|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
TheCatt 
Top 2%
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 22951
Joined: May 2004
|
 |
Posted on: Mar. 28 2013,06:00 |
|
   |
So I'm sure everyone (except TPR's) FB is overflowing with red squares with a pink equals.
So a couple of weeks ago, my daughter told me she wanted to marry me (awwwww). I explained I was already married to mommy, she may meet someone later, etc, etc. I asked if she want to marry mommy, and she said "Daddy, that's silly, girls can't marry other girls." So I explain that in some places they can, etc, etc. "But daddy, two girls cannot make a baby." So then I explained that they could adopt, or just not have children, etc.
This morning it came back up again during breakfast, but this time Allie brings up "Then could 3 girls get married together?"
Me: This is why government shouldn't get involved.
So what's the next step? Red squares with 3 equal signs for polygamy? If marriage is between any two consenting adults, why not 3?
Wanted to ask the marriage equality their thoughts on that, but then i also didn't want my FB overrun with politics.
--------------
It's not me, it's someone else.
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
Leisher
Top 3%, yo.
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 26651
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 28 2013,06:57 |
|
 |
I was having this conversation at lunch yesterday.
I'm all for gay people having the right to be married, but I'm going to draw my line in the sand at 2 consenting adults.
Nobody should be allowed to marry their horse, their TV, or their robot (until they become recognized sentient beings...), etc. Nor will I be ok with multiple adults in a legally binding relationship.
Sorry, but at some point a line does have to be made. As stated above, animals, children, inanimate objects, all prove that point.
Why am I drawing mine at multiple adults?
I don't know. I honestly don't give a shit if multiple consenting adults want to live together. I just think it creates unnecessary hassles and costs for employers and government entities. Thus, once someone's lifestyle begins to create a negative impact upon everyone else, that's where I draw the line.
Multiple adults in a legal relationship creates actual problems that aren't fair for other people to have to deal with. For example:
-Joe has a wife and 1 kid. Joe works as a programmer for Microsoft. Microsoft pays just under $20,000 a year for Joe and his family's medical insurance.
-Bob has 4 wives, 2 husbands and 12 kids. Bob works as a programmer for Microsoft. Microsoft was paying around $100,000 annually for Bob and his family's medical insurance. This made Bob unemployable. Bob and his whole family now live on government assistance, and he doesn't even bother to look for a job as nobody will hire him.
I'm sure that's probably a dumb example, but it showcases the concern.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
thibodeaux
RAG
Group: Privateers
Posts: 6494
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 28 2013,07:22 |
|
|
As soon as enough black/brown polygamists get together and decide that outlawing polygamy is RAAAACIIIIIIIIST, we'll get polygamy.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
GORDON
90%
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 36125
Joined: Jun. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 28 2013,07:24 |
|
|
I think everyone should be as miserable as everyone else. Allow anyone to get married to anyone or anything. Makes no difference to me.
Except make sure divorces hurt everyone as much, too. One of them loses half their money, one of them loses the kids, etc.
--------------
I don't give a fuck!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
Malcolm
I disagree.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 27168
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 28 2013,07:29 |
|
|
QUOTE Nor will I be ok with multiple adults in a legally binding relationship.
I assume more than 2? And why not?
QUOTE I honestly don't give a shit if multiple consenting adults want to live together. I just think it creates unnecessary hassles and costs for employers and government entities.
Yeah, and we wouldn't want to call those dudes out on their insanity or stupidity.
QUOTE Thus, once someone's lifestyle begins to create a negative impact upon everyone else, that's where I draw the line.
That's a rather vague definition. What's "negative?" How much of "everyone else" do you need before it's enough people?
QUOTE Multiple adults in a legal relationship creates actual problems that aren't fair for other people to have to deal with
The examples you provide are due to corporate or gov't entities engaging in stupidity to cover up for stupidity engaged in by everyone else. MacroShaft just ought to pay Bob cash and not deal with his fucking insurance. In the second exaggerated part, maybe Bob shouldn't have a dozen dependents. Maybe some of their lazy asses should get a job and chip in. It's the same reason you shouldn't have a wife and ten kids when all you got is the third shift at 7-11. Fuck, even with a six figure income, it's not easy to support that many other people in this country.
--------------
Diogenes of Sinope:
"It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
"Other dogs bite only their enemies, whereas I bite also my friends in order to save them."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC:
"Better dead than smeg."
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
Leisher
Top 3%, yo.
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 26651
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 28 2013,07:57 |
|
|
QUOTE Except make sure divorces hurt everyone as much, too. One of them loses half their money, one of them loses the kids, etc.
It'll be interesting to see if the courts continue their bias towards women by siding with the more feminine partner in gay marriages.
QUOTE And why not?
Thought I explained it.
QUOTE their insanity or stupidity.
That's interesting. Is this correct or the first example of "ignorance" towards the "multiple partner relationship" movement?
QUOTE That's a rather vague definition. What's "negative?" How much of "everyone else" do you need before it's enough people?
Two gay people getting married negatively affects nobody.
6 consenting adults getting married affects their employer, government agencies that deal with them (argue about whether or not they should be elsewhere), the neighborhood they live in (property values decline due to all the fucking kids and cars, schools who have to figure out who can legally pick up the kids, etc.
If you sit down and think about it, legally identifying more than 2 consenting adults in a legally binding marriage is a logistical nightmare.
Is that enough to say they shouldn't be married? Yes.
Why? Because fuck those selfish assholes. Gay people getting married is a no brainer. Our infrastructure and processes doesn't need to adapt, people do. For multiple partner relationships, everything needs to change from forms, to insurance plans, to the way hotel rooms are rented out, to the way benefits are paid, and the list goes on forever.
QUOTE MacroShaft just ought to pay Bob cash and not deal with his fucking insurance.
Obamacare
QUOTE In the second exaggerated part, maybe Bob shouldn't have a dozen dependents. Maybe some of their lazy asses should get a job and chip in. It's the same reason you shouldn't have a wife and ten kids when all you got is the third shift at 7-11. Fuck, even with a six figure income, it's not easy to support that many other people in this country.
It's cute how you ignore the fact that there are guys knocking up women all over the fucking place without a care in the world about who will be paying for the kids.
If we have people making kids in our current environment just to get a bigger check from the government, what makes you think Bob and his family wouldn't do the same?
And what if they're Catholic?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
Malcolm
I disagree.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 27168
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 28 2013,08:23 |
|
|
QUOTE If you sit down and think about it, legally identifying more than 2 consenting adults in a legally binding marriage is a logistical nightmare.
...
Our infrastructure and processes doesn't need to adapt, people do.
Fuck no. Other way around. The "logistical nightmare" you're talking about comes from the fact that all societal shit is based around the "two person" rule. Hell, even that derives from simple biology, but it's been broken down to nothing more than a practicality in various parts of the world. It's given a thin veneer of sanctity in this country. I say "thin" because while we pay lip service to it (due to cultural tradition), we've shit all over it. Trading Spouses. Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire? Las Vegas 15-minute wedding chapels. I'm perfectly willing to watch the tradition get shattered.
QUOTE Is that enough to say they shouldn't be married? Yes.
I disagree with that claim. Saying, "It's too hard," isn't a good enough excuse.
QUOTE Obamacare
Another fucking horrible idea and example of wanton stupidity.
QUOTE It's cute how you ignore the fact that there are guys knocking up women all over the fucking place without a care in the world about who will be paying for the kids.
Uh, I never denied such things go on. I fail to see how it plays into this argument. If you're a gas pump attendant who's got ten different kids by ten different women, then you get to deal with the fallout, just like your ten baby mamas. That's still a different scenario than a hypothetical group marriage.
QUOTE If we have people making kids in our current environment just to get a bigger check from the government, what makes you think Bob and his family wouldn't do the same?
Yet another example of the gov't doing something where it should just stay the fuck still.
QUOTE And what if they're Catholic?
.... sarcasm overload .... cannot process all my snide comebacks at once.... whew. Better now. Here's a couple...
1) god will provide
2) his yoke is easy and his burden is light
3) "And then Jesus said, 'Relax, don't do it, when you want to come.'" It's somewhere in one of the Gospels. Or 1980s, maybe, I get them confused.
But seriously, they're following their religion of their own free will. Nowhere does the constitution guarantee that every religion makes life equally easy. It guarantees we aren't going to discriminate against you on the basis of it. If you want to follow a two thousand year-old creed and say it's 100% applicable to today because you want to get into the high rise in the eternal paradise of the afterlife, then go for it.
--------------
Diogenes of Sinope:
"It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
"Other dogs bite only their enemies, whereas I bite also my friends in order to save them."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC:
"Better dead than smeg."
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
TPRJones
I saw The Fault in our Stars opening night.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 12384
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 28 2013,09:12 |
|
|
I fight like hell wherever I can for gay marriage equality. Â Once that is done, I will likely fight like hell wherever I can for polyamorous marriage equality. Â Probably not quite as hard. Â But some.
Why should consenting adults not be allowed to live their lives in the way they see fit, as long as they aren't hurting anyone else? Â
And no, I have yet to see a valid reason in this thread. Â "Because I don't like it" is never a good enough reason to limit someone else's liberties. Â "Because it will make someone's job in government difficult" is just as much of a bullshit reason, and in fact I consider that an argument in favor of whatever it is because we need to be making their job harder at every opportunity, IMO. Â The example about Bob is much more an argument about limiting the number of children people can have than it was about polyamorous marriage, and China has done a pretty good job of showing us how bad an idea that is.
I'm going to need to see some decent reasons before I'd begin to think it's a valid point of view. Â The default position should always be more liberty for citizens, not less, unless there's a damn good reason to stick your nose into their lives and tell them how to live. This is not an autocracy, nor a communist paradise, this is America.
America is supposed to be better than that.
Edited by TPRJones on Mar. 28 2013,09:13
--------------
Vidi Perfutui Veni
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
Leisher
Top 3%, yo.
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 26651
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 28 2013,09:19 |
|
|
QUOTE The "logistical nightmare" you're talking about comes from the fact that all societal shit is based around the "two person" rule. Hell, even that derives from simple biology, but it's been broken down to nothing more than a practicality in various parts of the world. It's given a thin veneer of sanctity in this country.
Just like other societal shit like English, getting a driver's license, paying your bills, actually having citizenship to receive things funded by and for citizens, etc.
You can paint such things as being throw away, but I'd like to remind you of two things. First, you called those who would join in multiple adult partnerships insane and stupid, so please don't take a counter position to your own views. Second, at the end of the day, no matter what society says, a man and a woman make a baby. No other combo works. Thus, you can base laws on that (in regards to the welfare of the child, and his/her primary guardians...no matter who they end up being), and not worry about values changing from generation to generation.
QUOTE I disagree with that claim. Saying, "It's too hard," isn't a good enough excuse.
Not what I'm saying.
I'm saying it's too expensive, and fuck your lifestyle if we have to adapt to it. It actually affects those around them. Living next to Tom and Peter and their 2 adopted kids is a far cry from living next to George, Mary, Helen, Steph, Amy, Angel, Frank, Pablo, Barry, Other Barry, Staci, Liz, etc. and their 30 kids.
Hell, occupancy laws alone dictate that their MUST be a limit at some point. Don't fuck with fire safety.
QUOTE Another fucking horrible idea and example of wanton stupidity.
I don't disagree with that, just pointing out how your argument is ignoring fact. Microsoft can't give Bob cash instead of paying for his insurance.
QUOTE Uh, I never denied such things go on. I fail to see how it plays into this argument. If you're a gas pump attendant who's got ten different kids by ten different women, then you get to deal with the fallout, just like your ten baby mamas. That's still a different scenario than a hypothetical group marriage.
Because of your quote here:
QUOTE In the second exaggerated part, maybe Bob shouldn't have a dozen dependents. Maybe some of their lazy asses should get a job and chip in. It's the same reason you shouldn't have a wife and ten kids when all you got is the third shift at 7-11. Fuck, even with a six figure income, it's not easy to support that many other people in this country.
You started it.
You're saying that these people need to show some responsibility, and I'm pointing out that it's not going to happen because it doesn't happen now.
People mock the Duggars and their 19 kids, but the thing people seem to forget is that they can afford them.
Meanwhile, the Octomom is living off the government and making Spaghetti-O porn because she had a procedure specifically to have a fucking litter of kids.
And again, every single adult in Bob's household that gets a job runs into the insurance issue. Do we force them all to get jobs that don't require the employers to provide insurance? Are we now infringing on their rights to find a good job? Will employers finally draw the line here and stop providing insurance because of selfish assholes like Bob and his 9 wives/husbands? (If it cuts into the bottom line, yes.)
That hurts ALL of us. Thus, fuck Bob and his multiple partner relationship.
QUOTE Yet another example of the gov't doing something where it should just stay the fuck still.
Take that to the Obama thread. Stay on topic here. Argue how Bob's multiple adult partner relationship won't affect things that actually exist, not how those things shouldn't exist.
QUOTE .... sarcasm overload .... cannot process all my snide comebacks at once.... whew. Better now. Here's a couple...
1) god will provide
2) his yoke is easy and his burden is light
3) "And then Jesus said, 'Relax, don't do it, when you want to come.'" It's somewhere in one of the Gospels. Or 1980s, maybe, I get them confused.
But seriously, they're following their religion of their own free will. Nowhere does the constitution guarantee that every religion makes life equally easy. It guarantees we aren't going to discriminate against you on the basis of it. If you want to follow a two thousand year-old creed and say it's 100% applicable to today because you want to get into the high rise in the eternal paradise of the afterlife, then go for it.
I don't think you understood what I was saying there because you wrote a LOT of stuff for a one liner (a joke) about condom usage.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
Malcolm
I disagree.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 27168
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 28 2013,09:32 |
|
|
QUOTE a man and a woman make a baby. No other combo works.
It's the base minimum. Other combos work.
QUOTE People mock the Duggars and their 19 kids, but the thing people seem to forget is that they can afford them.
Meanwhile, the Octomom is living off the government and making Spaghetti-O porn because she had a procedure specifically to have a fucking litter of kids.
The first case is something I consider insane to the Nth degree, but I'm not going to prohibit others from chasing down that dream if they want, and they demonstrably can do it. In the second case, that woman is a powerful argument for forced, involuntary sterilization. Some people can't handle crack when they smoke it, some people can't handle their own reproductive organs.
--------------
Diogenes of Sinope:
"It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
"Other dogs bite only their enemies, whereas I bite also my friends in order to save them."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC:
"Better dead than smeg."
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 11
|
Leisher
Top 3%, yo.
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 26651
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 28 2013,09:39 |
|
|
QUOTE Once that is done, I will likely fight like hell wherever I can for polyamorous marriage equality.
And I'm sure you'll line up to argue that a can should be able to marry his TV legally, and his employer should have to pay for its repair bills. I mean, who is he hurting?
And I'm saying that for humor, but honestly, when multiple adult partnerships become law, what do you think will be next? And don't say there won't be a next because that's just stupid. There is ALWAYS a next. Where will you throw your line?
QUOTE Why should consenting adults not be allowed to live their lives in the way they see fit, as long as they aren't hurting anyone else?
They can, but why does everyone else have to foot the bill? How is that fair?
QUOTE "Because I don't like it" is never a good enough reason to limit someone else's liberties.
Who said that?
And I'm all for people doing what they want, as long as they don't hurt anyone else. However, I think lines need to be drawn once their actions, beliefs, whatever DO begin to hurt others or their community.
We do NOT have an argument there. The argument is whether or not multiple adult partnerships harm us or not. I say they do, but I'm strictly speaking financially.
I do not think our community/nation should foot the bill to force a group to be able to exist. You're forcing everyone else to accept those beliefs, not the people.
I believe it's the same logic as asking legal and illegal immigrants to learn the language here instead of us paying millions upon millions to create bilingual forms, signs, etc.
QUOTE "Because it will make someone's job in government difficult" is just as much of a bullshit reason, and in fact I consider that an argument in favor of whatever it is because we need to be making their job harder at every opportunity, IMO.
Nobody is saying that either.
QUOTE The example about Bob is much more an argument about limiting the number of children people can have than it was about polyamorous marriage, and China has done a pretty good job of showing us how bad an idea that is.
Not sure how you reached that conclusion. I'd argue we need studies to be done to show how multiple adult partnerships affect a child, ala the billions they've done on single parents.
Oh yeah, Octomom and Kate would be great arguments for people not having more kids than they can handle. Hell, fucking Casey Anthony and everyone ever on Teen Mom would be a good argument for it.
QUOTE The default position should always be more liberty for citizens, not less, unless there's a damn good reason to stick your nose into their lives and tell them how to live.
Live however the fuck you want until it starts affecting your community. (Again, my argument here is financial.)
I'm not arguing against anyone's civil liberties, so please climb off your high horse. Let folks live however they want, until it affects others.
And quite honestly, if we're going to force employers to cover an infinite amount of adult partners and their children (which is extreme, but you MUST accept worst case scenarios), and thus, immediately bankrupt said companies, why not have them cover the TVs too?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 12
|
|
|
| Post Number: 13
|
TPRJones
I saw The Fault in our Stars opening night.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 12384
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 28 2013,10:13 |
|
|
QUOTE Where will you throw your line?
Wherever consent cannot be established or ends. Â So, no marrying horses (unless the horse can be shown to consent). Â No marrying children (because they are too young to be qualified as consenting). Â No marrying corpses or the brain dead, unless they established prior written consent back when they were still capable of doing so.
TVs are fine, since they are not living beings and thus consent is a null issue. Â But if that crack about repair bills hints that you think I think anyone should pay for other people's shit then you haven't been paying enough attention. Â
QUOTE They can, but why does everyone else have to foot the bill? How is that fair?
It's not  fair.  But just because asshole Democrats won't get their hands out of our pockets that is not a good enough reason to limit people's liberty, IMO.  Otherwise you've just established as valid the argument that no one should be allowed to ride a motorcycle or own a gun or go skydiving or drink sodas or eat red meat because now that we have universal health coverage we all pay for that if it goes wrong.  Welcome to the justification of the worst nanny state imaginable, courtesy of Leisher.
QUOTE Not sure how you reached that conclusion. Â --regarding Bob --
Well, which costs more, two extra adults or twelve kids? Â I'd say the twelve kids are the huge part of that expense, and thus your argument that Bob shouldn't be allowed to do that because it's so expensive applies far more to not being allowed to have so many kids than to the two extra adults. Â
Personally, I don't have a problem with Microsoft refusing to hire Bob because of the added expense. Â I am not seeking special protected status for polyamorous relationships. Â Just equality under the law with regular marriage (i.e. spouses can visit in hospital and make medical decisions and claim usual legal rights, etc). Â If Microsoft could refuse to hire someone because of the cost of those twelve kids, then it doesn't matter how many parents were involved.
QUOTE I'm not arguing against anyone's civil liberties, so please climb off your high horse.
On the contrary, that's the core of your position. The financial issues are entirely the fault of Democrats and Republicans in Congress, and shouldn't be an excuse for limiting liberties. Â That way lies the fastest way to kill liberty dead.
I don't think you hate liberty. Clearly your intentions in that area are fairly pure. I just don't think you've thought through the end result of the idea that it's okay to limit liberties due to cost. Because most of government is determined to have it's hand in our pockets in every arena, so one day every liberty can be defined by it's cost.
Edited by TPRJones on Mar. 28 2013,10:17
--------------
Vidi Perfutui Veni
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 14
|
TheCatt
Top 2%
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 22951
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 28 2013,10:16 |
|
|
So do we get government out of marriage? Â If healthcare/benefits/etc aren't tied to marriage, then does it become ok, since it's not impacting you?
--------------
It's not me, it's someone else.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 15
|
Malcolm
I disagree.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 27168
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 28 2013,10:17 |
|
|
QUOTE And I'm sure you'll line up to argue that a can should be able to marry his TV legally, and his employer should have to pay for its repair bills. I mean, who is he hurting?
I'll hear an argument against marrying things that aren't sentient. Â In spite of what Robert Redford made us believe, you really can't whisper to horses. Â Certainly not to a sofa, either.
QUOTE I do not think our community/nation should foot the bill to force a group to be able to exist. You're forcing everyone else to accept those beliefs, not the people.
So, you're going to force your belief of 2 as the magic number for marriage because of financial hardships and the reduction of quality of life for everyone else? Â I look at those cash problems as an indicator that shit needs to change. Â If the concept isn't philosophically fucktarded, then the society should fucking cope with it. Â A lack of ability to do so indicates the society is fucktarded. Â Not so long ago, dudes wearing crowns and robes had the only opinion that mattered. Â Took a lot of work to change that shit, too.
QUOTE I'd argue we need studies to be done to show how multiple adult partnerships affect a child, ala the billions they've done on single parents.
My bet is they're fine. Â Wouldn't be the first time more than two people raised a kid. Furthermore, the questions of, "Will anyone be home to watch the kids," or "Will someone be around to give them a ride from school," are going to tend towards more positive responses with more able-bodied adults around.
QUOTE if we're going to force employers to cover an infinite amount of adult partners and their children
This trump card of, "It doesn't reflect reality," isn't having any pull with me. Â If we limit this discussion to what is realistic and within the practical ability of this country, then it's going to be a real short talk. Â I'd rather see the bureaucracy and infrastructure crumble to the ground trying to cover up its own idiocy than have its unwillingness to change drag it into absurdity.
Edited by Malcolm on Mar. 28 2013,10:21
--------------
Diogenes of Sinope:
"It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
"Other dogs bite only their enemies, whereas I bite also my friends in order to save them."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC:
"Better dead than smeg."
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 16
|
|
|
| Post Number: 17
|
GORDON
90%
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 36125
Joined: Jun. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 28 2013,12:20 |
|
|
(TheCatt @ Mar. 28 2013,13:16)
QUOTE So do we get government out of marriage? Â If healthcare/benefits/etc aren't tied to marriage, then does it become ok, since it's not impacting you?
It has been my opinion that things like health insurance are why this is all an issue, anyway. If they hadn't been denying rights to gay spouses, and if hospitals hadn't been restricting access of gay spouses, etc, then this would never have been a federal case.
I saw a facebook pic going around a while back, like how marriage is all about love and commitment and partnership... so goddam, let's get the government in on this!
--------------
I don't give a fuck!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 18
|
Leisher
Top 3%, yo.
Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 26651
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 28 2013,14:06 |
|
|
I'm going to start with Catt's since it'll answer a lot of questions:
QUOTE So do we get government out of marriage? If healthcare/benefits/etc aren't tied to marriage, then does it become ok, since it's not impacting you?
Yes.
It's why I said earlier:
QUOTE I honestly don't give a shit if multiple consenting adults want to live together. I just think it creates unnecessary hassles and costs for employers and government entities. Thus, once someone's lifestyle begins to create a negative impact upon everyone else, that's where I draw the line.
That's why I have said it's not a liberties issue for me. I don't give a fuck what people do, and if we recognize them or not. I care about the costs involved because that negatively affects the economy and everyone's personal finances.
(And I'm strictly speaking about reality. Not some bullshit utopia where the government and church actually stay out of people's business.)
I'm going to get side tracked for a moment. Bear with me if you'd like or skip down to where I bolded, "End of side track".
Let me take you back in time to the "gays in the military" debate. Back then, I was quite clear that I thought it was ridiculous to not allow someone to put his or her life on the line for their country just because of their sexual orientation. However, I suggested there would be a massive logistical problem in boot camp if you openly admitted gay people.
Specifically, how do you mass house them? In a perfect world, you simply throw everyone into bunks in one dorm and call it a day. That's not how our litigious, protect everyone society works though.
So, for example, where do you put the gay men?
Option #1: With the straight men. Nope! Straight men will complain that they're being sexually harassed. I heard a lot of gay people talk about this very issue at the time, and it pissed me off because they had two lines:
-We're not going to rape you.
-Don't flatter yourself thinking we're always looking at you sexually.
Oh really? Then why the fuck can't straight men dorm with straight women? SAME SHIT! Drove me nuts.
Option #2: Gay dorm. Nope! Not only will you have gay men complaining about harassment of one another, but now you could have sex in the dorms. Something they don't want you doing during basic.
Option #3: Gay men with the straight women. Fuck, I was laughing while typing that. NEVER would happen because the women would be screaming sexual harassment before the first gay guy stepped foot in the dorm.
Now for you non-military folks, you might not understand why they don't get their own rooms, and yada yada. Well, this is basic training, and you're learning together. You're a unit. You're supposed to live together, eat together, sleep together, shower together, etc.
At this point in human history, you cannot get away with putting people, particularly 18-25 year olds, in private areas together where they're going to be naked if they are attracted to one another.
Heinlein likes to think in the future we'll have mixed sex units, and that'd be great because honestly, we're not all fucking rapists, but right now no way. In fact, I can promise you that I am not a rapist and have ZERO interest in women that have no interest in me (I hate those two bitches...see what I did there?), but I sure as fuck would stare holes in the hotties I'm bunking with.
Human nature and whatnot.
Anyway, I hope that little tidbit helps to explain that I'm about logistics and the realities of a situation.
End of side track
QUOTE TVs are fine
Actually, speaking strictly in terms of liberties, I think I'd be ok telling that guy to go fuck himself. 
QUOTE It's not fair. But just because asshole Democrats won't get their hands out of our pockets that is not a good enough reason to limit people's liberty, IMO. Otherwise you've just established as valid the argument that no one should be allowed to ride a motorcycle or own a gun or go skydiving or drink sodas or eat red meat because now that we have universal health coverage we all pay for that if it goes wrong. Welcome to the justification of the worst nanny state imaginable, courtesy of Leisher.
Two wrongs don't make a right. (You don't stop out of control government and spending with more government and spending...unless your name is Obama.)
I didn't create the government's current reach into our personal lives, and the indisputable financial implications that come with it. I'm simply trying to use my spoon to stop the flood.
Make people more aware of the financial repercussions of everything going on in this country, and perhaps more people will pick up their spoons, and make things like multiple partner marriages a non-issue because it doesn't cost anyone shit.
So the government has its hands into everything, and it's eroding our ability to have personal liberties, but we're ignoring the large issue for the symptoms, like multiple partner marriages, courtesy of TPR.
QUOTE Well, which costs more, two extra adults or twelve kids? I'd say the twelve kids are the huge part of that expense, and thus your argument that Bob shouldn't be allowed to do that because it's so expensive applies far more to not being allowed to have so many kids than to the two extra adults.
The adults. No really. Covering adults is far more expensive than covering kids. I'm not just making that up. It's a direct quote from my HR lady.
QUOTE Personally, I don't have a problem with Microsoft refusing to hire Bob because of the added expense. I am not seeking special protected status for polyamorous relationships.
No argument.
However, based on our current reality, you do realize this means we're now all paying for Bob and his whole family to live because of his lifestyle.
At what point can I simply decide to stop working for no reason and just get government checks to sit at home...oh shit, we're doomed.
QUOTE On the contrary, that's the core of your position. The financial issues are entirely the fault of Democrats and Republicans in Congress, and shouldn't be an excuse for limiting liberties. That way lies the fastest way to kill liberty dead.
No, it's not the core of my position.
Meanwhile, I'd argue that you're killing liberties faster than I could ever dream, because you're arguing logistics with someone on your side rather than taking the fight to people who can actually affect change.
Again, my whole argument is logistics. Grab a fucking accountant and make it work, and I no longer give a fuck. Hell, I NEVER gave a fuck what they were doing until our current system starting footing the bill (all of which has been laid out and proven).
It is simply NOT a liberties issue for me.
A farmer doesn't become a vegetarian simply because he can no longer afford his livestock.
QUOTE This trump card of, "It doesn't reflect reality," isn't having any pull with me. If we limit this discussion to what is realistic and within the practical ability of this country, then it's going to be a real short talk. I'd rather see the bureaucracy and infrastructure crumble to the ground trying to cover up its own idiocy than have its unwillingness to change drag it into absurdity.
That's a you problem, not a me problem.
You're trying to make me change my beliefs to reflect a utopian society where the government isn't in our lives. Meanwhile, I'm simply discussing logistical issues based on our current situations.
Racist.
Seriously though, yet again I don't think we're arguing different things, we're just coming at an issue from different angles.
QUOTE I don't think you hate liberty. Clearly your intentions in that area are fairly pure. I just don't think you've thought through the end result of the idea that it's okay to limit liberties due to cost. Because most of government is determined to have it's hand in our pockets in every arena, so one day every liberty can be defined by it's cost.
Does either of us oppose gay marriage? nope.
Does either of us oppose multi partner marriage? nope.
Do we both think too much governmental influence hinders said marriages, and things need to change? Yep.
So what's the problem?
Don't argue with your accountant about how much money your ex-wife is costing you.
I'm a realist. I am very aware that I'm frustrating, but that's the point.
Stop arguing with me and change the reality. Don't force square pegs into round holes destroying everything. Go make the hole fucking square.
Side note #1: All of a sudden I feel bad for the hell I'm going to put my kids through when they are teenagers, and particularly young adults.
Side note #2: Have you all been looking in the Images thread? Did you see the black and white of the blond I posted yesterday? She's sitting on a dock or something. Just wanted to break this post up a bit with something on a more fun note. If you haven't seen her yet, go find her then come back.
QUOTE I'll hear an argument against marrying things that aren't sentient.
Covered earlier, but agreed.
Although if you haven't seen Lars and the Real Girl, go rent it. It's fantastic.
QUOTE So, you're going to force your belief of 2 as the magic number for marriage because of financial hardships and the reduction of quality of life for everyone else?
Not force, no. I simply said that laws could be based on the production and welfare of a child. (Barring technological advances that would obviously change things, but realistically for a very small number of people.)
Again, I'm arguing from reality. If you don't like the reality, go and change it.
What we want is for the government to fuck out of our day to day business so issues like this aren't issues in any way but social acceptance.
QUOTE My bet is they're fine. Wouldn't be the first time more than two people raised a kid.
That's an opinion. With so many adults, I'd tend to agree, but honestly, you never know. Multiple influences like that could confuse children, and might let to unexpected, and very negative side effects.
QUOTE Furthermore, the questions of, "Will anyone be home to watch the kids," or "Will someone be around to give them a ride from school," are going to tend towards more positive responses with more able-bodied adults around.
The Manson family.
No, but seriously, I know NOTHING about multi partner relationships when in comes to "love". However, I know women and men who have accepted certain...situations of various natures, and none of them were what you'd call healthy.
Truthfully, while I would never stop anyone from living within such a union, because do whatever the fuck you want...I would have suspicions that all is not as it seems. Look at the emotions and issues that come from two people being together. Imagine adding to that shit.
What happens when you come home to your 8 brides and their cycles have synced up?
What happens when you buy one flowers and the other 3 get pissed?
Buy one a ring, you've got to get them all a ring.
Etc.
I think you'd have to be insane just to put yourself in that situation unless you were in total control, at which point we start a different argument, this time about "consent".
QUOTE This trump card of, "It doesn't reflect reality," isn't having any pull with me.
I firmly believe that you are not good friends with reality.
QUOTE If we limit this discussion to what is realistic and within the practical ability of this country, then it's going to be a real short talk. I'd rather see the bureaucracy and infrastructure crumble to the ground trying to cover up its own idiocy than have its unwillingness to change drag it into absurdity.
Human nature, despite what liberals tend to believe, is an ugly motherfucker. Do I think anyone here really wants to watch society plunge into anarchy so we can watch loved ones raped and murdered all in the name of three selfish assholes (a hypothetical multiple partner relationship) with a much better sex life than us have the right to be recognized by an insurer?
Well ok, Malcolm probably does, but the rest of us sane folks don't really want that.
Ok, I think I've responded to everyone. If you posted after Malcolm, and expect a response, tough shit. I'm exhausted from debating an issue where I'm on the same side as the folks I'm debating.
Dear TPR and Malcolm, please go easy on the responses. I'm a long winded fucker because I'm Italian and love to debate, but I hate discussions like this one where we're basically on the same side, just seeing things from different angles.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 19
|
|
|
| Post Number: 20
|
TPRJones
I saw The Fault in our Stars opening night.
Group: Privateers
Posts: 12384
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 28 2013,14:44 |
|
|
QUOTE QUOTE My bet is they're fine. Wouldn't be the first time more than two people raised a kid. That's an opinion. With so many adults, I'd tend to agree, but honestly, you never know. Multiple influences like that could confuse children, and might let to unexpected, and very negative side effects.
As to this, I assure you that no research is required. The majority of human history is composed of children being raised by more than two adults just fine. Sometimes that is polygamy, but mostly it's extended families or whole villages working together or what have you. The idea that two adults will work together to raise a child and that's the main way it is done is brand new on a historical scale, and some would say it hasn't worked out so well for the kids since both of those adults have to now work in most cases.
--------------
Vidi Perfutui Veni
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
