Marriage and other LGBTQ Rights

[Mr. P-1]

Originally Posted by Jwb52z

I wasn't being intentionally mean. I don't know anything about autism really, which is what I was meaning. How was I supposed to know you would take it that way? Did you mean that she was being that instead of me and I'm just misunderstanding?

I meant that she was being an asshole, not you. By "orthogonal" I meant that assholishness and Asperger's are neither positively nor negatively correlated. I'm sorry you thought I was referring to you.

I didn't think you were being mean. It was RDS, not you, who made the connection between his wife's appalling behaviour and her Asperger's.

[Mr. P-1]

Originally Posted by Christenson

I'm a statistic...informal diagnosis of aspergers'....I take it like any other mild mental issue, it can be dealt with if responsibility is taken and room is given when needed. It took me two tries to get a good partner....

Like many aspies I initially self-diagnosed the first time I read of the condition about 15 years ago. I met every single one of about ten diagostic criteria in spades. Since then I've had the diagnosis confirmed, informally by the co-ordinator of a school for autistic children, and later formally by an occupational psychologist.

[Jwb52z]

Originally Posted by Mr. P-1

I meant that she was being an asshole, not you. By "orthogonal" I meant that assholishness and Asperger's are neither positively nor negatively correlated. I'm sorry you thought I was referring to you.

I didn't think you were being mean. It was RDS, not you, who made the connection between his wife's appalling behaviour and her Asperger's.

Yeah, I knew what orthogonal meant. I'm glad you were not referring to me, though. :) I was sort of tired when I misunderstood you yesterday. I kept thinking things like, "Maybe he's developed a hatred for his wife that was responsible for him lashing out". I tend to transfer things like that when I read what people say more often than I probably should.

[emily]

As long as legal marriage exists, it should provide equal rights to everyone, including same-sex couples, transsexual and androgynous (or multi-gendered) people, the intersex, as well as to practitioners of polyamory and other non-monogamy cultures.

But the real question isn't what the laws on marriage say. The real question for me is why we need laws on marriage in the first place.

Society shouldn't care who has sex with whom. Society has an interest in children produced by sexual acts. And depending on who you ask, society might also have an interest in private property disputes and inheritance. As for the state, it has an interest in taxes (which are often tied to private property) and how these apply to married people, and depending on who you ask it may also have an interest in private property disputes and inheritance.

But these matters can be settled without involving marriage laws, and often without even involving the state apparatus. For example, some people might think that such matters can be settled by polycentric law providers and social structures such as the Xeer.

Think about it: Children can and are being produced outside of marriage, and private property disputes can and do take place between people who aren't married. A variety of special tax regimes also apply to various people outside marriage.

Some people think that replacing marriage with free love is a good idea. Think about it: letting people do whatever they want with their sexuality, and handle matters of children production, private property, taxes, and inheritance without involving the concept of marriage.

[jasong]

I think an important thing that nobody seems to realize is that the government, in the past, has claimed it won't interfere with things that happen "in the bedroom." While Christians and other religions tend to worry about people's sexuality, I can't see how the government justifies being concerned with sex. Marriage has laws attached, I understand that, but there's no logical reason for the government to give a damn about what sexual acts are or aren't going on.

As far as governmental duties are concerned, I think same sex marriage should be treated the same as what people accept now. There's no reason whatsoever for the government to concern itself about sexual matters.

The only reason for them to concern themselves with it is if they're going to make certain acts illegal, and even then there's no reason for it to involve marriage.

People like to make this a moral problem, but the government wasn't created to dicate morality, it was created to serve the people while still allowing them to be reasonably free to do what they want.

[science_man_88]

Originally Posted by jasong

...but there's no logical reason for the government to give a damn about what sexual acts are or aren't going on.

rape off the books, sexual harassment off the books, molestation off the books, public nudity off the book, exposing yourself off the books, polygamy off the books,

[jasong]

Originally Posted by science_man_88

rape off the books, sexual harassment off the books, molestation off the books, public nudity off the book, exposing yourself off the books, polygamy off the books,

Rape is violent, molestation is sexual assault. Not sure about public nudity, since you can simply go the other way. Exposing yourself can be considered a version of assault, unless you really have to go pee. Polygamy would definitely be a hands off crime.

Also, I'm pretty sure I said they should be off things done in the bedroom. A lot of those things are obviously done outside the bedroom.

Edit: Apparently, I just thought about writing that, my bad.

[science_man_88]

Originally Posted by jasong

Rape is violent, molestation is sexual assault. Not sure about public nudity, since you can simply go the other way. Exposing yourself can be considered a version of assault, unless you really have to go pee. Polygamy would definitely be a hands off crime.

Also, I'm pretty sure I said they should be off things done in the bedroom. A lot of those things are obviously done outside the bedroom.

Edit: Apparently, I just thought about writing that, my bad.

all except exposing yourself can happen in the bedroom at last check.

rape and molestation are basically unconsented sex, public nudity I believe can be caused by the public being able to see your nudity from outside ( or last thing I read on the topic, which was from a version of the pocket criminal code of canada 2002 I believe), and polygamy is have multiple sex partners ( nothing about this can't be done inside).

[xilman]

Originally Posted by science_man_88

a polygamy is have multiple sex partners ( nothing about this can't be done inside).

Close, but no cigar.

Polygamy is being married to more than one other person. It says nothing at all about the number of sexual partners whether within or outside of marriage.

[science_man_88]

Originally Posted by xilman

Close, but no cigar.

Polygamy is being married to more than one other person. It says nothing at all about the number of sexual partners whether within or outside of marriage.

that slipped my mind the point is a lot of them fit a situation that he says the government shouldn't be able to track because they can happen in the bedroom.

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by science_man_88

that slipped my mind the point is a lot of them fit a situation that he says the government shouldn't be able to track because they can happen in the bedroom.

It's funny, in all the scenario's I've played out in mind over the years about how my partner and I might get married, I never yet considered that he and I might exchange rings in front of all our relatives and friends in our bedroom.