http://m.billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/polygamous-billings-trio-applies-for-wedding-license/article_97631ed5-c5b8-54e2-9423-c2f262bbff78.html
QuoteHELENA â€" A Montana man said Wednesday that he was inspired by last week’s U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage to apply for a marriage license so that he can legally wed his second wife.
Nathan Collier and his wives Victoria and Christine applied at the Yellowstone County Courthouse in Billings on Tuesday in an attempt to legitimize their polygamous marriage. Montana, like all 50 states, outlaws bigamy â€" holding multiple marriage licenses â€" but Collier said he plans to sue if the application is denied.
“It’s about marriage equality,†Collier told The Associated Press on Wednesday. “You can’t have this without polygamy.â€
County clerk officials initially denied Collier’s application, then said they would consult with the county attorney’s office before giving him a final answer, Collier said.
Yellowstone County chief civil litigator Kevin Gillen said he is reviewing Montana’s bigamy laws and expected to send a formal response to Collier by next week.
“I think he deserves an answer,†Gillen said, but added his review is finding that “the law simply doesn’t provide for that yet.â€
The Supreme Court’s ruling Friday made gay marriages legal nationwide. Chief Justice John Roberts said in his dissent that people in polygamous relationships could make the same legal argument that not having the opportunity to marry disrespects and subordinates them.
I think love is love. I'm obviously not a fundamentalist Mormon myself, but I think if they're
all consenting adults, they should be free to exercise their love and relationship in a way their religion allows. It also doesn't hurt anyone.
I'm surprised by how many people are angry over this, like "We allowed the gays, and now look what you've done!" All I can say is, good. By the way, this kind of marriage is allowed in the Bible. So now what?
QuoteChief Justice John Roberts said in his dissent that people in polygamous relationships could make the same legal argument that not having the opportunity to marry disrespects and subordinates them.
He's right.
I see nothing wrong with polygamy between consenting adults.
I see this going the same way as the gay marriage argument in that a lot of opponents will claim that if we allow it, everyone will be rushing to get plurally married. Apparently those people have a dim view of how most people (particularly not fundamentalist Mormons) would handle jealousy and trust in their marriage if one spouse wanted to bring in a few more spouses. I don't see plural marriage spreading like wildfire, sorry.
I will take polygamy discussion seriously after A WOMAN applies for marriage licence for the 2ND HUSBAND. Let's see what will happen then.
It's all fun and games until someone marries an AI
Quote from: drunkenshoe on July 02, 2015, 11:44:18 AM
I will take polygamy discussion seriously after A WOMAN applies for marriage licence for the 2ND HUSBAND. Let's see what will happen then.
That seems, to me, only a matter of time ... & love.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on July 02, 2015, 11:44:18 AM
I will take polygamy discussion seriously after A WOMAN applies for marriage licence for the 2ND HUSBAND. Let's see what will happen then.
Well, certainly the religious basis for polyandry isn't really as strong, since there are far fewer cultural examples of it.
If you're into science fiction, Heinlein wrote a novel called
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress in which the moon was a penal colony that eventually became an independent "state." Initially far more men were sent to the colony than women, and women took multiple husbands and eventually it evolved into a system they referred to as line marriage, where a group of consenting adults were all married to each other. In the novel, it's a system that works well as a means of raising children, fostering a good home life, etc.
It sounds absolutely laughable, but my husband has a daughter with special needs and taking care of her has taken a toll on both of us. I'm not a greatly affectionate person and I want a career more than children, and I once remarked that he needed a mother for his child more than he needed a wife. He turned it into a joke about marrying a second woman, and honestly I kind of thought, maybe?... We've compromised, where some people would get divorced. I think a second compromise (had it been legal) would have been allowing him to find a second wife who did want to be a stay-at-home mom, let her stay home and raise them all, and me and my husband go to work and provide them with a decent standard of living. I know it sounds ludicrous and I highly doubt I would ever meet anyone who would share such an open and liberal view of marriage. I admit my husband would likely be a lot less tolerant of finding a second husband than I would be of him finding a second wife, but hey.
I guess the way I see it is, being a single parent is a pretty fast track to poverty, and the more parents (or guardians) a child has, the better their chance of success. Realistically as I've already said, I can't see millions of people rushing out to do this, but it's a model that makes practical and financial sense if all parties are willing to lay jealousy aside.
Quote from: Sal1981 on July 02, 2015, 11:37:24 AM
He's right.
I see nothing wrong with polygamy between consenting adults.
Agreed. I'm in one myself with my two bfs, and I remember a story about three women in love all together who wanted marriage licence
Quote from: TomFoolery on July 02, 2015, 12:01:13 PM
Well, certainly the religious basis for polyandry isn't really as strong, since there are far fewer cultural examples of it.
Yeah well, we can't have women going around 'legally' enjoy gang fucking. Especially because they are the gender with the suitable anatomy for it. Oh, I invented a term. '-What you are up to this weekend? Fancy a movie?-'Naah, I am booked, I am gang fucking my husbands, sorry'. We women can only get 'gang raped' or 'gang banged'. Not gang fuck. Tsk tsk tsk.
(See, this is all happening because they legalised marriage in the US. It corrupted me. I thought of anal and oral sex! At the same time! :eek: Paaaat!)
QuoteIf you're into science fiction, Heinlein wrote a novel called The Moon is a Harsh Mistress in which the moon was a penal colony that eventually became an independent "state." Initially far more men were sent to the colony than women, and women took multiple husbands and eventually it evolved into a system they referred to as line marriage, where a group of consenting adults were all married to each other. In the novel, it's a system that works well as a means of raising children, fostering a good home life, etc.
Were the people sent to the moon convicts at the begining? I remember something like that but I am not sure.
This reminds me Ursula Leguin's books. Probably you know Birthday of the World (story book). But mostly it is about dysutopias.
In one of her civilisations the marriage has to be between 4 people. If memory serves right, everyone has one het one gay partner and one that they never have sex with, but just friends. It's genius.
QuoteIt sounds absolutely laughable, but my husband has a daughter with special needs and taking care of her has taken a toll on both of us. I'm not a greatly affectionate person and I want a career more than children, and I once remarked that he needed a mother for his child more than he needed a wife. He turned it into a joke about marrying a second woman, and honestly I kind of thought, maybe?... We've compromised, where some people would get divorced. I think a second compromise (had it been legal) would have been allowing him to find a second wife who did want to be a stay-at-home mom, let her stay home and raise them all, and me and my husband go to work and provide them with a decent standard of living. I know it sounds ludicrous and I highly doubt I would ever meet anyone who would share such an open and liberal view of marriage. I admit my husband would likely be a lot less tolerant of finding a second husband than I would be of him finding a second wife, but hey.
It doesn't sound ludicrous, however considering the human nature and the world we live in; certain 'roles' loaded with negative or positive connotations and the dynamic that would occur in the family could be a painful one. You could be better off with marrying him with a domestic motherly type and fuck him on the side if she accepts. If legal, then you'll be forced into some 'masculin' role bboth in and out of family wether you want it or not. I don't know. It depends on people.
QuoteI guess the way I see it is, being a single parent is a pretty fast track to poverty, and the more parents (or guardians) a child has, the better their chance of success. Realistically as I've already said, I can't see millions of people rushing out to do this, but it's a model that makes practical and financial sense if all parties are willing to lay jealousy aside.
Agreed. I will go further and offer what Ursula did in Dispossessed and say we should live in large communes. People shouldn't have moms and dads, but professional caretakers in professional places where they have to attend after their birth up to a certain age. People can see their children if they want. In generations to come we can wipe out marriage, stupid roles and norms that come with it and have a pretty healthy society if you ask me.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on July 02, 2015, 12:45:13 PMWere the people sent to the moon convicts at the begining? I remember something like that but I am not sure.
Yeah, everyone sent to the moon was convicted of some crime on earth, but even after their sentence was over they continued to live on the moon and formed a society, even as new convicts and political dissidents came in. A unique thing about the book is women hold a higher social value than men, but when you think about why you realize it's still largely about men. Since there were so few women in the early days of the colony, women married multiple men so more men could have sexual satisfaction and in return they protected their wife against forcible rape by other men. The literal term "prison bitch" comes to mind. But as time went on and people began having children on the moon and more women joined the colony, women eventually just became very highly regarded. They even considered it lucky if one's firstborn was a girl.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on July 02, 2015, 12:45:13 PMAgreed. I will go further and offer what Ursula did in Dispossessed and say we should live in large communes. People shouldn't have moms and dads, but professional caretakers in professional places where they have to attend after their birth up to a certain age. People can see their children if they want. In generations to come we can wipe out marriage, stupid roles and norms that come with it and have a pretty healthy society if you ask me.
I feel like the notion of having children raised by professional caretakers runs the risk of homogenizing us too much, which I would think would be as bad as being too fractured. Yes, differences in beliefs and opinions has sent us to war, but war revolutionizes technology. It's a Catch-22. I also feel like the notion of marriage is antiquated, but I don't know if I'm against getting rid of it all together, because ultimately it still serves as a contract between two people to support each other. Unfortunately too many people prefer to walk away from their responsibilities.
Quote from: TomFoolery on July 02, 2015, 01:28:36 PM
I feel like the notion of having children raised by professional caretakers runs the risk of homogenizing us too much, which I would think would be as bad as being too fractured. Yes, differences in beliefs and opinions has sent us to war, but war revolutionizes technology.
The last sentence was probably the one of the biggest hypocritical bullshit I have seen in this forum so far. You have just said 'invading foriegn countries and killing millions of civilians make my country powerful and 'rich' and keeps me in business, why should we evolve?'
You realise that's definition of terrorism, right? There is no difference between you and an islamist jihaddist from this angle. You see yourself entitled to destory and kill for your benefits and make excuses for it. Why are you against christians -or muslims and others- and their attack on legalising marriage, equality or because they want to oppress females, killing gay people...etc. Their point is exactly the same with yours. It's beneficial for them. You both are voicing the same goal through the same act.
You cannot homogenise billions of world population of thousands of different cultures and hundreds of languages by removing nuclear family. If you raise children apart from bullshit family values and their parents' desires, bullshit norms and roles and personal goals, you can undermine classes, most importantly most religious-bigotic brainwashing, any kind of entitlement and bullshit the world suffers. For example, people wouldn't buy any bullshit like nationalism, patriotism and very less amount of people would choose a military career. Tribalism and religious bullshit start with nuclear family. They would have a far more chance to be individuals in the real sense, society would be forced to evolve to create more forms of existence.
It's not differences of opinions or beliefs that has sent 'you' into war. It's money and power and greed. And countless people like you in the world who support that, eager to be a part of it.
Considering the last paragraph you wrote along with your other reactions to some basic human rights issues in the forum, you must be surviving on extreme compartmentalisation bordering absolute apathy or some sort of sociopathy. Because I don't see how you come here, from there unless you only percieve your fellow countrymen as human beings and the rest as something to kill to have more and more.
Then may be, exactly like religious people, soldiers shouldn't be taken seriously as healthy participants in certain discussions. After all, you people are not programmed to think, are you?
Quote from: drunkenshoe on July 02, 2015, 02:35:43 PM
Then may be, exactly like religious people, soldiers shouldn't be taken seriously as healthy participants in certain discussions. After all, you people are not programmed to think, are you?
That turned to a lot of name calling very quickly?
I never said I support war. I don't. I've been to war. I know what it looks like to hold someone's hand when they've just lost their limbs. Not many people hate war more than I do. That's a big part of why I left the Army. So stop acting like I said I like war. That was your interpretation of a single sentence taken out of context. Now who sounds like a religious zealot on a soapbox?
So before you start putting more words in my mouth and twisting them into things I never said or intended, all I was merely pointing out is that from the dawn of history, conflict
HAS driven technology. That's fact. I'm not saying we should create more war in order to have a reason to develop more technology. I was simply acknowledging a link for FUCK'S SAKE.
Quote from: TomFoolery on July 02, 2015, 02:39:57 PM
That turned to a lot of name calling very quickly?
I never said I support war. I don't. I've been to war. I know what it looks like to hold someone's hand when they've just lost their limbs. Not many people hate war more than I do. That's a big part of why I left the Army. So stop acting like I said I like war. That was your interpretation of a single sentence taken out of context. Now who sounds like a religious zealot on a soapbox?
So before you start putting more words in my mouth and twisting them into things I never said or intended, all I was merely pointing out is that from the dawn of history, conflict HAS driven technology. That's fact. I'm not saying we should create more war in order to have a reason to develop more technology. I was simply acknowledging a link for FUCK'S SAKE.
I didn't put words in your mouth. I removed the political correctness, TF. It's not name calling, it is a soldier's place in the big picture. That's what I described. You don't have to like it or me for saying it.
The sort of conflict that has once driven technology ended a couple hundreds of years ago. Competing who will get the biggest horse power to kill whom is not advancing technology. Almost all the budgets go for military res. since wwI. It's a full throttle machine annihilating masses for nothing and everything is shaped by it. When you voice it the way you do, how did you expect me to react to a soldier?
Quote from: drunkenshoe on July 02, 2015, 03:00:01 PM
I didn't put words in your mouth. I removed the political correctness, TF. It's not name calling, it is a soldier's place in the big picture. That's what I described. You don't have to like it or me for saying it.
You didn't remove political correctness. You twisted my words. And I'm saying that what you're saying is based on emotion and a
gross overgeneralization of all soldiers. I'm not a soldier anymore, and I don't consider myself one. You don't know me or what I believe, obviously. It's an Internet forum, we don't have to be best buddies braiding each other's hair and telling each other intimate secrets about our hopes and dreams. If you've hated me all along for my former military service, the stop replying to my posts.
But you don't get to say it's not name calling when you gladly tell me I'm a sociopath incapable of thought for one sentence that you took completely out of context.
And by the way, what you’re suggesting is that people should just turn their children over to “caregivers†so they won’t be brainwashed. If you think about what brainwashing is, in essence, raising children
is brainwashing. It gets its negative connotation from teaching them hate and willful ignorance, but it also comes in the form of asking children to do the right thing before they have the mental capacity to appreciate the consequences of their actions.
Moreover, where do these “caregivers†come from? The government? Because obviously the government can and should be trusted to know what's best for children. *eyeroll* Google Romanian orphanages and see how that turns out. You think people wouldn't buy bullshit like nationalism if the government was in charge of their upbringing?!
Quote from: TomFoolery on July 02, 2015, 03:06:18 PM
And I'm saying that what you're saying is based on emotion and a gross overgeneralization of all soldiers.
What's that? A 'true soldier' fallacy? Or you have some Captain America fantasy?
Also the bolded part sounds like some het male comeback to some female voicing an obvious issue. What's next? Are you going to ask me if I am on my period?
QuoteI'm not a soldier anymore, and I don't consider myself one.
Good for you, I suppose. But then the pics you posted were taken in the army I guess, that's probably why I thought you like being a soldier and talking as one. Soldiers usually have this thing of posting themselves in/with gear. It's the history of selfies before the internet. It has an immediate effect on me.
QuoteYou don't know me or what I believe, obviously. It's an Internet forum, we don't have to be best buddies braiding each other's hair and telling each other intimate secrets about our hopes and dreams.
I don't get where that comes from. Everything I wrote here is about general issues we talk and what I think about them. I am writing you and everyone I see in the forum more or less with the same manner. Does that mean you unconscioulsy wanted something like that before? That's an honest question, because there is no reason or a cause for you to say something like that from my part.
QuoteBut you don't get to say it's not name calling when you gladly tell me I'm a sociopath incapable of thought for one sentence that you took completely out of context.
I do think, becoming a soldier -when it is not compulsory where you live, just choosing it as a career- and going to war to kill people and invade their homeland for no good reason at the other side of the world requires some level of those traits I described. Again, you don't have to like it or me for saying it. Do you see the difference between 'name calling' and describing something as you see it?
Would you like it better, if I said "we have to agree to disagree then, lol ;)" ?
QuoteAnd by the way, what you’re suggesting is that people should just turn their children over to “caregivers†so they won’t be brainwashed. If you think about what brainwashing is, in essence, raising children is brainwashing.It gets its negative connotation from teaching them hate and willful ignorance, but it also comes in the form of asking children to do the right thing before they have the mental capacity to appreciate the consequences of their actions.
Moreover, where do these “caregivers†come from? The government? Because obviously the government can and should be trusted to know what's best for children. *eyeroll* Google Romanian orphanages and see how that turns out. You think people wouldn't buy bullshit like nationalism if the government was in charge of their upbringing?!
Well, if you read the book, you'll get what I'm saying. It's too long I can't just write it here. It's not an utopia or a perfect world. It's also a nonreligious society. I was entertaining an idea. And you are giving too much credit to some notions and convictions.
Maybe you were lucky and were born fiercely intelligent and socially righteous. Not everyone is. Maybe some of us did or experienced things that shaped our worldview, rather than simply inherited them through a lucky stroke of genetics. I can actually tell you the exact moment I realized war was inherently wrong, but I suppose you’re not interested in hearing it, since I’m clearly too stupid to have opinions because I went to war in the first place.
The irony here is up until now I’ve considered you one of the more insightful people on this forum. Then I make a comment about how war drives technology (and not just guns and bombs, but everything from stirrups and zippers to radar and stainless steel) and you come saying I’m a ignorant sociopath that supports war and it’s not your fault that you speak to me the way you do because I’m a “soldier†and I obviously seem to deserve it. You could have, you know, asked for clarification into what I meant if you didn’t understand, but you decided to go right for the throat and condemn me as some kind of conservative, war-mongering sinner against humanity. You might as well say I murdered babies and ate them, and liked it.
In my mind, your instant judgment and sweeping assumptions of me as a human being, based solely on my former military service (that you know nothing about) is hypocritically close to all the religious zealots you so openly condemn.
Quote from: TomFoolery on July 02, 2015, 03:45:01 PM
Maybe you were lucky and were born fiercely intelligent and socially righteous. Not everyone is. Maybe some of us did or experienced things that shaped our worldview, rather than simply inherited them through a lucky stroke of genetics. I can actually tell you the exact moment I realized war was inherently wrong, but I suppose you’re not interested in hearing it, since I’m clearly too stupid to have opinions because I went to war in the first place.
I don't think you are stupid or that I am very intelligent. If I thought you were stupid, I would tell you that. I am an ordinary person.
QuoteThe irony here is up until now I’ve considered you one of the more insightful people on this forum.
I am an insightful person. The thing is that doesn't create a conflict when I say something you believe to be very harsh or annoying... or something you find hurtful.
QuoteThen I make a comment about how war drives technology (and not just guns and bombs, but everything from stirrups and zippers to radar and stainless steel) and you come saying I’m a ignorant sociopath that supports war and it’s not your fault that you speak to me the way you do because I’m a “soldier†and I obviously seem to deserve it. You could have, you know, asked for clarification into what I meant if you didn’t understand, but you decided to go right for the throat and condemn me as some kind of conservative, war-mongering sinner against humanity. You might as well say I murdered babies and ate them, and liked it.
If you prefer I can write something more dramatic and tearful. I didn't call you conservative and I don't think you are a war mongering baby eating monster either. I was just thinking about logic of militarism and someone making a career out of that logic. That's all. When I read that from someone who told she served actively at Afghanistan and posted those pics, I told you what I thought, I didn't need any clarification. You wouldn't need either, doesn't matter how you would react.
QuoteIn my mind, your instant judgment and sweeping assumptions of me as a human being, based solely on my former military service (that you know nothing about) is hypocritically close to all the religious zealots you so openly condemn.
Yes it is. And as I told in my previous post, you posting those pics. Because that means a lot and when you speak about 'I did this and that served here and there'. I really don't have to know anything. Would you be so open and quick about your previous occupation if it was something else? I don't think so.
The bolded part doesn't really mean anything. Army is the least flexible structure humans created. It's based on the most legal kind of fanatism and hypocrisy. I am criticising that. Again, I am behind the traits I have described above a soldier should have. Esp. under the those specific circumstances.
Calling something as the thing it is bluntly, doesn't make me a hypocritical zealot. But probably it makes me very annnoying.
Anyway, we do not have to talk about this. It won't go anywhere, it is not a discussion.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on July 02, 2015, 04:26:42 PM
I don't think you are stupid or that I am very intelligent. If I thought you were stupid, I would tell you that.
Then why would you say this?
Quote from: drunkenshoe on July 02, 2015, 02:35:43 PM
Then may be, exactly like religious people, soldiers shouldn't be taken seriously as healthy participants in certain discussions. After all, you people are not programmed to think, are you?
Quote from: drunkenshoe on July 02, 2015, 04:26:42 PM
If you prefer I can write something more dramatic and tearful. I didn't call you conservative and I don't think you are a war mongering baby eating monster either.
You’re right, you didn’t go quite that far. You just said this.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on July 02, 2015, 02:35:43 PM
There is no difference between you and an islamist jihaddist from this angle. You see yourself entitled to destory and kill for your benefits and make excuses for it.
And this. And to what other basic human rights issues are you referring?
Quote from: drunkenshoe on July 02, 2015, 02:35:43 PM
Considering the last paragraph you wrote along with your other reactions to some basic human rights issues in the forum, you must be surviving on extreme compartmentalisation bordering absolute apathy or some sort of sociopathy.
And this.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on July 02, 2015, 02:35:43 PM
It's not differences of opinions or beliefs that has sent 'you' into war. It's money and power and greed. And countless people like you in the world who support that, eager to be a part of it.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on July 02, 2015, 04:26:42 PM
Yes it is. And as I told in my previous post, you posting those pics. Because that means a lot and when you speak about 'I did this and that served here and there'. I really don't have to know anything. Would you be so open and quick about your previous occupation if it was something else? I don't think so.
Because it was something I did and it changed a lot about who I am as a person. I posted a picture of myself in a uniform. You then assumed I supported the war on terror, and by your own words “see myself entitled to destory and kill for my benefits and make excuses for it.†Ok, yes, maybe I was young and in a lot of debt and grew up in a country that doesn’t have all the free healthcare and low-cost education that yours does. Maybe the military was a way out of poverty for me and not only allowed me to get a degree, but two root canals I desperately needed and didn't have the $2500 for. Maybe in my early twenties I didn’t think about what it all meant because I wasn’t so enlightened as you, and I was about a month away from being evicted from my apartment and defaulting on student loan debt. I guess I don’t really owe you an explanation, because no doubt you’ll just say I use it as an excuse to behave like a Jihadist with no respect for basic human rights.
You’re just some crass, random, judgmental, jump-to-conclusions bitch on the Internet who prefers to attack people based on a single fact and learn nothing else about them, like fundamentalist idiots. Ignorance is bliss after all. Not name-calling, just telling it like I see it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fYTtTSadx0
Quote from: Munch on July 02, 2015, 07:24:09 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fYTtTSadx0
The birth of the Amazons. :) I can see a lot of people saying they're all just lesbian best friends who took it a step too far, but in my mind, they seem happy, and especially the part at the end where they talked about fidelity. If they each want to have a child, isn't three women raising their children together better than three single moms struggling to make ends meet? Of course they could form some kind of informal relationship and still accomplish a lot of the same things, but it would provide their children some legal protections at the very least. Good for them is all I can say.
Quote from: TomFoolery on July 02, 2015, 01:28:36 PM
I feel like the notion of having children raised by professional caretakers runs the risk of homogenizing us too much, which I would think would be as bad as being too fractured. Yes, differences in beliefs and opinions has sent us to war, but war revolutionizes technology. It's a Catch-22. I also feel like the notion of marriage is antiquated, but I don't know if I'm against getting rid of it all together, because ultimately it still serves as a contract between two people to support each other. Unfortunately too many people prefer to walk away from their responsibilities.
I have read most of Heinlein's books, and at one time he was my favorite author. He opened my eyes to many different taboos and why they were silly. He touted nudity, multiple spouses, he was a huge critic of organized religion-- and he explored time travel and he loved cats. What's not to like??? The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is a good read--I remember liking it; he most definitely liked strong women who knew what they wanted.
I have often wondered about child rearing. It is not easy nor cheap. And I have wondered if it was time to experiment with different ways of doing it. I have not come close to offering any type of solution but have thought there must be better ways of doing it. There seems to be a movement of childless couples--and I say--more power to you! Children are not needed for a full and rewarding relationship with a member of the opposite sex.
This statement I found most interesting-- ".... but war revolutionizes technology." Absolutely! It is a huge Catch-22 (that was my bible in the Army). I think that that may be a reason why this country lately has gone to war so much--the military has such interesting and new technology in it's arsenal, that it can't stand not using it. And the corporations that make that technology pressure to sell it to the govt. and to see it used. And not only does technology get a huge boost in war, so does medical advancements. Every war sees huge improvement in the treatment of injuries. But technology and medical advancements are poor excuses for going to war, for the other side of the ledger is full of pain and suffering that simply cannot be quantified. But I highly suspect you know that.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on July 02, 2015, 02:35:43 PM
Then may be, exactly like religious people, soldiers shouldn't be taken seriously as healthy participants in certain discussions. After all, you people are not programmed to think, are you?
Hmmm..............Shoe. Wow! Have you been in the military? Have you been around many military members or ex-members? I was a GI for 12 years. I was trained in the Army branch of Military Intelligence. My job was to investigate people who had applied for a top secret security clearance. We were taught to think--and within Army limits, to think creatively and to think on our feet in the field. We were to gather information and we were taught many different ways to do that. Later, I joined the Army National Guard and became a rifleman, with the assurance of my commander to become the unit expert in Nuclear, Chemical and Biological warfare. I was then trained in how to defend out unit against such attacks. Once again I was taught to think and how to use the equipment I was given in various ways in various environments. I then spent the last 6 years in a MI unit of the Army Reserve. I then used both of my trained skills for my unit. I was always trained to think--and to follow orders. In my time on duty I met many types of people--both male and female. They were a general cross section of our society. Some thought and some didn't. Some thought as I did and others did not.
Maybe you are thinking of the combat arms. The stereotype is a nonthinking killing machine. I was not in the combat arms, but I was around many who were. Once again, they were a cross section of our society in general. In today's combat arms one cannot be the drone like, nonthinking robot, for the technology has grown to such an extent that one has be be fairly smart of use it. I am not saying that the people in the military are all thinkers or highly intelligent, but for the most part, they are not strikingly stupid either.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 02, 2015, 10:22:57 PM
I have read most of Heinlein's books, and at one time he was my favorite author. He opened my eyes to many different taboos and why they were silly. He touted nudity, multiple spouses, he was a huge critic of organized religion-- and he explored time travel and he loved cats. What's not to like??? The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is a good read--I remember liking it; he most definitely liked strong women who knew what they wanted.
Starship Troopers is one of my all time favorite books. Ok, yes, I was in the Army and it's on almost every general's reading list and is often held up by the right wing of a model of what good citizenship should look like, but I like it for the opposite reasons. I see it as more of a cautionary tale about trying to legislate social participation.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 02, 2015, 10:22:57 PMAnd not only does technology get a huge boost in war, so does medical advancements. Every war sees huge improvement in the treatment of injuries. But technology and medical advancements are poor excuses for going to war, for the other side of the ledger is full of pain and suffering that simply cannot be quantified. But I highly suspect you know that.
This is what I was originally trying to point out, so thank you for reading between the lines of my incoherence. Dr. Mengele advanced medicine considerably through disgusting human experiments and created an enormous ethical minefield. In using his findings do we condone his actions, or in discarding the findings do we ensure the people he killed and tortured died in vain? It's an awful Catch-22.
As Louis C.K. would say, there's absolutely no limits to what we can achieve when we throw enough human suffering at it, when you consider the pyramids, the transcontinental railroad, the iPhone... And I should add here a disclaimer that I in no way condone, endorse, support, fund, champion or cheerlead any efforts to make people suffer so I can have an iPhone. I'm merely stating a shitty fact of the world.
I often think back to a Star Trek TNG episode where some good-idea fairies built a perfectly genetically engineered society. The problem was, since no one had any medical problems and everyone was essentially bred to fulfill a role within a society, there weren't a whole lot of problems to solve. It ended up being Geordi, the blind guy with the VISOR that ended up saving the day, a guy who wouldn't have existed in their perfect society.
Quote from: TomFoolery on July 02, 2015, 10:48:19 PM
Starship Troopers is one of my all time favorite books. Ok, yes, I was in the Army and it's on almost every general's reading list and is often held up by the right wing of a model of what good citizenship should look like, but I like it for the opposite reasons. I see it as more of a cautionary tale about trying to legislate social participation.
I did not realize that about Starship Trooper. I liked the book, and like you put a different spin on it than the general did. I suspect that the general knew that Heinlein was a naval officer and that his books would be about how to become a model citizen. Heinlein was quite the opposite. My favorite of his was Stranger in a Strange Land. I don't think the general would have approved of it. :)) I also just now remembered that I bought the Starship Trooper game (from Avalon Hill) and played it a few times--it was a war game and I loved war games. Wish I still had it.
Quote from: TomFoolery on July 02, 2015, 07:09:17 PM
You’re just some crass, random, judgmental, jump-to-conclusions bitch on the Internet who prefers to attack people based on a single fact and learn nothing else about them, like fundamentalist idiots. Ignorance is bliss after all. Not name-calling, just telling it like I see it.
Crass? You mean blunt? Forward? Yes, that's what happens when you remove political correctness and bullshit. It suddenly becomes very annoying, esp. when it hits home. I talked about the act and the military logic -your previous 'job'- and described how I see that. Because that's what it is. You are calling me 'crass, random, judgmental, jump-to-conclusions bitch' because you don't like what I am saying bluntly about your choice.
It's not how you see it, it's name calling, because it's personal. I don't have a problem with it. Just do it with some integrity. You are not angry with me for what I am saying. You are angry, because I have said it through you, to you, from your example which was triggered by the fact that you have posted those pics although you have said you got out from the army years ago. You also said you have been active in Afghanistan. That's not giving a civilian appearance combined when you say 'war revolutionises technology' or like someone who hates war more than most people. You chose to appear this way in the forum, because you are a veteran and traditionally it scores points everywhere. It's something beyond reflecting bit of a personal history.
This is an internet forum. It's not about knowing someone. We are talking about countless diifferent things. I reacted to an expression you used based on connecting it with the facts you reflected about yourself. I have said these things a dozen time in this forum before in the last 4 years and also for a short time in 2010. They are not some newly invented, home cooked way of looking at things.
None of that changes one thing about the reality of militarism, national armies, its logic and how soldiers should act in combat. What was the recent invasions or the other previous ones about...doesn't matter who is expressing it in what way. They are about power, money, resource and greed. Period.
QuoteAfter all, you people are not programmed to think, are you?
Yes, I have said it. Because they are not. Again, some integrity please. Tell me that you were an ignorant, naive kid looking for a way out and chose a short cut. But don't beat around the bush and go on with whining 'you are calling me stupid, you dont know me, I had to' bullshit. Cut the crap of 'you haven't been in the military'. You do not have to face war or be in it to get what it is. Esp. the one we are talking about. It's an illegal invasion that caused millions of civillian lives. And the president of the time is a war criminal. We have all been suffering the consequence of it dearly all around the world. Like the ones before.
Yes, it is acting like a jihaddist; a terrorist. You just don't condemn the policy and the act; the whole thing, but leave out the individuals who took part in it. Yes I know you don't live in a rich country, that's why I wrote the word as 'rich' in my post. However, you have grown up in a country with 100 times of opportunities compared to those brain dead fuckers living in mud we call terrorists can imagine their life time. That's the point and the ignorance, the bullshit about 'choice'. You chose to do what you did, because it is praised, fully supported, it's turned into a regular 'job'; PAID and it's the main economical wheel the country you live in works on. Not because you didn't have any other way out. I bet you have seen what does mean NOT HAVING ANYTHING or ANY CHOICE in the literal sense after a visit to the obvious place? Nobody could have outlawed you, threaten your life and your family for not deciding to join to some battle defending your homeland contrary to the most people at the other side. The thing you joined is an industry, it is able to be that way and works BECAUSE PEOPLE DOING IT see themselves entitled to do it by their collective identity and culture. It's naked agression and destruction.
You don't choose to become a soldier and go an active duty and then pretend doing just a regular job and expected to be treated like people suffering from regular jobs. Don't give me the crap that it is just a job. Save that for fucking morons who swallow the bullshit that soldiers are 'heroes' and men and women invading Middle East -or anywhere else before for that matter- were/are keeping US safe.
Your posts about legalising marriage in your country shows you support equality. If you cannot connect that understanding in general with what we are talking about here now, that is deliberate and learned compartmentalisation. Something mentioned before. Religious people are very good at it for example. Also soldiers and nationalists.
QuoteOk, yes, maybe I was young and in a lot of debt and grew up in a country that doesn’t have all the free healthcare and low-cost education that yours does. Maybe the military was a way out of poverty for me and not only allowed me to get a degree, but two root canals I desperately needed and didn't have the $2500 for. Maybe in my early twenties I didn’t think about what it all meant because I wasn’t so enlightened as you, and I was about a month away from being evicted from my apartment and defaulting on student loan debt. I guess I don’t really owe you an explanation, because no doubt you’ll just say I use it as an excuse to behave like a Jihadist with no respect for basic human rights.
Poverty. Yes, it's exactly how easily people strap bombs on to themselves at the other side. Joining groups to kill around for some 'religion'. Becoming terrorists.
Oh wait. There is one difference between a foriegn soldier invading a land and someone who is fighting to defend a homeland though. Big one. Doesn't change no matter what angle you look.
About your sarcasm, you don't need to be 'enlightened' or experience it to get what is militarism, how it works, what kind of a thing is war. You do not need to be smarter or more intelligent than average to get any of it. Basic self awereness. Without that you are in the bliss you are describing in any position.
You can enjoy seeing me as someone bitching from a high horse aaall you like. It is what it is. We are all affected by those invasions in the worst way possible. I live in the Middle East. Everything changed and went for the worse. The religious party who managed to come to the power in the last 90 years here by then THRIVED because of those 'wars' and American policy came with it. People got radicalised. Everything got fucked up. Anyway, that's another subject besides the specific conversation.
Thank you though. Your last paragraph was probably the only sincere and forward attempt you showed. You have been making a lot of explanations for someone who doesn't owe any. Do it with integrity, call it what it is. Just don't whine with 'you don't know me, I had to' after reflecting yourself as you did in your specific position and expect me to respect you or what you say about anything related to it.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 02, 2015, 10:41:42 PM
Hmmm..............Shoe. Wow! Have you been in the military? Have you been around many military members or ex-members? I was a GI for 12 years. I was trained in the Army branch of Military Intelligence. My job was to investigate people who had applied for a top secret security clearance. We were taught to think--and within Army limits, to think creatively and to think on our feet in the field. We were to gather information and we were taught many different ways to do that. Later, I joined the Army National Guard and became a rifleman, with the assurance of my commander to become the unit expert in Nuclear, Chemical and Biological warfare. I was then trained in how to defend out unit against such attacks. Once again I was taught to think and how to use the equipment I was given in various ways in various environments. I then spent the last 6 years in a MI unit of the Army Reserve. I then used both of my trained skills for my unit. I was always trained to think--and to follow orders. In my time on duty I met many types of people--both male and female. They were a general cross section of our society. Some thought and some didn't. Some thought as I did and others did not.
Maybe you are thinking of the combat arms. The stereotype is a nonthinking killing machine. I was not in the combat arms, but I was around many who were. Once again, they were a cross section of our society in general. In today's combat arms one cannot be the drone like, nonthinking robot, for the technology has grown to such an extent that one has be be fairly smart of use it. I am not saying that the people in the military are all thinkers or highly intelligent, but for the most part, they are not strikingly stupid either.
Yes, we are talking about active combat duty.
I do not have to be in the military to know and understand anything about it. Your experience is irrelevant too. Nothing you typed up there changes the facts about militarism, the basic logic of army, making it a regular job the invasions and what is related to it. They are strikingly ignorant and they are happy about it. Willful ignorance. Anti-intellectualism you people keep condemning and how it destroys your country.
And I am certainly not going to write the main traits -again- required in a person who sees nothing wrong in traveling to the other side of the world to invade and kill because he/she was paid and ordered to do it.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on July 03, 2015, 07:42:29 AM
Yes, we are talking about active combat duty.
I do not have to be in the military to know and understand anything about it. Your experience is irrelevant too. Nothing you typed up there changes the facts about militarism, the basic logic of army, making it a regular job the invasions and what is related to it. They are strikingly ignorant and they are happy about it. Willful ignorance. Anti-intellectualism you people keep condemning and how it destroys your country.
And I am certainly not going to write the main traits -again- required in a person who sees nothing wrong in traveling to the other side of the world to invade and kill because he/she was paid and ordered to do it.
Okay, let me see if I understand your points. You say that any person in the military is responsible for the militarism within our society. That each member is equally responsible for all the death and destruction caused by our military. That each member is responsible for the continuing militarism of this society. Maybe saying they are equally responsible is too strong a word, but that each are complicit in the militarism of this society. And if not complicit in the militarism, at least ignorant of it and they don't care to repair that ignorance. So, from the privates to the generals and to the president, all in the military are complicit in the militarism or willfully ignorant of it. Is that accurate?
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 03, 2015, 11:16:16 AM
Okay, let me see if I understand your points. You say that any person in the military is responsible for the militarism within our society. That each member is equally responsible for all the death and destruction caused by our military. That each member is responsible for the continuing militarism of this society. Maybe saying they are equally responsible is too strong a word, but that each are complicit in the militarism of this society. And if not complicit in the militarism, at least ignorant of it and they don't care to repair that ignorance. So, from the privates to the generals and to the president, all in the military are complicit in the militarism or willfully ignorant of it. Is that accurate?
Yes and No. Mike, I really don't feel like writing a long post yet again to explain what is so painfully obvious about the subject. I know you don't like it when I get like this, but I have been pretty clear.
In Summary; The Military sucks, This is no longer about polygamy and HOLY SHIT WTF HAPPENED?
:axe:
Quote from: dtq123 on July 03, 2015, 02:10:45 PM
In Summary; The Military sucks, This is no longer about polygamy and HOLY SHIT WTF HAPPENED?
:axe:
I dunno :S, I'm not even sure where it jumped the shark, but we've left the beach a looooong time ago.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on July 03, 2015, 01:36:41 PM
Yes and No. Mike, I really don't feel like writing a long post yet again to explain what is so painfully obvious about the subject. I know you don't like it when I get like this, but I have been pretty clear.
Get like what? I'm really trying to understand what you point is.
Quote from: dtq123 on July 03, 2015, 02:10:45 PM
In Summary; The Military sucks, This is no longer about polygamy and HOLY SHIT WTF HAPPENED?
:axe:
Hey--makes sense to me--polygamy in the army? All kinds of stuff happens there behind closed doors--or tent flaps. Who really knows???
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 03, 2015, 04:56:36 PM
Get like what? I'm really trying to understand what you point is.
Offensive. And really, I am not into writing all that again. Nevermind.
I haven't given the matter a lot of thought, but nope, I can't think of a Constitutional reason to bar plural marriage ("polygamy" means multiple wives, so it's a sort of biased term even though it's frequently used generically). It'll probably happen eventually, after going through all the same bullshit that equal binary marriage had to go through. I'll be surprised if it takes less than ten years, personally, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.
It'll be fun watching the wingnuts oppose a demonstrably biblical form of marriage, too. :D
Quote from: drunkenshoe on July 02, 2015, 11:44:18 AM
I will take polygamy discussion seriously after A WOMAN applies for marriage licence for the 2ND HUSBAND. Let's see what will happen then.
That's polyandry.
Technically polygamy can be either, and polygyny refers exclusively to multiple wives. In practical usage polygamy refers to multiple wives.
I have to wonder about the motives of that guy in Montana. On the surface, he just seems like a Mormon wanting the same consideration being given to gays, but in the back of my mind I wonder if he's trying to point out the slippery slope of legalizing gay marriage? But probably not, since he's a Mormon.
The right wing got its nose out of joint worried about the floodgate that would open when gays married. "Next would be bestiality," they cried. But no, that's still down the road. The next thing is Mormons! That's the outcome that is clear now, and when Mormons can marry more wives, only then will come bestiality followed by floods and plagues of epic proportions, and then the apocalypse.
Quote from: dtq123 on July 03, 2015, 02:10:45 PM
In Summary; The Military sucks, This is no longer about polygamy and HOLY SHIT WTF HAPPENED?
:axe:
Apparently it's just easier to go off on a tangent and launch personal attacks on people and the military in response to a single statement about technological revolution than it is to discuss the purpose of marriage and whether or not it has a role in raising children in our society.
And in other news, I just rolled my eyes so hard I saw my brain.
There are many Muslim males with multiple wives in the EU, USA , Canada, and elsewhere.
No mention about those?
Here in the UK they even getting welfare benefits (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9433441/Immigrants-with-multiple-wives-will-get-more-benefits-officials-admit.html)for extra spouses.
Quote from: pr126 on July 04, 2015, 12:24:18 PM
There are many Muslim males with multiple wives in the EU, USA , Canada, and elsewhere.
No mention about those?
Here in the UK they even getting welfare benefits for extra spouses.
Time to move to the UK! Fuck America! Harlots, come to me!
Quote from: dtq123 on July 04, 2015, 12:25:55 PM
Time to move to the UK! Fuck America! Harlots, come to me!
Sorry, we are full.
Quote from: pr126 on July 04, 2015, 12:24:18 PM
There are many Muslim males with multiple wives in the EU, USA , Canada, and elsewhere.
No mention about those?
I suppose in the U.S. when people think of religions with multiple wives, they think of fundamentalist Mormons. LDS Mormons don't practice polygamy, and I didn't think all sects of Muslims did either but I could be mistaken.
At any rate, laws can be vague and vary by state as to how you could work it out
spiritually, but laws tend to be quite clear when referring to legal marriages: you only get one at a time regardless of your religion. A lot of Mormons will legally marry their first wife and then move subsequent wives in and treat them for all intents and purposes as wives, but there's no legal protections given to subsequent wives.
I've heard arguments about why polygamy should be illegal based on welfare benefits. In the U.S. they could potentially get welfare benefits either way, so I see it as a moot point. It's a pretty giant loophole. Say a man has three wives and three children by each wife. Since he can only legally be married to the first one, if he doesn't legally acknowledge his children by his other two wives, for all intents and purposes they are single mothers with three children and qualify for a host of welfare benefits and tax credits. It gets complicated because it varies by state and state programs vary by household income and family size. Being a single mother isn't a crime, but welfare fraud is, yet is it really welfare fraud if the government doesn't allow you to legally acknowledge a non-traditional family structure?
Quote from: pr126 on July 04, 2015, 12:24:18 PM
There are many Muslim males with multiple wives in the EU, USA , Canada, and elsewhere.
No mention about those?
Yeah good point.
Probably they don't count, beause they are not considered as regular humans?
seems like a good idea except WHO THE FUCK WANTS TO SHARE THEIR PARTNER?
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on July 05, 2015, 06:17:43 AM
seems like a good idea except WHO THE FUCK WANTS TO SHARE THEIR PARTNER?
like say, some people are happy in a threesome, if all partners are into each other.
id be jelly if some dude came for my girl
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on July 05, 2015, 06:17:43 AM
seems like a good idea except WHO THE FUCK WANTS TO SHARE THEIR PARTNER?
Old friend of mine has been in a polyamorous relationship for probably 20 years now. If it works for them, awesomeness. It ain't my cup of Earl Grey, but then, neither is the idea of marrying a woman. :)
I guess I agree with you on that.
why waist time with marriage? Lets all just fuck anything that moves and maybe a few things that don't move too just for good measure.
Marriage is just a worthless piece of paper any how. If you find your soulmate then nothing else matters. And if you have two soulmates or more what ever. I personally feel that you can not have more than one soulmate but that's just my thought on the matter. Actually you're pretty fucking lucky if you have one soulmate!