introduction

[Shiva Rodriguez]

Greetings everyone.

I'm a 31 year old female, sharing a home with both my legal husband and my
"illegitimate spouse" (his words). Although my current arrangement is a
little over a year into its existance, I've never believed in monogamy for
myself and usually have at least one acknowledged lover asides from my
husband at any given time.

I'm also strongly opposed to the morality laws (mainly USA) that govern our
private lives on subjects that do not infringe upon any civil rights.
Namely, polygamy and gay marriage laws, as well as a few sex-related vice
laws that forbid activities between consenting adults.

Recently, I've been speaking with people in the legal field, none of whom
can give me a good excuse as to why polygamy and the like are illegal. All
answers have been either religious in nature or simply out-dated (paternity
insurance, etc...)

However, they all agree that premeditated murder will be legalized before
polygamy is here in the States.

I am certainly interested in hearing from people who are also of the mind to
combat such governing of morality, and/or the obvious influence of religion
that promotes these laws. Recent results on various surveys showing favor
towards gay marriage leads me to believe that such change is not a hopeless
pipe dream.

Sincerely,

Shiva Rodriguez
www.darkneedles.com
www.sataniclust.com

[Kris Hasson-Jones]

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 01:07:52 GMT, "Shiva Rodriguez"

Post by Shiva Rodriguez
Greetings everyone.

Howdy, and welcome to alt.poly.

Post by Shiva Rodriguez
Recently, I've been speaking with people in the legal field, none of whom
can give me a good excuse as to why polygamy and the like are illegal. All
answers have been either religious in nature or simply out-dated (paternity
insurance, etc...)

What would you accept as a good excuse? Or rather, *reason*, since I
think there might be reasons that are good, not just excuses.

For example, one possible cost of restructuring current government
control of marriage would be rewriting the tax code. We can discuss
whether in the long run that's a good idea or a bad one, but it would
(either way) cost a lot of money.

Post by Shiva Rodriguez
I am certainly interested in hearing from people who are also of the mind to
combat such governing of morality, and/or the obvious influence of religion
that promotes these laws. Recent results on various surveys showing favor
towards gay marriage leads me to believe that such change is not a hopeless
pipe dream.

I would like to get government out of the marriage business, and
substitute for it a system of negotiated contracts that could be
enforced by civil suit.

But then, I'd like a lot of things that are unlikely.

[Shiva Rodriguez]

Post by Kris Hasson-Jones
What would you accept as a good excuse? Or rather, *reason*, since I
think there might be reasons that are good, not just excuses.

Considering that the ideals that the country was founded on (and granted, I
realise this has become merely lip service as the generations unfold) the
basic civil rights of Life, Liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Now if someone could please tell me how some of these moral-based laws
infringe upon another person's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness... I'd
be inclined to listen.

Post by Kris Hasson-Jones
For example, one possible cost of restructuring current government
control of marriage would be rewriting the tax code. We can discuss
whether in the long run that's a good idea or a bad one, but it would
(either way) cost a lot of money.

As opposed to the constant re-writes and modifications they do every year?
I'm sure if the government worked on it, they'd figure out a way to make
back any money they'd spend on it.

Personally, I find fault in the practice of rewarding marriage with tax
breaks and basically punishing the unmarried with higher taxes.

Since I'm pretty sure that won't be changing anytime soon, I'd love to see
people who basically live as married (though cannot be legally so) enjoy the
same benefits for conducting themselves in the same manner.

-Shiva
www.darkneedles.com
www.sataniclust.com

[Mean Green Dancing Machine]

Post by Shiva Rodriguez
Personally, I find fault in the practice of rewarding marriage with tax
breaks and basically punishing the unmarried with higher taxes.

Note that WRT income tax it's not marriage that's rewarded so much as
single-income marriage. Which is even worse.

ObJennie: BTW, this is an international newsgroup; I'm not sure to what
extent this applies to countries other than the US.

[ChickPea]

In alt.polyamory, ***@pobox.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine) (Mean Green
Dancing Machine) wrote in <buaf5o$72a$***@panix1.panix.com>::

|In article <C02Ob.30041$***@twister.tampabay.rr.com>,
|Shiva Rodriguez <***@artisticdevil.com> wrote:
|>
|>Personally, I find fault in the practice of rewarding marriage with tax
|>breaks and basically punishing the unmarried with higher taxes.
|
|Note that WRT income tax it's not marriage that's rewarded so much as
|single-income marriage. Which is even worse.
|
|ObJennie: BTW, this is an international newsgroup; I'm not sure to what
|extent this applies to countries other than the US.

Similar (though not identical) considerations apply. In the UK, a married
couple used to be taxed as a single entity- there was a higher tax
allowance, but it was not 2x the single tax allowance, so it made economic
sense *not* to marry if you were both earning[1]. That was abolished some
time ago[2], but there are still differences in the way that married and
unmarried couples are treated- most notably on inheritance: there is no tax
due on an estate passing to a surviving legal spouse, but it's more complex
with us sinners.

[1] The religious right (yeah, we have them here too) used to complain
bitterly about this, saying that the Inland Revenue sponsored immorality.
[2] If it hadn't been, they would have to bin it now, due to the UK
ratifying the European Convention on Human Rights, which would almost
certainly require it to be struck down.

[umarc]

Post by Shiva Rodriguez
Considering that the ideals that the country was founded on (and granted, I
realise this has become merely lip service as the generations unfold) the
basic civil rights of Life, Liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

And what country would that be?


umar

[Kris Hasson-Jones]

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 03:31:46 GMT, "Shiva Rodriguez"

Post by Shiva Rodriguez

Post by Kris Hasson-Jones
What would you accept as a good excuse? Or rather, *reason*, since I
think there might be reasons that are good, not just excuses.

Considering that the ideals that the country was founded on (and granted, I
realise this has become merely lip service as the generations unfold)

I disagree strongly.

Post by Shiva Rodriguez
the
basic civil rights of Life, Liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
Now if someone could please tell me how some of these moral-based laws
infringe upon another person's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness... I'd
be inclined to listen.

Those are hardly the *only* ideals on which this country was founded;
those are just some of the rights the Founders wanted to protect.
What about forming a more perfect union, provide for the common
defense, and protecting the general welfare? It could be argued that
keeping marriage the way it is protects the general welfare--we know
how it works, we don't know all the consequences of changing it (and
unintended consequences are often bad).

Post by Shiva Rodriguez
Personally, I find fault in the practice of rewarding marriage with tax
breaks and basically punishing the unmarried with higher taxes.

How strange; what country are you talking about? I got married five
years ago (almost), and we pay about $3,000 more a year in taxes than
we did as individual filers.

You must be thinking of traditional couples, where one partner is not
employed for money and the other is. My husband and I both work for
pay.

[Mean Green Dancing Machine]

Post by Kris Hasson-Jones
How strange; what country are you talking about? I got married five
years ago (almost), and we pay about $3,000 more a year in taxes than
we did as individual filers.

Note that you're talking strictly about income tax; there are other
taxes (and governmental benefits) that apply differently to married
couples. Many of those have to do with death, though. (Again, this is
US-only.)

[umarc]

Post by Kris Hasson-Jones
Those are hardly the *only* ideals on which this country was founded;
those are just some of the rights the Founders wanted to protect.
What about forming a more perfect union, provide for the common
defense, and protecting the general welfare?

For those of you unfamiliar with U.S. history, Shiva takes the words
"life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" from the U.S. declaration
of independence of 1776 written by Thomas Jefferson, who might be
described as a proto-libertarian. Kris is quoting from the preamble
to the U.S. constitution of 1787, written by a conservative (probably
James Madison or Alexander Hamilton).

To add to the irony, Jefferson was a slaveholder who kept at least one
concubine, if the results of recent DNA tests on some of her descendants
are right.

I may be wrong, but I don't think states kept track of marriages in
Jefferson's, Madison's, or Hamilton's time. I think all of them
probably saw marriage as something to be sanctioned more by churches
than by states (but I can't cite chapter and verse on that, so maybe
I'm wrong).


umar

[songbird]

umarc wrote:
...

Post by umarc
I may be wrong, but I don't think states kept track of marriages in
Jefferson's, Madison's, or Hamilton's time. I think all of them
probably saw marriage as something to be sanctioned more by churches
than by states (but I can't cite chapter and verse on that, so maybe
I'm wrong).

what information did the first USoA census have in it?


songbird *peep*

[Cally Soukup]

Post by songbird
....

Post by umarc
I may be wrong, but I don't think states kept track of marriages in
Jefferson's, Madison's, or Hamilton's time. I think all of them
probably saw marriage as something to be sanctioned more by churches
than by states (but I can't cite chapter and verse on that, so maybe
I'm wrong).

what information did the first USoA census have in it?

According to
<http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/censusbin/census/cen.pl?year=790>

Number of white males 16 and over
Number of white males under 16
Number of white females
Number of all other free persons
Number of slaves
Number of people within families (up to 11), then "11 or more"
Ancestry broken down into [English and Welsh], Scotch, Irish, Dutch,
French, German, Hebrew, and Other
Whether the family was slaveholding, and if so, how many slaves: 1,
2-4, 5-9, 10-19, 20-49, 50-99, 100-199, 200-299, 300+, and "unknown
number".

I don't know how digested the data is; I presume the original data
would have had a precise number of slaves, for instance, rather than
the ranges given here.

[Maureen]

Post by Cally Soukup

Post by songbird
....

Post by umarc
I may be wrong, but I don't think states kept track of marriages in
Jefferson's, Madison's, or Hamilton's time. I think all of them
probably saw marriage as something to be sanctioned more by churches
than by states (but I can't cite chapter and verse on that, so maybe
I'm wrong).

what information did the first USoA census have in it?

According to
<http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/censusbin/census/cen.pl?year=790>
Number of white males 16 and over
Number of white males under 16
Number of white females
Number of all other free persons
Number of slaves
Number of people within families (up to 11), then "11 or more"
Ancestry broken down into [English and Welsh], Scotch, Irish, Dutch,
French, German, Hebrew, and Other
Whether the family was slaveholding, and if so, how many slaves: 1,
2-4, 5-9, 10-19, 20-49, 50-99, 100-199, 200-299, 300+, and "unknown
number".
I don't know how digested the data is; I presume the original data
would have had a precise number of slaves, for instance, rather than
the ranges given here.

The 1790 federal census had the head of household name, the rest were
tic marks under the proper catagory.

Marriages have been tracked/registered in the USA since the white people
got here and had *any* government. I have ancestors that arrived in
1620 and I have marriage information. I have one who divorced in
1660something.

Maureen

[songbird]

Post by Cally Soukup

Post by songbird

Post by umarc
I may be wrong, but I don't think states kept track of marriages in
Jefferson's, Madison's, or Hamilton's time. I think all of them
probably saw marriage as something to be sanctioned more by churches
than by states (but I can't cite chapter and verse on that, so maybe
I'm wrong).

what information did the first USoA census have in it?

According to
<http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/censusbin/census/cen.pl?year=790>
Number of white males 16 and over
Number of white males under 16
Number of white females
Number of all other free persons
Number of slaves
Number of people within families (up to 11), then "11 or more"
Ancestry broken down into [English and Welsh], Scotch, Irish, Dutch,
French, German, Hebrew, and Other
Whether the family was slaveholding, and if so, how many slaves: 1,
2-4, 5-9, 10-19, 20-49, 50-99, 100-199, 200-299, 300+, and "unknown
number".

i went and looked, but i didn't get down to the point of an
individual record that i'd have liked to be able to see.

thank you for the link Cally. :)

Post by Cally Soukup
I don't know how digested the data is; I presume the original data
would have had a precise number of slaves, for instance, rather than
the ranges given here.

i'd like to see the original forms in scanned versions...


songbird (what? what?! me hard to please? nonsense. :)

[Dale Hurliman]

Post by Kris Hasson-Jones
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 03:31:46 GMT, "Shiva Rodriguez"

Post by Shiva Rodriguez

Post by Kris Hasson-Jones
What would you accept as a good excuse? Or rather, *reason*, since I
think there might be reasons that are good, not just excuses.

Considering that the ideals that the country was founded on (and granted, I
realise this has become merely lip service as the generations unfold)

I disagree strongly.

Post by Shiva Rodriguez
the
basic civil rights of Life, Liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
Now if someone could please tell me how some of these moral-based laws
infringe upon another person's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness... I'd
be inclined to listen.

Those are hardly the *only* ideals on which this country was founded;
those are just some of the rights the Founders wanted to protect.
What about forming a more perfect union, provide for the common
defense, and protecting the general welfare? It could be argued that
keeping marriage the way it is protects the general welfare--we know
how it works, we don't know all the consequences of changing it (and
unintended consequences are often bad).

And what about the right for settlers to kill "Indians" and steal their
land? (Opposition to The Quebec Act was a big motivation for some for
breaking from England.) And what about the right to keep slaves? For
colonies from Maryland south considered this a big point.
"Protecting the general welfare" has always sounded like sugar coating
to me.

Post by Kris Hasson-Jones

Post by Shiva Rodriguez
Personally, I find fault in the practice of rewarding marriage with tax
breaks and basically punishing the unmarried with higher taxes.

How strange; what country are you talking about? I got married five
years ago (almost), and we pay about $3,000 more a year in taxes than
we did as individual filers.
You must be thinking of traditional couples, where one partner is not
employed for money and the other is. My husband and I both work for
pay.

[Norm]

Post by Shiva Rodriguez
Personally, I find fault in the practice of rewarding marriage with tax
breaks and basically punishing the unmarried with higher taxes.

In the U.S. tax code? Then what about all the fuss over the
marriage penalty?

[Ryk]

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 03:31:46 GMT, in message

Post by Shiva Rodriguez

Post by Kris Hasson-Jones
What would you accept as a good excuse? Or rather, *reason*, since I
think there might be reasons that are good, not just excuses.

Considering that the ideals that the country was founded on (and granted, I
realise this has become merely lip service as the generations unfold) the
basic civil rights of Life, Liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
Now if someone could please tell me how some of these moral-based laws
infringe upon another person's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness... I'd
be inclined to listen.

Trust me, there are a lot of people who would be made very unhappy if
the law permitted multiple marriage. ;-)

The original reasons for outlawing polygamy were based on legally
enforcing dominant moral codes, a practice no longer so much in vogue.

The current arguments for maintain multiple marriage as a crime are
based on the two most commonly envisioned models:

The double-life, lying, male bigamist
and
The rigid, patriarchal, fundamentalist polygamy that includes
limitations of the rights of women and the coercion of young women
into marriages to older, previously married men.

While both of those models are negative, the arguments against
polygamy make the unsupported leap that the deceit, degradation, and
coercion are a consequence of polygamy, rather than simply being
correlated with it.

This sort of sloppy thinking is hardly unusual. It also shows up when
debates about the right to marry almost immediately get bogged down in
issues of insurance, benefits, and taxes, none of which are inherently
related to marriage.

Ryk

[Laura Elizabeth Back]

Post by Ryk
The original reasons for outlawing polygamy were based on legally
enforcing dominant moral codes, a practice no longer so much in vogue.

Ha. As far as I can tell, that practice is still very much in vogue in
many parts of the US, among both voters and governing officials. Perhaps
you're forgetting that this is an international newsgroup? ;-)

[Pat Kight]

Post by Laura Elizabeth Back

Post by Ryk
The original reasons for outlawing polygamy were based on legally
enforcing dominant moral codes, a practice no longer so much in vogue.

Ha. As far as I can tell, that practice is still very much in vogue in
many parts of the US, among both voters and governing officials. Perhaps
you're forgetting that this is an international newsgroup? ;-)

In practice, perhaps, but nonetheless illegal.

[Laura Elizabeth Back]

Post by Pat Kight

Post by Laura Elizabeth Back

Post by Ryk
The original reasons for outlawing polygamy were based on legally
enforcing dominant moral codes, a practice no longer so much in vogue.

Ha. As far as I can tell, that practice is still very much in vogue in
many parts of the US, among both voters and governing officials. Perhaps
you're forgetting that this is an international newsgroup? ;-)

In practice, perhaps, but nonetheless illegal.

I don't think the question of "legality" is anywhere near as clear-cut as
you seem to suggest. The US Supreme Court's Lawrence v. Texas decision
certainly contains some language to support your claim, but the scope of
that bit of the decision really hasn't been established, and I can't think
of any other authoritative source on the point.[0] What am I missing?

[0] Well, unless one wants to claim that the bits of the US Constitution
relied on in the aforementioned decision are themselves sufficient, but
they're at least not terribly explicit about it.

[Pat Kight]

Post by Laura Elizabeth Back

Post by Pat Kight

Post by Laura Elizabeth Back

Post by Ryk
The original reasons for outlawing polygamy were based on legally
enforcing dominant moral codes, a practice no longer so much in vogue.

Ha. As far as I can tell, that practice is still very much in vogue in
many parts of the US, among both voters and governing officials. Perhaps
you're forgetting that this is an international newsgroup? ;-)

In practice, perhaps, but nonetheless illegal.

I don't think the question of "legality" is anywhere near as clear-cut as
you seem to suggest. The US Supreme Court's Lawrence v. Texas decision
certainly contains some language to support your claim, but the scope of
that bit of the decision really hasn't been established, and I can't think
of any other authoritative source on the point.[0] What am I missing?
[0] Well, unless one wants to claim that the bits of the US Constitution
relied on in the aforementioned decision are themselves sufficient, but
they're at least not terribly explicit about it.

I'm recovering from a colonoscopy this afternoon and too fuzzy-headed to
search, but I'm pretty sure most states have laws forbidding bigamy, which
by extension have been used against polygamists. I can't tell you whether
they've been challenged as far as SCOTUS, however.

[Laura Elizabeth Back]

Post by Pat Kight

Post by Laura Elizabeth Back

Post by Pat Kight

Post by Laura Elizabeth Back

Post by Ryk
The original reasons for outlawing polygamy were based on legally
enforcing dominant moral codes, a practice no longer so much in vogue.

Ha. As far as I can tell, that practice is still very much in vogue in
many parts of the US, among both voters and governing officials. Perhaps
you're forgetting that this is an international newsgroup? ;-)

In practice, perhaps, but nonetheless illegal.

I don't think the question of "legality" is anywhere near as clear-cut as
you seem to suggest. The US Supreme Court's Lawrence v. Texas decision
certainly contains some language to support your claim, but the scope of
that bit of the decision really hasn't been established, and I can't think
of any other authoritative source on the point.[0] What am I missing?
[0] Well, unless one wants to claim that the bits of the US Constitution
relied on in the aforementioned decision are themselves sufficient, but
they're at least not terribly explicit about it.

I'm recovering from a colonoscopy this afternoon and too fuzzy-headed to
search, but I'm pretty sure most states have laws forbidding bigamy, which
by extension have been used against polygamists. I can't tell you whether
they've been challenged as far as SCOTUS, however.

Aha. I believe we have misunderstood each other and are in fact in
agreement. :-)

I read Ryk as saying that the practice of legally enforcing dominant moral
codes was no longer in vogue, and meant to be saying that that practice
(legally enforcing dominant moral codes) is still in vogue in much of the
country where I live. So I read you as saying that the same practice
(legally enforcing dominant moral codes) was itself illegal, even if still
practiced by various governments.

Which is, frankly, how I'd love to read Lawrence v. Texas (and thus
proceed to strike down all the various legislation that exists purely for
the sake of enforcing a moral code), but I don't think it's at all clear
that we're there yet.

Anyway, I hope the recovery is proceeding well, and that the results are
favorable!

[Pat Kight]

Post by Laura Elizabeth Back

Post by Pat Kight

Post by Laura Elizabeth Back

Post by Pat Kight

Post by Laura Elizabeth Back

Post by Ryk
The original reasons for outlawing polygamy were based on legally
enforcing dominant moral codes, a practice no longer so much in vogue.

Ha. As far as I can tell, that practice is still very much in vogue in
many parts of the US, among both voters and governing officials. Perhaps
you're forgetting that this is an international newsgroup? ;-)

In practice, perhaps, but nonetheless illegal.

I don't think the question of "legality" is anywhere near as clear-cut as
you seem to suggest. The US Supreme Court's Lawrence v. Texas decision
certainly contains some language to support your claim, but the scope of
that bit of the decision really hasn't been established, and I can't think
of any other authoritative source on the point.[0] What am I missing?
[0] Well, unless one wants to claim that the bits of the US Constitution
relied on in the aforementioned decision are themselves sufficient, but
they're at least not terribly explicit about it.

I'm recovering from a colonoscopy this afternoon and too fuzzy-headed to
search, but I'm pretty sure most states have laws forbidding bigamy, which
by extension have been used against polygamists. I can't tell you whether
they've been challenged as far as SCOTUS, however.

Aha. I believe we have misunderstood each other and are in fact in
agreement. :-)
I read Ryk as saying that the practice of legally enforcing dominant moral
codes was no longer in vogue, and meant to be saying that that practice
(legally enforcing dominant moral codes) is still in vogue in much of the
country where I live. So I read you as saying that the same practice
(legally enforcing dominant moral codes) was itself illegal, even if still
practiced by various governments.

That'll teach me to post under the after-effects of Happy Surgery Drugs. (-;

I read you to be saying the practice of *polygamy* was still very common.

Reading back over the exchange, you were, of course, the one who was being
perfectly clear. My apologies for the misreading.

Post by Laura Elizabeth Back
Anyway, I hope the recovery is proceeding well, and that the results are
favorable!

All seems well, the drugs have worn off and the only after-effects are
hunger, rather prodigious flatulence and a big bruise on the back of my
right hand (the nurse had a little trouble getting the IV needle in.)

I can attest (and have done in probably too much detail in my LiveJournal)
that the procedure is a lot easier than I'd been lead to fear. Two people -
a friend and the father of another friend - in my life died this past year
of colorectal cancer, and I'm Of An Age, so it seemed like the right thing
to do.

[songbird]

...

Post by Pat Kight

Post by Laura Elizabeth Back
Anyway, I hope the recovery is proceeding well, and that the results are
favorable!

All seems well, the drugs have worn off and the only after-effects are
hunger, rather prodigious flatulence and a big bruise on the back of my
right hand (the nurse had a little trouble getting the IV needle in.)
I can attest (and have done in probably too much detail in my LiveJournal)
that the procedure is a lot easier than I'd been lead to fear. Two people -
a friend and the father of another friend - in my life died this past year
of colorectal cancer, and I'm Of An Age, so it seemed like the right thing
to do.

it's not something i'm looking forwards to. i keep hoping that
the non-invasive versions will be coming up to speed soon.

a speedy recovery,


songbird *peep*

[Ryk]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 07:58:50 +0000 (UTC), in message

Post by Laura Elizabeth Back

Post by Ryk
The original reasons for outlawing polygamy were based on legally
enforcing dominant moral codes, a practice no longer so much in vogue.

I read Ryk as saying that the practice of legally enforcing dominant moral
codes was no longer in vogue, and meant to be saying that that practice
(legally enforcing dominant moral codes) is still in vogue in much of the
country where I live.

Perhaps you missed the words "so much". I think that in most of the
western world, including most parts of the US, there is significant,
vocal opposition to such legal enforcement, something that wasn't true
a century or so ago.

Ryk

[barbara trumpinski-roberts]

Post by Pat Kight
I'm recovering from a colonoscopy this afternoon and too fuzzy-headed to
search, but I'm pretty sure most states have laws forbidding bigamy, which
by extension have been used against polygamists. I can't tell you whether
they've been challenged as far as SCOTUS, however.

i'm sorry....that is not fun, but better than needing one and not having it
(that didn't come out right, but you KNOW what i mean....)

love and hugs,

kitten

[Jim Roberts]

I'm having one in a couple of weeks. Gimli son of Gloin will perform
the procedure, and Arwen will bear witness. They dope you up so much,
you may doubt your own identity.

Responsible colonoscopies that I get now are such a relief from my my
excruciating experience at the UCLA Hospital in 1982, where I had only
an extremely irritating rash on my butt that wouldn't go away with
prescription salves; they gave me an empyting drug that made me want to
die for about 6 hours (I have IBS), heard all over the Santa Monica
neighborhood, then they put me on a parrot perch and took a biopsy of my
butt. When it turned out that I did not have the rare form of cancer
that was the subject of the doctor's research, I was dismissed with no
help for my original complaint.

Be sure you are not seeing a research doctor. I use Noxzema on my butt
with great success.

Sorry to be so personal, but it means a lot to me.

jimbat

Post by barbara trumpinski-roberts

Post by Pat Kight
I'm recovering from a colonoscopy this afternoon and too fuzzy-headed to
search, but I'm pretty sure most states have laws forbidding bigamy, which
by extension have been used against polygamists. I can't tell you whether
they've been challenged as far as SCOTUS, however.

i'm sorry....that is not fun, but better than needing one and not having it
(that didn't come out right, but you KNOW what i mean....)
love and hugs,
kitten

[Steve Pope]

Post by Kris Hasson-Jones
For example, one possible cost of restructuring current government
control of marriage would be rewriting the tax code. We can discuss
whether in the long run that's a good idea or a bad one, but it would
(either way) cost a lot of money.

From a U.S. perspective, I disagree it would cost money; the
changes to the tax code could (and probably would, in this
scenario) be made "revenue neutral" -- e.g. the new single tax
rate would be chosen to be at an intermediate point between the
current single and married tax rates, so that on average the same
amount of tax is collected.

Post by Kris Hasson-Jones
I would like to get government out of the marriage business,

Agreed

Post by Kris Hasson-Jones
and substitute for it a system of negotiated contracts that
could be enforced by civil suit.

It'd be nice if "family law" was not a separate area of the
legal setup. People should, legally, be individuals, their
rights and liabilities not affected by marriage or other
family relationships.

Just my opinion.

Steve

[Pat Kight]

Post by Steve Pope

Post by Kris Hasson-Jones
For example, one possible cost of restructuring current government
control of marriage would be rewriting the tax code. We can discuss
whether in the long run that's a good idea or a bad one, but it would
(either way) cost a lot of money.

From a U.S. perspective, I disagree it would cost money; the
changes to the tax code could (and probably would, in this
scenario) be made "revenue neutral" -- e.g. the new single tax
rate would be chosen to be at an intermediate point between the
current single and married tax rates, so that on average the same
amount of tax is collected.

I could be wrong, but my impression was that Kris was talking about the
bureaucratic costs of writing the revisions, not the results of the
rewrite. Regardless of how the outcome would affect revenues, that's likely
to be substantial, even if it's only a one-time cost. Not in the
billions-of-dollars range, I suspect, but the cost of reprinting all those
forms and instructions isn't trivial.

Post by Steve Pope

Post by Kris Hasson-Jones
I would like to get government out of the marriage business,

Agreed

I'd be happy if the civil aspects of marriage and the religious ones, both
of which are meaningful to some people, could simply be divided. I think
there's still a place for the contractual side of marriage, if only to
protect the various parties' interests. I see no reason why it needs to be
a contract between just two people, however.

[Ryk]

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 23:36:08 -0800, in message

Post by Pat Kight
I'd be happy if the civil aspects of marriage and the religious ones, both
of which are meaningful to some people, could simply be divided. I think
there's still a place for the contractual side of marriage, if only to
protect the various parties' interests. I see no reason why it needs to be
a contract between just two people, however.

There's no reason it needs to be between just two people, but
increasing the number even just to three vastly increases the degree
of complexity beyond the supposed "one size fits all" rules for
marriage.

Ryk

[umarc]

Post by Steve Pope
It'd be nice if "family law" was not a separate area of the
legal setup. People should, legally, be individuals, their
rights and liabilities not affected by marriage or other
family relationships.

I agree, but I think the law should allow them to form something
like a family corporation, if they chose, that could hold
property, pay taxes, and have custody of children.

The Roman Catholic Church in Massachusetts is pushing for a state
constitutional amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman.
That really has me ticked off; why do these people think they have
the right to tell non-Catholics who they may or may not marry?


umar

[Ailbhe]

Post by umarc

Post by Steve Pope
It'd be nice if "family law" was not a separate area of the
legal setup. People should, legally, be individuals, their
rights and liabilities not affected by marriage or other
family relationships.

I agree, but I think the law should allow them to form something
like a family corporation, if they chose, that could hold
property, pay taxes, and have custody of children.

I definitely think that there needs to be strong legal somethingorother
ensuring that biological parenthood is not a no-consequences deal,
for starters, and that people can't just up and abandon children
uncared for, even if they're not biological parents - step-parents of n
time-units' standing, for example.

Post by umarc
The Roman Catholic Church in Massachusetts is pushing for a state
constitutional amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman.
That really has me ticked off; why do these people think they have
the right to tell non-Catholics who they may or may not marry?

I think it's the "every time you fall in love, my marriage cracks a
little" theory of relationship maintenance.

A.

[Mean Green Dancing Machine]

Post by Ailbhe
I definitely think that there needs to be strong legal somethingorother
ensuring that biological parenthood is not a no-consequences deal,
for starters, and that people can't just up and abandon children
uncared for, even if they're not biological parents - step-parents of n
time-units' standing, for example.

While I agree with this, I've found that this kind of phrasing is
usually code for, "Punish people for having sex by forcing them to take
responsibility for kids." I believe that if people pre-negotiate that
they're not going to have kids, getting pregnant does not constitute
abrogation of the agreement.

[Pat Kight]

Post by Mean Green Dancing Machine

Post by Ailbhe
I definitely think that there needs to be strong legal somethingorother
ensuring that biological parenthood is not a no-consequences deal,
for starters, and that people can't just up and abandon children
uncared for, even if they're not biological parents - step-parents of n
time-units' standing, for example.

While I agree with this, I've found that this kind of phrasing is
usually code for, "Punish people for having sex by forcing them to take
responsibility for kids." I believe that if people pre-negotiate that
they're not going to have kids, getting pregnant does not constitute
abrogation of the agreement.

So, if the female partner in the conception is the one with the strongest
"I'm not going to have kids" ethic, the agreement takes precedence over the
circumstances and she doesn't have to deal with the consequences?

[Ailbhe]

Post by Pat Kight

Post by Mean Green Dancing Machine

Post by Ailbhe
I definitely think that there needs to be strong legal somethingorother
ensuring that biological parenthood is not a no-consequences deal,
for starters, and that people can't just up and abandon children
uncared for, even if they're not biological parents - step-parents of n
time-units' standing, for example.

While I agree with this, I've found that this kind of phrasing is
usually code for, "Punish people for having sex by forcing them to take
responsibility for kids." I believe that if people pre-negotiate that
they're not going to have kids, getting pregnant does not constitute
abrogation of the agreement.

So, if the female partner in the conception is the one with the strongest
"I'm not going to have kids" ethic, the agreement takes precedence over the
circumstances and she doesn't have to deal with the consequences?

And in my next dream, I'm going to have a pony. With wings.

A.

[umarc]

Post by Pat Kight

Post by Mean Green Dancing Machine
While I agree with this, I've found that this kind of phrasing is
usually code for, "Punish people for having sex by forcing them to take
responsibility for kids." I believe that if people pre-negotiate that
they're not going to have kids, getting pregnant does not constitute
abrogation of the agreement.

So, if the female partner in the conception is the one with the strongest
"I'm not going to have kids" ethic, the agreement takes precedence over the
circumstances and she doesn't have to deal with the consequences?

It seems to me that agreeing not to get pregnant is a bit like
agreeing not to become ill. However much one strives to prevent
them, these things have a way of happening. A practical agreement,
it seems to me, ought to anticipate the possibility of pregnancy
and spell out the obligations of each party in the event it
happens.

But I have never made anyone pregnant and cannot get pregnant
myself, so I am speaking out of ignorance.


umar

[Jim Roberts]

As usual MGDM makes little sense. Let her be green. I've looked about
my body but find only two places now with any green. This was not true
a month ago. I took my frantic dog out at 5 am (if I can have a frantic
need for the bathroom, so can he, I think). He yanked me across a patch
of black ice and I almost died. I did get the most spectacular bruise on
my ulna saving my head from the curb, at least a liter of internal
bleeding; my whole left arm went red, then black. The lump on the ulna
will never go away.

jimbat

Post by umarc

Post by Pat Kight

Post by Mean Green Dancing Machine
While I agree with this, I've found that this kind of phrasing is
usually code for, "Punish people for having sex by forcing them to take
responsibility for kids." I believe that if people pre-negotiate that
they're not going to have kids, getting pregnant does not constitute
abrogation of the agreement.

So, if the female partner in the conception is the one with the strongest
"I'm not going to have kids" ethic, the agreement takes precedence over the
circumstances and she doesn't have to deal with the consequences?

It seems to me that agreeing not to get pregnant is a bit like
agreeing not to become ill. However much one strives to prevent
them, these things have a way of happening. A practical agreement,
it seems to me, ought to anticipate the possibility of pregnancy
and spell out the obligations of each party in the event it
happens.
But I have never made anyone pregnant and cannot get pregnant
myself, so I am speaking out of ignorance.
umar

[Ailbhe]

Post by Mean Green Dancing Machine

Post by Ailbhe
I definitely think that there needs to be strong legal
somethingorother ensuring that biological parenthood is not a
no-consequences deal, for starters, and that people can't just up
and abandon children uncared for, even if they're not biological
parents - step-parents of n time-units' standing, for example.

While I agree with this, I've found that this kind of phrasing
is usually code for, "Punish people for having sex by forcing
them to take responsibility for kids." I believe that if people
pre-negotiate that they're not going to have kids, getting pregnant
does not constitute abrogation of the agreement.

I don't see how they can back out of taking responsibility for the
pregnancy, though, any more than I am responsible for my need to piss
when I've drunk a litre of water. The fact that I need water to survive
doesn't lessen my responsibility to deal with my need to piss.

Of course, dealing with unwanted pregnancy is probably always going to
be a more pressing issue for women, too.

We seem to be stuck with many of the effects of biology, at least for
now. Ho hum.

A.

[Vicki Rosenzweig]

Post by Ailbhe

Post by Mean Green Dancing Machine

Post by Ailbhe
I definitely think that there needs to be strong legal
somethingorother ensuring that biological parenthood is not a
no-consequences deal, for starters, and that people can't just up
and abandon children uncared for, even if they're not biological
parents - step-parents of n time-units' standing, for example.

While I agree with this, I've found that this kind of phrasing
is usually code for, "Punish people for having sex by forcing
them to take responsibility for kids." I believe that if people
pre-negotiate that they're not going to have kids, getting pregnant
does not constitute abrogation of the agreement.

I don't see how they can back out of taking responsibility for the
pregnancy, though, any more than I am responsible for my need to piss
when I've drunk a litre of water. The fact that I need water to survive
doesn't lessen my responsibility to deal with my need to piss.

The "responsibility" they can't back out of in that sense is the need for
a pregnant woman to take care of herself, physically, and to decide
whether to take the pregnancy to term and, if she does, whether to
keep the child. That's _all_ biology requires, and in fact biology won't
_prevent_ her from doing things that could endanger her own health
or even life. It certainly won't prevent her from deciding not to
decide, and probably finding herself with a newborn and the need
to make some decision about that.

As a social species, we have varying ways of supporting each other,
physically and emotionally. Compulsion shouldn't be at the top of
the list, if only because it doesn't work as well as people tend to
think.

[Ailbhe]

Post by Vicki Rosenzweig

Post by Ailbhe

Post by Mean Green Dancing Machine

Post by Ailbhe
I definitely think that there needs to be strong legal
somethingorother ensuring that biological parenthood is not
a no-consequences deal, for starters, and that people can't
just up and abandon children uncared for, even if they're not
biological parents - step-parents of n time-units' standing, for
example.

While I agree with this, I've found that this kind of phrasing
is usually code for, "Punish people for having sex by forcing
them to take responsibility for kids." I believe that if people
pre-negotiate that they're not going to have kids, getting
pregnant does not constitute abrogation of the agreement.

I don't see how they can back out of taking responsibility for the
pregnancy, though, any more than I am responsible for my need to
piss when I've drunk a litre of water. The fact that I need water
to survive doesn't lessen my responsibility to deal with my need to
piss.

The "responsibility" they can't back out of in that sense is the
need for a pregnant woman to take care of herself, physically, and
to decide whether to take the pregnancy to term and, if she does,
whether to keep the child. That's _all_ biology requires, and in fact
biology won't _prevent_ her from doing things that could endanger her
own health or even life. It certainly won't prevent her from deciding
not to decide, and probably finding herself with a newborn and the
need to make some decision about that.

But biology isn't imposing any kind of *punishment*; it's imposing
a *consequence*. Conflating the two is stupid and smells like straw
persons.

Post by Vicki Rosenzweig
As a social species, we have varying ways of supporting each other,
physically and emotionally. Compulsion shouldn't be at the top of
the list, if only because it doesn't work as well as people tend to
think.

Yup. Laws can't compel, though (not where I live, anyway - it takes a
lot more than just the law to create compulsion); it's pretty easy to
break a law. Laws about parental responsibility, especially, only get
enforced if someone doesn't like the way things are going and goes to
court to change it.

A.

[Mean Green Dancing Machine]

Post by Ailbhe

Post by Vicki Rosenzweig
The "responsibility" they can't back out of in that sense is the
need for a pregnant woman to take care of herself, physically, and
to decide whether to take the pregnancy to term and, if she does,
whether to keep the child. That's _all_ biology requires, and in fact
biology won't _prevent_ her from doing things that could endanger her
own health or even life. It certainly won't prevent her from deciding
not to decide, and probably finding herself with a newborn and the
need to make some decision about that.

But biology isn't imposing any kind of *punishment*; it's imposing
a *consequence*. Conflating the two is stupid and smells like straw
persons.

Maybe it smells like straw persons to you, but I assure you that I've
seen plenty of discussion where people did indeed conflate the two
deliberately. My position is that I think that shackling people to an
eighteen-year responsibility is a Bad Idea, and that there should be
ways to better manage allocation of that responsibility to avoid the
punitive aspects.

[Kris Hasson-Jones]

Post by Mean Green Dancing Machine
My position is that I think that shackling people to an
eighteen-year responsibility is a Bad Idea, and that there should be
ways to better manage allocation of that responsibility to avoid the
punitive aspects.

I agree, but the eighteen-year responsibility is there. Do you have
any ideas about managing allocation of that responsibility?

In the first place I think I'd want to work on the "blood is thicker
than water" meme, which is pervasive in our society. And I'd want to
work really hard to persuade people not to toss around words like
mother, father, mom, dad, etc. unless the people being so labeled have
actually agreed to take on that role.

It's awful when your mother doesn't take care of you. But if that
person is just a genetic donor, and your real mother is the person who
actually commits to fulfilling that role toward you and does so, then
maybe you won't feel rejected by your "real" mother.

[Ailbhe]

Post by Kris Hasson-Jones

Post by Mean Green Dancing Machine
My position is that I think that shackling people to an
eighteen-year responsibility is a Bad Idea, and that there should be
ways to better manage allocation of that responsibility to avoid the
punitive aspects.

I agree, but the eighteen-year responsibility is there. Do you have
any ideas about managing allocation of that responsibility?

When I live in my ideal world, people will volunteer to take it on, and
not act without having decided how to deal with the situation should it
arise. Meanwhile, nope. All the methods I can think of leave one party
with the overwhelming responsibility for the actions of at least two
parties.

Post by Kris Hasson-Jones
In the first place I think I'd want to work on the "blood is thicker
than water" meme, which is pervasive in our society. And I'd want
to work really hard to persuade people not to toss around words like
mother, father, mom, dad, etc. unless the people being so labeled
have actually agreed to take on that role.
It's awful when your mother doesn't take care of you. But if that
person is just a genetic donor, and your real mother is the person
who actually commits to fulfilling that role toward you and does so,
then maybe you won't feel rejected by your "real" mother.

New words! word for genetic parent seperate from word for incubating
parent seperate from word for caring parent. I really think we need
these new words, though the middle one may be less urgent than the other
two.

A.

[Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)]

Post by Ailbhe
New words! word for genetic parent seperate from word for incubating
parent seperate from word for caring parent. I really think we need
these new words, though the middle one may be less urgent than the other
two.

I've always put this as "a sire and a dam do not parents make".

- Darkhawk, briefly

[Ailbhe]

Post by Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)

Post by Ailbhe
New words! word for genetic parent seperate from word for
incubating parent seperate from word for caring parent. I really
think we need these new words, though the middle one may be less
urgent than the other two.

I've always put this as "a sire and a dam do not parents make".

The trouble with this is, like "it", people associate those words with
non-people, and get offended. My family hates that I refer to my unborn
baby as "it".

A word for incubating parent would, I think, have to be brought in
fresh, though.

A.

[ComputerChix]

Post by Ailbhe
The trouble with this is, like "it", people associate those words with
non-people, and get offended. My family hates that I refer to my unborn
baby as "it".

What do they expect you to call it? I noticed you were using "it" to
refer to it, and I assumed that was because you either didn't know its
sex, yet; you know, but choose not to share what it is; or you wanted
to call it "it".

[Ailbhe]

Post by ComputerChix

Post by Ailbhe
The trouble with this is, like "it", people associate those words
with non-people, and get offended. My family hates that I refer to
my unborn baby as "it".

What do they expect you to call it? I noticed you were using "it" to
refer to it, and I assumed that was because you either didn't know
its sex, yet; you know, but choose not to share what it is; or you
wanted to call it "it".

"He or she" or "the baby" or, as my sister does, give it an interim
name and avoid pronouns altogether - Humpty, Algy, etc.

I don't know the sex and don't want to know until it's born. It's a
cunning plan to avoid getting too many gender-specific things ahead of
time, and will reduce pressure to buy pink frilly Moses basket drapes
etc.

A.
Had nightmares at one point of being stuck with generous gift of
Barbie-pink baby bath in super-durable indestructible plastic-coated
steel, or something.

[Austin]

Post by Ailbhe
"He or she" or "the baby" or, as my sister does, give it an interim
name and avoid pronouns altogether - Humpty, Algy, etc.
I don't know the sex and don't want to know until it's born. It's a
cunning plan to avoid getting too many gender-specific things ahead of
time, and will reduce pressure to buy pink frilly Moses basket drapes
etc.

The North American custom of having baby showers before the baby is born
bothers my girlfriend. This, in part, because there is always a chance,
no matter how small, that the baby won't be born alive (heavens
forfend). Living in Toronto, she's got a lot of European friends who
feel the same way.

-austin

[Ailbhe]

Post by Austin

Post by Ailbhe
"He or she" or "the baby" or, as my sister does, give it an interim
name and avoid pronouns altogether - Humpty, Algy, etc.
I don't know the sex and don't want to know until it's born. It's a
cunning plan to avoid getting too many gender-specific things ahead
of time, and will reduce pressure to buy pink frilly Moses basket
drapes etc.

The North American custom of having baby showers before the baby is
born bothers my girlfriend. This, in part, because there is always
a chance, no matter how small, that the baby won't be born alive
(heavens forfend). Living in Toronto, she's got a lot of European
friends who feel the same way.

The North American custom of showers bothers me because the idea of
an event where the major focus is gift-giving bothers me. I'm quite
happy to stock up on baby items pre-birth, because I'm not even going to
consider the possibility that - no, I'm not considering it.

A.

[Personal Electroencephalogram]

Post by Ailbhe

Post by Austin
The North American custom of having baby showers before the baby is
born bothers my girlfriend. This, in part, because there is always
a chance, no matter how small, that the baby won't be born alive
(heavens forfend). Living in Toronto, she's got a lot of European
friends who feel the same way.

The North American custom of showers bothers me because the idea of
an event where the major focus is gift-giving bothers me. I'm quite
happy to stock up on baby items pre-birth, because I'm not even going to
consider the possibility that - no, I'm not considering it.

Boy was much happier that we had the baby before the shower; turned
into a "meet the baby" party instead. (It was a complete and utter
surprise to me. Loads of friends from out-of-town showed up for the
day, and my sister for the weekend. A bit tiring, but way fun.)

[Ailbhe]

Post by Personal Electroencephalogram

Post by Ailbhe
The North American custom of showers bothers me because the idea of
an event where the major focus is gift-giving bothers me. I'm quite
happy to stock up on baby items pre-birth, because I'm not even
going to consider the possibility that - no, I'm not considering it.

Boy was much happier that we had the baby before the shower; turned
into a "meet the baby" party instead. (It was a complete and utter
surprise to me. Loads of friends from out-of-town showed up for the
day, and my sister for the weekend. A bit tiring, but way fun.)

See, a "meet the baby" party I can see myself having quite happily. It
would be fun.

A.
Buying baby goods on Ebay. Nearly 3 months to go. Eeple.

[Stef]

Post by Personal Electroencephalogram
Boy was much happier that we had the baby before the shower; turned
into a "meet the baby" party instead. (It was a complete and utter
surprise to me. Loads of friends from out-of-town showed up for the
day, and my sister for the weekend. A bit tiring, but way fun.)

I definitely thought y'all were tempting fate by scheduling the party
when you did. Glad it worked out for the best!

--
Stef ** avid/sensible/sensual/wise/essential/elemental/tangle
** ***@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.cat-and-dragon.com/stef
**
Give the anarchists an inch, and the next thing you know, they want
to be in charge!

[Personal Electroencephalogram]

Post by Stef

Post by Personal Electroencephalogram
Boy was much happier that we had the baby before the shower; turned
into a "meet the baby" party instead. (It was a complete and utter
surprise to me. Loads of friends from out-of-town showed up for the
day, and my sister for the weekend. A bit tiring, but way fun.)

I definitely thought y'all were tempting fate by scheduling the party
when you did. Glad it worked out for the best!

Not me! I had nothing to do with it. Ask my sister. (Knowing that
all my mother's came a month early, I do think she was pushing fate.
On the gripping hand, I like how it worked out.)

[ChickPea]

In alt.polyamory, Austin <austin+***@mailinator.com> (Austin) wrote in
<bvh1gm$r8c1v$***@ID-217444.news.uni-berlin.de>::

|Ailbhe wrote:
|> "He or she" or "the baby" or, as my sister does, give it an interim
|> name and avoid pronouns altogether - Humpty, Algy, etc.
|>
|> I don't know the sex and don't want to know until it's born. It's a
|> cunning plan to avoid getting too many gender-specific things ahead of
|> time, and will reduce pressure to buy pink frilly Moses basket drapes
|> etc.
|
|The North American custom of having baby showers before the baby is born
|bothers my girlfriend. This, in part, because there is always a chance,
|no matter how small, that the baby won't be born alive (heavens
|forfend). Living in Toronto, she's got a lot of European friends who
|feel the same way.

The more superstitious in the UK will not:

- buy a pram before the baby is born;
- use a second-hand pram.

I've had serious difficulty *giving* away perfectly good baby stuff- you
have to find someone that really has *no* spare money.

[Ailbhe]

- buy a pram before the baby is born; use a second-hand pram.
I've had serious difficulty *giving* away perfectly good baby stuff-
you have to find someone that really has *no* spare money.

My mother-in-law is Swedish and seriously disliked the idea of buying
baby stuff "too early". She has started knitting now, though.

So, what stuff do you still need to give away?

A.
covetous

[ChickPea]

In alt.polyamory, Ailbhe <***@lists.ossifrage.net> (Ailbhe) wrote in
<***@loquacious.ossifrage.net>::

|ChickPea <E-0C001302-1495-***@cleopatra.co.uk> wrote (on Mon, 02 Feb 2004
|02:01:52 +0000):
|
|> The more superstitious in the UK will not:
|>
|> - buy a pram before the baby is born; use a second-hand pram.
|>
|> I've had serious difficulty *giving* away perfectly good baby stuff-
|> you have to find someone that really has *no* spare money.
|
|My mother-in-law is Swedish and seriously disliked the idea of buying
|baby stuff "too early". She has started knitting now, though.
|
|So, what stuff do you still need to give away?

Mostly gone now- I have a "papoose" carrier that needs a home, if you're
interested.

[Ailbhe]

Post by ChickPea
|So, what stuff do you still need to give away?
Mostly gone now- I have a "papoose" carrier that needs a home, if
you're interested.

No, thanks; I've been given a sling already :) But it's always worth
asking!

A.

[Mean Green Dancing Machine]

Post by ComputerChix

Post by Ailbhe
The trouble with this is, like "it", people associate those words with
non-people, and get offended. My family hates that I refer to my unborn
baby as "it".

What do they expect you to call it? I noticed you were using "it" to
refer to it, and I assumed that was because you either didn't know its
sex, yet; you know, but choose not to share what it is; or you wanted
to call it "it".
--
Toni
who would be tempted to call it a Purple People Eater, if I was
pregnant.

You're a Vikings fan? <shudder>

[Arthur D. Hlavaty]

Post by Ailbhe

Post by Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)

Post by Ailbhe
New words! word for genetic parent seperate from word for
incubating parent seperate from word for caring parent. I really
think we need these new words, though the middle one may be less
urgent than the other two.

I've always put this as "a sire and a dam do not parents make".

The trouble with this is, like "it", people associate those words with
non-people, and get offended. My family hates that I refer to my unborn
baby as "it".

I've always thought that those who believe in evolutionary psychology
or biological determinism should use the words "buck," doe," and "cub"
(or equivalent ones). I do when discussing their theories.

[Ruth Lawrence]

Post by Arthur D. Hlavaty

Post by Ailbhe

Post by Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)

Post by Ailbhe
New words! word for genetic parent seperate from word for
incubating parent seperate from word for caring parent. I really
think we need these new words, though the middle one may be less
urgent than the other two.

I've always put this as "a sire and a dam do not parents make".

The trouble with this is, like "it", people associate those words with
non-people, and get offended. My family hates that I refer to my unborn
baby as "it".

I've always thought that those who believe in evolutionary psychology
or biological determinism should use the words "buck," doe," and "cub"
(or equivalent ones). I do when discussing their theories.

:::chokes on coffee:::

If I may, I'd like to institute this practice myself.

Ruth

[ChickPea]

In alt.polyamory, Ailbhe <***@lists.ossifrage.net> (Ailbhe) wrote in
<***@loquacious.ossifrage.net>::

|New words! word for genetic parent seperate from word for incubating
|parent seperate from word for caring parent. I really think we need
|these new words, though the middle one may be less urgent than the other
|two.

"Genetic parent"[1] or "donor"[1] does for #1
"Birth Mother"[1] or
"Surrogate mother"[1][2] does for #2
"Parent" covers #3 - I think most of the kudos is due to whoever actually
gets the flying hours in.

I'm not convinced we need new words; just a little more rigour in the usage
of the ones we have.

[1] Depending on circumstances
[2] At least, with current technology :)

[Steve Pope]

Post by Kris Hasson-Jones

Post by Mean Green Dancing Machine
My position is that I think that shackling people to an
eighteen-year responsibility is a Bad Idea, and that there should be
ways to better manage allocation of that responsibility to avoid the
punitive aspects.

I agree, but the eighteen-year responsibility is there. Do you have
any ideas about managing allocation of that responsibility?

Better education is one possibility. Some states, including
California, have programs aimed at adolescents that try
to make them aware of the social and financial consequences of sex
and pregnancy.

Diluting the effectiveness of such programs, and feeding the
overall problem, is any suggestion that by some sort of
pre-agreement, a potential parent can, or should ideally be able
to, change or eliminate that responsibility.

Steve

[Vicki Rosenzweig]

Post by Ailbhe

Post by Vicki Rosenzweig

Post by Ailbhe

Post by Mean Green Dancing Machine

Post by Ailbhe
I definitely think that there needs to be strong legal
somethingorother ensuring that biological parenthood is not
a no-consequences deal, for starters, and that people can't
just up and abandon children uncared for, even if they're not
biological parents - step-parents of n time-units' standing, for
example.

While I agree with this, I've found that this kind of phrasing
is usually code for, "Punish people for having sex by forcing
them to take responsibility for kids." I believe that if people
pre-negotiate that they're not going to have kids, getting
pregnant does not constitute abrogation of the agreement.

I don't see how they can back out of taking responsibility for the
pregnancy, though, any more than I am responsible for my need to
piss when I've drunk a litre of water. The fact that I need water
to survive doesn't lessen my responsibility to deal with my need to
piss.

The "responsibility" they can't back out of in that sense is the
need for a pregnant woman to take care of herself, physically, and
to decide whether to take the pregnancy to term and, if she does,
whether to keep the child. That's _all_ biology requires, and in fact
biology won't _prevent_ her from doing things that could endanger her
own health or even life. It certainly won't prevent her from deciding
not to decide, and probably finding herself with a newborn and the
need to make some decision about that.

But biology isn't imposing any kind of *punishment*; it's imposing
a *consequence*. Conflating the two is stupid and smells like straw
persons.

It is. However, I'm responding to your comparison of having to
take responsibility for a pregnancy with having to urinate after
drinking a liter of water. In either case, there are consequences:
PIV intercourse sometimes leads to pregnancy, though nowhere
near as often as drinking a lot of water leads to the need to pee.

Since consequences, in the biological sense, are *not* the same as
the "strong legal somethingorother" you were calling for, I'm not
sure why you brought that analogy into the discussion.

[Ailbhe]

Post by Vicki Rosenzweig

Post by Ailbhe

Post by Vicki Rosenzweig

Post by Ailbhe

Post by Mean Green Dancing Machine

Post by Ailbhe
I definitely think that there needs to be strong legal
somethingorother ensuring that biological parenthood is not
a no-consequences deal, for starters, and that people can't
just up and abandon children uncared for, even if they're not
biological parents - step-parents of n time-units' standing, for
example.

While I agree with this, I've found that this kind of phrasing
is usually code for, "Punish people for having sex by forcing
them to take responsibility for kids." I believe that if people
pre-negotiate that they're not going to have kids, getting
pregnant does not constitute abrogation of the agreement.

I don't see how they can back out of taking responsibility for the
pregnancy, though, any more than I am responsible for my need to
piss when I've drunk a litre of water. The fact that I need water
to survive doesn't lessen my responsibility to deal with my need to
piss.

The "responsibility" they can't back out of in that sense is the
need for a pregnant woman to take care of herself, physically, and
to decide whether to take the pregnancy to term and, if she does,
whether to keep the child. That's _all_ biology requires, and in fact
biology won't _prevent_ her from doing things that could endanger her
own health or even life. It certainly won't prevent her from deciding
not to decide, and probably finding herself with a newborn and the
need to make some decision about that.

But biology isn't imposing any kind of *punishment*; it's imposing
a *consequence*. Conflating the two is stupid and smells like straw
persons.

It is. However, I'm responding to your comparison of having to
take responsibility for a pregnancy with having to urinate after
PIV intercourse sometimes leads to pregnancy, though nowhere
near as often as drinking a lot of water leads to the need to pee.
Since consequences, in the biological sense, are *not* the same as
the "strong legal somethingorother" you were calling for, I'm not
sure why you brought that analogy into the discussion.

To illustrate that consequence != punishment. It was a response to a
response to my post, not part of my original post.

A.

[Kris Hasson-Jones]

Post by Mean Green Dancing Machine

Post by Ailbhe
I definitely think that there needs to be strong legal somethingorother
ensuring that biological parenthood is not a no-consequences deal,
for starters, and that people can't just up and abandon children
uncared for, even if they're not biological parents - step-parents of n
time-units' standing, for example.

While I agree with this, I've found that this kind of phrasing is
usually code for, "Punish people for having sex by forcing them to take
responsibility for kids."

Pregnancy is a normal, predictable, difficult-to-avoid consequence of
PIV sex. I agree that some people treat the idea as a due and
reasonable punishment for *other people* who dare to have sex in ways
the first set disapprove, but that people attach moral and emotional
significance to some consequences of actions and not to others does
not negate those consequences.

How would you phrase it?

As a child who was mostly abandoned by one parent (he paid child
support but we didn't see him as often as every year, growing up, and
he has evidenced no desire to have a relationship with me as an
adult), I advocate for detaching biological parenthood from emotional
as soon as practicable. Absent concrete agreements to the contrary,
most kids are going to assume that the people who donated their
genetic code are the ones to look toward for love, care, and guidance.

Had my father expressed directly that he didn't intend nor want to
parent a child, at least I could have dealt with that reality, rather
than the fantasy where we all pretended he was a caring father, just
not very good at it.

Post by Mean Green Dancing Machine
I believe that if people pre-negotiate that
they're not going to have kids, getting pregnant does not constitute
abrogation of the agreement.

Only a woman can pre-negotiate that she's not going to have a child,
by declaring that she will abort any pregnancy. What a man is trying
to negotiate, then, is that he will not be a parent, neither
financially nor emotionally. More power to him! Make it clear what
you are willing to do, and what you are opposed to doing. What I want
is reliquishment of rights that also removes responsibility for the
parent, in the same way that a woman can give a child up for adoption
without continuing to be responsible financially.

One of my agreements with my husband is that I will take necessary
steps to decrease the chance of pregnancy, and I will abort a
pregnancy if one nevertheless occurs. Before we decided to get
married that was one thing I wanted out in the open, and to be certain
that he agreed with that decision. Had he wanted to have a baby and
raise it we would not have been a good partner for each other.

If I knew that having sex with a particular person carried the risk
that any accidental birth meant I was on the hook for 18 years
(minimum) without the other person's support, then I could choose
whether to take that risk. But as of yet it's not the default
assumption either in law or in society.

[Pat Kight]

Post by Kris Hasson-Jones
Only a woman can pre-negotiate that she's not going to have a child,
by declaring that she will abort any pregnancy.

Unless, of course, both parties are willing to be sterilized.

[Kris Hasson-Jones]

Post by Pat Kight

Post by Kris Hasson-Jones
Only a woman can pre-negotiate that she's not going to have a child,
by declaring that she will abort any pregnancy.

Unless, of course, both parties are willing to be sterilized.

That doesn't provide 100 percent assurance that there will not be a
child. Both male and female sterilization have a small but
appreciable recovery rate (that is, some people heal from the
operation).

My sister's second child happened after her first sterilization. Her
third child happened after her second sterilization. (No, her
partners were not sterilized.)

[Elynne]

Post by Kris Hasson-Jones

Post by Pat Kight

Post by Kris Hasson-Jones
Only a woman can pre-negotiate that she's not going to have a child,
by declaring that she will abort any pregnancy.

Unless, of course, both parties are willing to be sterilized.

That doesn't provide 100 percent assurance that there will not be a
child. Both male and female sterilization have a small but
appreciable recovery rate (that is, some people heal from the
operation).

Y'know, when I was delving around trying to figure out how to get myself
spayed, one of the things that I kept being told over and over is "This
procedure is not meant to be reversible, once it's done it's pretty much
done, if you change your mind later it's likely that they won't be able
to repair this." It's hard to correlate that with things like this. Of
course, it might have been a different method or something. Still.
*grump*

From what I understand, if I do manage to get pregnant after my spaying,
it's something like 95% likely to be a tubal pregnancy - in which case,
I have no choice but to abort, and quickly, or die. So, no babies for
me, even if there is an "accident" - and I'm 100% OK with that.

- Elynne, firm about her decision

[Stef]

Post by Elynne

Post by Kris Hasson-Jones

Post by Pat Kight

Post by Kris Hasson-Jones
Only a woman can pre-negotiate that she's not going to have a child,
by declaring that she will abort any pregnancy.

Unless, of course, both parties are willing to be sterilized.

That doesn't provide 100 percent assurance that there will not be a
child. Both male and female sterilization have a small but
appreciable recovery rate (that is, some people heal from the
operation).

Y'know, when I was delving around trying to figure out how to get myself
spayed, one of the things that I kept being told over and over is "This
procedure is not meant to be reversible, once it's done it's pretty much
done, if you change your mind later it's likely that they won't be able
to repair this." It's hard to correlate that with things like this.

The thing you were being told was that sterilization can't be
deliberately reversed. That says nothing about whether the body can heal
itself from the operation.


--
Stef ** avid/sensible/sensual/wise/essential/elemental/tangle
** ***@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.cat-and-dragon.com/stef
**
"I sought understanding. I listened to the song. Your thoughts
became the song." -- Kosh, "Hunter, Prey," Babylon 5

[Pat Kight]

Post by Kris Hasson-Jones

Post by Pat Kight

Post by Kris Hasson-Jones
Only a woman can pre-negotiate that she's not going to have a child,
by declaring that she will abort any pregnancy.

Unless, of course, both parties are willing to be sterilized.

That doesn't provide 100 percent assurance that there will not be a
child. Both male and female sterilization have a small but
appreciable recovery rate (that is, some people heal from the
operation).

*nod* I know a couple of post-sterilization babies (as well as a few
post-menopause babies). That's why I specified *both* partners; my
understanding is that the odds of both partners' sterilization
procedures "healing" enough to permit pregnancy is vanishingly small.

But the bottom line is that, yes, no matter what agreements are in place
beforehand, the ultimate decision-making responsibility when
contraception fails winds up in the woman's lap. So to speak. Because a
man can walk away from a pregnancy, or claim it's not his, but a woman
doesn't have those options.

[Guy W. Thomas]

Post by Pat Kight

Post by Kris Hasson-Jones
Only a woman can pre-negotiate that she's not going to have a child,
by declaring that she will abort any pregnancy.

Unless, of course, both parties are willing to be sterilized.

Don't you need just one? If I don't want to be a parent, I get sterilized
and I'm done, aren't I?

--

Guy W. Thomas
San Leandro, CA
http://www.xango.org http://stonebender.livejournal.com/

"It is often forgotten that (dictionaries) are artificial
repositories, put together well after the languages they
define. The roots of language are irrational and of a
magical nature."
-Jorge Luis Borges, Prologue to "El otro, el mismo."

[Pat Kight]

Post by Guy W. Thomas

Post by Pat Kight

Post by Kris Hasson-Jones
Only a woman can pre-negotiate that she's not going to have a child,
by declaring that she will abort any pregnancy.

Unless, of course, both parties are willing to be sterilized.

Don't you need just one? If I don't want to be a parent, I get sterilized
and I'm done, aren't I?

As Kris has noted, both vasectomies and tubal ligations can spontaneously
"heal", rendering the person once again fertile. It's rare, but it happens,
and babies have been born as a result. The odds of it happening to two
people who happen to be partners are even more slim.

If all parties are sure they don't want children - particularly in a poly
setting, it seems to me they'd all be wise to get fixed. If some are sure
and some aren't, then I imagine there's more negotiating to do.

[Guy W. Thomas]

Post by Pat Kight

Post by Guy W. Thomas

Post by Pat Kight

Post by Kris Hasson-Jones
Only a woman can pre-negotiate that she's not going to have a child,
by declaring that she will abort any pregnancy.

Unless, of course, both parties are willing to be sterilized.

Don't you need just one? If I don't want to be a parent, I get sterilized
and I'm done, aren't I?

As Kris has noted, both vasectomies and tubal ligations can spontaneously
"heal", rendering the person once again fertile. It's rare, but it happens,
and babies have been born as a result. The odds of it happening to two
people who happen to be partners are even more slim.

Gotcha.

Post by Pat Kight
If all parties are sure they don't want children - particularly in a poly
setting, it seems to me they'd all be wise to get fixed. If some are sure
and some aren't, then I imagine there's more negotiating to do.

As is ever so :-)

--

Guy W. Thomas
San Leandro, CA
http://www.xango.org http://stonebender.livejournal.com/

"It is often forgotten that (dictionaries) are artificial
repositories, put together well after the languages they
define. The roots of language are irrational and of a
magical nature."
-Jorge Luis Borges, Prologue to "El otro, el mismo."

[Mean Green Dancing Machine]

Post by Kris Hasson-Jones
Only a woman can pre-negotiate that she's not going to have a child,
by declaring that she will abort any pregnancy. What a man is trying
to negotiate, then, is that he will not be a parent, neither
financially nor emotionally. More power to him! Make it clear what
you are willing to do, and what you are opposed to doing. What I want
is reliquishment of rights that also removes responsibility for the
parent, in the same way that a woman can give a child up for adoption
without continuing to be responsible financially.

Yes, exactly. Conversely, if a woman is, say, anti-abortion but also
does not want to be a parent, I believe that the father should (if he
wishes) have first right of refusal before the woman is allowed to put
the child up for adoption. (Obviously, this doesn't apply in cases of
rape.)

OTOH, I do think that absent an explicit agreement, the current system
of allocating responsibility to both parents is reasonable.

[Ryk]

On 26 Jan 2004 10:18:15 GMT, in message

Post by Ailbhe

Post by umarc
The Roman Catholic Church in Massachusetts is pushing for a state
constitutional amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman.
That really has me ticked off; why do these people think they have
the right to tell non-Catholics who they may or may not marry?

I think it's the "every time you fall in love, my marriage cracks a
little" theory of relationship maintenance.

I wouldn't mind some tighter legal restrictions on institutions
offering doctoral degrees -- some of those diploma mills cheapen the
real thing.

If one holds that poly or same sex relationships are second rate or
even sinful, then it follows to label them differently from "the real
thing". Or was that a rhetorical question?

Ryk ;-)

[umarc]

Post by Ryk
If one holds that poly or same sex relationships are second rate or
even sinful, then it follows to label them differently from "the real
thing". Or was that a rhetorical question?

I've no problem with them doing that, but when they try to sway the
state legislature to impose their views on everyone else, I have a
big problem.

(And where's my openly gay state senator when she is most needed?
She's quit, run off to head some gay rights lobby in Washington.)


umar

[Jim Roberts]

Gracious me! My stste representative is a lesbian, but I've never given
it a 2nd thought. She represents me well, as much as I care about in
this benighted state of MD. Mostly what I care about is done by the
city - the streets, the neighbors who threaten my life, the garbage, the
recycling, the pubs with their birds.

jimbat

Post by umarc

Post by Ryk
If one holds that poly or same sex relationships are second rate or
even sinful, then it follows to label them differently from "the real
thing". Or was that a rhetorical question?

I've no problem with them doing that, but when they try to sway the
state legislature to impose their views on everyone else, I have a
big problem.
(And where's my openly gay state senator when she is most needed?
She's quit, run off to head some gay rights lobby in Washington.)
umar

[For Madmen Only]

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 07:02:05 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope

Post by Steve Pope
It'd be nice if "family law" was not a separate area of the
legal setup. People should, legally, be individuals, their
rights and liabilities not affected by marriage or other
family relationships.
Just my opinion.

Mine too, mostly. Though I believe having some laws regarding default
minimum obligations of a parent to zir not-legal-adult offspring makes
sense.

fmmo

[For Madmen Only]

Post by For Madmen Only
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 07:02:05 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope

Post by Steve Pope
It'd be nice if "family law" was not a separate area of the
legal setup. People should, legally, be individuals, their
rights and liabilities not affected by marriage or other
family relationships.
Just my opinion.

Mine too, mostly. Though I believe having some laws regarding default
minimum obligations of a parent to zir not-legal-adult offspring makes
sense.

Um, just to clarify, that should have been "not legal-adult."

fmmo

[ChickPea]

In alt.polyamory, For Madmen Only <***@usa.net> (For Madmen Only) wrote in
<***@4ax.com>::

|On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 07:02:05 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope
|<***@speedymail.org> wrote:
|
|
|>It'd be nice if "family law" was not a separate area of the
|>legal setup. People should, legally, be individuals, their
|>rights and liabilities not affected by marriage or other
|>family relationships.
|>
|>Just my opinion.
|
|Mine too, mostly. Though I believe having some laws regarding default
|minimum obligations of a parent to zir not-legal-adult offspring makes
|sense.

Yeah- but there are plenty of unmarried people with children: I'm sure that
at least *some* laws are in place to deal with the issue- they are here
(UK).

[For Madmen Only]

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 21:11:11 +0000, ChickPea

Post by ChickPea
|On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 07:02:05 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope
|
|
|>It'd be nice if "family law" was not a separate area of the
|>legal setup. People should, legally, be individuals, their
|>rights and liabilities not affected by marriage or other
|>family relationships.
|>
|>Just my opinion.
|
|Mine too, mostly. Though I believe having some laws regarding default
|minimum obligations of a parent to zir not-legal-adult offspring makes
|sense.
Yeah- but there are plenty of unmarried people with children: I'm sure that
at least *some* laws are in place to deal with the issue- they are here
(UK).

Oh, there are! What I was saying that in a society where people's
legal "rights and liabilities [are] not affected by marriage or other
family relationships," which is *not* currently the case in many
societies including the one I live in but which is what Steve and I
*would like* to see be the case, those would be the kind of laws that
I think *would* make sense.

Note that the statement I quoted isn't just about "marriage." It
includes "other family relationships", which I interpreted as
including parent-child relationships. In the case of legal obligations
of parents to their children I'd probably want laws which were more
minimal than what currently exists, but I'm not well-versed enough in
family-law (or any kind of law really) to make statements about what
specific things I'd throw out if I were ruler of the universe.

fmmo

[Ryk]

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 16:33:52 GMT, in message

Post by For Madmen Only
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 07:02:05 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope

Post by Steve Pope
It'd be nice if "family law" was not a separate area of the
legal setup. People should, legally, be individuals, their
rights and liabilities not affected by marriage or other
family relationships.
Just my opinion.

Mine too, mostly. Though I believe having some laws regarding default
minimum obligations of a parent to zir not-legal-adult offspring makes
sense.

The law will probably work best if it follows the same shape of what
it is trying to regulate. A huge number of families composed of one
man, one woman and multiple minor children do behave as social and
legal units. It would be foolish for the law to ignore this very real
set of inter-relationships. Traditional marriage is an exchange of
vows that intentionally creates mutual liabilities. And people who
choose traditional marriage like it that way.

People should, legally, be individuals when they have chosen to be
individuals. People should, legally, be part of a collective when they
have *chosen* to join together for some purpose, whether by forming a
legal family, a legal business partnership, or a legal corporation.

Ryk

[Kris Hasson-Jones]

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 07:02:05 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope

Post by Steve Pope

Post by Kris Hasson-Jones
For example, one possible cost of restructuring current government
control of marriage would be rewriting the tax code. We can discuss
whether in the long run that's a good idea or a bad one, but it would
(either way) cost a lot of money.

From a U.S. perspective, I disagree it would cost money; the
changes to the tax code could (and probably would, in this
scenario) be made "revenue neutral" -- e.g. the new single tax
rate would be chosen to be at an intermediate point between the
current single and married tax rates, so that on average the same
amount of tax is collected.

And all this work is going to be done for free? Tax lawyers and
accountants are going to volunteer to help rewrite the tax code? The
months of hearings and commitee meetings will take place as a charity
donation? Lobbyists are going to volunteer to stop taking money from
"special interests" and quit trying to influence legislators? Print
shops are going to donate the paper, toner, and labor to print the new
laws and forms? What does "the cost of rewriting the tax code" mean
to you other than these costs?

Whether the results are revenue neutral is an entirely different
subject.

Post by Steve Pope

Post by Kris Hasson-Jones
I would like to get government out of the marriage business,

Agreed

Post by Kris Hasson-Jones
and substitute for it a system of negotiated contracts that
could be enforced by civil suit.

It'd be nice if "family law" was not a separate area of the
legal setup. People should, legally, be individuals, their
rights and liabilities not affected by marriage or other
family relationships.

You don't grant a grandparent the right to time with a grandchild
above that of an unrelated friend?

You don't think family should have preference over a complete stranger
when deciding custody of an orphaned child?

You don't think someone unrelated to the child, who has acted in a
parental role towards that child should have the right to visitation
in a case where that person's relationship with the child's
bioparent(s) changes?

These are all areas where family law has developed privileges for
children's relationships that would not otherwise be supported as
between any two random individuals.

I think it's a contravention of reality to suggest that there are not
special relationships in families. What I want is for people to have
a method to define who their families are, rather than relying on a
default definition in law. Just as you can decide what to do with
your estate by writing a will, or accept the intestate provisions of
your state's law for distribution of your estate.

[Dale Hurliman]

Post by For Madmen Only
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 07:02:05 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope

Post by Steve Pope

Post by Kris Hasson-Jones
For example, one possible cost of restructuring current government
control of marriage would be rewriting the tax code. We can discuss
whether in the long run that's a good idea or a bad one, but it would
(either way) cost a lot of money.

From a U.S. perspective, I disagree it would cost money; the
changes to the tax code could (and probably would, in this
scenario) be made "revenue neutral" -- e.g. the new single tax
rate would be chosen to be at an intermediate point between the
current single and married tax rates, so that on average the same
amount of tax is collected.

And all this work is going to be done for free? Tax lawyers and
accountants are going to volunteer to help rewrite the tax code? The
months of hearings and commitee meetings will take place as a charity
donation? Lobbyists are going to volunteer to stop taking money from
"special interests" and quit trying to influence legislators? Print
shops are going to donate the paper, toner, and labor to print the new
laws and forms? What does "the cost of rewriting the tax code" mean
to you other than these costs?

Oh, I'm sure that lobbyists would be falling all over themselves to
rewrite the tax code at no cost to the government ;-)

<snip>

[Vicki Rosenzweig]

Post by Steve Pope
It'd be nice if "family law" was not a separate area of the
legal setup. People should, legally, be individuals, their
rights and liabilities not affected by marriage or other
family relationships.

I think we need to keep (revise, but not throw out) the
parts of family law that deal with the relations between parents
and children, including but not limited to issues of child custody.

[Norm]

Post by Shiva Rodriguez
Greetings everyone.

Greetings!

Post by Shiva Rodriguez
I'm a 31 year old female, sharing a home with both my legal husband and my
"illegitimate spouse" (his words). Although my current arrangement is a
little over a year into its existance, I've never believed in monogamy for
myself and usually have at least one acknowledged lover asides from my
husband at any given time.
I'm also strongly opposed to the morality laws (mainly USA) that govern our
private lives on subjects that do not infringe upon any civil rights.
Namely, polygamy and gay marriage laws, as well as a few sex-related vice
laws that forbid activities between consenting adults.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in its
controversial ruling in favor of gay marriage, Goodridge v.
Dept. of Public Health (2003), drove a wedge between the
idea of legalizing gay marriage and the idea of legalizing
polygamy. It insisted that society has a legitimate interest
in stable relationships and that monogamy promotes stability.

Post by Shiva Rodriguez
Recently, I've been speaking with people in the legal field, none of whom
can give me a good excuse as to why polygamy and the like are illegal. All
answers have been either religious in nature or simply out-dated (paternity
insurance, etc...)
However, they all agree that premeditated murder will be legalized before
polygamy is here in the States.
I am certainly interested in hearing from people who are also of the mind to
combat such governing of morality, and/or the obvious influence of religion
that promotes these laws. Recent results on various surveys showing favor
towards gay marriage leads me to believe that such change is not a hopeless
pipe dream.

Personally I think that the two issues, gay marriage and
polygamy + group marriage have completely different sets of
social dynamics. It's easy for people with libertarian
leanings to see similar, if not the same, principles at
work, in terms of legal philosophy. But for many other
people, fairness looks completely different as applied to
the two issues. Gays have largely prevailed in their point
that it is unfair to penalize people for a sexual
orientation that has roots much deeper than choice.
Polygamists have yet to overcome stereotypes of choiceless
child-brides and patriarchally controlled families.

As for religion, obviously not all religion promotes the
criminalization of polygamy. Even Christianity has internal
disagreements on the matter. But then, your carefully worded
statement didn't really say otherwise.

A quotation for you:

"Once in a letter he [Heinlein] said that the ultimate
obscenity in totalitarianism is its interference with the
relationships of love."
--> "RAH: A Memoir," [by] Poul Anderson, in:
Requiem: New Collected Works by Robert A. Heinlein and
Tributes to the Grand Master, edited by Yoji Kondo (1992):
p. 249.

[Shiva Rodriguez]

Post by Norm
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in its
controversial ruling in favor of gay marriage, Goodridge v.
Dept. of Public Health (2003), drove a wedge between the
idea of legalizing gay marriage and the idea of legalizing
polygamy. It insisted that society has a legitimate interest
in stable relationships and that monogamy promotes stability.

I have to disagree with the idea that monogamy promotes stability. Granted,
I'm only experianced with how things tend to go in the USA, but current
divorce rates seem to dismiss the idea of stability. I may be wrong, but I
believe the top two excuses heard in divorce courts across the USA are
financial matters and infidelity.

Post by Norm
Personally I think that the two issues, gay marriage and
polygamy + group marriage have completely different sets of
social dynamics.

True. I'm looking at it from a moralist's point of view. Most arguements
I've heard against either type of union seem to be drenched in moral
opinion. Taking on two spouses being just as sinful as having a homosexual
relationship... voluntarily or otherwise.


It's easy for people with libertarian

Post by Norm
leanings to see similar, if not the same, principles at
work, in terms of legal philosophy. But for many other
people, fairness looks completely different as applied to
the two issues. Gays have largely prevailed in their point
that it is unfair to penalize people for a sexual
orientation that has roots much deeper than choice.
Polygamists have yet to overcome stereotypes of choiceless
child-brides and patriarchally controlled families.

And yet people having extra-marital affairs seems to be a very common
pastime, even to the point of being practically expected among people.
Strange...

Post by Norm
As for religion, obviously not all religion promotes the
criminalization of polygamy. Even Christianity has internal
disagreements on the matter. But then, your carefully worded
statement didn't really say otherwise.

I realise polygamy is acceptable among some religions. Islamic, Mormon
sects, and Satanism come readily to mind when it comes to those that don't
oppose the idea of multiple spouses. However, with the exception of the
latter, they are geared in favor towards a single man with more than one
wife.

Do you think perhaps people don't consider that it can work both ways, and
only envision harems?

This also furthers my argument about disposing of religious/moral-based
laws. While many religions frown upon these practices, not all do. Since
they can hardly be termed as dangerous or in violation of any civil rights,
why do they stand firm?

I can say with 100% confidence that not every American citizen is a
Christian. So why are we subjected to laws that were rooted firmly in that
particular set of ideals?

-Shiva
www.darkneedles.com
www.sataniclust.com

[Pat Kight]

Post by Shiva Rodriguez
I can say with 100% confidence that not every American citizen is a
Christian. So why are we subjected to laws that were rooted firmly in that
particular set of ideals?

Because self-described Christians are better organized, have more financial
resources and outnumber the rest of us in the halls of political power,
where these decisions get made?

[Ryk]

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 11:21:29 -0800, in message

Post by Pat Kight

Post by Shiva Rodriguez
I can say with 100% confidence that not every American citizen is a
Christian. So why are we subjected to laws that were rooted firmly in that
particular set of ideals?

Because self-described Christians are better organized, have more financial
resources and outnumber the rest of us in the halls of political power,
where these decisions get made?

We could do far worse than following the ideals of Christ. OTOH, I
suspect that he might have opinions that strongly diverge from those
of some of his self declared followers.

Ryk

[ChickPea]

In alt.polyamory, Ryk <***@wellingtonhouse.org> (Ryk) wrote in
<***@4ax.com>::

|On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 11:21:29 -0800, in message
|<buc1qf$k6i$***@quark.scn.rain.com>
| Pat Kight <***@peak.org> wrote:
|
|>Shiva Rodriguez wrote:
|>
|>
|>> I can say with 100% confidence that not every American citizen is a
|>> Christian. So why are we subjected to laws that were rooted firmly in that
|>> particular set of ideals?
|>
|>Because self-described Christians are better organized, have more financial
|>resources and outnumber the rest of us in the halls of political power,
|>where these decisions get made?
|
|We could do far worse than following the ideals of Christ. OTOH, I
|suspect that he might have opinions that strongly diverge from those
|of some of his self declared followers.

You bet! If he turned up now, he'd be quite unwelcome in most
congregations. :)

[Bearpaw]

Post by ChickPea
|
|We could do far worse than following the ideals of Christ. OTOH, I
|suspect that he might have opinions that strongly diverge from those
|of some of his self declared followers.
You bet! If he turned up now, he'd be quite unwelcome in most
congregations. :)

I dunno about *most*, but yeah, in too many congregations they'd
probably cruci ... [cough] ... um, treat him pretty harshly.

Bearpaw

[ChickPea]

In alt.polyamory, Bearpaw <***@earthlink.net> (Bearpaw) wrote in
<bumgsb$jta7t$***@ID-152530.news.uni-berlin.de>::

|ChickPea <E-0C001302-1483-***@cleopatra.co.uk> wrote:
|>
|> Ryk <***@wellingtonhouse.org> (Ryk) wrote:
|> |
|> |We could do far worse than following the ideals of Christ. OTOH, I
|> |suspect that he might have opinions that strongly diverge from those
|> |of some of his self declared followers.
|>
|> You bet! If he turned up now, he'd be quite unwelcome in most
|> congregations. :)
|
|I dunno about *most*, but yeah, in too many congregations they'd
|probably cruci ... [cough] ... um, treat him pretty harshly.

If nothing else, there would be lots of "get a haircut" and "aren't you old
enough to have a proper job?"
--
Marc

"Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to
or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit.
We categorically reject the argument that a vendor has
a right under the Constitution or otherwise to send
unwanted material into the home of another.
If this prohibition operates to impede the flow of even
valid ideas, the answer is that no one has a right to
press even 'good' ideas on an unwilling recipient.
The asserted right of a mailer, we repeat, stops at
the outer boundary of every person's domain."
- Chief Justice Berger, U.S. Supreme Court

[Bearpaw]

Post by ChickPea
|>
|> |
|> |We could do far worse than following the ideals of Christ. OTOH, I
|> |suspect that he might have opinions that strongly diverge from those
|> |of some of his self declared followers.
|>
|> You bet! If he turned up now, he'd be quite unwelcome in most
|> congregations. :)
|
|I dunno about *most*, but yeah, in too many congregations they'd
|probably cruci ... [cough] ... um, treat him pretty harshly.
If nothing else, there would be lots of "get a haircut" and "aren't
you old enough to have a proper job?"

Of course, that'd be nothing compared to the political trouble he'd
get into (in the US and other places). How fast can you say "cult
figure with suspected terrorist ties"?

Hey, he grew up in the Middle East, didn't he? He spent a lot of
time associating with questionable types. He gave talks
challenging the power structure and dissing the spiritual prospects
of successful businessmen, clearly trying to incite class warfare.
Heck, he even got violent with some gentlemen engaged in perfectly
legal banking practices.

He'd be lucky if he didn't end up in Guantanamo, head shaved and
dressed in orange.

Bearpaw

[ChickPea]

In alt.polyamory, Bearpaw <***@earthlink.net> (Bearpaw) wrote in
<buov6r$kcotq$***@ID-152530.news.uni-berlin.de>::

|ChickPea <E-0C001302-1484-***@cleopatra.co.uk> wrote:
|>
|> Bearpaw <***@earthlink.net> (Bearpaw) wrote:
|> |ChickPea <E-0C001302-1483-***@cleopatra.co.uk> wrote:
|> |>
|> |> Ryk <***@wellingtonhouse.org> (Ryk) wrote:
|> |> |
|> |> |We could do far worse than following the ideals of Christ. OTOH, I
|> |> |suspect that he might have opinions that strongly diverge from those
|> |> |of some of his self declared followers.
|> |>
|> |> You bet! If he turned up now, he'd be quite unwelcome in most
|> |> congregations. :)
|> |
|> |I dunno about *most*, but yeah, in too many congregations they'd
|> |probably cruci ... [cough] ... um, treat him pretty harshly.
|>
|> If nothing else, there would be lots of "get a haircut" and "aren't
|> you old enough to have a proper job?"
|
|Of course, that'd be nothing compared to the political trouble he'd
|get into (in the US and other places). How fast can you say "cult
|figure with suspected terrorist ties"?
|
|Hey, he grew up in the Middle East, didn't he? He spent a lot of
|time associating with questionable types. He gave talks
|challenging the power structure and dissing the spiritual prospects
|of successful businessmen, clearly trying to incite class warfare.
|Heck, he even got violent with some gentlemen engaged in perfectly
|legal banking practices.

He might even criticise the government of Israel. :)

|He'd be lucky if he didn't end up in Guantanamo, head shaved and
|dressed in orange.
|
|Bearpaw

[Elynne]

In article <bumgsb$jta7t$***@ID-152530.news.uni-berlin.de>, bearpaw01
@earthlink.net says...

Post by Bearpaw

Post by ChickPea
|We could do far worse than following the ideals of Christ. OTOH, I
|suspect that he might have opinions that strongly diverge from those
|of some of his self declared followers.
You bet! If he turned up now, he'd be quite unwelcome in most
congregations. :)

I dunno about *most*, but yeah, in too many congregations they'd
probably cruci ... [cough] ... um, treat him pretty harshly.
Bearpaw

*gigglegigglegiggle*snort*gigglegiggle*

- Elynne, not adding anything of substance, just showing her
appreciation

[Kris Hasson-Jones]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 17:39:39 +0000, ChickPea

Post by ChickPea
|On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 11:21:29 -0800, in message
|
|>
|>
|>> I can say with 100% confidence that not every American citizen is a
|>> Christian. So why are we subjected to laws that were rooted firmly in that
|>> particular set of ideals?
|>
|>Because self-described Christians are better organized, have more financial
|>resources and outnumber the rest of us in the halls of political power,
|>where these decisions get made?
|
|We could do far worse than following the ideals of Christ. OTOH, I
|suspect that he might have opinions that strongly diverge from those
|of some of his self declared followers.
You bet! If he turned up now, he'd be quite unwelcome in most
congregations. :)

Maybe most Christian ones, but I think his message would go over quite
well in most Jewish congregations.

[Arthur D. Hlavaty]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 17:39:39 +0000, ChickPea

Post by ChickPea
|We could do far worse than following the ideals of Christ. OTOH, I
|suspect that he might have opinions that strongly diverge from those
|of some of his self declared followers.
You bet! If he turned up now, he'd be quite unwelcome in most
congregations. :)

He was Jewish.

[songbird]

Post by Arthur D. Hlavaty

Post by ChickPea
|We could do far worse than following the ideals of Christ. OTOH, I
|suspect that he might have opinions that strongly diverge from those
|of some of his self declared followers.
You bet! If he turned up now, he'd be quite unwelcome in most
congregations. :)

He was Jewish.

most christians wouldn't even know what he was talking about.
"Ethel, what's a "pharisee, i don't think it's my bi-focals."


songbird *peep*

[ChickPea]

In alt.polyamory, Arthur D. Hlavaty <***@panix.com> (Arthur D. Hlavaty)
wrote in <***@4ax.com>::

|On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 17:39:39 +0000, ChickPea
|<E-0C001302-1483-***@cleopatra.co.uk> wrote:
|
|>In alt.polyamory, Ryk <***@wellingtonhouse.org> (Ryk) wrote in
|><***@4ax.com>::
|
|>|We could do far worse than following the ideals of Christ. OTOH, I
|>|suspect that he might have opinions that strongly diverge from those
|>|of some of his self declared followers.
|>
|>You bet! If he turned up now, he'd be quite unwelcome in most
|>congregations. :)
|
|He was Jewish.

He might get a cool reception in many synagogues as well, mind.

[Norm]

Post by Shiva Rodriguez

Post by Norm
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in its
controversial ruling in favor of gay marriage, Goodridge v.
Dept. of Public Health (2003), drove a wedge between the
idea of legalizing gay marriage and the idea of legalizing
polygamy. It insisted that society has a legitimate interest
in stable relationships and that monogamy promotes stability.

I have to disagree with the idea that monogamy promotes stability. Granted,
I'm only experianced with how things tend to go in the USA, but current
divorce rates seem to dismiss the idea of stability. I may be wrong, but I
believe the top two excuses heard in divorce courts across the USA are
financial matters and infidelity.

Yeah, the SJC may have been using a social fiction at that
point in order to control the ripple effect from its
decision and to delink its decision from legislative
reasoning behind the prohibition of certain other forms of
marriage. However, the SJC's citing of stability functioned
to say that whereas nobody could show, to its satisfaction,
any practical social reason to deny civil marriage to gay
couples, the situation may well be different with regard to
polygamy.

Post by Shiva Rodriguez

Post by Norm
Personally I think that the two issues, gay marriage and
polygamy + group marriage have completely different sets of
social dynamics.

True. I'm looking at it from a moralist's point of view. Most arguements
I've heard against either type of union seem to be drenched in moral
opinion. Taking on two spouses being just as sinful as having a homosexual
relationship... voluntarily or otherwise.

Yeah, but even from the point of view of the Christian
moralist, there are different histories of the two issues.
Polygamy wasn't exactly a settled issue among the powers
that be in Roman Catholicism and Protestantism until the
1500s, and even after that it kept coming unsettled again --
due, in part, to the further expansion of Christianity into
polygamist cultures.

To scratch a little deeper, those who define sin as what is
prohibited in the Bible have only inferences to go on with
regard to polygamy, since the passages that are classically
cited, like Mark 10:2-12 (and parallels) and 1 Corinthians
7:2-4, don't speak directly to the issue. With regard to
homosexuality, there are still lots of inferences made, but
there's a little bit here and there in the Bible that does
speak directly to elements of that issue.

Regarding the Bible and polygamy, see:
http://www3.shore.net/~anderson/Bibleindex.html
http://www3.shore.net/~anderson/polygamy.html

Regarding the Bible and homosexuality, see:
http://www3.shore.net/~anderson/homoralityNEA.html#Scripture

Post by Shiva Rodriguez
[snip]
I realise polygamy is acceptable among some religions. Islamic, Mormon
sects, and Satanism come readily to mind when it comes to those that don't
oppose the idea of multiple spouses. However, with the exception of the
latter, they are geared in favor towards a single man with more than one
wife.
Do you think perhaps people don't consider that it can work both ways, and
only envision harems?

Functionality has become a religious concern in large part
because some religious people have used American pragmatism
as an explanation of some religious restrictions and
activities. But pragmatism isn't native to religions with
ancient roots. Precedent in sacred writings is native to
some of them. So also, it seems, is patriarchalism. If the
Bible is the sacred text, polygyny both has precedent and is
suitable to patriarchalism. Not so with regard to polyandry.

BTW, a woman can have a harem of men.

Post by Shiva Rodriguez
This also furthers my argument about disposing of religious/moral-based
laws. While many religions frown upon these practices, not all do. Since
they can hardly be termed as dangerous or in violation of any civil rights,
why do they stand firm?

Personally I think that (a) it's vital to have law subject
to moral critique, for instance, from a human rights
perspective, and (b) some immoralities should be illegal,
such as murder, however practical the murder of certain
people might seem to the dominant members of a society. For
me the issue is the proper sphere, functions, and limits of
law and government.

The separation of church and state does not mean that
religious institutions and folk shouldn't be able to make a
case that certain behaviors they regard as immoralities
should also be regarded as civil wrongs. The question is,
how good is the case that certain kinds of committed love
relationships should be regarded as civil wrongs, given the
proper limits of law and government?

Post by Shiva Rodriguez
I can say with 100% confidence that not every American citizen is a
Christian. So why are we subjected to laws that were rooted firmly in that
particular set of ideals?

One aspect of the answer: The U.S. was founded long after
monogamy became the socially enforced norm in the West.

[Bearpaw]

Post by Shiva Rodriguez
I have to disagree with the idea that monogamy promotes stability.

Monogamy can promote stability, though not necessarily.

Post by Shiva Rodriguez
Granted,
I'm only experianced with how things tend to go in the USA, but
current divorce rates seem to dismiss the idea of stability.

Current divorce rates (whatever they are these days, ISTR reading
that they've gone down in the US for the past few years) would only
be part of the picture.

Post by Shiva Rodriguez
I may be wrong, but I
believe the top two excuses heard in divorce courts across the USA
are financial matters and infidelity.

Both of which can also be issues in non-monogamous relationships,
so I'm not sure what your point is.

Post by Shiva Rodriguez
...
I can say with 100% confidence that not every American citizen is a
Christian. So why are we subjected to laws that were rooted firmly in
that particular set of ideals?

Because enough people voted for those laws, or voted for the people
who voted for them. And not enough people have yet tried to
rescind those laws, and nobody has successfully challenged them in
court. Isn't democracy wonderful?

(In any case, many of those laws aren't really rooted in
Christianity per se. They're rooted in general cultural tradition,
and their supposed basis in Christianity is used to protect
otherwise meaningless cultural norms with something that makes them
seem meaningful.)

Bearpaw