[Vision2020] Huh? Say WHAT!?

Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
Fri Mar 1 16:47:11 PST 2013 

No. Notice that in the very abstract way in which you started, there was no
mention of "male" or "female." Just A, B, C. Before we agreed that if is OK
for A to marry B and for B to marry A (and A & B are consenting adults),
then it is OK.

Here is another analogy. Is there a difference between a typical sexual
encounter, and an orgy? I think there is a difference. Actually, I'm rather
conservative in these respects, so I don't presume to know what I'm talking
about wrt an orgy. I've never been in an orgy. But I've had some experience
with sex between two persons, and I think that there would likely be a
difference between that and an orgy. Maybe the difference between marriage
and polygamy is something like that. I'm not using this as a reason to say
that we should legislate against one or the other, just as an example to
illustrate that there could be a bid difference between typical marriage
and polygamy difference. Just the sexual component would likely suggest a
huge difference between the two relationships.

On the other hand, I'm not going to go to the wall to condemn polygamy. As
long as consent is ensured, I see no harm. Beyond the issue of consent, I
don't care. Consent might be an issue.

On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:

> I guess I'm coming at this from a more mathematical perspective.
>
> If it's OK for A to marry B, and it's OK for A to marry C, and it's OK for
> B to marry C, then why not let A marry B and C if all parties agree to the
> arrangement?  That argument now works when it didn't before because all
> gender combinations are now legal.  Before, if A was male and B and C were
> female, it wouldn't have been legal for B to marry C.  Now it is, so that
> seems to me to open the door for more complicated relationship combinations.
>
> Also, to be clear, I'm talking about A, B, and C as being members of the
> set of people who are able to consent to marriage.  Thus, tweens are right
> out.  Sheep, too, in case anyone wanted to go there.  I see no reason why
> the government should try to protect against 3+ party marriages.
>
> Paul
>
>
>   ------------------------------
> *From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> *To:* Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
> *Cc:* Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>; "vision2020 at moscow.com" <
> vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, March 1, 2013 2:34 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Huh? Say WHAT!?
>
> Wilson's argument -- the argument you defend -- is a fallacy. It even has
> a name: The slippery-slope fallacy. (Though there are conceptual
> slippery-slope arguments too that are very different.)
>
> Even if you put the argument in the form of a conditional -- If it's OK
> for any two consenting adults of either gender to marry, then it is OK for
> any three or more consenting adults of any gender to marry -- you still
> need an argument for the conditional. On the face of it, it seems pretty
> easy to distinguish the cases: Does he have one wife, or more than one? You
> say you see "the point" but I don't see the point, or the connection
> between a gay marriage between two consenting adults and a polygamous
> relationship.
>
> Unless the connection is that the government should stay out of the
> marriage business, which would be fine, and polygamy would be fine, too, if
> it weren't for fact that some adults will exploit the circumstances and
> marry tweens. Fact. That is why government is in the marriage business. We
> need to protect the young and vulnerable, and thus we need laws against
> certain types of unions.
>
> Here the defense is an appeal to the harm principle: One can make a law to
> protect citizens from harm (including harms to their interests). If there
> is no good reason to think that something will lead to a harm, the law
> should stay out of it. That protects us against pedophiles but allows for
> gay marriage.
>
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> I think the general argument would run something like this:  "if it's OK
> for any two consenting adults of either gender to marry, then why isn't it
> OK for any three or more consenting adults of any gender to marry?"
>
> If that's what he's thinking, I can kind of see his point.  Of course, I'm
> personally fine with gay marriage, and would have no problems with polygamy
> either.  I'd be happiest if the government got out of the marriage racket
> to begin with, frankly.
>
> Paul
>
>   ------------------------------
> *From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> *To:* Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* vision2020 at moscow.com
> *Sent:* Friday, March 1, 2013 11:39 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Huh? Say WHAT!?
>
> Well, if he argued that polygamy and gay marriage are similar, then that
> is just another fallacious argument. It is like arguing that we can give
> every adult the right to vote because that would lead to some folks voting
> more than once. We would be powerless to avoid that!
>
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>wrote:
>
> Cultmaster Wilson is hopelessly floundering as he is swept out to sea on
> the tide of reality and oncoming change.  But that's what happens to those
> that allege total faith in some "inerrant" ancient texts.  Foolhardiness
> begets misery for others.
>
> It's too bad that the Cultmaster is not a Mormon so that he could have a
> "new" vision from some alleged God correcting his current views.
>
> w.
>
>
>  On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> wrote:
>
>  "I argued at length that *all* the arguments employed to advance same
> sex marriage can be, are being, and will be used to advance polygamy also.
> In short, gay marriage greases the skids for polygamy."
>
> - Doug Wilson (March 1, 2013)
> http://www.dougwils.com/Sex-and-Culture/a-century-of-sinkholes.html
>
> Seeya round town, Moscow, because . . .
>
> "Moscow Cares" (the most fun you can have with your pants on)
> http://www.MoscowCares.com
>
> Tom Hansen
> Moscow, Idaho
>
> "There's room at the top they are telling you still
> But first you must learn how to smile as you kill
> If you want to be like the folks on the hill."
>
> - John Lennon
>
>
> =======================================================
>  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
> =======================================================
>
>
>
>
> --
> Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
> art.deco.studios at gmail.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
> =======================================================
>
>
>
> =======================================================
> 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
> =======================================================
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130301/67dc27d1/attachment.html>

More information about the Vision2020 mailing list