|
Install Gentoo posted:Actually tons of them do historically. Polygamy is highly associated with multiple wives in America because the 19th century mormons did it like that, but that's just a function of the Mormons being weird. Polyandry has certainly been done before, but it often becomes a situation were you marry a man and all his brothers. So while plural marriages can be equitable, like "traditional marriage" is has a long history of being a slavery like property system.
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 21:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:55 |
|
|
Polygamous families in America are overwhelmingly problematic in that there is tons of abuse and neglect. A lot of them aren't even necessarily between consenting adults and divorce is almost never an option if a wife becomes unhappy. I'm not saying it should blanket illegal but the whole "durr hurr consenting adults" thing ignores reality. People who say this are typically familiar with polyamory circles and while I'm fully supportive of groups like that, they're a far cry from the average American polygamous marriage. I know nothing of international polygamy statistics so I won't comment on those.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 21:32
|
|
|
Minorities posted:Polygamous families in America are overwhelmingly problematic in that there is tons of abuse and neglect. A lot of them aren't even necessarily between consenting adults and divorce is almost never an option if a wife becomes unhappy. Well the "average American polygamous marriage" is committing felonies in the name of an obsolete branch of a religion. So of course they're going to turn out to be poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 21:37
|
|
|
SilentD posted:So what? Morally consenting adults should all be able to do what they want. If I was king for a day I'd destroy all marriage benefits completely and just let people sign their own legal papers for whatever sort of arrangement they want. Make it so there is no financial benefit to marriage at all. That isn't really feasible; you have to have something about death benefits if only because most people don't write wills, many people would write nonsensical or unintelligible agreements, often circumstances change later and original agreements may no longer make sense (i.e., a couple that planned no children and then had five, or vice-versa, etc.), or issues with people marrying multiple times and the different agreements all conflict (four wives and each gets a third of the estate?) The bigger problem with polygamy is that it has some potential negative impact on larger society as a whole and some issues with potential exploitation. The kookier mormon-offshoot cults out west give good examples of this; old men "marrying" multiple teenage girls, for example, or large numbers of young men being cast out of their social groups because there aren't enough women left over for more than a small fraction of the men to marry, or issues with welfare dependency (a problem we have already anyway with "deadbeat dads," of course). All of these problems are addressable or even solvable with appropriate regulation, but that means we'd need to work out what appropriate regulation is or would be if we were to legalize any form of polgamy, and that's the real hurdle. It's easy to agree that in theory people should be able to just make private agreements, but when it comes to things like military survivorship benefits or social security spousal benefits, much less simple probate, something would need to be worked out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 21:38
|
|
|
Polygamy, polyandry, and monogamy, are all acceptable in the modern world depending where you live. I feel like my generation (born in '85) is much more socially accepting of lifestyle choices. I don;t think there should be any tax incentive or benefits for married persons that aren't equally available to single persons. That makes it a non issue. Treat people like individuals who are capable of determining their own best interests and leave it at that. I have a fantasy where all institutions who don't honor this equity lose their tax exempt status. What a world that would be. EDIT: Hieronymous Alloy raises good points against polygamy and polyandry, but I think that a modern sense of women's rights should dampen the tendency for polygamists social structure to devolve into harems. Heck Yes! Loam! fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Mar 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 21:43
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:
That is simply because the illegal offshoot Mormons refuse to give women any agency, and would certainly never allow one woman to have multiple men. Taking women without their consent and forcing them into marriages is not required by the idea of legalized polygamy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 21:43
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:That isn't really feasible; you have to have something about death benefits if only because most people don't write wills, many people would write nonsensical or unintelligible agreements, often circumstances change later and original agreements may no longer make sense (i.e., a couple that planned no children and then had five, or vice-versa, etc.), or issues with people marrying multiple times and the different agreements all conflict (four wives and each gets a third of the estate?) At the end of the day though we have to decide why we have "marriage" at all though as a legal institution. The only reason I can buy with polygamy not being recognized/benefit free/illegal is the same argument I could buy gay marriage suffering the same fate. Which is that "marriage" benefits, as dolled out by the state, are done entirely for the purpose that the government considers procreation a good thing and the entire institution is based around people loving to crank out the kids and keeping them in their biological nuclear/monogamous family because we consider it a societal benefit. However, if that's not the purpose of marriage and why the government is encouraging it. If marriage is actually about love between consenting adults and went aren't just socially engeinering more breeding because it's a societal good... then all of it should be legalized and we have no business giving married people any sort of benefits to encourage behavior that at it's heart, is all about individual happiness. Nor should any problems it might have on society matter. I'm largely in favor of either no rules at all about and destroying any sort of incentives to do it, or just fessing up that's a breeding program full stop and not dancing around pretending it's about love at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 21:53
|
|
|
Guys, let's get back on topic, in the best possible way - Steven Crowder getting punched in the face. Legally, getting punched in the face. http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20130318/NEWS01/303180033/ quote:Dunning’s office said the source of this unedited video was a YouTube posting from The Young Turks, an online news commentary show.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 21:57
|
|
|
SilentD posted:At the end of the day though we have to decide why we have "marriage" at all though as a legal institution. The only reason I can buy with polygamy not being recognized/benefit free/illegal is the same argument I could buy gay marriage suffering the same fate. Which is that "marriage" benefits, as dolled out by the state, are done entirely for the purpose that the government considers procreation a good thing and the entire institution is based around people loving to crank out the kids and keeping them in their biological nuclear/monogamous family because we consider it a societal benefit. Well, see, it is both, because stuff is complex and isn't usually only one thing or only the other thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 22:10
|
|
|
AsInHowe posted:Guys, let's get back on topic, in the best possible way - Steven Crowder getting punched in the face. Legally, getting punched in the face. I seriously feel like Stephen Crowder is some kind of humonculous made of pure white privilege and fueled by the spirits of a thousand college newspaper opinion editors.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 22:16
|
|
|
AsInHowe posted:Guys, let's get back on topic, in the best possible way - Steven Crowder getting punched in the face. Legally, getting punched in the face. Hasn't the unedited video been floating around for quite a while? I would blame it on Crowder's face being exquisitely punchable. You get pushed to the ground, not having seen who did it. You scan the crowd for a moment, and then you know.  You just know. Monkey Fracas fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Mar 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 22:21
|
|
|
SilentD posted:At the end of the day though we have to decide why we have "marriage" at all though as a legal institution. The only reason I can buy with polygamy not being recognized/benefit free/illegal is the same argument I could buy gay marriage suffering the same fate. Which is that "marriage" benefits, as dolled out by the state, are done entirely for the purpose that the government considers procreation a good thing and the entire institution is based around people loving to crank out the kids and keeping them in their biological nuclear/monogamous family because we consider it a societal benefit. That still doesn't make sense in practical terms, though. The only realistic way to look at this is in terms of practical examples. For a nice clear uncomplicated example, military survivorship benefits. These benefits aren't to "encourage procreation"; everyone gets them, including sterile couples, and (likely soon if/when DOMA is repealed/annulled) gay married couples. They're a government-provided incentive, but with the government in the role of employer, not lawgiver, and for a purpose entirely distinct from the ones you name -- they exist to encourage people to sign up for the military by giving them reason to believe their loved ones will be cared for if they die. . What happens when someone legally marries two women, then dies in Iraq? Should both his wives get equal survivor's benefits? Should they divide a single "benefit amount" between them? What about indivisible benefits, like health care? What if we legalize polygamy and suddenly some enterprising, civic-minded young Private First Class goes around and marries *every single unmarried adult in his entire town* -- and everyone in the town suddenly becomes eligible for Tricare? Ok, those are "obvious abuses." So we pick a one-spouse-gets-benefits rule or something. Is that discriminatory? Maybe, but the more important issue is that we would have to establish and decide on those kinds of regulations and so forth. And we get similar issues for everyone who's got government-sponsored health care or benefits of some kind (i.e., social security) for which spouses can be eligible. The government doesn't exist solely as a lawgiver; it also exists as an employer and provider, and the process of legalizing polygamy would have to take those roles into account as well. The alternative, as you say, would be to truly abolish *all* spousal benefits - including spousal social security eligibility, spousal medical care, widow's benefits for those killed in Iraq, the whole deal. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 23:27 on Mar 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 23:20
|
|
|
SilentD posted:At the end of the day though we have to decide why we have "marriage" at all though as a legal institution. All I know is if that gays are allowed to it, America is doomed. Or so I've been told.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 23:27
|
|
|
I was watching Fox News at the Y while running this afternoon, they had the afternoon zoo on where they all have a good time and make fun remarks at the news items of the day, light stuff like NCAA brackets and what not. They got to talking about the White House cutting tours, and all of them saying "That's not your house Obama, that's the people's house! It's our house, we pay for it!" bla bla bla, but then one said the most shocking thing. This was in closed captions so I didn't hear it, but the closed captions had him saying (paraphrased) "They can afford food tasters. Here's an idea, fire the food tasters. What do you need them for? You can have the kids taste the food." I poo poo you not. I couldn't loving believe it. Did anyone else see this and can confirm I wasn't imagining things? I want this plastered all over youtube and for that rear end in a top hat to be fired. I might expect that poo poo from talk radio, but I thought Fox News was supposed to have some semblance of, you know, not joking about the president's kids testing food to see if it's poison.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 23:49
|
|
|
The President has food tasters?  In hindsight, it makes total sense, but...it's rather depressing. And...uh, to be more charitable, the people to whom this program is aimed probably think of food tasters in terms of assessing quality, not...well, you know. The people running the show, on the other hand.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 03:03
|
|
|
Rockopolis posted:The President has food tasters? The Secret Service goes to ridiculous lengths to secure the president's person. For example: The president never eats at a restaurant unless the Secret Service has procured the food being prepared, transported it to the restaurant, had the president's cook oversee the preparation, and then serves the meal either by themselves or via other trusted and vetted personnel. I'm not surprised that the president has a food taster, I'm more surprised that he bothers to go though all of the hoops necessary to eat outside of the White House at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 03:08
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:I'm not surprised that the president has a food taster, I'm more surprised that he bothers to go though all of the hoops necessary to eat outside of the White House at all. I have to assume a lot of those are campaign appearances where they stop at some well known local restaurant to show how they're just normal people too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 03:13
|
|
|
I don't know if this is being discussed anywhere else in D&D, but CNN did something so immensely offensive it's almost like watching FOX. Watch Candy Crowley and "Poppy Harlow" oooze sympathy and sadness for a couple of scumbag rapists who had just been convicted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQcPzu0YFLU
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 08:27
|
|
|
beatlegs posted:I don't know if this is being discussed anywhere else in D&D, but CNN did something so immensely offensive it's almost like watching FOX. Watch Candy Crowley and "Poppy Harlow" oooze sympathy and sadness for a couple of scumbag rapists who had just been convicted: I think pretty much every major channel released the victim's name at one point too 
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 08:36
|
|
|
It's so sad that those rapists lives are being ruined by the justice system.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 12:15
|
|
|
Oh no! Not our highschool star football players! (who raped a girl) Won't someone think of the star football players and not think at all the victim of the their rape? loving disgusting. Rape culture right there in a nutshell. CNN and every other media outlet that covered the story in this manner should be both shamed and ashamed. Also, both MSNBC and Fox let the victim's name get out too. Proving once again that cable television news is pure evil and no one should be watching any of it. Spacedad fucked around with this message at 12:30 on Mar 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 12:27
|
|
|
Spacedad posted:loving disgusting. Rape culture right there in a nutshell. CNN and every other media outlet that covered the story in this manner should be both shamed and ashamed. I wonder if that aspect will get played up in the inevitable SVU episode and/or Lifetime movie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 12:52
|
|
|
beatlegs posted:I don't know if this is being discussed anywhere else in D&D, but CNN did something so immensely offensive it's almost like watching FOX. Watch Candy Crowley and "Poppy Harlow" oooze sympathy and sadness for a couple of scumbag rapists who had just been convicted: ufarn fucked around with this message at 13:11 on Mar 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 13:09
|
|
|
Which? The REAL victims or that "the whore deserved it"? Somebody posted a few twitter screenshots yesterday, every one was a reason to exit this earthly bondage. E: found it, warning yospos http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3520209&pagenumber=682&perpage=40#post413555896 Phone fucked around with this message at 13:15 on Mar 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 13:11
|
|
|
The Time Dissolver posted:A lot of George Carlin's later work really gives the impression of someone who loves nothing more than to hold himself above others. The chance to denigrate people who take themselves seriously was what got him up in the morning. Frank Zappa had that streak too. The prize we place on reason makes indignation uncharismatic. Late in life George Carlin is always tragic for me to see. I love Carlin's comedy, but his last shows, especially the very last, are a depiction of a man whose given up trying to make things better, resigned himself that things will always be poo poo because people are, and it's just sad as hell.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 13:11
|
|
|
I guess the liberal media was jealous of all the attention to rightwing rape comments and had to express their own brand of disgusting rape apology to the discourse. What the gently caress is America's deal with rape? Can't we just, like, not rape, and not defend rape? Why is that so hard?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 13:17
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:I guess the liberal media was jealous of all the attention to rightwing rape comments and had to express their own brand of disgusting rape apology to the discourse. What the gently caress is America's deal with rape? Can't we just, like, not rape, and not defend rape? Why is that so hard? Because then the feminazis win.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 13:20
|
|
|
  Creepy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 13:26
|
|
|
beatlegs posted:I don't know if this is being discussed anywhere else in D&D, but CNN did something so immensely offensive it's almost like watching FOX. Watch Candy Crowley and "Poppy Harlow" oooze sympathy and sadness for a couple of scumbag rapists who had just been convicted: I have a certain amount of sympathy for the idea that juvenile offenders shouldn't be on permanent registries and should be able to begin new lives with a fresh start after their sentences are completed. People change dramatically between their teenage years and adulthood. I dunno. I realize they're criminals and ultimately, yes, don't rape people. But I think our society as a whole is too punitive to all criminals, and especially juvenile offenders. We have the highest incarceration rate in the developed world, by far, our sentences are extreme. If these guys were going into the Swedish prison system I wouldn't be saying word one. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 13:46 on Mar 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 13:27
|
|
|
The worst is people calling for their deaths. Yes, let's respond to brutality by doubling down on brutality. Then our children will know better!
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 13:55
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I have a certain amount of sympathy for the idea that juvenile offenders shouldn't be on permanent registries and should be able to begin new lives with a fresh start after their sentences are completed. People change dramatically between their teenage years and adulthood. I completely agree. The offensiveness is not that they showed sympathy for a convicted criminal. I believe all convicted criminals are deserving of some sympathy and empathy. What makes it offensive is that the narrative suggested A. This was a series of events inflicted upon them B. It was unreasonable and C. They were more deserving of sympathy than the victim.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 13:58
|
|
|
A DENVER FAX posted:I completely agree. The offensiveness is not that they showed sympathy for a convicted criminal. I believe all convicted criminals are deserving of some sympathy and empathy. What makes it offensive is that the narrative suggested A. This was a series of events inflicted upon them B. It was unreasonable and C. They were more deserving of sympathy than the victim. Ok, fair points all. I haven't actually watched the clip in question -- that would involve watching cable news, and that's against my belief system.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 14:02
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:The worst is people calling for their deaths. Yes, let's respond to brutality by doubling down on brutality. Then our children will know better! Injustice usually breeds brutality. Internalizing that the big shots and real criminals will always get away usually means that a society will call for the blood of the perps it does manage to catch and convict with redoubled intensity. It's very much a thing here in Brazil. The kids of politicians and millionaires get caught driving their fancy cars at ludicrous speeds through unsuspecting poor people depressingly often and always get away with it, but the guy who knocks liquor stores, drug dealers and pickpockets who get caught will have the book thrown at them, and people will still grumble about them getting off easy because they got less than death (which is illegal here, though it happens extra-officially all the time) or 30 years (the maximum allowed prison term even for multiple felonies). When I was a kid, I used to daydream and wish that Brazil and the US were more alike. Apparently it's actually coming true, but in the wrong direction.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 14:34
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:It's very much a thing here in Brazil. The kids of politicians and millionaires get caught driving their fancy cars at ludicrous speeds through unsuspecting poor people depressingly often and always get away with it, but the guy who knocks liquor stores, drug dealers and pickpockets who get caught will have the book thrown at them, and people will still grumble about them getting off easy because they got less than death (which is illegal here, though it happens extra-officially all the time) or 30 years (the maximum allowed prison term even for multiple felonies). Reminds me of a documentary I saw called "Manda Bala" which framed the brutality and frequency of kidnappings in Brazil with the relative impunity that the upper class has to break laws and be corrupt.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 14:44
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Ok, fair points all. I haven't actually watched the clip in question -- that would involve watching cable news, and that's against my belief system. Yeah I agree as well that I can find sympathy for people, especially minors caught up in our justice system even though they deserve punishment (and rehabilitation but I'm not confident that will occur). The most offensive thing to me were the twitter/tumbler/facebook comments inferring that if the girl didn't get drunk, the boys wouldn't have been put in a situation where they would commit a crime which is outrageous. Honestly the entire ordeal should be a wake up call for teaching people how to behave and not get caught up in this kind of social mind set where they think it's their right to commit these acts and egg each other on. I can kind of see that these two kids are victims of the culture that encourages this behavior (and then covers for it afterwards making it seem even more acceptable) but the fault ultimately lies with them and I don't think that's what the cable news are really getting at and the real true victim is the girl that was abused.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 15:27
|
|
|
beatlegs posted:I don't know if this is being discussed anywhere else in D&D, but CNN did something so immensely offensive it's almost like watching FOX. Watch Candy Crowley and "Poppy Harlow" oooze sympathy and sadness for a couple of scumbag rapists who had just been convicted:
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 15:29
|
|
|
Anderson Cooper at least is promising to focus on the victim tonight, tweeted he will have the mom on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 15:55
|
|
|
This is from yesterday, so it's possible that something else has happened, but I would be surprised.quote:CNN doesn’t want to chat about the tone of its breaking-news coverage yesterday of the verdict in the Steubenville rape case. “[W]e’ll decline” comment, e-mailed Barbara Levin, the network’s vice president for communications.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 15:57
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I have a certain amount of sympathy for the idea that juvenile offenders shouldn't be on permanent registries and should be able to begin new lives with a fresh start after their sentences are completed. People change dramatically between their teenage years and adulthood. Pretty much my same thought here. Yes what they did amounts to immensive shitheadery and they deserve some legal retribution, but even rapists are still human. Fifty years from now these guys will be old and graying and possibly unemployed, homeless, or struggling through some minimum-wage job. Every day they'll look back and wonder what they could've been: coaches, teachers, football stars, hell, maybe even a doctor or lawyer. And every day they'll know that one mistake as stupid teenagers cost them their lives. It's hard not to feel a little sad about that, and it doesn't detract from also sympathizing with the tragedy of a young woman having to deal with the horror and trauma of being gangraped. As for CNN's coverage, given that this is only a 6-minute snippet of a 24-hour news organization, I'm sure they've heaped sympathy on the victim and condemnation on the accused as the case went to trial and as the trial progressed. It really depends on the context of the broader scope of their reporting. Frankly, along with more sympathy towards the victim, I kinda think that sudden moments of realization over the humanity of criminals in general need to be less rare.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 16:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:55 |
|
|
I think gangraping goes much further past just some stupid teenagers making a mistake.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 16:22
|
|
