h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"RDO, what about the rights of children to *not* marry, but to continue to have their childhood? There does need to be *some* basic restrictions on the right to marry, some basic governmental rules, so that for instance polygamy, the marriage of girls (or boys) under a certain age, 16 or so, incest etc are not allowed."

Yes. I agree. But then, under contract law (which ought to be the basis for marrigge law, logically), a minor can pull out of a contract at any time without the consent of anyone else. So if the minor doesn't want to be married, the marrige is null.

Logically, a contract can't be signed by someone not ole enough to understand it, either--so young children couldn't get married.


Why disallow incest? The only logical reasons are genetic concerns and they won't be affected by marrige. If they want to have sex, they don't need a marrige liscence to do it. If they want to get married by not have sex, or if one or both have been sterilized, then incest is irrelevant.

Incest laws may be necesarry (I'm not sure, since it opens up the whole eugenics bag of worms), but I don't see what they have to do with marrige in societies that allow sex outside of marrige.

Why no polymiamy. If all parties agree, what is wrong. And as for the matter of a person already married taking another spouse--part of the marrige contract when people get married ought to address polygamy--when if ever it will be allowed once they're married.

"Where on do you get that idea from? I think you are just being prejudiced."

I got that idea from living in a country full of tyrranical Christians trying to force their faith on everyone. I don't think all Christians are that way, anbd maybe in Europe most Christians aren't that way, but a large number, probably a majority, of Christians in the US feel they must force Christianity, or at least Christian ideas, on everyone else.

Perhaps you should read this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3472265.stm

A country totally governed by greed claiming to be Christian - it would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

My views on parenthood do not stem from any religous beliefs, then stem from experience.

I do not condemn any single parents out of hand, there are many good single parents, and bad married couples - but I see regularly the effects of broken marriages, and children being forced to live with the stigmaa that still exists in some communities, or the indifference of a society that believes the rights of the individual outweigh the consequences of their actions.

I seek to make the individual responsible for their actions. There are a great many single mothers doing just that in the face of sometimes over-whelming difficulties, or to quote a specific case their are women with 8 children by 8 different fathers, who are being supported by the state. (Incidently this one is looking to move to Florida, with her 8 children, and current boyfrind - who isn't actually the father of any of them.)

Do you realise that incest may very often not be consensual? For centuries, people were able to, no lets be honest, men were able to molest their daughters freely, because people in authority didn't believe it happened. Now, you appear to be saying that it doesn't *matter* if it does happen - if father or uncle sneaks into 11 year old daughter's bedroom at night, or if 16 year old brother sets up home with 14 year old sister. (In dysfunctional families, these things happen.)
As for polygamy, I am reading at present how it generally works out within Mormonism in parts of the USA (why am I not surprised?)
Twelve year old girls are given as 4th or 5th 'wives' to Dad's friend. This is just great, is it? No government regulation, let's have freedom ring, and let it all hang out, because anything else would be "Christian tyranny"... oh, are you serious?

RDO, you can't possibly say that what the pilot did is characteristic of Christians, normal or usual! I hope you didn't expect me to approve...it's bizarre, and McKay expressed it rightly. (Below yourt post..)

"Do you realise that incest may very often not be consensual? For centuries, people were able to, no lets be honest, men were able to molest their daughters freely, because people in authority didn't believe it happened. Now, you appear to be saying that it doesn't *matter* if it does happen - if father or uncle sneaks into 11 year old daughter's bedroom at night, or if 16 year old brother sets up home with 14 year old sister. (In dysfunctional families, these things happen.)"

OK. But you're making a logical falisy here--saying soimething can be abused and thus is wrong. Sex is sometimes not consensual, so should we ban it? What you need is protections against non-consensual sex and marrige, not bans on certain types of sex or marrige simply because they may be more open to abuse.




"As for polygamy, I am reading at present how it generally works out within Mormonism in parts of the USA (why am I not surprised?)
Twelve year old girls are given as 4th or 5th 'wives' to Dad's friend. This is just great, is it? No government regulation, let's have freedom ring, and let it all hang out, because anything else would be "Christian tyranny"... oh, are you serious?"

First of all, there does need to be regulation to keep people from being forced into relationships against their will. But unless you can prove that *noone* would ever consent to a polygamous relationship, you can't use that as an excuse to ban all polygamous relationships or marriges. And remember, Mormons are Christians, so you're really attacking your own relion when you attack Mormonism--unless you subscribe to JtP's belief that you have the right to excommunicate Christian groups you disagree with.


Basicly, you're argueing that we should suppress freedoms because they can be abused.



"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

---Benjamin Franklin

"RDO, you can't possibly say that what the pilot did is characteristic of Christians, normal or usual! I hope you didn't expect me to approve...it's bizarre, and McKay expressed it rightly. (Below yourt post..)"

Unfortunately, I can say that it is characteristic of many of them. Several Christians who I know and generally respect have voiced support for what the pilot did and said that it was a religious duty.

To ammend that, I don't think that what the pilot did should be a crime, though I think the airline probably ought to repromand for expressing views that it almost certainly doesn't support while on duty as a pilot of one of their planes.

What he did was a valid exercise of free speech, though I think that it was something he should have done on private time, not while acting as a representative of a company that I suspect doesn't share the view that all non-Christians are crazy (it would be unprofitable for them to do so) and I think it is impolite ton do that sort of thing with a captive audience.

<>
In some cases, yes. *Some* freedoms, in *some* cases. Benjamin Franklin is not an authority to me, neither am I a libertarian - I do think that it is valid to have limits to freedom.
I'm going to be controversial here, and say that I don't believe Mormons are Christians. It's got nothing to do with excommunicating groups I disagree with - and everything to do with discovering what Mormon beliefs are and seeing little or no common ground with Christianity as I believe in it!

"Benjamin Franklin is not an authority to me, neither am I a libertarian - I do think that it is valid to have limits to freedom."

I, on the other hand, being a libertarian, would say no--the government does not have the power to take any rights away simply for security, even if the majority wants it. The majority can't be allowed to exercise tyrrany over the minority just because it is the majority.

Perhaps I am being a bit paranoid (I would maintain that a person living in the US who isn't a Christian or Jew has plenty of good reasons to be paranoid.), but when a group of people want to limit rights in a way that would just happen to be what their religion says people should do, I can't help but think that their motives are religious. I don't trust those who want to limit the rights of others, but I especially don't trust those who do so for religious reasons. That is because those who do so for religious reasons generally are a lot more sure of their rightness and often believe that they have a duty to a cause higher than the welfare of the people that the government they are influencing is supposed to respect.



"I'm going to be controversial here, and say that I don't believe Mormons are Christians. It's got nothing to do with excommunicating groups I disagree with - and everything to do with discovering what Mormon beliefs are and seeing little or no common ground with Christianity as I believe in it!"

I have to admit I expected that responce--it is an example of the reason that in the 1800's the US and Americans in general loved to discriminate against Mormons. Infidels have no rights once the mob is stirred up. I don't feel like being tarred and feathered becasue I don't believe what others believe.

Tyranny of the majority... sounds like democracy to me...

Not that I would suggest either we (UK) or the USA have a full democracy, we get to choose which oligarchy we submit to, from a limited set of options.

Math

<>
I am surprised that you expected that response.
You forget, I am not American. I say that Mormons are not Christians, and I say that *some* practices of some Mormons (polygamous taking of child brides) are unacceptable. These are separate issues, no connection whatsoever. I am not saying *Mormons* are unacceptable - I am just saying that people, whatever their religion (if any at all!) should not be allowed to commit domestic crimes against adolescents - and in that respect, Government regulation is necessary.

"You forget, I am not American. I say that Mormons are not Christians, and I say that *some* practices of some Mormons (polygamous taking of child brides) are unacceptable."

I don't see the relevance of your nationality--I see no reason to think that only American Christians consider Mormons to be non-Christian. If they say it conflicts with their doctrine, than New Zealand Christians probably feel the same way.

Actually, it was a trap. Either you would have to admit that Mormons were Christians, or else give me an opening for the comment about tarring and feathering.

And the reality is that Christians have had (both in and out of the US) had a nasty habit of discriminating against, or even killing, non-Christians simply for not being Christian.

"And the reality is that Christians have had (both in and out of the US) had a nasty habit of discriminating against, or even killing, non-Christians simply for not being Christian."

Not intended to refer to any particular person, rather an occurence inside large groups.

<<"And the reality is that Christians have had (both in and out of the US) had a nasty habit of discriminating against, or even killing, non-Christians simply for not being Christian.">>
Be specific. Have you a verifiable instance of this happening any time since the Crusades? (Which were geo/political
anyway.)
Re Mormons - the book I am reading by one Jon Krakauer (I've never heard of him before, so I don't know where he's coming from in terms of belief) shows that Mormons and Gentiles each gave as good as they got. Mountain Meadows Massacre ring any bells? (I'd never heard of it til last night, but it's a shocking story, and rivals any story of persecution Mormons can come up with - especially the bit about the children!)

"Re Mormons - the book I am reading by one Jon Krakauer (I've never heard of him before, so I don't know where he's coming from in terms of belief) shows that Mormons and Gentiles each gave as good as they got. Mountain Meadows Massacre ring any bells? (I'd never heard of it til last night, but it's a shocking story, and rivals any story of persecution Mormons can come up with - especially the bit about the children!)"

I've never heard of it either.



"Have you a verifiable instance of this happening any time since the Crusades? (Which were geo/political
anyway.)"

This isn't the best example, but I'd argue the which trials of the 1600's-1700's. People were killed because they were said to be consorting with Satan, who only exists if you accept Christian theology in the first place. Basicly, people were killed on the accusation that they were commiting a religious crime (consorting with the enemy og Jehovah) without even much good evidence of it.

Then there is the mistreatment of Jews in Europe that was pretty constant throughout post-Roman history. Expulsion from Spain. Pogroms in Eastern Europe.

And consider the Inquisition. People were tourchered and/or killed for not being Christian or not being Catholic enough.



Not to say that other religions aren't as bad about this--they probably are just as bad.

Here in the UK and in other countries the Government says that you must by law have a CRB (Criminal Records Buraue) check to work with any children, vulnerable adults and in some sensitive areas (no pun intended) with adults.

Yet there is little to stop a convicted child killer setting up home with a single mum.

Should the government be advising people to have these checks done on potential spouses?

Should the police be tracking paedophiles and warning people who dont know to be wary of that person around children?

one love

Of course the christians of this world have been persecuted. The roman empire threw them to the lions, enslaved, raped and crusified them.

Once the christians overcame this situation they learned from the horrors and crimes of their recent past how to do it to others only much better with the all new Holy Roman Empire. Not that different from the old roman empire but it was all done in the name of the bigG. So now it was alright to do those things

Christians killed, enslaved and raped their way around the globe. Pausing only to impose Empires, settle land that other people were already using, force others into their religion and to destroy cultures that predated their own.

Of course it wasnt all plain sailing for christians. Lots of them were killed, raped and forced into serfdom. Their lands were settled by invaders, their churches were destroyed and their modes of worship outlawed. This was done by...err...other christians

Today its no different the Vatican ignores the law and promotes practicies that are patently ineffective in preventing known child abusers from abusing the same and other children. We have two christians with their armies killing and asset stripping in other countries.

one love

Exactly--the point is that every major religion occasionally has occasions in which its members decide to kill or torture everyone who isn't a member.


The difference is that the US (and most western nations) has a lot more Christians than any other religious group, so they're the only ones who could get away with it here.

In Islamic nations, Muslims seem to do the same sort of thing.