[Vision2020] Huh? Say WHAT!?
Gary Crabtree
moscowlocksmith at gmail.com
Thu Mar 7 11:26:43 PST 2013
And I think that we should go the other direction. Take government out of
the equation entirely and let Kattie bar the door.
Of course I suspect that my version of entirely and that of others would
end up being a contentious issue.
g
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>wrote:
> You keep bringing up the fact that SOME polygamists are interested in a
> relationship between consenting adults. But there is the apparent fact that
> some (namely, all of the ones of which I am familiar) are not. I could read
> the links about more positive understandings of polygamous relationships
> but that doesn't hide the fact that maybe polygamous relationships are too
> complex for the state to be bothered with.
>
> I want to point out right away that I'm not talking about any moral issues
> here. I'm not against polygamy; I don't think it is inherently immoral.
> Honestly, I really don't care one way or the other what anyone does (as
> long as the consent issue is taken off the table and it doesn't impinge on
> the rights of others). But marriage is a complex issue and, politically, we
> should take such steps one at a time. Let's try gay/lesbian marriage for
> awhile and further examine whether you're right that the jump to polygamous
> marriage is just as valid. I'm not convinced.
>
> My argument (again): A reason to have sex with your (single) partner is
> not the same as a reason to have an orgy or even a reason to engage in
> menage a trois. The latter cases are more complex than the former, and thus
> require more reasons. Thus, I fail to see how reasons for gay marriage are
> automatically reasons for polygamous marriage.
>
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> The issue is free choice by consenting adults who presumably can decide
>> and control their own destinies as well as those who choose man/woman
>> monogamy. Admittedly, some do not this very well, but if two can make
>> mistakes, why deny it to three,..?
>>
>> w
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Donovan Arnold <
>> donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think it is feasible the way you are suggesting, Paul. Think
>>> about all the legal, medical, financial, and custody issues and
>>> complexities that would be involved with that situation. Lets not forget
>>> the level of abuse a spouse might endure as well if they want to break off,
>>> or the group wants to break them off. These issues are extreme with just
>>> two people, image how it would be in a multifaceted relationship?
>>>
>>> Donovan J. Arnold
>>>
>>> *From:* Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
>>> *To:* "Gier, Nicholas" <ngier at uidaho.edu>; Art Deco <
>>> art.deco.studios at gmail.com>; "vision2020 at moscow.com" <
>>> vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 5, 2013 2:18 PM
>>>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Huh? Say WHAT!?
>>>
>>> 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!?
>>>
>>> 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 Tantricmagic. 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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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
>> =======================================================
>>
>
>
> =======================================================
> 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/20130307/fa64cfb8/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list