Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Hmmm, although factually this may be the case, the intention by the North was not some love of black slaves or the intention for everyone to be equal.....careful reading of the history books show that this was economic. The education system of the USA may have pulled the wool over the eyes of its citizens for many years.
Slavery was outlawed in the North; therefore, the south had a huge economic benefit i.e. not having to pay for labor! Do the maths
I think that we have to remember that there are at least two ways to look at the cause of a war. The first might be more of a cause by the military-industrial complex, which existed even in the time of the Civil War. And I can agree that from that perspective it may have been economic causes that resulted in the war...or at least was among very strong factors.
But I think you also have to look at why the many Civil War soldiers on each side were volunteers or, at least willingly served as conscripts. I doubt their reason for fighting was economic factors.
1) America was founded on Judeo / Christian values. To suggest otherwise is to ignore history. 2) We fought a war, a Civil War , for the express purpose of eliminating slavery. I am proud to say this mission was accomplished: 150 years ago.
Hmmm, although factually this may be the case, the intention by the North was not some love of black slaves or the intention for everyone to be equal.....careful reading of the history books show that this was economic. The education system of the USA may have pulled the wool over the eyes of its citizens for many years.
sndymorn replied:
The world economy existed on the slave trade for thousands of years. The Southern US saw the last gasps of this industry in the "civilized " nations. Lincoln's " Gettysburg Address," was a sort of prayer at a cemetery, hoping for good to come out of all the carnage of the war. The good hoped for was advancement for all men. Nothing is black or white, nothing is easy to decipher after all these years but I for one will not accept "money' as the prime mover in this epic struggle. There were plenty of Harriet Tubman's out there. The song 'Amazing Grace' written at this time, has as its subject an individual's realization of the wrong he allowed in slavery and was a huge hit in England and the US. The Underground Railroad, manned by right thinking people and working throughout the war, saw many lives saved. Read 'UncleTom's Cabin", an abolitionist novel and the biggest selling book of the day: when Lincoln met Stowe (the author) early on in the war he is reported to have remarked , ' so this is the little lady who started this war." What do you think Lincoln meant by that?
There were no more slaves being imported into the USA at this time ( most, in fact, had always been sent south to work the cane fields of Cuba and the Dominican), it was already being curtailed by Congress in every way imaginable. Certainly the slave owners hoped to preserve what they had ( here is the money) but worldwide(European and American) public opinion was , by this time, dead set against the institution. Everyone knew it was the last gasps of the industry EXCEPT the slave owners. Howard Zinn in his 'People History of the USA" got most things wrong including the idea that the Civil War was fought for any other reason than the truth: slavery.
That could be true jeff, but then we gave birth to a good little sister known as Australia, that ironically enough, was mainly convicts and banished people. Weird eh
The world economy existed on the slave trade for thousands of years. The Southern US saw the last gasps of this industry in the "civilized " nations. Lincoln's " Gettysburg Address," was a sort of prayer at a cemetery, hoping for good to come out of all the carnage of the war. The good hoped for was advancement for all men. Nothing is black or white, nothing is easy to decipher after all these years but I for one will not accept "money' as the prime mover in this epic struggle.
I agree that nothing is black and white but maybe it's worth studying Lincoln in more depth....The Gettysburg Address is but a speech by a politician. Lincoln was a very astute one who could "spin" as well as any.
It is worth looking at history with a critical eye and this eye may show that Lincoln was as self-serving as most other politicians. The North didn't fight a war for black people, and there was even a resistance from all ranks in the North to have black soldiers fighting in the same ranks as white soldiers. This, to an extent mellowed with necessity, and a common respect developed between some.
Good did come out of the emancipation proclamation, no one can deny. But to view Lincoln and the History of the US Civil War in the way that is taught in US schools may be blinkered.
Saying that, the past is the past.....its not the here and now
Whilst it may be easy to direct change at America, I don't think the rest of the world ie us are exempt either. America, if we choose to so lump that geography and those persons, has good qualities and those not-so, just like everywhere else, no?
Everywhere has pros and cons, some more cons than pros and visa versa, but I think the way USA seems to try to control the world kind of pisses the rest of the world off. The other developed countries have to go along with it for the most part but as the buddha said, everything is transient and this is a time of change, I can see it on the horizon
Tom I have met some fine people from Australia in my travels. Also a few from new Zealand a big sister in fact to me. Nonetheless dharma study is prudent as there is alas no perfect place yet theres no place like home. And heck I am a interested party to the shambhala books.
Something that has been bothering me about America is Donald Trump and him talking out of his ass. He keeps demanding to see Obama's birth certificate, but seriously why does it matter? Who cares where someone is born. I really feel it's turning into a subconsciously racial matter. He's got a name that is not American, he has an African father, and he's black. So the rich white republicans like Donald Trump want to pick on him.
That's what it seems like to me. Because it makes absolutely no sense why they would put such importance on an irrelevant piece of paper like a birth certificate. You can't control where you're born at. But from what I've seen Obama's heart is in the right place. It shouldn't even matter if he was born in Afghanistan. He's a very intelligent president that seems to have strong ethics. I trust him far more than I trusted Bush. If it wasn't for Obama I'd have no health insurance right now, so he has done some good things.
Well this topic is too broad to get into just one issue adequately, but some facts:
1. The founding fathers of the US were more influenced by Deism than traditional Judeo-Christian values.
2. Though the US has its good points, I'm afraid any sense of democracy we the people may have had on paper has been subverted by private campaign financing. Instead of serving all the people, which is supposed to be their job, our elected officials serve the interests of their prime contributors. This country is governed in the financial interests of the wealthiest 1%, without regard to morality or enlightenment, while the rest of us are, to varying degrees, helpless to do much about it. Talk show hosts spout out propaganda left and right, serving only to distract and delude the majority of people from reality. Campaign finance reform should be America's chief concern right now, though it would take a miracle to see it through I'm afraid; imo, all private campaign financing should be rendered illegal.
3. Regarding marriage, legally speaking, civil marriage is all about one thing: family protections. Civil marriage should be an option for all people to have without requiring the spouses to be of opposite gender. Many gay couples suffer from the lack of legal support, often being denied basic hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, mutual property rights, protections for adopted children, etc., etc.. Civil union law is wholly inadequate to the task. If a couple seeks religious marriage, then such a ceremony should of course be up to the religion involved... but religious views should have no bearing on the legality of a civil marriage.
Well this topic is too broad to get into just one issue adequately, but some facts:
3. Regarding marriage, legally speaking, civil marriage is all about one thing: family protections. Civil marriage should be an option for all people to have without requiring the spouses to be of opposite gender. Many gay couples suffer from the lack of legal support, often being denied basic hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, mutual property rights, protections for adopted children, etc., etc.. Civil union law is wholly inadequate to the task. If a couple seeks religious marriage, then such a ceremony should of course be up to the religion involved... but religious views should have no bearing on the legality of a civil marriage.
Nor should marriage be limited to a couple. Polygamy has the most to gain ,now, from this debate as gay civil unions are soon to be standard and , as you say, the church of your choice will sanction your coupled marriage... I really have no opinion on any of this but want to make you aware of the ultimate logical position: it is not two people marrying, it is that whatever construct YOU want to call a marriage- two, three, three hundred- must be allowed. For instance why not marry your sister or brother? I cannot see an argument against it. If you say marrying your sister will produce an idiot (sorry sis) and should be banned, then one might say two stupid people whom marry might produce the same idiot (they do now I believe) and should not be allowed to mate. Yikes... can you say eugenics? BUT if you define marriage as a union between two people for the express purpose of producing healthy offspring, it becomes simple. No old people (past child baring age) can marry. No homosexual marriage. No polygamy (maybe this is OK). No infertile couples marry (if they are discovered to be infertile the marriage is void ) with tests done to assure fertility before contract is signed. No sister/brother stuff. Help me. I am melting....
It would be awkward to come up with a new word so I suggest legal marriage and religious marriage. Legal marriage would be determined by the tax and social necessities. Religious marriages would not have anything to do with the law. Its a weird blend of church and state. Isn't it? Thats just what I see.
Something that has been bothering me about America is Donald Trump and him talking out of his ass. He keeps demanding to see Obama's birth certificate, but seriously why does it matter? Who cares where someone is born. I really feel it's turning into a subconsciously racial matter. He's got a name that is not American, he has an African father, and he's black. So the rich white republicans like Donald Trump want to pick on him.
That's what it seems like to me. Because it makes absolutely no sense why they would put such importance on an irrelevant piece of paper like a birth certificate. You can't control where you're born at. But from what I've seen Obama's heart is in the right place. It shouldn't even matter if he was born in Afghanistan. He's a very intelligent president that seems to have strong ethics. I trust him far more than I trusted Bush. If it wasn't for Obama I'd have no health insurance right now, so he has done some good things.
While I agree with you as to the evil (yes, i choose that word intentionally) motives of most of those questioning Obama's birthplace, the rule of American law -- the Constitution -- requires that the president be a natural (not naturalized) citizen. Personally, I think the burden of proof is on the birthers. However, a number of states are passing a law that in primaries that all candidates must produce a birth certificate to prove he/she meets the qualification. I don't see anything wrong with that when it treats all individuals fairly and equally.
While I agree with you as to the evil (yes, i choose that word intentionally) motives of most of those questioning Obama's birthplace, the rule of American law -- the Constitution -- requires that the president be a natural (not naturalized) citizen. Personally, I think the burden of proof is on the birthers. However, a number of states are passing a law that in primaries that all candidates must produce a birth certificate to prove he/she meets the qualification. I don't see anything wrong with that when it treats all individuals fairly and equally.
The point is what is done is done. I think for people to try and impeach Obama or continue to question him in office just for the fact of not being born in America is a hateful endeavor. Obviously being president means they're going to do the research on you. They know if he was or wasn't born in the U.S..
I have a feeling that Obama was basically nudged to run for president, convinced even. That he wouldn't have ran if they didn't think he wasn't the right man. That he was the right man for the job. And from there Hawaii possibly also helped with his birth certificate. But I think there could be a good possibility he really was born in Africa as his grandmother insisted on video that he was born in Africa. Which really shouldn't matter. Anyone who says it matters is more just being biased rather than rational. It's a piece of paper without heart, without merit, we can't control our birth place.
Some rules are just rules, some are just biased regulations without actual justice to them. Some rules are meant to be broken according to what is right. If Obama is impeached just based on his birth certificate there would be a race war, a civil war if you will. Not just between races, but between class division.
I find it's the middle and upper classes that care more about those foolish rules. Because they haven't had to struggle as much to realize that rules aren't always justified. In this case it shouldn't even matter if Obama was born in Africa.
I guess we will just have to disagree on this, Mr. Serenity. I am an Obama supporter, including financially during the campaign, but I do believe in upholding the Constitution. If it were true that he was not a natural citizen, he should be impeached. The Constitution is the most basic American law on which all other American laws are based. It's not a guideline, it's the law.
Just throwing in my 2 cents that it might be provisional? to keep in the oval office for the term and then through legal process determine if he is a legal citizen. He is innocent until proven guilty.
Just throwing in my 2 cents that it might be provisional? to keep in the oval office for the term and then through legal process determine if he is a legal citizen. He is innocent until proven guilty.
The REAL problem may be that if he were to be found to not legally be president, it might nullify all documents signed by him during his presidency.
Again, I'm a strong Obama supporter and I think there is nothing to this, but it is troubling as it continues to pop up, albeit for all the wrong reasons.
It would be awkward to come up with a new word so I suggest legal marriage and religious marriage. Legal marriage would be determined by the tax and social necessities. Religious marriages would not have anything to do with the law. Its a weird blend of church and state. Isn't it? Thats just what I see.
Nor should marriage be limited to a couple. Polygamy has the most to gain ,now, from this debate as gay civil unions are soon to be standard and , as you say, the church of your choice will sanction your coupled marriage... I really have no opinion on any of this but want to make you aware of the ultimate logical position: it is not two people marrying, it is that whatever construct YOU want to call a marriage- two, three, three hundred- must be allowed. For instance why not marry your sister or brother? I cannot see an argument against it. If you say marrying your sister will produce an idiot (sorry sis) and should be banned, then one might say two stupid people whom marry might produce the same idiot (they do now I believe) and should not be allowed to mate. Yikes... can you say eugenics? BUT if you define marriage as a union between two people for the express purpose of producing healthy offspring, it becomes simple. No old people (past child baring age) can marry. No homosexual marriage. No polygamy (maybe this is OK). No infertile couples marry (if they are discovered to be infertile the marriage is void ) with tests done to assure fertility before contract is signed. No sister/brother stuff. Help me. I am melting....
:screwy:
Your examples head into the abstract, and do not deal with a significant portion of the population. How many people really want to marry two or more others? How many want to marry their sibling(s)?
In imagining all sorts of possible forms of marriage, and lumping them all together as a can of worms to avoid, the very real and present problems plaguing committed same sex couples are neglected. If there is enough interest for legalizing other forms of civil marriage, let each form be sought after on its own merits by those (if any) who want it.
Let's focus on the issue of extending civil marriage to same sex couples on its own merits.
It would be awkward to come up with a new word so I suggest legal marriage and religious marriage. Legal marriage would be determined by the tax and social necessities. Religious marriages would not have anything to do with the law. Its a weird blend of church and state. Isn't it? Thats just what I see.
The term civil marriage denotes a legally formed marriage outside the confines of religion.
Nor should marriage be limited to a couple. Polygamy has the most to gain ,now, from this debate as gay civil unions are soon to be standard and , as you say, the church of your choice will sanction your coupled marriage... I really have no opinion on any of this but want to make you aware of the ultimate logical position: it is not two people marrying, it is that whatever construct YOU want to call a marriage- two, three, three hundred- must be allowed. For instance why not marry your sister or brother? I cannot see an argument against it. If you say marrying your sister will produce an idiot (sorry sis) and should be banned, then one might say two stupid people whom marry might produce the same idiot (they do now I believe) and should not be allowed to mate. Yikes... can you say eugenics? BUT if you define marriage as a union between two people for the express purpose of producing healthy offspring, it becomes simple. No old people (past child baring age) can marry. No homosexual marriage. No polygamy (maybe this is OK). No infertile couples marry (if they are discovered to be infertile the marriage is void ) with tests done to assure fertility before contract is signed. No sister/brother stuff. Help me. I am melting....
:screwy:
Your examples head into the abstract, and do not deal with a significant portion of the population. How many people really want to marry two or more others? How many want to marry their sibling(s)?
In imagining all sorts of possible forms of marriage, and lumping them all together as a can of worms to avoid, the very real and present problems plaguing committed same sex couples are neglected. If there is enough interest for legalizing other forms of civil marriage, let each form be sought after on its own merits by those (if any) who want it.
Let's focus on the issue of extending civil marriage to same sex couples on its own merits.
The Morman Church is a fairly significant group in favor of polygamy.... Their "rights ' to this style of marriage were revoked some time back. Of course, they should fend for themselves in the fight to redefine marriage. Every man for himself. Secret compounds are good enough for them. Muslims too have this predilection ( I, a young, virile man of means, would have no truck with all those sex partners though, and want just one for all eternity. I am not like those other guys, that "insignificant portion of the population"). A bi-sexual... not many of those I suppose, should just decide which sex he wants to spend his lifetime with. They are such a small group anyway.
Have you noticed all the programs on TV in the US about polygamy? ( I think there are at least three) These programs can be compared to what gay activists and liberal TV producers introduced twenty years ago with gay characters on prime time ( I , again, do not object , only assert the logical end of this new definition of marriage). The acceptance of polygamy, as normal as homosexuality I am sure ( and perhaps even more attractive and less "abstract" to males than you might imagine), is the next wave. Is there a color in the rainbow banner that stands for polygamists?
Your examples head into the abstract, and do not deal with a significant portion of the population. How many people really want to marry two or more others? How many want to marry their sibling(s)?
In imagining all sorts of possible forms of marriage, and lumping them all together as a can of worms to avoid, the very real and present problems plaguing committed same sex couples are neglected. If there is enough interest for legalizing other forms of civil marriage, let each form be sought after on its own merits by those (if any) who want it.
Let's focus on the issue of extending civil marriage to same sex couples on its own merits.
The Morman Church is a fairly significant group in favor of polygamy.... Their "rights ' to this style of marriage were revoked some time back. Of course, they should fend for themselves in the fight to redefine marriage. Every man for himself. Secret compounds are good enough for them. Muslims too have this predilection ( I, a young, virile man of means, would have no truck with all those sex partners though, and want just one for all eternity. I am not like those other guys, that "insignificant portion of the population"). A bi-sexual... not many of those I suppose, should just decide which sex he wants to spend his lifetime with. They are such a small group anyway.
Have you noticed all the programs on TV in the US about polygamy? ( I think there are at least three) These programs can be compared to what gay activists and liberal TV producers introduced twenty years ago with gay characters on prime time ( I , again, do not object , only assert the logical end of this new definition of marriage). The acceptance of polygamy, as normal as homosexuality I am sure ( and perhaps even more attractive and less "abstract" to males than you might imagine), is the next wave. Is there a color in the rainbow banner that stands for polygamists?
My point is, let's not conflate every imaginable alternative into the same thing. Do not presume that allowing one form must mean we should allow all. This is a demonstrably absurd view; one might lump pedophilial and bestial forms of civil marriage in with the others, for example. I've seen posters on other forums do so. Each should be regarded on its own merits, because each has its own unique merits or detriments to consider.
Bisexuality merely denotes a person's sexual attraction to members of both sexes. Bisexuals simply are open to either gay or straight relationships. You are assuming bisexuality comes along with polygamy, which it does not.
As to polygamy (and polyandry while we're at it), then fine, let polygamist civil marriage be sought on its own merits. I forgot about the Mormons. I am not very knowledgeable about Islam, so I am not aware of polygamy being a part of that tradition... the very few Muslims I have known are not polygamous.
It is also worth mentioning that the idea of marriage (like all things in life) has changed remarkably over time already. The concept of "traditional marriage" is an illusion in that sense; it has never been a permanent idea, nor will it ever be. In its earliest form, it was a means for men to legally own women as their property, for the purpose of childbearing and producing sons for the men, and to cook and clean while they lived in their husbands' homes. Those who cry out in opposition to changing the definition of marriage would be logically consistent only if they advocated a return to this original purpose for marriage... fortunately, very few do so.
Even before 1890, it is estimated that less than 20% of Mormons were polygamous, and the number who are polygamous now is rather insignificant, so let's not overstate the case.
Even before 1890, it is estimated that less than 20% of Mormons were polygamous, and the number who are polygamous now is rather insignificant, so let's not overstate the case.
"The REAL problem may be that if he were to be found to not legally be president, it might nullify all documents signed by him during his presidency.
Again, I'm a strong Obama supporter and I think there is nothing to this, but it is troubling as it continues to pop up, albeit for all the wrong reasons."
In that case if he didn't have documentation and it would be demanded of him next running, it would be the moral thing for him not to run again.
I agree polygamist argument is a straw man. I there a color of the rainbow banner for those who want to merry their computers? Produce a solid reason why socially same sex marriages would hurt the social infrastructure.
Produce an argument for same sex marriage that I could not use to support the polygamist position. Moreover, polygamy has history and tradition on its side.
Hey, in the Middle Ages, a Muslim man could tour the world ( as they described it) and , in his stay in any one city, marry and divorce a woman as he wished. Their prohibition against unmarried sex was such that the contract was entered and left at will so that the man's religious principles were preserved. Now that is what I call a definition of marriage!
Even before 1890, it is estimated that less than 20% of Mormons were polygamous, and the number who are polygamous now is rather insignificant, so let's not overstate the case.
Wait until polygamy is legal. The day is coming.
I do not expect polygamy will become a significant attraction even if it were made legal. Those who are already polygamous are already doing it now, just without the legal support for it.
0
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
Produce an argument for same sex marriage that I could not use to support the polygamist position. Moreover, polygamy has history and tradition on its side.
i don't understand your point. homosexuality and polygamy are completely different things. to say that you don't support marriage between two gay people would be closer to saying that you don't support marriage between african americans or interracial couples. being gay is not a choice, being a polygamist is.
Produce an argument for same sex marriage that I could not use to support the polygamist position. Moreover, polygamy has history and tradition on its side.
i don't understand your point. homosexuality and polygamy are completely different things. to say that you don't support marriage between two gay people would be closer to saying that you don't support marriage between african americans or interracial couples. being gay is not a choice, being a polygamist is.
I can assure you , as a man, being a monogamist is a choice; polygamy is quite natural for us. I support gay marriage. I only caution that in allowing this re-definition of marriage one needs to allow other definitions as well. Do you insist a bi-sexual choose ? Why? Will I use your mixed raced argument here? As Lady Gaga says "They were born this way"
0
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
Produce an argument for same sex marriage that I could not use to support the polygamist position. Moreover, polygamy has history and tradition on its side.
i don't understand your point. homosexuality and polygamy are completely different things. to say that you don't support marriage between two gay people would be closer to saying that you don't support marriage between african americans or interracial couples. being gay is not a choice, being a polygamist is.
I can assure you , as a man, being a monogamist is a choice; polygamy is quite natural for us. I support gay marriage. I only caution that in allowing this re-definition of marriage one needs to allow other definitions as well. Do you insist a bi-sexual choose ? Why? Will I use your mixed raced argument here? As Lady Gaga says "They were born this way"
sexuality is a spectrum. bisexuals tend to fall more in the middle of the spectrum. they don't choose to be bisexual, but they do choose which sex to be with depending on their current partner. most bisexuals i know have monogamous relationships and the only difference is they have a larger dating pool. are you implying that because they are bisexual, they will need to be with both genders at the same time? this may be true for some, but this isn't really the case for most. also know that many bisexuals try very hard to shed this image and might be offended by your comments. i have never heard a bisexual argue for polygamist marriage rights.
somehow, i doubt your "as a man it is natural to be a polygamist" argument. if this were true, it seems that there would be an extremely high rate of polygamy between homosexual men, but this is not what i see at all. most gay men cultivate monogamous relationships. true, they sometimes have open relationships, but that is not the same as polygamy. open relationships mean they are free to have other sexual partners, but they do not make the other partners part of the relationship itself. this is not uncommon for heterosexuals either.
so you support polygamy, then? i honestly don't care about polygamy. if people find that it makes them happy and no one is being exploited, whatever. i wouldn't fight for their right to marry, but i wouldn't fight against them either.
i understand that if gay marriage were to become a reality, it might shake things up a little. i'm sure those advocating other types of marriage might see it as a sign and push a little harder for their own rights, but that doesn't mean that they will win. my point is that gay marriage is a completely different topic, separate from all other marriage arguments and should be treated as such. the fact that you lump it with other baggage is actually quite offensive.
i understand that if gay marriage were to become a reality, it might shake things up a little.
We can only hope They said the same thing about abolition, womens' rights, civil rights, etc, etc, etc. The world will come crashing to an end if we do this. Yet, in those places where it's legal, the sun still rises in the east almost every single morning. Dogs still chase squirrels. Amazing...
"Produce an argument for same sex marriage that I could not use to support the polygamist position. Moreover, polygamy has history and tradition on its side."
Well if there is no argument against same sex marriage AND polygamy then in our discussion the rational person shall endorse both. You have not produced an argument against either. There is a stigma against polygamy but no rational reason is given for why it is wrong. The presumption is that the women are coerced into it, but that is cultural rather than anything inherent about polygamy. There are marriages between men and women where one is exploited so that is hardly unique to polygamy. Polygamy just has more stigma.
You could also ask me to produce an argument for same sex marriage that couldn't also be used to support marriage between man and women, traditional. So if we can group traditional marriage with polygamy since my argument applies to all three. Does that mean we should outlaw traditional marriage because it is lumped with polygamy.
Jeffrey, we get it...you favor polygamy. The vast majority of the rest of us simply don't. Period. You have a right to your viewpoint. I suggest you go and see if you can get pro-polygamy laws passes here in the U.S.
Jeffrey, we get it...you favor polygamy. The vast majority of the rest of us simply don't. Period. You have a right to your viewpoint. I suggest you go and see if you can get pro-polygamy laws passes here in the U.S.
It won't happen. This whole essay is about that. What is wrong with polygamy as long as everyone is happy in it? It pisses me off that even BUDDHISTS see something wrong with the way people want to live there life, even though it hurts no one.
Jeffrey, we get it...you favor polygamy. The vast majority of the rest of us simply don't. Period. You have a right to your viewpoint. I suggest you go and see if you can get pro-polygamy laws passes here in the U.S.
It won't happen. This whole essay is about that. What is wrong with polygamy as long as everyone is happy in it? It pisses me off that even BUDDHISTS see something wrong with the way people want to live there life, even though it hurts no one.
We still live in a society that includes people who mostly aren't Buddhists. It's a political decision of this society.
0
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
Jeffrey, we get it...you favor polygamy. The vast majority of the rest of us simply don't. Period. You have a right to your viewpoint. I suggest you go and see if you can get pro-polygamy laws passes here in the U.S.
It won't happen. This whole essay is about that. What is wrong with polygamy as long as everyone is happy in it? It pisses me off that even BUDDHISTS see something wrong with the way people want to live there life, even though it hurts no one.
sometimes it's hard for people to put themselves in another person's shoes. we tend to think that everyone would feel the same way that we do in any particular situation. as jeffrey brought up, many people feel that the women are coerced into it because THEY THEMSELVES would feel unhappy in a polygamist lifestyle. i know, personally, i could never live that way and be happy. but i saw one of those polygamist shows on tv once and the woman (the second wife) was saying that she always wanted to be a second wife. not only was she content in a polygamist relationship, she found herself in the perfect situation that she had always hoped for. 'different strokes for different folks' comes to mind.
like i said, it's not for me, but if it really is conducive to a loving environment and hurts no one... then i have to agree with you. i would like to hear some of the arguments against polygamy that don't revolve around religion or social mores. i don't know enough about it to be able to definitively say whether or not it is anti-woman or a form of psychological brainwashing. these are the arguments i hear, anyways. everyone knows what the man gets out of it, but it is very difficult to imagine what benefits the women might receive. (assuming we are talking about the typical, one man/several woman polygamist relationship)
No you don't get it. I am objecting you to lump polygamy with same sex marriage. You could equally refute traditional marriage by lumping with polygamy. Should we outlaw traditional marriage?
Additionally you didn't refute polygamy. You simply said americans don't support it. Well guess what. A lot of americans do support same sex marriage and that was the topic of discussion.
Your whole argument rests on lumping polygamy with same sex marriage. Produce an argument refuting polygamy which would also apply and refute same sex marriage. They simply don't overlap.
You are making a fictious case that if we accept same sex marriage we have to accept polygamy. An appeal to emotion without thinking typical of the anti intellectual movement.
I could equally make a case that we shouldn't put a stop sign at an intersection because then we would have to put a stop sign at every intersection in the city. Do you see?
No you don't get it. I am objecting you to lump polygamy with same sex marriage. You could equally refute traditional marriage by lumping with polygamy. Should we outlaw traditional marriage?
Don't lump.
No, I'm not lumping the two at all...and have not in any post. I am in favor of legalizing same-sex partnerships and undecided about whether or not to call them marriages. I do not favor the same for polygamy. So I am separating them completely, not lumping them at all.
You have no right to expect everyone to agree with you about what is moral and not moral. You have a right to express your opinion. I have the same right.
Since you're posting about this in a Buddhist forum, let me change directions slightly. Is there something in Buddhism that you feel supports your position?
I thought you were lumping them and thats what I understood from your previous posts. You are right that I don't have the right to expect you or anyone to agree with me. I was expressing my opinion and I attempted to express it clearly.
Thats an interesting question about whether buddhism supports same sex marriage. I think that the Christian fundamentalist perspective is that same sex marriage is a sin against God the father. Buddha remained silent about the existence of God but he certainly didn't say anything to support the abrahamic God's judgement of man.
I am unaware if Buddha had an opinion of homosexuality. I would imagine that he would think it a fetter to excessively cling to a political view, but instead he would suggest accepting homosexuals as valuable parts of society. Their sexuality isn't inherently good or bad.
I thought you were lumping them and thats what I understood from your previous posts. You are right that I don't have the right to expect you or anyone to agree with me. I was expressing my opinion and I attempted to express it clearly.
Thats an interesting question about whether buddhism supports same sex marriage. I think that the Christian fundamentalist perspective is that same sex marriage is a sin against God the father. Buddha remained silent about the existence of God but he certainly didn't say anything to support the abrahamic God's judgement of man.
I am unaware if Buddha had an opinion of homosexuality. I would imagine that he would think it a fetter to excessively cling to a political view, but instead he would suggest accepting homosexuals as valuable parts of society. Their sexuality isn't inherently good or bad.
I think at issue here are two different things. Religious norms and societal norms. While the two often parallel each other, there are times they diverge, and it's interesting how they diverge in societies like ours (speaking as an American), when there is no majority religion, as compared to a country like Thailand where 95% of the population professes to be Buddhist.
Since you're posting about this in a Buddhist forum, let me change directions slightly. Is there something in Buddhism that you feel supports your position?
A good question. I am not aware of one sutta or sutra that opposes either homosexuality or same sex marriage. As stated in a previous post, however, in recognizing the inherent emptiness of all things, like the concept of what should constitute a marriage, one must recognize that there is no permanent definition of marriage that can ultimately be sustained or defended as more or less superior or natural than another. As long as the precepts are adhered to, I see nothing wrong with legally redefining marriage as needed.
Who says that countries even exist? Who says that castes even exist? Who says that races even exist? Who says that religions even exist.
I look at a satellite image of Earth (which does exist), but I don't see countries. I look at a person, but I don't see a caste. I look at people, but I don't see race. I cannot see a religion. I can't hear a religion. I can't taste a religion. I can't feel a religion, or country, or caste, or race.
Like "country", these are all just abstract ideas, and where we sense them is in our minds. Nothing more. When we base our thinking on abstracts, we are not experiencing reality to the fullest. Furthermore, we start affecting people (ourselves) negatively because we don't see them. We see the abstract concept we apply to them: like "American", "Untouchable", "Black", "Catholic".
Not only is no country "better" than another, they don't even exist to begin with.
Comments
But I think you also have to look at why the many Civil War soldiers on each side were volunteers or, at least willingly served as conscripts. I doubt their reason for fighting was economic factors.
That's what it seems like to me. Because it makes absolutely no sense why they would put such importance on an irrelevant piece of paper like a birth certificate. You can't control where you're born at. But from what I've seen Obama's heart is in the right place. It shouldn't even matter if he was born in Afghanistan. He's a very intelligent president that seems to have strong ethics. I trust him far more than I trusted Bush. If it wasn't for Obama I'd have no health insurance right now, so he has done some good things.
1. The founding fathers of the US were more influenced by Deism than traditional Judeo-Christian values.
2. Though the US has its good points, I'm afraid any sense of democracy we the people may have had on paper has been subverted by private campaign financing. Instead of serving all the people, which is supposed to be their job, our elected officials serve the interests of their prime contributors. This country is governed in the financial interests of the wealthiest 1%, without regard to morality or enlightenment, while the rest of us are, to varying degrees, helpless to do much about it. Talk show hosts spout out propaganda left and right, serving only to distract and delude the majority of people from reality. Campaign finance reform should be America's chief concern right now, though it would take a miracle to see it through I'm afraid; imo, all private campaign financing should be rendered illegal.
3. Regarding marriage, legally speaking, civil marriage is all about one thing: family protections. Civil marriage should be an option for all people to have without requiring the spouses to be of opposite gender. Many gay couples suffer from the lack of legal support, often being denied basic hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, mutual property rights, protections for adopted children, etc., etc.. Civil union law is wholly inadequate to the task. If a couple seeks religious marriage, then such a ceremony should of course be up to the religion involved... but religious views should have no bearing on the legality of a civil marriage.
I really have no opinion on any of this but want to make you aware of the ultimate logical position: it is not two people marrying, it is that whatever construct YOU want to call a marriage- two, three, three hundred- must be allowed. For instance why not marry your sister or brother? I cannot see an argument against it.
If you say marrying your sister will produce an idiot (sorry sis) and should be banned, then one might say two stupid people whom marry might produce the same idiot (they do now I believe) and should not be allowed to mate.
Yikes... can you say eugenics?
BUT if you define marriage as a union between two people for the express purpose of producing healthy offspring, it becomes simple. No old people (past child baring age) can marry. No homosexual marriage. No polygamy (maybe this is OK). No infertile couples marry (if they are discovered to be infertile the marriage is void ) with tests done to assure fertility before contract is signed. No sister/brother stuff.
Help me. I am melting....
:screwy:
It would be awkward to come up with a new word so I suggest legal marriage and religious marriage. Legal marriage would be determined by the tax and social necessities. Religious marriages would not have anything to do with the law. Its a weird blend of church and state. Isn't it? Thats just what I see.
I have a feeling that Obama was basically nudged to run for president, convinced even. That he wouldn't have ran if they didn't think he wasn't the right man. That he was the right man for the job. And from there Hawaii possibly also helped with his birth certificate. But I think there could be a good possibility he really was born in Africa as his grandmother insisted on video that he was born in Africa. Which really shouldn't matter. Anyone who says it matters is more just being biased rather than rational. It's a piece of paper without heart, without merit, we can't control our birth place.
Some rules are just rules, some are just biased regulations without actual justice to them. Some rules are meant to be broken according to what is right. If Obama is impeached just based on his birth certificate there would be a race war, a civil war if you will. Not just between races, but between class division.
I find it's the middle and upper classes that care more about those foolish rules. Because they haven't had to struggle as much to realize that rules aren't always justified. In this case it shouldn't even matter if Obama was born in Africa.
Again, I'm a strong Obama supporter and I think there is nothing to this, but it is troubling as it continues to pop up, albeit for all the wrong reasons.
In imagining all sorts of possible forms of marriage, and lumping them all together as a can of worms to avoid, the very real and present problems plaguing committed same sex couples are neglected. If there is enough interest for legalizing other forms of civil marriage, let each form be sought after on its own merits by those (if any) who want it.
Let's focus on the issue of extending civil marriage to same sex couples on its own merits.
A bi-sexual... not many of those I suppose, should just decide which sex he wants to spend his lifetime with. They are such a small group anyway.
Have you noticed all the programs on TV in the US about polygamy? ( I think there are at least three) These programs can be compared to what gay activists and liberal TV producers introduced twenty years ago with gay characters on prime time ( I , again, do not object , only assert the logical end of this new definition of marriage). The acceptance of polygamy, as normal as homosexuality I am sure ( and perhaps even more attractive and less "abstract" to males than you might imagine), is the next wave.
Is there a color in the rainbow banner that stands for polygamists?
Bisexuality merely denotes a person's sexual attraction to members of both sexes. Bisexuals simply are open to either gay or straight relationships. You are assuming bisexuality comes along with polygamy, which it does not.
As to polygamy (and polyandry while we're at it), then fine, let polygamist civil marriage be sought on its own merits. I forgot about the Mormons. I am not very knowledgeable about Islam, so I am not aware of polygamy being a part of that tradition... the very few Muslims I have known are not polygamous.
It is also worth mentioning that the idea of marriage (like all things in life) has changed remarkably over time already. The concept of "traditional marriage" is an illusion in that sense; it has never been a permanent idea, nor will it ever be. In its earliest form, it was a means for men to legally own women as their property, for the purpose of childbearing and producing sons for the men, and to cook and clean while they lived in their husbands' homes. Those who cry out in opposition to changing the definition of marriage would be logically consistent only if they advocated a return to this original purpose for marriage... fortunately, very few do so.
Again, I'm a strong Obama supporter and I think there is nothing to this, but it is troubling as it continues to pop up, albeit for all the wrong reasons."
In that case if he didn't have documentation and it would be demanded of him next running, it would be the moral thing for him not to run again.
Moreover, polygamy has history and tradition on its side.
Hey, in the Middle Ages, a Muslim man could tour the world ( as they described it) and , in his stay in any one city, marry and divorce a woman as he wished. Their prohibition against unmarried sex was such that the contract was entered and left at will so that the man's religious principles were preserved.
Now that is what I call a definition of marriage!
I can assure you , as a man, being a monogamist is a choice; polygamy is quite natural for us.
I support gay marriage. I only caution that in allowing this re-definition of marriage one needs to allow other definitions
as well.
Do you insist a bi-sexual choose ? Why? Will I use your mixed raced argument here? As Lady Gaga says "They were born this way"
somehow, i doubt your "as a man it is natural to be a polygamist" argument. if this were true, it seems that there would be an extremely high rate of polygamy between homosexual men, but this is not what i see at all. most gay men cultivate monogamous relationships. true, they sometimes have open relationships, but that is not the same as polygamy. open relationships mean they are free to have other sexual partners, but they do not make the other partners part of the relationship itself. this is not uncommon for heterosexuals either.
so you support polygamy, then? i honestly don't care about polygamy. if people find that it makes them happy and no one is being exploited, whatever. i wouldn't fight for their right to marry, but i wouldn't fight against them either.
i understand that if gay marriage were to become a reality, it might shake things up a little. i'm sure those advocating other types of marriage might see it as a sign and push a little harder for their own rights, but that doesn't mean that they will win. my point is that gay marriage is a completely different topic, separate from all other marriage arguments and should be treated as such. the fact that you lump it with other baggage is actually quite offensive.
Moreover, polygamy has history and tradition on its side."
Well if there is no argument against same sex marriage AND polygamy then in our discussion the rational person shall endorse both. You have not produced an argument against either. There is a stigma against polygamy but no rational reason is given for why it is wrong. The presumption is that the women are coerced into it, but that is cultural rather than anything inherent about polygamy. There are marriages between men and women where one is exploited so that is hardly unique to polygamy. Polygamy just has more stigma.
Don't lump.
like i said, it's not for me, but if it really is conducive to a loving environment and hurts no one... then i have to agree with you. i would like to hear some of the arguments against polygamy that don't revolve around religion or social mores. i don't know enough about it to be able to definitively say whether or not it is anti-woman or a form of psychological brainwashing. these are the arguments i hear, anyways. everyone knows what the man gets out of it, but it is very difficult to imagine what benefits the women might receive. (assuming we are talking about the typical, one man/several woman polygamist relationship)
No you don't get it. I am objecting you to lump polygamy with same sex marriage. You could equally refute traditional marriage by lumping with polygamy. Should we outlaw traditional marriage?
Don't lump.
Your whole argument rests on lumping polygamy with same sex marriage. Produce an argument refuting polygamy which would also apply and refute same sex marriage. They simply don't overlap.
You are making a fictious case that if we accept same sex marriage we have to accept polygamy. An appeal to emotion without thinking typical of the anti intellectual movement.
I could equally make a case that we shouldn't put a stop sign at an intersection because then we would have to put a stop sign at every intersection in the city. Do you see?
You have no right to expect everyone to agree with you about what is moral and not moral. You have a right to express your opinion. I have the same right.
Since you're posting about this in a Buddhist forum, let me change directions slightly. Is there something in Buddhism that you feel supports your position?
Thats an interesting question about whether buddhism supports same sex marriage. I think that the Christian fundamentalist perspective is that same sex marriage is a sin against God the father. Buddha remained silent about the existence of God but he certainly didn't say anything to support the abrahamic God's judgement of man.
I am unaware if Buddha had an opinion of homosexuality. I would imagine that he would think it a fetter to excessively cling to a political view, but instead he would suggest accepting homosexuals as valuable parts of society. Their sexuality isn't inherently good or bad.
I look at a satellite image of Earth (which does exist), but I don't see countries. I look at a person, but I don't see a caste. I look at people, but I don't see race. I cannot see a religion. I can't hear a religion. I can't taste a religion. I can't feel a religion, or country, or caste, or race.
Like "country", these are all just abstract ideas, and where we sense them is in our minds. Nothing more. When we base our thinking on abstracts, we are not experiencing reality to the fullest. Furthermore, we start affecting people (ourselves) negatively because we don't see them. We see the abstract concept we apply to them: like "American", "Untouchable", "Black", "Catholic".
Not only is no country "better" than another, they don't even exist to begin with.