__________ is/are overrated.

[bulldog1979]

As for sex and marriage, I started coming out as a freshman in college in late 1997 and early 1998. At the time, non-procreative sexual activity was still a felony in Michigan, and it would be until Lawrence v. Texas was decided in 2003. We were still 17 years away from Obergefell v. Hodges legalizing same-sex marriage in my home state. So pre-marital sex became a meaningless concept once I started dating guys instead of girls, because marriage has only been a real option for a few years now.

My maternal grandma was actively researching my mom's family tree starting in the 1980s. I picked up an interest in middle school, and really did when I signed up for Ancestry.com in 2012. Grandma passed away in February 2020, and recently I started going through her notebooks to add to what I have online and expand on her research. I've found some situations in the family that must have been scandalous at the time. As a teenager, I had no desire to have children in the future, and my recent genealogy work, along with a few other things lately, has me wondering about the possibilities for the first time since then.

[Max Rockatansky]

Now I have an interesting perspective on a few topics to toss out after catching up a couple pages of comments. In high school, I was also a "goodie two shoes" type, busy with academics and extracurriculars. My parents let me drink a half glass of wine with them from time to time as a teenager. It removed some of the mystery, and all these years later, I've still never been drunk. I do enjoy a beverage from time to time though. So I tend to agree that removing some of the taboo, when done responsibly, is a good thing

My Dad was a ardent teatotaler because his father and all his siblings had alcohol issues.  He was really big on conveying the message that the same could/would happen to me and my siblings if we drank.  I recall that really hyping alcohol up to be this wonder beverage that would have almost an instantaneous effect.  My cousin actually offered me some beers at his wedding when I was 12, so I took him up on it.  They actually weren't bad to the taste but it totally demystified everything my Dad had built alcohol up to be.  I do like a drink now and then but it is incredibly rare that I get drunk.  I get that alcoholism is an addiction people can't control, but it seems unfathomable from a personal perspective becoming one myself.

[kphoger]

After further reflection, it seems to me that perhaps the civil institution of marriage isn't necessarily overrated.  Consider the following hypothetical situations:

1.  You suffer a sudden medical incident, and you wind up on life support in the hospital.  At what relationship level should someone be allowed to make medical decisions on your behalf?  Someone you just started dating?  Someone you're in a casual sexual relationship with?  Someone you've been living with for eleven days?  Someone you've been living with for eleven years?  Your spouse?

2.  Your child's other parent drives with your child to the Mexican border, applying for an in-transit travel permit on the way to Guatemala.  Should the immigration officer require your written permission for your child to be leaving the country without you?  If the two of you are married?  Divorced?  Never married?  What if you aren't even the child's father, but you've been in a "committed relationship" with the mother for three years?  Thirteen years?  Three months?

The civil institution of marriage provides, if nothing else, one option for a clear-cut decision to be made on issues like these.  And isn't that a valuable thing to have in a society?

For all its romanticism and religious background, marriage is mostly a legally binding contract between two people.

A legally binding contract to what, exactly?  That's an interesting question.  It's obviously about more than just finances, legal rights, and responsibilities.  To illustrate that assertion, consider the following questions:

Is it a legally binding contract that people who don't share a household should be able to enter into?  People who aren't even in a romantic relationship at all?  For example, if my sister were infirm, and I lived with her full-time, then should I be able to enter into a marriage contract with her?  What about a daughter and her ageing father?  A younger daughter and her not-ageing father?  Is there anything that should prevent one man from entering into a marriage contract with two women simultaneously?  Four?  Nine?  Imagine a religious commune in which membership requires being paired up randomly with someone else in the commune in such a contract, but membership in the commune is completely voluntary:  should that be allowed?  Should people with a substantial illness or handicap be allowed to enter into a marriage contract, when the severity of their condition might be grounds for other legal contracts to be voided?  Etc.

Obviously, everyone's answers to these questions will vary, but my point is that–no matter what those specific answers are for each individual answering them–there's likely something about marriage that sets it apart from other legal contracts.  That is to say, there's an underlying (even if not explicitly understood) reason one's answers might differ on some points from what they would be regarding other legally binding contracts.

[skluth]

After further reflection, it seems to me that perhaps the civil institution of marriage isn't necessarily overrated.  Consider the following hypothetical situations:

1.  You suffer a sudden medical incident, and you wind up on life support in the hospital.  At what relationship level should someone be allowed to make medical decisions on your behalf?  Someone you just started dating?  Someone you're in a casual sexual relationship with?  Someone you've been living with for eleven days?  Someone you've been living with for eleven years?  Your spouse?

2.  Your child's other parent drives with your child to the Mexican border, applying for an in-transit travel permit on the way to Guatemala.  Should the immigration officer require your written permission for your child to be leaving the country without you?  If the two of you are married?  Divorced?  Never married?  What if you aren't even the child's father, but you've been in a "committed relationship" with the mother for three years?  Thirteen years?  Three months?

The civil institution of marriage provides, if nothing else, one option for a clear-cut decision to be made on issues like these.  And isn't that a valuable thing to have in a society?

For all its romanticism and religious background, marriage is mostly a legally binding contract between two people.

A legally binding contract to what, exactly?  That's an interesting question.  It's obviously about more than just finances, legal rights, and responsibilities.  To illustrate that assertion, consider the following questions:

Is it a legally binding contract that people who don't share a household should be able to enter into?  People who aren't even in a romantic relationship at all?  For example, if my sister were infirm, and I lived with her full-time, then should I be able to enter into a marriage contract with her?  What about a daughter and her ageing father?  A younger daughter and her not-ageing father?  Is there anything that should prevent one man from entering into a marriage contract with two women simultaneously?  Four?  Nine?  Imagine a religious commune in which membership requires being paired up randomly with someone else in the commune in such a contract, but membership in the commune is completely voluntary:  should that be allowed?  Should people with a substantial illness or handicap be allowed to enter into a marriage contract, when the severity of their condition might be grounds for other legal contracts to be voided?  Etc.

Obviously, everyone's answers to these questions will vary, but my point is that–no matter what those specific answers are for each individual answering them–there's likely something about marriage that sets it apart from other legal contracts.  That is to say, there's an underlying (even if not explicitly understood) reason one's answers might differ on some points from what they would be regarding other legally binding contracts.

To what depends on where you live. However, there are other legal actions that do much the same. Before gay marriage was legal, my then-partner and I created a number of documents to allow us to live together almost like we were married. We had wills, powers of attorney, durable powers of attorney, and a co-owned house where ownership conferred to the survivor. A lesbian attorney with experience in those matters drew up all the documents. We also registered with the primary hospital in St Louis as partners and made sure our doctor knew so had either of us been hospitalized we had a chance of having our decisions respected. I had several friends who went through the same thing. Despite all that, there was no guarantee the state of Missouri would have respected all we did should something tragic have happened and there's a long legal record of disputes where the law sided with the relatives of the deceased over a surviving gay partner. That's the strength of a marriage contract and why gay marriage was so important.

Many of those same documents can be used in your examples should you need the legal reason to do so. For example, my former partner is long dead and I'm single, so currently I have both regular and durable powers of attorney which allow two of my brothers to make medical decisions on my behalf if necessary. Neither brother lives in California. I hope it never comes to that but I'm retired, single, and do what I have to do.

I'm not arguing against marriage. I think it's a wonderful thing and hope that every marriage works out. I've known a few people in triad relationships (though I have absolutely no desire to be in one), but that's unlikely to be legalized as marriage in the near future. I just was pointing out that marriage is a legal contract with rights already defined and nobody questions those rights.

[XamotCGC]

Family Guy

[skluth]

Family Guy

Not as overrated as Seth MacFarlane himself

[abefroman329]

Family Guy

Not as overrated as Seth MacFarlane himself

I like The Orville, it's a loving homage to ST:TNG.

Family Guy and its wall-to-wall barrage of ironic bigotry can go fuck itself, though.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Family Guy

Not as overrated as Seth MacFarlane himself

Family Guy used to be better until MacFarlane got stretched out with too many other simultaneous projects like the Cleveland Show (before that ended), American Dad, his occasional movies, The Orville, etc. where quality probably started lacking because he and his staff had too much shit to put out to be able to make sure they were doing a good job.

[Roadgeekteen]

Movies

[kphoger]

To what depends on where you live. However, there are other legal actions that do much the same. Before gay marriage was legal, my then-partner and I created a number of documents to allow us to live together almost like we were married. We had wills, powers of attorney, durable powers of attorney, and a co-owned house where ownership conferred to the survivor. A lesbian attorney with experience in those matters drew up all the documents. We also registered with the primary hospital in St Louis as partners and made sure our doctor knew so had either of us been hospitalized we had a chance of having our decisions respected. I had several friends who went through the same thing. Despite all that, there was no guarantee the state of Missouri would have respected all we did should something tragic have happened and there's a long legal record of disputes where the law sided with the relatives of the deceased over a surviving gay partner. That's the strength of a marriage contract and why gay marriage was so important.

Many of those same documents can be used in your examples should you need the legal reason to do so. For example, my former partner is long dead and I'm single, so currently I have both regular and durable powers of attorney which allow two of my brothers to make medical decisions on my behalf if necessary. Neither brother lives in California. I hope it never comes to that but I'm retired, single, and do what I have to do.

You're kind of proving my point (I'm not sure if you were trying to, or if you were arguing against it):  you had a whole mess of hoops to jump through in the absence of legal marriage, whereas a simple marriage certificate would have sufficed for most of them.  Abandoning the institution of marriage, then, every couple would have to jump through such hoops in order to receive the same benefits.

[kkt]

After further reflection, it seems to me that perhaps the civil institution of marriage isn't necessarily overrated.  Consider the following hypothetical situations:

1.  You suffer a sudden medical incident, and you wind up on life support in the hospital.  At what relationship level should someone be allowed to make medical decisions on your behalf?  Someone you just started dating?  Someone you're in a casual sexual relationship with?  Someone you've been living with for eleven days?  Someone you've been living with for eleven years?  Your spouse?

2.  Your child's other parent drives with your child to the Mexican border, applying for an in-transit travel permit on the way to Guatemala.  Should the immigration officer require your written permission for your child to be leaving the country without you?  If the two of you are married?  Divorced?  Never married?  What if you aren't even the child's father, but you've been in a "committed relationship" with the mother for three years?  Thirteen years?  Three months?

The civil institution of marriage provides, if nothing else, one option for a clear-cut decision to be made on issues like these.  And isn't that a valuable thing to have in a society?

1.  By far the best solution to this issue is to make a medical power of attorney.  Usually the same attorney who makes a will can make one.  It allows you to list several people who you authorize to make medical decisions for you.  The marriage contract allows a spouse to make those decisions - but only the spouse.  What if you and your spouse are traveling in the same car that wrecks and neither of you are in any condition to make medical decisions?  With a medical POA it's all layed out.  With just a marriage, if the spouse is unable, the hospital has to go hunting for parents, siblings, of-age children, or cousins, hoping that whoever they happen to contact will have some idea what you might want and be willing to advocate for you (rather than their own opinions).

2.  I don't think this is a marriage issue at all - it's parental rights, not marriage rights.  The Customs and Immigration folks should be getting a notarized letter from whichever birth parents are not crossing the border with them, and the child's birth certificate.  The letter should have a rough itinerary and contact along the way - hotel reservations, a person you're visiting, something.  If a parent is dead or their parental rights have been terminated, there would be appropriate documents to show instead of a permission letter.  Child kidnapping is, unfortunately, a thing that can happen if a parent feels they haven't got enough joint custody or visitation time, or if those rights have been terminated.  I and my ex-spouse each traveled outside the country with our child several times and this is what we did each time. 

[J N Winkler]

Marriage as a legal construct inherits a lot of residue from the days when it fell within the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical courts, determined the legitimacy of children, governed what parts, if any, of her property a woman controlled, and defined who could inherit from a deceased person.  (Before the introduction of civil divorce, in many jurisdictions dissolving a marriage required promoting a private bill in the legislature--in the US these are considered constitutionally permissible but anomalous.)  Not all of these aspects have been addressed through statute law reform, though many have:  e.g., in the 1970's there was a movement among US states to relieve the disabilities of being born out of wedlock.

Even now some conventions still persist despite seeming obsolete at first glance.  One is Lord Mansfield's Rule--essentially, "You cannot make a bastard of your own child," i.e., an acknowledgment of paternity cannot be withdrawn.  This came into play in the Kansas case of In re. Marriage of Ross, where a wife tried to wrest custody of her son from her husband, claiming her lover was the child's biological father, and failed because their marriage at the time of the child's birth gave the husband presumptive paternity.

[skluth]

To what depends on where you live. However, there are other legal actions that do much the same. Before gay marriage was legal, my then-partner and I created a number of documents to allow us to live together almost like we were married. We had wills, powers of attorney, durable powers of attorney, and a co-owned house where ownership conferred to the survivor. A lesbian attorney with experience in those matters drew up all the documents. We also registered with the primary hospital in St Louis as partners and made sure our doctor knew so had either of us been hospitalized we had a chance of having our decisions respected. I had several friends who went through the same thing. Despite all that, there was no guarantee the state of Missouri would have respected all we did should something tragic have happened and there's a long legal record of disputes where the law sided with the relatives of the deceased over a surviving gay partner. That's the strength of a marriage contract and why gay marriage was so important.

Many of those same documents can be used in your examples should you need the legal reason to do so. For example, my former partner is long dead and I'm single, so currently I have both regular and durable powers of attorney which allow two of my brothers to make medical decisions on my behalf if necessary. Neither brother lives in California. I hope it never comes to that but I'm retired, single, and do what I have to do.

You're kind of proving my point (I'm not sure if you were trying to, or if you were arguing against it):  you had a whole mess of hoops to jump through in the absence of legal marriage, whereas a simple marriage certificate would have sufficed for most of them.  Abandoning the institution of marriage, then, every couple would have to jump through such hoops in order to receive the same benefits.

I wasn't arguing at all as I didn't disagree with you. I was clarifying my statement in relation to your comments. I am certainly not arguing against abandoning marriage.

[hbelkins]

Standard time is overrated. Way overrated. DST is much better. 

8. Drinking alcohol.

I'm going to sound like a lot of members' mothers right here, but I honestly don't see the appeal of drinking merrily and getting wasted. It's not a healthy habit at all. Heck, even caffeine might fall under this category. (I swear I'm not Mormon!)

Those are two very different things.

I've never understood the appeal of getting wasted either.  Even just a headache the next morning is bad enough to keep me within my limit.  And acting like a complete fool of myself is not something that appeals to me.

But having just one or two drinks is a very pleasant thing.  It relaxes me, it makes me more chatty (for better or worse), and–when consumed with a bit of charcuterie or some olives and cheese–can give me a brief moment of feeling "fancy".
[/quote]

I may be weird, but I don't really see the point in drinking alcoholic beverages if the intent isn't to become buzzed or intoxicated or otherwise have your mind/perception/senses altered.

I'm actually amazed that there are people who like beer, bourbon, etc., for the taste and not for the intoxicating effects.

If I'm thirsty, I will probably drink a Diet Coke. If I want to become under the influence; well, that's the only reason I'm going to drink alcohol. (And I have done it so rarely the last 29 years that I might as well be a teetotaler.)

[XamotCGC]

Golden Corral

[JoePCool14]

Standard time is overrated. Way overrated. DST is much better. 

8. Drinking alcohol.

I'm going to sound like a lot of members' mothers right here, but I honestly don't see the appeal of drinking merrily and getting wasted. It's not a healthy habit at all. Heck, even caffeine might fall under this category. (I swear I'm not Mormon!)

Those are two very different things.

I've never understood the appeal of getting wasted either.  Even just a headache the next morning is bad enough to keep me within my limit.  And acting like a complete fool of myself is not something that appeals to me.

But having just one or two drinks is a very pleasant thing.  It relaxes me, it makes me more chatty (for better or worse), and—when consumed with a bit of charcuterie or some olives and cheese—can give me a brief moment of feeling "fancy".

I may be weird, but I don't really see the point in drinking alcoholic beverages if the intent isn't to become buzzed or intoxicated or otherwise have your mind/perception/senses altered.

I'm actually amazed that there are people who like beer, bourbon, etc., for the taste and not for the intoxicating effects.

If I'm thirsty, I will probably drink a Diet Coke. If I want to become under the influence; well, that's the only reason I'm going to drink alcohol. (And I have done it so rarely the last 29 years that I might as well be a teetotaler.)

There are some alcoholic drinks that actually taste good. Wine, champagne, mixers. And even some beer. Not that I'm an expert yet. But yes, drinking to at least get a little buzz is definitely why a lot of people drink.

[Rothman]

Golden Corral

Yep.  Suffers from Olive Garden Syndrome.  Lots of people love it and it sucks.

[hbelkins]

Golden Corral

Yep.  Suffers from Olive Garden Syndrome.  Lots of people love it and it sucks.

The steak is admittedly not that great, but the food on the buffet can be quite tasty.

[Rothman]

Golden Corral

Yep.  Suffers from Olive Garden Syndrome.  Lots of people love it and it sucks.

The steak is admittedly not that great, but the food on the buffet can be quite tasty.

Complete with kids running around jamming snot-covered fingers into it.

[thspfc]

Lose Yourself by Eminem

[Roadgeekteen]

Lose Yourself by Eminem

Eminem has many much better songs, Lose Yourself is kinda mid.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Lose Yourself by Eminem

Eminem has many much better songs, Lose Yourself is kinda mid.

In general it's very rare that the smash hit/signature song is the best thing an artist ever recorded. Record companies like simple, catchy songs because it makes them money. They very rarely display the true talent of the artist making it.

[XamotCGC]

slim shady

[TheHighwayMan3561]

slim shady

Marshall Mathers is more overrated.

[formulanone]

Lose Yourself by Eminem

Eminem has many much better songs, Lose Yourself is kinda mid.

In general it's very rare that the smash hit/signature song is the best thing an artist ever recorded. Record companies like simple, catchy songs because it makes them money. They very rarely display the true talent of the artist making it.

True, but it was probably easier to dub out the profanity in that song compared to some of his other work.