[Vision2020] Huh? Say WHAT!?
Paul Rumelhart
godshatter at yahoo.com
Tue Mar 5 14:18:14 PST 2013
This is the problem when trying to discuss polygamy on this list. People assume you are talking about men "taking wives", and not n number of spouses (of any combination of genders) each agreeing to marry into the group, whatever their reasons. The average American may not be able to "support multiple wives", but a group of three or more average Americans combining their finances as part of a marriage of equals might be better off them all of them tackling it on their own.
If you take the history of polygamy out of the discussion, which pretty much means removing much of the religious baggage associated with it, it doesn't seem any stranger to me to have three people involved in a marriage as opposed to two.
Besides, I'm just coming at it from the side of "these n people want to marry, why should I try to stop them?"
Paul
________________________________
From: "Gier, Nicholas" <ngier at uidaho.edu>
To: Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>; vision2020 at moscow.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 9:28 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Huh? Say WHAT!?
RE: [Vision2020] Huh? Say WHAT!?
Good Morning Visionaries:
The late king of Bhutan, Harvard educated and wildly loved by his people, was married to four sisters. He of course did not recommend that arrangement for his people. A monarchy can afford to support multiple wives, but a happy peasant making only on average $1,500 per year cannot. And neither can an average American.
The new king of Bhutan has only one wife. The young king of Morocco has also pledged that he will take only one. There may a trend developing here, even in countries that have tolerated polygamy.
Now back to my chapter entitled "Buddhist Violence in Bhutan: From Incarnated Lamas (one very violent) to Hereditary Kings (all peaceful)." Even the current Dalai Lama believes that Tibet would have been better to switch to a monarchy in the 17th Century.
The intrigues surrounding the choosing of young boys for rule (there were many battles over contending candidates) and making secret the deaths of high lamas (56 years in the case of Bhutan!)made for political chaos and violence, some of it committed by armed monks or the Tibetan equivalent of Voodoo. Bhutan's Red Hat Shabdrung is credited with defeating (at least 9 times) the Yellow Hat armies of Tibet by the use of Tantric magic. The monks would spend days making paper effigies of Tibetan horses and soldiers, and sure enough thousands of them died of disease and storms.
Yours for loving couples only,
Nick
A society grows great when old men plant the seeds of trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.
-Greek proverb
-----Original Message-----
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com on behalf of Art Deco
Sent: Tue 3/5/2013 3:58 AM
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Huh? Say WHAT!?
@Donovan,
What you say is true for some polygamy practices such as the fundamentalist
Mormon sects (some in Boundary County, Idaho and just across the border in
Lister and Creston, B.C). The women are *not consenting adults* often
married off in their early or mid teens.
However, not all polygamous or polyandrous relationships are like that as a
little Googling will show you.
Most arguments advocating polygamy/polyandry advocate it only for
consenting adults. Those arguments are based on freedom of choice to
determine one's lifestyle and on the benefits of polygamy/polyandry (which
like monogamous marriage between a man and a woman are not always realized
or fully realized).
The probable success of any polygamous/polyandrous marriage depends on a
lot of factors some of them cultural.
Please Google the subject to examine your assumptions.
w.
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 2:31 AM, Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
> wrote:
> The fundamental problem with the slippery slope polygamy argument is
> polygamy moves socially in the opposite direction of same sex marriage.
> Gay marriage is about expanding the rights of men and women to make a
> choice for themselves. Polygamy is about oppression of women as
> property of men. To allow gay marriage and polygamy at the same time
> would be impossible from a legal and bureaucratic perspective of groups
> of people all married to each other in endless combinations with children.
> Tax breaks, child and property custody, medical and insurance benefits,
> and US census would be fraught with contradictions, endless definitions,
> legal battles, and errors. Polygamy was only used to avoid adulteryand/or to provide widows with a man's care and protection when they were
> scarce because of war and their acts of stupidity.
>
> *From:* Gary Crabtree <moscowlocksmith at gmail.com>
> *To:* Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com>
> *Cc:* "<vision2020 at moscow.com>" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, March 4, 2013 8:58 AM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Huh? Say WHAT!?
>
> Really? Judging by the subject header, the punctuation, the caps and the
> lead off post, the discussion is that no argument in favor of homosexual
> marriage would not work just as well for a polygamous marriage and the
> outrage wrought by such a simple statement of fact. Perhaps you should
> review the posts leading up to this one. (most especially your own)
>
> By the way, thanks for the reading recommendation. You can't go wrong with
> the classics.
>
> g
>
> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> wrote:
>
> Mr. Crabtree -
>
> I am not attempting to discredit polygamy (although I do not support it).
> That is NOT what this discussion is about. I am simply (and for the
> umpteenth and final time) expressing my opinion that same-sex marriages
> should be acknowledged as legitimate and constitutionally sound as
> guaranteed by the 14th amendment.
>
> Don't wait for the movie. Read the text . . .
> http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
>
> Another thing . . .
>
> I am not assuming any moral authority.
>
> I am simply expressing my opinion.
>
> It seems rather peculiar, yet is becoming quite common, that if I (or Joe
> Campbell or Wayne Fox or . . . ) express our substantiated opinions we are
> accused of wrongfully assuming moral authority.
>
> 'Nuff said!!!!
>
> 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 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 <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, March 02, 2013 6:12 PM
> *To:* Gary Crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com>
> *Cc:* Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> ; Paul Rumelhart<godshatter at yahoo.com>;
> 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 <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, March 01, 2013 6:06 PM
> *To:* Gary Crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com>
> *Cc:* Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> ; Paul Rumelhart<godshatter at yahoo.com>;
> 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 <thansen at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, March 01, 2013 2:07 PM
> *To:* Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
> *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 <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
> =======================================================
>
--
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/20130305/8d7012d8/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list