BisectedBrioche's Brilliant Bread Random Banter Bthread #243

[Anonymouswizard]

Yes yes, you're very clever.

More seriously, like with minority belief systems, the legal part, the ceremony itself, and the celebration are separate. If there's an even number of people in the polycule (there aren't atm, unfortunately) we'll decide how to pair up for legal purposes, organise the things that make legal marriages with the minimum number of witnesses, and then hold one big ceremony and celebration instead of doing 2+. It's annoying that we can't all be legally married as one group, but that's the rules over here.

If there's an odd number of us things get slightly more annoying, but still not horrific.

When it becomes potentially frustrating is with regards to children, as there's a limit to the number of people who can legally be the parents. But circumstances means that's not something that we'll ever be dealing with by accident.

[Peelee]

More seriously, like with minority belief systems, the legal part, the ceremony itself, and the celebration are separate.

The celebration is separate but the legal part and the ceremony itself are pretty intertwined. At least over here, you need to have a license in order to have the ceremony, where the officiant and oarticipants will sign the certificate after performing the ceremony. Doesnt matter if the ceremony is in a cathedral or in the courthouse, its still part of the legal process.

Sorry, i take marriage fairly seriously. I can't stand when people say they dont need to get married because it's "just a piece of paper", for example (Notwithstanding that that's always a cover for some other reason anyway).

As for polycular marriages, that could get really tricky really quickly. Marriage confers super important legal rights, such as the right to make medical decisions in your stead if incapacitated. If there's more than one person involved in this and theey disagree? The system simply isn't built for that. And thats just one example off the topnof my head. Comingling assets, martial property rights and laws, medical and legal authority, tax benefits, etc etc. Marriage is, legally speaking, pretty complex, both joining and separating. Legally, with two people, the gender shouldn't matter at all because its still just two people so nothing changes in any substantial way. With more than two people? That substantially changes virtually every single facet of marriage from a legal perspective pretty much immediately.

All this is purely speaking as to the factual effects that could happen, im making no moral judgment either way.

[Anonymouswizard]

Okay, we have two ceremonies here, which may be the same thing. The legal one, which confers all the legal rights, for various reasons leaders of minority faiths generally don't have licences to perform these (at least over here). So it might very well be separated from the (for like of a better term) cultural ceremony, which tends to lead into the celebration. It's great if you can combine the two, but not everybody is able to have a personally or culturally appropriate ceremony that's also legally binding.

Plus yes, we probably need to rework our marriage system, potentially from the ground up, to support polyamorous marriages. But it feels really ****ty if legally you have to declare one of your relationships as 'more important' if you're poly it's something you care about. For some people this isn't an issue, for others it's annoying as hell. I don't see why marriage HAS to remain monogamy focused, even if it causes issues when partners disagree over important things. Hell, assuming we weren't willing to play along (which some polycules aren't) we're just straight up not allowed some of the rights married couples get.

[Keltest]

Okay, we have two ceremonies here, which may be the same thing. The legal one, which confers all the legal rights, for various reasons leaders of minority faiths generally don't have licences to perform these (at least over here). So it might very well be separated from the (for like of a better term) cultural ceremony, which tends to lead into the celebration. It's great if you can combine the two, but not everybody is able to have a personally or culturally appropriate ceremony that's also legally binding.

Plus yes, we probably need to rework our marriage system, potentially from the ground up, to support polyamorous marriages. But it feels really ****ty if legally you have to declare one of your relationships as 'more important' if you're poly it's something you care about. For some people this isn't an issue, for others it's annoying as hell. I don't see why marriage HAS to remain monogamy focused, even if it causes issues when partners disagree over important things. Hell, assuming we weren't willing to play along (which some polycules aren't) we're just straight up not allowed some of the rights married couples get.

Even aside from the legalities, you're doing that anyway when you, for example, decide who makes medical decisions for you when you're incapacitated. That's something you absolutely cannot leave up to a democratic committee.

[Peelee]

Okay, we have two ceremonies here, which may be the same thing. The legal one, which confers all the legal rights, for various reasons leaders of minority faiths generally don't have licences to perform these (at least over here). So it might very well be separated from the (for like of a better term) cultural ceremony, which tends to lead into the celebration. It's great if you can combine the two, but not everybody is able to have a personally or culturally appropriate ceremony that's also legally binding.

Plus yes, we probably need to rework our marriage system, potentially from the ground up, to support polyamorous marriages. But it feels really ****ty if legally you have to declare one of your relationships as 'more important' if you're poly it's something you care about. For some people this isn't an issue, for others it's annoying as hell. I don't see why marriage HAS to remain monogamy focused, even if it causes issues when partners disagree over important things. Hell, assuming we weren't willing to play along (which some polycules aren't) we're just straight up not allowed some of the rights married couples get.

But who will bell the cat?

Like, its one thing to say "we should rework the marriage system" but a whole 'nother thing to do it. Lets say Andy, Bob, and Chuck get poly married. Theyre all marriwd to each other. Time passes and Andy and Bob fall out of love and want to divorce. Are Andy and Chuck still married? Or Bob and Chuck? They were poly married, so how does separation of comingled assets work, or the marital home? Andy has to split tbings with Bob but if Bob is still married to Chuck and Andy is still married to Chuck then everything still stays the same through Chuck but Bob may object to Andy using family funds to pay for stuff since they got divorced. Andh has to psy alimony to Bob but Bob is still married to Chuck and what's Chuck's is also Andy's so is Andy even paying anything? And if he is, again, comingled assets mean Chuck is also paying, which isnt terribly fair to Chuck since he didn't want any sort of divorce. Or does the entire marriage between all parties dissolve, even though Chuck wants to remain married to both parties? Would he need to remarry and remarry only one of them? If that, how is that fair to Chuck, you're forcing a divorce on two parties who do not want divorce. Could he remarry both but separately? If that, how does the comingled assets work?

And, again, these are the easy parts. I'm just scratching the surface. Family law is already an entire branch of law that lawyers and judges specialize in, and its already hugely complicated, and that's with a two-person marriage. Three people? More? Its hard to underscore just how enormously complex this gets, and fast.

[Metastachydium]

martial property rights

[Missing the point.] Look, not everyone's all about owning guns like you folks!

[Mystic Muse]

[Missing the point.] Look, not everyone's all about owning guns like you folks!

What about swords, axes, and other bladed instruments?

And that's not even getting into shields and armor!

[Peelee]

What about swords, axes, and other bladed instruments?

And that's not even getting into shields and armor!

Or even gis! How can you do proper karate without a gi?

[Keltest]

Or even gis! How can you do proper karate without a gi?

Just take your shirt off. Tear off the bottom strip, and tuck it into your pants so it looks like it was torn off.

[Peelee]

Just take your shirt off. Tear off the bottom strip, and tuck it into your pants so it looks like it was torn off.

Once you do that it counts as martial property.

[LaZodiac]

Chapter 20! Saila and Noble make their way to Zarrhdad, as the final quarter of the story begins...

You can read it all here! And I'd just like to say, thank you all for supporting my work by reading it and commenting on it.

Ah, right, forgot to actually participate in the conversation at hand when I posted this. Sorry, everyone!

While I think all those problems Peelee brings up are like, a thing... that's what Anon means when he says "rework it from the ground up". Like, you're correct, those are all complications! That's part of the restructuring that would be done!

What about swords, axes, and other bladed instruments?

And that's not even getting into shields and armor!

Every day I resist the temptation to buy a sword fully based on the back of "no, that's too much, even for me".

[HalfTangible]

Look if you don't own at least one katana are you really living?

One day I need to find myself a halberd though...

[Peelee]

While I think all those problems Peelee brings up are like, a thing... that's what Anon means when he says "rework it from the ground up". Like, you're correct, those are all complications! That's part of the restructuring that would be done!

I get that. The issues are, again, those are the easiest problems, and also reworking something from the ground up is rather significantly more massive an undertaking than being presented here (like, its hard to quantify exactly how massive this would be), and also "rework from the ground up" tends to only really be a solution if something has failed so massively that scrubbing it entirely is the best option, which I would say is not the case for something that has the main objection of not being inclusive enough; and also "rework from the ground up" has never, to my knowledge, worked at all in making pretty much the same thing but without fhe specific problems that one desires to address.

Again, this is a "who will bell the cat" scenario. I can solve a lot of the world's problems if i can just say "well here's the broad strokes of what needs to be done, other people can figure out the details". But fun fact, i can't solve a lot of the world's problems.

[Metastachydium]

What about swords, axes, and other bladed instruments?

And that's not even getting into shields and armor!

Every day I resist the temptation to buy a sword fully based on the back of "no, that's too much, even for me".

Battleaxe ownership (which is a sacred art I do practice) is, like, totally different and a perfectly normal thing to obsess over.

[Mystic Muse]

Every day I resist the temptation to buy a sword fully based on the back of "no, that's too much, even for me".

Trust me, if I become well off enough in IT, I fully intend on getting you a sword commissioned, knowing full well how much that would cost, because you deserve it.

[Peelee]

Fun fact! I have a sword! Its even got an inscription on it. It's from the government.

[Mystic Muse]

Fun fact! I have a sword! Its even got an inscription on it. It's from the government.

Strange people in governments distributing swords is no basis for a system of women in ponds!

[Keltest]

Ah, right, forgot to actually participate in the conversation at hand when I posted this. Sorry, everyone!

While I think all those problems Peelee brings up are like, a thing... that's what Anon means when he says "rework it from the ground up". Like, you're correct, those are all complications! That's part of the restructuring that would be done!



Every day I resist the temptation to buy a sword fully based on the back of "no, that's too much, even for me".

Meanwhile me, with my 3 swords...

[Rynjin]

Ah, right, forgot to actually participate in the conversation at hand when I posted this. Sorry, everyone!

While I think all those problems Peelee brings up are like, a thing... that's what Anon means when he says "rework it from the ground up". Like, you're correct, those are all complications! That's part of the restructuring that would be done!

Besides the questions already asked of "who'd do this" and "why do this?" there's also a trillion other logistical concerns to worry about. Do you dissolve all existing marriages to build this up? Are you willing to front the bill needed to retrain every single family lawyer on the new code? How long do you expect this to take to implement? What happens if the people in ques move to a country that doesn't recognize "Marriage 2: This Time It's Polygamous" as a valid marriage? Etc., etc.

And is this really worth spending all those resources on when we could be putting that time, effort, and money toward something significantly more valuable instead?

[Peelee]

Strange people in governments distributing swords is no basis for a system of women in ponds!

First off, that's amazing and i love it. Second off, that line always gets me. Between various stories Excalibur is either the sword in the stone or the sword given by the Lady of the Lake, but the LotL's sword never conferred kingship in any version. The sword in the stone was always the sword that could only be extracted by the king. GET YOUR ARTHURIAN MYTHOLOGY RIGHT, MONTY PYTHON! Y'ALL ARE BRITISH FOR PETE'S SAKE!

[Mystic Muse]

First off, that's amazing and i love it.

I obviously coildn't just do the line straight up here. Glad I gave you a laugh!

Second off, that line always gets me. Between various stories Excalibur is either the sword in the stone or the sword given by the Lady of the Lake, but the LotL's sword never conferred kingship in any version. The sword in the stone was always the sword that could only be extracted by the king. GET YOUR ARTHURIAN MYTHOLOGY RIGHT, MONTY PYTHON! Y'ALL ARE BRITISH FOR PETE'S SAKE!

Yup, I'm distinctly aware that The Kingsword and Excalibur are different depending on the version, and that TLotL's sword does not grant Kingship in any version.

I find these differences fascinating at times.

[Peelee]

I obviously coildn't just do the line straight up here. Glad I gave you a laugh!

For reals, that was one of the best things ive seen all year so far. Quality subversion.

Yup, I'm distinctly aware that The Kingsword and Excalibur are different depending on the version, and that TLotL's sword does not grant Kingship in any version.

I find these differences fascinating at times.

Seconded.

Also, since i am just itching to say at this point, the inscription on the sword i have is "[PEELEE] II, CAPTAIN OF THE UNION ARMY". its also dated, i want to say July something 1865 but i could be off on the month.

[Metastachydium]

Battleaxe ownership (which is a sacred art I do practice) is, like, totally different and a perfectly normal thing to obsess over.

Fun fact! I have a sword! Its even got an inscription on it. It's from the government.

Meanwhile me, with my 3 swords...

Huh. Is it just me, or the fact that the resident plant seems to be the only axe person here is actually weird?

[Peelee]

Huh. Is it just me, or the fact that the resident plant seems to be the only axe person here is actually weird?

In D&D, whenever i play a martial, i go straight to greataxe. Fable? You better believe its the greataxe (or mace - not greatmace - if i want faster).

[Metastachydium]

In D&D, whenever i play a martial, i go straight to greataxe. Fable? You better believe its the greataxe (or mace - not greatmace - if i want faster).

Hell, yeah! (I still haven't forgiven D&D for making the Medium one comparatively bad, but in Small or Large… It is a thing of beauty.)

[Jasdoif]

Again, this is a "who will bell the cat" scenario. I can solve a lot of the world's problems if i can just say "well here's the broad strokes of what needs to be done, other people can figure out the details". But fun fact, i can't solve a lot of the world's problems.

Indeed. Ideas are easy, reifying ideas into something tangible is hard....And that's without getting into the quality of the tangible stuff. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try, of course; but there's a lot more to accomplishing something then getting the idea.

[Fyraltari]

First off, that's amazing and i love it. Second off, that line always gets me. Between various stories Excalibur is either the sword in the stone or the sword given by the Lady of the Lake, but the LotL's sword never conferred kingship in any version. The sword in the stone was always the sword that could only be extracted by the king. GET YOUR ARTHURIAN MYTHOLOGY RIGHT, MONTY PYTHON! Y'ALL ARE BRITISH FOR PETE'S SAKE!

Clearly it does in this version of the story. It isn't less valid than any other.

[Peelee]

Clearly it does in this version of the story. It isn't less valid than any other.

Its the shortest version, at least.

[Anonymouswizard]

I get that. The issues are, again, those are the easiest problems, and also reworking something from the ground up is rather significantly more massive an undertaking than being presented here (like, its hard to quantify exactly how massive this would be), and also "rework from the ground up" tends to only really be a solution if something has failed so massively that scrubbing it entirely is the best option, which I would say is not the case for something that has the main objection of not being inclusive enough; and also "rework from the ground up" has never, to my knowledge, worked at all in making pretty much the same thing but without fhe specific problems that one desires to address.

Again, this is a "who will bell the cat" scenario. I can solve a lot of the world's problems if i can just say "well here's the broad strokes of what needs to be done, other people can figure out the details". But fun fact, i can't solve a lot of the world's problems.

As I see it, in the broad strokes we have three options:
1) rework the entire system of marriage freom the ground up
2) change the system one bit at a time, praying that somehow it doesn't just collapse due to unforseen consequences
3) ignore that this is a thing at least some portion of the population wants

We're currently in a world set on option 3, and at least I don't like it. I'm unable to talk about more than broad strokes because I'm not a politician, I'm not a lawyer, and I personally don't know about the relevant intracicies more than you're average person. But 'the system should change, completely if it can't be patched' is still a valid viewpoint.

If I was a politician theoretically able to make something like this happen, the first thing I'd do is talk to marriage lawyers to get a thorough understanding of the issues, at which point the likely years long process of creating versaion one ofg the new system (before decades to centuries of ironing out the kinks), ideally designed so that nothing changes for those in mono marriages.

The issues aren't unsolvable, it's just that nobody who wants to fix the issues in poly marriage wants to fix the issues while they can bang their secretary.

First off, that's amazing and i love it. Second off, that line always gets me. Between various stories Excalibur is either the sword in the stone or the sword given by the Lady of the Lake, but the LotL's sword never conferred kingship in any version. The sword in the stone was always the sword that could only be extracted by the king. GET YOUR ARTHURIAN MYTHOLOGY RIGHT, MONTY PYTHON! Y'ALL ARE BRITISH FOR PETE'S SAKE!

I'm like fairly certain that one of the pythons is an Arthurian scholar, but they told it that way because it'sd a better joke.

In D&D, whenever i play a martial, i go straight to greataxe. Fable? You better believe its the greataxe (or mace - not greatmace - if i want faster).

In games that support them as valid warrior weaspons I'm quite fond of spears. Infantry sabres are a good backup, and only then do I go for the axe or hammer. No preference beyond that, because while fantasy games may not make spears viable and might not even have sabres, they'll definnitely have an axe or hammer.

My dwarves fight with short spears paired with a shield. You can't swing an axe in a tunnel, you'll hit the wall!

[LaZodiac]

I get that. The issues are, again, those are the easiest problems, and also reworking something from the ground up is rather significantly more massive an undertaking than being presented here (like, its hard to quantify exactly how massive this would be), and also "rework from the ground up" tends to only really be a solution if something has failed so massively that scrubbing it entirely is the best option, which I would say is not the case for something that has the main objection of not being inclusive enough; and also "rework from the ground up" has never, to my knowledge, worked at all in making pretty much the same thing but without fhe specific problems that one desires to address.

Again, this is a "who will bell the cat" scenario. I can solve a lot of the world's problems if i can just say "well here's the broad strokes of what needs to be done, other people can figure out the details". But fun fact, i can't solve a lot of the world's problems.

I don't think you're gonna find anyone who can successfully bell the cat, as you say, on a tiny forum like this. I don't think the discussion was "hey lets brain storm how to actually do the logistics of this" and was more "man it'd be nice if I could marry my partners in a way that the world legally recognized".

Trust me, if I become well off enough in IT, I fully intend on getting you a sword commissioned, knowing full well how much that would cost, because you deserve it.

Bwagbafdbrkadevbrk that's incredible aaaaa. I would not buy a sword myself, but this would be a beloved and treasured gift.

Besides the questions already asked of "who'd do this" and "why do this?" there's also a trillion other logistical concerns to worry about. Do you dissolve all existing marriages to build this up? Are you willing to front the bill needed to retrain every single family lawyer on the new code? How long do you expect this to take to implement? What happens if the people in ques move to a country that doesn't recognize "Marriage 2: This Time It's Polygamous" as a valid marriage? Etc., etc.

And is this really worth spending all those resources on when we could be putting that time, effort, and money toward something significantly more valuable instead?

All things being equal "why do this" was a statement said about gay marriage as well. Equality is important especially under the law.

As for who'd do this? Not any of us, half of us are too busy saying "man it'd be nice if..." and the other half are busy saying "um actually that would be very difficult".

Yeah. We're aware. That's why we say "man it'd be nice if..." in the first place. I think y'all are taking this way too seriously.

I'll note that a lot of these questions are already answered by the before mentioned "making gay marriage legal" bit, as an aside. The long and short of it is...

1: No, obviously.
2: There's be some learning difficulties but they can manage (a bit trickier in this case but still)
3: As long as it needs. That's how it works, generally.
4: Same thing that happens if gay folk go to a place they're not allowed to be married! This isn't a question that needs asking cause it's already known.