busyConversely, consider all the allegations that queer people want "special privileges." No, they don't. They just want access to the baseline: ordinary things like getting married, adopting a child, being able to visit someone in the hospital, filing a joint tax return. Now if they said, "Queer people should get first choice of children available for adoption, THAT would be a privilege.
A healthy society has a pretty smooth functionality most of the time. Its members are able to carry out ordinary activities without interference. Following the rules will lead to success for most people, and it's an option open to everyone. Failing out of a healthy society requires a lot of dedicated screwing up and refusing the helpful options available; you can still do it, but not many people do. And because most people's needs are pretty well met, there is a lot less incentive to stomp down other people in attempt to prop yourself up.
America doesn't have a healthy society. Our baseline is ... fishnet. If you're a straight white educated employed Christian man, you can generally get through life without people trying to screw you over because they find some aspect of your life displeasing. If you're queer, a person of color, don't have a college degree, can't get a job, follow some other (or no) religion, are other than male, are very young or old, are unconventional in some way -- then society frequently considers it okay to deprive you of basic courtesies, interfere with your happiness and/or survival, infringe on your rights, ruin your life, and then blame you for the mess that results. That's stupid and destructive and it needs to stop. It's not just about this group or that group. It's not about privileges or special snowflakes.
It is about treating every human being with respect and providing everyone a chance to make meaningful contributions in exchange for getting their basic needs (and preferably some of their desires) met. That's the baseline. Be decent to each other. Get the job done.
Re: Well...
July 31 2010, 00:49:57 UTC 10 years ago
But, I do think that if plural marriage- entered into legally and with rights enforced- were OK, then we could get the slimeballs on more pertinent charges than "bigamy", like child sexual abuse. And it would look less like something that was arguably "religious freedom"- I mean, if you can marry however many ADULT women/men you want, then arguing that you need to be "free" to marry kids looks extra-sleazy.
I will grant that handling partial divorce in a plural marriage could be a legal nightmare.
Re: Well...
July 31 2010, 01:16:23 UTC 10 years ago
I don't approve of marriage below the age of consent. However, in the current situation, people of that culture are used to in-church weddings that are different from legal weddings. Make polyfidelity legal, and that will make attempts at underage marriage stand out more.
>>I will grant that handling partial divorce in a plural marriage could be a legal nightmare.<<
It's a legal nightmare now. There ARE poly marriages in America, they're just not recognized. The damage is greater because some members are privileged above others: junior wives can be dumped on the street with nothing to show for it. That's not doing anybody any good.
Re: Well...
July 31 2010, 01:35:39 UTC 10 years ago
If it were legal to have plural marriages, then hopefully no one would get skunked if the thing breaks up (or, at least, not worse than current spouses can be...).
I think we do need a better way of figuring what the contribution to the relationship/other people is, to make a break-up fair. For example, if someone had spousal support and thus was able to spend ALL their energies and most of their time on their career.. well, the person/people providing that level of support are owed something of the benefits of that career, in my opinion. And this is true whether the marriage is monogamous or poly.
I do agree that allowing poly marriage would enable the state to crack down on abuses; that was one point I tried to make.