Forums > Social Discussion > some people will they never just accept we're all just people
Login/Join to ParticipateGOLD Member
playing the days away
7,263 posts
Location: The Middle lands, United Kingdom
playing the days away
7,263 posts
Location: The Middle lands, United Kingdom
Posted:
a dissapointing news item but hopefully it will be a wrong soon righted.
As additional info I've been to this area of france and the people are terribly homophobic. The government even want to suspend the Mayor for sanctioning this
eat me, drink me, click me
a dissapointing news item but hopefully it will be a wrong soon righted.
As additional info I've been to this area of france and the people are terribly homophobic. The government even want to suspend the Mayor for sanctioning this
eat me, drink me, click me
Let's relight this forum 
enthusiast
456 posts
Location: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
456 posts
Location: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
Posted:
Exactly. It won't work. But they can TRY, and (I hope) bring down the people who gave the patently illegal orders in the first place.
You keep trying to go from the general (collective responsibility) to the specific (Jimmy the Pimp). It doesn't work that way. Jimmy can't be held personally culpable; "America" can be (and is being) held culpable.
In your tiny backwater you may not have noticed that our President is a monster. Don't feel bad though; many of the 240 million Americans haven't noticed it either.
Exactly. It won't work. But they can TRY, and (I hope) bring down the people who gave the patently illegal orders in the first place.
You keep trying to go from the general (collective responsibility) to the specific (Jimmy the Pimp). It doesn't work that way. Jimmy can't be held personally culpable; "America" can be (and is being) held culpable.
In your tiny backwater you may not have noticed that our President is a monster. Don't feel bad though; many of the 240 million Americans haven't noticed it either.
"If you didn't like something the first time, the cud won't be any good either." --Elsie the Cow, Ruminations
GOLD Member
Self-Flagellation Expert
3,414 posts
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Self-Flagellation Expert
3,414 posts
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Posted:
ahh, there is 240 million. right, well, replace that with the 50 million i said
Problem with the following orders bit, is this:
picture me as being a high ranking officer, you are one of the guards at the jail. (or vice versa). I tell you to get information from people, including torture if neccessary. you say 'yessir', and go do it. 6 months down the track, when the media gets hold of it, and sparks start flying, all i do is say 'you should have known better'. i get away scot free, and you get put in the sin bin. it sucks, its wrong, but its the way things work, unfortunately.
Ok, going from specific 'jimmy the pimp' to general 'collective responsibility'. Well, the main reason for the creation of 'jimmy' was basically a comparison.. well, thats not the word, but i cant remember the one i want, but anyway. he was a comparison between the general populace, and a specific person. essentially, jimmy is your average bloke, doesnt really care that much for politics etc, and america is made up of a fair amount of comprable 'jimmy's'.
and yeah, i agree, bush is a bit of a dick. i'll probably have black suited government people rock up tomorrow, and make me vanish for that, but oh well. I wouldnt call australia a 'tiny backwater', but thats your call. I honestly would prefer it if you gave my homeland a bit more respect, though, considering our country is, in many ways, a lot better off than many others. i can quantify that, but this thread isnt the place for that.
right, back to the point at hand. the collective responsibility of 240 million americans, a good 239 million, 999 thousand of whom would have had no idea that there was even a prison called Abu Ghraib , let alone that people were torturing others there.
How then, can you blame an entire nation for the acts of less than a thousand?
ahh, there is 240 million. right, well, replace that with the 50 million i said
Problem with the following orders bit, is this:
picture me as being a high ranking officer, you are one of the guards at the jail. (or vice versa). I tell you to get information from people, including torture if neccessary. you say 'yessir', and go do it. 6 months down the track, when the media gets hold of it, and sparks start flying, all i do is say 'you should have known better'. i get away scot free, and you get put in the sin bin. it sucks, its wrong, but its the way things work, unfortunately.
Ok, going from specific 'jimmy the pimp' to general 'collective responsibility'. Well, the main reason for the creation of 'jimmy' was basically a comparison.. well, thats not the word, but i cant remember the one i want, but anyway. he was a comparison between the general populace, and a specific person. essentially, jimmy is your average bloke, doesnt really care that much for politics etc, and america is made up of a fair amount of comprable 'jimmy's'.
and yeah, i agree, bush is a bit of a dick. i'll probably have black suited government people rock up tomorrow, and make me vanish for that, but oh well. I wouldnt call australia a 'tiny backwater', but thats your call. I honestly would prefer it if you gave my homeland a bit more respect, though, considering our country is, in many ways, a lot better off than many others. i can quantify that, but this thread isnt the place for that.
right, back to the point at hand. the collective responsibility of 240 million americans, a good 239 million, 999 thousand of whom would have had no idea that there was even a prison called Abu Ghraib , let alone that people were torturing others there.
How then, can you blame an entire nation for the acts of less than a thousand?
"beg beg grovel beg grovel"
"master"
--FSA
"There was an arse there, i couldn't help myself"
--Rougie
enthusiast
456 posts
Location: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
456 posts
Location: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
Posted:
No, no, of course Oz isn't a tiny backwater!!! Far be it from me, and good grief!
I meant your town with only 4 TV channels. It was your joke; I was just playing it back.
I don't know about Australian law. But in America, BOTH the hands-on torturer and the one who gave the illegal orders go to jail. It's harder to prove the orders were given, but that being proved, the mastermind is at least as culpable. Often the prosecutors will cut deals with the actual hands-on perps in order to nail the mastermind to the wall.
No, no, of course Oz isn't a tiny backwater!!! Far be it from me, and good grief!
I meant your town with only 4 TV channels. It was your joke; I was just playing it back.
I don't know about Australian law. But in America, BOTH the hands-on torturer and the one who gave the illegal orders go to jail. It's harder to prove the orders were given, but that being proved, the mastermind is at least as culpable. Often the prosecutors will cut deals with the actual hands-on perps in order to nail the mastermind to the wall.
"If you didn't like something the first time, the cud won't be any good either." --Elsie the Cow, Ruminations
GOLD Member
Self-Flagellation Expert
3,414 posts
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Self-Flagellation Expert
3,414 posts
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Posted:
im pretty sure this is international law, though im not certain. in any case, someone cant just go 'but he told me to do it' and get away with things like torture etc.
and yeah, port augusta is a hole. if i realised you meant that, then it would've been all good. i thought you meant australia. My bad.
im pretty sure this is international law, though im not certain. in any case, someone cant just go 'but he told me to do it' and get away with things like torture etc.
and yeah, port augusta is a hole. if i realised you meant that, then it would've been all good. i thought you meant australia. My bad.
"beg beg grovel beg grovel"
"master"
--FSA
"There was an arse there, i couldn't help myself"
--Rougie
enthusiast
233 posts
233 posts
Posted:
Xopher, since I am currently under "watch", for allegedly telling someone that they were going to hell, I can't say what I wanted to. I know for a fact that it would violate the site rules. I also know for a fact, that your words have violated the site rules. So, if turn about is fair play, I am reccomending that this highly negative topic is locked, and complaining to the Mods.
I didn't attack you, and I don't know why you are attacking me, so... have a nice day.
Xopher, since I am currently under "watch", for allegedly telling someone that they were going to hell, I can't say what I wanted to. I know for a fact that it would violate the site rules. I also know for a fact, that your words have violated the site rules. So, if turn about is fair play, I am reccomending that this highly negative topic is locked, and complaining to the Mods.
I didn't attack you, and I don't know why you are attacking me, so... have a nice day.
GOLD Member
ZORT!
3,045 posts
Location: Brisbane, Australia
ZORT!
3,045 posts
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posted:
well... abusive reply was coming for the backwater remark -most of australia has 5 free to air channels....
i think the reason is this...
you see, we'd rather have lives rather than watch tv...
now ive got that out the way, id recommend taking the iraq discussion to another more relevant thread. cheers
well... abusive reply was coming for the backwater remark -most of australia has 5 free to air channels....
i think the reason is this...
you see, we'd rather have lives rather than watch tv...
now ive got that out the way, id recommend taking the iraq discussion to another more relevant thread. cheers
"Here kitty kitty...." - Schroedinger.
GOLD Member
Self-Flagellation Expert
3,414 posts
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Self-Flagellation Expert
3,414 posts
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Posted:
heeey, i was just getting into this, and you wanna shut it down? as far as i can see, this is a calm, rational discussion between two sentient life-forms. heck, we even had a miscommunication error, and got it sorted
heeey, i was just getting into this, and you wanna shut it down? as far as i can see, this is a calm, rational discussion between two sentient life-forms. heck, we even had a miscommunication error, and got it sorted
"beg beg grovel beg grovel"
"master"
--FSA
"There was an arse there, i couldn't help myself"
--Rougie
BRONZE Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,009 posts
Location: Bristol, UK
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,009 posts
Location: Bristol, UK
Posted:
Can everyone involved please have a think about exactly what this topic is about, and what you're actually trying to say, why and if you think anyone else actually really, truly cares to listen to your argument for a reason beyond to blindly argue it.
If you want a discussion between 2 people please do so via email, especially one that is going to get heated and personal (and only a blind man wouldn't guess that this is the only place it's going).
And collective responsibility has been mentioned. Here's something, I believe it is a fact of humanity that every single person on the planet is collectively responsible for every single human action on the planet. We all act to create the environment for everything to happen. The more of an effect an individual has to create an environment where events occur the more responsible there are, but there is never full or zero responsibility.
I think if more people believed this the world might turn into that 'better place' we keep dreaming about. I'll continue to act according to my belief, even if the only way I can act is to know.
Can everyone involved please have a think about exactly what this topic is about, and what you're actually trying to say, why and if you think anyone else actually really, truly cares to listen to your argument for a reason beyond to blindly argue it.
If you want a discussion between 2 people please do so via email, especially one that is going to get heated and personal (and only a blind man wouldn't guess that this is the only place it's going).
And collective responsibility has been mentioned. Here's something, I believe it is a fact of humanity that every single person on the planet is collectively responsible for every single human action on the planet. We all act to create the environment for everything to happen. The more of an effect an individual has to create an environment where events occur the more responsible there are, but there is never full or zero responsibility.
I think if more people believed this the world might turn into that 'better place' we keep dreaming about. I'll continue to act according to my belief, even if the only way I can act is to know.
GOLD Member
member
30 posts
Location: Brisbane, Australia
member
30 posts
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posted:
its an impressive debate.
to shut it down would not be right.
voices deserve to be heard, at the very least
its an impressive debate.
to shut it down would not be right.
voices deserve to be heard, at the very least
GOLD Member
Self-Flagellation Expert
3,414 posts
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Self-Flagellation Expert
3,414 posts
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Posted:
yeah, im going to have to side with dom here. this is just gonna degenerate, and become nasty. Why, oh why, does everything have to end up being about iraq/bush?
yeah, im going to have to side with dom here. this is just gonna degenerate, and become nasty. Why, oh why, does everything have to end up being about iraq/bush?
"beg beg grovel beg grovel"
"master"
--FSA
"There was an arse there, i couldn't help myself"
--Rougie
SILVER Member
Mumma Hen
6,391 posts
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Mumma Hen
6,391 posts
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posted:
"allegedly?"
Written by:
Xopher, since I am currently under "watch", for allegedly telling someone that they were going to hell,
"allegedly?"
TAJ "boat mummy." VALURA "yes sweetie you went on a boat, was daddy there with you?" TAJ "no, but monkey on boat" VALURA "well then sweetie, Daddy WAS there with you"
enthusiast
233 posts
233 posts
Posted:
Yes Valura ALLEGEDLY, I didnt condem you to hell, I said the path you are on leads to hell. It doesnt mean that it cant change, it doesnt mean that you might as well break out the hot dogs and marshmellows because of the eternal flames. Please, that is so pithy of you and everyone who thought that.
I subject myself and my belief, to you and all these people. Why? Because I know it to be true. Because I know that their flaws with it are superficial at best. Because I know the truth, and to sit there and listen to everyone say how it is flawed, but never back it up, to read how they claim the Christians are out to ruin the world by their closed minded views, with no factual basis. How they claim that Jesus never existed when there is more fact and historical evidence that He not only existed but died and rose again three days later, than Alexander the Great ever existed. No, you decide to take everything I said as if I was condeming you. Very mature.
Lets see you folks do the same! C'mon, who wants to be first to put their beliefs on the line?
Yes Valura ALLEGEDLY, I didnt condem you to hell, I said the path you are on leads to hell. It doesnt mean that it cant change, it doesnt mean that you might as well break out the hot dogs and marshmellows because of the eternal flames. Please, that is so pithy of you and everyone who thought that.
I subject myself and my belief, to you and all these people. Why? Because I know it to be true. Because I know that their flaws with it are superficial at best. Because I know the truth, and to sit there and listen to everyone say how it is flawed, but never back it up, to read how they claim the Christians are out to ruin the world by their closed minded views, with no factual basis. How they claim that Jesus never existed when there is more fact and historical evidence that He not only existed but died and rose again three days later, than Alexander the Great ever existed. No, you decide to take everything I said as if I was condeming you. Very mature.
Lets see you folks do the same! C'mon, who wants to be first to put their beliefs on the line?
GOLD Member
ZORT!
3,045 posts
Location: Brisbane, Australia
ZORT!
3,045 posts
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posted:
dearest burz,
youve explained your beliefs. some of us explained our beliefs.
we disagree.
deal with it. if you cant - complain via PM.
have a nice day
back to the original chat everybody.... the interesting point behind the entire gay marriage debate, is that the gay community itself has divisions upon the issue. there are those that:
- percieve marriage as a heterosexual institution, that they wish no part of.
- are completely behind gay marriage for the principle of equality.
- couldnt be bothered with marriage, they wish merely to be treated the same as a straight couple in the eyes of the law for tax purposes/family benefits etc.
- some dont necessarily want to be married, but want the freedom in the future to do so as they choose.
- the older generation of gays and lesbians, who made so much headway and sacrifice for equality, have different views from fresh faced youngsters just getting into the serious issues.
this has caused an extremely heated debate on a local queer network email list.
just a thought to another side of a complex issue....
dearest burz,
youve explained your beliefs. some of us explained our beliefs.
we disagree.
deal with it. if you cant - complain via PM.
have a nice day
back to the original chat everybody.... the interesting point behind the entire gay marriage debate, is that the gay community itself has divisions upon the issue. there are those that:
- percieve marriage as a heterosexual institution, that they wish no part of.
- are completely behind gay marriage for the principle of equality.
- couldnt be bothered with marriage, they wish merely to be treated the same as a straight couple in the eyes of the law for tax purposes/family benefits etc.
- some dont necessarily want to be married, but want the freedom in the future to do so as they choose.
- the older generation of gays and lesbians, who made so much headway and sacrifice for equality, have different views from fresh faced youngsters just getting into the serious issues.
this has caused an extremely heated debate on a local queer network email list.
just a thought to another side of a complex issue....
"Here kitty kitty...." - Schroedinger.
BRONZE Member
Sporadically Prodigal
2,758 posts
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Sporadically Prodigal
2,758 posts
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Posted:
Thanks for bringing the topic back to the discussion Dentrassi!
It would be much appreciated if no further reference to Burz's inflammatory comments be made. It is now a moot point and Burzaruka will no longer be contributing.
Thanks for bringing the topic back to the discussion Dentrassi!
It would be much appreciated if no further reference to Burz's inflammatory comments be made. It is now a moot point and Burzaruka will no longer be contributing.
HoP Posting Guidelines
Is it the Truth?
Is it Fair to all concerned?
Will it build Goodwill and Better Friendships?
Will it be Beneficial to all concerned?
If you can answer YES to these 4 questions then you may post a reply.
SILVER Member
Intrepid Penguin
5,635 posts
Location: Australia
Intrepid Penguin
5,635 posts
Location: Australia
Posted:
Dentrassi, I'm in favour of equal rights for all people, no matter what sexual preference. If some gays dont want to be married, than thats fine, some hetro's dont either!
I guess I'm trying to say, that this is somethat that needs to be set to rights purely on principal, not just because people want it, but because it is the RIGHT thing to do. It's about making it an option should people want it.
Religion is the basis for weddings in churches, but as there are many types of religions (and churches), let them decide who can get married according to their personal creed.
But as there is also a civil wedding which has nothing to do with the church, than to deny that right to any legal and consenting adult is just...... Unfair.
My mum always told me that Life was Unfair.
Thats' why I'm doing my best to make this life better!
Dom was right, our actions have consequences and we are all responsible for the way things are today. Our efforts are not wasted. They push things forward, if not for my generation, than certainly for the next.
This world needs all the lovin it can get!!
Dentrassi, I'm in favour of equal rights for all people, no matter what sexual preference. If some gays dont want to be married, than thats fine, some hetro's dont either!
I guess I'm trying to say, that this is somethat that needs to be set to rights purely on principal, not just because people want it, but because it is the RIGHT thing to do. It's about making it an option should people want it.
Religion is the basis for weddings in churches, but as there are many types of religions (and churches), let them decide who can get married according to their personal creed.
But as there is also a civil wedding which has nothing to do with the church, than to deny that right to any legal and consenting adult is just...... Unfair.
My mum always told me that Life was Unfair.
Thats' why I'm doing my best to make this life better!
Dom was right, our actions have consequences and we are all responsible for the way things are today. Our efforts are not wasted. They push things forward, if not for my generation, than certainly for the next.
This world needs all the lovin it can get!!
Currently on the right side up of the world.
GOLD Member
playing the days away
7,263 posts
Location: The Middle lands, United Kingdom
playing the days away
7,263 posts
Location: The Middle lands, United Kingdom
Posted:
Thanks Dom
Thanks Dent
I didn't realise the gay community were so split on the issue, guess I've had blinkers on in that respect. I am surprised that some perceive it as a hetro thing, surely this would damage the goal of acheiving equality if more boundaries and differentiations are set between the two (three, four) different sexual preference communities
Thanks Dom
Thanks Dent
I didn't realise the gay community were so split on the issue, guess I've had blinkers on in that respect. I am surprised that some perceive it as a hetro thing, surely this would damage the goal of acheiving equality if more boundaries and differentiations are set between the two (three, four) different sexual preference communities
Let's relight this forum
GOLD Member
Mand's Girl....and The Not So Shy One
2,723 posts
Location: Calgary, Alberta Canada
Mand's Girl....and The Not So Shy One
2,723 posts
Location: Calgary, Alberta Canada
Posted:
It depends on who you talk to and where in the world you are, I think, Bug.
The basic issue? We want equal rights.
To me, the easiest way to get equal rights, the same rights and privileges that heterosexual couples get when they marry....is through the civic marriage. Those rights and privileges are already defined for marriage.
Civil Unions give an equal but separate conotation, which can leave people open to discrimination...and given our wonderful politicians, I certainly wouldn't put it past them.
You are right, looking at marriage as a "hetero" thing does damage the ultimate goal of equality across the board. Camile Paglia was one of the first to suggest that homosexuals dis-own the term marriage. I'd love to slap her for that....I can understand the ideology behind her idea, BUT she, and those who agree with her are short sighted with regards to the ultimate goal.
It depends on who you talk to and where in the world you are, I think, Bug.
The basic issue? We want equal rights.
To me, the easiest way to get equal rights, the same rights and privileges that heterosexual couples get when they marry....is through the civic marriage. Those rights and privileges are already defined for marriage.
Civil Unions give an equal but separate conotation, which can leave people open to discrimination...and given our
You are right, looking at marriage as a "hetero" thing does damage the ultimate goal of equality across the board. Camile Paglia was one of the first to suggest that homosexuals dis-own the term marriage. I'd love to slap her for that....I can understand the ideology behind her idea, BUT she, and those who agree with her are short sighted with regards to the ultimate goal.
Solitude sometimes speaks to you, and you should listen.
enthusiast
456 posts
Location: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
456 posts
Location: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
Posted:
Long angry post removed, in favor of a PM to Burzaruka.
I'd just like to point out that I was not attacking Burz, but making a sarcastic point about definition and argument.
We now return to the regularly scheduled discussion. Sorry for the inconvenience.
EDITED_BY: Xopher (1087308681)
Long angry post removed, in favor of a PM to Burzaruka.
I'd just like to point out that I was not attacking Burz, but making a sarcastic point about definition and argument.
We now return to the regularly scheduled discussion. Sorry for the inconvenience.
EDITED_BY: Xopher (1087308681)
"If you didn't like something the first time, the cud won't be any good either." --Elsie the Cow, Ruminations
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Dentrassi, I think that an important point is freedom. I understand and respect the view that marriage is a heterosexual institution. I don't agree with it (and I can get into that later), but whether you agree with it or not, I am a believer in freedom.
Much as with abortion, I think it's wrong, but I will fight with my every breath any law attempting to ban it because I recognize that others feel differently about it. The same is true here, even if you believe that gays should have nothing to do with this heterosexual institution, it is arrogant and inconsistent with the ideals of liberty and freedom to try to take that option away from others.
Dentrassi, I think that an important point is freedom. I understand and respect the view that marriage is a heterosexual institution. I don't agree with it (and I can get into that later), but whether you agree with it or not, I am a believer in freedom.
Much as with abortion, I think it's wrong, but I will fight with my every breath any law attempting to ban it because I recognize that others feel differently about it. The same is true here, even if you believe that gays should have nothing to do with this heterosexual institution, it is arrogant and inconsistent with the ideals of liberty and freedom to try to take that option away from others.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
GOLD Member
Self-Flagellation Expert
3,414 posts
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Self-Flagellation Expert
3,414 posts
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Posted:
well, for my two cents that are on topic:
Go for it. homosexual marriages are fine by me, if two people truly love each other, then why should gender be an issue?
well, for my two cents that are on topic:
Go for it. homosexual marriages are fine by me, if two people truly love each other, then why should gender be an issue?
"beg beg grovel beg grovel"
"master"
--FSA
"There was an arse there, i couldn't help myself"
--Rougie
enthusiast
456 posts
Location: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
456 posts
Location: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
Posted:
VERY special.
VERY special.
"If you didn't like something the first time, the cud won't be any good either." --Elsie the Cow, Ruminations
The reason we say "European"
912 posts
Location: Cheltenham
912 posts
Location: Cheltenham
Posted:
Here's what I want.
Check 1. You ARE marrying a human right?
Check 2. You AREN'T marrying a blood relative right?
Check 3. You ARE all of legal age right?
From there, if you're a straight couple, gay couple, polyamorous group, whatever and whether you want a wedding, a service, a hand fasting, a collaring, a union, a statement, a proclomation... who cares what it's called or how it's done? Do it. And I want all of the above to result in equitable rights.
It'll never happen in my life time, but it'd be nice wouldn't it?
Here's what I want.
Check 1. You ARE marrying a human right?
Check 2. You AREN'T marrying a blood relative right?
Check 3. You ARE all of legal age right?
From there, if you're a straight couple, gay couple, polyamorous group, whatever and whether you want a wedding, a service, a hand fasting, a collaring, a union, a statement, a proclomation... who cares what it's called or how it's done? Do it. And I want all of the above to result in equitable rights.
It'll never happen in my life time, but it'd be nice wouldn't it?
"We have done the impossible and that makes us mighty" - Mal Reynolds
"I can't tell the difference between an electron and a cat" - Brother of a friend
enthusiast
456 posts
Location: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
456 posts
Location: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
Posted:
You forgot:
Check 4: You ARE doing this of your own free will, right?
Some places (New Jersey, frex) this is already a required question for valid solemnization.
You forgot:
Check 4: You ARE doing this of your own free will, right?
Some places (New Jersey, frex) this is already a required question for valid solemnization.
"If you didn't like something the first time, the cud won't be any good either." --Elsie the Cow, Ruminations
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
The only problem with a polyamorous group is logistical. How do you decide how many, or who gets rights to what, or who gets medical decision making power, or who gets to adopt whom in case of death or divorce, etc?
I can only imagine a rulebook 6,000,000,000,000,000,000 pages long.
The only problem with a polyamorous group is logistical. How do you decide how many, or who gets rights to what, or who gets medical decision making power, or who gets to adopt whom in case of death or divorce, etc?
I can only imagine a rulebook 6,000,000,000,000,000,000 pages long.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
enthusiast
456 posts
Location: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
456 posts
Location: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
Posted:
Hey, Lightning, I say if people want to exponentially complicate their lives, why stop them?
Also, group marriages have been around since at least the 1960s, and there's a lot of information around about dealing with such things. And the additional complexity is another argument for purely no-fault divorce.
Hey, Lightning, I say if people want to exponentially complicate their lives, why stop them?
Also, group marriages have been around since at least the 1960s, and there's a lot of information around about dealing with such things. And the additional complexity is another argument for purely no-fault divorce.
"If you didn't like something the first time, the cud won't be any good either." --Elsie the Cow, Ruminations
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Xopher, the problem with no-fault divorce is: suppose a couple gets married, they're married for 20 years. One side stops working to raise the kids and has no independent income. Then, a divorce happens.
So now you have a newly single 45-year-old with a 23-year-old college education (and that's the best of circumstances) with no source of income. Ooops. That's why pre-nuptial agreements are a good thing.
But it gets really complex when, say, 3 women are married to one man and one of the women and the man are in an accident. Do the two women stay married? Were they ever married to each-other? Who makes the medical decisions?
Messiness.
Xopher, the problem with no-fault divorce is: suppose a couple gets married, they're married for 20 years. One side stops working to raise the kids and has no independent income. Then, a divorce happens.
So now you have a newly single 45-year-old with a 23-year-old college education (and that's the best of circumstances) with no source of income. Ooops. That's why pre-nuptial agreements are a good thing.
But it gets really complex when, say, 3 women are married to one man and one of the women and the man are in an accident. Do the two women stay married? Were they ever married to each-other? Who makes the medical decisions?
Messiness.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
enthusiast
456 posts
Location: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
456 posts
Location: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
Posted:
Lightning, that last is not a problem if we have same-sex marriage. Obviously, however, we need to distinguish between two women who are each other's wives, and two women who are each other's co-wives (as one triad I know called it).
Perhaps we should just drop the bigamy restriction: then the man could be married to each of the three women, and any two of the women could be married to each other or not. So all marriages would be paired, but one could be a member of as many pairs as one wanted. This wouldn't entirely satisfy the troilists, but the polygamists and line-marriage folks should be ecstatic.
I see your other issue too, but I didn't mean a person in that situation couldn't sue. By 'purely no-fault divorce' I just meant that no-fault should be an option in every state if both parties agree. Currently there are still states where one party has to accuse the other of some breach or other in order to get a divorce.
See, my general approach to social change is that you don't give up on the change you want just because it presents problems. Instead, you work to find creative solutions to the problems. The ones I propose above may not work, but I'm sure a sane society could work it out.
Too bad such societies are thin on the ground, eh?
Lightning, that last is not a problem if we have same-sex marriage. Obviously, however, we need to distinguish between two women who are each other's wives, and two women who are each other's co-wives (as one triad I know called it).
Perhaps we should just drop the bigamy restriction: then the man could be married to each of the three women, and any two of the women could be married to each other or not. So all marriages would be paired, but one could be a member of as many pairs as one wanted. This wouldn't entirely satisfy the troilists, but the polygamists and line-marriage folks should be ecstatic.
I see your other issue too, but I didn't mean a person in that situation couldn't sue. By 'purely no-fault divorce' I just meant that no-fault should be an option in every state if both parties agree. Currently there are still states where one party has to accuse the other of some breach or other in order to get a divorce.
See, my general approach to social change is that you don't give up on the change you want just because it presents problems. Instead, you work to find creative solutions to the problems. The ones I propose above may not work, but I'm sure a sane society could work it out.
Too bad such societies are thin on the ground, eh?
"If you didn't like something the first time, the cud won't be any good either." --Elsie the Cow, Ruminations
The reason we say "European"
912 posts
Location: Cheltenham
912 posts
Location: Cheltenham
Posted:
Here's one that is kinda interesting. Sums things up nicely.
Non-Https Image Link
Here's one that is kinda interesting. Sums things up nicely.
Non-Https Image Link
"We have done the impossible and that makes us mighty" - Mal Reynolds
"I can't tell the difference between an electron and a cat" - Brother of a friend
SILVER Member
Mumma Hen
6,391 posts
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Mumma Hen
6,391 posts
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posted:
sad but too true!
sad but too true!
TAJ "boat mummy." VALURA "yes sweetie you went on a boat, was daddy there with you?" TAJ "no, but monkey on boat" VALURA "well then sweetie, Daddy WAS there with you"
GOLD Member
playing the days away
7,263 posts
Location: The Middle lands, United Kingdom
playing the days away
7,263 posts
Location: The Middle lands, United Kingdom
Posted:
as the great Mr Orwell once said (not direct quote so don't hit me for it being wong). "We are all equal...it's just that some are more equal than others"
as the great Mr Orwell once said (not direct quote so don't hit me for it being wong). "We are all equal...it's just that some are more equal than others"
Let's relight this forum
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [people just accept] we found the following existing topics.
Show more..
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com