What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Kepler said:
I can't be expected to hear the voices in your head, Bob.
Click to expand...
It's just hugely ironic that people get bent out of shape over some folks' claimed civil rights, but ignore the same claimed civil rights for other folks who aren't as popular.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Bob Gray said:
It's just hugely ironic that people get bent out of shape over some folks' claimed civil rights, but ignore the same claimed civil rights for other folks who aren't as popular.
Click to expand...

I think your mixing civil rights with something else. Civil rights doesn't mean you get to do whatever the hell you want.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Bob Gray said:
It's just hugely ironic that people get bent out of shape over some folks' claimed civil rights, but ignore the same claimed civil rights for other folks who aren't as popular.
Click to expand...

I'm still really trying to understand what you are getting at here. If polys want to go through the courts and make their case that 3- or 4- or 99-person marriages should be recognized by the state, I'm all for it. I don't think they're going to win, but they're welcome to try. I am sure as sht NOT going to campaign for some Defense of Marriage Act and fulminate that if they win this right they'll "ruin" my marriage.

Do you really not see the difference? I simply must not be explaining what I mean clearly.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Kepler said:
One spouse isn't painful enough?

Plural marriage will be interesting. Like you, I'm too old to get it. Polyamorous couples have been around forever, but if gays are 10% of the population, true lifetime polys are like 1%.

I don't see it as a moral issue, and doing laundry every third week sounds appealing. I dunno.
Click to expand...
Then it's really going to get kinky when one guy decides to do both a hetero and gay marriage. It'll be like one of those swirl cones you can make for yourself at really horrible buffet restaurants.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Kepler said:
I'm still really trying to understand what you are getting at here. If polys want to go through the courts and make their case that 3- or 4- or 99-person marriages should be recognized by the state, I'm all for it. I don't think they're going to win, but they're welcome to try. I am sure as sht not going to campaign for some Defense of Marriage Act and fulminate that if they win this right they'll "ruin" my marriage.

Do you really not see the difference? I simply must not be explaining what I mean clearly.
Click to expand...
No, I really don't. One is going forward, couched as a civil right, because it's popular and supposedly a bedrock civil right and all. The other won't, despite being able to make the same arguments, because it's not popular. For all the supposed civil rights supporters out there, that should be outrageous, but we know we won't hear a peep.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Bob Gray said:
That's the height of irony for you to say that.
Click to expand...

I'm as Libertarian as it gets on the social side and I still am smart enough to know there are certain lines that aren't crossed. Pluralists can go to the courts and make their case if they want. I doubt it flies.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Bob Gray said:
No, I really don't. One is going forward, couched as a civil right, because it's popular and supposedly a bedrock civil right and all. The other won't, despite being able to make the same arguments, because it's not popular. For all the supposed civil rights supporters out there, that should be outrageous, but we know we won't hear a peep.
Click to expand...

Here's a deep, dark secret about civil liberties that nobody is supposed to admit to in public. Ready? Do not share this information; it does not make people happy.

All civil liberties are determined, to some degree, in the political arena.

Even those civil liberties that are deduced from overarching Constitutional principles are indirectly done so, because the interpretation of Constitutional principles is a political process. We have freedom of speech but we can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater. Why? Because enough people think shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is such a bad idea that it should be exempted from the First Amendment.

At the end of the day, it's all a numbers game. Even the things we think are completely non-negotiable are, around the edges, negotiated, and those negotiations aren't abstractly intellectual, they are concretely political.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

ScoobyDoo said:
I'm as Libertarian as it gets on the social side and I still am smart enough to know there are certain lines that aren't crossed. Pluralists can go to the courts and make their case if they want. I doubt it flies.
Click to expand...
Your lines are as arbitrary as everone else's lines these days.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

Kepler said:
Here's a deep, dark secret about civil liberties that nobody is supposed to admit to in public. Ready? Do not share this information; it does not make people happy.

All civil liberties are determined, to some degree, in the political arena.

Even those civil liberties that are deduced from overarching Constitutional principles are indirectly done so, because the interpretation of Constitutional principles is a political process. We have freedom of speech but we can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater. Why? Because enough people think shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is such a bad idea that it should be exempted from the First Amendment.

At the end of the day, it's all a numbers game. Even the things we think are completely non-negotiable are, around the edges, negotiated, and those negotiations aren't abstractly intellectual, they are concretely political.
Click to expand...
Well said.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

St. Clown said:
Lightened laundry duties isn't enough of an incentive to go in for more than one wife. Think of the dangers, what happens if their cycles start to sync? I'm expecting it would be a synergistic effect and would go from a touchy week every month to a hell week every month. No thanks.
Click to expand...

I think you're forgetting that with two wives having their cycles synced, they can now commiserate with EACH OTHER.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

GrinCDXX said:
I think you're forgetting that with two wives having their cycles synced, they can now commiserate with EACH OTHER.
Click to expand...

Two husbands means a 67% chance of getting to watch the game on Friday night rather than a RomCom.

This is beginning to make sense.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

I feel like from a legal perspective multiple wives could potentially become really complicated.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

ScoobyDoo said:
If you say so.

My lines are probably arbitrary because I realize I live in a grey world.
Click to expand...
You just said that there are certain lines that aren't crossed. Now you're saying your lines are arbitrary. You seem rather confused.
 
Re: 2nd Term Part VIII - The Thin Red Line

ScoobyDoo said:
I'm as Libertarian as it gets on the social side and I still am smart enough to know there are certain lines that aren't crossed. Pluralists can go to the courts and make their case if they want. I doubt it flies.
Click to expand...
I don't know. Lot of biblical support for it. Progressives and the "right to marry those of our choice" crowd should be with it. Might be the issue that brings everyone together finally.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top