Tennessee has proposed a new bill that would require mandatory paternity tests for all newborns.
OKay, on the one hand, there are a ridiculous number of children out there who are being raised by men who are unaware that their wife/girlfriend cheated on them and did not have their child, which often would indicate a desire for a divorce; also, many men are made to pay child support for children that they are not related to, nor ever made any effort to serve as a father.
Yet I believe that DNA is not important, it's intent. Once a man decides to raise a kid, he should raise that kid, regardless of the kid's actual DNA...
I don't think it should be mandatory. No way. That's a terrible invasion of privacy and automatically assumes fault on the part of the woman, plus it can give men information they don't want to have. I think it should be offered to all fathers (when the mother is not in the room) for free. They refuse it? Fine. They can never contest the paternity of the child again, because they've made that decision at that point that they don't care about DNA (and I applaud them). Even if at a later point the child is determined to be genetically unrelated, doesn't matter, they made that choice.
If they accept the test, and they are confirmed to be the father, great. If not? Well, if they immediately deny responsibility for the child, then they don't have to take it, as long as they never take on the role of father. BUt if they stay with the mother, start to raise the kid, whatever, then the paternity test will become irrelevant.
Also, once a paternity test is completed, all the DNA and records should be destroyed except for a note on the child's birth certificate. LAst thing we want is that shit on record.
Fathers should be offered one chance to know for sure, for free, with or without the mother's consent, if the child is theirs before they bond with the kid or make financial obligations towards them. One chance. That's it. And in exchange, women should get to subpoena men they believe to be the father for a confidential, free paternity test with the DNA information destroyed immediately afterwards. So women won't be left to fend for themselves, as long as they can reel off a list of all the men they slept with about 9 months earlier. Of course, you would have to require that the entire process would be completely confidential unless the man really is the father.
So in summary:
At birth, the man who thinks he is the father is offered a free paternity test. He refuses, he's the father by default, even if later he learns otherwise. He made the decision to be the father.
He accepts and it's positive, he's the father, and can never contest that.
He accepts and it's negative, he's not the father, and he can immediately sever all ties with the kid and the mom and not be held responsible. OR, he can decide to raise the kid anyway, despite that information, and will be considered the legal father even if he's not biologically related-- a relationship he then can't contest.
At any point, a mother can subpoena a guy she suspects of being a father for a paternity test. The entire process is kept discreet and if the man is not the father, he can go on his merry way and not worry about it. If he is, she can request child support from him and insist he take responsibility.
All DNA samples and anything that could be used against a person later is destroyed, as it would otherwise be self-incrimination and illegal to use it at a later point for a purpose other than it was provided for. That would be very important and have to be specifically mentioned in the law in such a way that the entire law would have to be scrapped and rewritten to get past it.
And for Pete's sake, don't make it mandatory (unless someone is attempting to skip out on the paternity checks). Make it free an readily available, sure. But not mandatory. The law should not be intruding into people's lives in that manner.
Showing posts with label laws. Show all posts
Showing posts with label laws. Show all posts
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Home Schooling and the Law
So California is requiring that all homeschooling parents have teaching credentials.
I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, there are a lot of crazy whackjobs who homeschool their children so the kids don't have to learn about evolution or condoms. On the other, public schools can really suck, and homeschooled kids whose parents were actually trying to help the kid are going to get penalized.
Clearly there should be regulations for homeschooling. You can't just let people homeschool kids any way they want, because kids aren't able to make their own informed decisions and therefore should not be at the mercy of their parents' every whim. But teaching credentials? Nah. What I think they should have is the following:
1. If a parent wants to homeschool, they should have to register with the state, or their kid should be considered to be playing hooky. That's pretty standard.
2. The parent can't have a history of physical or emotional abuse of the child, or any other kids. Also think that's pretty standard.
3. The parent should have a high school diploma, or a GED. I know, seems like a no brainer, but apparently a very small percentage of home school parents in the US never finished high school. That's probably a good sign that they aren't qualified to teach their kids.
4. Once a year, the kid should be tested against the standards for kids in his or her year. They do better or equal to other kids their age, they can continue homeschooling. I think this is also common. These tests should also include more than just reading and writing-- if it's required learning at school, and it's not gym/art/music etc, it should be required at home. So cover English, math, and history, but also science, health (even sex ed), and basic computer studies, which are neccessary to survive in the modern world.
5. When the kid reaches middle school material (ie stuff they could theoretically have forgotten since they were in school, as opposed to your basic reading and writing and times tables), the parents should have to get a special Parent Teaching Certification. I'm not talking about holding them to the levels of normal teachers. I'm talking about giving them a test that covers the material they want to teach to the kid. They pass the test, they can teach that material. If they don't, community college classes or back to school. That way you won't get people who are unqualified teaching their kids, but it's also not like they have to know Calculus and have a master's degree to teach middle-school algebra.
6. If the kid is mentally disabled (beyond a learning disability or ADHD, I mean really disabled), the parent should have some kind of degree in working with people with disabilities. Those kids need pretty specialized education, and allowing them to be homeschooled, especially since there's no real way to measure their progress like with most kids, is asking for the system to be abused. Similarly, if the kid is blind, the parent should be able to read and create (write?) Braille and if the kid is deaf, the parent should be fluent in sign language. Now, of course, sometimes you get people who are just too disabled to ever really learn anything. If that truly is the case, like they'll never pass a toddler's mental level, then I understand not making them go into a SPED program that basically will babysit them all day. That would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. But someone with, say, Down's Syndrome can benefit a great deal from a teacher who actually understands how to work with them, rather than an unqualified parent.
And that would be it. Check on the kid once a year (every six months if you want to be paranoid) to make sure something's sticking, make sure their parent is actually remotely qualified to teach the stuff and not some hick who plans to plop their kid in front of the TV all day, and keep track of who's getting homeschooled. That's all you really need. Do it right, and your homeschool kids won't be able to get a worse education than the public school ones, and it'll probably be better. And hey, to address the social aspect, let homeschool kids join sports teams and clubs at the local high school if they want and offer lots of community programs.
But making parents have the same credentials as teachers seems a bit silly. An education course (usually part of the requirement) makes sense if you need to learn how to effectively teach many different children the same thing all at once and maximize learning. For a parent who teaches one or two kids at once, and always the same kids, it's easy to learn what teaching style the kid needs. What's more, effective teaching strategies for 25 kids are going to be very ineffective for 2 kids. This just serves to make it very challenging for parents to homeschool without addressing the real problems with homeschooling, ie, that it can be abused without anyone knowing, and that no one was enforcing the old rules.
Also, maybe, just maybe, California should try to fix the problems in the public school system before wasting time trying to micromanage home schoolers, who on average are more successful than public-school graduates?
Just saying.
I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, there are a lot of crazy whackjobs who homeschool their children so the kids don't have to learn about evolution or condoms. On the other, public schools can really suck, and homeschooled kids whose parents were actually trying to help the kid are going to get penalized.
Clearly there should be regulations for homeschooling. You can't just let people homeschool kids any way they want, because kids aren't able to make their own informed decisions and therefore should not be at the mercy of their parents' every whim. But teaching credentials? Nah. What I think they should have is the following:
1. If a parent wants to homeschool, they should have to register with the state, or their kid should be considered to be playing hooky. That's pretty standard.
2. The parent can't have a history of physical or emotional abuse of the child, or any other kids. Also think that's pretty standard.
3. The parent should have a high school diploma, or a GED. I know, seems like a no brainer, but apparently a very small percentage of home school parents in the US never finished high school. That's probably a good sign that they aren't qualified to teach their kids.
4. Once a year, the kid should be tested against the standards for kids in his or her year. They do better or equal to other kids their age, they can continue homeschooling. I think this is also common. These tests should also include more than just reading and writing-- if it's required learning at school, and it's not gym/art/music etc, it should be required at home. So cover English, math, and history, but also science, health (even sex ed), and basic computer studies, which are neccessary to survive in the modern world.
5. When the kid reaches middle school material (ie stuff they could theoretically have forgotten since they were in school, as opposed to your basic reading and writing and times tables), the parents should have to get a special Parent Teaching Certification. I'm not talking about holding them to the levels of normal teachers. I'm talking about giving them a test that covers the material they want to teach to the kid. They pass the test, they can teach that material. If they don't, community college classes or back to school. That way you won't get people who are unqualified teaching their kids, but it's also not like they have to know Calculus and have a master's degree to teach middle-school algebra.
6. If the kid is mentally disabled (beyond a learning disability or ADHD, I mean really disabled), the parent should have some kind of degree in working with people with disabilities. Those kids need pretty specialized education, and allowing them to be homeschooled, especially since there's no real way to measure their progress like with most kids, is asking for the system to be abused. Similarly, if the kid is blind, the parent should be able to read and create (write?) Braille and if the kid is deaf, the parent should be fluent in sign language. Now, of course, sometimes you get people who are just too disabled to ever really learn anything. If that truly is the case, like they'll never pass a toddler's mental level, then I understand not making them go into a SPED program that basically will babysit them all day. That would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. But someone with, say, Down's Syndrome can benefit a great deal from a teacher who actually understands how to work with them, rather than an unqualified parent.
And that would be it. Check on the kid once a year (every six months if you want to be paranoid) to make sure something's sticking, make sure their parent is actually remotely qualified to teach the stuff and not some hick who plans to plop their kid in front of the TV all day, and keep track of who's getting homeschooled. That's all you really need. Do it right, and your homeschool kids won't be able to get a worse education than the public school ones, and it'll probably be better. And hey, to address the social aspect, let homeschool kids join sports teams and clubs at the local high school if they want and offer lots of community programs.
But making parents have the same credentials as teachers seems a bit silly. An education course (usually part of the requirement) makes sense if you need to learn how to effectively teach many different children the same thing all at once and maximize learning. For a parent who teaches one or two kids at once, and always the same kids, it's easy to learn what teaching style the kid needs. What's more, effective teaching strategies for 25 kids are going to be very ineffective for 2 kids. This just serves to make it very challenging for parents to homeschool without addressing the real problems with homeschooling, ie, that it can be abused without anyone knowing, and that no one was enforcing the old rules.
Also, maybe, just maybe, California should try to fix the problems in the public school system before wasting time trying to micromanage home schoolers, who on average are more successful than public-school graduates?
Just saying.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Guns in our schools-- legally
Apparently Arizona is debating allowing concealed carry rights in school zones, in the wake of all the recent school shootings (and there has been a LOT lately, hasn't there?).
Honestly, this... kind of makes sense. It's really sad that we have to deal with this at all, but you know, we live in a country where it's so easy to get a gun without a permit, we kind of need people who are armed as defense.
I'm not so sure about how young this goes, though. I can see letting high school teachers and staff, even middle school teachers and staff, who have permits and are trained in gun use and safety carry weapons, but honestly, when was the last time a first grader shot up a school? They bring weapons in at that young, but they can usually be restrained/disarmed easily. I guess you could make exceptions if there was a particular danger for an individual, like the case in Oregon where a teacher sued the school district because they refused to allow her to carry a gun when she was worried about her ex husband attacking her (he had threatened to kill her).
Maybe tighten up the standards as to who can get a special permit to carry a weapon at a school? I would say that the standards there should be a little stricter, ie, psych evaluation, take classes on gun safety, and prove that you can effectively use the gun to prevent an attacker from continuing (preferably without killing them, but preventing them from using their weapon or moving). And repeat the entire process every 5 years. At the same time, they could teach potential applicants the procedure should police arrive (basically it would have to be that unless doing so would mean serious injury or death, drop to the floor, take your hand off the trigger or slide the gun over to the cops, and keep your hands where the police can see them-- aka, give them all the signs that you are completely on their side).
I doubt I could ever kill or injure something alive with a gun, but I still support gun rights-- partially because it's in the Constitution, clear and apparent, and partially because I think people should have the right to do whatever they want as long as it's not hurting anyone else. Of course, people need permits and training in use beforehand, because guns are a lot more complex with much more variety than when the Constitution was written, plus people are living closer together and we medicate the mentally unstable people instead of locking them up or trying to exorcise them (this is a VERY good thing, don't get me wrong, but it does mean that a random, dangerous person can stop their treatment and wind up on national television). So yeah, there needs to be regulation. Also, because our culture is very different and kids are less mature at the same ages, obviously kids need to be even more regulated in gun ownership than adults, and no kid should ever be allowed to have a gun in school.
As for college students, I'd say you should keep kids from having them in the dorms or bringing them on campus. If they hunt, they can buy a storage locker somewhere. It's not that I don't think college students should defend themselves against attackers, it's just that I am a college student, and I know college classes, and honestly, I'd feel safer if one loner comes to campus and I can't be defended from them than by allowing your average college student to have a gun...
On second though, better ban it for middle school teachers too. I always was amazed that my middle school teachers didn't try the "going postal" route. Clearly, destined for sainthood.
Sorry if that was rambling, what are your thoughts on gun control?
Honestly, this... kind of makes sense. It's really sad that we have to deal with this at all, but you know, we live in a country where it's so easy to get a gun without a permit, we kind of need people who are armed as defense.
I'm not so sure about how young this goes, though. I can see letting high school teachers and staff, even middle school teachers and staff, who have permits and are trained in gun use and safety carry weapons, but honestly, when was the last time a first grader shot up a school? They bring weapons in at that young, but they can usually be restrained/disarmed easily. I guess you could make exceptions if there was a particular danger for an individual, like the case in Oregon where a teacher sued the school district because they refused to allow her to carry a gun when she was worried about her ex husband attacking her (he had threatened to kill her).
Maybe tighten up the standards as to who can get a special permit to carry a weapon at a school? I would say that the standards there should be a little stricter, ie, psych evaluation, take classes on gun safety, and prove that you can effectively use the gun to prevent an attacker from continuing (preferably without killing them, but preventing them from using their weapon or moving). And repeat the entire process every 5 years. At the same time, they could teach potential applicants the procedure should police arrive (basically it would have to be that unless doing so would mean serious injury or death, drop to the floor, take your hand off the trigger or slide the gun over to the cops, and keep your hands where the police can see them-- aka, give them all the signs that you are completely on their side).I doubt I could ever kill or injure something alive with a gun, but I still support gun rights-- partially because it's in the Constitution, clear and apparent, and partially because I think people should have the right to do whatever they want as long as it's not hurting anyone else. Of course, people need permits and training in use beforehand, because guns are a lot more complex with much more variety than when the Constitution was written, plus people are living closer together and we medicate the mentally unstable people instead of locking them up or trying to exorcise them (this is a VERY good thing, don't get me wrong, but it does mean that a random, dangerous person can stop their treatment and wind up on national television). So yeah, there needs to be regulation. Also, because our culture is very different and kids are less mature at the same ages, obviously kids need to be even more regulated in gun ownership than adults, and no kid should ever be allowed to have a gun in school.
As for college students, I'd say you should keep kids from having them in the dorms or bringing them on campus. If they hunt, they can buy a storage locker somewhere. It's not that I don't think college students should defend themselves against attackers, it's just that I am a college student, and I know college classes, and honestly, I'd feel safer if one loner comes to campus and I can't be defended from them than by allowing your average college student to have a gun...
On second though, better ban it for middle school teachers too. I always was amazed that my middle school teachers didn't try the "going postal" route. Clearly, destined for sainthood.
Sorry if that was rambling, what are your thoughts on gun control?
Friday, February 8, 2008
This concept of "wuv" confuses and enrages us
I know this is in Italy and I'm not supposed to be reading the news anyway, but this is ridiculous. A court in Italy decided to severely reduce a 34-year-old man's sentence for having sex with an underage (13 year old) girl because they decided there was "real love" between the pair.
First of all:
In Italy, the age of consent is 14, so this is like the equivalent of in the average US state (where consent is usually about 16) a 36 year old and a 15 year old. So sketchy, illegal technically, but don't think of it as quite the same thing legally as a 30 year old and a 13 year old in this country.
HOWEVER, the reason behind the sentence reduction was not "she was only a year away from being able to consent, so we'll reduce it on those grounds" but it was "they loved each other."
Here's the thing. The law says a 13 year old can't consent to sex, she can't consent to sex. Period. Well, she can, but it's invalid consent-- like if a completely plastered girl consents to sex, that's invalid (of course in that case, she may have had a standing consent with a guy that it was okay for him to have sex with her while she was drunk, like if they were dating. Someone who is underage could not have done that, since they have never previously been able to give valid consent). According to the laws of consent, when a person who is underage consents to sex, their words are essentially meaningless, and only affect whether or not the crime is "statutory rape" or just "rape."
And yet according to this Italian court, if the girl "loves" the man (maybe she did, doesn't matter) and he loves her, then her consent becomes valid. Despite the fact that nothing in her brain changes when she thinks she loves the man that makes her judgment better and makes her older.
Ultimately, though, what really bothers me is that this is a moral decision on the part of the judge. According to this judge, sex + love = okay, sex + no love = bad. And even though I personally agree, I don't think that that is a decision the courts should make. This is saying that a teenage girl who has sex with an older man because she thought he was hot and wanted to have sex was somehow coerced and unable to consent, but one who wanted to have sex with an older man because she felt she truly loved him was NOT coerced.
It's saying that women/girls would NEVER have sex willingly unless they loved the man and the man loved them (could also be saying the same for young men, but I doubt it; anyway, that's irrelevant). Which is not true and a moral judgment of women who have sex with people they do not love. If the judge feels that that is immoral, fine, but it shouldn't come into the courtroom. Judges should go by the law, not their own moral codes, if they live under a truly secular government, which Italy claims to have.
First of all:
In Italy, the age of consent is 14, so this is like the equivalent of in the average US state (where consent is usually about 16) a 36 year old and a 15 year old. So sketchy, illegal technically, but don't think of it as quite the same thing legally as a 30 year old and a 13 year old in this country.
HOWEVER, the reason behind the sentence reduction was not "she was only a year away from being able to consent, so we'll reduce it on those grounds" but it was "they loved each other."
Here's the thing. The law says a 13 year old can't consent to sex, she can't consent to sex. Period. Well, she can, but it's invalid consent-- like if a completely plastered girl consents to sex, that's invalid (of course in that case, she may have had a standing consent with a guy that it was okay for him to have sex with her while she was drunk, like if they were dating. Someone who is underage could not have done that, since they have never previously been able to give valid consent). According to the laws of consent, when a person who is underage consents to sex, their words are essentially meaningless, and only affect whether or not the crime is "statutory rape" or just "rape."
And yet according to this Italian court, if the girl "loves" the man (maybe she did, doesn't matter) and he loves her, then her consent becomes valid. Despite the fact that nothing in her brain changes when she thinks she loves the man that makes her judgment better and makes her older.
Ultimately, though, what really bothers me is that this is a moral decision on the part of the judge. According to this judge, sex + love = okay, sex + no love = bad. And even though I personally agree, I don't think that that is a decision the courts should make. This is saying that a teenage girl who has sex with an older man because she thought he was hot and wanted to have sex was somehow coerced and unable to consent, but one who wanted to have sex with an older man because she felt she truly loved him was NOT coerced.
It's saying that women/girls would NEVER have sex willingly unless they loved the man and the man loved them (could also be saying the same for young men, but I doubt it; anyway, that's irrelevant). Which is not true and a moral judgment of women who have sex with people they do not love. If the judge feels that that is immoral, fine, but it shouldn't come into the courtroom. Judges should go by the law, not their own moral codes, if they live under a truly secular government, which Italy claims to have.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Incest Laws
So, social libertarians out there-- which should be illegal?
A man marries his biological sister whom he was raised with and has two kids.
A woman marries her biological brother whom she was raised with, but one or both of them is sterile.
A man marries his adopted sister, who was adopted at age 3.
A woman marries her adopted brother, who was taken in at age 12.
A man marries his stepsister. Their parents were married when they were five.
A woman marries her stepbrother. Their parents were married when they were twenty.
A man marries his half-sister but one or both of them are sterile.
A woman marries her half-brother and they have kids.
A man marries his biological sister-- whom he was separated from at birth and didn't meet until adulthood. They have kids.
Same scenario as above, with sterility as a factor.
First cousins marry and have children.
First cousins marry and have no children.
Second cousins?
An aunt and a nephew?
Where are the lines?
My outlook on it-- it should be illegal under all circumstances for two full-blood siblings who were raised together to marry and/or have children. People like that have clear mental issues and their kids would be messed up, physically from inbreeding and mentally as well.
If one or both proves sterility? Doesn't matter. Still the mental issue, potential for abuse, etc. Should they be jailed if they are incestuous? Nah. Order them into counseling and set up a restraining order to keep them apart.
What if they didn't know each other as children, though? If they met as adults? Well, this is rare enough that I figure that saying they can marry as long as they prove sterility first, for the sake of any kids. They weren't raised together. They may not even have known for a while. They're probably messed up a bit, but not the same as if they had been raised together.
I've always thought the guidelines should be:
-If they were raised in the same household since before one or both hit puberty, no marriage. Even if they weren't biologically related at all. If they weren't, then they should be able to marry. This wouldn't apply to large group homes or anything, naturally, only family situations where they are raised as siblings. There is a big potential for abuse there and on top of that to be attracted to someone whom you perceive as a sibling and have always perceived as a sibling is a sign of mental issues. Natural hormones developed from growing up in the same household should have made your siblings and parents seem sexually gross to you.
-If they are immediate family, full-blood or half-blood, or they are the aunt, uncle, niece, or nephew of their potential spouse, they should not be allowed to have children. Well, more specifically, they should not be allowed to marry unless they prove sterility, and if they have children they should not be allowed to raise those children themselves. Also, they shouldn't be allowed to adopt, because we really don't want whatever made them think this wasn't vile to get passed on to the next generation, and there's too much emotional baggage involved anyway. If there is sterility and the first guideline doesn't apply, they should be able to marry.
-If they are first-cousins, they should be able to marry as long as the first guideline doesn't apply. However, double first cousins-- ones that are cousins though more than one line-- shouldn't be able to have kids. North Carolina has the right idea with the distinction between double cousins and regular cousins, I think.
And of course all the laws should be made to include homosexual relationships, which should be treated the exact same way, only in all cases, of course, the sterility would be guaranteed, and they shouldn't be allowed to adopt. Two full-blood sisters shouldn't be able to marry. An uncle and nephew? Sure, as long as there's no sign of child abuse previously and both are of age. However, if your brother and your son want to get married, I think you need to seriously consider seppuku. Or at least a nice, comforting lobotomy and a change of identity.
And yes, the very thought of it makes me feel icky. Incest in any form to anyone closer than like a third cousin makes me feel icky (that's why it's nice that my boyfriend is a completely different ethnicity). It's gross. It's taboo. There is very little redeeming about it and it should be REALLY, REALLY discouraged by religions, parents, teachers, society as a whole... but that doesn't mean it should always be illegal. Laws should protect people from other people, protect minors from everything, and protect the mentally disturbed from themselves. So in many cases where there's a likelihood that it's not a case of mental issues, and there are no kids, there are no victims. It's gross, but then again, so are lots of legal things, like open-casket funerals, scat porn, rocky mountain oysters and Michael Jackson's face.
A man marries his biological sister whom he was raised with and has two kids.
A woman marries her biological brother whom she was raised with, but one or both of them is sterile.
A man marries his adopted sister, who was adopted at age 3.A woman marries her adopted brother, who was taken in at age 12.
A man marries his stepsister. Their parents were married when they were five.
A woman marries her stepbrother. Their parents were married when they were twenty.
A man marries his half-sister but one or both of them are sterile.
A woman marries her half-brother and they have kids.
A man marries his biological sister-- whom he was separated from at birth and didn't meet until adulthood. They have kids.
Same scenario as above, with sterility as a factor.
First cousins marry and have children.
First cousins marry and have no children.
Second cousins?
An aunt and a nephew?
Where are the lines?
My outlook on it-- it should be illegal under all circumstances for two full-blood siblings who were raised together to marry and/or have children. People like that have clear mental issues and their kids would be messed up, physically from inbreeding and mentally as well. If one or both proves sterility? Doesn't matter. Still the mental issue, potential for abuse, etc. Should they be jailed if they are incestuous? Nah. Order them into counseling and set up a restraining order to keep them apart.
What if they didn't know each other as children, though? If they met as adults? Well, this is rare enough that I figure that saying they can marry as long as they prove sterility first, for the sake of any kids. They weren't raised together. They may not even have known for a while. They're probably messed up a bit, but not the same as if they had been raised together.
I've always thought the guidelines should be:
-If they were raised in the same household since before one or both hit puberty, no marriage. Even if they weren't biologically related at all. If they weren't, then they should be able to marry. This wouldn't apply to large group homes or anything, naturally, only family situations where they are raised as siblings. There is a big potential for abuse there and on top of that to be attracted to someone whom you perceive as a sibling and have always perceived as a sibling is a sign of mental issues. Natural hormones developed from growing up in the same household should have made your siblings and parents seem sexually gross to you.
-If they are immediate family, full-blood or half-blood, or they are the aunt, uncle, niece, or nephew of their potential spouse, they should not be allowed to have children. Well, more specifically, they should not be allowed to marry unless they prove sterility, and if they have children they should not be allowed to raise those children themselves. Also, they shouldn't be allowed to adopt, because we really don't want whatever made them think this wasn't vile to get passed on to the next generation, and there's too much emotional baggage involved anyway. If there is sterility and the first guideline doesn't apply, they should be able to marry.
-If they are first-cousins, they should be able to marry as long as the first guideline doesn't apply. However, double first cousins-- ones that are cousins though more than one line-- shouldn't be able to have kids. North Carolina has the right idea with the distinction between double cousins and regular cousins, I think. And of course all the laws should be made to include homosexual relationships, which should be treated the exact same way, only in all cases, of course, the sterility would be guaranteed, and they shouldn't be allowed to adopt. Two full-blood sisters shouldn't be able to marry. An uncle and nephew? Sure, as long as there's no sign of child abuse previously and both are of age. However, if your brother and your son want to get married, I think you need to seriously consider seppuku. Or at least a nice, comforting lobotomy and a change of identity.
And yes, the very thought of it makes me feel icky. Incest in any form to anyone closer than like a third cousin makes me feel icky (that's why it's nice that my boyfriend is a completely different ethnicity). It's gross. It's taboo. There is very little redeeming about it and it should be REALLY, REALLY discouraged by religions, parents, teachers, society as a whole... but that doesn't mean it should always be illegal. Laws should protect people from other people, protect minors from everything, and protect the mentally disturbed from themselves. So in many cases where there's a likelihood that it's not a case of mental issues, and there are no kids, there are no victims. It's gross, but then again, so are lots of legal things, like open-casket funerals, scat porn, rocky mountain oysters and Michael Jackson's face.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
The Case For Group Marriage
I am a big fan of legalizing stuff. I'm a social libertarian when it comes to adults. I've always thought laws should protect people from other people (i.e. no murder) and protect children and the mentally ill, but if you're of sound mind and body and you want to become a crackhead, I'm not about to stop you, unless I actually care about you personally.
But there's some things that are tricky.
Group marriage is a good example. I'm calling it group marriage because the term "polygamy" is used colloquially to refer to "religious-based polygyny" but "group marriage" both includes traditional polygamy and those weirdos where there's three men and four women and they all love each other.
Now, I think people should be allowed to marry how many people they want. And yet. There should be restrictions. If group marriage was legalized, you would have to say:
-All members would have to be over 18. This applies even if people can marry their first partner at a younger age, like how in Utah it's 14. Teenagers can be a lot more impressionable than adults and you want to hold off that sort of thing as long as possible. They need to be out from under their parent's control, and if my other idea of a national service was enacted, wait until they get out of the national service, when they're 20 or so. The longer they are out from under their parent's immediate control before the marriage, the better.
-All previous spouses must agree. Let's say a man decides he wants to marry his mistress, but he and his first wife don't want to divorce because of the kids, and his first wife doesn't approve. He can't just marry the second woman. The first wife has to give her consent before a judge and that judge has to make an effort to make sure the first wife was in no way coerced. The second wife would also have to be doing this of her own volition (and not under parental control or anything) and be fully aware of the man's situation. I'm thinking waiting periods and consent forms and opt-out clauses and everything.
-All partners have to have regular access to the mainstream community and the right to file a divorce if they so chose.
-You have to figure out certain logistics. Like what happens in case of a divorce? I say if one woman divorces her husband, who has three other wives, then she should get MAXIMUM 1/5th of his money and belongings. He should still have to pay normal child support though (and I favor abolishing alimony).
-Another logistic would be who makes the decisions? Let's say you're in a polyamorous marriage and one of your two husbands is on life support, but your third wife is radically anti-pulling the plug and your first wife thinks it's time. I say that unless the husband writes a living will labeling one of the partners as the decider it should be chosen by vote.
But there are other issues with group marriage, like the toll it takes on a society. Look at the Muslims, who have created an underclass of unmarried, very frustrated men who blow up buildings for God. Now, let's face it. There is no way that legalizing group marriage in America will make it mainstream, not with the above restrictions. There's too many Christians, too many empowered women, and too many educated men who understand the flaws in that system. You would have three groups who try it: Fundamentalist Mormons, who are doing it anyway and at least the prospect of making it legally binding and giving them validity would (potentially) make them come into the open and thus help us regulate the negative sides to it-- plus most of their practices would be illegal under my system anyway; very few Fundamentalist Muslims, mostly just-off-the-boat immigrants-- Westernized Muslims don't do the plural marriage thing; and nutty polyamorous people who are a tiny minority AND tend to be educated enough that people leave when they figure out that they don't like it.
If we make it seem to the religious polygamists that we are more accepting of their lifestyle, they will be a bit more trusting of us. Then we can start educating their children.* Once you educate the younger generation on your own you can start to empower the young women to protest, encourage the young men to see the problems in the system, and over many generations of Westernization the ideas will lose popularity.
Laws don't really change society, education for children changes society, and much faster.
*In an ideal world you would also say that no person can have more than two biological children. That would basically ELIMINATE religious-based group marriage, because those men don't want to support a wife who can't provide offspring. But that's unlikely at best.
But there's some things that are tricky.
Group marriage is a good example. I'm calling it group marriage because the term "polygamy" is used colloquially to refer to "religious-based polygyny" but "group marriage" both includes traditional polygamy and those weirdos where there's three men and four women and they all love each other.Now, I think people should be allowed to marry how many people they want. And yet. There should be restrictions. If group marriage was legalized, you would have to say:
-All members would have to be over 18. This applies even if people can marry their first partner at a younger age, like how in Utah it's 14. Teenagers can be a lot more impressionable than adults and you want to hold off that sort of thing as long as possible. They need to be out from under their parent's control, and if my other idea of a national service was enacted, wait until they get out of the national service, when they're 20 or so. The longer they are out from under their parent's immediate control before the marriage, the better.
-All previous spouses must agree. Let's say a man decides he wants to marry his mistress, but he and his first wife don't want to divorce because of the kids, and his first wife doesn't approve. He can't just marry the second woman. The first wife has to give her consent before a judge and that judge has to make an effort to make sure the first wife was in no way coerced. The second wife would also have to be doing this of her own volition (and not under parental control or anything) and be fully aware of the man's situation. I'm thinking waiting periods and consent forms and opt-out clauses and everything.-All partners have to have regular access to the mainstream community and the right to file a divorce if they so chose.
-You have to figure out certain logistics. Like what happens in case of a divorce? I say if one woman divorces her husband, who has three other wives, then she should get MAXIMUM 1/5th of his money and belongings. He should still have to pay normal child support though (and I favor abolishing alimony).
-Another logistic would be who makes the decisions? Let's say you're in a polyamorous marriage and one of your two husbands is on life support, but your third wife is radically anti-pulling the plug and your first wife thinks it's time. I say that unless the husband writes a living will labeling one of the partners as the decider it should be chosen by vote.But there are other issues with group marriage, like the toll it takes on a society. Look at the Muslims, who have created an underclass of unmarried, very frustrated men who blow up buildings for God. Now, let's face it. There is no way that legalizing group marriage in America will make it mainstream, not with the above restrictions. There's too many Christians, too many empowered women, and too many educated men who understand the flaws in that system. You would have three groups who try it: Fundamentalist Mormons, who are doing it anyway and at least the prospect of making it legally binding and giving them validity would (potentially) make them come into the open and thus help us regulate the negative sides to it-- plus most of their practices would be illegal under my system anyway; very few Fundamentalist Muslims, mostly just-off-the-boat immigrants-- Westernized Muslims don't do the plural marriage thing; and nutty polyamorous people who are a tiny minority AND tend to be educated enough that people leave when they figure out that they don't like it.
If we make it seem to the religious polygamists that we are more accepting of their lifestyle, they will be a bit more trusting of us. Then we can start educating their children.* Once you educate the younger generation on your own you can start to empower the young women to protest, encourage the young men to see the problems in the system, and over many generations of Westernization the ideas will lose popularity. Laws don't really change society, education for children changes society, and much faster.
*In an ideal world you would also say that no person can have more than two biological children. That would basically ELIMINATE religious-based group marriage, because those men don't want to support a wife who can't provide offspring. But that's unlikely at best.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
