It was both her age and being a cousin.
Was the marriage illegal?
A recent discussion that had me stumped!
by Terry 53 Replies latest jw experiences
-
PSacramento
-
AnnOMaly
Marking.
I had a similar discussion recently. Same 'stumper' argument was used - 'What if it could be established that pedophiles are the way they are because of their genes?'
-
designs
Not really although some justice of the peace performed the ceremony. Jerry Lee was not legally divorced from his second wife when he married the 13 year old, she had lied and said she was 15 which may have been the legal age in the State where they married.
-
cognisonance
'What if it could be established that pedophiles are the way they are because of their genes?'
What if hard determinsim is real and thus free will is illusionary? Do we stop punishing harmful actions just because people may not techically have been able to do otherwise? I don't think anyone would actually argue that, but the type of punishment and how we view the person might change.
-
cyberjesus
Normal does not equal natural.
laws are not based on natural human instincts but on biased opinions.
Our concept of morality is based on mythical ideas. Therefore morality is inmoral
-
Qcmbr
This would be my take on it:
'Good' and 'Bad' are relative concepts that have different weights when seen from different viewpoints (personal, kin, clan, species) , that which is good from a personal viewpoint (fulfilling my desire to torch a building) is bad from a kin/clan viewpoint (possible injury, loss of resources) and so on. Sexual immorality is good from a species viewpoint (if gene mixing outweighs sexual disease propagation) but bad from a kin / clan viewpoint and so on. Local conditions can flip these rules as well (war will make the act of killing a temporary clan virtue for the winning side.)
There is a further part to this equation, cost, does this action have an opportunity cost that overall outweighs the benefit (allowing a child to set fire to a building will have an excessive opportunity cost - lost resources, utility and labour - to the small benefit - the child's ability to act.)
Thus , it may indeed be wrong for homosexuals to marry under certain circumstances (to be extreme let's say it causes the spread of a deadly disease that threatens mankind) or the cost of allowing their self determination may be too great in terms of opportunity cost (all heterosexual men have died from a pron virus! and not enforcing gay men to procreate with women will end mankind.) It may indeed be right for children to be allowed to burn buildings (war sabotage) and so on. I will return to this point.
The question is not therefore an appeal to a Platonic perfect concept ('good'/'bad') nor a question of what was considered good or bad yesterday. It is an evaluation of what is good or bad today. In a highly religious country it may be bad to allow homosexual marriage because the result will be mob violence and lynching of those couples, in other words the opportunity cost is too high as it results in physical harm and death. In a more tolerant (dare I say - normally secular) society the cost of homosexual marriage is low, the consequences are low and the happiness of self determination and cultural acceptance is very high. The cost of allowing a house to be burnt however, is still very high and the benefit very low.
Final point. As society gains more freedom from necessity and more resources to satisfy desire the moral goalposts shift, imo, as we can begin to allow deviation from the norm. That which was immoral or 'bad' can reverse. Here's a common example. I am free to go to a PC and by virtue of free time , technology and abundant resources and in a virtual world shoot and maim virtual people. At no stage would it be defensible to say that killing people is a standard 'good' behaviour but technology has reduced it's cost so low that the benefit of my adrenaline fueled high arguably outweighs the cost, it becomes permissable and good (to me) and tolerable to society (low to zero cost). There is a contentious edge to this - in a world of virtual options where it is already possible to perform the very worst of human crimes (killing) there is an argument that people who enjoy burning houses or abusing children should be given virtual environments in which to experience who they are by nature. In short we may be entering a golden age where we no longer need to deny who we or anybody are as long as we learn to express that in safe, virtual environments. Once we have removed , by resource abundance, the need to hurt or use other real people what was good or bad today may not be so tomorrow. imo.
TL:DR Concepts of good and bad are relative to viewpoint and current local conditions.
-
PSacramento
If good and bad, right and wrong, become concretly subjective then where do we draw the line? WHO draws the line? and will that line stay there?
I don't think that allowing homosexuals to marry will bring down the human race of course and I feel that people should be as free to disagree with it just as those that are free to agree with it.
I think that if laws are passed based on a democratic vote and the law passes that it means (ideally) that the majority of society agrees on that Law ( Of course we knwo that isn't always the case and some laws are passed without societies approval, taxes anyone!).
That said, a civil law like that should not be forced on forced on a memeber of a religion that has doctrines against it.
-
Honeybucket
I haven't read any of the other posts. Sorry if this is already mentioned.
I feel that the line the seperates normal and not is this, does is affect someone else negetively? Gay's and Lesbian's have mutual relationships with others in their orientation. Therefore, they are not directly harming another. It may hurt their family or friends that they haven't conformed to what the "old society" deems as normal. But this is a different hurt. The hurt that molesters and firestarts cause go so much deeper and have severe consequences. The molested child will most likely end up with some sort of deep emotional problems which can lead to severe depression or suicide. Firestarts can take lives. Tell me, what do gays do that will impact others futures to the point of loss of libery and life? Nothing, gays don't affect others to the degree these criminals do. Thats another point, people that do molest and start fires are criminals.
-
sabastious
Dad: "I knew a kid when I was growing up who just loved to start FIRES! He'd set fire to a trash can or the inside of somebody's car. All the time! He loved it. He tried to burn his grandmother's house down but a neighbor saw him in time and called the Fired Department. He told the police he 'couldn't help himself' he just had to do it. And I knew of another kid who was always trying to molest somebody's baby! He'd put his hand inside the diaper and fondle them! Disgusting! He was caught many times and always made an excuse. But, when we got older I heard him tell somebody that he wasn't turned on by anybody older!! WHAT ABOUT FAIRNESS FOR THESE KIND OF PEOPLE--should we tolerate people compelled to light fires and molest kids?"
There are no destructive effects that directly result from homosexuality. An arson and a child molester both have full understanding of the harmful effects of their actions and they still act. That makes them criminals. It's true they may very well feel compelled to action, but the court wouldn't pardon their crimes because of the unfairness of discriminating against people with deviant impulses. We shouldn't be tolerant of crime, we SHOULD be tolerant of the diversity of nature.
-Sab
-
krejames
If one was to take the bible as sole authority, there would be no problem with pedophilia since it doesnt condemn it. Not so for "men who lie with men". Where's the logic in that?!