Why Do They Need Your Permission? June 3, 2009

Why Do They Need Your Permission?

It’s an old video, but what a wonderful message it sends:

(via Pam’s House Blend)


Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • medussa

    Very nice! And I didn’t even see it coming…

  • dhoffman5

    Of course, if bisexuals are going to have equal rights, polygamy MUST be allowed, because a fully satisfied bi will need at least 2 partners. This video left bisexuals out of the mix as far as I can tell. Those hate-mongering…

  • BW

    Nice. Great point. Sure wish folks would get their heads out of their hoo-hoos.

  • dhoffman5, I know you’re probably to crack a joke, but bisexual does not equal polyamorous. Many (if not most) bisexuals are monogamous, they just can have either gender for that partner.

    *pet peeve*

  • Miko

    Jennifurret: That’s true, but it only takes one person who wants to marry more than one partner for anti-polygamy laws to start violating rights. Of course, whether than one person is bisexual or not is irrelevant to the question.

    As it is, I don’t see why dhoffman thinks that this video left out polyandrous concerns; in that case we have the same issue that only those who are going to be involved in the marriage should have a say in its formation.

  • I had never seen that one before. And yes, it was older (260 million is now 310 million)

  • H

    I don’t see why polygamy is a problem either. If everyone involved consented and is happy with it, honestly, what business is it of ours?

  • I like it 😀

  • Laura

    That’s very clever.
    Plus, great Cat Power song!

  • John Larberg

    I think when it comes to anything and everything involving consenting adults where money or property is not involved then I think anything should go. Like how about stop having marriage licenses and have asset/parental agreements which is basically the same thing. I mean when people get married they really don’t care about the marriage license. They care about the ceremony and symbolism which anyone can have without the government getting involved.

  • I agree with John Larberg. Why should the government care about its citizens’ relationships? How did they even get in the business of issuing licenses to marry? I say let people make their own agreements and keep government out of our bedrooms.

  • The guy at the end with the shovel is hilarious for some reason.

    I also agree with John. Weird, but I had some kind of epiphany about this issue recently, and then I realized that many people already feel this way. I guess I’m a Libertarian when it comes to marriage.

    I would go one step beyond just asset / parental agreements and have some kind of “household” agreement. For example, my mother takes care of her elderly parents. But she herself is aging and needs to bring in outside help. I think she can claim her parents as dependents, and she is their durable power of attorney. I might just be rambling here, but it seems there could be further legal arrangements for them and tax benefits that could assist with say, getting at home assistance. It seems to me that my mother should be able to write off her contributions toward their at home care in the same way I can have a flexible spending account for daycare. Is it like that already?

    Anyway, “household” agreements would open things up to couples not married, brother and sister living together, and yep, polygamous arrangements. Because what the hell do I care who is sleeping where in the household? It’s none of my business. If these people live together and share household expenses on a long term basis, that should be the only criteria necessary to get benefits.

    Rambling. Not a lawyer.