Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,390
- 19,708
- 146
<<
<<
<< Note: Polygamy is illegal, but cheating on your wife is not.
i thought adultery was illegal? >>
having an affair is not illegal, no matter how sick and twisted one is.
nik >>
Adultery is illegal in many states. It's unenforcable though, and seldom, if ever, do you see anyone busted for it.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,390
- 19,708
- 146
<< I don't think the government should ban it. However, I don't think it's acceptable.
i'm pretty much with you. they shouldn't ban it, go ahead and do it if you want, but for god's sake don't have children
And humans did not evolve with equitable abilities or physical attributes between the sexes. One will always dominate.
that may be, but i think the gap is growing smaller and smaller as our society moves further away from physically oriented activities. >>
I think wife beating still counts as a physically oriented activity, don't you?
<<
<<
<< Note: Polygamy is illegal, but cheating on your wife is not.
i thought adultery was illegal? >>
having an affair is not illegal, no matter how sick and twisted one is.
nik >>
i am pretty damn sure adultery is illegal in many states.
I think wife beating still counts as a physically oriented activity, don't you?
maybe we're talking about different things. i am assuming people are well adjusted and are not nutjobs. i am not talking about equality in the sense that in the event of a boxing match, they would tie... i'm talking about equality in that both parties are equally respected.
maybe we're talking about different things. i am assuming people are well adjusted and are not nutjobs. i am not talking about equality in the sense that in the event of a boxing match, they would tie... i'm talking about equality in that both parties are equally respected.
When was the last time you heard of someone being arrested, let alone prosecuted, for committing adultery?
<< When was the last time you heard of someone being arrested, let alone prosecuted, for committing adultery? >>
that's not really relevant to whether or not it is illegal. suicide is illegal too...
<<
<< When was the last time you heard of someone being arrested, let alone prosecuted, for committing adultery? >>
that's not really relevant to whether or not it is illegal. suicide is illegal too... >>
Sure it is in a common law court..... which this country is suppsoed to have.
Oral sex is illegal most places, but I don't see you advocating legalizing that, because it's NEVER prosecuted. It might as well be legal.
And plenty of people have been put in custody/rehab after attempting suicide.
Should the government not ban that which it determines to be unethical?
Must ethical choices be made based on their consequences... i.e., the ends justify the means?
How can one be sure a crime is victimless? Furthermore, are all choices with that produce no victims acceptable choices?
Marijuana... sure, I'll buy that, just because I don't see a problem with that. I don't smoke as a personal choice, and it's legal for me to do so. I wouldn't smoke marijuana even if it was legal. I don't know... maybe I'd try it once.
Prostitution... no. I'm glad that we have some checks against that, and I think prostitution is unethical.
Polygamy... no. One wife is more than I'd be able to handle. And I think it demeans the value of marriage to have multiple wives. Quality over quantity.
Must ethical choices be made based on their consequences... i.e., the ends justify the means?
How can one be sure a crime is victimless? Furthermore, are all choices with that produce no victims acceptable choices?
Marijuana... sure, I'll buy that, just because I don't see a problem with that. I don't smoke as a personal choice, and it's legal for me to do so. I wouldn't smoke marijuana even if it was legal. I don't know... maybe I'd try it once.
Prostitution... no. I'm glad that we have some checks against that, and I think prostitution is unethical.
Polygamy... no. One wife is more than I'd be able to handle. And I think it demeans the value of marriage to have multiple wives. Quality over quantity.
i'm not seeing how any of this is relevant... if it weren't for the fact that you have to get a marriage license to be *married*, polygamy would be unenforceable as well. in actuality, if some guy wants to live with a bunch of women and call them his wives (but not getting a marriage license), i think we would have a hard time going after him.
Should the government not ban that which it determines to be unethical?
Must ethical choices be made based on their consequences... i.e., the ends justify the means?
How can one be sure a crime is victimless? Furthermore, are all choices with that produce no victims acceptable choices?
when all parties in the crime consent, i consider it victimless. and by making it illegal, it is not an acceptable choice, nor it is it an unacceptable choice. you will have taken away their right to choose how to live their own life.
the government should NOT be making decisions as to what is or isn't ethical. the function of the government is to protect and serve, not to bend us to it's definition of ethics.
Must ethical choices be made based on their consequences... i.e., the ends justify the means?
How can one be sure a crime is victimless? Furthermore, are all choices with that produce no victims acceptable choices?
when all parties in the crime consent, i consider it victimless. and by making it illegal, it is not an acceptable choice, nor it is it an unacceptable choice. you will have taken away their right to choose how to live their own life.
the government should NOT be making decisions as to what is or isn't ethical. the function of the government is to protect and serve, not to bend us to it's definition of ethics.
<< Should the government not ban that which it determines to be unethical? >>
A government that makes laws based on the government's beliefs is not a government I'd want. The government should ban what it's people determine to be unethical.
<< when all parties in the crime consent, i consider it victimless. and by making it illegal, it is not an acceptable choice, nor it is it an unacceptable choice. you will have taken away their right to choose how to live their own life. >>
So if I can make somebody consent to something, I should have the right to do whatever I want to them within the bounds of their consent? "it is not an acceptable choice, nor is it an unacceptable choice?" What's my third option? And I choose how to live my own life regardless of laws that are set in place. I just realize that there are consequences for unethical actions.
<< the government should NOT be making decisions as to what is or isn't ethical. the function of the government is to protect and serve, not to bend us to it's definition of ethics. >>
Intuition, friend, intuition. Why must everyone run back to the standard definition of moral relativism? Well, X said this, so we'll go with that today. If your government is truly rule by the people, then it's not "bending anyone" but rather fielding intuitional ethics.
Otherwise... the government that governs best governs least.
So if I can make somebody consent to something, I should have the right to do whatever I want to them within the bounds of their consent? "it is not an acceptable choice, nor is it an unacceptable choice?" What's my third option? And I choose how to live my own life regardless of laws that are set in place. I just realize that there are consequences for unethical actions.
if you are *making* somebody agree to something, it is not considered consent in a court of law. but other than that, yes. i am not going to profess that i or anybody else knows what is better for an individual.
you don't have a third option because the government took it away it's no longer a choice if you can't choose it.
yes, there are consequences for what are considered unethical actions. *everything* has consequences.
Intuition, friend, intuition. Why must everyone run back to the standard definition of moral relativism? Well, X said this, so we'll go with that today.
that is not what i advocate. i advocate something more along the lines of "people should have control over their own lives". in other words, i see no need to protect people from themselves. we are not going with anything, because we are not advocating any one set of morals. we are letting people decide for themselves, what is best for them.
If your government is truly rule by the people, then it's not "bending anyone" but rather fielding intuitional ethics.
well, maybe if "people" are people who agree with you... but it is not completely intuitive to everybody that smoking pot is unethical, or prostitution is unethical, etc. intuition itself is subjective. i'm sorry if you don't like squishy things like that, but the fact of the matter is, a person's perception of what ethics are, intuition or not, differ from person to person.
if you are *making* somebody agree to something, it is not considered consent in a court of law. but other than that, yes. i am not going to profess that i or anybody else knows what is better for an individual.
you don't have a third option because the government took it away
it's no longer a choice if you can't choose it.yes, there are consequences for what are considered unethical actions. *everything* has consequences.
Intuition, friend, intuition. Why must everyone run back to the standard definition of moral relativism? Well, X said this, so we'll go with that today.
that is not what i advocate. i advocate something more along the lines of "people should have control over their own lives". in other words, i see no need to protect people from themselves. we are not going with anything, because we are not advocating any one set of morals. we are letting people decide for themselves, what is best for them.
If your government is truly rule by the people, then it's not "bending anyone" but rather fielding intuitional ethics.
well, maybe if "people" are people who agree with you... but it is not completely intuitive to everybody that smoking pot is unethical, or prostitution is unethical, etc. intuition itself is subjective. i'm sorry if you don't like squishy things like that, but the fact of the matter is, a person's perception of what ethics are, intuition or not, differ from person to person.
<< Women should be able to have as many husbands as they want. >>
moony, if you keep this up, I'll be forced to remove the quote in my sig!:Q..
and I agree
Freejack2
Diamond Member
- Dec 31, 2000
- 7,751
- 8
- 91
Marijuana - Don't care for it but if they regulated it like alcohol then I don't see the problem in them legalizing it. Far as I understand it Marijuana has strong mind altering properties and weak addictive properties no unlike alcohol. Sell the stuff in bars and liquor stores. Same rules and penalties as alcohol.
Prostitution - I don't think it's actually illegal on a national level. They have it in Las Vegas and it seems to be working for them. I actually think it wouldn't be a bad idea to legalize it. Make requirements like weekly std checks and whatnot. There are men who are lonely and lack the skills or looks to pick up women on a regular basis. If they want to pay a woman for it, thats their choice. I could care less.
Polygamy - I dunno, I wouldn't want to marry more than one woman or marry a woman who is married to more than me. It is more of a moral than a legal issue though. I don't know.
Prostitution - I don't think it's actually illegal on a national level. They have it in Las Vegas and it seems to be working for them. I actually think it wouldn't be a bad idea to legalize it. Make requirements like weekly std checks and whatnot. There are men who are lonely and lack the skills or looks to pick up women on a regular basis. If they want to pay a woman for it, thats their choice. I could care less.
Polygamy - I dunno, I wouldn't want to marry more than one woman or marry a woman who is married to more than me. It is more of a moral than a legal issue though. I don't know.
i say why not? just like around here, some people were discussing raising the speed limit on our 400-series highways to 130km/h, because that is what people do, and the cops only go after people going faster than that. Someone said the gas consumption would rise, but if people are already DOING it, nothing will change but the speed limit signs. same goes for those issues
I like the legalizing of marijuana, not that I would touch that stuff myself, since I don't smoke
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,390
- 19,708
- 146
<< Should the government not ban that which it determines to be unethical?
Must ethical choices be made based on their consequences... i.e., the ends justify the means?
How can one be sure a crime is victimless? Furthermore, are all choices with that produce no victims acceptable choices?
Marijuana... sure, I'll buy that, just because I don't see a problem with that. I don't smoke as a personal choice, and it's legal for me to do so. I wouldn't smoke marijuana even if it was legal. I don't know... maybe I'd try it once.
Prostitution... no. I'm glad that we have some checks against that, and I think prostitution is unethical. >>
There is idealism, then there is rational reality.
Take prostitution. By legalizing and regulating it, you will curb disease and the dangerous black market that exists now. Within a a few decades of most major cities banning prostitution, there were MORE brothels than before, only now the mobs ran them. Now those have been replaced with escort services. The same happened with liquor and drugs. Prostitution has been illegal in most states for a little over 100 years. Has it even made a dent? No. The only thing banning prostitution has done is make life more dangerous for both hookers and johns, not to mention cause more innocent deaths as the black market killings spread to law abiding citizens as they always do.
If you're going to pass ethics laws, you have to weigh what will cause more harm, banning the activity or substance, or allowing it and regulating it. Banning prostitution and pot has caused more harm than it's helped.
Finally, the government is NOT there to enforce personal or religious morality. If you believe prostitution is immoral, fine, don't do it and dont associate with those who do. But allowing others to do it harms YOU not.
"I agree with you on pot and prostitution, however, polygamy has a long history of abuse that causes real harm, and I've yet to see a healthy polygamous relationship that doesn't subjugate the women involved (or what ever sex is in the majority). It also can harm the children involved. Too many mates and too many children = not enough time to properly care for them all the way a real father should. "
Huh? First off, do you care to mention what "real harm" it causes? I have not much knowledge of what you speak of there. Thanks.
Secondly, who said polygamy means only the men can have several wives? Huh? The very definition of that word does not assume the sex of the party who practices it. Perhaps you had polygyny in mind? (Or for the women who practice it, you mean polyandry?)0
In fact, there are and I do know of societies where polygamy is practiced by both women and men. It's funny witnessing a woman with many husbands! :Q
I for one wouldn't be constrained if I wanted more than one husbands. In other words, in a polygamous society, it is possible for women to have rights and not be any more subjugated than men are.
What bugs me is stuff as mentioned by Notfred. The inherent inconsistency. AmusedOne, have you any evidence that the supposedly 50% or at least something close to it divorce rate is any healthier than polygamy? I for one note that now just about every individual married had been previously married. And then there's the "cheating" is normal crap. (It better not be normal with me 'cuz I don't give a rat a$$ for as long as a man commits himself to monogamy, there's absolutely no justification for "cheating".)
The suggestion that polygamy would cause harm to the children, at least emotionally is bull. It only seems so because we are accustomed to a nuclear family, so children grow up with that idea engraved in them. Thus, when such system is interrupted, it interrupts their emotional thought process. However, if kids are raised with the concept of polygamy, I do not think it does any more harm than our current state of affair has. Also, polygamy seems to promote the idea of respect and seniority. There's always the senior spouse who gets all of the respect in decision making. Okay, I won't deny there are issues with polygamy. Nonetheless, I do not think the issues are any worse than our current state of affair is.
Okay, I have little time to carefully respond to other materials, so I'll leave it at that.
Edited for typos.
Huh? First off, do you care to mention what "real harm" it causes? I have not much knowledge of what you speak of there. Thanks.
Secondly, who said polygamy means only the men can have several wives? Huh? The very definition of that word does not assume the sex of the party who practices it. Perhaps you had polygyny in mind? (Or for the women who practice it, you mean polyandry?)0
In fact, there are and I do know of societies where polygamy is practiced by both women and men. It's funny witnessing a woman with many husbands! :Q
I for one wouldn't be constrained if I wanted more than one husbands. In other words, in a polygamous society, it is possible for women to have rights and not be any more subjugated than men are.
What bugs me is stuff as mentioned by Notfred. The inherent inconsistency. AmusedOne, have you any evidence that the supposedly 50% or at least something close to it divorce rate is any healthier than polygamy? I for one note that now just about every individual married had been previously married. And then there's the "cheating" is normal crap. (It better not be normal with me 'cuz I don't give a rat a$$ for as long as a man commits himself to monogamy, there's absolutely no justification for "cheating".)
The suggestion that polygamy would cause harm to the children, at least emotionally is bull. It only seems so because we are accustomed to a nuclear family, so children grow up with that idea engraved in them. Thus, when such system is interrupted, it interrupts their emotional thought process. However, if kids are raised with the concept of polygamy, I do not think it does any more harm than our current state of affair has. Also, polygamy seems to promote the idea of respect and seniority. There's always the senior spouse who gets all of the respect in decision making. Okay, I won't deny there are issues with polygamy. Nonetheless, I do not think the issues are any worse than our current state of affair is.
Okay, I have little time to carefully respond to other materials, so I'll leave it at that.
Edited for typos.
Geekbabe
Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
<<
In fact, there are and I do know of societies where polygamy is practiced by both women and men. It's funny witnessing a woman with many husbands! :Q
I for one wouldn't be restrained if I wanted more than one husbands. In other words, in a polygamous society, it is possible for women to have rights and not be any more subjugated than men are.
>>
Rotflol,Somehow,the thought of having to deal with cooking,cleaning and laundry for more than one dude isn't appealing at all
>>>btw if polygamy is made legal, they shouldn't be allowed to have children. call me bigoted or whatever, i just don't think that's a good environment to have children in. <<<
OK, your a bigot. And an ignorant one at that. You can not now, or ever, justify that comment with fact.
OK, your a bigot. And an ignorant one at that. You can not now, or ever, justify that comment with fact.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter