[Yaakov ben Avraham]

This is just a curious question that I thought would be interesting to bring up. It is a general question, obviously not intended to cover nations that are governed by Religious Law, like countries covered by Sharia, or anything like that. Whether a country SHOULD be governed by Religious Law is yet another question, and maybe time for another poll. But, nationality aside, what is the general opinion on marriage. I am generally curious. The question, of course, applies to the State recognition of marriage rather than to what Churches and Synagogues and Mosques and so-forth recognise. So, fire ahead. And do feel free to comment. I would love to hear your comments on why you voted the way you did.

[Rushy]

Either all of them should be permitted or none of them. Picking and choosing what is moral is applying a subjective constraint on others.

[xasop]

I voted for the state not being in the business of regulating marriage, but I'd also like to qualify that. I do believe there should be some protection against taking advantage of the young and mentally challenged who are unable to give informed consent, but I also don't see any reason to couple such protections with marriage. A de facto relationship between a 45-year-old adult and a 9-year-old child is no less immoral than a married relationship, and should be treated equally under the law.

[Rama Set]

A de facto relationship between a 45-year-old adult and a 9-year-old child is no less immoral than a married relationship, and should be treated equally under the law.

I don't think you can make a blanket statement like that.  Seeing as a 9 year-old is not fully developed mentally, physically and emotionally, and children are much more susceptible to manipulation and coercion that adults are, on average, most relationships between a 9 year old and a mature adult are not analogous to a relationship between two adults.

I also voted that the state has no business in marriage, except that I think that informed consent and the accompanying issues should be taken in to account.  If 16 fully mature adults are of sound mind and body and want to get married to each other the so be it but I have a problem with a 9 year old and a 45 year old getting married.

[xasop]

A de facto relationship between a 45-year-old adult and a 9-year-old child is no less immoral than a married relationship, and should be treated equally under the law.

I don't think you can make a blanket statement like that.  Seeing as a 9 year-old is not fully developed mentally, physically and emotionally, and children are much more susceptible to manipulation and coercion that adults are, on average, most relationships between a 9 year old and a mature adult are not analogous to a relationship between two adults.

I wasn't comparing it to a relationship between two adults; I was comparing it to a marriage between the same two people, which could hypothetically become legal if marriage were completely deregulated.

[Rushy]

I don't think you can make a blanket statement like that.  Seeing as a 9 year-old is not fully developed mentally, physically and emotionally, and children are much more susceptible to manipulation and coercion that adults are, on average, most relationships between a 9 year old and a mature adult are not analogous to a relationship between two adults.

I also voted that the state has no business in marriage, except that I think that informed consent and the accompanying issues should be taken in to account.  If 16 fully mature adults are of sound mind and body and want to get married to each other the so be it but I have a problem with a 9 year old and a 45 year old getting married.

What are you using to determine that the 9 year old isn't mentally capable of deciding for him/herself? What makes the age of 9 inherently more or less mature than 16?

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

The key question is the following, to wit:

Does the State not have an interest in knowing who is married to whom for the purpose of knowing who is the parent of whom in order to keep track of who owns what, and what passes to whom upon death and inheritance, and so-forth?

In order to do that, the State has to know who is having children together. Part of the reason polyandry was in most societies considered abomination is because no one knew who the father was. Of course, with the advent of paternity tests, that is not a problem in advanced countries, although it still would be in many.

I think that is the whole reason the State should be involved in regulating marriage, is in order to keep track of who is with whom, and who is inheriting what, and who is giving birth to whom, and so-forth. As to who is marrying whom, that is a totally different story. As long as the Churches, Synagogues, Temples, Mosques, et al of the land are not required to endorse things that go against their own beliefs, if you want to marry your lawn chair, and said chair is sentient and adult and can consent, feel free.

No, in all seriousness, with the exception perhaps of polyandry, I think humans ought to be free to marry whom they wish, at least at the State level. I might even be able to accept polyandry in those societies advanced enough to maintain records on paternity.

Obviously, my own religious views are different. But I don't believe in imposing my religious views on others.

[Rama Set]

I wasn't comparing it to a relationship between two adults; I was comparing it to a marriage between the same two people, which could hypothetically become legal if marriage were completely deregulated.

Oh I see what you are saying.  I still don't want my adults sleeping with 9 year olds, but that is another issue entirely.

What are you using to determine that the 9 year old isn't mentally capable of deciding for him/herself? What makes the age of 9 inherently more or less mature than 16?

First off, I doubt I would be capable of making such a decision, but lets play along for funsies.  I think the most obvious factor that makes a 9 year old less mature than a 16 year old, on average, is puberty.  The vast majority of 9 year-olds are prepubescent and have a much less developed of themselves sexually and emotionally.  The more nebulous factor is probably "life experience" which can vary drastically, although I think you still might find a 16 year old has likely had more "adult" or "mature" experiences than a 9 year old, making them better suited to a decision of consequence, such as marriage.

I want to be clear, I am not saying that all 16 year olds are more mature than all 9 year old.  There are shades of grey to be accounted for, but I don't think it is controversial to say that there are factors that maybe should limit a 9 year old from entering in to a marriage-like relationship.

[Rushy]

First off, I doubt I would be capable of making such a decision, but lets play along for funsies.  I think the most obvious factor that makes a 9 year old less mature than a 16 year old, on average, is puberty.  The vast majority of 9 year-olds are prepubescent and have a much less developed of themselves sexually and emotionally.  The more nebulous factor is probably "life experience" which can vary drastically, although I think you still might find a 16 year old has likely had more "adult" or "mature" experiences than a 9 year old, making them better suited to a decision of consequence, such as marriage.

I want to be clear, I am not saying that all 16 year olds are more mature than all 9 year old.  There are shades of grey to be accounted for, but I don't think it is controversial to say that there are factors that maybe should limit a 9 year old from entering in to a marriage-like relationship.

What measure are you using to quantify life experience? And, if we're using that, why stop at 16 or 18? Why not say no one can marry or diddle each other until the age of 30 or 40? You logic doesn't extrapolate well.

[Rama Set]

First off, I doubt I would be capable of making such a decision, but lets play along for funsies.  I think the most obvious factor that makes a 9 year old less mature than a 16 year old, on average, is puberty.  The vast majority of 9 year-olds are prepubescent and have a much less developed of themselves sexually and emotionally.  The more nebulous factor is probably "life experience" which can vary drastically, although I think you still might find a 16 year old has likely had more "adult" or "mature" experiences than a 9 year old, making them better suited to a decision of consequence, such as marriage.

I want to be clear, I am not saying that all 16 year olds are more mature than all 9 year old.  There are shades of grey to be accounted for, but I don't think it is controversial to say that there are factors that maybe should limit a 9 year old from entering in to a marriage-like relationship.

What measure are you using to quantify life experience? And, if we're using that, why stop at 16 or 18? Why not say no one can marry or diddle each other until the age of 30 or 40? You logic doesn't extrapolate well.

I already said that it was nebulous and that I am not really qualified to make this judgement so I don't think I could give you substantial criteria, but from my lay perspective, if a 9 year old admits that the most important decision they make is to decide which toy to play with and that they think babies come from Storks, then perhaps they are not ready for a serious emotionally and sexually committed relationship.

[Rama Set]

The key question is the following, to wit:

Does the State not have an interest in knowing who is married to whom for the purpose of knowing who is the parent of whom in order to keep track of who owns what, and what passes to whom upon death and inheritance, and so-forth?

In order to do that, the State has to know who is having children together. Part of the reason polyandry was in most societies considered abomination is because no one knew who the father was. Of course, with the advent of paternity tests, that is not a problem in advanced countries, although it still would be in many.

I think that is the whole reason the State should be involved in regulating marriage, is in order to keep track of who is with whom, and who is inheriting what, and who is giving birth to whom, and so-forth. As to who is marrying whom, that is a totally different story. As long as the Churches, Synagogues, Temples, Mosques, et al of the land are not required to endorse things that go against their own beliefs, if you want to marry your lawn chair, and said chair is sentient and adult and can consent, feel free.

No, in all seriousness, with the exception perhaps of polyandry, I think humans ought to be free to marry whom they wish, at least at the State level. I might even be able to accept polyandry in those societies advanced enough to maintain records on paternity.

Obviously, my own religious views are different. But I don't believe in imposing my religious views on others.

I agree with this but this need not be any more rigorous than registering a vehicle. So yes regulation to the degree that benefits medical records, census materials and estate laws is probably a good idea.

[Rushy]

I already said that it was nebulous and that I am not really qualified to make this judgement so I don't think I could give you substantial criteria, but from my lay perspective, if a 9 year old admits that the most important decision they make is to decide which toy to play with and that they think babies come from Storks, then perhaps they are not ready for a serious emotionally and sexually committed relationship.

This was not funsies. Not funsies at all.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Ultimately, when you think about it, so many people tend to get married IN the Churches, Synagogues, Temples, Mosques, etc, of the land, that the people screaming for "one man, one woman" marriages are getting it already in large part, just because most of these facilities already have that practice anyway, with the exception perhaps of the Mosques, and most Muslims only marry one wife, because of the Qur'an's injunction that "and one is better for you, if you did but know". Although they permit up to four wives, they prefer monogamy, and they make plural marriage difficult, because you have to treat all the wives equally, and so-forth.

So, there you are.

[juner]

In general, I am in favor of any people who are able to consent to be able to marry. What the criteria is for being able to give consent is subjective. In America, age 18 seems to be arbitrary enough as there are a lot of other laws that tie into that age. I am on board with Parsifal about the government not regulating marriage, other than providing protections for those that need it.

[Tau]

Shocking, I agree with everyone else. Regulating marriage, outside of protecting the vulnerable, is inherently problematic and goes directly against freedom of religion.

I think there's something to be said for protecting the vulnerable extending beyond children and the disabled, though. From what I understand, a lot of the polygynous relationships in America don't involve a whole lot of consent from the women involved. This all comes from a Cracked article, so it could be horrifically inaccurate, but I've read that in some of the more cultish midwestern areas of the US (particularly spin-off sects of mormonism that still practice polygamy) there's a lot of wife-buying. That's not really okay.

I guess what I'm suggesting here is that the government should be directly involved with ensuring that married people are actively consenting, and nothing else.

[Rama Set]

I already said that it was nebulous and that I am not really qualified to make this judgement so I don't think I could give you substantial criteria, but from my lay perspective, if a 9 year old admits that the most important decision they make is to decide which toy to play with and that they think babies come from Storks, then perhaps they are not ready for a serious emotionally and sexually committed relationship.

This was not funsies. Not funsies at all.

I will take your bait next time, I promise.

[Rushy]

I think there's something to be said for protecting the vulnerable extending beyond children and the disabled, though. From what I understand, a lot of the polygynous relationships in America don't involve a whole lot of consent from the women involved. This all comes from a Cracked article, so it could be horrifically inaccurate, but I've read that in some of the more cultish midwestern areas of the US (particularly spin-off sects of mormonism that still practice polygamy) there's a lot of wife-buying. That's not really okay.

If you make something illegal it will have a higher occurrence of abusive qualities. I can buy a single wife, too. Does that mean marriage in general is just bad?

This sounds like a poor attempt at justifying a subjective bias against polygamy; which inherently isn't different from other types of consensual relationships.

[Tau]

I think there's something to be said for protecting the vulnerable extending beyond children and the disabled, though. From what I understand, a lot of the polygynous relationships in America don't involve a whole lot of consent from the women involved. This all comes from a Cracked article, so it could be horrifically inaccurate, but I've read that in some of the more cultish midwestern areas of the US (particularly spin-off sects of mormonism that still practice polygamy) there's a lot of wife-buying. That's not really okay.

If you make something illegal it will have a higher occurrence of abusive qualities. I can buy a single wife, too. Does that mean marriage in general is just bad?

This sounds like a poor attempt at justifying a subjective bias against polygamy; which inherently isn't different from other types of consensual relationships.

I'm not talking about banning polygamy, I'm all for polygamy. If that's what makes you happy then go for it. I'm just saying that I think it's legitimate and necessary for the government to be involved as far as making sure everyone is consenting, and that it's illegitimate and unnecessary for them to be involved in any other respect.

[xasop]

Oh I see what you are saying.  I still don't want my adults sleeping with 9 year olds, but that is another issue entirely.

Yes, that's exactly my point. Read my previous sentence for context:

I do believe there should be some protection against taking advantage of the young and mentally challenged who are unable to give informed consent, but I also don't see any reason to couple such protections with marriage.

[Roundy]

I answered that I don't think the state should regulate marriage at all but in hindsight I see that such a policy would be inherently impractical.  The point of marriage after all is that some higher body officially recognizes a union between people.  For some, religion might be enough, but I wager that a lot of the gays wouldn't see it that way; even the ones who somehow consider themselves religious despite the obvious blasphemy they perform on a regular basis might have trouble getting his or her church to recognize a union between two members of the same sex (or five, or what have you). 

So the only recourse is for it to be recognized by the government, and why not?  Marriage comes with financial benefits too.  It comes with a lot of other baggage as well, as Yaakov pointed out.  If it's up to the state to officially sanction a marriage, obviously they're going to regulate it to some degree.  It's unavoidable.  So in the end government regulation of marriage and the right of gays to marry aren't mutually exclusive concepts; the existence of the latter is actually indirectly dependent on the existence of the former.  The choice against the government regulating marriage is essentially nonsensical.  The only question that matters is how restrictive the government should be allowed to be in their regulation of marriage (my opinion being not very).  As far as I can tell that's what the fight is about. 

So long story short if I could I would change my answer to the last, saying all the relationships should be permitted.