Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » We need more SSM threads (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: We need more SSM threads
Haggis
Member
Member # 2114

 - posted      Profile for Haggis   Email Haggis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Munga wrote:

quote:
Are you saying that a person who cries, "We don't know what will happen if we let these folks have equal access to a civil contract, and they get all recognized and everything.... it might do bad things for the children!" even though there is no negative track record whatsoever (because, remember, gay people already have children, and they don't get any more reports at social services than anyone else) has any basis for discussion?
That's an entirely different argument, altogether. Just because I have said Pete has been consistent in his opinion, it does not automatically follow that I AGREE with his opinion. Let me be clear. I don't.
Posts: 1771 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The reason I oppose ssm, particularly the judicial atrocity that neuters marriage as a by-the way, is that it assumes that gender in marriage is an "irrelevant form," and that a child doesn't benefit from having both a mother and a father. That's a sticking point worth fighting over for me. Do you find it worth fighting over, and if so, why?
No, I don't see any appreciable benefit from a father and mother specifically, all else being equal. I work with about 350 kids, k-8, from all different socio-economic backgrounds. I see a lot of different family forms and parenting styles, and its pretty clear to me that the OVERRIDING factor is parenting skill. Period. One gay dude with good parenting skills could create a better upbringing for a child than 6 hetero couples without it.

Of course, a big part of parenting skill is being willing to donate massive amounts of time to your child. A lot of the problems I see can be attributed to the fact that the kids aren't quite as high a priority as they need to be (which, for anyone who is wondering, is the highest by a country mile). Two parents could almost certainly do this better than one, or at least, easier. But in this respect, gender is irrelevant.

Kids need unconditional love. Patience whose boundary they never experience. Clear, reasonable boundaries that are motivated by concern, communicated simply and consistantly, and enforced with gentle firmness. Exposure to a variety of experiences. Guidance in processing difficult emotions from someone who accepts those emotions, even if they must correct their expression. Encouragement. Praise. Trust. And (twice for emphasis) unconditional love.

These things are so much more important than whatever vague intangibles come from having both genders in the house that the latter is literally irrelevant. Creating policy around it is akin to hiring a sceretary based on whether he or she prefers Liquid Paper over Whiteout, without asking if they can type.

Children need better homes, as a whole. America, at least, needs to get better at parenting. The SSM battle is a complete distraction from this. Its simply insignificant compared to the real issues.

Adam

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I have repeatedly said that the quality of same-sex parenting is an UNKNOWN, whereas the benefit that a child obtains from having a father and a mother in the home is a relatively measured and KNOWN quantity. It's fundamentally dishonest to say that a known is "equal" to an unknown.
Unknown, but worse. BTW, it is becoming more and more known, and these kids are not much different than kids with OS parents. Except for being prone to more teasing.

The difference is irrelevant, if there is any difference at all. Separating these institutions will just add state discrimination against gays to an already long list of other discriminatory organizations.

This is bad because among the groups of people who are not understanding or supportive of homosexuality, there will still be gay kids. Gay kids will grow up into repressed adults who either will often get into opposite sex marriages, who will either get frustrated with their repressed sexuality (and take it out on their family or somebody else entirely), or eventually come to terms with it. This will often lead to a divorce, which leads to traumatized kids. Traumatized kids turn into screwed up adults.

This is a harmful affect of separate institutions. It will exacerbate a problem which is only going to get worse as homosexuality becomes more accepted.

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TommySama:
quote:
I have repeatedly said that the quality of same-sex parenting is an UNKNOWN, whereas the benefit that a child obtains from having a father and a mother in the home is a relatively measured and KNOWN quantity. It's fundamentally dishonest to say that a known is "equal" to an unknown.
Unknown, but worse.
If you want to say it's worse, then speak for yourself. Don't project your own opinions onto me.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I support it. While kids are generally better off with a mom and a dad, they are also better off with existing family members (which may be gay and/or same sex couples) and also better off with a stable environment than a foster care program."

Parse however you like.

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by munga:
Haggis,

Are you saying that a person who cries, "[here munga misuses quotes to parrot her false attribution" even though there is no negative track record whatsoever (because, remember, gay people already have children, and they don't get any more reports at social services than anyone else) has any basis for discussion? ... I do not think Pete is unaware of what he is doing.

Sounds to me that Haggis is saying that it's possible to disagree with what I'm saying without misrepresenting what I'm saying, and without making foolish assumptions about what I "know."

You should try it some time, munga. Expand your horizons, and contemplate the possibility of the existence of points of view other than your own.

I don't say the things you attribute to me, because I don't buy into your foolish view that this entire argument is about allowing or denying access to a bilateral contract.

Whoops. I guess I just committed your error of misattributing. You never used the word "bilateral" because nothing in your little world has prepared you for the existence of contracts with more than two parties, and you've never contemplated the possibility that the contract involved in civil marriage might involve more parties than the persons who actually end up married.

[ November 17, 2008, 11:36 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tommy:
quote:
"I support it. While kids are generally better off with a mom and a dad THAN WITH ANY OTHER KNOWN AND MEASURED FAMILY TYPE, they are also better off with existing family members (which may be gay and/or same sex couples) and also better off with a stable environment than a foster care program."
I thought that it was blitheringly obvious that I was talking about known. It's you and munga who run around making dogmatic statements about the unknown. That's not my style. When I hold a dogmatic position, just because, I generally use a word like "I think," and I don't go on to fabricate an entire line of argument based on that personal assertion of belief, unlike the house of cards that munga calls an argument.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete,

Every contract I write has at least four parties in it. That would be the bank, the vendors, the municipalities and the investors. Signed, sealed, delivered, with good clauses and protections. That's even before we get fancy with tax credit monetization options and pre-funding legislation.

When you have done it, you can diss my credentials.

I swear, why would you think it's that hard? Welcome to the new world, my friend, and GAAP.

The model for multi-party development transactions has been used in energy for years, it is called the Model Form Operating Agreement. It is now used in the film industry, I understand. Per development, multiple developers, varieties of contributions, in-kind contributions and even options for physical deliveries in lieu of payments. These docs aren't hard and they are more than 100 years old.

Which is why I say, again, as we know exactly how to do it, and we've been doing it for others for years, why can't there be "multiple" development agreements for polygamous people and WHY is there any any any doubt but that the civil contract for just two people of opposite sex is not appropriate for expansion to any two people at all?

[ November 18, 2008, 03:01 AM: Message edited by: munga ]

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Apparently I'm misunderstanding you somewhere.

What I think you are arguing is that OSM are proven to work. And that SSM are not. I think that you are also saying that OSM are optimal, and that SSM, while obviously better than some situations, are not proven to be as good as OSM. You also said kids are better off with a father and a mother. I assumed this was in comparison with SS couples (or any other relationship set-up). If this is right so far (?), I do not think it is any more justifiable to assume father/mother is better just because there isn't enough data to compare it with father/father, mother/mother.

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Haggis- I understand.
Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Haggis
Member
Member # 2114

 - posted      Profile for Haggis   Email Haggis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I differ with Pete, and on occasion, both of us have gotten out of line with each other. From day one. Sometimes Pete has to remind me to be a bit more civil, and sometimes I remind Pete. As much as I disagree with him, he has earned my respect.

That being said, I do think this particular argument is weak. Society progresses much faster than a careful study will allow. Many of these changes cause social upheaval when we venture into the unknown. Without that leap, societies would stagnate. School integration was one such leap. I think SSM will be the next leap.

On the other hand, I understand the sentiment. Society needs both liberals who want to bring forth changes and conservatives who are wary of changes. Without conservatives, the changes would come too rapidly, and without liberals, societal changes would move at a glacial pace.

Posts: 1771 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Every contract I write has at least four parties in it. That would be the bank, the vendors, the municipalities and the investors. Signed, sealed, delivered, with good clauses and protections. That's even before we get fancy with tax credit monetization options and pre-funding legislation."

Then you have no excuse to argue as if marriage were a purely bilateral contract.

"What I think you are arguing is that OSM are proven to work. And that SSM are not. I think that you are also saying that OSM are optimal, and that SSM, while obviously better than some situations, are not proven to be as good as OSM."

If that's what you think I'm saying, then why did you say that I've said that SSM are worse?

"I do not think it is any more justifiable to assume father/mother is better just because there isn't enough data to compare it with father/father, mother/mother."

I don't assume. I say that only a fool or a liar would make qualitative comparisons (whether "equal" or "better") when there's insufficient data to tell.

"why can't there be "multiple" development agreements for polygamous people and WHY is there any any any doubt but that the civil contract for just two people of opposite sex is not appropriate for expansion to any two people at all?"

Because (duh!) polygamous people aren't polygamous until they become polygamous. They marry one person at a time, and we have a right in our culture to make exclusivity a reasonable expectation within the contract. Because when you take that out, you change what marriage means within our law. It's another kind of contract, pumpkin. Yes, they may both be marriages within the universal parameters that I outlined, but they aren't the same bloody contract. And tens of millions of people don't want the terms of our contracts altered to accomodate the lifestyles of a bunch of pligs.

That's where the analogy breaks down, btw. I've never referred to homosexuality as a "lifestyle" on this forum, but I hope no one's so compulsively politically correct as to claim that polygamy is not a lifestyle, and a deviant lifestyle at that.

[ November 18, 2008, 03:35 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
"Every contract I write has at least four parties in it. That would be the bank, the vendors, the municipalities and the investors. Signed, sealed, delivered, with good clauses and protections. That's even before we get fancy with tax credit monetization options and pre-funding legislation."

Then you have no excuse to argue as if marriage were a purely bilateral contract.

I don't recall saying that it must be bilateral.

"why can't there be "multiple" development agreements for polygamous people and WHY is there any any any doubt but that the civil contract for just two people of opposite sex is not appropriate for expansion to any two people at all?"

quote:
Because (duh!) polygamous people aren't polygamous until they become polygamous. They marry one person at a time, and we have a right in our culture to make exclusivity a reasonable expectation within the contract. Because when you take that out, you change what marriage means within our law. It's another kind of contract, pumpkin. Yes, they may both be marriages within the universal parameters that I outlined, but they aren't the same bloody contract. And tens of millions of people don't want the terms of our contracts altered to accomodate the lifestyles of a bunch of pligs.
and I say DUH! you think that can't be properly accounted in the contract? you think that the same investors at a beginning of a contract, are the same ones at the end? And HOW DOES adding, let's say, a polygamous masteragreement to a standard domestic contract (if so desired by the first two partners) negate EVERYONE ELSE's domestic contracts? How does that work, affecting everyone else, again???

quote:
That's where the analogy breaks down, btw. I've never referred to homosexuality as a "lifestyle" on this forum, but I hope no one's so compulsively politically correct as to claim that polygamy is not a lifestyle, and a deviant lifestyle at that.
How judgmental of you. I'm inclined to grown-up people do as they will, and protect them in their contracts before the law.

And how ironic that polygamous people are beneath gay people in your who-gets-protection-in-the-courts book.

[ November 18, 2008, 04:02 AM: Message edited by: munga ]

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That's where the analogy breaks down, btw. I've never referred to homosexuality as a "lifestyle" on this forum, but I hope no one's so compulsively politically correct as to claim that polygamy is not a lifestyle, and a deviant lifestyle at that.
----------------------------------
How judgmental of you.

How shallow of you to act all holy and politically correct rather than acknowledging that yes, polygamy "deviates" from the monogamous norms of our society. If you assume the word "deviant" means evil, then maybe you're being judgmental. [Razz] And how could it not be a lifestyle? Is there no substance at all behind your posturing?

quote:
I'm inclined to grown-up people do as they will, and protect them in their contracts before the law.
That's what I said, without the posturing and political correctness. Protect them in THEIR contracts, rather than pretending that they've made our contract. If that doesn't satisfy your compulsive notions of "equality," then get over it. Equal isn't the only word in the constitution. And at the end of the day, equity is more important than equality.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"And how ironic that polygamous people are beneath gay people in your who-gets-protection-in-the-courts book"

Why is would that be ironic, even if it were true? You think that the fact that some of my ancestors were pligs means that I should want to bring that BACK? Think again, munga.

But thank you for ALMOST recognizing at some level that the fact that I see plig marriages as a type of marriage, and same sex unions as not a type of marriage, does not mean that I hold plig marriages in higher esteem than I hold SSUs, or deserving of more protections.

In general, i'd put it this way: I think that marriages and ssus themselves deserve protection. Conversely I think that polygamous families need and deserve protection FROM their polygamous marriages. Read the bloody bible. Read the history of our people. PLIG MARRIAGES DO NOT GENERALLY WORK OUT. THEY MAKE PEOPLE FIGHT. THEY BRING OUT THE WORST IN OTHERWISE GOOD PEOPLE. You want our law to encourage that? Nuts.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Okie dokie.

So do they get the same contract as everyone else, with a masteragreement between them just like all other multi-party agreements currently in use, or do they get different ones?

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete,

I want people to get out with their skins, when they need to.

And I think that if more of them could do that they would.

How about offer protection for the people who need it?

SO YES, I DO WANT PROTECTION FOR THOSE IN POLY MARRIAGES.

SO THEY CAN EXERCISE IT WHEN THEY PROBABLY WILL NEED TO.

[ November 18, 2008, 04:22 AM: Message edited by: munga ]

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
They get Palimony and Child support. To turn your own logic on you, why should we discriminate against people that shack up by giving them a worse contract than we give the pligs?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by munga:
Pete,

I want people to get out with their skins, when they need to.

And I think that if more of them could do that they would.

How about offer protection for the people who need it?

SO YES, I DO WANT PROTECTION FOR THOSE IN POLY MARRIAGES.

SO THEY CAN EXERCISE IT WHEN THEY PROBABLY WILL NEED TO.

Well damn. Then we actually agree on something. Took us long enough. [Big Grin]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
They get Palimony and Child support.

Really? Everyone is able to see the assets of the husbands and each bride's portion is known, per her development of each project, and thus make a proper palimony and these little brides have no problem getting those concessions?

quote:
Why should we discriminate against people that shack up by giving them a worse contract than we give the pligs?
Did they make a formal commitment for a life-long domestic development? If they did so, before witnesses, I say, let it function as a religious marriage (however faithless it might have been- precedent: Quaker marriages by witnesses) and let an automatic domestic civil contract be awarded.

[ November 18, 2008, 04:31 AM: Message edited by: munga ]

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So, I'm curious:

ARE we in agreement that the civil law should immediately recognize all polygamous marriages so that the partners have equal protection under the law?

[ November 18, 2008, 04:56 AM: Message edited by: munga ]

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by munga:
ARE we in agreement that the civil law should immediately recognize all polygamous marriages so that the partners have equal protection under the law?

I think they should recognize them, but not as the same thing as civil marriage. Otherwise you end up with "equality" that murders equity, such as treating child-wives as emancipated and denying them the right to nullify.

I also absolutely refuse to provide plig husbands with the Presumption of paternity.

I imagine that if we went through the 1000+ state and federal rules of civil marriage, that you would concede that quite a number of them should not apply "equally" to plig marriages.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Equality objection: no, because civil marriage isn't 50/50 if you remember. It is division of results of the contract pre-post status, with allowances for disparate development contributions. Civil domestic contract, "marriage", is perfect for poly, whether or not churches agree to recognize them so that they are " religiously married."

Presumption of paternity- who cares? compared to what recognition does FOR the women, who cares if the poly-masteragreement has a requirement for a blood test?

so, am I to understand that you also do not wish for polygamous persons to have a recognized domestic civil contract, "civil marriage" ?

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by munga:
Presumption of paternity- who cares? compared to what recognition does FOR the women, who cares if the poly-masteragreement has a requirement for a blood test?

Make up your mind. Are you going to force marriage in its entirety on the pligs, or do you agree with me that what the pligs need is some of the rules and responsibilities of civil marriage, but not all of them?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree that they need a masteragreement, under which the same domestic civil contracts fall. Just like any multiparty transaction. It will contain, per individual contract, the same rights and protections as any other domestic civil contract, but because there are multiple contributing partners, the date-set and contributions to the "general assets" need to be processed through a masteragreement.

cake, baby.

[ November 18, 2008, 05:14 AM: Message edited by: munga ]

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"so, am I to understand that you also do not wish for polygamous persons to have a recognized domestic civil contract, "civil marriage" ? "

It's hard to distinguish what in the last sentence is bad logic, what is a bad faith representation, and what merely is bad grammar. Are you asking if I wish them to have a domestic civil contract? Then yes.

Are you asking whether I want them to be considered civilly married? Then no.

Are you assuming that if I don't want them to be considered civilly married, taht i don't wish them to ahve a domestic civil contract? Then think harder.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, are you willing to let them have access to the same domestic civil contract, called "marriage" by our local jurisdictions, that you have.
Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Something that the plig marriages need that regular marriages don't have -- veil-piercing potential, and also a mechanism for abandoned boys to sue the corporation that covers the patriarch's ass-ets.

Something we don't want the plig marriages to have -- the potential to write prenups.

[ November 18, 2008, 05:19 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete,

What makes you think I don't have to live with the consequences of my contracts? I'm in them, silly.

additions to the masteragreement noted.

now, yes or no, to allowing them access to the same domestic civil contract, called "marriage" by our courts, please?

[ November 18, 2008, 05:26 AM: Message edited by: munga ]

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by munga:
Pete, are you willing to let them have access to the same domestic civil contract, called "marriage" by our local jurisdictions, that you have.

Exactly what part of that question have I not answered?

If someone wants to enter a civil marriage, they can, but I insist that civil marriage retain assumptions and rules tailored to monogamy. If they choose to enter a plig marriage, they receive the protections of those marriages. And if some dude marries monogamously, and then adds a plig wife on top of the first, then the first retains full rights of a monog wife and gets to sue his ass under that setup, without having the existing community property redivided. That's the difference between polygamy and bigamy.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
this part
quote:
Are you asking if I wish them to have a domestic civil contract? Then yes.

Are you asking whether I want them to be considered civilly married? Then no.

it implies that you are unwilling to let those marriages be recognized by the civil law, regarding the domestic civil contract, "marriage."
Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"And if some dude marries monogamously, and then adds a plig wife on top of the first, then the first retains full rights of a monog wife and gets to sue his ass under that setup, without having the existing community property redivided. That's the difference between polygamy and bigamy."

fine with me. The only way the domestic civil contract can be expanded is to have to two originals agree to a masteragreement preparatory to adding more domestic civil contracts.

[ November 18, 2008, 05:31 AM: Message edited by: munga ]

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, have to be on the phone in the early am.... to the east coast. and I live in Portland.

night.

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by munga:
this part
quote:
Are you asking if I wish them to have a domestic civil contract? Then yes.

Are you asking whether I want them to be considered civilly married? Then no.

it implies that you are unwilling to let those marriages be recognized by the civil law, regarding the domestic civil contract, "marriage."
I honestly don't understand what you're asking, then. Recognized regarding the domestic civil contract, marriage? You don't "recognize" a contract by acting as if it were a different contract than the one signed. An exclusive marriage is a substantially different contract than a nonexclusive marriage. You don't "recognize" one by pretending that it was the other.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete,

No, the domestic civil marriage recognizes rights to redress for engaging in sexual activity with those a person is not married to. If Spouse B is married to Spouse A, and Spouse C and Spouse D, then there is no point of bigamy or adultery to make if there is sexual contact with any of spouses A,C,D by B.

Now, again, the question is:

will you say that you do or do not support equal access to the civil domestic contract, "civil marriage"?

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No. I won't say that I do or do not support [gibberish phrase]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
try again, Pete, you can do it.
Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stevarooni
Member
Member # 6053

 - posted      Profile for Stevarooni   Email Stevarooni   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by munga:
No, the domestic civil marriage recognizes rights to redress for engaging in sexual activity with those a person is not married to.

In California? Wow, that is different; since it's a no-fault state, at least the law as written is indifferent to adultery.
Posts: 536 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
wasn't being state-specific
Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by munga:
Pete,


Now, again, the question is:

will you say that you do or do not support equal access to the civil domestic contract, "civil marriage"?


Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1