= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Konkvistador comments on Poly marriage? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (127)
.
When you said above that status was the real reason LW-associates oppose legal polygamy, you were implying that these people are not actually convinced of these issues, or only pretend to care about them for status reasons.
Certainly! I'd like to clarify that I don't think polyamory is intrinsically oppressive, and that I am on the whole pretty darn progressive (philosophically) regarding sexual / relationship rights etc. (That is, I think it probably ideally should be legal. There are probably additional political concerns but politics makes me ill.) I think it's kinda weird that government is in the marriage business to begin with, but probably it is useful to have some sort of structure for dealing with the related tax / property / etc. concerns. I think that polygamy does occur in some cultures that are oppressive towards women, but I don't really have a notion of how much a part of that oppression it facilitates, and I don't necessarily think that's a legitimate factor in whether to legalize the institution. I'm on your side philosophically / politically.
If polygamous people where high status they wouldn't voice nor perhaps even think of these objections.
I tend to agree. Customizable contracts would be the best solution. This way we wouldn't straight jacket people into one size fits all marriage. Some people might like marriages where infidelity is grounds for divorce and the cheating party is penalized somehow. Some people might like marriages that have to be renewed every 10 years, to minimize any hassle with any potential divorce or allow a time out on the relationship. ect.
This would make everyone from the traditionalists to those seeking novel arrangements happy.
For some reason I'm picturing the Creative Commons licenses.
I had exactly that as a sort of model in my brain. :)
I find this quite aesthetically pleasing :D
How seriously do you mean this claim?
Pretty seriously, I'm not sure why you would think I'm not. Is there something wrong with people having options to customize the legal arrangements of their relationships? And with the decline of classical marriage shouldn't we encourage all such relationships to increase social cohesion as well as contribute towards creating better environments for raising children?
Because I find it very unlikely that your proposal would make traditionalists happy, if implemented, but it was plausible that you just meant that part as hyperbole.
It wouldn't make mainstream "conservatives" happy, but that is simply because they are so utterly ignorant to how legally different marriage is today compared to a few decades or worse don't mind it at all, not minding the incongruity. It would make traditionalists happy. They could recreate much of what they miss about modern marriage.
Take for example penalizing the partner who is cheating in divorce settlements, this is something I know no Slovenian court will ever take into consideration but something people who actually want a traditional marriage would love. In general maybe some people would like to make divorces more difficult because they in general don't approve of them. Maybe some people think default custody should de facto lie with the husband instead of the wife (as it does currently). ect. ect.
Before you think there aren't any people who look at it this way, note that I've seen enthusiasm for this concept on very hardcore Christian right wing blogs like the Orthosphere and The Thinking Housewife.
Careful, you need to weaken the political power of feminism first, otherwise they will try to pass restrictions on the types of marriage contracts to be enforced, similar to the restrictions on employment contracts.
Fair enough. If mainstream soi-disant conservatives aren't on the continuum you were referencing, then I was simply confused about what you were referencing.
Mainstream conservatives will be happy with it too. They aren't very clever that way, you can change almost anything you want and 30 years later they won't question it seriously any-more. ;)
As someone who was paying some attention to American politics back then, it sure does seem to me that the people usually described as mainstream conservatives in the U.S. are continuing to object strenuously to many of the same things they were objecting strenuously to in 1982. Are you suggesting that I'm mistaken in that perception? That all of that stuff is an exception that falls into the gap between "almost anything" and "anything"? That the people in question aren't mainstream conservatives? Other?
I am also not sure how to reconcile:
with:
I assume you're communicating something key with your use of quotations (otherwise you'd simply be contradicting yourself), but it's too subtle a distinction for me to interpret reliably.
Assuming the problems with that change don't become obvious within the time period. For an example of this happening, look at the problems caused by say no-fault divorce.
Why isn't it the other way around?