A reminder: VOTE.

[TheTSKoala]

The corpse can't consent.

One could agrue that the concept of volenti non fit injuria could infer to and include the status of being dead.  "Well, your honor, he knew that when he was dead, he'd have no control over his body at that point.. because.. well.. he's dead.  So, he knew the facts of this, and he died anyway."  LOL.  That's well off the wall arguing.. but.. still possible.

[Krensky]

The corpse can't consent.

One could agrue that the concept of volenti non fit injuria could infer to and include the status of being dead.  "Well, your honor, he knew that when he was dead, he'd have no control over his body at that point.. because.. well.. he's dead.  So, he knew the facts of this, and he died anyway."  LOL.  That's well off the wall arguing.. but.. still possible.

Yes, you could argue that... Right up until the judge bitch slaps you.

[TheTSKoala]

The corpse can't consent.

One could agrue that the concept of volenti non fit injuria could infer to and include the status of being dead.  "Well, your honor, he knew that when he was dead, he'd have no control over his body at that point.. because.. well.. he's dead.  So, he knew the facts of this, and he died anyway."  LOL.  That's well off the wall arguing.. but.. still possible.

Yes, you could argue that... Right up until the judge bitch slaps you.

LOL. Yeah.. but damn, it'd be great to watch on Court.TV or something. lol.

[Wolverine]

Of course I think just about every banned narcotic should be legal and taxed.

With the recent steps towards legalising medical dope in a couple of states, it looks like things might be loosening on that front. It would be nice if things were more like the Netherlands. Heck, even encourage farmers to grow hemp. That crop, sadly, was one of the early victims of lobbyists.

[nfactor13]

If you de-criminalized necrophilia, that would just mean that people would start specifying what would be done with their corpse, just as now you can authorize people to strip your corpse of its vital organs in order to give them to other people.  Not too hard to add an extra paragraph to restrict the amount of joy one's corpse might bring to the world.   

[NezMaster]

Does it work for some?  Sure.  Should it be the norm, no.  Not even close.

Did California decide that, prior to Prop 8, marriage was limited to two humans?

Nez, I'm glad your relationship lasted as long as it did, and I am sorry that it ended, but do you know of any poly relationships that lasted 50+ years?  I know they're rare for monogamous relationships, (my grandparents are and were among those happy few) but I think monogamy is more stable than polyandry and polygamy.

I've only met one such family. I know of two (total). It's hard to say what that means, because of a lack of data on several points. For one thing, the styles of non-monogomy that i usually deal with grll into common knowledge in the 60's, and the term polyamory as an idenity is in the 90's. As a culture were young, so the people who've been living in the lifestyle for that long, may well be outside the term and the culture. We have no valid statistics for how many people live this way. It's a small subculture, the national conventions boasting a mere 10,000 people or so.

On one point I do agree with you. It should not be the norm. It's a painful amount of work, takes tremendous responsibility and an ability and desire to communicate that gives most people a headache.

On the other hand, should 'the norm' be the barometer for legislation? Just because it's not for everyone, does that mean we should legally recognize it for no one? I for one don't think so.

As far as monogomy being more stable, I don't know any poly family who's relationship ended to affairs. (theoreticaly the cause of 78% of divorces) so I could make an arguement to the contrary. It would however be a pointless arguement due to lack of data.
Only four university sociological studies have been done on this subject, and at least two of them were probably unreasonably biased in my favor. (one of those was organized by a poly professor in my own city, and hers is one of the most biased)
So there being no valid statistical data I can make no real arguement except to say this.

There are people who are virtually incapable of being happy in the confines of monogomy. That's pretty much established fact based on divorce statistics, affair statistics, and mental health statistics. Instead of treating those people as mentally ill, and forcing them into a life of lies, I prefer they provided with some option that encourges honesty integrity and responsibility.

for clairty I'm not one of those people. I simply found that I don't like the idea of owning another person, and that I really enjoy it when my partner finds more people to love and makes themselves fuller. That being said, I don't react as well to having to juggle two-three relationships of my own. I'm simply more interested in not owning someone else, and truthfully, not having to be ashamed of feelings, and being able to pursue and express them open and honestly.

[nfactor13]

I think that's a very good point, that making something legal is not the same as making it the norm.  There are lots of things that are legal for me to do that I have no interest in whatsoever.  But I don't care to make them illegal for others just because it's not my preference.

[NezMaster]

i want to add that the reason gay marriage/poly marriage is an issue, is because marriage is given legal benefits, and more importantly, some things are restricted to 'married couples'. Insurance benefits, benficiaries, and to a lesser extent tax benefits. This is changing as more and more companies recognize the right of people to name their own family, but as long as the government chooses to provide ANY benefit to marriage, and then restricts that benefit to those who make a certain lifestyle choice I will have issue. I'm for dismantling legal marriage entirely, or letting it be redefined by who ever is living it.
I'm not for the goverment deciding who I can leave my money to, who has legal right to decide what happens to my body when I'm dead, or make life support decisions.

[nfactor13]

Since you mentioned studies, I came across this earlier today:

http://perfectsubstitute.blogspot.com/2008/11/economics-of-swingers.html

No citable references, unfortunately.

[Golden Dragon]

I'm not for the goverment deciding who I can leave my money to, who has legal right to decide what happens to my body when I'm dead, or make life support decisions.

And how do you propose that any conflicts be resolved? Two parties show up at the hospital, both claiming the right to make decisions for the unconscious. To which does the hospital defer? In what court does the aggrieved party sue? I fail to see how we can keep the government out of this.

[NezMaster]

yeah as I said, there are studies, but there aren't many valid ones. Also, Swingers and Polyamorous people are related groups but are not necesarily the same things. At best Swinging is a subset of polyamory. Polyamory is relationship focused, often containing singular group marriages, three way marriages, or simply open marriage. Swining is (generally) focused on expanding sexual circles.
I've no problem with either (obviously) though I prefer a polyamory model, focusing on a couple of people at a time.

[nfactor13]

And how do you propose that any conflicts be resolved? Two parties show up at the hospital, both claiming the right to make decisions for the unconscious. To which does the hospital defer? In what court does the aggrieved party sue? I fail to see how we can keep the government out of this.

I don't think that's any different than a situation where an elderly parent has several children who must then make medical decisions.  These things can be laid out pretty clearly in a living will ahead of time.

[nfactor13]

yeah as I said, there are studies, but there aren't many valid ones. Also, Swingers and Polyamorous people are related groups but are not necesarily the same things. At best Swinging is a subset of polyamory. Polyamory is relationship focused, often containing singular group marriages, three way marriages, or simply open marriage. Swining is (generally) focused on expanding sexual circles.
I've no problem with either (obviously) though I prefer a polyamory model, focusing on a couple of people at a time.

Very true, but it actually makes the point even better because swingers are seen as being less commitment-oriented, and yet they show a lot of stability in their relationships.  How much more so for polyamorists who are seeking committed relationships in the first place.

[MilitiaJim]

And how do you propose that any conflicts be resolved? Two parties show up at the hospital, both claiming the right to make decisions for the unconscious. To which does the hospital defer? In what court does the aggrieved party sue? I fail to see how we can keep the government out of this.

I don't think that's any different than a situation where an elderly parent has several children who must then make medical decisions.  These things can be laid out pretty clearly in a living will ahead of time.

Those still end up in court often enough.  Children will often overrule a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) request made by a parent.  Paramedics have a better chance of making a DNR stick than hospitals.

[ThunderMonkey]

If you de-criminalized necrophilia, that would just mean that people would start specifying what would be done with their corpse, just as now you can authorize people to strip your corpse of its vital organs in order to give them to other people.  Not too hard to add an extra paragraph to restrict the amount of joy one's corpse might bring to the world.   

That could be something the Mormons would really support. (No pun intended).