[Vision2020] Huh? Say WHAT!?

Fri Mar 1 17:25:07 PST 2013

I'll look but I'm only interested in establishing that there are
differences between same-sex marriage and polygamy. My intent is not to
undermine the efforts of future polygamists.

On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
> =======================================================
>  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/20130301/6e97db86/attachment-0001.html>