Cancelling Dr. Seuss

[jimbogumbo]

Two comments to kaysixteen. First, Heinlein wrote of multi-spouse families entering into marriage via contract, with the welfare of children a central tenet of the agreement.

Second, my sister and her wife have raised a beautiful, kind, extremely talented son. He was of the super AP test scorers, graduated from a school much like your dear alma mater, and is now in a fellowship year prior to graduate school. How on earth would you describe my sister's marriage as not being in "his best interest", or how their marriage in any way is harmful to society as a whole?

[downer]

Well, again, I suspect we can figure out how to deal legally with such issues should polyamorous marriage actually become a thing (which doesn't seem to be happening).  I worked with the bank to make sure my parent's estate was divided equitably between my nieces and myself even though my nieces' mother, the second name on the will, had died.  These things can be done.

Yes. One point to add:

In 2016, a survey of nearly 9,000 single US adults showed that one in five had previously been in a consensually non-monogamous relationship. A Canadian survey came up with roughly the same numbers a year later.

https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20210326-ethical-non-monogamy-the-rise-of-multi-partner-relationships

I favor the use of legal contracts between n people for dealing with kids and inheritance money, and similar issues, for any n. For n>2, this may take some careful thought and creativity. For those who don't enter into contracts, issue may be messy, as they are for unmarried couples now.

We should transition to that use of legal contracts from existing marriage law. Then people can have marriage ceremonies in their personal life for any number of people.

Marriage does have a significant social function, which some people seem to value. But is isn't clear why it should be the state that handles it.

(It does seem that thread topic drift is becoming bigger. Sorry for contributing to it.)

[ciao_yall]

Okay.  I have not heard anything about that.  Certainly we can devise laws to accommodate more than one spouse.  I'm not sure I see the problem there.

Exactly. Now, what is a legally defined "spouse?" Can it be someone of the same sex? Or a different race? Religion?

[Wahoo Redux]

The internet is headed for a 'point of no return,' claims professor

Eventually, the disadvantages of sharing your opinion online will become so great that people will turn away from the internet. This is the argument made by Geert Lovink, Professor at the Amsterdam University of Applied Science (AUAS) and University of Amsterdam in his new essay Extinction Internet. While Lovink's previous research focused on critical counterculture and possible alternatives, such as fairer social media platforms, he now sketches a future in which the internet (partially) disappears and we are forced to give up our tech addiction.

[kaysixteen]

1) exceptions prove rules.   There is no question that it is simply much better for a child to be raised with a married pair of heterosexuals, rather than any other 'alternative' arrangement.   
2) two homosexuals, of either gender, can not reproduce.   For them to 'have a child' requires technical innovations, unless they adopt.   Things like in vitro fertilization, sperm donorship, surrogate mothership, etc., are all not only wasteful of embryos (a big deal when one actually, ahem, views embryos as actual human beings with rights), and/or things that deprive a child of, ahem, its actual father.  (and, of course, the possibility of knowledge of blood kin, potential organ donorship later, etc,)
3) like it or not, when one decides to eliminate strict reliance on a one man-one woman only form of marriage (and legitimate form of sexual activity), the floodgate is opened to any and all other sexual actions, which, ahem, well...

[Wahoo Redux]

1) exceptions prove rules.   There is no question that it is simply much better for a child to be raised with a married pair of heterosexuals, rather than any other 'alternative' arrangement.   

There is a question. 

Or perhaps you can prove this somehow?

Or is this just plain old bigotry?

2) two homosexuals, of either gender, can not reproduce.   For them to 'have a child' requires technical innovations, unless they adopt.   Things like in vitro fertilization, sperm donorship, surrogate mothership, etc., are all not only wasteful of embryos (a big deal when one actually, ahem, views embryos as actual human beings with rights), and/or things that deprive a child of, ahem, its actual father.  (and, of course, the possibility of knowledge of blood kin, potential organ donorship later, etc,)

I have to ask, so what?

Every time we use birth control we risk losing an embryo.  Every time a woman avoids sex while ovulating an embryo is wasted.  Not very many of us consider embryos "people" unless we are looking for a reason to be self-righteous.

What difference does any of that make?  Certainly not enough to deny people the right to marry the person that they love and/or have children.

Bigotry, kay.  Very disappointing.

3) like it or not, when one decides to eliminate strict reliance on a one man-one woman only form of marriage (and legitimate form of sexual activity), the floodgate is opened to any and all other sexual actions, which, ahem, well...

Again, so what?

If someone wants to marry their car, why do we care?

You've got a series of confabulated complaints there, kay, that would never have affected you anyway.  Perhaps you should mind your own business.

[kaysixteen]

Define 'bigotry', and demonstrate why this is bad.

I could, moreover, hunt up a smallish legion of serious sociological studies regarding the utter superiority of married heterosexual parenting, but you know that these exist.

Abortion is the only reason I cannot actually join the Democratic party.  Babies' lives, born or preborn, are simply worth more than Britney Griner.

[Wahoo Redux]

Hum.  We've now entered the stupid, stubborn, reactionary part of the debate.

Define 'bigotry', and demonstrate why this is bad.

I am not sure how you define it, kay, but I'll go with the generic dictionary definition.

big·ot·ry

noun
obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.

Are you saying the "bigotry" and "prejudice" are NOT bad?

Seriously?  Let's not play stupid here, okay?

I could, moreover, hunt up a smallish legion of serious sociological studies regarding the utter superiority of married heterosexual parenting, but you know that these exist.

I don't know anything about these.  Never looked into it.

Hunt them up.  Let's see them.

I did find this:

WaPo:  Children raised by same-sex couples do better in school, new study finds

Too mainstream media?

I found this:

APA on Children Raised by Gay and Lesbian Parents

On the basis of a remarkably consistent body of research on lesbian and gay parents and their children, the American Psychological Association (APA) and other health professional and scientific organizations have concluded that there is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation. That is, lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children. This body of research has shown that the adjustment, development and psychological well-being of children are unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish.

And this:

FactCheck: are children 'better off' with a mother and father than with same-sex parents?

Kevin Andrews' assertion that children who are brought up with a mother and father are, "as a cohort, better off than those who are not" is not supported by research evidence.

The majority of research on this topic shows that children or adolescents raised by same-sex parents fare equally as well as those raised by opposite-sex parents on a wide range of social, emotional, health and academic outcomes.

And it goes on.

Abortion is the only reason I cannot actually join the Democratic party.  Babies' lives, born or preborn, are simply worth more than Britney Griner.

??????

Just when Mahagonny leaves...

[marshwiggle]

Marriage does have a significant social function, which some people seem to value. But is isn't clear why it should be the state that handles it.

I think people believe that the social function (for non-religious people) is the conferring of social approval. The government can't really confer (or withhold) social approval; only a person's community can do that. But that's one of the reasons the state shouldn't really handle it.

(It does seem that thread topic drift is becoming bigger. Sorry for contributing to it.)

Fora tectonics is real and unavoidable. Same thing happens in face-to-face conversations.

[Wahoo Redux]

NBC News: Ohio teacher told principal using students' preferred pronouns violated her religion. She was forced to resign, lawsuit says

Lower Deck:

The Alliance Defending Freedom said the teacher, Vivian Geraghty, should not have been put in a position to choose "between her faith and her job."

A former Ohio middle school teacher said she was forced to resign after she told her boss that she would not address students by their preferred pronouns because it violates her religious beliefs.

The teacher, Vivian Geraghty, is now suing Jackson Memorial Middle School's principal, the Board of Education, and two district employees.

Geraghty, a Christian, worked at the school in Massillon, Ohio, as an English language arts teacher up until her resignation on Aug. 26. Before her departure, she "taught her class while remaining consistent with her religious practices and scientific understanding concerning human identity, gender, and sex," states a federal lawsuit filed on Monday.

[Wahoo Redux]

I think people believe that the social function (for non-religious people) is the conferring of social approval.

Not necessarily.

Some people simply see hypocrisy or prejudice and say so.

[downer]

Just when Mahagonny leaves...

Leaves? It was more of a defenestration.

[marshwiggle]

Just when Mahagonny leaves...

Leaves? It was more of a defenestration.

Like when an employer "accepts" an employee's "resignation".

[marshwiggle]

I think people believe that the social function (for non-religious people) is the conferring of social approval.

Not necessarily.

Some people simply see hypocrisy or prejudice and say so.

So non-religious people get married just to point out hypocrisy? Seems like a lot of effort and expense simply to make a point.

[Wahoo Redux]

I think people believe that the social function (for non-religious people) is the conferring of social approval.

Not necessarily.

Some people simply see hypocrisy or prejudice and say so.

So non-religious people get married just to point out hypocrisy? Seems like a lot of effort and expense simply to make a point.

T'ain't nuthin' I said, hombre.  Strawman, my brother.