- Feature Articles
- CodeSOD
- Error'd
-
Forums
-
Other Articles
- Random Article
- Alex's Soapbox
- Announcements
- Best of…
- Best of Email
- Best of the Sidebar
- Bring Your Own Code
- Coded Smorgasbord
- Mandatory Fun Day
- Off Topic
- Representative Line
- News Roundup
- Editor's Soapbox
- Software on the Rocks
- Souvenir Potpourri
- Sponsor Post
- Tales from the Interview
- The Daily WTF: Live
- Virtudyne
Admin
But you probably have it muted. Where's the fun in that?
Admin
https://youtu.be/NPBkiBbO4_4
I know you're just :trolleybus: but that sort of reply to what I said only makes sense if you're an end justifies the means sort of person.
Admin
My microaggressions know no bounds.
INB4 :giggity: dick jokes!
Admin
:P
If we're truly at a point where a person is measuring 'aggression' with a micrometer, they really need to file it all under "1st World Problem" and get a life.
Admin
Or maybe Contradiction. Two doors down on the right, just past Insults.
Admin
I wasn't going to, but since you suggested it …
Is it really a microagression if the woman ends up laughing on the floor?
Admin
Don't be silly, only cis hetero males have enough privilege to microagress.
Did I do that right?
Admin
Oh no.
They are tearing each other apart.
Apparently, even if you are a woman and experience real glass ceiling or sexual harassment, you are not allowed to be empathetic to black people, because you just can't possibly understand.
So, yeah.... :popcorn:
Admin
Not enough racial prejudice HOW DARE YOU IGNORE MY RACE
Admin
What's the "serious" argument that it won't? Have you looked at the actual opinion? What's in there that couldn't apply to polygamy?
Recall that SSM wasn't even considered a thing 30 years ago. Was pretty fringe 20 years ago. Every big time politician was against it less than 10 years ago. Now you're beyond the pale if you don't support it.
Admin
Sure would be nice if we could just get gubmint the fuck out of 'marriage' entirely. It's the deepest insult to intimate interpersonal freedom to require a fucking license - from some pencil-pushing shitbag bureaucrat - just to establish the legitimacy of a betrothed relationship.
Polygamy, group marriage...whatever...if it's consensual, stay the fuck out of other peoples' private business.
Admin
That article has a complete lack of discussion of outcome. I bet it didn't work well, long-term. Maybe I'll look up some of the references because I'm a little curious.
Admin
No, because he's[1] a member of an oppressed group.
[1] See what I did there? Microagression! Assuming a guy is a he!
Admin
You're a white guy, dummy. You don't get to talk about your race.
Admin
I feel rather green-blue today. Please respect my choices.
Admin
So...you don't have an answer?
Admin
You need to get some makeup to show that. All I've got to go on is that goofy picture on the front page.
Admin
The answer is "what the fuck do you care if it won't"? Other than making your DBA life hell, but then again, if you're a DBA...
Hell, from the government standpoint it's even better - more wives, more breeding!
Admin
I was more-or-less agreeing with you that the SCOTUS opinion could be applied to polygamy/group marriage.
...and having a wee personal vent at the same time ;)
Admin
Admin
Are you saying that pre-ops deserve no recognition? Do I need to shame you on Tumblr?
Filed under: unless you're fat, because that would be fat shaming, and that ain't cool
Admin
BUT PEOPLE ARE WHO THEY SAY THEY ARE!
Admin
I'm a Nigerian Prince, and I need your help to move some money...
Admin
What the hell are you talking about?
Admin
The main difference with polygamy is that it's a lot more complicated. More people to consent, much more complexity regarding divorce (what if parties A and B have fallen out irrevocably but both still love party C? Can one marriage split from A, B, C and D into two completely separate marriages, etc.), and various other things that don't come up in two party unions.
It's nothing that couldn't be sorted out, given the political will, and there's every chance it could happen in the next few decades, but there will be a lot more legal work required than removing the "a man and a woman" phrasing which, when you get right down to it, is all that changed with same sex marriage
Admin
Let the he who does not need to be tumblr-shamed post the first unhinged rant.
Admin
Given the complexities involved in, frex, corporate contract law, I feel pretty darned confident that the private sector could handle the kinds of situation you describe.
No need for gubmint flatheads ;)
Admin
Well, the only barrier to child marriage is the age of consent.
So that should come first, right?
Admin
Given the success of open source licenses, I'm pretty sure it can be handled in a common way.
Plus, if it were simply a contract and there were no tax benefits, the government would only have to be involved if someone (like a hospital) objected.
Admin
Yes, but I mean...legally. This stuff has been declared to be super serious fundamental rights. That kinda trumps logistical difficulty.
Admin
We could dump the IRS (largely), along with their coercive 'tax benefits' and move to a consumption tax...jus' sayin ;P
Admin
Per the 9th Amendment, there's no presumption of the non-existence of a right for gays to get married...and I think that it is arguable that two men/women have the very same 'right' to enter into a state of loving betrothal as any hetero couple.
Some people would generically refer to this as 'marriage'. Others object to this definition.
Who owns the semantics of the english language? Why does one group get to claim a word as 'theirs'? Are we really going to legitimize the homesteading of vocabulary?
Semantics evolve over time. Always have. "Gay" and "Queer" both meant something else not so very long ago...
Admin
Misread that as "trustworthy"...
Admin
The basis of law is that words have meanings and those meanings don't just change whenever someone wants them to change. Otherwise law has no meaning and it can become whatever you want it to mean.
Admin
Well, that's two people that agree... We only need seven more and we'll just vote the IRS unconstitutional.
Admin
Considering that the US was originally supposed to redo the constitution all the time, rather than enshrine it, it's odd that we're in this situation.
[spoiler]This thread can only be entered in a new tab. It's armored as well as a certain personage's avatar once was.[/spoiler]
Admin
Welcome to 2015!
Admin
You like to argue on hard mode, don't you? That statement would be very hard to defend against a claim that you were conflating homosexuality with paedophilia,
I'm sure it will happen once there's enough force behind the idea to overcome the inertia and legal difficulty. No idea how long that will take, thoughAdmin
In polygamous marriages, A marries B and C. B and C need have no relationship with each other. They might, but it is unnecessary. However, you describe a situation where A, B, and C are all married to each other. That is a group marriage, not a polygamous marriage[1].
Now that we have sorted this out, perhaps you want to retry your ignorant, bigoted statement?<insert trollface here
[1] Technically speaking, a polygamous marriage could be identified as a form of group marriage. But if you were to go that route, you would still need to be cognizant that not all group marriages were polygamous marriages.
Admin
I stand corrected. Polygamy is more simple than I assumed, but has its own unique complications
When a group isn't necessarily all interconnected, could C marry a new party, D? Leading to long chains instead of clumps. Presumably, in the Mormon system this never came up because, AIUI, a man could marry many women but a woman could only marry one man. Correct me if I'm wrong
No offence meant, although you've nicely shown that I'm talking out of my arse rather than knowing anything about the subject. I'm open to being educatedAdmin
No, that's correct. It's also what has been recorded regarding the history of the Abrahamic religions.
le sigh
People just don't get dickweedery, sometimes. Try viewing raw on my last post. ;)
Admin
Age of consent is not a black and white thing. It's going to be the next big social issue of this generation.
Admin
Thank SELECT deity FROM pantheon WHERE theological_attribute LIKE '%merciful%' that A Scalia didn't become the CEO of a software company.
Admin
Basic Greek. polygamy - literally married to many polyandry - multiple husbands polygyny - multiple wives.
In common speech people confuse polygamy with polygyny all the time. Abrahamic religions were polygynous but most people call them polygamous, which is a superset that includes both polygyny and polyandry. I believe there are people in the high Himalayas and elsewhere which are polyandrous, so the distinction is useful. @abarker is correct in that polygamy does not imply a many to many relationship, but it includes it as a subset. A polygamous marriage could be simultaneously polygynic and polyandric. So I'm not sure what his objection is to @Jaloopa.
However, I believe that historically the main reason for marriage was to sort out the most important things - property and inheritance rights. If I die my wife inherits my assets with special rules that don't apply to other people. While I guess in theory polygamous marriages could convey these rights it would be complicated and not something whose basic contractual form is set up by a simple declaration before (in the UK) a registrar, without the involvement of lawyers. Given that most people do not have a lot of assets, the involvement of said lawyers would not be practical, much as they would like it to happen.
I very much doubt it. In the US the law is a mess, with different rules in every State, but I don't see it as a big social issue. What perhaps should be a big issue is Catholic and Protestant prosecutors trying to grandstand on ordinary teenage behaviour - very much a US problem, not one in the rest of the developed world. In Sweden when a minor is accused of some crime, there is some sort of special advocate in court (I believe; I may have the wrong Scandinavian country) to protect their rights. That seems to me an excellent solution.
Admin
Huh? In the US, the government will pay to have an advocate for you in court, juvenile or no. And juveniles are usually dealt with in a separate court system than adults (though occasionally a minor is tried as an adult). Additionally there are guardians ad litem in many places in the US, which would seem to fit your idea:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_guardian#Guardian_ad_litem
Admin
While technically correct (the best kind of correct, BTW), the terms polyandry and polygyny are not in common usage any more.
I was basing my objection on the common modern usage, not on some ancient greek form that is no longer favored.
Actually, historically, you're wrong. Marriage was about forming a family unit. Ok, from a purely non-religious viewpoint, it was about the transfer of property: namely transferring ownership of a woman from her father to her husband. As for your claim that marriage was set up as for inheritance rights, you obviously don't know your history. Marriage was established well before women were able to own property, so that claim was entirely bull shit. Ok, maybe not "entirely", as marriage helped to mark legitimate sons At the time, the rights of inheritance varied somewhat by culture, but went something along the lines of:
After that it gets murky. Point is, marriage was not established for property and inheritance rights. That was added much later.
Admin
If you're saying that premarital sex is ordinary teenage behavior, then you're implying that the love between them shouldn't be obstructed.
If that's true, then why can't two underage teenagers get married?
I don't understand why people defend two 14 year olds having sex, but not a 14 and 40 year old.
If the idea is that a 14 year old can be manipulated by a 40 year old, but not another 40 year old, do you get special powers at 40?
Either you're against people under age X having sex, or you're ok with it. Saying that people under age X is only ok with other people under age X has created this weird sex offender system.
Imagine you're 18, you have sex with a 17 year old girl and are labeled a sex offender, yet your friend at age 17 has sex with a girl aged 16 and is not a sex offender. Have fun with the rest of your life because you are going to a park any time soon.
Admin
Correct.
However, you cannot simply claim to 'own' the meaning of words, nor assert that your meaning has any legal force simply because you prefer one meaning over another.
The 'fixed' nature of semantics only has force within the context of previously agreed meaning at the time the legal wording was used. This is why claims that we have a "living Constitution" are fraudulent.
The 'state' does not own the semantics of the word "marriage".
Admin
The IRS is 'Constitutional'....but it's enforcing an immoral tax code. IMNSHO ;)
Admin
Well, the funny thing is that it claims to be effective, when so many other solutions would be more effective. It's not effective, it's sacrificing effectiveness to gain a social experiment that's been failing for a long time.
People don't appreciate what they have because they aren't paying for it.