The hilarious thing to me about y'all talking about eating WaWa is because there was a big "controversy" down here between the two big tabloid "news" programs, who were "trying" to "save" this young boy who was supposedly to be eaten by his "cannibal tribe."
I support gay marriage but I'm not a fan of marriage in general. Does that make me part of the gay agenda's plan to destroy the american family?
Out of curiosity, what do you not like about marriage? I admit it's not for everybody or every relationship, but what is so fundamentally wrong about it, provided that the couple getting married actually are suited to marriage?
It's not that I think it's wrong, its just that I don't like the idea of being with one person for the rest of my life. And if you choose to divorce then you have to go through all that bullshit. Other than a few legal benefits, I think it really just makes it worse when the couple eventually breaks up. Plus there's all those who say that humans weren't meant to be monogamous, and it was much easier when the average human life span was 30-some years.
I'm not really a fan of "marriage" as a legally-binding contract. I don't care if people get married, but we really conflate the legal entity with the interpersonal relationship. I feel like there should be one standard "relationship contract" that any n-number of people can enter into, which covers inheritance, guardianship of minors, visitation rights, power of attorney, and all that jazz.
I'm not really a fan of "marriage" as a legally-binding contract. I don't care if people get married, but we really conflate the legal entity with the interpersonal relationship. I feel like there should be one standard "relationship contract" that any n-number of people can enter into, which covers inheritance, guardianship of minors, visitation rights, power of attorney, and all that jazz.
tl;dr I support civil unions, for everybody.
Personally I consider "marriage" as a word meaning "civil union with religious and/or cultural connotations outside of civil law." As far as I'm concerned, personally, a marriage and a civil union should be viewed as functionally and legally equivalent.
I would rather there was the civil partnership that was recognized by the law and meant that any two adults can designate each other as a "partner" by the legal definition for tax reasons and such, and then marriage, which would not be a legal thing at all and would not recognized by the government. You could get both, but the marriage would not be legally binding. Only the partnership contract you signed for the government would be. So yeah, basically what you said.
I agree with Yoshokatana - the issue with marriage is that it promotes the two-person relationship as the core of the family structure, and so excludes and denigrates relationships with more than two partners and familial structures where more than two people should be designated parents/guardians/heads of the family etc.
At the same time, that would make the tax benefits and stuff crazily complex. You could still do contracts with a bunch of people, but I always thought that the two person thing was kind of like your emergency phone number/co pilot situation. Like, pick one person who can back you up and help you out on things, legal and medical.
I do think that we need to get away from the nuclear family structure. It doesn't work as well once everyone works. Also, having grandparents living nearby/modern tribal situations kinda helps with the whole "isolation of the elderly" problem, and gives them stuff to do in their twilight years.
In a nutshell, I feel that a "civil union" should be the legal, contractual relationship as recognized by government for tax benefits, next of kin, etc., purposes. A marriage is when you add a religious/cultural/traditional aspect on top of the legal civil union.
I do think that we need to get away from the nuclear family structure. It doesn't work as well once everyone works. Also, having grandparents living nearby/modern tribal situations kinda helps with the whole "isolation of the elderly" problem, and gives them stuff to do in their twilight years.
Funny you should mention that, as there is the "grandmother hypothesis" in paleoanthropology. It basically states that menopause, which is more or less unique in human females, evolved in humans so that grandmothers could help in the raising of their grandchildren without worrying about having to care for their own children -- even in the days when we were hunter/gatherers on the savannah.
I don't really like the institution of marriage, but I really, really hate weddings, especially if they have any traditional structure to them whatsoever. It's like a fucking shrine to the most twisted, fucked-up parts of patriarchy. Last time I was at a traditional wedding I spent the whole ordeal actually, physically ill.
I kind of hope the entire construct loses meaning and fades out; the sooner, the better. People are not meant to be bound together by bullshit social obligation; that's what children are for. The entire idea the people are supposed to be exclusive property of one another is completely fucked.
I don't really like the institution of marriage, but I really, really hate weddings, especially if they have any traditional structure to them whatsoever. It's like a fucking shrine to the most twisted, fucked-up parts of patriarchy. Last time I was at a traditional wedding I spent the whole ordeal actually, physically ill.
I kind of hope the entire construct loses meaning and fades out; the sooner, the better. People are not meant to be bound together by bullshit social obligation; that's what children are for. The entire idea the people are supposed to be exclusive property of one another is completely fucked.
That's why we're planning our wedding to be a hike followed by gluttonous consumption of whiskey and the nommiest of noms.
Get rid of all marriage related tax benefits. If two (or more) people want to create a union contract law should be sufficient and no laws should care if a person is in a union or not.
Get rid of all marriage related tax benefits. If two (or more) people want to create a union contract law should be sufficient and no laws should care if a person is in a union or not.
Ignoring the tax stuff, there are other issues, such as power of attorney, next of kin property rights, parental rights if children are involved, social security and other pension death benefits, etc. A civil union (or marriage, if you prefer, but as I said I consider a marriage as only being a civil union with religious and/or cultural connotations added to it) is basically just a convenient and standardized way of wrapping all these contractual issues together in a manner that only costs you at most a couple hundred bucks to visit your local justice of the peace.
Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
Alternate history time. Do you ever wonder if allowing the south to secede from the union may have been better for both sides over the long run? What would both countries look like today?
Alternate history time. Do you ever wonder if allowing the south to secede from the union may have been better for both sides over the long run? What would both countries look like today?
Alternate history time. Do you ever wonder if allowing the south to secede from the union may have been better for both sides over the long run? What would both countries look like today?
I doubt black people, Hispanics, immigrants, American Indians, women, homosexuals, transgendered people, children, or non-property-owners would agree with that assessment.
Alternate history time. Do you ever wonder if allowing the south to secede from the union may have been better for both sides over the long run? What would both countries look like today?
I doubt black people, Hispanics, immigrants, American Indians, women, homosexuals, transgendered people, children, or non-property-owners would agree with that assessment.
I think you may be oversimplifying the situation here. While the North was slave-free, there was also still a fair bit of racism running around at Civil War time and even through fairly recent history. Boston, ashamedly, has quite the history of 20th century racism, for example, although a lot of that seems to have faded somewhat over the past 20 years or so. On the flip side, the South had an agrarian economy that could not keep up with the industrialized North -- and if it had successfully seceded, it probably would've remained purely agrarian far longer than it did in actuality, probably trashing its economy even more.
Comments
tl;dr I support civil unions, for everybody.
I do think that we need to get away from the nuclear family structure. It doesn't work as well once everyone works. Also, having grandparents living nearby/modern tribal situations kinda helps with the whole "isolation of the elderly" problem, and gives them stuff to do in their twilight years.
I kind of hope the entire construct loses meaning and fades out; the sooner, the better. People are not meant to be bound together by bullshit social obligation; that's what children are for. The entire idea the people are supposed to be exclusive property of one another is completely fucked.
2. ctrl+f "Educating our children"
Keep in mind that this is a group saying these things about themselves to make you want to vote for them. Be sure to look at Knowledge-Based Education
Nothing at all new here, especially since it's from 2008, but it's a nice read.