Can playboy lover, Hugh Hefner justify his action!

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » General Discussion
  3. » Can playboy lover, Hugh Hefner justify his action!

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Tue 6 May, 2008 07:50 am
I always wondered why in many so called called civilized cities having more than one wife is illegal but it is ok to have three womens living with you in your house just like wifes doing what u do with ur wifes! I myself against he idea of having more than one wife but how can a law allow such open things happen and also allow a show to be made in such manner and does nothing!

I wonder how the law would justify that! :p
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Tue 6 May, 2008 10:25 am
@ltdaleadergt,
Why does the law forbid marrying more than one person, yet allow people like Mr. Hefner to have three companions? Simple - the law doesn't make sense. Just like people go insane when they hear of gay marriage, yet are able to stomach the idea if we call it a "civil union". People have silly biases. One prominent bias is towards notions of marriage.

However, I'm not sure what Hugh has to justify. Then again, I have no problem with people marrying whoever they want, or as many people as they want. As long as everyone involved is a consenting adult.
 
Arouet
 
Reply Tue 6 May, 2008 12:17 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
Why does the law forbid marrying more than one person, yet allow people like Mr. Hefner to have three companions? Simple - the law doesn't make sense. Just like people go insane when they hear of gay marriage, yet are able to stomach the idea if we call it a "civil union". People have silly biases. One prominent bias is towards notions of marriage.

However, I'm not sure what Hugh has to justify. Then again, I have no problem with people marrying whoever they want, or as many people as they want. As long as everyone involved is a consenting adult.


You've pretty much said all that needs saying. He doesn't need to justify his "actions", there isn't and shouldn't be any restriction on behavior between consenting individuals. I do, however, take exception to the general assumption that anyone under the age of 18 (in the state of California, at least, other states and countries are less restrictive) is unable to say "I consent to having sex", even if it's with someone else who's "underage".
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Tue 6 May, 2008 12:27 pm
@ltdaleadergt,
Quote:
I do, however, take exception to the general assumption that anyone under the age of 18 (in the state of California, at least, other states and countries are less restrictive) is unable to say "I consent to having sex", even if it's with someone else who's "underage".


I'm in Georgia - talk about restrictive!

But I see your point - who is to tell a 17 year old they cannot consent to sex with a 20 year old?

But how far do we go? A 16 year old and a 25 year old? Can the 16 year old consent? What about 15 and 35? Or 14 and 50?

18 isn't some miracle age; some probably are not even ready to make such a decision at 18, though some can much earlier in life.
 
ltdaleadergt
 
Reply Tue 6 May, 2008 08:22 pm
@ltdaleadergt,
And yet the called law fair but Gay marriages as u said are prohibited! I may know why the prohibited but no one can deny that it is biases to the max towards many issues!!
 
Arouet
 
Reply Wed 7 May, 2008 08:24 pm
@ltdaleadergt,
Exactly, Didymos. Here in California it's pretty restrictive too. Daleader, what bias are you referring to? I must admit I find it kind of hard to understand you.
 
ltdaleadergt
 
Reply Wed 7 May, 2008 11:37 pm
@Arouet,
Sorry i need to say english is my second language Very Happy I use this excuse all the time Very Happy

Ok what I am mean by unfair law. No matter what we cannot deny the fact that the same law that meant to protect all from injustice can BRING injustice to case of a guilty person! ie the same law that can convict a murder can free a murder so yes law is not about perfect and just since at the end money have the final say! Meaning if u have enough money to get urself the best possible law team one can get u can be set free ! Great case OJ Simpson!
In the case of Homosexual the law is clearly unjust since it prohibits such marriages ! Hmmmm how is that equality to all if homosexual cannot marry just like all! U may say it is not a natural marriage, meaning it is not a normal marriage! At the end there is a marriage and they are human! Looking at the fundamental, gays are human and they too like all humans want to marry! I myself dont like the idea of homosexuality but who am I to stop them to get married just because I dont like what they do!

I hope I clarified my point of view.
 
Arjen
 
Reply Thu 8 May, 2008 12:33 am
@ltdaleadergt,
Daleader, it has nothing to do with your use of the english language.
 
ltdaleadergt
 
Reply Thu 8 May, 2008 03:48 am
@ltdaleadergt,
than i guess if he has an issue with what I mean by my ideas than i hope he asks me what confuse u and let me see how i can explain it.
 
Arouet
 
Reply Thu 8 May, 2008 01:32 pm
@ltdaleadergt,
Daleader, it's no problem, thanks for the clarification. It may indeed be a language problem, I'm having trouble following the grammar of your sentences. As far as the way US law treats homosexuality, you're absolutely right, it's unfair. In this particular case, the unfairness is based on a history of prejudice that many different denominations of the Christian church are doing their best to perpetuate. As to the law being unfair in general...you're right, and I've been trying to think of a better way to run things and failing. If you have a better idea, please, PLEASE share it.
 
Arjen
 
Reply Thu 8 May, 2008 01:45 pm
@ltdaleadergt,
I stand corrected Arouet. Smile
 
Khethil
 
Reply Thu 8 May, 2008 02:03 pm
@Arouet,
Agree with nearly all said thus far. And I'd like to emphasize my own two cents...

What I believe has happened is this: State-sanctioned relationships give state-sanctioned benefits in many countries (Tax Rights, Inheritance considerations, Adoption consideration, legal next-of-kin issues, Do Not Resuscitate orders and more). This places a government in the unearned and precarious position of defining what is a 'legal relationship; what *kind* of relationship is worthy of such benefits and considerations.

The instant we did this, we opened Pandora's Box and let it all hang out.

Legally-binding relationships (in those countries that chose to do so) can be easily defined and apportioned to exclude requisites of Gender and Quantity. There's simply no reason not to allow all people the freedom to legally solidify their bonds in the eyes of their countrymen however they see fit! (this view, I might mention, is apart from age considerations. Children who've not yet matured to the point where they can even have a chance at making informed life-choices need protection).
 
Arouet
 
Reply Thu 8 May, 2008 02:36 pm
@ltdaleadergt,
No problem, Arjen. :-) Khethil, that's a really good point. However, I think it's important to redefine what constitutes someone who needs protection from their own choices; a 17-year-old "child", in many cases, is much more capable of making their own decisions than anyone is of making decisions for them.
 
Fido
 
Reply Thu 8 May, 2008 09:23 pm
@ltdaleadergt,
<daleader> wrote:
I always wondered why in many so called called civilized cities having more than one wife is illegal but it is ok to have three womens living with you in your house just like wifes doing what u do with ur wifes! I myself against he idea of having more than one wife but how can a law allow such open things happen and also allow a show to be made in such manner and does nothing!

I wonder how the law would justify that! :p

It does not matter what the law allows, wealth justifies everything. Divorce was not made for the common man, but for kings. Infidelity was not made for joe average, nor was venereal disease. Wealth can afford what the poor find destructive, debilitating, heart breaking, and impoverishing. What they used to say in Victorian England, when every lord had his whore, and usually a mistress of his own class: It does not matter what anyone does as long as they don't frighten the horses, or any other beast of burden.
 
Victor Eremita
 
Reply Fri 4 Sep, 2009 08:10 pm
@ltdaleadergt,
Three things,

1. He's Hugh freaking Hefner
2. It's not like he's marrying his playmates, they are.... his roommates. Sexy, young, co-ed roommates.
3. As long as it's consenting, the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation.
 
Fido
 
Reply Wed 9 Sep, 2009 05:12 am
@Victor Eremita,
Victor Eremita;88175 wrote:
Three things,

1. He's Hugh freaking Hefner
2. It's not like he's marrying his playmates, they are.... his roommates. Sexy, young, co-ed roommates.
3. As long as it's consenting, the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation.

The People have the right to demand that all are treated with respect, even if they do not all see the sense in it... The victim is not just the obvious victim, but is inevitably us... What goes around does come around, and the exploitation of women or children is seldom the beginning of evil so much as its continuence.... If we demand that there be no victims within our society, not within our sight, or our understanding; that we band together to protect each other, and even the world from wrong, and exist finally and firmly for that purpose, then we are not some abstract state, but a family, and a nation... The use and abuse of people is not an expression of liberty, but of licence... The abuse of the environment and the wasting of resources is not an act of freedom, but of tyranny... The question for humanity is always what it has been: how shall we achieve justice without becoming a nuisance to ourselves or to others...
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » General Discussion
  3. » Can playboy lover, Hugh Hefner justify his action!
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/13/2024 at 04:28:20