= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TheOtherDave 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)
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.
In context its perfectly obvious. The second quote has a implied "eventually".
Don't be silly. On economic matters yes, on cultural and social matters the right has utterly lost except perhaps on the issue of abortion. The very fact that today's debate is about gay marriage (to borrow the issue the OP brought up), should be an indicator of how far to the left 2012 is from 1982 on such issues. How many democrats would have even considered supporting such a notion then?
Mark my words in 2042 conservatives will be defending gay marriage as an integral part of the bedrock of Western civilization.
Thank you for explaining it despite considering it perfectly obvious.
I didn't mean to be rude, so I hope I didn't come of as such. It seemed obvious to me because in the context I was talking about them being "ok with anything" after several decades passing in a tongue-in-cheek sort of way, while in the first one I was describing a proposal I'd like to see implemented right away and how people would currently feel about it.
As to the meaning of the quotation marks in the first one, I put them there because I think conservatives aren't very good at conserving much of anything.
The entire movement he and those like him helped create, has only proven itself capable of standing athwart history and yelling “Retreat!”. The politicians associated with that intellectual group are best characterized as standing behind history, yelling: "Wait! Let my voters catch up!"
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.
To stick with your example I don't think I've seen mainstream conservatives notice anything of the kind. Do keep in mind how I use conservative in this context and how I differentiated them from traditionalists worthy of the name. Now besides the traditionalists and conservatives you have other currents of right wing thought who notice such things, but they are pretty marginalized. A few blogs on the internet focusing and analysing this problem is unfortunately a very minor phenomena unlikely to result in social change.