Your link is broken. Unless your intent was to show as much JavaScript as possible.One guy was living with another married guy(the spouse didn't live with them). He was not on the lease. When the married guy died, the other guy couldn't be evicted because they argued that all these gay dudes were in a relationship together.
Not joking.
Did he keep paying the rent?One guy was living with another married guy(the spouse didn't live with them). He was not on the lease. When the married guy died, the other guy couldn't be evicted because they argued that all these gay dudes were in a relationship together.
Not joking.
Sorry, not following. What’s the problem?One guy was living with another married guy(the spouse didn't live with them). He was not on the lease. When the married guy died, the other guy couldn't be evicted because they argued that all these gay dudes were in a relationship together.
Not joking.
I have zero clue and dont care one bit.Did he keep paying the rent?One guy was living with another married guy(the spouse didn't live with them). He was not on the lease. When the married guy died, the other guy couldn't be evicted because they argued that all these gay dudes were in a relationship together.
Not joking.
You care enough to start a thread on the subject, apparently.I have zero clue and dont care one bit.Did he keep paying the rent?One guy was living with another married guy(the spouse didn't live with them). He was not on the lease. When the married guy died, the other guy couldn't be evicted because they argued that all these gay dudes were in a relationship together.
Not joking.
I dont care if he was paying rent. He wasnt on the lease and I dont believe in rights for polyamorous throuples. So him paying rent is inconsequential to me in any way.You care enough to start a thread on the subject, apparently.I have zero clue and dont care one bit.Did he keep paying the rent?One guy was living with another married guy(the spouse didn't live with them). He was not on the lease. When the married guy died, the other guy couldn't be evicted because they argued that all these gay dudes were in a relationship together.
Not joking.
I dont believe in rights for polyamorous throuples.You care enough to start a thread on the subject, apparently.I have zero clue and dont care one bit.Did he keep paying the rent?
Did he keep paying the rent?One guy was living with another married guy(the spouse didn't live with them). He was not on the lease. When the married guy died, the other guy couldn't be evicted because they argued that all these gay dudes were in a relationship together.
Not joking.
I couldn't read the article either, so I was trying to understand the problem. As a former landlord, I've only wanted to evict renters who don't pay rent. It takes like half a year to do it and it sucks.Did he keep paying the rent?One guy was living with another married guy(the spouse didn't live with them). He was not on the lease. When the married guy died, the other guy couldn't be evicted because they argued that all these gay dudes were in a relationship together.
Not joking.
That's not the issue. The issue is the defendants are trying to hold onto a rent controlled apartment at the same rent and the landlord is trying to get rid of them after the lease holder died. It seems a gay couple was residing in the apartment with a rent-stabilized lease under a different (gay) person's name who died. This probably isn't even a legitimate polyamorous situation - it sounds more like a typical stunt people will go through to hold onto these properties at the current rent which is typically well below market value. I suspect the OP doesn't know much about rent control in the nation's largest cities and is also unaware that there are probably 100s if not 1000s of situations like this every year in urban areas and associates of the deceased pulling out all stops to try to keep the properties at the current rent. They just don't all (many, any) make the national news and social media outrage machine because they don't involve gay dudes and "polyamory" that the right wing social media propagandists can glom onto to generate outrage about the death of our republic.
I couldn't read the original link because it brought me to a wall of html code for a site I have never heard of. I had to google the story. And from what I read, from strongly slanted sites at that, the judge didn't even rule but issued a temporary stay on the eviction until a full court hearing could take place. Again these types of disputes are pretty common in my limited anecdotal experience - associates of a deceased lease holder trying to claim a rent-stabilized property by any means possible and the landlord fighting it by any means possible.
In any case I think OP should definitely send an angry letter to someone and spread this all over the internet because it is super important and outrageous.
And yet here you are, everyday, making comments on and posting away on how people live their lives!I can't imagine being so wrapped up in how other people live their lives.
not a gotcha, it's just not clear what your point was. Thank you for articulating it.I dont care if he was paying rent. He wasnt on the lease and I dont believe in rights for polyamorous throuples. So him paying rent is inconsequential to me in any way.You care enough to start a thread on the subject, apparently.I have zero clue and dont care one bit.Did he keep paying the rent?One guy was living with another married guy(the spouse didn't live with them). He was not on the lease. When the married guy died, the other guy couldn't be evicted because they argued that all these gay dudes were in a relationship together.
Not joking.
Good try at a gotcha though! Thanks for your contribution!
Are you on a desktop or mobile?Your link is broken. Unless your intent was to show as much JavaScript as possible.One guy was living with another married guy(the spouse didn't live with them). He was not on the lease. When the married guy died, the other guy couldn't be evicted because they argued that all these gay dudes were in a relationship together.
Not joking.
It’s a political forum and we have an example where the changing political environment is driving existing law to be disputed and potentially changed.I can't imagine being so wrapped up in how other people live their lives.
Huh? You're attacking "why would you post this here?" which isn't anywhere close to what I said.It’s a political forum and we have an example where the changing political environment is driving existing law to be disputed and potentially changed.
I mean it’s not the Ukraine but this seems pretty germane to the forum.
Pardon me while I go into the gardening forum on Reddit and ask why people give a damn about their little oregano plants.
I can't imagine being so wrapped up in how other people live their lives.
Right. I can definitely see both sides of the issue here. The landlord has a point as the landlord probably never contemplated that this third party could be a candidate to take over the lease.I can't imagine being so wrapped up in how other people live their lives.
Until you buy a rental property and lease it out to someone. Then when that person dies, a third party tries to enforce the terms of the lease agreement that you didn't have with that third party.
They’re called laws, they are important to many people and to society at large…that shouldn’t be surprising and yes it’s ok you don’t care about them but the holier than thou “why would you care” is unnecessaryHuh? You're attacking "why would you post this here?" which isn't anywhere close to what I said.It’s a political forum and we have an example where the changing political environment is driving existing law to be disputed and potentially changed.
I mean it’s not the Ukraine but this seems pretty germane to the forum.
Pardon me while I go into the gardening forum on Reddit and ask why people give a damn about their little oregano plants.
You all want to control how other people live their lives. Great. I don't understand it. I've got better things to worry about.
Wasn't trying to hide that. My thread title should have given it away to everybody.I dont believe in rights for polyamorous throuples.You care enough to start a thread on the subject, apparently.I have zero clue and dont care one bit.Did he keep paying the rent?
Of course this is really the main reason for this thread.
Why would you care is just a way to try and silence people. He obviously cares. These "why would you care" or "I am just waiting for the facts" people will take up full residence in a thread and try and maintain that they don't care or are just being objective.They’re called laws, they are important to many people and to society at large…that shouldn’t be surprising and yes it’s ok you don’t care about them but the holier than thou “why would you care” is unnecessaryHuh? You're attacking "why would you post this here?" which isn't anywhere close to what I said.It’s a political forum and we have an example where the changing political environment is driving existing law to be disputed and potentially changed.
I mean it’s not the Ukraine but this seems pretty germane to the forum.
Pardon me while I go into the gardening forum on Reddit and ask why people give a damn about their little oregano plants.
You all want to control how other people live their lives. Great. I don't understand it. I've got better things to worry about.
Understood. Others might have been distracted by all the other extraneous details. Appreciate that you are putting it right out there, even though I massively disagree with the underlying sentiment.Wasn't trying to hide that. My thread title should have given it away to everybody.I dont believe in rights for polyamorous throuples.You care enough to start a thread on the subject, apparently.I have zero clue and dont care one bit.Did he keep paying the rent?
Of course this is really the main reason for this thread.
What’s the underlying sentiment?Understood. Others might have been distracted by all the other extraneous details. Appreciate that you are putting it right out there, even though I massively disagree with the underlying sentiment.Wasn't trying to hide that. My thread title should have given it away to everybody.I dont believe in rights for polyamorous throuples.You care enough to start a thread on the subject, apparently.I have zero clue and dont care one bit.Did he keep paying the rent?
Of course this is really the main reason for this thread.
I find that kind of fascinating. Would you extend other rights? Would you have a limit to the number of people that could be extended rights?Understood. Others might have been distracted by all the other extraneous details. Appreciate that you are putting it right out there, even though I massively disagree with the underlying sentiment
Just so I understand this, you're simply a defender of the law here and make no judgment regarding how these people choose to live their lives. In fact, you actively seek out all cases where the law is defended and the relationship element of the story is irrelevant to that purpose. If the law was changed to include polyamorous relationships, you'd have no problem with that.Why would you care is just a way to try and silence people. He obviously cares. These "why would you care" or "I am just waiting for the facts" people will take up full residence in a thread and try and maintain that they don't care or are just being objective.
It is all so phony. There is nothing wrong with caring about what other people are doing. Literally everybody does it.
I care when people steal. I care when people grift. I care when people behave inappropriately around my kids.
I care when people park in handicapped parking spaces. I care when people litter. I care when people don't return their carts. I care when some rando will try and pretend that I can't care about people not returning shopping carts because kids are starving in Africa(or whatever other cause they pretend to be devoted to) as if I can't care about 1 million things in my life.
Well, that’s not your primary focus. Your primary focus appears to be a disregard for the nature of their relationship. At least, based on the exchange we just had — that was your focus. And I don’t care how consenting adults choose to spend their time or how they structure their personal relationships.I find that kind of fascinating. Would you extend other rights? Would you have a limit to the number of people that could be extended rights?Understood. Others might have been distracted by all the other extraneous details. Appreciate that you are putting it right out there, even though I massively disagree with the underlying sentiment
DesktopAre you on a desktop or mobile?Your link is broken. Unless your intent was to show as much JavaScript as possible.One guy was living with another married guy(the spouse didn't live with them). He was not on the lease. When the married guy died, the other guy couldn't be evicted because they argued that all these gay dudes were in a relationship together.
Not joking.
If the law was changed to allow people with one eyed dogs to be grandfathered under rent control then I’d think that would also be silly, but probably not political. The expanding definition(s) of genders and relationships is clearly political and hence worthy of psf posting and discussion.Just so I understand this, you're simply a defender of the law here and make no judgment regarding how these people choose to live their lives. In fact, you actively seek out all cases where the law is defended and the relationship element of the story is irrelevant to that purpose. If the law was changed to include polyamorous relationships, you'd have no problem with that.Why would you care is just a way to try and silence people. He obviously cares. These "why would you care" or "I am just waiting for the facts" people will take up full residence in a thread and try and maintain that they don't care or are just being objective.
It is all so phony. There is nothing wrong with caring about what other people are doing. Literally everybody does it.
I care when people steal. I care when people grift. I care when people behave inappropriately around my kids.
I care when people park in handicapped parking spaces. I care when people litter. I care when people don't return their carts. I care when some rando will try and pretend that I can't care about people not returning shopping carts because kids are starving in Africa(or whatever other cause they pretend to be devoted to) as if I can't care about 1 million things in my life.
When I lived in Manhattan, I had a rent-stabilized apartment (one level down from rent-control, which means far more common, far more expensive, and far less hated by landlords). One day I was talking to the woman who lived directly above me, who said she was moving out. She explained that the apartment was RCd, and the leaseholder had moved out like a decade prior. For most of that time, his brother was living there; the landlord unofficially knew but didn't really care. Then the brother moved out and this woman, who had zero connection to them, moved in. The landlord hired a PI to document the fact that she was living there, then confronted the leaseholder with the evidence and said they weren't going to fight him for back-rent or anything like that, he just had to give up the lease.Well, that’s not your primary focus. Your primary focus appears to be a disregard for the nature of their relationship. At least, based on the exchange we just had — that was your focus. And I don’t care how consenting adults choose to spend their time or how they structure their personal relationships.I find that kind of fascinating. Would you extend other rights? Would you have a limit to the number of people that could be extended rights?Understood. Others might have been distracted by all the other extraneous details. Appreciate that you are putting it right out there, even though I massively disagree with the underlying sentiment
If instead you want to talk about rent control, legal rights, etc…..well, then we are likely in full agreement. I lived in two cities with rent control — it’s absurd how much gamesmanship takes place in an attempt to abuse the system.
Ultimately it comes down to why do you care, just as my first post suggested. It's not really about the law. It's about you caring about "expanding definitions of genders and relationships". Thus, I'll repeat, I don't get it.If the law was changed to allow people with one eyed dogs to be grandfathered under rent control then I’d think that would also be silly, but probably not political. The expanding definition(s) of genders and relationships is clearly political and hence worthy of psf posting and discussion.Just so I understand this, you're simply a defender of the law here and make no judgment regarding how these people choose to live their lives. In fact, you actively seek out all cases where the law is defended and the relationship element of the story is irrelevant to that purpose. If the law was changed to include polyamorous relationships, you'd have no problem with that.Why would you care is just a way to try and silence people. He obviously cares. These "why would you care" or "I am just waiting for the facts" people will take up full residence in a thread and try and maintain that they don't care or are just being objective.
It is all so phony. There is nothing wrong with caring about what other people are doing. Literally everybody does it.
I care when people steal. I care when people grift. I care when people behave inappropriately around my kids.
I care when people park in handicapped parking spaces. I care when people litter. I care when people don't return their carts. I care when some rando will try and pretend that I can't care about people not returning shopping carts because kids are starving in Africa(or whatever other cause they pretend to be devoted to) as if I can't care about 1 million things in my life.
You may support the plaintiffs in this case and think those that don’t are terrible people…that’s ok, it’s called politics.
I dont care about expanding definitions, they are a curiosity to me if anything, sometimes taking on a circus like feel.Ultimately it comes down to why do you care, just as my first post suggested. It's not really about the law. It's about you caring about "expanding definitions of genders and relationships". Thus, I'll repeat, I don't get it.If the law was changed to allow people with one eyed dogs to be grandfathered under rent control then I’d think that would also be silly, but probably not political. The expanding definition(s) of genders and relationships is clearly political and hence worthy of psf posting and discussion.Just so I understand this, you're simply a defender of the law here and make no judgment regarding how these people choose to live their lives. In fact, you actively seek out all cases where the law is defended and the relationship element of the story is irrelevant to that purpose. If the law was changed to include polyamorous relationships, you'd have no problem with that.Why would you care is just a way to try and silence people. He obviously cares. These "why would you care" or "I am just waiting for the facts" people will take up full residence in a thread and try and maintain that they don't care or are just being objective.
It is all so phony. There is nothing wrong with caring about what other people are doing. Literally everybody does it.
I care when people steal. I care when people grift. I care when people behave inappropriately around my kids.
I care when people park in handicapped parking spaces. I care when people litter. I care when people don't return their carts. I care when some rando will try and pretend that I can't care about people not returning shopping carts because kids are starving in Africa(or whatever other cause they pretend to be devoted to) as if I can't care about 1 million things in my life.
You may support the plaintiffs in this case and think those that don’t are terrible people…that’s ok, it’s called politics.
Just so I understand this, you're simply a defender of the law here and make no judgment regarding how these people choose to live their lives. In fact, you actively seek out all cases where the law is defended and the relationship element of the story is irrelevant to that purpose. If the law was changed to include polyamorous relationships, you'd have no problem with that.Why would you care is just a way to try and silence people. He obviously cares. These "why would you care" or "I am just waiting for the facts" people will take up full residence in a thread and try and maintain that they don't care or are just being objective.
It is all so phony. There is nothing wrong with caring about what other people are doing. Literally everybody does it.
I care when people steal. I care when people grift. I care when people behave inappropriately around my kids.
I care when people park in handicapped parking spaces. I care when people litter. I care when people don't return their carts. I care when some rando will try and pretend that I can't care about people not returning shopping carts because kids are starving in Africa(or whatever other cause they pretend to be devoted to) as if I can't care about 1 million things in my life.
Of course I have a disregard for their relationship. I have a disregard for all sorts of things. I just don't have an actionable disregard for these things until they cross over into certain areas.Well, that’s not your primary focus. Your primary focus appears to be a disregard for the nature of their relationship. At least, based on the exchange we just had — that was your focus. And I don’t care how consenting adults choose to spend their time or how they structure their personal relationships.I find that kind of fascinating. Would you extend other rights? Would you have a limit to the number of people that could be extended rights?Understood. Others might have been distracted by all the other extraneous details. Appreciate that you are putting it right out there, even though I massively disagree with the underlying sentiment
If instead you want to talk about rent control, legal rights, etc…..well, then we are likely in full agreement. I lived in two cities with rent control — it’s absurd how much gamesmanship takes place in an attempt to abuse the system.
Understood. I can appreciate the response and your position, even if I disagree with you. Thanks for further clarifying.Of course I have a disregard for their relationship. I have a disregard for all sorts of things. I just don't have an actionable disregard for these things until they cross over into certain areas.Well, that’s not your primary focus. Your primary focus appears to be a disregard for the nature of their relationship. At least, based on the exchange we just had — that was your focus. And I don’t care how consenting adults choose to spend their time or how they structure their personal relationships.I find that kind of fascinating. Would you extend other rights? Would you have a limit to the number of people that could be extended rights?Understood. Others might have been distracted by all the other extraneous details. Appreciate that you are putting it right out there, even though I massively disagree with the underlying sentiment
If instead you want to talk about rent control, legal rights, etc…..well, then we are likely in full agreement. I lived in two cities with rent control — it’s absurd how much gamesmanship takes place in an attempt to abuse the system.
We make these distinctions all the time. When they crossover into public policy decisions, such things become fair game.
If some guy has sex with 20 other guys weekly at their house, I definitely make a moral judgment on that guy. Somebody cheats on their wife, oh yeah, that guy gets judged too. But that's the extent of it. I don't want a law putting either of them in jail or getting a ticket or something stupid like that.
However if those people seek legal protections or free gym memberships for their mistresses and misteresses well then yeah, I am going to speak up and I definitely want that door slammed firmly in their face.
Don't you worry. It's all been abundantly clear from the get-go.I make just about the most unambiguous statements on this board. I literally said I don't believe polyamorous throuples should have rights*. So why would I be ok with them having rights if the law was changed giving them rights?
*Please don't now make some stupid reply that I think people involved in these relationships should have all of their personal rights taken away. Like we can just throw them in dungeons or tar and feather them. It is pretty obvious what I mean, but clearly I need to clarify.
I've actually represented a number of landlords in eviction proceedings and I actually have a decent amount of sympathy for them. In most cases, it really does seem like the tenant is doing the best he or she can to live rent free without consequence.When I lived in Manhattan, I had a rent-stabilized apartment (one level down from rent-control, which means far more common, far more expensive, and far less hated by landlords). One day I was talking to the woman who lived directly above me, who said she was moving out. She explained that the apartment was RCd, and the leaseholder had moved out like a decade prior. For most of that time, his brother was living there; the landlord unofficially knew but didn't really care. Then the brother moved out and this woman, who had zero connection to them, moved in. The landlord hired a PI to document the fact that she was living there, then confronted the leaseholder with the evidence and said they weren't going to fight him for back-rent or anything like that, he just had to give up the lease.Well, that’s not your primary focus. Your primary focus appears to be a disregard for the nature of their relationship. At least, based on the exchange we just had — that was your focus. And I don’t care how consenting adults choose to spend their time or how they structure their personal relationships.I find that kind of fascinating. Would you extend other rights? Would you have a limit to the number of people that could be extended rights?Understood. Others might have been distracted by all the other extraneous details. Appreciate that you are putting it right out there, even though I massively disagree with the underlying sentiment
If instead you want to talk about rent control, legal rights, etc…..well, then we are likely in full agreement. I lived in two cities with rent control — it’s absurd how much gamesmanship takes place in an attempt to abuse the system.
Best part was when I asked the woman if the landlord was going to go after her at all, and she said no, because it wasn't her fault and she had no idea it was an illegal sublease. I didn't say this to her, but I was thinking, "You were renting a 1BR on the Upper West Side for $600/month. Did you really not know it was an illegal sublet?"
Oh I can only imagine. The irony is that rent-control apartments are kind of a poisoned chalice. Or maybe a golden handcuff. In any event, they're invariably crappy apartments with completely outdated furnishings because the landlord has a strong disincentive to upgrade anything beyond the bare minimum. I lived in a different building in NYC that had some RC units, and the landlord was telling me how the people who lived there were extremely wealthy professionals who nonetheless felt the need to hold on to their undersized studio apartments because they couldn't bear to give them up.I've actually represented a number of landlords in eviction proceedings and I actually have a decent amount of sympathy for them. In most cases, it really does seem like the tenant is doing the best he or she can to love rent free without consequence.When I lived in Manhattan, I had a rent-stabilized apartment (one level down from rent-control, which means far more common, far more expensive, and far less hated by landlords). One day I was talking to the woman who lived directly above me, who said she was moving out. She explained that the apartment was RCd, and the leaseholder had moved out like a decade prior. For most of that time, his brother was living there; the landlord unofficially knew but didn't really care. Then the brother moved out and this woman, who had zero connection to them, moved in. The landlord hired a PI to document the fact that she was living there, then confronted the leaseholder with the evidence and said they weren't going to fight him for back-rent or anything like that, he just had to give up the lease.Well, that’s not your primary focus. Your primary focus appears to be a disregard for the nature of their relationship. At least, based on the exchange we just had — that was your focus. And I don’t care how consenting adults choose to spend their time or how they structure their personal relationships.I find that kind of fascinating. Would you extend other rights? Would you have a limit to the number of people that could be extended rights?Understood. Others might have been distracted by all the other extraneous details. Appreciate that you are putting it right out there, even though I massively disagree with the underlying sentiment
If instead you want to talk about rent control, legal rights, etc…..well, then we are likely in full agreement. I lived in two cities with rent control — it’s absurd how much gamesmanship takes place in an attempt to abuse the system.
Best part was when I asked the woman if the landlord was going to go after her at all, and she said no, because it wasn't her fault and she had no idea it was an illegal sublease. I didn't say this to her, but I was thinking, "You were renting a 1BR on the Upper West Side for $600/month. Did you really not know it was an illegal sublet?"
Appreciate the Freudian slip hereI've actually represented a number of landlords in eviction proceedings and I actually have a decent amount of sympathy for them. In most cases, it really does seem like the tenant is doing the best he or she can to love rent free without consequence.When I lived in Manhattan, I had a rent-stabilized apartment (one level down from rent-control, which means far more common, far more expensive, and far less hated by landlords). One day I was talking to the woman who lived directly above me, who said she was moving out. She explained that the apartment was RCd, and the leaseholder had moved out like a decade prior. For most of that time, his brother was living there; the landlord unofficially knew but didn't really care. Then the brother moved out and this woman, who had zero connection to them, moved in. The landlord hired a PI to document the fact that she was living there, then confronted the leaseholder with the evidence and said they weren't going to fight him for back-rent or anything like that, he just had to give up the lease.Well, that’s not your primary focus. Your primary focus appears to be a disregard for the nature of their relationship. At least, based on the exchange we just had — that was your focus. And I don’t care how consenting adults choose to spend their time or how they structure their personal relationships.I find that kind of fascinating. Would you extend other rights? Would you have a limit to the number of people that could be extended rights?Understood. Others might have been distracted by all the other extraneous details. Appreciate that you are putting it right out there, even though I massively disagree with the underlying sentiment
If instead you want to talk about rent control, legal rights, etc…..well, then we are likely in full agreement. I lived in two cities with rent control — it’s absurd how much gamesmanship takes place in an attempt to abuse the system.
Best part was when I asked the woman if the landlord was going to go after her at all, and she said no, because it wasn't her fault and she had no idea it was an illegal sublease. I didn't say this to her, but I was thinking, "You were renting a 1BR on the Upper West Side for $600/month. Did you really not know it was an illegal sublet?"
I agree. It makes zero sense to me to assign marriage privileges to people not married, especially if they have a legal right to be married and choose to not be.Just so I understand this, you're simply a defender of the law here and make no judgment regarding how these people choose to live their lives. In fact, you actively seek out all cases where the law is defended and the relationship element of the story is irrelevant to that purpose. If the law was changed to include polyamorous relationships, you'd have no problem with that.Why would you care is just a way to try and silence people. He obviously cares. These "why would you care" or "I am just waiting for the facts" people will take up full residence in a thread and try and maintain that they don't care or are just being objective.
It is all so phony. There is nothing wrong with caring about what other people are doing. Literally everybody does it.
I care when people steal. I care when people grift. I care when people behave inappropriately around my kids.
I care when people park in handicapped parking spaces. I care when people litter. I care when people don't return their carts. I care when some rando will try and pretend that I can't care about people not returning shopping carts because kids are starving in Africa(or whatever other cause they pretend to be devoted to) as if I can't care about 1 million things in my life.
I make just about the most unambiguous statements on this board. I literally said I don't believe polyamorous throuples should have rights*. So why would I be ok with them having rights if the law was changed giving them rights?
*Please don't now make some stupid reply that I think people involved in these relationships should have all of their personal rights taken away. Like we can just throw them in dungeons or tar and feather them. It is pretty obvious what I mean, but clearly I need to clarify.
I’m curious which part you disagree with?Understood. I can appreciate the response and your position, even if I disagree with you. Thanks for further clarifying.Of course I have a disregard for their relationship. I have a disregard for all sorts of things. I just don't have an actionable disregard for these things until they cross over into certain areas.Well, that’s not your primary focus. Your primary focus appears to be a disregard for the nature of their relationship. At least, based on the exchange we just had — that was your focus. And I don’t care how consenting adults choose to spend their time or how they structure their personal relationships.I find that kind of fascinating. Would you extend other rights? Would you have a limit to the number of people that could be extended rights?Understood. Others might have been distracted by all the other extraneous details. Appreciate that you are putting it right out there, even though I massively disagree with the underlying sentiment
If instead you want to talk about rent control, legal rights, etc…..well, then we are likely in full agreement. I lived in two cities with rent control — it’s absurd how much gamesmanship takes place in an attempt to abuse the system.
We make these distinctions all the time. When they crossover into public policy decisions, such things become fair game.
If some guy has sex with 20 other guys weekly at their house, I definitely make a moral judgment on that guy. Somebody cheats on their wife, oh yeah, that guy gets judged too. But that's the extent of it. I don't want a law putting either of them in jail or getting a ticket or something stupid like that.
However if those people seek legal protections or free gym memberships for their mistresses and misteresses well then yeah, I am going to speak up and I definitely want that door slammed firmly in their face.
I don’t have a disregard for their relationship. Just because I don’t personally have a desire to be in a polyamorous relationship, that doesn’t mean I consider their relationship invalid or immoral.I’m curious which part you disagree with?Understood. I can appreciate the response and your position, even if I disagree with you. Thanks for further clarifying.Of course I have a disregard for their relationship. I have a disregard for all sorts of things. I just don't have an actionable disregard for these things until they cross over into certain areas.Well, that’s not your primary focus. Your primary focus appears to be a disregard for the nature of their relationship. At least, based on the exchange we just had — that was your focus. And I don’t care how consenting adults choose to spend their time or how they structure their personal relationships.I find that kind of fascinating. Would you extend other rights? Would you have a limit to the number of people that could be extended rights?Understood. Others might have been distracted by all the other extraneous details. Appreciate that you are putting it right out there, even though I massively disagree with the underlying sentiment
If instead you want to talk about rent control, legal rights, etc…..well, then we are likely in full agreement. I lived in two cities with rent control — it’s absurd how much gamesmanship takes place in an attempt to abuse the system.
We make these distinctions all the time. When they crossover into public policy decisions, such things become fair game.
If some guy has sex with 20 other guys weekly at their house, I definitely make a moral judgment on that guy. Somebody cheats on their wife, oh yeah, that guy gets judged too. But that's the extent of it. I don't want a law putting either of them in jail or getting a ticket or something stupid like that.
However if those people seek legal protections or free gym memberships for their mistresses and misteresses well then yeah, I am going to speak up and I definitely want that door slammed firmly in their face.
Don't you worry. It's all been abundantly clear from the get-go.
Yeah it made far more sense before the legalization of gay marriage.I agree. It makes zero sense to me to assign marriage privileges to people not married, especially if they have a legal right to be married and choose to not be.Just so I understand this, you're simply a defender of the law here and make no judgment regarding how these people choose to live their lives. In fact, you actively seek out all cases where the law is defended and the relationship element of the story is irrelevant to that purpose. If the law was changed to include polyamorous relationships, you'd have no problem with that.Why would you care is just a way to try and silence people. He obviously cares. These "why would you care" or "I am just waiting for the facts" people will take up full residence in a thread and try and maintain that they don't care or are just being objective.
It is all so phony. There is nothing wrong with caring about what other people are doing. Literally everybody does it.
I care when people steal. I care when people grift. I care when people behave inappropriately around my kids.
I care when people park in handicapped parking spaces. I care when people litter. I care when people don't return their carts. I care when some rando will try and pretend that I can't care about people not returning shopping carts because kids are starving in Africa(or whatever other cause they pretend to be devoted to) as if I can't care about 1 million things in my life.
I make just about the most unambiguous statements on this board. I literally said I don't believe polyamorous throuples should have rights*. So why would I be ok with them having rights if the law was changed giving them rights?
*Please don't now make some stupid reply that I think people involved in these relationships should have all of their personal rights taken away. Like we can just throw them in dungeons or tar and feather them. It is pretty obvious what I mean, but clearly I need to clarify.
LolForget it.
Don't you worry. It's all been abundantly clear from the get-go.
Then why ask and waste him time? This was all a waste of time. You were being a troll. Why not just say you disagreed and move along instead of wasting all our time reading your **** and all his time responding to it? I'm half-tempted to report you as a troll.
Good work.