Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Paxiecrunchle]

What SHOULD be controversial is government getting directly involved in marriage in the first place.

[Neonivek]

What SHOULD be controversial is government getting directly involved in marriage in the first place.

People gave them that power in order to litigate divorce proceedings, property and ownership between families, and many other things. Plus there are some protections marriage offers such as accessory or incrimination.

Or rather the government gets involved when it needs to negotiate things between people.

Though Legally for a gay couple... Gay marriage is better to not exist than the other way around. At least from what I understand of the way it is set up (unless there are really nice tax breaks I am unaware of)...

Err wait.. MAYBE adoption is easier for legally married people... That would be a genuine benefit.

[martinuzz]

Not just adoption. Hereditary rights in case one of the partners dies is another reason for gay marriage to be legally possible.
And then there's just plain basic non-discrimination.

[Neonivek]

Not just adoption. Hereditary rights in case one of the partners dies is another reason for gay marriage to be legally possible.
And then there's just plain basic non-discrimination.

Ahh yes I forgot it helps incase someone falls into a mulcher.

[Helgoland]

What SHOULD be controversial is government getting directly involved in marriage in the first place.

This. Interestingly both the far-left and (relatively) far-right portions of my friends at university emphatically agree with this: The latter because they don't like gay marriage, and the former because they don't want discrimination against poly people.

[Trekkin]

What SHOULD be controversial is government getting directly involved in marriage in the first place.

This. Interestingly both the far-left and (relatively) far-right portions of my friends at university emphatically agree with this: The latter because they don't like gay marriage, and the former because they don't want discrimination against poly people.

The poly thing has always bugged me. The nuclear family is not the only socially beneficial way for people to coexist; even if you want to maintain marriage as a legal instrument for social control (ew), that's still no reason to legally enforce monogamy. Splitting up the rights currently afforded to married couples into individually assignable associations would solve so many future debates about who can get married -- or, at least, make them about economics and legal issues rather than cultural ones.

[martinuzz]

Over here in the Netherlands, not marrying, but instead having a 'together-living contract' is getting more and more popular (and has been for a while now. There's already many grandkids whose grandparents never married (but still live together)).

I think there's a total of 3 different legally recognized forms of bonding.
1) marry for the church (/mosque/synagogue/insert religion here). Usually the wife takes on the last name of the spouse, with the exception of old nobility (in which case a compound last name is formed), and perhaps some religions.
2) marry for the state, or civil marriage. At the time of marriage, last name is chosen. The couple can choose to either take either spouse's last name, or a compound. (although traditionally, 99% adopts the man's name. Civil marriage being a longstanding secular / humanist tradition, most city halls in the Netherlands will have a designated marriage hall, for traditionally a civil marriage will take place at the city hall, instead of the church.
3) legal contract for living together. Both spouses keep their own last name. Last name of children is chosen at birth, but first choice is binding (you cannot have your children have different last names).

[Max™]

I believe the standard way to avoid committing murder is to become the warlord or dictator of your own country and designate an ethnical, political, or religious minority that you're not particularily fond of as "food". It kind of works itself out after that

Not that I'm advocating this, but designating vegetarians/vegans as food would significantly mitigate the risk of transmitting increasingly pathogenic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease by having cannibals eat cannibals who ate cannibals and so forth.

I have long said: plants are what food eats, so I see no ethical problem with eating anyone who advertises that they are herbivorous.

[Bumber]

Vajrayana Buddhists, for example, would canonically agree that there's no need to preserve a person's corpse, for which reason they practice sky burial (among other things) to make best use of it.

I'd like to think that involves a powerful catapult.

While controversial, common law marriage does state that all you have to be, in order to be married, is live together.

Controversial because some people live with family?

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Well if I can't get married, where am I going to get my tax benefits?

[Neonivek]

While controversial, common law marriage does state that all you have to be, in order to be married, is live together.

Controversial because some people live with family?

Controversial because that law states that if you, say, have a female room mate... BOOM! you are married!

[redwallzyl]

Unpopular idea: Treating human corpses like anything other than Meat,Fertilizer, or Health Hazards is absurd and a waste of time and reasources, with the possible exception of murder victims.

Obligatory:
http://smbc-comics.com/comic/ethical-consumption

Bad idea for many reasons including disease and culture.

What SHOULD be controversial is government getting directly involved in marriage in the first place.

Also bad idea, there is a reason they do in the first place. marriages are economic contracts and so need legal enforcement in a materialistic society. not to mention thousands of years of society and culture being built upon the idea. oh and i should mention that humans are in fact biologically monogamous although that does not imply sexual monogamy. monogamy is a fundamental human social structure literally in our DNA so most people are naturally drawn to it and we naturally develop systems and cultures around it. not that we aren't wildly divergent but even in society's that possess a socially acceptable option outside of monogamy the vast majority of people are monogamous or effectively monogamous. you might note for instance that their is usually a first wife that has way more status and the others are subservient to her in polygamist societies often legally as well. please don't get on the discard culture train that is really stupid. it does a ton of damage. i may be liberal in outlook but its backed by science and i fully understand how fundamental this stuff is to functioning human societies. do not break them, bad things happen.




Now time to make my own unnecessarily provocative statement that makes people argue endlessly until the next one.

the statue controversy:
Statues are and have always been primary a tool of propaganda and are used to shape peoples fictionalized views of history know as cultural imaginarys. as such the systematic destruction of the imaginary requires the removal of all propaganda related to it by a moment that seeks to destroy it. followed by the education of children in the academic history of the civil war in great detail and depth. no perpetuating propaganda, no fantasy narrative, no imaginary, no nostalgia, no power in its symbols. that is how you destroy a cultural imaginary and kill a history. remove the romanticism and you kill the source of histories power. boring history, the great killer of interest.

[Neonivek]

oh and i should mention that humans are in fact biologically monogamous although that does not imply sexual monogamy

Good catch. The writing on the wall SEEEEEEEEMS to suggest humans are not naturally sexually monogamous.

There is even strong suggestion that humans aren't monogamous species.

But the creepy thing? In the future they might have a drug that makes you monogamous.

[Paxiecrunchle]

I just want to point out that I wasn't suggesting ONLY eating dead people, meat was meant to imply that you could do that, or feed it to your dog, or use it fertilize your plants, etc. people keep forgetting the other options I and some others mentioned. (Like for medical schools, stress testing, etc.)

EDIT:...I also mentioned health hazards in my very first post which was meant to imply that those who have died from things that can be passed on post moretem even after preperation should just be used as fertilizer.

[redwallzyl]

oh and i should mention that humans are in fact biologically monogamous although that does not imply sexual monogamy

Good catch. The writing on the wall SEEEEEEEEMS to suggest humans are not naturally sexually monogamous.

There is even strong suggestion that humans aren't monogamous species.

But the creepy thing? In the future they might have a drug that makes you monogamous.

Fun fact, 50% of the offspring of socialy monogamous species are not with the partner. Lession, nature sleeps around alot but still works togheather.