Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cuba about to adopt the most progressive family law in the world

en.granma.cu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 77 posts

Re: Cuba about to adopt the most progressive family law in the world

#51

Post by [deleted] »

trasz wrote: post #46
notch656a wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Earlier you praised democracy being the system by which the "population" decides "their own political matters." You go on to cite this democratic system where "46,000 neighborhood meetings" determine family law as being exemplary citizenship involvement and democratic process. Then you take a viewpoint (legalize polymarous marriage, basically) that goes against the democratic majority in the US and Cuba. Wanting to f…

Human rights aren’t something that should be voted on.

[deleted]

Re: Cuba about to adopt the most progressive family law in the world

#53

Post by trasz »

notch656a wrote: post #36
timbit42 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you assuming there would not also be women with 2 or more husbands?

>A comprehensive survey of traditional societies in the world shows that 83.39% of them practice polygyny, 16.14% practice monogamy, and .47% practice polyandry. Almost all of the few polyandrous societies practice what anthropologists call fraternal polyandry, where a group of brothers shares a wife. Nonfraternal polyandry, where a group of unrelated men shares a wife, is virtually nonexistent in human society. Why…

We're only now discovering that a significant chunk of society is not cis, because we've been forcing them to hide this fact over the past centuries because of religious anachronisms. Why assume it's different with polyandry?

Re: Cuba about to adopt the most progressive family law in the world

#54

Post by trasz »

travisathougies wrote: post #15
tasty_freeze wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the US legalized gay marriage (at least for now), one of the talking points against it was that men could marry their sons to avoid the inheritance tax, the same idea you are talking about. But the fact is fathers could marry their daughters and mothers could marry their sons to avoid taxes before that law was passed, yet it wasn't done. It was all just a smokescreen. The other funny thing was that the people ag…

> But the fact is fathers could marry their daughters and mothers could marry their sons to avoid taxes before that law was passed, yet it wasn't done. No fathers cannot marry their children. Nor can mothers. That is illegal in every state I believe.

That's true: in US you can legally marry a child ("the youngest girls to marry in 2000-2010 were three Tennessee 10-year-old girls who married men aged 24, 25, and 31, respectively, in 2001", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage_in_the_United_S...), but not your own child.

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")

Re: Cuba about to adopt the most progressive family law in the world

#55

Post by foogazi »

notch656a wrote: post #38
foogazi wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parent mentions it in their post: this is not some law handed down from a court or imposed by Congress Cuba is redefining its family law all at once, not via piecemeal disjointed legislative “victories”, but via a public referendum that goes against the established culture

How could that legislation be democratic if it goes against the established 'culture' the majority is in favor of? A democratic outcome would be one that follows the majority opinion that has been established. An outcome against the vote of the majority would not be 'democratic' (although it may be more equitable or better protect rights of minority). Of course, on the democratic side it's hard to really call a syste…

Hey I hold no fantasies about some Cuban socialist utopia

Reading the Reuters article it seems those meetings are being held countrywide - and that is a different way of doing things

Maybe it generates consensus, maybe younger cubans are not beholden to the old social norms

Maybe it’s all fake - I don’t know

Re: Cuba about to adopt the most progressive family law in the world

#56

Post by notch656a »

trasz wrote: post #53
notch656a wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A comprehensive survey of traditional societies in the world shows that 83.39% of them practice polygyny, 16.14% practice monogamy, and .47% practice polyandry. Almost all of the few polyandrous societies practice what anthropologists call fraternal polyandry, where a group of brothers shares a wife. Nonfraternal polyandry, where a group of unrelated men shares a wife, is virtually nonexistent in human society. Why…

We're only now discovering that a significant chunk of society is not cis, because we've been forcing them to hide this fact over the past centuries because of religious anachronisms. Why assume it's different with polyandry?

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.

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.

Re: Cuba about to adopt the most progressive family law in the world

#57

Post by notch656a »

trasz wrote: post #46
notch656a wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Earlier you praised democracy being the system by which the "population" decides "their own political matters." You go on to cite this democratic system where "46,000 neighborhood meetings" determine family law as being exemplary citizenship involvement and democratic process. Then you take a viewpoint (legalize polymarous marriage, basically) that goes against the democratic majority in the US and Cuba. Wanting to f…

Human rights aren’t something that should be voted on.

I'd agree that your argument at least has merit, and I'd point out your argument is counter to 'pastacacioepepe' glorification of democracy as the tool for settling these rights.

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.

Re: Cuba about to adopt the most progressive family law in the world

#58

Post by pastacacioepepe »

theonlybutlet wrote: post #29
pastacacioepepe wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Poverty and systemic issues contribute way more than that. Can we abolish poverty before we abolish civil rights?

That's a strawman and nobody is abolishing your civil rights. Civil rights don't mean you can do whatever you want.

> That's a strawman

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.

Re: Cuba about to adopt the most progressive family law in the world

#59

Post by travisathougies »

trasz wrote: post #54
travisathougies wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the fact is fathers could marry their daughters and mothers could marry their sons to avoid taxes before that law was passed, yet it wasn't done. No fathers cannot marry their children. Nor can mothers. That is illegal in every state I believe.

That's true: in US you can legally marry a child ("the youngest girls to marry in 2000-2010 were three Tennessee 10-year-old girls who married men aged 24, 25, and 31, respectively, in 2001", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage_in_the_United_S... ), but not your own child. 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…

Tennessee law has changed and there are now minimum ages. Surprisingly, there is no minimum age in CA; it's up to the courts.

Re: Cuba about to adopt the most progressive family law in the world

#60

Post by pastacacioepepe »

notch656a wrote: post #30
pastacacioepepe wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing the point. It isn't recognized as a legal family form either.

Earlier you praised democracy being the system by which the "population" decides "their own political matters." You go on to cite this democratic system where "46,000 neighborhood meetings" determine family law as being exemplary citizenship involvement and democratic process. Then you take a viewpoint (legalize polymarous marriage, basically) that goes against the democratic majority in the US and Cuba. Wanting to f…

It might surprise you but I want both. I want civil rights and I want a strong and partecipated democratic process. The democratic process will always win tho. Any right that is "imposed" rather than conquered will not last.

> 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.

Post reply on HN