5 ms·

Let me give an alternate perspective. I'm gay and polyamorous which means I can't get married to my partners. The vast majority of people are currently oppose

Let me give an alternate perspective. I'm gay and polyamorous which means I can't get married to my partners. The vast majority of people are currently opposed to changing the definition of marriage to include my chosen family. Should I take the position that I am being deprived of my human rights and thus anyone not on my side is doing me harm? The problem is, when you frame this in terms of self defence, practically any action is justifiable. I'm a believer that we need to change hearts and minds to make progress; social change isn't a war that can be won by force.

foldr 6y ago
I don't see that the OP is framing anything in terms of self defence, or advocating for the use of force. > Should I take the position that I am being deprived of my human rights I think this reduces to the question of whether or not you think you are being deprived of your human rights. Do you? I think at present there is no generally accepted plan for how polyamorous marriage would work in detail. This is in contrast to gay marriage. At the same time, there is also not much concerted opposition to polyamorous marriage. (E.g., no-one is trying to pass constitutional amendments to rule it out.)
- thaneross 6y ago
  Trying to rally a mob against someone in the hope of getting them fired is _absolutely_ a use of force. It was being justified as an act of self-defence (my words) because the OP felt they were being harmed. As for poly marriage, yes, there's no attempts to make it even more illegal because it's taboo to the point that nobody brings it up except when conservatives make slippery slope arguments (which gives you an idea of how unpopular it is). Kind of like there was no DOMA in the 1970's; gay marriage was unthinkable.
  - foldr 6y ago
    I don't see how that is a use of force. We must use different dictionaries. I feel that you're sidestepping the main question about poly marriage. How would it work in detail? Do you support a specific version of it? In fact, do you actually support it at all, in a real non-rhetorical way?
    - thaneross 6y ago
      Yes, I do support it. I don't see the issue of changing the definition and legal framework to include multiple partners, which may be added or divorced over time.
      - foldr 6y ago
        How would this work?
        thaneross 6y ago
        I obviously can't summarize the all changes to family law and I'm not a lawyer, but here are a few ideas: - When 2 or more people get married, a new legal entity of the marriage is created. It has members, property and an estate. It pays taxes - Divorce is from the perspective of a person leaving the marriage and leaves with 1/n of the marital property - Reform child legitimacy laws (legitimacy doesn't matter, the state advocates for the well-being of the child) - Rights normally reserved for a spouse are extended to all spouses (such as hospital visitation) - Mandate that policies that extend to a spouse (such as life insurance) get changed to cover all spouses And a bunch more stuff I'm sure I haven't thought about. Here's the thing though; I know I'm so incredibly unlikely to see it happen in my lifetime that it feels like a waste of time to get into the details of changing the law. Instead I spend my time on is making my relationships work and giving support to others about how to have happy and healthy non-monogamous relationships.
        foldr 6y ago
        Right, what I'm asking for is an existing proposal with broad support in the poly community that could plausibly be implemented given public support. If no such thing exists, then I don't think you can really claim just now that anyone's fundamental rights are being violated. You have to at least be clear about what you are asking for. If the poly community can put forward a concrete proposal and get some kind of a consensus behind it then great - you have my support.

foldr 6y ago

I don't see that the OP is framing anything in terms of self defence, or advocating for the use of force. > Should I take the position that I am being deprived of my human rights I think this reduces to the question of whether or not you think you are being deprived of your human rights. Do you? I think at present there is no generally accepted plan for how polyamorous marriage would work in detail. This is in contrast to gay marriage. At the same time, there is also not much concerted opposition to polyamorous marriage. (E.g., no-one is trying to pass constitutional amendments to rule it out.)

thaneross 6y ago
Trying to rally a mob against someone in the hope of getting them fired is _absolutely_ a use of force. It was being justified as an act of self-defence (my words) because the OP felt they were being harmed. As for poly marriage, yes, there's no attempts to make it even more illegal because it's taboo to the point that nobody brings it up except when conservatives make slippery slope arguments (which gives you an idea of how unpopular it is). Kind of like there was no DOMA in the 1970's; gay marriage was unthinkable.
- foldr 6y ago
  I don't see how that is a use of force. We must use different dictionaries. I feel that you're sidestepping the main question about poly marriage. How would it work in detail? Do you support a specific version of it? In fact, do you actually support it at all, in a real non-rhetorical way?
  - thaneross 6y ago
    Yes, I do support it. I don't see the issue of changing the definition and legal framework to include multiple partners, which may be added or divorced over time.
    - foldr 6y ago
      How would this work?
      - thaneross 6y ago
        I obviously can't summarize the all changes to family law and I'm not a lawyer, but here are a few ideas: - When 2 or more people get married, a new legal entity of the marriage is created. It has members, property and an estate. It pays taxes - Divorce is from the perspective of a person leaving the marriage and leaves with 1/n of the marital property - Reform child legitimacy laws (legitimacy doesn't matter, the state advocates for the well-being of the child) - Rights normally reserved for a spouse are extended to all spouses (such as hospital visitation) - Mandate that policies that extend to a spouse (such as life insurance) get changed to cover all spouses And a bunch more stuff I'm sure I haven't thought about. Here's the thing though; I know I'm so incredibly unlikely to see it happen in my lifetime that it feels like a waste of time to get into the details of changing the law. Instead I spend my time on is making my relationships work and giving support to others about how to have happy and healthy non-monogamous relationships.
        foldr 6y ago
        Right, what I'm asking for is an existing proposal with broad support in the poly community that could plausibly be implemented given public support. If no such thing exists, then I don't think you can really claim just now that anyone's fundamental rights are being violated. You have to at least be clear about what you are asking for. If the poly community can put forward a concrete proposal and get some kind of a consensus behind it then great - you have my support.