist if it was only 1.5%? Maybe .5%? What percentage makes it socialism?

Nice gratuitous insult. Fits the leftling style.

No, not just a tax increase equals socialism. But we can throw in the absolutely gargantuan size and scope of intrusive nanny government in this country, plus the first steps towards nationalized health care, regulations that could fill the Library of Congress, etc, ad nauseum. If the DWEMs who wrote the Constitution (you know, that useless piece of scrap paper that leftists hate) could see the monstrosity this government has become, they would be leading the second violent revolution in this country.

Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 09, 2010
No, not just a tax increase equals socialism. But we can throw in the absolutely gargantuan size and scope of intrusive nanny government in this country,
You mean like the Republican built Department of Homeland Security? "Wanna see London? Wanna see France? Well, we're gonna need to see your underpants."
they would be leading the second violent revolution in this country.
Are you going to say that they were conservative too?
plus the first steps towards nationalized health care, regulations that could fill the Library of Congress, etc, ad nauseum.
Welcome to a functional republic. That's rule by Law. The laws could be easily simplified if we didn't have to continuously fight over simple decisions like extending unemployment, or taxing those doing well to pay down the debt that they just borrowed from the tax payers.
geokstr
1 / 5 (7) Dec 09, 2010
Beyond that, you've had the Bush tax cuts for 10 years now, where are all the jobs and investment? Oh yeah, in China.

Well, I could mention that the unemployment rate was what, 5% for most of Bush's terms. And he had a recession that began at the end of Clinton's regime and a stick in the eye of the economy called 9/11 to deal with.

But you probably believe that Bush ordered the Towers to be taken down with thermate, after he warned all the Jews who worked there to call in sick that day, right?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 09, 2010
So you admit my argument as to why they are able to prosper at our expense is correct?
Nope, because it isn't.
It certainly isn't because their far-left economics is so much more viable than capitalism.
You'll have to define "far-left economics". How about we talk simple tariff. How's that one suit you? Manufactured goods comming from outside of the country should be taxed to encourage domestic manufacture, but you wouldn't like that would you? It'd be "unfair" to those job creating corporations.
Talk about ignorance of economics.
Well I'm talking with someone ignorant of economics.

As I said, you're a supply sider. "Give the rich more money and they'll create jobs" has never worked, ever. Give the consumers the money and their demand will create jobs. That's capitalism, learn to understand what you're talking about.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 09, 2010
Well, I could mention that the unemployment rate was what, 5% for most of Bush's terms.
And you'd be wrong. Use the U6, not the U3. Underemployment was around 20% for ALL of Bush's terms. Remember when he had the burger flippers at McDonald's reclassified as manufacturing jobs?
http://www.cbsnew...36.shtml
And he had a recession that began at the end of Clinton's regime and a stick in the eye of the economy called 9/11 to deal with.
Boohoo, welcome to being the President of a Republican congress.
But you probably believe that Bush ordered the Towers to be taken down with thermate
Nah, truthers are conservatives for the most part, jsut as the birthers and creationists, and all the other wackjobs.
Thrasymachus
4 / 5 (4) Dec 09, 2010
Now, now, there's wackos on the left too SH. My biggest problem with conservatives is that they worship at the alter of the free market, without understanding anything about what a free market is. Their policies reflect a tendency to get out of the way of the most dominant players in a market, and regulate the crap out of the little guy. Democrats aren't much better, they regulate the crap out of everybody, but at least there's equal treatment. Free markets are not in danger of becoming unfree through exterior government manipulation. People are bright and subversive enough to work around any such attempt anyway, just look at illegal drugs. Rather free markets are in danger of becoming unfree from within, when one or a cabal of players in a market is capable of commanding the entire market, that's an unfree market, and that's what government's job is to protect against.
marjon
1 / 5 (5) Dec 09, 2010
The laws could be easily simplified if we didn't have to continuously fight over simple decisions like extending unemployment, or taxing those doing well to pay down the debt that they just borrowed from the tax payers.

The laws could be simplified if they followed the Constitution limits on power.
Beyond that, you've had the Bush tax cuts for 10 years now, where are all the jobs and investment? Oh yeah, in China.

The democrats have been in charge for 4 years. What is the current deficit and from whom did they borrow the money?
Now, I'm not a fan of communism, I don't prefer it.

But if it is popular, must not a populist like SH support it?
Thrasymachus
3.6 / 5 (5) Dec 09, 2010
One of these days, marjon, you'll have to sit down and actually read the Constitution, including all it's Amendments. It's not a hard read, and not very long. Once you get over the fact that S's look like F's, and there's a lot of unnecessary capitalizations, it reads very much like any other legal document. Once you have read it, maybe you'll realize that the Constitution doesn't limit power, it divides it and checks it. But that simple concept is probably beyond your ability to look past your own ideology.
marjon
1.2 / 5 (9) Dec 09, 2010
Once you have read it, maybe you'll realize that the Constitution doesn't limit power,

The concept is enumerated powers. This was designed to limit the power of the federal govt.
"The Court has flip-flopped on the issue of whether Congress has the constitutional power to tax in order to accomplish regulatory goals that would otherwise be outside of the scope of its enumerated powers. "
http://www.law.um...wers.htm
What this shows is socialists have decided to disregard the intent, which was well defined, and use the power of the courts to change the intent of the Constitution.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Dec 09, 2010
The concept is enumerated powers. This was designed to limit the power of the federal govt.
You do know that the word enumerate and all of its tenses don't imply limitation, don't you?
An enumerated list of powers is simply a list of powers, including the commerce clause, and the general welfare clause. So sorry, deal with that.
marjon
1.3 / 5 (9) Dec 09, 2010
An enumerated list of powers is simply a list of powers, including the commerce clause, and the general welfare clause. So sorry, deal with that.

The way to deal with it is the way socialists dealt with this, get the Supreme Court ruling to reinterpret the law.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 09, 2010
Oprah is worth over $2 BILLION. Why is she not branded as evil?
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Dec 10, 2010
An enumerated list of powers is simply a list of powers, including the commerce clause, and the general welfare clause. So sorry, deal with that.

The way to deal with it is the way socialists dealt with this, get the Supreme Court ruling to reinterpret the law.

I didn't know the Constitutionally demanded system of checks and balances was socialist, Marjon. Perhaps you want to move out of this country.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Dec 10, 2010
I didn't know the Constitutionally demanded system of checks and balances was socialist

It's not the method, it is the result.
For nearly a hundred years the Constitution was interpreted by courts to respect property and limit state power. Later interrelations took an opposite view of the same document.
FDRs socialist policies were initially rejected by the SCOTUS which prompted him to try and stack the court.
The solution will unfortunately require amendments to clearly define the original intent. But as CA has demonstrated, even a constitutional amendment defining marriage can be over ruled courts. Where is the balance of power?
The MA legislature denied the rights of citizens to vote on the definition of marriage changed by the MA courts. Where is the check and balance?
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 10, 2010
It's not the method, it is the result.
So if a method that you prefer, gives you a result that you don't prefer, who's actually in the wrong?
But as CA has demonstrated, even a constitutional amendment defining marriage can be over ruled courts. Where is the balance of power?
Only if that amendment is unconstitutional, but the FMA was never ratified, therefore there is no conflict.
The MA legislature denied the rights of citizens to vote on the definition of marriage changed by the MA courts.
Yes, just like the courts would deny citizens the right to vote on whether they can enslave minorities or not. We don't live in a Democracy, we live in a Republic. The rule of law is our rule, not the rule of majority opinion. The freedoms outlined in the Constitution are not up for debate.

Gay people are people, which means they have rights, so sorry you don't see it that way.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 10, 2010
Gay people are people, which means they have rights,

Where is the constitutional right to have the state recognize marriage located?
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Dec 10, 2010
Gay people are people, which means they have rights,

Where is the constitutional right to have the state recognize marriage located?

Where's the federal jurisdiction over marriage located?

There is Federal jurisdiction over discrimination based on race, sex, age, and creed and it supercedes state laws. Beyond that, the bigotry against gay rights is based on religious dogma. There is that little seperation of church and state in the bill of rights. Give it a read sometime.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Dec 10, 2010
There is Federal jurisdiction over discrimination based on race, sex, age, and creed and it supercedes state laws.

Defining marriage as between one man and one woman does violates Muslim creed laws but not any sex laws.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 10, 2010
There is Federal jurisdiction over discrimination based on race, sex, age, and creed and it supercedes state laws.

Defining marriage as between one man and one woman does not violate any such discrimination laws.

Yes it does, Marjon. Secondly, where is the right to define marriage enumerated?
ryggesogn2
1.1 / 5 (10) Dec 10, 2010
There is Federal jurisdiction over discrimination based on race, sex, age, and creed and it supercedes state laws.

Defining marriage as between one man and one woman does not violate any such discrimination laws.

Yes it does, Marjon. Secondly, where is the right to define marriage enumerated?

If the state acknowledges marriage, it must define it.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 10, 2010
If the state acknowledges marriage, it must define it.
And that definition must be within the confines of the Constitution rights of the people. No discrimination based upon sex. ie: male or female engaging in a fiscal contract with another male or female.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Dec 10, 2010
If the state acknowledges marriage, it must define it.
And that definition must be within the confines of the Constitution rights of the people. No discrimination based upon sex. ie: male or female engaging in a fiscal contract with another male or female.

Then there is no limit to multiple partners. Especially based upon religious rights.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Dec 10, 2010
If the state acknowledges marriage, it must define it.
And that definition must be within the confines of the Constitution rights of the people. No discrimination based upon sex. ie: male or female engaging in a fiscal contract with another male or female.

Then there is no limit to multiple partners. Especially based upon religious rights.
Correct, which is why some Mormons have multiple partner marriages in the US and the ACLU defends them.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (10) Dec 10, 2010
If the state acknowledges marriage, it must define it.
And that definition must be within the confines of the Constitution rights of the people. No discrimination based upon sex. ie: male or female engaging in a fiscal contract with another male or female.

Then there is no limit to multiple partners. Especially based upon religious rights.
Correct, which is why some Mormons have multiple partner marriages in the US and the ACLU defends them.

Why do they need defending? Why hasn't a judge ruled that polygamy is legal?
Is it because the polygamists don't have 'popular' support?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) Dec 10, 2010
Why do they need defending?
Because of people like you.
Why hasn't a judge ruled that polygamy is legal?
Because a lot of them are like you.
Is it because the polygamists don't have 'popular' support?
Yep.
Polygamy isn't my cup of tea but if someone wants to financially tie themself to multiple people I don't have an issue with it.
Gawad
5 / 5 (6) Dec 10, 2010
Why do they need defending?
Because of people like you.
Why hasn't a judge ruled that polygamy is legal?
Because a lot of them are like you.
Is it because the polygamists don't have 'popular' support?
Yep.
Polygamy isn't my cup of tea but if someone wants to financially tie themself to multiple people I don't have an issue with it.
Indeed. This strictly involves the private domain so no matter whether the relationship involves M+F, M+M, F+F, F+(xM), M+xF), or (xF)+(xM), as long as all those involved are consenting adults then the state has no business meddling in their affairs.
Thrasymachus
5 / 5 (7) Dec 10, 2010
Indeed, I would go so far as to argue that it is beyond any State's authority to legally formalize marriage, traditionally a religious institution, at all. If they are to legally formalize relationships like marriage, they should not discriminate on the basis of sex or race at all. To do otherwise would be to establish a specific religious institution as a governmental one, a practice specifically forbidden in the 1st Amendment.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (6) Dec 10, 2010
Indeed, I would go so far as to argue that it is beyond any State's authority to legally formalize marriage, traditionally a religious institution, at all. If they are to legally formalize relationships like marriage, they should not discriminate on the basis of sex or race at all. To do otherwise would be to establish a specific religious institution as a governmental one, a practice specifically forbidden in the 1st Amendment.

Agreed. This should also allow for a more streamlined and fair income tax.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (9) Dec 10, 2010
Indeed, I would go so far as to argue that it is beyond any State's authority to legally formalize marriage, traditionally a religious institution, at all. If they are to legally formalize relationships like marriage, they should not discriminate on the basis of sex or race at all. To do otherwise would be to establish a specific religious institution as a governmental one, a practice specifically forbidden in the 1st Amendment.

Then the govt can get out of the business of 'family law', child welfare and death taxes, etc.
Thrasymachus
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 10, 2010
How on earth does the 1st Amendment prohibit laws on custody and child support laws, child welfare laws or the Paris Hilton tax? Legal responsibility for a minor resides with the parents that are listed on the birth certificate, or if the birth certificate is incomplete, the genetic parents of that minor. Legal enforcement of that responsibility in the form of child support laws is to be expected and applauded. The State has an obvious interest that the care of minors meets minimum standards, hence child welfare. And how on earth is a tax on the transfer of wealth at death a solely religious issue? Who sleeps with who, who makes decisions for others in medical emergencies, who owns property jointly are issues the state has no obvious interest in, aside from protecting against fraud and deception. I thought you believed in property rights, are you gonna tell me you don't think gay people should be able to do the same things with their property and rights as straight people?
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (10) Dec 10, 2010
The State has an obvious interest that the care of minors meets minimum standards,

Why?
Why should govt care about children?
Are you saying, T, the the govt may have an interest in perpetuating society? The govt might have an interest in having enough subjects it can steal from?
If so, shouldn't the govt want to support laws and customs to promote healthy children?
Or maybe the govt, like the NAZIs, want to raise children for the state, without those annoying parents getting in the way?
During is socialist days, Romania's population was declining. Abortion and contraception was readily available. The govt banned contraception and abortion in an attempt to increase population. But they failed to create an economy to support the population. That's one reason why there are so many Romanian orphans and why Ceausescu was executed.
Thrasymachus
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 10, 2010
Of course the state has an interest in perpetuating the society, as do all of us. You clearly have no idea what's involved in child welfare laws in this country, or you wouldn't make allusions to iron curtain policies. And your not so subtle hint that the government's interest in marriage is in the creation of children doesn't hold water. There's no need to promote childbirth in this country given our population growth and allowing marriage for homosexuals wouldn't diminish whatever promotion already exists. I think it's three different courts now that have made that same ruling wrt the arguments of gay marriage opponents. And I'll ask you again, do you think gay people shouldn't be able to do the same things with their property and rights as can straight people?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (11) Dec 10, 2010
There's no need to promote childbirth in this country given our population growth

What growth? "The replacement fertility rate is roughly 2.1 births per woman for most industrialized countries "
http://en.wikiped...ity_rate
gay people shouldn't be able to do the same things with their property

Spouses are property?
Marriage defined as one man and one woman does not discriminate against homosexuals.
Laws across the world limit marriage in many ways. One limit is based on puberty, the capability of bearing children.
The end result of this entire exercise must result in 1) no restrictions on marriage based on religion (polygamy) or 2) the end of govt recognition and privilege (tax breaks) based upon marriage.
How does the govt verify homosexuality? It is easy to verify race or sex.
Thrasymachus
4 / 5 (4) Dec 10, 2010
I am perfectly fine with either of those options. The selective definition of a legal institution by those with a religious axe to grind is intolerable.

You know very well I'm not implying spouses are property. I'm saying that heterosexuals have a way to combine their property and have legal implications to that combination in a way that homosexuals do not. That's discrimination. It's no different than a law saying only white people can own a gun, or one that prohibits Catholics from holding political office. And you're a disgusting human being for supporting such laws.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (12) Dec 10, 2010
have legal implications to that combination in a way that homosexuals do not.

That's false.
What is disgusting are those homosexuals who use the courts to impose their agenda. States wrote domestic partner laws to accommodate, but that was not enough.
Once again, how does the law defining marriage as one man and one woman discriminate against homosexuals?
Thrasymachus
4 / 5 (4) Dec 10, 2010
Because the status of being married carries legal implications with regard to the property rights of the married individuals. Separate but equal, which is what civil unions have been found to be, are likewise forbidden by several court rulings because they are inherently discriminatory. I suppose if you had your way, you'd re-institute the laws prohibiting interracial marriage as well. What concern is is of yours if some man wants to marry some other man? In what way does that occurrence diminish your rights and privileges in your marriage? Just what agenda to you think homosexuals have here aside from having the same rights as everybody else?
maxcypher
not rated yet Dec 11, 2010
Quote from @Mandan:

Just as democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest, so capitalism is the worst form of economy, except for all the others.

'Nuff said.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Dec 11, 2010
Why? Why should govt care about children?
Because you obviously don't, and they're citizens as much as you or I.
Are you saying, T, the the govt may have an interest in perpetuating society?
They certainly have an interest in perpetuating the species.
During is socialist days, Romania's population was declining.
Same with everyone's population in the "free market" US.

The Romainian dictator was executed for denying reality and corporatism. Just like you are now.
cmorrill321
5 / 5 (1) Dec 11, 2010
Of course, the current attitudes about the "evil" corporations have absolutely nothing to do with 100 years of leftwing anti-business propaganda mongering by nearly all the media, Hollywood, the unions, and the teaching professions from kindergarten to grad school, do they?


Remember the part where physorg's comment guidelines stated:

"Avoid political and religious discussions: Because of the complexity and ambiguity of this subject matter, political and religious discussions are not allowed."

?????

I do.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Dec 11, 2010
"Avoid political and religious discussions: Because of the complexity and ambiguity of this subject matter, political and religious discussions are not allowed."

They should practice what they preach.
Physorg intentionally posts stories with political and religious bias.
Why would physorg do that? Couldn't be to generate traffic to attract revenue? Not a good little unbiased, apolitical site like this.
Typical of 'liberals', do as we say, not as we do.
SkiSci
not rated yet Dec 11, 2010
Germany. We should aim to be like Germany
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Dec 11, 2010
Germany. We should aim to be like Germany

Germany of today?

Why?
finitesolutions
not rated yet Dec 12, 2010
Why do people want to get married in the first as it mostly gets you in trouble. It only complicates your single life. I do not care for a piece of state paper that gives you no advantages ( otherwise single people will be hard to find ).
"All good things come to an end" so corporations need to be evil in order not to end.
Skultch
not rated yet Dec 16, 2010
Why do people want to get married in the first as it mostly gets you in trouble.


I can't speak for others. I wanted to get married to make my girlfriend happy. Now she's my wife. I didn't need marriage, but she was raised Catholic, and couldn't get past the guilt of "living in sin." I love her despite and because of our differences and the thing that makes me most happy, is her happiness. That is why I wanted to get married. Other men????
Gawad
5 / 5 (1) Dec 16, 2010
Why do people want to get married in the first as it mostly gets you in trouble.


I can't speak for others. I wanted to get married to make my girlfriend happy. Now she's my wife. I didn't need marriage, but she was raised Catholic, and couldn't get past the guilt of "living in sin." I love her despite and because of our differences and the thing that makes me most happy, is her happiness. That is why I wanted to get married. Other men????
I have to say that while part of me finds this to be very commendable on your part, another part is just shaking its head (actually, that would be my head that's shaking) thinking that this is a perfect example of how religion needlessly messes with peoples' heads. I should know, I was raised French Catholic. My GF & I have no plans to get married, it's neither my, nor her cup of tea.
Skultch
5 / 5 (2) Dec 16, 2010
I have to say that while part of me finds this to be very commendable on your part, another part is just shaking its head (actually, that would be my head that's shaking) thinking that this is a perfect example of how religion needlessly messes with peoples' heads. I should know, I was raised French Catholic. My GF & I have no plans to get married, it's neither my, nor her cup of tea.


Yeah, it messed with her head, and now I have to deal with it. I get so depressed when I think of all the BJs I have missed and am missing out on because of Catholicism. :) (That's only half a joke)

It will probably take her whole lifetime to undo all the Catholic psychological damage. Is there anyone that specializes in helping remove Catholic guilt?
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Dec 16, 2010
Yeah, it messed with her head, and now I have to deal with it. I get so depressed when I think of all the BJs I have missed and am missing out on because of Catholicism. :) (That's only half a joke)

It will probably take her whole lifetime to undo all the Catholic psychological damage. Is there anyone that specializes in helping remove Catholic guilt?
Why, Skultch! Don't you know that http://www.youtub...HQpvgB8. BTW, she's allowed to blow you, as long as you don't blow your load anywhere that's not open to procreation. Well, in a late major development the Pope has acknowledged that the use of a condom to prevent the spread of disease is a lesser evil than the spread of disease that results from not using one. In other news, Hell is expecting a white Xmas this year owing to a sudden cold front that washed over it in late November. The frigid air mass is not expected to go anywhere until early January.
Gawad
5 / 5 (1) Dec 16, 2010
As for Catholic guilt, try:

http://www.amazon...p;sr=1-3

or

http://www.amazon...;sr=1-11

or, depending of the outcome you're looking for:

http://www.amazon...p;sr=1-8