[Vision2020] Huh? Say WHAT!?

Art Deco art.deco.studios at gmail.com
Fri Mar 1 17:14:38 PST 2013 

Perhaps a little perspective on the history of marriage and the various
kinds of similarly functioning relationships might be helpful:

Google:  "History of Marriage"

w.


On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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
>> =======================================================
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
art.deco.studios at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130301/dfd88302/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Vision2020 mailing list