30 in 30 III - 8 - Controversial Polling

[aggienaut]

The 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: 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.

Comments

[revchad.livejournal.com]

I don't follow your time equations. Are you assuming that the time won't be spent with all 3 together and that thus they will have limited time?

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..

[insolent-pool.livejournal.com]

The state (at a federal limit, unless the citizenry expresses otherwise) does not restrict marriages, it only condones them. It promotes what is perceived by the general consensus as socially acceptable by bestowing perks. It also limits a state-sanctioned marriage on what activities can be performed.
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.