Conversation
Notices
-
And by everyone, I mean roommates, live-in parents, hippie communes. Everyone. Get out of the "who's got a legit relationship" business.
about a year ago from web-
I find it sad that the !glbt movement has so singlemindedly focused on marriage over the last ~10 yr. Remember when we were revolutionaries?
-
@johnnynull just to add my 2c to the mix. I find it awful that the #glbt community has to fight for marriage rights. Its a legal institution
-
Sounds like a pretty obvious target to me, considering a lot of rights and legal protections hinge on it.
-
@johnnynull as long as they don’t try to force an org to marry individuals (they dont now), every loving couple should be allowed to marry
-
You don't? I do. I'm not that old. I'd rather be fighting marriage than fighting *for* marriage.
-
That in itself is the problem, imho. I don't think getting onboard the privilege train is gonna solve it.
-
Massachusetts has been fighting for transgender equality. The ACLU's been fighting discrimination & bullying in other states. #greatwork
-
Why? Civil unions for everyone. Keep church in church. Solved.
-
Get government out of the business of deciding who can sign what economic contract with whom, it's really none of their business.
-
Also, you don't need to be mean. This isn't Slashdot.
-
Not a word game at all. Something more akin to common-law marriage, which is a very old tradition, but for everyone.
-
Sure, but gay couples shouldn't have to wait for complete church/state separation before they can have hospital visitation rights.
-
Absolutely. So let's find ways of doing that that don't force us to rely on state privilege. I don't want to be part of the problem.
-
Also, don't mistake me, I am not in opposition to gay marriage. It is not. If we're stuck in this system, then yeah, this is obvious.
-
Dude. Marriage is stupid.
-
But this doesn't solve the problem. It just gets us in on the action.
-
@johnnynull context, your dents dont have any.
-
Telling an oppressed group, "You shouldn't work for privilege bundle X b/c we think it shouldn't exist" just feels out of order.
-
@johnnynull federation issues, I would guess.
-
If people want state-sanctioned relationships, then help them achieve that. Telling people what they ought to want isn't empowerment.
-
@johnnynull I'm seeing context in Heybuddy. I think @x1101 may be having a client side problem
-
@johnnynull dunno. I might do some digging into #Heybuddy to make it more #feds friendly thou.
-
Because it is by definition handing over the power to determine whose relationship is legitimate and whose isn't.
-
Didn't say it was, but I'm more interested in a long-term sustainable solution than just "what's an easy fix?"
-
@johnnynull I might also do some work to make it like #Gnome3 more.
-
@expatpaul yup, which is why I suggested that as the issue initially.
-
@x1101 Ah... Probably a federation issue then?
-
Why should the state be involved in that at all? It's not about "what you should want," it's about "what government should be doing."
-
@x1101 my guess is that the conversation was started by @pete, who I'm not subscribed to, is that the case with you as well?
-
Not what I'm saying. I agree entirely. Let's decouple those privileges from marriage. That's what I want.
-
@x1101 Oh, okay... I'm just being slow. I didn't see your initial dent
-
Why are dispensing those privileges to *anyone* in the interest of the state? What, ultimately, is the purpose of legal marriage?
-
Why is the state giving these benefits? It must be somehow in the collective interest.
-
@kevingranade yep. That makes sense, in a sideways kind of way. And that seems to be a #federation thing, similar result from webUI
-
Sure it is. People in a polyamorous relationship still cannot wed. It's just shuffling the lines of acceptability.
-
How does marriage facilitate that? You went from A to D, I still need B and C. Show your work.
-
There do, do there? And who shall set these limitations? What shall they be? (What do kids have to do with it?)
-
Do you have an answer for any of those questions or not?
-
If it's ok to exclude poly*, then you're still exclusionary. If it's not, you need to create something entirely unlike marriage. Pick.
-
So you don't have an answer? Take your time, I'll be here.
-
I'm done with this if you're just gonna be a douchebag.
-
Sure. I think gay marriage 1) hasn't been easy and 2) is a great short-term goal that highlights the "too much state involvement" problem.
-
We've got all kinds of tax breaks and legal rights that don't depend on exclusionary contracts, I don't see why it's necessary in any way.
-
I agree, but I wish we'd put that energy into real long-term equality instead of patching a broken system. Not that it's too late to start.
-
Put your own energy in and when other people are ready, they'll join you. Everyone's got to work on what feels most important to them.
-
All Identi.ca content and data are available under the