"Freedom" thread or something

Really... Outside of polygamy with minors involved, what's so wrong about consenting adults in a polygamous relation?

If you have multiple spouses, you get what you deserve.  

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: thellama73 wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: What's wrong with polygamy? Exactly. Whose rights are violated by polygamy? Adultery is legal. Surely that is worse than consenting adults having multiple partners. Yeah, I'm not a fan of polygamy, but it's at least better than multiple sex partners who you're not married to (which is perfectly legal). On a related note, I find it somewhat amusing that opponents of gay marriage (usually Christians) often use the argument that if we legalize gay marriage, it's only a matter of time before polygamy gets legalized, and of course no one would want that, it would be even worse - and yet the Bible never explicitly condemns polygamy and it's treated as a legitimate (if problematic) form of marriage in the Old Testament.

The old testament is not particularly concerned with incest either, to the best of my recollection. It sure is a funny testament.

The T wrote: Pedantic comment aside, I'm not sure a system that would depend on a reliable, big government would be the best in a country where a prevailing mentality is accumulation of wealth and money.

Ah, you hit the nail on the head.  That is the main reason people don't like the idea of socialism - we don't want to give up our greed.  But I'm saying that greed keeps us from having a society at peace, as well as personally being at peace.  Greed is a sickness, and we need to eradicate it, not enable it.

The T wrote: There are people who are not fans of gay marriage who are not crazy fundamentalists.

You're right, but I'd argue that those people, while not actually qualifying for the label "fundamentalist", have been infected by the sickness of fundamentalism.  I say this because they cannot defend their views against homosexuality with anything but bible thumping.  Now as I expound on that, keep something in mind:
I was going to say "I am a Christian."  However, I have come to hate that label lately.  I hate it mainly because it is a label.  It limits me.  Soren Kierkegaard said "Once you label me, you negate me."  I hate the label "Christian" because there's too much baggage that comes with it.  Once I carry that label, people will make assumptions that are most likely not correct about me.  Also, there is a certain sense that carrying the label is like a boy scout badge - if I carry the label, I've accomplished what I need to accomplish.  Boom, it's done.  Whereas I think that what it's about is not something easy - it's not a magical incantation that works like a "get out of hell free card" (if you knew my views on the subject of hell, you'd know why I think this is absolute rubbish - to summarize: hell is here and now, and is the results ON EARTH of our bad decisions).  So, I much prefer to say "I'm trying to follow Jesus."  This is a much more humble way of going about it and admits that I haven't "arrived" - I'm on a journey and I have a long way to go.

Ok, sorry for the rabbit trail.  Back to what I was saying - those whom the "fundamentalist" label does not apply to but don't like the idea of homosexuality are still suffering from fundamentalist ideas.  They can't rationally explain their dislike of homosexuality, though they try - as Jacob did by saying that it's harmful to the children.  By the way, it's not: here are six scholarly research papers on the subject that all come to the conclusion that having two parents of the same sex is not harmful in and of itself.  The only tool they are able to employ in their justification of their dislike for homosexuality are mistranslated Bible verses.  I have argued at length with some of these people about the reasons those verses do not mean what they think it means, and they always fall back to illogical reasoning, such as telling me I've been led astray and I shouldn't be trying to outsmart God and such nonsense.  If there is a God in heaven who made me with the brain I have, I'd think He'd want me to use it by examining translation and history before I blindly adopt a view based on an ancient text written in an extinct language.

The Buddhists have a saying that I like very much.  The collection of the Buddha's words, which is close to what Christians call "The Bible" for them, is known as the Dharma.  Buddhists will say "The Dharma is not the Buddha's teachings.  The Dharma only points to the Buddha's teachings.  Look at the way the Buddha lived.  Those are the Buddha's teachings.  Live in the Buddha's teachings."  So I say "The Bible is not God's teachings.  The Bible only points to God's teachings.  Look at the life of Jesus - the way he treated people.  Those are God's teachings.  Live in the life of Jesus and you will live in God's teachings."

When I try to live by that principle, I can't see any possible way of justifying the way people think about homosexuality based on ancient texts written in extinct languages that have been mistranslated and misinterpreted.


Edited by dtguitarfan - July 12 2013 at 05:17

dtguitarfan wrote: The T wrote: Pedantic comment aside, I'm not sure a system that would depend on a reliable, big government would be the best in a country where a prevailing mentality is accumulation of wealth and money. Ah, you hit the nail on the head.  That is the main reason people don't like the idea of socialism - we don't want to give up our greed.  But I'm saying that greed keeps us from having a society at peace, as well as personally being at peace.  Greed is a sickness, and we need to eradicate it, not enable it.

I'm not the biggest fan of the all-for-profit mentality and greed, but I don't think that would be the main reason socialism isn't successful here. For one, is the less collectivistic, more individualistic (not in a bad way) prevailing mentality; two, this country grew and became what it is (or was) thanks to an entrepreneurship that is not as common in more socialistic societies; third, socialism (the purer variant) has shown to be a failed system; this country is too large to apply a one-size-fits-all solution. Not everybody in the world can have a big welfare state run efficiently and honestly like the Scandinavians. Cultures are different. I agree some things can change but you can't change the way people is at wish, it just isn't possible.  

dtguitarfan wrote: The T wrote: There are people who are not fans of gay marriage who are not crazy fundamentalists. You're right, but I'd argue that those people, while not actually qualifying for the label "fundamentalist", have been infected by the sickness of fundamentalism.  I say this because they cannot defend their views against homosexuality with anything but bible thumping.

. False. There might be religious influence in many of them, but just go south of the Rio Grande all the way to the Cabo de Hornos and see how much more people don't like gay marriage without being crazy fundamentalist bible fanatics (some SouthAmerican countries even allow gay marriage now but many with a large percentage of the population opposed to it). It might be related to religion still (catholicism in this case) but not to the same degree. Not to speak about large parts of world outside of western Europe and the US.   

Now as I expound on that, keep something in mind: I was going to say "I am a Christian."  However, I have come to hate that label lately.  I hate it mainly because it is a label.  It limits me.  Soren Kierkegaard said "Once you label me, you negate me."  I hate the label "Christian" because there's too much baggage that comes with it.  Once I carry that label, people will make assumptions that are most likely not correct about me.  Also, there is a certain sense that carrying the label is like a boy scout badge - if I carry the label, I've accomplished what I need to accomplish.  Boom, it's done.  Whereas I think that what it's about is not something easy - it's not a magical incantation that works like a "get out of hell free card" (if you knew my views on the subject of hell, you'd know why I think this is absolute rubbish - to summarize: hell is here and now, and is the results ON EARTH of our bad decisions).  So, I much prefer to say "I'm trying to follow Jesus."  This is a much more humble way of going about it and admits that I haven't "arrived" - I'm on a journey and I have a long way to go.

I'd hope you applied that same idea to people who oppose you and started ignoring labels and going to what people say and think. You are quite good at throwing labels Geoff to those who don't think like you.  

Ok, sorry for the rabbit trail.  Back to what I was saying - those whom the "fundamentalist" label does not apply to but don't like the idea of homosexuality are still suffering from fundamentalist ideas.  They can't rationally explain their dislike of homosexuality, though they try - as Jacob did by saying that it's harmful to the children.  By the way, it's not: here are six scholarly research papers on the subject that all come to the conclusion that having two parents of the same sex is not harmful in and of itself.  The only tool they are able to employ in their justification of their dislike for homosexuality are mistranslated Bible verses.  I have argued at length with some of these people about the reasons those verses do not mean what they think it means, and they always fall back to illogical reasoning, such as telling me I've been led astray and I shouldn't be trying to outsmart God and such nonsense.  If there is a God in heaven who made me with the brain I have, I'd think He'd want me to use it by examining translation and history before I blindly adopt a view based on an ancient text written in an extinct language.

That's generalizing. There are people who have no problem with people having sex and partnerships with whomever they want but for whom marriage is a man/woman thing, out of tradition, out of personal values, out of societal needs. There are reasonable reasons other than pure hate or religious fanatism. 

The T wrote: socialism (the purer variant) has shown to be a failed system

Also - please explain why the NFL is so successful if socialism is failed.

The T wrote: You're watching too much Bill Maher Geoff. Comparing an entire country with multiple people and infinite number of needs and interests with a football for-profit-as-only-goal organization. Of course an organization does better with one head and a highly centralized structure and share of profits and interests. Curiously, that socialist paradise of the NFL has flourished in the capitalist hell of the US. Why didn't it arise in the Warsaw Pact? Why did eastern Europe soccer teams always suck in continental competitions against western teams? Sorry Geoff but the NFL example (which I heard Maher mention about two years ago) is extremely stupid. Instead, compare countries to COUNTRIES. Then see how well pure socialism has fared (I'm not talking about social market economies like Northern Europe).

You're missing the point.  I've never argued for a pure "socialist paradise".  I simply think there are things we can learn from the countries that have put "socialist" programs into place with great success.  I think we could do great things by combining "socialist" principles with capitalist principles.  And those who say socialism is failed need to contend with the success of the universal healthcare programs of MANY countries.

EDIT: And I RARELY watch Bill Maher.  Occasionally I hear about something he did and watch a segment and find it funny.  But too often I've found him to be to crass and unaccepting of anything spiritual.


Edited by dtguitarfan - July 12 2013 at 17:59

Epignosis wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: The T wrote: socialism (the purer variant) has shown to be a failed system Also - please explain why the NFL is so successful if socialism is failed.

Laugh it up.  If the NFL was run the way a Libertarian would run it, it would suck.

dtguitarfan wrote: I think we could do great things by combining "socialist" principles with capitalist principles.

That. And think about it, most sci-fi stories and movies about utopian futures depict rather socialist societies. Likely naive, but it should make us think about why is it so.

Padraic wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: Epignosis wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: The T wrote: socialism (the purer variant) has shown to be a failed system Also - please explain why the NFL is so successful if socialism is failed. Laugh it up.  If the NFL was run the way a Libertarian would run it, it would suck. Please explain.

The "socialism" of the NFL is what keeps it competitive.  We never know who's going to make it to the Superbowl.  A team could suck for years and then all of a sudden do quite well.  The profit sharing is what keeps it competitive like that.  Without it, you'd have a few teams that ALWAYS went to the superbowl and most teams wouldn't stand a chance because they'd never be able to afford to pay the good players.  I wouldn't want to watch it if it were like that.