Amulek Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 (edited) Oops. Wrong thread. Edited February 28, 2020 by Amulek
Calm Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Amulek said: I honestly don't believe the intent was to make 4 the new 1. How often has the Church or BYU jumped from a 1 to a 4 to use your reasoning? I think it is wishful thinking that such a significant move would be made with no steps in between. Edited February 28, 2020 by Calm 1
ttribe Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 (edited) First, imagine my disappointment when, upon seeing the title of the thread, I came in here to find the discussion was NOT about Game of Thrones. Second, I do not advocate in favor of incest, nor do I believe the aforementioned TV show was acting as an advocate attempting to normalize incestuous behavior; pure shock value for ratings and nothing more. That being said, I am an advocate for the general banning of the use of latin terms on this board, henceforth and forever. Talk about pretentious nonsense. Third, I truly believe Chicken Little had nothing on Smac. Edited February 28, 2020 by ttribe 1
Vanguard Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 1 hour ago, Calm said: How could you ensure no family member was telling another at every family gathering 'we were meant to be' and out of respect for the family the other didn't make a big deal about the hugs and kisses and constant pressure to do more? Or worse if they lived together and one sibling had to daily face romantic gestures from the other? How do you create legal distance between family members seeing each other in family contexts, including ones where conflict is heavily frowned upon? Those are all good questions I don't have a sufficient answer for. A couple of thoughts though - 1) a middle ground may be to require 'x' number of individual counseling sessions for each marriage candidate. And that without the endorsement of a professional, the marriage could not be approved. We already do this in other circumstances (i.e., certain elective surgeries); 2) the law could also read that a certain amount of time is required after the person becomes an adult before we consider them capable of consent. I understand the consternation with green-lighting young adults in these types of situations. For older folks though, the idea that we consider them incompetent by default to make such a decision strikes me as abusive; and 3) there is also the idea that without a ground swell of folks demanding this 'right', there is not much of a press to grant it. There is a big difference between a few couples advocating for this and thousands... What do you think?
Vanguard Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: Most incompetent people do not know it. This also applies to many of the meanings of the word “incompetent”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect I don't get it. You're at least competent enough to know you're not!? ;o
The Nehor Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 6 hours ago, Vanguard said: I don't get it. You're at least competent enough to know you're not!? ;o No, the truly stupid often do not realize it. "Lord, is it I?" I am probably going to get struck by lightning for that one.
The Nehor Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 7 hours ago, ttribe said: That being said, I am an advocate for the general banning of the use of latin terms on this board, henceforth and forever. Talk about pretentious nonsense. Infinitus est numerus stultorum.
Meadowchik Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 10 hours ago, Vanguard said: Then what do you rest your position on if the individuals prove to be competent in every way that you and I are? They're incompetent and they don't even know it? Think about your kids if you have any. How would you feel and what would you think about having to perform surgery on one. Or them as an adult having to arrest you. Or you representing one as their lawyer. Or them as an adult being your psychotherapist. Or you as the judge in court where they stand accused. There are instances in life where we must all recuse ourselves, situations in which amply competent people are going to be comprimised, even under the best conditions. 1
The Nehor Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 8 hours ago, Calm said: How could you ensure no family member was telling another at every family gathering 'we were meant to be' and out of respect for the family the other didn't make a big deal about the hugs and kisses and constant pressure to do more? Or worse if they lived together and one sibling had to daily face romantic gestures from the other? How do you create legal distance between family members seeing each other in family contexts, including ones where conflict is heavily frowned upon? Also how do you not destroy a family when dad leaves mom to marry your sister and everyone refuses to gather for any holiday out of pure disgust? 1
Calm Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 7 hours ago, ttribe said: That being said, I am an advocate for the general banning of the use of latin terms on this board, henceforth and forever Nope...I must have my motto. http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/58415-calmoriahs-latin/ 1
The Nehor Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 I also need to maintain my Latin motto: quis est haec simia? Not sure what it means but a friend said it sums me up very well. 2
Meadowchik Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 I still like the classics. Carpe Diem. Scio te ipsum. 1
Kenngo1969 Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: I also need to maintain my Latin motto: quis est haec simia? Not sure what it means but a friend said it sums me up very well. You'll be pleased to know that, recently, I painted a marvelous portrait of you, The Nehor. I'm sure it will fetch millions at auction! Wanna go halves? Edited February 28, 2020 by Kenngo1969 2
Ahab Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 6 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said: You'll be pleased to know that, recently, I painted a marvelous portrait of you, The Nehor. I'm sure it will fetch millions at auction! Wanna go halves? I usually appreciate it when I can put a name to a face, or vice versa. Thank you for this. I appreciate it.
Ahab Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 (edited) 8 hours ago, Meadowchik said: Think about your kids if you have any. How would you feel and what would you think about having to perform surgery on one. Or them as an adult having to arrest you. Or you representing one as their lawyer. Or them as an adult being your psychotherapist. Or you as the judge in court where they stand accused. There are instances in life where we must all recuse ourselves, situations in which amply competent people are going to be comprimised, even under the best conditions. Okay, so how about a compromise. Forbidding parents to marry their own children, but allowing brothers and sisters to marry each other, if they want to. Otherwise, what else are we going to marry? edited to add: just in case you missed my earlier memo, I have already pointed out that we are all brothers and sisters of the same Father in heaven. FYI and for others who may not know that. Edited February 28, 2020 by Ahab
Anijen Posted February 29, 2020 Posted February 29, 2020 On 2/27/2020 at 1:16 PM, Daniel2 said: The risks of birth defects between first cousins is often overestimated, as outlined in this 2002 New York Times article (again, pre-dating Obergefell by 13 years). It’s also interesting to note that world-wide, the taboo doesn’t exist as profoundly as it does here in the states, and consanguineous marriages are sometimes even preferred: There really is not much of a taboo in the United States for first cousins marrying.
Anijen Posted February 29, 2020 Posted February 29, 2020 16 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said: You'll be pleased to know that, recently, I painted a marvelous portrait of you, The Nehor. I'm sure it will fetch millions at auction! Wanna go halves? Hey, I recognize that photo from a law school case. The chimpanzee took a selfie, and the photographer wanted to sell it but somehow, of course, the law mixed up ownership rights, since technically the chimpanzee took the picture, hence he/she was the photographer.
Calm Posted February 29, 2020 Posted February 29, 2020 10 minutes ago, Anijen said: Hey, I recognize that photo from a law school case. The chimpanzee took a selfie, and the photographer wanted to sell it but somehow, of course, the law mixed up ownership rights, since technically the chimpanzee took the picture, hence he/she was the photographer. Macaque, not chimpanzee: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute I thought you were making a joke, lol. 1
Anijen Posted February 29, 2020 Posted February 29, 2020 10 minutes ago, Calm said: Macaque, not chimpanzee: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute I thought you were making a joke, lol. Thanks for the link. Yeah, it has been a long time since my 1L classes, and I thought it was a chimpanzee... Actually, after reading your link, I'm patting myself on my back thinking i got most of the case right. 1
Kenngo1969 Posted February 29, 2020 Posted February 29, 2020 (edited) 14 hours ago, Anijen said: Hey, I recognize that photo from a law school case. The chimpanzee took a selfie, and the photographer wanted to sell it but somehow, of course, the law mixed up ownership rights, since technically the chimpanzee took the picture, hence he/she was the photographer. Holy crap! Now, you've got me curious! Any chance you could find the citation? P.S.: Is the chimpanzee going to sue me for using his likeness without his permission? [Added:] Is the macaque going to sue me for calling him a chimpanzee? Edited February 29, 2020 by Kenngo1969 1
Bernard Gui Posted February 29, 2020 Posted February 29, 2020 (edited) On 2/27/2020 at 3:44 PM, Daniel2 said: Do you believe that the addition of "consent" and "adult" were each a positive or negative addition to the requirements for marriage? I’m not sure what you are getting at. Are you suggesting I support forced and/or child marriages? It seems obvious to me that in the context of this discussion, the “new definition” means the recent legalization of same sex marriages. The argument was made that there could be no reason to oppose them if the participants were both consenting adults. In my opinion, that decision placed other combinations including marriage with multiple partners or even family members beyond criticism...if, after all, the participants are consenting adults. Edited February 29, 2020 by Bernard Gui 1
Bernard Gui Posted February 29, 2020 Posted February 29, 2020 (edited) On 2/28/2020 at 12:24 AM, The Nehor said: Also how do you not destroy a family when dad leaves mom to marry your sister and everyone refuses to gather for any holiday out of pure disgust? Lots of folks are not bothered by destruction of families by their selfish actions. Edited February 29, 2020 by Bernard Gui 2
Calm Posted February 29, 2020 Posted February 29, 2020 1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said: Lots of folks are not bothered by destruction of families by their selfish actions. Or they may not see it as destroyed, but adapting.
Meadowchik Posted February 29, 2020 Posted February 29, 2020 44 minutes ago, Calm said: Or they may not see it as destroyed, but adapting. I would say that the taboo against incest is itself an adaptation. Not only does it favor healthier gene pools, but also the value of human beings having individual rights and identities. It's very basic, and it is imo why it is so important that incest is prohibited.
Kenngo1969 Posted February 29, 2020 Posted February 29, 2020 5 hours ago, Meadowchik said: I would say that the taboo against incest is itself an adaptation. Not only does it favor healthier gene pools, but also the value of human beings having individual rights and identities. It's very basic, and it is imo why it is so important that incest is prohibited. Say the parties are incapable of conceiving, removing the likelihood of undesirable genetic mutation from the equation. Couldn't someone who sees nothing wrong with incest argue that, actually, the taboo is interfering with the "rights and identities" of consenting adults who wish to engage in it? Didn't we see that same argument employed in support of gay marriage? If one's sexual identity is fundamental to who one is, and if the parties are capable of consenting to behavior which arises from that sexual identity, and if they do, in fact, consent to such behavior, who is anyone else to object? The taboo against homse*ual intimate relations sprang, we were told, from nothing more than prejudice. Once the possibility of conceiving offspring with genetic complications is removed from the equation, isn't the exact same argument applicable in exactly the same way and exactly to the same degree to incestuous relationships as it is to gay marriage/intimate relations? Why is the argument applicable to homos*xual marriage/intimate relations but not to infertile incestuous relationships? (I know you believe that, inherently, consent is impossible between incestuous partners, but I'm not convinced.)
Recommended Posts