Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Welcome

It will ultimately come down to Any Consenting Adult marrying each other(s)

21 posts in this topic

I feel as if there is no question about. Gay marriage will be legal. Polygamy will be legal. Other marriages will be legal as wrong as all parties are consenting adults. 
Are you OK with this?
If so, why?
If not, why?
What can we do to stop or accelerate the process?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not particularly care, as long as we still discourage relationships between people with severe power differentials that can complicate the meaningfulness of consent (psychologists will lose their license if they begin a sexual relationship with their patient, for example). 

 

I do think the issue of polygamy will be a more difficult legal battle, because it would require a major re-write of many of our existing marital laws and procedures (how would you handle custody rights, for example?). It also would require a major re-conceptualization of how we think of marriage in the West (though marriage has changed substantially over the years, the fact that it was a legal union between two people has been pretty much a constant since the 9th century, even when men were often able to carry on extra-marital relationships without drawing too much ire). 

 

It certainly isn't impossible for us to rethink what we consider a marriage to be: we changed our idea of marriage *substantially* when we started to consider a marriage to be first and foremost a romantic union between two adults who loved each other, we changed again when we decided that women should be at least (relatively) equal within a marriage rather than a literal legal non-entity, etc, etc. I personally consider those prior changes to be more radical than our more-recent decisions that marriage should be race-neutral, gender-neutral, and a 100% equal partnership. And I think opening marital contracts up so that an indefinite number of people could enter the same union would require a radical reconsideration on par with marriage becoming a romantic union. I think it will take a lot longer to get people on board with that than it took people to get on board with interracial marriage and same-sex marriage.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This question was already posted.... and you of all people already know that so why stir up the pot again? -_-

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This question was already posted.... and you of all people already know that so why stir up the pot again? -_-

 

Not really, MaR posted that incest and pedophilia would be legal. Pedophilia definitely will not be legal and Welcome mentions it here with his line "Between consenting adults". 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really, MaR posted that incest and pedophilia would be legal. Pedophilia definitely will not be legal and Welcome mentions it here with his line "Between consenting adults".

I'm not talkingabout MerelyARumor I'm talking about old banned members. Unwelcome said that he lurked before joining so I'm sure he saw it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I think this is about accurate. The whole meaning of marriage has been lost almost completely from Western society. In a few decades time, certainly within the next hundred years, I'm almost 100% sure we're going to have polygamy and group marriage...unless, of course, society comes to its senses and re-establishes marriage as it was intended. I think it's more likely, though, that we're just going to get rid of civil marriage completely, since there'll be no more point in having it. In either case, it makes little difference to me as a Catholic. I'll always be able to marry in the Church, even if there's no such thing as civil marriage.

 

Anyway, the meaning of marriage...I'm no historian, but I have my own opinions about what happened to marriage, and how we got to this point...

 

We started out by having marriage as the solution to a societal problem, namely: when men and women have sex, they make babies, who need to be taken care of till they reach adulthood. Furthermore, it's not always obvious when a baby is born who the father is - he could be close by, he could be on the other side of the world, or he might even be dead. Therefore, it's difficult to know who is responsible for looking after this baby, and in turn, supporting the mother, since it's generally more difficult for her to raise a baby on her own whilst also providing for herself. Therefore, marriage was a societal necessity to answer this problem. If a man and woman wanted a sexual relationship, they would be expected to make a public declaration that they would support any children that might come as a result of their relationship. The definition of what marriage consisted of was as a direct result of marriage's societal purpose:

 

Man + Woman = because only a sexual relationship between a man and a woman can result in babies

2 parties = because only one man and one woman is biologically required to make a baby

Binding until death = because children benefit from a relationship with both parents

Sexually exclusive = so that the father of the child is known definitively

 

It's a good system, and is flexible enough to accommodate irregular circumstances. If a husband dies and his wife remarries, the new husband is expected to support the wife's children and raise them just as he does his own children, so that they are still provided for. Even if a wife were to be unfaithful without her husband's knowledge, he is still legally presumed to be the father of any of her children, which means the children are still take care of. And if a child is orphaned, or the biological parents are otherwise unable to care for them, the child can be adopted by a different husband and wife, who become for all legal and social purposes the new mother and father of the child.

 

Note that marriage is centred around providing for children, not around the desires of adults.

 

Since each marriage constituted the creation of a new family unit, it was seen as more than simply a matter of "romance". People would have to choose marriage partners carefully, based on their ability to provide for a family as well as just romantic attraction. Sometimes, this would involve political reasons. If you were king of England and wanted to make Spain your political ally, having your son enter into a marriage with the King of Spain's daughter was a good way of doing so, since marriage would be perhaps the strongest contract you could have with them - what better way to solidify a union than by having grandchildren who were literally half English, half Spanish? Sometimes families who wanted to do business with each other would also use marriage as part of the merger. But this was only a case of using marriage as it already existed as a way of accomplishing a goal, not a separate or different kind of marriage.

 

For example, in the Renaissance era, there was a play called The Duchess of Malfi, in which the Duchess decides to marry her steward Antonio. The plot then follows how even the Duchess's oven family wants to enact revenge on the Duchess for marrying "beneath her station", and we see how marriage has been distorted into something for social and political gain. It's a critique of a society which places too much value on marriage as a tool, instead of the creation of a new family - the couple are, after all, perfectly capable of supporting a family.

 

Now, that's not to say that marriage has nothing to do with romantic attraction. In Jane Austen's novels, the perfect marriage is seen as one in which the couple are "in love", and this idea continues into Victorian literature. But the romantic feelings of adults were still viewed as far less important than the well-being of children.

 

Here's my opinion on what happened: I think that as society drifted away from arranged marriage, political marriage, etc. and more towards "love marriages", we forgot about the fact that romantic attraction is not the only thing that matters. Marriage started to be viewed less as a societal good for the protection of children's rights, and more as just an expression of the love between a man and a woman.

 

Then comes no-fault divorce. The conversation is no longer primarily about "how can we protect the rights of children to a relationship with both parents", but now "how can we ensure that adults have happy marriages". So if you fell "out of love" with your husband, you could get a divorce, no questions asked. Marriage was no longer about permanence.

 

Next, we had the normalisation of sex outside of marriage, and with it, children born to unmarried parents. Although we've always had problems with sex outside of marriage, it was always expected that sex and marriage went together. We also saw contraception introduced, which took away the expectation that sex was about creating new life. Sex was no longer seen as being connected to marriage and new life, but became just an activity you could do for fun. Having children outside of marriage was also normalised to a large extent. Again, marriage was no longer about having children.

 

Now, with the arguments for same-sex marriage, they don't even try to relate it to marriage and children. The argument is always about the happiness of adults, and the love adults have for each other, ignoring the fact that adults don't have to be married to live together, have sex, or love each other - all this can be achieved without marriage.

 

So, now that marriage has been divorced from its original meaning, I think there are only two logical positions to hold. Either you agree with marriage as being one man, one woman, for life, and sexually exclusive, or you reject marriage as being necessarily any of those things. You can't pick and choose, because the original definition of marriage revolved around creating a family:

 

1. There is no logical reason that three people can't get married - the one man/one woman requirement was because that's how many it takes to create a child.

2. There's no reason for it to be lifelong - it was lifelong because children need their parents for life.

3. There's no reason it has to be sexually exclusive if the partners don't want it to be - it was sexually exclusive so that we know who the parents of the children were.

 

So what you're left with is, marriage = a group of adults who agree to love each other and live together until they decide no longer to love each other or live together, and then they're not married any more.

 

This is when I'm doubtful that the government would even have civil marriage any more. What would be the point? So people can claim tax breaks for being married? That doesn't make sense - the only reason you got tax breaks in the first place was because marriage was recognised as a social good resulting in stable families, and a tax break is a good reward/incentive. The government also has no reason to legally recognise adults loving each other or living together, although they did have a good reason to keep track of who were the parents of children.

 

Anyway, that's my two cents, so to speak.

 

xxx

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We started out by having marriage as the solution to a societal problem, namely: when men and women have sex, they make babies, who need to be taken care of till they reach adulthood. Furthermore, it's not always obvious when a baby is born who the father is - he could be close by, he could be on the other side of the world, or he might even be dead. Therefore, it's difficult to know who is responsible for looking after this baby, and in turn, supporting the mother, since it's generally more difficult for her to raise a baby on her own whilst also providing for herself. 

 

Man + Woman = because only a sexual relationship between a man and a woman can result in babies

2 parties = because only one man and one woman is biologically required to make a baby

Binding until death = because children benefit from a relationship with both parents

Sexually exclusive = so that the father of the child is known definitively

 

Note that marriage is centred around providing for children, not around the desires of adults.

 

Now, that's not to say that marriage has nothing to do with romantic attraction. In Jane Austen's novels, the perfect marriage is seen as one in which the couple are "in love", and this idea continues into Victorian literature. But the romantic feelings of adults were still viewed as far less important than the well-being of children.

 

Here's my opinion on what happened: I think that as society drifted away from arranged marriage, political marriage, etc. and more towards "love marriages", we forgot about the fact that romantic attraction is not the only thing that matters. Marriage started to be viewed less as a societal good for the protection of children's rights, and more as just an expression of the love between a man and a woman.

 

Next, we had the normalisation of sex outside of marriage, and with it, children born to unmarried parents. Although we've always had problems with sex outside of marriage, it was always expected that sex and marriage went together. We also saw contraception introduced, which took away the expectation that sex was about creating new life. Sex was no longer seen as being connected to marriage and new life, but became just an activity you could do for fun. Having children outside of marriage was also normalised to a large extent. Again, marriage was no longer about having children.

 

(Deleted the parts I'm not directly responding to as to avoid an even bigger wall o text than this is already going to be)

 

I would agree that marriage evolved as an answer to a societal problem -- but I would disagree that marriage was fundamentally about protecting women or children. In fact, children have historically been at the bottom of family hierarchies. Their duty was to serve their parents, and they began working as soon as they were physically able to (even toddlers were capable of completing relatively simple work). The concept of childhood as we think of it today is relatively new (originating in the 1600s or so), and adolescence even more so (that's pretty 20th century).

 

I think the societal problem (or 'problem') that marriage was originally intended to fix was a man's desire to have a male heir who could inherit his property and continue his family line. That is why so many societies (including Western societies) currently have or previously had polygamous marriages with one man and many wives or concubines. This is also why so many societies have committed widespread infanticide of female babies (who, in a strict patriarchal society, are destined to be married off and further some other family's legacy). It also explains why, until relatively recently, it was not particularly expected that men would remain faithful within marriage, while a wife would face severe punishment if she so much as had premarital sex, because she might jeopardize that man's line. Meanwhile, the woman who got pregnant out of wedlock would be destitute, and her child would have no inheritance, even if it was well-known who the likely father was. (Sidenote: In some times and in some countries, premarital sex was pretty often the norm, and it was not considered a scandal so long as they married before the baby was born.)

 

Marriage among the lower classes was mostly about survival (what husband would be the best farmer, what woman would best tend to the household needs). Marriage among the higher classes, was, as you said, often about politics. The idea of love playing a major feature in marriages became popular in the Victorian era, so it is quite new, and it has only grown in importance since that time. As a result, the end of the 19th century saw increasing interest in protecting women and children (often due to the work of early women's rights activists), as well as increasing pressure for men to at least appear to remain faithful to their wives. We started to develop marital laws that were more equitable, rather than the previous ones that gave a husband unilateral power over his entire family.

 

Despite these major changes in our concept of marriage, women and children now enjoy better protection than they ever have in the history of our society (both legally and socially). I think seeing marriage as union between two equal adults who love each other has only helped, not hurt, society. Do I think the divorce rates are too high? Yes, but lower divorce rates do not correspond to more happy marriages; all it likely means is that women who were in unhappy marriages did not have the agency required to leave their husbands.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Relevant:

 

"'Marriage today is not what it was under the common law tradition, under the civil law tradition,' said Ginsburg when Justices Roberts and Kennedy began to fret about whether the court had a right to challenge centuries of tradition.

 

'Marriage was a relationship of a dominant male to a subordinate female,' she explained. 'That ended as a result of this court’s decision in 1982 when Louisiana’s Head and Master Rule was struck down … Would that be a choice that state should [still] be allowed to have? To cling to marriage the way it once was?'"

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gay marriage and polygamy have existed since way before the USA, so it's not exactly as new as it seems to us. It just seems new, because it is new to our environment. Am I okay with it? No, because I was raised to believe it is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well since the idea of marriage isn't solely a Christian institution, I have no problem. Consenting adults who love each other don't cheapen anyone's relationship.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as no one is getting hurt and all consenting adults I see no problem. ( I also think you're born gay but I know some people on here disagree)

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't care. If two gays want to marry they have every right to. If a man wants to have eight wives, the women are okay with that and they're all adults I don't care.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't care. If two gays want to marry they have every right to. If a man wants to have eight wives, the women are okay with that and they're all adults I don't care.

Couldn't agree more!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The historical question fascinates me, so I'm going to comment on that.

 

While I do study history, this is not something I specifically study so I can't say I'm an expert on it. Nonetheless, from what I have picked up along the way Steadfast's answer looks to be more correct than Jegsy's answer. In many ways, children were looked at as economic necessities. If you owned a farm, you needed a lot of children to help running it so you would have a lot of kids. Similarly, like Steadfast pointed out, there was much concern with having an heir. To Jegsy's point, yes society was in some ways concerned with children's welfare (look at court records of bastardy and premarital sex and things like that and you'll find there was concern with finding the man responsible for paying child support instead of the town having to care for the child). So, I wouldn't say children were only viewed as economic necessities and heirs. Overall, I can't say that I see marriage as having historically been an institue that was about protecting children's welfare. Children definitely tied into it (perhaps more than they do now), but I really don't think that was the reason marriage was created. It probably had more to do with establishing the solid socioeconomic unit known as the patriarchal family. A society with a bunch of stable families is less likely to rebel, is more economically productive, ect...., ect....And, honestly, this is still encouraged today (though there is less emphasis on having the father at the head).

 

In some ways I think we're trying to be too simple in saying marriage was x but now it is y. There are overlaps. For instance, romantic love is considered a necessity now in marriage. But, it is not as though it was completely ignored in the past. You can look in the Bible or in ancient Chinese literature or in other cultural sources and find that even back then there were marriages where romantic love played an important role. Similarly, it is still true that nowadays one of the reasons marriage is encouraged by governments is because it helps produce a more stable, economically productive society. It's just romantic love is also, culturally, considered an absolute necessity.

 

Anyone who lives in the West in the 21st century lives in a country that values freedom and liberty. In such a country, they place an emphasis on letting individuals choose to live their life as they wish. Yes, there are laws that are meant to uphold other societal values (safety, economic security) but for the most part people can live life as they choose. In such countries, it is not surprising that they would have more libertarian marriage laws. As the definition of marriage has consistently changed throughout history and been different in different countires and cultures, it is not surprising that in a Western country they would let people choose for themselves how they want to marry (same-sex, polygamous, ect...).

 

Now, that doesn't necessarily mean government would have no reason to still encourage marriage. Same-sex marriage would result in the same economically productive household as heterosexual marriage. So, it makes sense that government would still encourage marriage even in a society where there is same-sex marriage. Polygamy is a little trickier. I'm not too sure it would result in the same type of economic household. Nonetheless, so few people would enter into these marriages that economically it would be pretty insignificant.

 

By the way, premarital sex became commonplace long before no-fault divorces.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm fine with polygamy being legal as there is a basis for it in my religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you know what? after 50 shades of rape came out and sold over 100million copies and then made a movie which made over 400 million dollars in sales and is pretty much about sexual abuse and coercion even according to bdsm enthusiasts

 

 

i am not surprised by anything becoming accepted anymore, Anything

 

 

even the Eiffel Tower is legally married

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erika_Eiffel

 

 

maybe when polygamy marriage gets legalized we can make a game out of who marries the most people for fun , now with both genders (and monument buildings too and maybe even my pet dog snoopy)!! If i marry enough people it might cost like 1 dollar for each of us if someone decides to divorce from my married army.

 

Marriage will become so much of a joke that it will just be removed from existence

 

what will we call this site then? Waiting till Sex?

 

 

 

 

 

This is when I'm doubtful that the government would even have civil marriage any more. What would be the point? So people can claim tax breaks for being married? That doesn't make sense - the only reason you got tax breaks in the first place was because marriage was recognised as a social good resulting in stable families, and a tax break is a good reward/incentive. The government also has no reason to legally recognise adults loving each other or living together, although they did have a good reason to keep track of who were the parents of children.

 

Anyway, that's my two cents, so to speak.

 

xxx

 

alllllllllllllllll of thissssss right hereee

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm okay with gay marriage and polygamy. If someone is supposed to respect your decision to wait till marriage to have sex then waiters ought to respect others' decisions to marry within the same sex or marry multiple people. It's their business not mine. I can still go on and live my life without trumping on their freedom to love how they prefer.

Personally I'd love to have multiple wives! But I doubt I could love them genuinely at that point. For me it would just be about the sex so I think it's best to stick with just one wife for me.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Merely a rumor, I hope you have considered all the monogamist people that have done bad things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Merely a rumor, I hope you have considered all the monogamist people that have done bad things.

oh i know, today i was reading about how a person in my province got arrested for marrying someone as a business deal

 

http://globalnews.ca/news/2074187/edmonton-man-convicted-in-albertas-first-marriage-of-convenience-case/

 

I don't know why this news article is claiming its the ''first'' as it happens all the time

(maybe the first time someone got arrested for it? that's pretty bad)

 

that and absurdly high divorce rates,marriage has already been cheapened to a very meaningless piece of paper.

 

I don't know why anyone would want to fight for it now as It probably be better off it it didn't exist anymore , that would be true ''equality'' for every orientation.

 

 people would then just have to trust the other(s)  wouldn't straight up leave them in there relationship(s) instead of depending on a paper to add a little fear of losing half of there possessions and giving them a slight tax advantage. and if they wanted to act like they were having a wedding . (fancy dress and tux and cake parties and rings,vows, etc) then good for them as they are now free to do whatever because the government is removed from it.

 

 

 

 

 

Marriage (the legal paper) was unequal from the get go , not just to gays or polygamists or all the other ones, But even to single people. it is unfair that 2 people will get an edge over others just because they "declared'' they are together. That was unfair to the people who didn't marry , and almost everyone on this site.

 

 

fighting for marriage rights,something unequal at its very core, in the name of equality is kind of ridiculous to me.

Its like fighting against slavery but only for your color in the name of equality and then leaving all the other colors out

 

 

The more i learn about society and marriage(the paper) the more ridiculous it sounds to me

marriage was already messed up ever since Jesus said

 "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.''

and its been downhill from there, straight people ruined it ages ago

 

 

this is what we are all waiting for ^ I waited because I wanted a wife who never had sex to be with me forever and i felt its only fair that i never have sex with anyone before her, but the paper part is silly to me,Regardless i did it anyway to keep her happy

 

 

like i asked already what are we going to change the name of this site too if marriage gets removed?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it will ultimately come down to mayors marrying crocodiles to bring good luck to the local fisherman

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4657124/Mexican-mayor-marries-CROCODILE-bride.html

 

im dying at the video, its dressed up and everything

 

 

edit: oh and marrying yourself

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0