30 in 30 III - 8 - Controversial Polling
Jun. 8th, 2006 10:08 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
aggienautThe Gazebo Incident
Three years ago today there was no entry. Thats because at the time I was in the hospital due "blunt head trauma" due to getting kicked in the head while unconscious due to a lucky hit one of three guys who jumped me in a park got on my temple.
We had leads on who these people were, but officer Calvin Chang declined to do anything about it. Needless to say, Officer Chang was fired within a month.
The ASUCD Senate however decided to proclaim that Calvin Chang had done a good job. I wasn't very popular with them back then. Chang got rehired, its gone back and forth and now he's suing the regents.
Fortunately UC Regents President Dynes has got my back.
Just kidding. Sorry to those of you who don't get that one, but its pretty funny really.
Incidently, in a situation roughly analogous to mine, which Chang termed "just a fight," a guy was given three years in prison for knocking their opponent unconscious and kicking them in the head, and he wasn't even the attacker.
Controvercial Polling
Many people believe that one should be able to marry whomever they want. If we combine this philosophical tenet with a moral tenet held to be true by a major religion of today (yet forbidden by the dominant religion of the United States and not questioned here), we get an interesting question almost never discussed here:
[Poll #744737]
Picture of the Day
Guess which two people here ended up dating
Previously on Emosnail
Year Ago Today: Controversial Political Topics! - Estate taxes & the gradual elimination of cigarettes from society
Pick of the Day:
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
emd, for drawing portraits of fellow bloggists. Keeping in mind there are two hours left of this day, I will still consider anything posted these last two hours, but right now I'm about to go over to Kristy's to work on my paper there so I had to get this done now.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-06-09 05:15 am (UTC)PS: You didn't declare a winner of the day!
no subject
Date: 2006-06-09 05:21 am (UTC)NO!
Date: 2006-06-09 05:57 am (UTC)Re: NO!
Date: 2006-06-09 08:13 am (UTC)Re: NO!
Date: 2006-06-09 05:44 pm (UTC)*Growls*
Date: 2006-06-09 09:18 am (UTC)BASTA with the sauciness and trickery already!
P.S. Pope icon = terrifying
Re: *Growls*
Date: 2006-06-09 09:20 am (UTC)Your icon is hellorz cute.
Re: *Growls*
Date: 2006-06-09 09:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-09 12:06 pm (UTC)"entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem,"
That is:"entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity."
Marriage is a union, polygamy is an organization. There are more efficient unions to be made in cases of multiple sexual partners which also instill trust. Marriage is intended to be a union based on the absolute. The exclusion of being able to choose one spouse over that of many does not, in my mind, indicate the presence of this definition upon the minds of those in question.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-09 03:54 pm (UTC)Can you explain and back up this claim? Considering that polygamy is common worldwide, and even when monogamy is the norm many cultures have concubines and such, I question to what extent marriage is based on some absolute and to what extent you are taking the common christian additions to the general cultural practice. Also, I just don't know what you mean by the phrase, as it seems nebulous to me.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-09 05:09 pm (UTC)I don't follow your line of questioning in the second part of your statement?
no subject
Date: 2006-06-09 08:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-09 08:25 pm (UTC)I dunno, your icon makes me think things like this
Date: 2006-06-09 08:47 pm (UTC)Re: I dunno, your icon makes me think things like this
Date: 2006-06-09 10:50 pm (UTC)Re: I dunno, your icon makes me think things like this
Date: 2006-06-10 05:41 am (UTC)If the answer is yes, I for one welcome our new Gibbon overlords.
Re: I dunno, your icon makes me think things like this
Date: 2006-06-10 03:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-09 09:58 pm (UTC)1) I don't think that we should take simply the US context for what ought to be the case in marriage. Note that at one point inter-racial marriage was illegal in many parts of the US as one fast example.
2) It was really unclear to me what you ment by "the absolute". You could have ment it to represent the unity of God for all I could tell from the short writing of an LJ comment.
3) If you mean it in terms of trust and bond, I see no reason why we should not allow 3 people to try and build that kind of trust and bond together.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-09 11:04 pm (UTC)2) The poll questions the government recognition of marriage among multiple partners. As for historical precident, polygamy is more prevalent in times of famine, class systems, extremely unbalanced gender numbers, or high children mortality. It's a method to quickly seed a new generation. However, in a society that has roughly the same number of men and women and a lack of other inclusions, it has the possibility of limiting available people.
For absolute, a contract drawn between two persons offers more chance of mutual agreement as to the terms and interpretations (since no disagreement wil lbe anything more or less than 50% of the parties involved). Not to mention that there are only 24 hours in the standard day, and we humans live a finite existence. By the very factors involved (among happy, healthy couples at least), a polygamous marriage does not have the time and energy spent, per individual, that a monogamous marriage.
And lastly, polygamous marriages have a history of abuse by certain religions group(s) associated with a state.
3) The trust and bond available to two healthy, happy people bound in marriage cannot be experienced by three people. Simple mathematics: Hours / People = Hours / Day.
Note: to dispell any questions about my religious bias, let it be understood that I am for all practical purposes an atheist. And certainly not a Christian.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-09 11:21 pm (UTC)Would you ban people in the military from marrying because of time over seas preventing the building of trust through time?
Also, even if we take as given, which I don't, that all polygamous marriges result in less than maximal bonding, does this warrent discrimination by the state? Does not the state recognize many marriages which we may have reason to believe will be less than optimal bonding experiences? Say marriages to people who cannot have children though children may make a great bonding agent. It is not a question of what is best generally, but what should be allowed.
It may also be that some people for any number of reasons would bond no more in monogamy than polygamy but this may be too aside at the moment..
no subject
Date: 2006-06-10 05:39 am (UTC)Let me state now that I do *not* support any state denying the right to one or more couples being married.. only the recognition thereof. In some states (again, as ordained by the consensus of it's population) discrimination on these matters by making unsanctioned marriage (in regards to the state) illegal and punishable. I am not in support of this.
Your millitary analogy is non-applicable. For one, it serves the state, whereas polygamous marriage service the state(or society) is highly questionable and unlikely in the best. The state cannot know if a couple will be optimal or not, that is up to the couple. The state *can*, and will, refuse to give out perks if the married party violates certain principles. It works much like the tax on luxury goods, tobacco and alcohol.
It is not a question of what should be allowed. I am in full support of no penalties. It is a question of what should be promoted, which in this case is government sanction of the union.
I'll go off on a slight tangent: As to homosexuals, as it exists they *can* be married. Their union is merely unsanctioned by the government. Personally, I am in support of sanctioning such marriages as these.
If such peoples would bond better in polygamy than in monogamy, they can form a club or cooperative, or do without a government sanctioned marriage. A marriage is not for them, in my opinion.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-09 03:59 pm (UTC)As far ass who dated in the pic: The two women in the middle?
no subject
Date: 2006-06-09 04:34 pm (UTC)Also, I applied kristy for not participating in that raunchy STD pile.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-09 04:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-09 05:45 pm (UTC)Polygamists
Date: 2006-06-09 06:23 pm (UTC)...
=D
Re: Polygamists
Date: 2006-06-09 07:22 pm (UTC)Re: Polygamists
Date: 2006-06-09 07:27 pm (UTC)Re: Polygamists
Date: 2006-06-09 09:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-09 08:26 pm (UTC)Dating
Date: 2006-06-09 10:50 pm (UTC)That or the last two on the right, it looks like the guy in blue is seriously getting his grind on.
About the poll
Date: 2006-06-14 03:45 am (UTC)Homosexuality is forbidden by the Torah. Not just for Jews, but for non-Jews also. Polygamy is permitted by the Torah, but was forbidden by the decree of Rabbeinu Gershom about 1000 years ago. And that was only for Ashkenazic (rougly: European) Jews. Sephardic (roughly: Spanish and Middle-Eastern) Jews, and Yemenite Jews didn't accept this prohibition on themselves until about 50 years ago, for various other reasons.
So what's worse? Homosexuality, by far.
--Ken Bloom