Cuba about to adopt the most progressive family law in the world
en.granma.cu
en.granma.cu
My quick read seems to me that these are things that exist in most developed Western societies today: same sex marriage, equal sharing of domestic responsibilities, prenuptial agreements, assisted pregnancy. There's probably more to it - but probably the more significant news is these concepts are taking root in Cuba?
Listen, I know modern media made us jaded and mistrusting by default, so this might get brushed under carpet as "Well all politicians lie." but countries like Cuba take propaganda to another level.
The default stance when reading any of their official news source, as it was in Czechoslovakia several decades ago, is to believe the opposite.
And all news sources are official news sources. There are no evil capitalists, remember? So no privately owned printers, TV studios etc. By default everything is state owned or controlled. And state has a single party in charge, by law.
Calling any process in that sort of state "democratic" is about as sensible as calling Amazon union friendly.
Actually, that's a fitting analogy. Consider a company town, single employer, running everything. Mayor and councilors are managers on company payroll. And nobody can start a new business unless they have a go ahead from them. The town also makes it's own laws. By the way, the town has a jail and people can be, and routinely are, locked up in there for disagreeing with how things are run.
What kind of democratic debate can you have in a place like that?
You can certainly create justification around those criminal acts being for the greater good, but that doesn’t mean that they are no longer criminal acts.
The only thing that comes to mind is that it would become too convenient a loophole to escape taxes.
The other funny thing was that the people against gay marriage by and large were also against inheritance taxes, so you'd think they'd applaud a new loophole.
No fathers cannot marry their children. Nor can mothers. That is illegal in every state I believe.
Although I'm sure there are ways around it if you are wealthy enough.
(ps "Human Rights Watch pointed out that Afghanistan has a tougher law on child marriage than parts of the United States")
Therefore, introducing additional genetically unrelated adults into a family would likely increase the risk of child abuse.
The fallacy is to say that we can't have legalized polyamory because it's negative for the children, while we allow sistemic issues to have a much greater negative effect on said children.
> and nobody is abolishing your civil rights
Hello Texas? What are we even talking about?
> Civil rights don't mean you can do whatever you want.
I never said this, but if you needed to remind yourself of it go ahead.
While human nature can change, something as fundamental as human sexual family unit preferences radically change from favoring polygny over an order of magnitude more than polyandry seems unlikely to be overthrown simply because of changes in democratic opinion on legitimacy of polyamory. Using history as an imperfect precedent, one could make an educated assumption the balance will tip towards leaving lots of unmarried men on the sidelines rather than unmarried women. Evolutionary constraints may also push against having women on the sidelines, since the sexual reproduction throughput is rate-limited by females. There is little evidence to suggest polyandry is as common as polygny.
[0] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-funda...
Of course if a pattern were to emerge in the vast majority of religions across time and cultures I may be tempted to speculate it's a display of common human traits and rather than something to be assigned to a particular religion. In that same vein one draws the conclusion favoring non-cis behavior is probably a minority (but common) human trait (all humans may enjoy some non-cis behavior but most seem to favor cis behavior) and polyandry is unlikely to counterbalance polygny.
>Religiously motivated persecution of sexual minorities
When did anyone say minorities haven't been persecuted? Total straw man out of left field.
In my parts people rarely use the word 'centuries' to refer to periods larger than 1000 years, and numbers less than 10 are generally ok to think of as a 'few.'
With your follow-up clarification, I amend my statement:
>I'm willing to be proven wrong, but it seems fairy reasonable to assume if a strong pattern emerges across a variety of different disjoint and poorly connected traditional societies with unique religious systems, that the pattern isn't likely to be explained away by simply pointing to recent (past few centuries) religious anachronisms.
TO
I'm willing to be proven wrong, but it seems fairy reasonable to assume if a strong pattern emerges across a variety of different disjoint and poorly connected traditional societies with unique religious systems, that the pattern isn't likely to be explained away by simply pointing to "past centuries" religious anachronisms.
Then you take a viewpoint (legalize polymarous marriage, basically) that goes against the democratic majority in the US and Cuba. Wanting to force an anti-democratic solution while praising democracy as the solution is contradictory.
Do you want polyamorous marriage, or do you want democratic decision making on family law? Until the public opinion changes, you can only pick one.
Of course down in the weeds is 'what are human rights' which is often settled by democratic process. It turns out to be a nasty problem determining who decides what human rights really are.
> that goes against the democratic majority in the US and Cuba
Maybe in the progressive US, not in Cuba, where 54% of the voters are in support of the proposal. The contrarians are not the communist by the way, but the Cuban catholics.
Wow. This tells a lot about the quality of this discussion.
Read the reuters article that was linked. It's all in there.
I'm done debating with you, this is just a waste of time.