[Vision2020] Animal Kingdom

Fri Mar 3 11:50:00 PST 2006

Sean,

I agree with your argument about multiple partner marriages with a couple of 
reservations:

1.    Multiple member marriages should not be coercive -- no one should be 
forced, either because of circumstances or not having reached an age of 
informed consent, to join in one of these marriages.  In the latter case I 
am referring to marriages like some of those described in the book:  Under 
The Banner Of heaven.

2.    That appropriate laws be enacted to protect the rights of the 
individuals in and issues of these multiple member marriages similar to the 
laws (but hopefully better than) we have now to protect the individuals and 
issues of two-person marriages.

Those who have studied anthropology are aware of successful models of 
multiple member marriages in past societies.  Those who lived in southern 
California in the 1970s are probably aware of a number of multiple member 
marriages among their domain of acquaintances, and like two person 
marriages, some of them successful, others not.

The acceptance of multiple member marriages has a tough fight ahead, 
probably even tougher than the fight to allow two members of the same gender 
to spend all or parts of their lives together with the equal protections of 
the law afforded to the marriages of people of different genders.

Much of this opposition will come from the religious seeking to impose upon 
the rest of us morality irrationally based upon unverifiable supernatural 
claims, superstition, and ignorance.

W.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "sean" <o2design at wsu.edu>
To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 11:09 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Animal Kingdom

> Good point, rhetorical as it is.  Perhaps consent isn't even necessary if 
> we're all animals?  Eat your mate.  Fight for your herd size.
>
> Perhaps 'natural', as used by posters, needs some preface.  Natural as in 
> each species fighting for its desires?  Natural as in humans ascended? 
> Natural as in fallen state?
>
> That said, will Vision2020 listers who support same sex marriage support 
> polygamy?  Perhaps their ranks could join forces.  It might prove to be a 
> marriage of convenience.
>
> s
>
>>Not sure you understand the animal kingdom all that well.  Many, MANY 
>>species including birds and even some spiders have only one mate for their 
>>lifespan (given:  some female spiders eat their mate, but widowhood is a 
>>good reason to engage in multiple marriages, right?)
>>
>>Just thought I'd throw that out there.
>>
>>J  :]
>>
>>
>>
>>>From: sean <o2design at wsu.edu>
>>>To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>Subject: [Vision2020] Gay marriage......  an oxymoron......Polygamy???
>>>Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 08:37:08 -0800
>>>
>>>Can anyone comment on if polygamy falls under the same reasoning for 
>>>acceptance as same-sex marriages?  It seems quite natural (if other 
>>>species are the measure of "natural" for our species).  It, like other 
>>>relationships, can be equally consensual (though perhaps there are 
>>>documented coercive examples).
>>>
>>>While I may find the idea of a third set of hands of the wheel of our 
>>>family unsettling, why not for others?  Hey, there are days I'd 
>>>appreciate some guy mowing the lawn.  Maybe having another woman present 
>>>to commiserate w/ about the kids would be uplifting for my wife.
>>>
>>>Why all these artificial and unnatural limitations on marriages?
>>>
>>>s
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On 2 Mar 2006, at 13:16, joekc at adelphia.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Donovan,
>>>>>
>>>>>Good point. But the consequences of forbidding same-sex marriage go 
>>>>>even further still. My wife and I, Christian as we be, have no 
>>>>>intention of having children any longer. We have one wonderful son and 
>>>>>that is all we'd like to have. If you follow the anti-same-sex marriage 
>>>>>arguments, the web or irrationality is suddenly thrust on us, as well.
>>>>>
>>>>>At best, folks like Tony can only appeal to the Argument from Nature: 
>>>>>"Homosexuality"*T is unnatural; therefore, it is immoral, or laws 
>>>>>against it are justified.
>>>>>
>>>>>This is as bad of an argument as there is. First, there is little 
>>>>>reason to accept the premise, given the prevalence of gays and lesbians 
>>>>>in society. Second, even if you accept the premise, there is little 
>>>>>reason to accept either conclusion. Flying in an airplane is unnatural. 
>>>>>Is it immoral? Should it be illegal? Again, once we begin to accept 
>>>>>such irrational arguments a rather wide net is cast, one that catches 
>>>>>far more than those originally intended.
>>>>>
>>>>>Iâ*Tm against laws limiting marriage, for most of them are based on 
>>>>>general principles that would, if carried out to their full extent, 
>>>>>compromise my own choices and actions. I don't have to be gay to be 
>>>>>against them. The lesson to learn is that injustice anywhere is a 
>>>>>threat to freedom everywhere.
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>Joe Campbell
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Good points, all.  I would go further and point out that homosexual 
>>>>behavior is far from unnatural; it's actually quite common throughout 
>>>>the biological world.  I recommend the books "Biological Exuberance" 
>>>>and, for a humorous as well as a factual take on the whole matter, "Dr. 
>>>>Tatiana's Sex Advice for All Creation." Same-sex couplings among the 
>>>>higher orders are frequent and well documented.  The unnatural argument 
>>>>is nothing more than homophobia masquerading as science. It's simply 
>>>>Toe-Knee-Time's way of saying "ick" without accepting the repercussions.
>>>>
>>>>Which brings me to a question:  Toe-Knee-Time, real person, troll, or 
>>>>instructions for doing the Hokey Pokey?
>>>>
>>>>Joan Opyr/Auntie Establishment
>>>>www.joanopyr.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>_____________________________________________________
>>>>List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the 
>>>>communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net 
>>>>mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>Thanks,
>>>s
>>>
>>>
>>>         * * * * * * * *
>>>         Sean Michael
>>>         .dwg
>>>
>>>
>>>"the climbs are life"
>>>
>>>_____________________________________________________
>>>List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the 
>>>communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net 
>>>mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
>>http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
>>
>>_____________________________________________________
>>List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the 
>>communities of the Palouse since 1994.  http://www.fsr.net 
>>mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
>
> -- 
> Thanks,
> s
>
>
>         * * * * * * * *
>         Sean Michael
>         .dwg
>
>
> "the climbs are life"
>
> _____________________________________________________
> List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the 
> communities of the Palouse since 1994.   http://www.fsr.net 
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
> 