Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

I hope the fucker pays child support.

Well the irony is that he's probably involved with all the kid's upbringing now, as that is the basis of the legal case against him (being married to all their mothers), and if they find him guilty he won't be able to support them.

[scriver]

I hope the fucker pays child support.

Well the irony is that he's probably involved with all the kid's upbringing now, as that is the basis of the legal case against him (being married to all their mothers), and if they find him guilty he won't be able to support them.

Agreed, that is what I was hinting at. I have very, very, little patience foe these kind of religious polygamists.

[Sheb]

I hope the fucker pays child support.

Well the irony is that he's probably involved with all the kid's upbringing now, as that is the basis of the legal case against him (being married to all their mothers), and if they find him guilty he won't be able to support them.

Agreed, that is what I was hinting at. I have very, very, little patience foe these kind of religious polygamists.

But what about the point that if he wasn't married he'd be in the clear? And I don't really want the government to decide who I can or cannot have kid with.

[scriver]

What has that got to do with anything I said? What's legal or not legal is completely irrelevant to my views on patriarchal polygamism.

[TheBiggerFish]

Why do we have such a polygamy taboo even?

[Sheb]

What has that got to do with anything I said? What's legal or not legal is completely irrelevant to my views on patriarchal polygamism.

Oh, I thought you meant something about the legality of the thing or what the legality ought to be. I misunderstood ye then, sorry.

[sluissa]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gET1cyM-G24

Just going to leave that there. Speaks for itself.

[scriver]

Why do we have such a polygamy taboo even?

Because people treating other people like objects they can own is a bad thing.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Why do we have such a polygamy taboo even?

The visceral and anthropological reason it disgusts a lot of people from primarily monogamous societies is probably largely based in sex selection and notions of "cheating" (not on a partner but cheating the social contract, like stealing an unfair portion of a communal food source for your own children but but barring those of other people). Women dislike it because they and their children have to share the resources of a small number of men divided between many women and children, men dislike it because most of them end up deprived of resources and of potential partners. Only the minority of successful men like it, and so it's probable that culture will turn against them on an anthropological timescale. This undergoes collapse rapidly if it reaches the logical cult-style extreme, of one powerful man with all of the community's women and a bunch of other men basically around for labor. Even powerful men have to sleep eventually...

That said, there is a gradient here as with all human social structures. Most cultures contain non-monogamous elements. You've got the technical endorsement of polygamy in Islam, which mitigates the above problem by directly connecting the number of wives you're allowed to have to your resources, so the resource split is less egregious for those experiencing it and a lot of people are just monogamous. You've got various degrees of tolerance of prostitution and mistresses formal or informal, like in France and China, which emphasize duty to one monogamous family but permits deviation "on the side" so long as that obligation is fulfilled. There are places without a strong concept of "fidelity", that basically solves it, though to be sustainable it ties all the community's resources together and ensures that if there's a general failure everybody will die instead of just the poor (I suspect this has something to do with why it's not common). Places with slavery typically developed entire codes about what to do with the children of slaves and free people. I'm probably forgetting something obvious, but it reaches a lot of ends that people don't even think of as "polygamy".

Of course, we in our modern time also have the polyamory movement, which is a bit different since good contraception disconnects the basic reason why you always have one man/many women instead of one woman/many men.

[Playergamer]

somebody up there was talking about how "gamers are more on the left" and "the right is harder on video games"

remember gamergate? i'm not saying that the "five guys" theory was correct, or that the harassment was justified...but there were a lot of media sources calling out gamers for being sexists. whether they are is irrelevant; the point is that the gaming community, especially in multiplayer communal games, definitely seems to tilt to the right. i mean, look at all the complaints about "shoehorned diversity" and "propaganda" etc.

note: i'm one of those people who complains about liberal propaganda and shoehorned diversity.

[Zangi]

Way I see it, its fine if the feller(s) could meet the 2 conditions:
Provide adequately for all their women and children.  (Though in modern society, women can also take part in the providing.)
The women willingly do the thing without any sort of threat or intimidation behind that decision.  Also full disclosure.

Though, one must question if the guy is adequately providing their share for the +140some kids.  Even then, jail time will make it worse in the end.

[Frumple]

Though even he ain't, the thing is we (western cultures in general) don't tend to particularly care until it stops being merely inadequate and starts being fairly egregious. Otherwise we'd be taking away kids below the poverty line left right and center and throwing their parents in the clink. Which we don't, mostly. If they're managing at least as well as a slum family barely not starving to death, either they should get a by or the slum folk shouldn't. Otherwise what you're trying to do has jack all to do with the kids and you should keep 'em out of the argument, heh.

Legally, there shouldn't be a problem re: multi-person marriage unless and until the folks involved start trying to wring tax and/or legal benefits out of it. Most of the practical reason many western courts don't provide a system for polyamourous relationships is because the legal and taxation issues involved are a complete fucking mess, and way more effort involved to work with than anyone particularly cares to invest. Divorce and guardianship hearings and whatnot are trouble enough with just two people involved, heh. Which is pretty much entirely an economic issue, with the interpersonal aspect (whether "just" a ceremony counts as a marriage or not -- it does, but not legally, which means sod all so far as religious or personal convictions or whatev' goes) being more or less entirely separate save for the issues that arise because of the economic entanglements.

[Sheb]

Most of the practical reason many western courts don't provide a system for polyamourous relationships is because the legal and taxation issues involved are a complete fucking mess, and way more effort involved to work with than anyone particularly cares to invest.

While those are the practical reasons, I think you're underestimating the yuck factor and the fact that people seems uncomfortable with polygamy.

[sluissa]

So this happened, apparently.

Condensed in tweet form.

“The Section 1557 regulation has been literally life-saving for transgender people all across the country, who are routinely turned away from emergency rooms and doctors’ offices and refused coverage for critical medical care. Now, the Trump administration is going after transgender people yet again and trying to take away these basic protections,” National Center for Transgender Equality Executive Director Mara Keisling said in a statement.

But he held a flag once, so he's an ally! Who cares if he occasionally decides to return to the days where trans people were just left to die, amirite?

Links are the same.

Also while mildly worrying, nothing I see there is worth any of the dramatic uproar that article shoves upon it until we see more details. Emergency rooms turning away patients needing critical medical care for ANY reason is a very good way to get their butts sued. In the end we really need more details as to what's going on and what the new rules, if any, are they are trying to push.

[scriver]

Aren't hospitals in the US required to provide emergency care to everyone in need of it?

Edit: never mind, after opening the article I got that it was health care in general. My too quick reading of the quote made me think it was just related to emergency care at first.