What forms of Marriage should be legal and why?

[DanielRB]

Hi Folks,

The whole "gay marriage" controversy brings up a question: what restrictions, if any should be placed on entering a marriage contract?

I think it can generally be agreed that whatever involves minors should be illegal. Most would agree that someone who is, say, under the age of 18, is too young to enter into the married state. (There may be some disagreement about the exact age.) Also, I hope we can agree that coercion is unacceptable, that people must be willing to enter into the married state and not be forced or deceived.

But beyond that, there is much disagreement. The current controversy is mainly about homosexuals marrying in a monogamous, non-incestuous way. However, there are other forms of marriage that currently are illegal. Should they be, and why?

Take, for example, polygamy. If it is consensual and not involving minors, should it be illegal to have as many wives or husbands as you and they want? If not, why not?

Or--more controversial--what about incest? Should the State bar marriage because of it? Again, excluding minors and unwilling partners--why should it be illegal? Is it because of eugenic concerns? If so, does that mean homosexual incestuous relationships (with no possibility of natrual offspring of the two parties) should be allowed? And should we make laws based upon eugenic concerns at all? Should we also, then, bar certain individuals from having children who have genetic disorders that have a high probability of being passed to their offspring? Why single out just one type of relationship that possibly (but by no means certainly) will result in birth defects, espcially when other relationships with higher possibilites of birth defects are allowed?

I know former Senator Santorum was widely criticized when he brought up these issues. However, I don't think they can be swept under the rug. I find it hypocritical to say "heterosexual and homosexual, monagamous, non-incestous relationships should be legal, but everything else should not"--and either not giving a reason, or acting offended and morally outraged that polygamy and/or incest is brought up.

Daniel

 

[Axioma]

Re: Polygamy, I've always wondered about how consent works in that one. I mean, suppose that a man has five wives, and wants to marry a sixth. Do you only need his consent and the new girl's, or does everyone in the arrangement need to agree? And what if one of the original five wives wants another husband?

 

[DanielRB]

Re: Polygamy, I've always wondered about how consent works in that one. I mean, suppose that a man has five wives, and wants to marry a sixth. Do you only need his consent and the new girl's, or does everyone in the arrangement need to agree? And what if one of the original five wives wants another husband?

Good question...I would think it would be best to have unanamous consent to any expansion of the marriage contract. However, perhaps "majority rules" would be ok in a group marriage.

Perhaps you could chose what kind of contract to enter: exclusive and not open to new members; open to new members if all current members agree; majority agreement is all that is necessary; etc.

A "one size fits all" marriage contract may not be too workable, any more than a "one size fits all" business contract.

Daniel

 

[cantata]

Good question...I would think it would be best to have unanamous consent to any expansion of the marriage contract. However, perhaps "majority rules" would be ok in a group marriage.

Perhaps you could chose what kind of contract to enter: exclusive and not open to new members; open to new members if all current members agree; majority agreement is all that is necessary; etc.

A "one size fits all" marriage contract may not be too workable, any more than a "one size fits all" business contract.

Daniel

Ooh, this is an interesting approach - I like it!

 

[DanielRB]

Ooh, this is an interesting approach - I like it!

Thanks, cantata

BTW, have you ever read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Robert A. Heinlein? He goes into some rather interesting conceptions of marriage, such as a "group" marriage. Good political reading, too--even if you disagree with his libertarian leanings, it's fun.

Daniel

 

[trunks2k]

First, let's set an initial limit on consenting stuff that's a requirement for all contracts - Consenting adults or parent's permission.

Gay marriage - yes it should be legal. The only difference here is gender, so there's no problem instituting it.

Polygamy - In theory, yes. If polygamy were to be legal then all members of the marriage would be have to consent to the marriage and be married to each other. Unfortunately, this is just a set up for a legal nightmare that I have a tough time seeing how it can be properly managed.

Incest - No, especially when it comes brothers/sisters and parent/child relationships. I worry too much about the possibility of coercion. It just seems like tricky area to even try and enter. I just can't imagine that it being considered acceptable to consider your children as potential sexual partners would be healthy for them. Similar thing when it comes to siblings.

Underage marriage (with parental consent) - Already exists in some states. I see it as OK for minors that understand what they're doing. We'd have to draw some minimum age, I'd say 14ish, and then have some way of showing the minor understands what is being agreed to. I'd also say the age difference between the partners should not be too large (might consider the age/2 +7 rule).

 

[DanielRB]

Hi trunks,

First, let's set an initial limit on consenting stuff that's a requirement for all contracts - Consenting adults or parent's permission.

Agreed, except I'm thinking the "parental consent" thing about marriage, though long-standing, is not that wise. I would say no marriage before the age of majority, period. As you point out below, it's hard to determine consent in these caess.

Gay marriage - yes it should be legal. The only difference here is gender, so there's no problem instituting it.

Agreed, no real legal problems.

Polygamy - In theory, yes. If polygamy were to be legal then all members of the marriage would be have to consent to the marriage and be married to each other. Unfortunately, this is just a set up for a legal nightmare that I have a tough time seeing how it can be properly managed.

It's tough managing ANY marriage. But honestly I think it is not insurmoutably difficult to manage these legal matters. Corporate law is much more complex (though generally less emotional--not always, though), but it can be managed.

Incest - No, especially when it comes brothers/sisters and parent/child relationships. I worry too much about the possibility of coercion. It just seems like tricky area to even try and enter. I just can't imagine that it being considered acceptable to consider your children as potential sexual partners would be healthy for them. Similar thing when it comes to siblings.

This is about the best argument against incest (in a non-religious way) that I've heard. I think the eugenic arguments are completely empty, invalid and inconsistent with current law and ethics.

Underage marriage (with parental consent) - Already exists in some states. I see it as OK for minors that understand what they're doing. We'd have to draw some minimum age, I'd say 14ish, and then have some way of showing the minor understands what is being agreed to. I'd also say the age difference between the partners should not be too large (might consider the age/2 +7 rule).

Mmmm...what about the "same age in dog year's" rule?

I'm sure that you're for limiting that age difference only when one of the partners is a minor, right? You woldn't object to a 20 year old marrying a 50 year old, right?

But even then, I think current law is too lose. I'd say no marriage before 18.

So...while I can see justification for limiting marriage on the basis of age and prior familial relationship, I don't see a strong justification (aside from religious objections) to prohibit homosexual or polygamous marriages.

Daniel

 

[cantata]

This is about the best argument against incest (in a non-religious way) that I've heard. I think the eugenic arguments are completely empty, invalid and inconsistent with current law and ethics.

I agree.

My main problem with prohibiting incest marriages is that relatives who meet as adults are actually relatively (har har) likely to be attracted to one another and it seems unfair to prevent them from marrying if they want to. There have been some recent examples in the news about this sort of thing. If neither of them had ever been a minor during the period of their acquaintance, I can't see a good reason to prevent their marriage.

 

[trunks2k]

I'm sure that you're for limiting that age difference only when one of the partners is a minor, right?

Yes. Once you're 18 you can enter into any contract you want to, including marriage.

 

[trunks2k]

My main problem with prohibiting incest marriages is that relatives who meet as adults are actually relatively (har har) likely to be attracted to one another and it seems unfair to prevent them from marrying if they want to. There have been some recent examples in the news about this sort of thing. If neither of them had ever been a minor during the period of their acquaintance, I can't see a good reason to prevent their marriage.

I agree with this. I meant to add this to my original post.

 

[LittleNipper]

Hi Folks,

The whole "gay marriage" controversy brings up a question: what restrictions, if any should be placed on entering a marriage contract?

I think it can generally be agreed that whatever involves minors should be illegal. Most would agree that someone who is, say, under the age of 18, is too young to enter into the married state. (There may be some disagreement about the exact age.) Also, I hope we can agree that coercion is unacceptable, that people must be willing to enter into the married state and not be forced or deceived.

But beyond that, there is much disagreement. The current controversy is mainly about homosexuals marrying in a monogamous, non-incestuous way. However, there are other forms of marriage that currently are illegal. Should they be, and why?

Take, for example, polygamy. If it is consensual and not involving minors, should it be illegal to have as many wives or husbands as you and they want? If not, why not?

Or--more controversial--what about incest? Should the State bar marriage because of it? Again, excluding minors and unwilling partners--why should it be illegal? Is it because of eugenic concerns? If so, does that mean homosexual incestuous relationships (with no possibility of natrual offspring of the two parties) should be allowed? And should we make laws based upon eugenic concerns at all? Should we also, then, bar certain individuals from having children who have genetic disorders that have a high probability of being passed to their offspring? Why single out just one type of relationship that possibly (but by no means certainly) will result in birth defects, espcially when other relationships with higher possibilites of birth defects are allowed?

I know former Senator Santorum was widely criticized when he brought up these issues. However, I don't think they can be swept under the rug. I find it hypocritical to say "heterosexual and homosexual, monagamous, non-incestous relationships should be legal, but everything else should not"--and either not giving a reason, or acting offended and morally outraged that polygamy and/or incest is brought up.

Daniel

No homosexual marriages.
No incestous marriages.
No polygamy.

The only rational is scriptural as far as I'm concerned. While the Bible allowed some to have several wives, the Bible clearly demonstrates that in every case serious relational problems were the direct result.

 

[keith99]

Thanks, cantata

BTW, have you ever read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Robert A. Heinlein? He goes into some rather interesting conceptions of marriage, such as a "group" marriage. Good political reading, too--even if you disagree with his libertarian leanings, it's fun.

Daniel

If I recall correctly there was at least one wife in the Davis line marriage who was a member of the family both by birth and marriage, yet somehow none of the ick factor of incest.

If marriage exists to provide stability for the raising of childern the Davis family beats any marriage I know of in the real world by a mile. Of course Heinlein cheated a bit, seems only good folks marry in to the clan.

Since this is a COMPUTER based means of communication I think it is worth pointing out that a computer plays a major part in the story. Heinlein also gives a rather interesting bit of applied physics regarding the conversion of energy and a couple of comments on racism.

If you were to ask why yuo should read 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" I guess I would say 'Why not". (or should I? What do you think Daniel?)

 

[keith99]

One comment on age to marry. If someone is old enough to go off to war they are old enough to marry. And if both parties desire the aid that having their relationship formalized before that risk to life and the relationship they should marry.