And we’re talking about homosexuality, polygamy, and polyamory. I even got to use the phrase “random fetish” (quoting Jon Stewart). God bless Con Law II.
P.S. For those who are interested in this topic of polyamory, here are the articles I sent to Professor Mason after the class discussion on Tuesday: from The Observer, from The New Scientist and (only tangentially relevant) from New York Magazine.
Myself, I agree with the Stewart Theory: the debate over gay marriage (and related issues) comes down to the fact that homosexuality is a fundamental part of the human condition, whereas polyamory and other such sexual traits are “random fetishes,” IMHO. That doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with them, necessarily (personally, I don’t care what people do, as long as they aren’t hurting anyone else… er, without that person’s informed consent, I suppose, so we can allow for S&M), but it’s relevant to whether society needs to recognize them in some way, protect them from discrimination, etc. That’s my opinion. But can I justify it on a legal, or constitutional, basis? That’s a somewhat more complicated question.
Anyway, it’s 1:39. Thirty-six minutes left…
P.P.S. The phrase “God bless Con Law II” is not intended to discriminate against anyone on the basis of their religion. :)
UPDATE, 2:05 PM: Ten minutes left!
UPDATE, 2:15 PM: Technically, the class period is over, but we’re still here. Not that I mind. This is a fun discussion. :)
UPDATE, 2:17 PM: Someone’s playing tetris. Heh.
UPDATE, 2:18:15 PM: Done!
P.P.P.S. I’m glad my law-school career ended (class-wise) with ConLaw II. It was one of my favorite classes ever. And I’m not just saying that because Professor of the Year Mason might be reading this. (I have no idea whether she’s one of the faculty members who reads my blog.) It was really a great class.
|
Categories: Gay Issues, Law School
|
April 26th, 2007 at 1:35:07 pm
Leanna says:
NO MORE CLASSES
NO MORE BOOKS
NO MORE TEACHERS’ DIRTY LOOKS
Excuse me there. Too much caffeine.
BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO!
Love,
Mom
OXO
April 26th, 2007 at 1:39:04 pm
Woa! Your dad’s a mom?
April 26th, 2007 at 1:39:18 pm
I don’t think it’s your last class. In fact you’ll probably be taking a class with Becky! [hint: Lamaze].
April 26th, 2007 at 1:39:36 pm
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:40:59 pm
Brendan,
If you have a minute, could you address some of the issues in the fantasy baseball league? The message board there is very active and there are some major issues. Thanks.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:01:00 pm
Dan, I just read all the latest messages - thanks for the heads up.
Having appointed Jay as commissioner, I don’t want to step on his toes… and besides, I don’t know enough about Fantasy Baseball to really have an opinion about the stuff you guys are upset about.
That said, if Jay would be willing to make the changes you’re asking for but just doesn’t feel he has the time to tinker with it more right now, I’d be willing to do the tinkering, though I think he’d need to send me the passwords or whatever. I’ll e-mail him and see.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:03:33 pm
I do not want anyone to be discrimanted against but I am not for gay marriage.
eventhough I feel they should be as miserable and sex less as I am!
April 26th, 2007 at 2:37:41 pm
You could always become a law prof, Brendan. Then this would only be your last class as a student
April 26th, 2007 at 2:47:24 pm
Re: The debate on the board. It seems to be centered on two issues, the scoring format (head to head vs. rotisserie) and the categories (especially the hits categories). Double D has set the format as H2H, and I think this is fair: The vote was very close and the preferences seemed to be split. Anyone who complains about that is upset that his or her preference did not win out, not that the way it was decided was unfair.
As to the second part, I do think DD needs to take a look at the preferences for statistical categories. We don’t have hits, but we have singles, doubles, and triples? I think it should be the other way around; furthermore, I don’t think the categories reflect the preferences of the group. And while DD is the commissioner, he did ask what we wanted.
April 26th, 2007 at 2:57:39 pm
Wobbly…
In a league this size H2H makes NO sense.
Roto makes it way more easy for:
A) never played before
B) are in multiple leagues
C) don’t want to dedicate the amount of time an H2H scoring requires
And CGs in a H2H league means it will be a 0-0 tie every week…where is the fun in that?
Just set it to Roto Jay.
April 26th, 2007 at 3:06:54 pm
I agree with Marty, setting it to roto would solve most of the problems, and unlike head-to-head if you can’t tweak your team daily you’ll get killed in head-to-head.
Except for singles as a category, I just can’t get behind that.
April 26th, 2007 at 3:07:50 pm
Sorry, I mean if you can’t tweak your team daily, you’ll get killed head-to-head, unlike in roto.
April 26th, 2007 at 3:26:36 pm
Yea… across the board, Roto is the better choice. I know that the commish might not read all this stuff, but he should. Like Wobbly said, he DID ask..
Anyway the categories are a little ridiculous as is… hits could be a cat any league that wants MORE than the reasonable 6×6 settings (5×5 plus BB for hitters and L for pitchers), but not at the expense of a normal 6×6 stat.. really, the categories should be contributed to daily (or every other day). CG is a little stupid, especially considering (and maybe this has been mentioned before) that if it’s included, it’s weighted the same as HRs!!
Easiest solution to me… Roto, and those 12 categories from a normal 6×6 league. Simple as that.
April 26th, 2007 at 3:43:43 pm
Sounds good to me, Jumpy!
April 26th, 2007 at 3:48:17 pm
of course if brendan were teaching the law class, he couldnt live blog during the class now could he?
Unless he is running a film strip.
:)
April 27th, 2007 at 9:51:36 am
So the countless human cultures that allowed polygamy are just aberrant behavior? How about the Tibetan tradition of fraternal polyandry? Abraham and Jacob were pervs? When I fantasize about having multiple partners, that’s not a harmless fantasy coming from the human need to procreate, but rather deviant and immoral thoughts? When these things happened to people, when humans experienced them, they were all somehow outside the human experience?
Penn and Teller: BS did a great family values show on why it’s still none of our damn business. And The Moon is a Harsh Mistress has an interesting version of polygamy called line marriage, where the number of husbands and wives is roughly equal.
I want monogamy myself, but I’m not going to pretend there’s something wrong with anybody who disagrees.
April 27th, 2007 at 11:14:11 am
Sean, where did I say anything about “aberrant behavior,” people being “pervs,” or “deviant and immoral thoughts”? I’m only questioning whether polyamory is a immutable trait like homosexuality, not suggesting that it’s wrong. Indeed, I explicitly disclaimed any reliance on a suggestion that it’s wrong (”that doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with them, necessarily…personally, I don’t care what people do, as long as they aren’t hurting anyone else”). And I didn’t say it’s “somehow outside the human experience,” I said it isn’t “a fundamental part of the human condition.” Huge difference there. If you want to disagree with me, at least address something that remotely resembles my argument…
The ConLaw debate that I’m referring to is the question of whether polyamorists should be treated as a “suspect class” for purposes of constitutional analysis, meaning that any laws which disadvantage them (such as anti-polygamy laws) would be subject to heightened scrutiny from the courts. This is the “slippery slope” theory that Scalia, Rick Santoum and others love to harp on. I’m just trying to figure out how to draw the distinction between homosexuality and polyamory, to avoid that “slope” from being an issue.