Conversation
Notices
-
After chewing on it, I've come to the conclusion that I'm fine with polygamists not being able to marry.
- jonkulp likes this.
-
Okay, defend that. Why is it okay to discriminate against polyamorous relationships but not homosexual relationships?
-
Also, I am on my way out the door, so I'll be afk for a while...
-
@pete There's a fundamental difference between discrimination against a group of people v. any ol' lifestyle.
-
@johnnynull So it's okay to be dismissive of one arbitrarily chosen "lifestyle" between consenting adults but not another? That's fucked up.
Greg Grossmeier likes this. -
@johnnynull Not to call homosexuality arbitrary, sorry if that was poorly phrased. I think you get my meaning though.
-
@johnnynull I agree, but doesn’t defining that still setup a slippery slope of some kind?
-
Yeah, I’d be a little worried as well. I don’t really care about polygamists either way, but where’s the distinction?
-
@pete No. Be precise.
-
@x1101 at Aikido. I'll address this.
-
@x1101 We have definitions and limits as it stands. You could just as easily say NOT defining things would lead to a slippery slope.
-
That doesn’t cover why polygamists shouldn’t be able to marry each other, but gay and hetero folks can though…
-
...and I’m not really trying to be argumentative, I just can’t think of a good reason to deny them myself. :)
-
@johnnynull what are the downsides? Downsides of status quo include exclusion from medical desisions/insurance, possibly inheritance issues.
-
@windigo because marriage is sacred. Duh. It's a vow before God and if you get divorced you are going to hell.
-
@windigo I think it does. Gays are genetically gay. It's who they love, more so than sex. Poly folk just have as it as their lifestyle.
-
@windigo I'm certainly open to learning I'm wrong, but I see it as a big distinction. Plus, poly legal battles would be impossible to work
-
@windigo Poly is a choice. And I'm not so sure I'm saying they SHOULDN'T be able to, but I'm fine if they can't.
-
@windigo actually I think that ban came from when women couldn't vote and essentially had no rights. They had less than…
-
@pete You think homosexuality is chosen? Then choose to be gay, right now, for just a minute.
-
That’s an excellent distinction – I hadn’t thought of that. :)
-
Ah, the ol’ “Jesus?” check box on the marriage form. :)
-
@windigo also, there's all sorts of forced marriages in
-
@kevingranade Downsides to allowing poly marriages? How would you handle legal battles? Essentially impossible.
-
Heh, I can accept that – I guess I can’t really think of any reason why it shouldn’t be legal, but have no strong feelings either way.
-
@windigo ...oops. in those "cults". Not that they are all cults but I that it is part of the issue
-
@windigo in the modern context it seems a bit anachronistic but it could be difficult to sort out inheritance...certain…
-
@windigo of course this comes from someone that doesn't think the government should be involved with marriage at all so…
-
@ratfink No, that is not what I said. Read the context. Jesus, I knew someone was gonna ask though :/
-
@johnnynull Why is it acceptable to you to be dismissive of the legitimacy of polyamorous relationships?
-
@pete You called it "an arbitrarily chosen 'lifestyle'." How does context (which I had read) change what that means?
-
@ratfink I did not. I was asserting that @johnnynull was arbitarily deigning gay relationships legitimate but polyamorous ones illegitimate.
-
@ratfink If that was a confusing statement, I apologize. Hard to express in 140.
-
@ratfink By the way, not that it should matter, but I'm queer myself. Just for background.
-
@pete Oh, I understand now. You meant arbitrarily picked by him. Sorry for getting upset, I didn't quite get the intended meaning.
-
@ratfink Understandable. It was a really poorly constructed sentence :)
-
@johnnynull what? There are procedures for handling collectives of plaintiffs and defendants, it complicates things, but it's done.
-
@johnnynull more importantly, your argument against granting a class of rights to a group is that it would be *procedurally* difficult? 0_0
-
@kevingranade No, I specifically said it's a lifestyle choice. Not a genetic thing. They're completely different.
-
@kevingranade That does impact things, doesn't it? Hurm. . . .
-
@johnnynull are you implying that a slippery slope isnt possible? I disagree
-
@johnnynull I see your point, but IMO whether it's choice or genetic is immaterial, self-selected group membership is valid.
-
@johnnynull again, I disagree, but for slightly complex reasons. Wanna move this to Diapora? 140c is just not enough.
-
No, it means that it is a logical fallacy to use that as a rationale for decision-making. As cited, it can just as easily work the other way
-
So, now you're forcing me to pull out the NAMBLA card?
-
Agreed. Yes, please do.
-
@johnnynull obviously illegal activities are illegal, this is not influenced by group membership, see Copyism. Counterexample: Catholicism.
-
@kevingranade But bigamy is illegal. So some judgements are OK, but not others?
-
@kevingranade Husband's on life support. Who pulls the plug? Can the other wives sue? Who gets custody? Which religion is followed?
-
@johnnynull yes, legally marriage amoung polygamists is not allowed, but I'm not "fine with it", which is the nucleus of the discussion.
-
@johnnynull it's complicated, yes, but instead only one spouse has any rights, and any others are disenfranchised, that's better?
-
@johnnynull custody amoung polygamists would be breaking new ground, but that's what law does, it adapts to new scenarios.
-
@johnnynull religion is (or at least should be) immaterial to the scenario other than as a basis for reasoning about the husband's desires.
-
What? I can't hear you all the way in fantasy-land.
-
I'm sorry, are you asking in the context of a poly marriage?
-
Poorly, if at all.
-
@johnnynull I am going to move to email instead. I just had a decently worded thought typed and lost it.
-
Been there. Sounds sound.
-
@johnnynull *shrug* I'm an idealist, so sue me.
-
@johnnynull yes. The alternative to allowing polyagmy is that 0 or 1 wives are recognised and the others are disenfranchised.
-
@johnnynull that is the result outside the OTHER fantasy-land where illegal things just don't happen.
-
No, that would still happen, obviously.
-
@johnnynull total side-issue, this conversation has rekindled my interest in implementing a tree-view in identica-mode.
-
So if illegal things happen, we should just roll over and accept them since they're inevitable?
-
@kevingranade I'm glad I can be a catalyst for good.
-
@johnnynull in the scenario I'm describing a polyamorous group would not be married, but act as if they were, which AFAIK isn't illegal.
-
@johnnynull IOW, refusing to recognise a polyamorous union won't keep it from happening, it will just keep it from being recognised.
-
@johnnynull There’s a first for everything I guess
-
No, completely wrong. Do you honestly think you can get five, or even three, wives to agree on these topics?
-
@johnnynull how is that different than a "normal" marriage? Since when do even two spouses agree on a regular basis?
-
@johnnynull what does this have to do with the morality/legality of polygamy? "I don't think it can work" isn't a reason to forbid something
-
When the husband dies, typically the wife can agree with herself. Is it really that hard?
-
No, neither does pretending it can work thereby make it the correct choice.
-
Like the one time I used Emacs? *shudder*
-
Nor do I recall calling poly folk "immoral". Changing laws because some people want to live some wacky lifestyle is foolish.
-
I find your high-handed dismissiveness offensive. People were saying ignorant shit like this about gay people not long ago.
-
@pete Fuck you and your character assassination, you weasel-douchebag. Feel better?
-
That's what I thought you'd say. Your vehemence on a topic on which you are ignorant is astounding.
-
lol, no need to be - it happened to pop back up in my stream and I couldn't resist counter-trolling. It's a weakness of mine, as you know.
-
@johnnynull I never said it was the correct choice, just that there is no reason to forbid it.
-
On a related note, why the hell aren't we using the !polyamory group more? God knows there's plenty of us here, that shit should be hoppin'.
-
@johnnynull keeping a law that forbids "some wacky lifestyle" with no moral or practical basis is IMO far worse.
-
@pete indeed. Please return to dismissing the glbt community's fight for equal rights. Simpleton.
-
@kevingranade you're the one that brought up the term "morality". Besides, since when is the default "we can't say why not right now"?
-
I didn't. I said it wasn't nearly enough & we're solving the wrong problems. Your childish, simplistic outlook notwithstanding, that's true.
-
@kevingranade I've repeatedly said there's a basis - polygamy is a choice. It's not a civil rights issue.
-
That's fucking stupid. I thought it was "you can't choose who you love!" Wasn't that the equality mantra until...uh, yesterday?
-
Yesterday, you proved incapable of rational thought. Run along, the adults are talking.
-
You continue to insult at people whose points you do not wish to debate, and then have the gall to call others childish. No one's impressed.
-
I "insulted at" you because you earned it. Get a helmet.
-
I don’t see any of @pete‘s messages through all of this, but I assume from your volleys that your democratic debate is going well. :)
-
@windigo Only the single most mature debate I've had in all my evers!
-
I'm fine. You're only embarrassing yourself, man.
-
Watching you "discuss" things with other people in this thread, I can believe that.
-
@johnnynull that's like saying laws about facial hair are ok even with no basis "because it's a choice", it's meaningless.
-
@kevingranade That's a terrible analogy. You're talking about changing a current legal structure, simply because you think it's nice.
-
@kevingranade haircuts have no impact on survivor's rights, custody, anything like that.
-
@johnnynull you're defending a legal structure that has no purpose other than bigotry, you are aware of that right?
-
@kevingranade No, that's not the case. I know you'd like it to be, but that doesn't make it so.
-
@kevingranade @ladyj had me read this aloud 3 times to appreciate the utter stupidity of this statement. Congratulations.
All Identi.ca content and data are available under the