Drugs.
Sex work.
Pirating of otherwise unavailable media.
Taking food when you have no food
Actual marriage equality.
Dumpster diving. Doesn’t matter if it’s food or merchandise. It should be illegal to lock a dumpster or willfully destroy usable goods.
Locking dumpsters is important in some areas so wild life dosen’t get into them. To quote the National Parks service,
“There is a significant overlap between the intelligence of the smartest bears and the dumbest humans”.
Dumpster diving laws are more about trespassing and removing liability anyway.
You’ve never had to repeatedly clean trash slurry off of a concrete slab because junkies are terrible people who have no manners. If people could be trusted to not redistribute the trash across the land I wouldn’t mind so much
If capitalism could be trusted not to put valuable items in the trash, it wouldn’t be a problem.
Ah, so getting things out of the trash could be legal, but making a mess from a dumpster should have consequences
Enforcing that would take a lot more money than a padlock.
A better idea would be to charge businesses for the downstream costs of externalities like waste. Make them self-enforce by making it more expensive to dump recyclable or reusable materials.
Euthanasia/medically assisted suicide.
The cruelty to force people to stay alive while slowly dying and suffering with terminal diseases is horrible. It’s traumatic for everyone involved, and it’s pointless.
We give animals more dignity in death than we do humans.
Pets*
*animals. If people come across (irreparably) hurt wild animals, those tend to get killed as well
Prostitution. Keeping it illegal makes it so much worse for everyone involved except human traffickers.
It would be such a large boost in tax revenue at the very least.
Abortion. No specific circumstances needed. If a woman wants an abortion, it should be allowed. There is no one getting late term abortions that didn’t want the child and something tragic happened and now they need one.
At what point is it no longer an abortion, though?
As a caveat to the last sentence, it’s definitely possible for women to not know they’re pregnant until very late in the process. There have even been women who only found out they were pregnant when they went into labor.
I know a family that had 6 hours of pregnancy, and they, like most in the same situation, did not seek a late term abortion. By the time labor sets in, the fetus is developed enough to survive outside the womb, so anyone seeking to end the pregnancy without taking possession of a child, should be allowed to simply demand that the fetus be removed. It should be up to the medical staff to decide how.
For now all I can think of are drugs (every single one, including opioids) and euthanasia (not just for terminal diseases, should be available for everyone who decides to).
With limits
Fentanyl, for example, should require doctors guidance at least, and forced medical help to get off of it when you’re displaying addiction behavior.
Euthanasia should also be legal, but with strict rules. You want to avoid someone off themselves just because they’re having a bad day
People already choose to buy and use fentanyl without a doctors prescription, why should they be treated as criminals? If a junkie commits crimes because they are high, that should be criminal, and if a junkie commits crimes to get more drugs, that should be criminal, but I do not see a purpose in criminalizing fentanyl for consenting adults.
Poverty, being unhoused.
Felons should have the right to vote.
Seeking gender affirming care.
Are we talking about incarcerated felons, or felons that served their time?
Why would it matter if felons voted while imprisoned or free? We should not be incarcerating so many people that their vote has anything beyond a trivial, marginal affect. That is to say the real question is why do we convict so many people of crimes?
Why not both?
Hmmm. Hmmm? I didn’t really think about incarcerated before. But I suppose if you were imprisoned for a law you don’t agree with, the way to change it is voting.
By keeping prisoners from voting, you prevent law from changing.
The proper way is to respect the law and vote for it’s change, not to break the law and cry after a fact.
I’ve been dating my boyfriend since before it was legal. Thank you for your input, but no. Just no.
Yes both.
Weed (not legal in all states)
Most hallucinogens (at least for medical or supervised use)
Being trans (lotta states trying to ban me)
Being gay (they’re probably next)
Abortion (many states ban this now)
Free healthcare (not technically illegal, per se)
Being homeless
Polyamory (not technically illegal afaik, but there are a lot of legal benefits that married couples get which aren’t extended to polyamorous relationships due marriage being restricted to couples only)
The list goes on because while there are many basic things that aren’t technically illegal, the system is set up in a way to fuck you because of the required profit motive behind offering basic necessities in a capitalist society.
The first five you listed are all one thing: bodily autonomy. We each have the right to do to ourselves whatever the fuck we want.
Not in the US we don’t lmao.
Polygamy seems like a way to have dysfuntional families and kids that suffer from ptsd
Who said anything about having kids lmao? Imagine thinking anyone competent enough to handle a polyamorous relationship would be irresponsible enough to have kids in this day and age when we’re staring down the barrel of climate change and all the oil barons and coal dealers are pulling the trigger as hard as possible.
Takes a deep breath hooookay. So, polyamory is not the same as polygamy. For one thing, polygamy tends to be traditionally associated with a strict hierarchy in which one individual holds control. It also tends to be associated with religious/cult systems, doesn’t require the consent or knowledge of all members, and quite frankly is probably more comparable to being a whitewashed form of harem than an actual loving relationship type. Finally, it specifically refers to people who are married to one another, regardless of feelings or consent.
Polyamory, on the other hand, requires consent. Instead of referring to many marriages, it refers to many loves. It requires that all members stay informed and consenting, otherwise the relationship can’t continue. It requires you to be communicative and empathetic to the needs of the other members while also caring for yourself. Equating polyamory with polygamy is a bit like equating Linux with Windows. The end result can appear similar at first glance, but the mechanics are very different under the hood.
Why?
Let’s break the matter in two parts:
if the adults involved in such a relationship are all informed and consenting, no harm is done to anyone. No one has the right to interfere or comment on those people way of life.
If, eventually, there is the decision to have children, the chance of them growing in a dysfunctional home is as high as any other.
The family may be unconventional but it does not imply nor it is a given it is unable to properly care for children and pass down values of good individual and social behaviour.
-
I do not agree that people in such kind of relationship are any worse for each other than in normal case. At least if they entered it knowing that it’s something that works for them. So i won’t dispute this.
-
About children tho…isn’t it actually proven that children need designated father and mother figure? I know of few people who didn’t have father figure and they are all kinda damaged. Though probably such family could simply designate two main guardians and treat rest as close aunts and uncles…so dunno, maybe a moot point.
Are all orphans or children of single parents unbalanced? I can’t put much credit to that claim. The same with children of same sex couples.
Uncommon life and family arrangements have existed since humans are humans. That is why all societies have edicts on what “normal” relations are and why deviations from the norm have been so persecuted throughout history.
Yet…
China has an ethnic group where one woman has several husbands. The children stay with the mother, while the men have the role of providing for the household. Suffice to say it is hard to know which man conceived which child, so they are colectively considered fathers to all children.
In Africa and the Arabian peninsula it is common fare for one man to have several wives and where there is that tradition all women are addressed as mother by all children.
Again in Africa, there is a tribe where children are raised, from very young age, by their uncles and aunts, away from the parents.
The first time I read about it, what came to mind was two brothers or sisters exchanging children, like a sort of perverse hostage situation: “you raise mine, I raise yours, nobody kills the other!”
Yes, I have a strange mind.
Divorced couples. Remade families. Same sex couples. Adoptive parents and foster families. Non standard families, whatever that may mean. And then we have the “really” out there arrangements, like poliamory. How about nudists? Or hippies?
So what?
Growing up, there was this family in my street that was composed of two couples, where each woman had given birth to a child of each man. The four lived as a small community, where all children address both men as father and all women as mother.
None of them grew up “fucked up”. Or did, only just as much as anyone else.
I admit I lack the ground to stand on here, so I’ll back off. Most of my experience is more of me and people I know - I know I had sbortcomings and mental problems due to parents divorce, again know few people who were raised withoit father. That’s mostly what influences my view.
However examples you raised are hella interesting, but I also cannot help but wonder how these children grow up compared to 2+1/2+2 family. There are for sure differences - after all even higher amount of children bears high influence - but I wonder what these are. Will look for it later. Thanks for dropping these.
You’re welcome. Always glad to help someone broaden their horizons and ideas. Keep reading and keep thinking and exchanging ideas with others. It’s the best way to evolve as an individual.
-
polygamy and polyamoury are not the same thing. You’re welcome. I often do that with actors, thinking two different people are the same person.
So what’s your thoughts about gay couples with children?
Two consenting adults is fine regardless of gender, the problem with polygamy is that when you have more than 2 people in a romantic relationship, its not gonna be equal.
Like a 3 way relationship is gonna end up with 2 of the 3 being more closer than the other, that just causes jealousy and that tends to end violently.
Polygamy often takes the form of a person participating in several separate marriages. Like imagine children of different families sharing Parent A with other families, but with their own Parent B. But Parent A is gonna have a favorite of one of the Parent B. So the other Parent B are gonna get jealous. Its a unstable relationship.
This opinion is based on your extensive personal experience with polyamorous relationships I take it?
I think there is a lot of historical evidence that dismisses your claims. Polyamory, and/or communal parenting, has existed in many forms amongst many different indigenous peoples, and it is still practiced today. There was a time in our past where children being raised by many different parents was the ‘norm’, and an argument could be made that it is a more natural form of child rearing than our ‘norm’ of monogamous parent couples.
There is no evidence of people that practice communal or group parenting having issues with violence or jealousy, that is just your assumption. There is evidence that these kind of situations could be advantageous. The child has more people to pay attention to them and can feel a better sense of community. They are also being socialized better and are being shown a wider variety of perspectives, etc.
I would definitely suggest you look into it for yourself, if you are curious why your assumption is wrong.
You shouldn’t talk about things you clearly don’t understand.
or even know the right words for
Like a 3 way relationship is gonna end up with 2 of the 3 being more closer than the other, that just causes jealousy and that tends to end violently.
What are you basing this on?
I disagree that it always is or will inherently become that way. Even two individuals in a relationship often do not function well when a third (a child) is introduced. leading to jealousy, abuse, neglect, etc. When forced to remain in said relationship.
Sleeping in a car that you own.
I think there should be restrictions on where to park for this, but in general people found sleeping in cars should be protected by the law against theft and harassment.
The shady part is that most people who get bothered for sleeping in their cars is because they’re doing it somewhere on private property.
Other than that, fully agree.
Sleeping anywhere. It should be illegal to wake somebody up, unless there’s reason to believe they require medical intervention.
Restrictions on where you can park
Nah fuck that noise. This is how you let them corral you into slums.
Park where you want. Out front of parliament, the prime minister’s house, on the street out front a billionaires house, wherever. If they don’t like it, them they should fix it.
Well, I mean, someone’s evil ex shouldn’t park in front of their house. And people should not park for a nap in a handicap spot. And not in the driving portion of a road, not in the breakdown lane of a major highway, not on anyone’s lawn.
But yeah, basically any place where parking is allowed, sleeping while parked should be allowed and protected.
All of those places already have laws preventing those. Don’t need a special one for no sleep in car in those instances
Camp anyplace you need to camp. Keep your car where it belongs.
A public parking lot or parking space seems to be a good place for a car.
It is. It is a good place to park. That’s not what is being discussed.
Having a place to live is an unmitigable human need. Having a car is not. A car left too long on public land should become a shelter for OTHERS.
A car being used as a place to live becomes a need for the owner of said car.
Instead of being robbed and harassed by the law? Agreed.
That’s what I’m going for, yes.
Rescuing animals who would be harmed by their owners without intervention.
drugs
Some, but… Certain super-addictive drugs should be limited.
limited but not illegal. punishing people for using drugs is so backwards…
