Again, it's a very narrow view of the world presented. Environmentalism is not the exclusive domain of the west, or Europe or in fact agrarian societies.

Aboriginal and Amerindian societies had what amounts to environmental policies in their SUBSISTENCE economies. Respect for the land, care for the cycle, for the balance, living in harmony with their environment rather than changing it unrecognisably.

Certainly these cultures clung to the environment long before the west began threatening it. Their cultures were built around such concepts. </font>[/QUOTE]Yorick I don't know about the Aborignal societies of downunder, but you might want to check out the history of the Anistazy(sp?) Indians(anceistors of most of the SW Indians) of the SW USA they destroyed their enviroment(over farming), and eventually sunk to the level of canabilism. Check out the Mississippian (mound builders) they eventually it is believed sank into civil war, and any rate they ceased to exsist. Sorry Yorick but there is NO way you can sell me the bill of goods about the Indians being the most wonderful and perfect people that ever walked the face of the earth. Don't even try this they only killed what they could eat crap. They killed what they could get their hands on. Throughout the west there are archiology digs at many sites where the most eviromental friendly people that ever walked the face of the earth, ran entire herds of buffalo off cliffs and then took what they could carry, and left the rest to ROT.

Subsistence cultures. Not just Amerindian. Subsistence involves a respect for the continued balance of the environment, rather than unchecked growth as found in agrarian city cultures.

Yorick, by a "sheet" I meant the white kind, that you wear when visiting friends around a bonfire. ;) Obscure reference -- sorry.

Now, as for consenting animals, once you figure out how to talk to a duck and obtain its consent, then as far as I'm concerned it's okay for you to ____ the duck.

As for paedophilia, I don't think you made the argument that children can consent. I'm not going there -- unless you make the argument.

As for the consanguinity laws, I don't disagree -- they probably aren't needed. EXCEPT, to the extent they can prevent legitimizing molestation in the home, which may be where the laws originated to begin with.

As for polygamy, I've got no problem with it philosophically. In reality, the polygamistic families I've seen tend to be scary patriarchal enclaves, where fathers do marry their daughters, etc. And, they exist in places other than Utah, FYI. There are quite a number of polygamist societies all over the American west. Anyway, what do I care -- why is it my place to tell a man he can't put up with 2 women if that's what he wants?

Now, this does present a problem because marriage is not just moral or religious, but also legal. And, with multiple people benefitting from the same legal protection, we could have a problem. All the more reason to do away with legal marriage altogether and make it purely a religious thing...

Anyway, with all due respect, I still see your take on who can adopt as ludricrously illogical:
Only couples who could procreate, if they were in perfectly working order as nature intended, may adopt. Well, that's just silly, man. In fact, it targets couples who generally don't need to or want to adopt.

Would you let single people adopt?

Anyway, I'll say it again, two fathers is way better than none.

For all your "love is everything" message you spout, on this issue you're as guilty as drawing an arbitrary line as any of us are.

Oh, and while we're at it, you keep referring to nature, and every mammal in nature exhibits homosexual tendancies. So, you're barking up the wrong tree there, too.

Consentual incest between a brother and a sister is not paedophilia.

Quote:

As for polygamy, I've got no problem with it philosophically. In reality, the polygamistic families I've seen tend to be scary patriarchal enclaves, where fathers do marry their daughters, etc. And, they exist in places other than Utah, FYI. There are quite a number of polygamist societies all over the American west. Anyway, what do I care -- why is it my place to tell a man he can't put up with 2 women if that's what he wants?

For the same reason you'd tell him it's not o.k. to steal a car: Because in a democracy you are able to influence the direction your society takes. You have a right to have an opinion on, how your society will be and what shape it is, whether that is communist, democratic, tolerant of homosexuality, intolerant of nose picking or mandatory arse wiping.

Quote:

Now, this does present a problem because marriage is not just moral or religious, but also legal. And, with multiple people benefitting from the same legal protection, we could have a problem. All the more reason to do away with legal marriage altogether and make it purely a religious thing...

The legality is the whole point. Economic encouragement. Who do you want your taxes to benefit. As a taxpayer you have the right to express who you wish to favour, be that everyone, no-one, or particular couples only.

Quote:

Anyway, with all due respect, I still see your take on who can adopt as ludricrously illogical:

No worries. Offense taken. Try and understand that just because a viewpoint does not match yours, it does not mean it is devoid of reason or logic. I have shown cause, effect and attampted to contruct illumination of the process of my opinion. Declaring it "illogical" is simply stupid, and could mean you don't actually grasp what logic is. Illogical is devoid of reason. Mad. Though you may disagree with my outcomes you cannot suggest there is no logic in them.

Quote:

Only couples who could procreate, if they were in perfectly working order as nature intended, may adopt. Well, that's just silly, man. In fact, it targets couples who generally don't need to or want to adopt.

Yet emphasises the best environment for the child.

Quote:

Would you let single people adopt?

It would depend on the circumstances.

Quote:

Anyway, I'll say it again, two fathers is way better than none.

Two abusive fathers is worse than none.

Quote:

For all your "love is everything" message you spout, on this issue you're as guilty as drawing an arbitrary line as any of us are.

But I am not condemning people for drawing a line. I am in fact point out the hypocrisy of criticising people for simply excercising judgement about what they want in a society, when everyone here is doing exactly the same thing. People have as much right to express problems with homosexual activity as they do to express the joys of it.

Quote:

Oh, and while we're at it, you keep referring to nature, and every mammal in nature exhibits homosexual tendancies. So, you're barking up the wrong tree there, too.

I used that as MY argument Timber. Pointing out that homosexuality, bestiality and incest are all occuring in nature. My issue with homosexual behaviour has nothing to do with whether it occurs in nature or not. There are plenty of things in nature that we don't incorperate into society. I was asking Illumina what his reasoning for being so vehemently derisive of incest and bestiality were. You've kept ignoring consentual incest might I add.

I did not ignore consenting incestuous acts:
If you would let a single person adopt, you've blown your argument against the adoption by a homosexual couple. Especially since one of the members of the couple could adopt as a single person. Moreover, you've taken away your argument that only couples which could procreate, if they could procreate :rolleyes: , should adopt -- because except in the rare case of hermaphrodites like Eric Cartman's mother (and father), a single person cannot have a child.

Either this is a red herring to throw us off course into discussing only abusive families, which is a deviation from the discussion so far, or it is an assertion that all gay men would be abusive to their children. Which one is it?

[ 08-09-2004, 06:09 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!! They are Subsisting, barely making it, they are not living in harmony with nature they just haven't figured out how to get more out of what they have. They don't have a population growth problem, because a growing population Would harm Nature/Mother Earth/Kota/Ki or what ever they beleive. They don't have population growth problems because they can't gather enough food to feed the extra people. And if they thought another group of nature loving subsistence people were incroaching on their food supply they'd slit the entruders thoats with out blinking. You have to know that when the bow and arrow were invented there was a large population explosion, in peoples using bow&arrows over peoples using spears. Same is true for then the Horse was re-introduced to the Americas the Plains Indians had a large population explosion. Had NATURE SUDDENLY made a change that could now support a larger population amoung the peoples? Did the Buffalo gestation period suddenly shorten so there could be more buffalo? Did Mother nature say to the Indians ok since your over the years were so nice to me I'm going to make more kernels on an ear of corn? "HALE NO"! What happened is the Indians could now get more food/Kill more cute furry creatures to feed more people. They learned if they planted the seeds from the biggest pods of a certain type of grass, they could GET MORE FOOD in the next years crop. They conintued doing this for generations of this grass until it became corn. Check it out you'll see corn came from Central America, Mexico IIRC it was a grass that had large seeds that they could eat. They learned if they drop a seed in the dirt LO & Behold a plant would come up. Wal-la/Eureka/Sha-Zaaaammmmm no more walking around to look for seeds now they could plant the seeds in the ground. Ripping up Mother earth with sticks and stones killing the other non big seed producing grass. Plant their favorite seed, and not have to walk as far to get these seeds.

Yep. American Indians did import and cultivate corn. As JD says, it was a high mountain grass from Mexico. It was one of our first nonindigenous species invasions. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

Wouldn't that make them Agrarian?

Indians also burned the entire state of Kentucky every few years. Set the whole thing on fire. Was it to promote ground fertility or was it to ensure that none of the Indian nations bordering around Kentucky could ever inhabit Kentucky and increase their territory? Hmmm......

I said it depends on the circumstances. Say a couple has a child, one dies, So the other remarries. The child has one parent, one "step-parent". The parent dies, the "step-parent" adopts.

Plently of scenarios where it would make perfect sense for the single parent to adopt. Bob Geldof is another example. He could adopt Tiger-Lily so she is incorporated into the same family as her half-sisters, despite losing both parents.

None of this makes my reasoning hypocritical nor the argument invalid.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!! They are Subsisting, barely making it, they are not living in harmony with nature they just haven't figured out how to get more out of what they have. They don't have a population growth problem, because a growing population Would harm Nature/Mother Earth/Kota/Ki or what ever they beleive. They don't have population growth problems because they can't gather enough food to feed the extra people. And if they thought another group of nature loving subsistence people were incroaching on their food supply they'd slit the entruders thoats with out blinking. You have to know that when the bow and arrow were invented there was a large population explosion, in peoples using bow&arrows over peoples using spears. Same is true for then the Horse was re-introduced to the Americas the Plains Indians had a large population explosion. Had NATURE SUDDENLY made a change that could now support a larger population amoung the peoples? Did the Buffalo gestation period suddenly shorten so there could be more buffalo? Did Mother nature say to the Indians ok since your over the years were so nice to me I'm going to make more kernels on an ear of corn? "HALE NO"! What happened is the Indians could now get more food/Kill more cute furry creatures to feed more people. They learned if they planted the seeds from the biggest pods of a certain type of grass, they could GET MORE FOOD in the next years crop. They conintued doing this for generations of this grass until it became corn. Check it out you'll see corn came from Central America, Mexico IIRC it was a grass that had large seeds that they could eat. They learned if they drop a seed in the dirt LO & Behold a plant would come up. Wal-la/Eureka/Sha-Zaaaammmmm no more walking around to look for seeds now they could plant the seeds in the ground. Ripping up Mother earth with sticks and stones killing the other non big seed producing grass. Plant their favorite seed, and not have to walk as far to get these seeds. </font>[/QUOTE]Not quite sure what bias you're bringing into this John, but it appears to be strongly defensively anti-Amerindian. Plently of emotive language. Not sure why you're arguing the point actually. Seems fairly straightforeward to me. Subsistence as a concept involves taking enough to survive, and ensureing survival is perpetuated by leaving whatever is not needed. Agrarian captialist city cultures have been known to dump wheat in the ocean and offer double beef cheesburgers despite all the eco-warnings that suggest less beef in human diets would be advisable for the planet.

Kind of elementary. Growth doesn't occur in a vacuum, but is at the expense of something else. If you base your entire financial plan around sprouting new franchises everywhere, it's not a sustainable way to exist. Sooner or later every corner will have a macDonalds on it. What then?

Australian plants need fire to germinate. I'm not sure what you guys have against Amerindians, but it sure seems like they made better use of the great plains than western civilisation. Only now are farmers looking at developing PERENNIAL crops, as opposed to ANNUAL crops, to replicate what thrives naturally. Again, it was you guys that wiped out the perennially feeding buffalo, replacing it with the cow. Consequently, looking at the population exodus, one wonders why you took it from the Indians in the first place.

From a Midnight Oil song about the Australian Aboriginie: