or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Daily CE Musings of Piob
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Daily CE Musings of Piob - Page 138

post #2056 of 5129
Marriage only functions for a certain swath of the population anymore: the well-off, well educated types that get married later in life and delay have kids until after marriage. I guess a lot of gays fall into those bins. It's either broken, a fantasy, or non-existent in the rest of America.

Quote:
What institution are we left with? In who shall we put our faith?

This is really a good question, glibness aside. Many people don't have a sense of community or purpose anymore. People don't even talk to their neighbors, much less go out and join with another group of like-minded individuals in their community. How does Joe Neckbeard connect with his community, how does he stay engaged with anything real and tangible?
post #2057 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

People aren't arguing these issue in a political theory rhetoric class. Turning it into a broad first-principles argument would, in practical terms, doom any chance of making actual changes.
As above, it's only a non-sequitor if you're trying to make an abstract argument. From a legal and practical standpoint, it is entirely relevant.

Hell, the only reason anyone even bothers to bring up polygamists is as a proxy for the gay rights argument.

I simply don't agree. You could easily do something very similar to the Oklahoma proposal: the government is out of the business of marriage and you simply fill out a form, only this form would allow more than two people to get married.

I have asked some of my acquaintances who are very strong supporters of gay marriage (also huge sjws) point blank if they would support polygamy, and they have said no because it is wrong or only for religious bigots or harms women or whatever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

I don't really do the libertopia discuss anymore, because A) it's never going to happen B) the framework is so far removed from anything that exists that it's really impossible to say what the real outcome would be. Can't really get myself interested in it these days. Yes, "government power can be used to repress minorities" is an issue. But that doesn't logically lead to "ergo remove all government power and things will be better," without a previously standing libertarian ideology.

I'm not arguing remove all government power. I'm arguing that you have already agreed that in this case government power has harmed a minority of people, so why not try to fix it for all people rather than one subset (albeit the largest) of the minority.
post #2058 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

I simply don't agree. You could easily do something very similar to the Oklahoma proposal: the government is out of the business of marriage and you simply fill out a form, only this form would allow more than two people to get married.

For reasons previously mentioned, it's not so simple as that. You'd need to rewrite pretty significant chunks of law.
Quote:
I have asked some of my acquaintances who are very strong supporters of gay marriage (also huge sjws) point blank if they would support polygamy, and they have said no because it is wrong or only for religious bigots or harms women or whatever.
Well, those things are largely true. Aside from the abstract question of the right to plural marriages, the actual people who practice plural marriages are religious bigots who exploit women. Sort of beside the point though.
Quote:
I'm not arguing remove all government power.
I mean the general libertopia theme.
Quote:
I'm arguing that you have already agreed that in this case government power has harmed a minority of people, so why not try to fix it for all people rather than one subset (albeit the largest) of the minority.

Again though, because nobody cares. That's not a rigorous principled argument, it's just a statement of practical reality. There are no advocates for plural marriage. Principle does not carry much weight for these questions. As far as society is concerned, there is no problem to be "fixed", especially when the complexity is significantly greater than the gay marriage question.

If this is just an abstract, "But if people were intellectually honest and wiling to consider abstract questions, then what if" question, well, the answer might be different. Piob brought up some interesting angles on that, so will expound on this in another post.
post #2059 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post



As to the percentage, it doesn't matter if it is 0 or 100% it is a non-sequitor. My point there was gays are a minority, so using the fact that polygamists are a minority is a losing argument.
Agreed. Good thing that wasn't Gib's argument.
post #2060 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

For me the reason to present the poly case is two fold:

1) Is it not disingenuous of a person arguing against discrimination in marriage to argue for discrimination in marriage for another group of people? It's hard to believe the lawyer does not have a double standard.
It may be, but they're trying to win this case. Extending the argument to plural marriage is unlikely to be a hill they'd want to die on.
Quote:
2) It is just to test the initial concept that marriage is not one man, one woman. To deny that has been our tradition for many centuries is spurious, so if you want to change it for one group you better damn well be able to defend why we cannot change it even more or accept that we should change it more.

It's certainly an interesting exercise to think about what legal plural marriage would look like. How would it work out?

Without resorting to a "tradition" argument, it's still obvious that legalizing plural marriage is much more complex than legalizing gay marriage. The question with gay marriage has always been "Should it be valid?" not "Why would it work?" Everyone knows how it would work, it's just a direct extension of hetero marriage. But that's not the case for plural marriage. How would it work?
post #2061 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

For reasons previously mentioned, it's not so simple as that. You'd need to rewrite pretty significant chunks of law.

Like what (I'm not a lawyer nor am I being deliberately obtuse)? Wills can already cover things like custody and inheritance upon someone's death. People can already have multiple powers of attorney for finances and health care. For things like divorce, these things already get decided by mutual agreement or a court order. Also, if you want to argue the "practical reality" angle, what percentage of plural marriages will have divorces?
post #2062 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post

After marriage, there are very few functioning institutions left. The church, family, Boy Scouts, higher education, and corporate America have been damaged. Our left leg is still somewhat strong (Aristotle, Enlightenment), but our right leg has atrophied (Judeo-Christian religious tradition). We are in the process of falling down.

And the bonus:

What institution are we left with? In who shall we put our faith?





My third leg is long enough to compensate, although others may have different experiences.
post #2063 of 5129
What, I don't get a trigger warning for that one?
post #2064 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

Like what (I'm not a lawyer nor am I being deliberately obtuse)? Wills can already cover things like custody and inheritance upon someone's death. People can already have multiple powers of attorney for finances and health care. For things like divorce, these things already get decided by mutual agreement or a court order.

I think the biggest foundational problem is that there's no simple definition of a "plural" marriage. It can't be easily packaged into legal rights when everybody could have their multiple marriages aligned differently. What works in one household wouldn't in another, so it's extremely murky legally.

Take custody. It's straightforward in 99% of conventional marriages. Divorce, you usually split custody. Death, the surviving partner gets custody. In a plural marriage, it's not at all clear. Seems to depend entirely on how everybody has drawn up the terms of the relationship. In the Mormon style "all the wives are married to the husband but not each other" format, presumably children would go between the mother and the father, with the other wives not getting a claim. But say all the wives are also married to each other. Does custody get split X ways? Could you have a whole circle of people all paying each other alimony and child support? Ditto divorce. If Sister Wife A divorces Husband A, who is married to Sister Wife B and thus shares her property, does Sister Wife A have claim to that property?

If we're just going to allow them to draw up their own legal frameworks to fit the uniqueness of each plural marriage, why exactly do they need "marriage," anyway? Conventional marriage is mostly a convenience issue. They could pretty much do that already, "marriage" aside.


There's also the question of welfare and taxes. A "household" is ill-defined in plural circumstances. The possibility for weird abuses of the tax code seems high.
post #2065 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post

What, I don't get a trigger warning for that one?

**Trigger warning, chronologically impotent phallo-centric humor.**
post #2066 of 5129
In divorce proceedings, will the lack of a husband and a wife create an anti-feminist result?

Without a unipolar husband, how will the judge know which spouse to screw over? Or which spouse to throw in jail for missing alimony payments?
post #2067 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post

In divorce proceedings, will the lack of a husband and a wife create an anti-feminist result?

Without a unipolar husband, how will the judge know which spouse to screw over? Or which spouse to throw in jail for missing alimony payments?


Eat the Rich.
post #2068 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

Eat the Rich.



Class-based cannibalism will be the civil rights movement of the next decade.
post #2069 of 5129
Thread Starter 
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/30/politics/obama-my-brothers-keeper-relaunch/index.html

http://www.thenonprofittimes.com/news-articles/91-million-brothers-keeper/

What do we think about the sitting POTUS forming a non-profit and using the White House as a fund raising platform for it?
post #2070 of 5129
I think it's perfectly acceptable under the DSD ( Double standard dictum ).

And note that the program specifically promotes "minority" kids, so it should be immune from criticism..
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Daily CE Musings of Piob