orichalcum (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
orichalcum) wrote2004-05-20 01:33 pm
orichalcum) wrote2004-05-20 01:33 pm
Amusing and educational links of the day
Salon, on D&D video games.:
"Tom: Hey. You know what I always like about Dungeons & Dragons?
Jeff: What's that?
Tom: The complicated gradations of good and evil. You could make your character good, neutral or evil, but then you could shade it with "chaotic good" or "neutral evil" or "lawful evil."
Jeff: If only our leaders recognized such careful gradations. The Axis of Chaotic Evil is a much better way of looking at things.
Tom: Bin Laden is very much a chaotic evil figure. Lots of charisma points, though.
Jeff: How about Donald Rumsfeld?
Tom: I'm going to say lawful evil. How about John Kerry?
Jeff: Neutral good.
Tom: Ralph Nader?
Jeff: Definitely chaotic good. The bastard. "
Then there's a really good article on the whole "slippery slope" argument against gay marriage by Dahlia Lithwick on Slate. It again raises interesting questions in my mind about the issue of legalizing polygamous and polyandrous marriages:
So, I've discussed with people on this list before how, while I see nothing wrong with other people* having polyamorous relationships, I'm not sure that polyamory is compatible with marriage, for reasons that felt fairly incoherent to me.
*Just to make things clear, "people," for the purposes of this discussion, are defined as consenting, sane, honest adults.
Lithwick brings up several issues which I think are valid, beyond the traditional argument that polygamous marriages have historically frequently led to a serious power imbalance, often between older men and much younger women. This is true, but there is the obvious hypothetical of, say, 3 men and 2 women, all of roughly the same age and sexual experience, who want to have a happy, legally sanctioned family together. The argument that Lithwick makes against this is that the right to privacy sanctioned by the Supreme Court in cases like Griswold vs. CT (from which one of our marriage readings was taken) specifies a highly intimate, binary relationship. The idea is that it is personal, private intimacy which is beyond the government's control or scope. When you get to a love nest or 5 or 7 people, you may be in the range of the "right to assemble," but the privacy doctrine quite arguably doesn't apply.
Another logical argument to me deals with the specific kinds of rights which marriage gives, and which gay couples desire so urgently and justly. Let's take, for instance, the right to make medical decisions for one's spouse. If you have 4 spouses, the chances for exceedingly messy arguments and controversies is much higher. There's a strong advantage to simplicity in having _one_ other person who is primarily responsible for your welfare when you aren't available to decide yourself. In the Living Will I wrote after college, before traveling around the world for the year, it was necessary for me to set up a complex system in which at least 2 out of 3 of my immediate family members had to agree to, say, pull the plug, because I worried about the ability of all three people to agree on that decision. Now, I know that the person whom I trust and love most in the world will make those decisions, if ever necessary.
My final argument mostly comes down to cynicism, sadly. I think that one of the fundamental human emotions is jealousy. If you look, for instance, at the Ten Commandments (not bringing religion in here, but as an illustrative point), 3-4 of them are specifically about preventing or punishing jealousy or envy. None of the polygamous relationships described in Genesis seem to work out at all well - Rachel and Leah are jealous of each other, Sarah beats Hagar, David's kids by different wives fight. Compare this to Jacob and Rebecca, who have a great relationship as far as we can tell.
I'm not saying that there aren't generous, loving, forgiving people who could and do make permanent polygamous and polyandrous relationships work. But I think it's a huge gamble for society to officially sanction, because my guess is that the failures outnumber the successes in the long run. (As opposed to gay marriage, where I think that one of the leading causes for failure of long-term gay relationships is currently exactly the lack of formal sanction or commitment.)
Thoughts? My apologies if I offend anyone with these thoughts; they're my opinions, and, as stated before, I'm very much not trying to prescribe a lifestyle choice for anyone. Do what works for you.
"Tom: Hey. You know what I always like about Dungeons & Dragons?
Jeff: What's that?
Tom: The complicated gradations of good and evil. You could make your character good, neutral or evil, but then you could shade it with "chaotic good" or "neutral evil" or "lawful evil."
Jeff: If only our leaders recognized such careful gradations. The Axis of Chaotic Evil is a much better way of looking at things.
Tom: Bin Laden is very much a chaotic evil figure. Lots of charisma points, though.
Jeff: How about Donald Rumsfeld?
Tom: I'm going to say lawful evil. How about John Kerry?
Jeff: Neutral good.
Tom: Ralph Nader?
Jeff: Definitely chaotic good. The bastard. "
Then there's a really good article on the whole "slippery slope" argument against gay marriage by Dahlia Lithwick on Slate. It again raises interesting questions in my mind about the issue of legalizing polygamous and polyandrous marriages:
So, I've discussed with people on this list before how, while I see nothing wrong with other people* having polyamorous relationships, I'm not sure that polyamory is compatible with marriage, for reasons that felt fairly incoherent to me.
*Just to make things clear, "people," for the purposes of this discussion, are defined as consenting, sane, honest adults.
Lithwick brings up several issues which I think are valid, beyond the traditional argument that polygamous marriages have historically frequently led to a serious power imbalance, often between older men and much younger women. This is true, but there is the obvious hypothetical of, say, 3 men and 2 women, all of roughly the same age and sexual experience, who want to have a happy, legally sanctioned family together. The argument that Lithwick makes against this is that the right to privacy sanctioned by the Supreme Court in cases like Griswold vs. CT (from which one of our marriage readings was taken) specifies a highly intimate, binary relationship. The idea is that it is personal, private intimacy which is beyond the government's control or scope. When you get to a love nest or 5 or 7 people, you may be in the range of the "right to assemble," but the privacy doctrine quite arguably doesn't apply.
Another logical argument to me deals with the specific kinds of rights which marriage gives, and which gay couples desire so urgently and justly. Let's take, for instance, the right to make medical decisions for one's spouse. If you have 4 spouses, the chances for exceedingly messy arguments and controversies is much higher. There's a strong advantage to simplicity in having _one_ other person who is primarily responsible for your welfare when you aren't available to decide yourself. In the Living Will I wrote after college, before traveling around the world for the year, it was necessary for me to set up a complex system in which at least 2 out of 3 of my immediate family members had to agree to, say, pull the plug, because I worried about the ability of all three people to agree on that decision. Now, I know that the person whom I trust and love most in the world will make those decisions, if ever necessary.
My final argument mostly comes down to cynicism, sadly. I think that one of the fundamental human emotions is jealousy. If you look, for instance, at the Ten Commandments (not bringing religion in here, but as an illustrative point), 3-4 of them are specifically about preventing or punishing jealousy or envy. None of the polygamous relationships described in Genesis seem to work out at all well - Rachel and Leah are jealous of each other, Sarah beats Hagar, David's kids by different wives fight. Compare this to Jacob and Rebecca, who have a great relationship as far as we can tell.
I'm not saying that there aren't generous, loving, forgiving people who could and do make permanent polygamous and polyandrous relationships work. But I think it's a huge gamble for society to officially sanction, because my guess is that the failures outnumber the successes in the long run. (As opposed to gay marriage, where I think that one of the leading causes for failure of long-term gay relationships is currently exactly the lack of formal sanction or commitment.)
Thoughts? My apologies if I offend anyone with these thoughts; they're my opinions, and, as stated before, I'm very much not trying to prescribe a lifestyle choice for anyone. Do what works for you.
Re: Prejudice and so forth.
Yeah, to recap something I know I've said to you before--on the other hand, many folks' definition would include man-and-woman; whereas my definition is, people you're willing to elevate to a distinct and different level of importance in your life, and make a life-time committment to stay with. I don't pretend that that's not hard and complicated to do for more than one person (heck, even if I remain poly I don't *ever* expect to want to marry multiple people), and that's one of the reasons why it boils down to "too difficult to legislate" for me; but that said, humans clearly are capable of making that level of committment to more than one person. Kids, f'rinstance. (Damn it, does committment have one or two t's? Neither looks right, and I don't feel like looking up.)
*shrug* As I said--not my crusade, but that's where I come down on the issue.
If, say, A. and I and all of our immediate families except our hypothetical 3-year-old were killed in a car crash, I'd rather have the kid be raised by very close friends than, say, distant cousins, and that's not cuz I don't like our cousins. It's messy. And to a certain extent, I'm not sure how much officialness and legality helps.
Well, I think legalization would be specifically aimed at the situation you described there. That kind of thing.
But I absolutely agree with you on the idea that it shouldn't just be "sign your name on the dotted line and you've got new family forever." I envision something more like, you pre-register, and then a year or two later you confirm and it goes into effect, and then you have to meet up and re-register every five years or so. It could be really meaningful: like a marriage ceremony, and re-affirming your vows every five years, except not marriage, because a family committment, rather than a romantic one. I think that would be cool.
And I think it would speak to another thing that I *dis*like about our society, which is the increasing importance placed on long-term sexual relationships above all others, to the point that I think part of the reason there's so much slash out there is that people want to explore deeply emotional, committed relationships between men who are friends and comrades, and sex becomes the expected playing out of that. Bring back comrades and blood-siblings and what-not!
Eh, it's not a new rant, but it's one of my favorites.