[Vision2020] Huh? Say WHAT!?

Sunil Ramalingam sunilramalingam at hotmail.com
Sun Mar 3 19:59:19 PST 2013


'1. Marriage is a legal union between a consenting 
man and woman period.'

Gary, since this is the position you've supported over the years, why should it be so? Let's leave Wilson out of it.

Sunil

From: jampot at roadrunner.com
To: philosopher.joe at gmail.com; moscowlocksmith at gmail.com
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2013 18:46:38 -0800
CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Huh? Say WHAT!?







The lengths people on this list will go to to disagree 
with Doug are prodigious indeed. If he were to make the claim that excrement 
didn't smell nice, many readers would dab it behind their ears before a 
night on the town.
 
To effectively refute the Wilson contention 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" I would need to hear a 
sentence similar to:
 
Gay marriage is good because <insert whatever 
pocket full of sunshine you like> and have the statement not apply equally to 
unions of three or more. This seems like an extremely simple method to determine 
whether Wilson's "fallacious claim" stands or falls.
 
By the way the most efficient counter to your four 
point argument would have to be to simplify it:
 
1. Marriage is a legal union between a consenting 
man and woman period.
 
Any rational you provide to vary 
that formula will apply to polygamist unions as well as 
homosexual.
 
g




From: Joe Campbell 
Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2013 10:38 AM
To: Gary Crabtree 
Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com> 
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Huh? Say WHAT!?

If to deny marriage to a man and woman is lacking in the 
slightest inkling of human compassion why not a man and man? Why not three or 
more? 

I can just slightly reword your criticisms and send them back your 
way.

That is the point. If there is a slippery-slope it goes in both 
directions: all the way from man-woman to group and back again. If Wilson's 
argument were sound, and polygamy so horrible, he should work toward abolishing 
ALL marriage -- for man-woman marriage HAS led to gay marriage and (according to 
Wilson) that will lead to polygamous unions. 

But even Wilson knows 
enough to ignore such a stupid argument! To defeat the original argument, all I 
need to do is show that it has absurd consequences; consequences so absurd that 
even the person giving the argument would reject them. This is a form of 
reductio ad absurdum.


On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Gary Crabtree <moscowlocksmith at gmail.com> wrote:


  What you conveniently leave out is the why. If to deny any two an 
  "experience" is lacking in the slightest inkling of human compassion why not 
  three or more? If you are asking me to accept your statement based on your 
  irrefutable moral authority you are asking far too much.
   
  g


  
  
  On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 6:47 AM, Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> wrote:

  
    
    
    Perhaps you missed it in my post, Mr. Crabtree.
    

    So, here it is AGAIN.
    

    "To deny ANY TWO [emphasis added] 
    individuals of such an experience, merely because it runs contra to somebody 
    else's belief system, lacks the slightest inkling of human 
    compassion."
    

    http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2013-March/089517.html
    

    Two:  More than one and less than three.
    

    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

    

    
     
    
On Mar 3, 2013, at 6:29 AM, "Gary Crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:


    
      
      I'm not sure what else I can take away. I have 
      heard that the topic is "complex" and that you don't wish to "confuse 
      the issue." What I have not heard is the slice of logic that would refute 
      the statement that so outraged Mr. Hansen and kicked off this thread. 
      Perhaps I wasn't paying proper attention. Please state for me clearly and 
      without obfuscation the argument in favor of homosexual marriage the can 
      not be applied equally to polygamous unions. An analogy as to why 
      homosexual marriage doesn't necessarily lead to polygamy is not at all the 
      same thing. It seems to me that without anyone being able to provide the 
      example that differentiates between the two, Wilson's "fallacious claim" 
      stands without refute.
       
      g
      
      

      
      From: Joe Campbell 
      
      Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2013 6:12 PM
      To: Gary Crabtree 
      Cc: Tom Hansen ; Paul Rumelhart ; vision2020 at moscow.com 
      Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Huh? Say WHAT!?
      
It pains me that I take my time to carefully spell out why 
      I don't think these are the same at all, legally etc., but your takeaway, 
      Gary, is that I add support to Wilson's fallacious claim.

An 
      analogy similar to one I used before: Saying that legalization of gay 
      marriage will lead to legalization of polygamy is like saying that sex 
      with your wife will lead to an orgy. I see no reason for thinking the one 
      than for thinking the other. After all, if you've got reasons for sex with 
      one person WHY NOT sex with many? Just the same reason over again, right? 
      But even you can see the line here, Gary, even though these issues are 
      vague. And so can members of the Supreme Court when it comes to 
      differentiating between gay marriage and polygamy.

This says 
      nothing about my views on polygamy, and for a number of reasons I don't 
      think it is helpful to talk about polygamy while we're working on gay 
      marriage -- for one thing, though bad, slippery-slope arguments happen to 
      be persuasive. My point is I COULD hold that gay marriage is OK and 
      polygamy is not and not be guilty of an inconsistency because of it. This 
      is a refutation of the Wilson claim.


      On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 8:58 PM, Gary Crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.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."
         
        If nothing else this thread has certainly proven 
        Doug to be spot on in his analysis. Goodness knows that’s gotta 
        sting.
         
        g
        
        

        
        From: Joe Campbell 
        
        Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 6:06 PM
        To: Gary Crabtree 
        
        Cc: Tom Hansen ; Paul Rumelhart ; vision2020 at moscow.com 
        
        
        Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Huh? Say 
        WHAT!?
        
        
        
I'm not denying anything. Maybe three or more. I just 
        don't want to confuse it with the issue of same-sex marriage. That seems 
        important to me, just because I can see the folks that such a law might 
        help. I don't happen to meet many polygamists, so I'm not too concerned 
        for now.

Why not take one step: include same-sex marriages. If 
        the polygamists complain as much as the gays and lesbians, we might have 
        to revisit the issue.


        On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Gary Crabtree 
        <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:

        
          
          Then why deny three or more?
           
          g
          
          

          
          From: Tom Hansen 
          Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 2:07 PM
          To: Paul Rumelhart 
          
          Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com 
          
          
          Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Huh? Say 
          WHAT!?
          
          
          

          I absolutely fail to see what the happiness of two adults has 
          ANYTHING to do with a polygamous relationship.
          

          Let me simply say . . .
          

          Later this year, I turn 62, my spouse turns whatever age she 
          acquires, and we (my spouse and I) turn 40; forty of the most 
          wonderfully memorable and loving years of yesterdays that will only be 
          improved upon with tomorrows.  
          

          To deny ANY two individuals of such an experience, merely because 
          it runs contra to somebody else's belief system, lacks the slightest 
          inkling of human compassion.


          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

           
          
On 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
=======================================================


          
            =======================================================
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
=======================================================
          
=======================================================
 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
=======================================================


=======================================================
 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
=======================================================

=======================================================
 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/20130303/8616ee64/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Vision2020 mailing list