From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Tue Mar 18 2003 - 15:04:39 GMT
Hi Rick:
> RICK
> The number 7 came from DMB's post. But it doesn't matter how many
> multiple-spouses are at issue anyway. You don't even have to use a number.
> Just use "x", where 'x' = any number greater than 1. Even limiting
> polygamous (or polyandrous) rights to a mere 'x' number spouses, you would
> still need 'x' times the number of women (or men) or else someone is going
> to be mate-less. Lowering the number of permissible mates will make the
> imbalance less severe, but statistically speaking, there will still be an
> imbalance. If I marry 2 women, then some other guy will have none.
You're invoking the old zero sum game. But the world doesn't work that
way. Plenty of men don't want to marry. Plenty of women would like to
get married, but end up old maids. Lots of couples mate but never marry
to the detriment of children. The "imbalance" you speak of is largely
theoretical conjecture on your part.
> PLATT
> > Once you change the legal and socially accepted definition of marriage as
> > between one man and one women, all sorts of marital arrangements open up.
>
> RICK
> Yes Platt. Once we make our values less rigid, we open the door for
> Dynamic Quality. In the context of marriage, this means considering the
> possibility of marriages between two homosexuals, polygamous marriages,
> polyandrous marriages, homosexual-bigamy, homosexual polyandry, homosexual
> and bisexual group marriages... even heterosexual group marriages.
> In the MOQ, in general, given a choice of two courses to follow and all
> other things being equal, the more Dynamic choice is the more moral choice
> (LILA ch13 p183 ). This means that defenders of the social status quo have
> the burden of justifying the value of existing patterns over the value of
> dynamic change.
In what ways, specifically, does tearing down the established social
pattern of marriage promote Dynamic Quality? We saw how the attack
on social patterns in the 60's in the name of Dynamic Quality caused
degeneration. Merely saying let's "open the door to DQ" is not enough.
Change for the sake of change doesn't justify destroying a social pattern
painfully constructed over generations by people trying to control
biological threats and assure their society's continuance. No. The
burden is on those who want to tear down the social order to convince
others of the benefits.
> PLATT
> A society that tosses out proven patterns to control biology
> > risks degeneration, as demonstrated by the 60's Hippies and explained by
> > Pirsig in Chap. 24 of Lila.
>
> PIRSIG (LILA ch24 p355)
> What the Metaphysics of Quality concludes is that the old Puritan and
> Victorian social codes should not be followed blindly, but should not be
> attacked blindly either. They should be dusted off and re-examined, fairly
> and impartially, to see what they were trying to accomplish and what they
> actually *did* accomplish toward building a stronger society.
>
> RICK
> This fair and impartial 'dusting off' and reexamining of those old
> puritanical codes is what I've been trying to do in this thread. The idea
> is to see what social goods the patterns claimed for themselves and what
> social goods (if any) they were actually accomplishing. After we've
> answered those question than we'll really be ready to determine whether the
> particular practice is worth preserving. Simply appealing to the MOQ cannot
> make the decision for us. All it will tell us is that we shouldn't attack
> or defend these practices "blindly," for whatever that's worth. Appealing
> to 'proven patterns' won't get us anywhere either since those are the very
> things we are supposed to be scrutinizing.
> Are laws against homosexual marriage really accomplishing anything
> towards building a stronger society or are they just someone's ancient
> prejudices masquerading as 'social controls of biology'? Davor and I
> think the latter, you think the former.
Yes. You and Davor have to convince a lot of other people, too. What
you see as a "masquerade" many see as a necessary static latch.
Dropping in ad hominem remarks like "puritanical codes" and "ancient
prejudices" doesn't forward your argument.
> Do laws against 'multiple-partner marriages' actually accomplish
> anything towards a stronger society? I think so and I have tried to
> explain at least one of the reasons why I think those 'old Puritan and
> Victorian social codes' against bigamy do have value. That is, I've tried
> to explain what it is about bigamy that's dangerous to a society (something
> you seem to be unwilling or unable to do for me with respect to your views
> on gay marriage, i really wish you had answered my 'multiple choice'
> question from my post to you on 3/15). I think the laws against bigamy
> were trying to keep the social statistics in such a balance as to give each
> individual an equal opportunity to find a mate. Preventing social unrest
> is one very practical reason for doing so.
"Preventing social unrest" can also be used as an argument against
allowing gay marriages.
> Another reason might be to keep greater variety in the gene pool (10
> women bearing children for different fathers will surely produce greater
> variety than 10 women all bearing children for the same father). Greater
> variety in the gene pool will surely increase the potential for creating
> Dynamic individuals. I mean really, where would we all be today if Maynard
> Pirsig was prevented from mating with Harriet Sjobeck-Pirsig because she
> was already the 3rd wife of some other man?
I take it your against sperm banks? And I love the way you keep upping
the ante from permitting 2 wives to 7 and now 10. That just highlights
my slippery slope argument against changing marriage laws. Once you
open the door, people will find a rationale for all sorts of legal marriage
arrangements, none benefiting society IMO.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 18 2003 - 15:07:07 GMT