Conversation
Notices
-
I find it sad that the !glbt movement has so singlemindedly focused on marriage over the last ~10 yr. Remember when we were revolutionaries?
about 4 months ago from web- r7 repeated this.
-
@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
-
No, actually I don't. And marriage is important. And I disagree it's been singleminded.
-
Sounds like a pretty obvious target to me, considering a lot of rights and legal protections hinge on it.
-
Fuck yeah. Very close friend went through hell for years because gays aren't humans, apparently.
-
@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.
-
Bingo.
-
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
-
@x1101 totally
-
@pete example, please. And what? Abolish marriage? Fucking stupid and impossible idea. Good luck there.
-
Why? Civil unions for everyone. Keep church in church. Solved.
-
And by everyone, I mean roommates, live-in parents, hippie communes. Everyone. Get out of the "who's got a legit relationship" business.
-
@pete yeah, play word games. Great idea. Religious Right already rocks that game. And when I got married, no fairy tales were invoked.
-
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.
-
@pete Dude, have you SPOKEN to me before? And the idea is stupid, so I called it stupid.
-
Dude. Marriage is stupid.
-
But this doesn't solve the problem. It just gets us in on the action.
-
@pete Yeah, rewriting the whole thing is much easier than just opening up marriage to t3h gays and so on.
-
@johnnynull context, your dents dont have any.
-
@pete And why IS it, exactly?
-
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.
-
@x1101 Fucking hell. Why not?
-
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.
-
@x1101 Yeah, looks it. Think this will ever be fixed?
-
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?
-
@expatpaul Bingo.
-
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?
-
@pete Because it's all about legal privileges and tax breaks? Sounds state-related to me.
-
@x1101 I'm trying out Turpial. Not bad. I'll wind up back on HeyBuddy, I imagine.
-
@pete It's in the interest of the individuals. You've got it ass-backwards. Just because you're mad at the state, don't make up nonsense.
-
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
-
You don't think that having a more robust populace leads to increased productivity?
-
So, not getting Easy Thing done in a decade, let's shoot for the insane. Logical.
-
Not once it's opened up it's not. Your argument holds no water.
-
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.
-
Yeah, thought you'd bring that up. Not sure about that. But obviously there needs to be limitations. Kids the default example.
-
Wow, you've just jumped to Time Cube stupid.
-
There do, do there? And who shall set these limitations? What shall they be? (What do kids have to do with it?)
-
First off, you've never given a decent argument, so work is due on your end as well. Second, tax breaks and legal rights don't help? Really?
-
If I really need to hold your hand that much, we've got a real problem.
-
Do you have an answer for any of those questions or not?
-
You wouldn't understand if I handed one. Oh, and how about answering ANY of mine? Backtrack. I've let you slide too long.
-
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