Not a straw man, although I may have read your post with a different emphasis than you intended. You said, along with material that your response now echoes:
" "Marriage" should not be a matter for government at all So kill civil marriage Instead, handle the legal issues currently dealt with by marriage (those that don't equate to prostitution, that is) by making specific provisons that people can use in contractual agreements
Beyond that? You call a marriage what you want to, and I'll call a marriage what I want to."
I don't think I took these phrases out of context. The difference between our actual views, now that you've clarified yours, seems to be that you think it's worth it to unbundle a considerable number of the rights now associated w/ marriage, in exchange for equity and analytical neatness (i.e., getting rid of a "loaded" term) and I don't.
Equity can be substantially achieved by widening the meaning of the term somewhat, the bundle seems to work very well as is, and it is not analytically neat to make up euphemisms. It's a useful word: universally understood and conflating many related concepts. To the extent that it needs to have less baggage, I think that the distinction between "civil marriage" and "religious marriage" unloads the bare term.
I agree that triad bonds can be treated just like dyad bonds. But logically (and equitably), why stop there once you admit the possibility of non-dyadic marriage? And I don't see how you can give incrementally less privilege to members of a larger "marriage," since virtually all the bundled rights are non-incremental. I don't yet see any specific feasible adaptation for poly arrangements that doesn't make abuse of the institution far too easy, do you? Possibly this need not be solved today, perhaps we need to let some customs evolve.
My best current understanding of what you seem to have in mind when you suggest partial, optional unbundling is the kind of option choice available to the founders of a corporation or partnership. So, we would have notmarriage1 (all the current bundled rights) notmarriage2 (all the rights except childcare), notmarriage3 (all the rights except childcare and insurance benefits), notmarriage4 (all the rights except insurance benefits), etc. I think I have suggested why this won't work -- third parties cannot reasonably be expected to keep track of all the variants, and therefore the participants cannot get the benefits they wish to. In fact, incorporation and partnerships don't work that way either as far as third-party interaction goes: the stockholders or partners may spell out their _mutual_ obligations as they please, but third parties have the right to assume that members have authority, are obliged to certain debts of the institution, etc., no matter what the members may wish. Am I still missing your point?
By the way, what is wrong with saying that most useful laws of general application codify custom? You sneer without explanation at "it has always been that way." The Girondists believed that it would be much more rational to rearrange the calendar to provide salutary lessons, but it turned out that it was easier to use "April" than "Germinal." Overhauling custom is sometimes necessary, but it is always worth remembering that the custom serves a purpose as it is.
no subject
" "Marriage" should not be a matter for government at all So kill civil marriage Instead, handle the legal issues currently dealt with by marriage (those that don't equate to prostitution, that is) by making specific provisons that people can use in contractual agreements
Beyond that? You call a marriage what you want to, and I'll call a marriage what I want to."
I don't think I took these phrases out of context. The difference between our actual views, now that you've clarified yours, seems to be that you think it's worth it to unbundle a considerable number of the rights now associated w/ marriage, in exchange for equity and analytical neatness (i.e., getting rid of a "loaded" term) and I don't.
Equity can be substantially achieved by widening the meaning of the term somewhat, the bundle seems to work very well as is, and it is not analytically neat to make up euphemisms. It's a useful word: universally understood and conflating many related concepts. To the extent that it needs to have less baggage, I think that the distinction between "civil marriage" and "religious marriage" unloads the bare term.
I agree that triad bonds can be treated just like dyad bonds. But logically (and equitably), why stop there once you admit the possibility of non-dyadic marriage? And I don't see how you can give incrementally less privilege to members of a larger "marriage," since virtually all the bundled rights are non-incremental. I don't yet see any specific feasible adaptation for poly arrangements that doesn't make abuse of the institution far too easy, do you? Possibly this need not be solved today, perhaps we need to let some customs evolve.
My best current understanding of what you seem to have in mind when you suggest partial, optional unbundling is the kind of option choice available to the founders of a corporation or partnership. So, we would have notmarriage1 (all the current bundled rights) notmarriage2 (all the rights except childcare), notmarriage3 (all the rights except childcare and insurance benefits), notmarriage4 (all the rights except insurance benefits), etc. I think I have suggested why this won't work -- third parties cannot reasonably be expected to keep track of all the variants, and therefore the participants cannot get the benefits they wish to. In fact, incorporation and partnerships don't work that way either as far as third-party interaction goes: the stockholders or partners may spell out their _mutual_ obligations as they please, but third parties have the right to assume that members have authority, are obliged to certain debts of the institution, etc., no matter what the members may wish. Am I still missing your point?
By the way, what is wrong with saying that most useful laws of general application codify custom? You sneer without explanation at "it has always been that way." The Girondists believed that it would be much more rational to rearrange the calendar to provide salutary lessons, but it turned out that it was easier to use "April" than "Germinal." Overhauling custom is sometimes necessary, but it is always worth remembering that the custom serves a purpose as it is.