Marriage is:

[OtherCheek]

Sorry if some folks are burned out on this topic, but I wanted to ask this.

Pretend that there must be a legal definition for the term, and you are a Supreme Court Judge writing an opinion, or a lawyer arguing before the Supreme Court regarding a "legal" definition for Marriage, which would become the law of the land for the whole nation. I'm especially interested in what SSM advocates would present as the definition of Marriage. But either side of the debate is welcome to add their input.

MARRIAGE IS...

[robertb]

A contract entered into by two, or more if that floats your boat, consenting adults. Key words are consenting and adults.

[OtherCheek]

A contract entered into by two, or more if that floats your boat, consenting adults. Key words are consenting and adults.

So if I enter a contract to mow some one's lawn and they agree to pay me, that constitutes a marriage as long as we are consenting adults?

[Ansgar Seraph]

Sorry if some folks are burned out on this topic, but I wanted to ask this.

Pretend that there must be a legal definition for the term, and you are a Supreme Court Judge writing an opinion, or a lawyer arguing before the Supreme Court regarding a "legal" definition for Marriage, which would become the law of the land for the whole nation. I'm especially interested in what SSM advocates would present as the definition of Marriage. But either side of the debate is welcome to add their input.

MARRIAGE IS...

"A civil union comprising of two consenting adults."

[pancreasman]

"A civil union comprising of two consenting adults."

I'd only add for legal purposes of securing certain rights such as Next of Kin status, power of attorney, shared property rights, and shared custody of any children legally under the care of the union, stuff like that.

[OtherCheek]

"A civil union comprising of two consenting adults."

No other qualifications other than "consenting" and "adults" Right?

Why not more than two? Would you not support that?

Between siblings? You would support that?

Between a father and his 21 year-old daughter? You would support that?

[pancreasman]

Why not more than two? Would you not support that?

Personally, I haven't thought about it much, but at first blush I'd have to say I'd consider it.

[Ansgar Seraph]

No other qualifications other than "consenting" and "adults" Right?

Why not more than two? Would you not support that?

Between siblings? You would support that?

Between a father and his 21 year-old daughter? You would support that?

You asked for a legal definition, not a limiting statute. And that's where your problem lies: we've been through the rest of all of this regarding civil unions. Your contention is that you don't mind civil unions being extended past a man and a woman but you don't want the traditional definition of "marriage" changed. And so you've asked others to present legal definitions of "marriage."

But by coming back with questions about limitations, you're rocking your own boat: you'll have to admit, by your line of inquiry, that the definition of "marriage" has changed . . . and changed recently, at that. So, if you want to say that the traditional, thousands-of-years-old definition of "marriage" is "a union between one man and one woman," you're opening yourself wide to the exact same questions.

It's a self-defeating line of questioning: either the definition has changed in societies over time, allowing us to change it again as society sees fit or whatever "traditional" definition you would come up with is subject to the same simplistic objections that you list above. What's to gain?

—Sam

[pancreasman]

Personally, I haven't thought about it much, but at first blush I'd have to say I'd consider it.

You edited that post after I answered it. To be clear, I'd think about plural marriage but I would oppose A father marrying his daughter on the basis of biology and the impossibility of an a relationship based on equivalent power. Similarly, a teacher should not marry a student.

[OtherCheek]

You asked for a legal definition, not a limiting statute. And that's where your problem lies: we've been through the rest of all of this regarding civil unions. Your contention is that you don't mind civil unions being extended past a man and a woman but you don't want the traditional definition of "marriage" changed. And so you've asked others to present legal definitions of "marriage."

But by coming back with questions about limitations, you're rocking your own boat: you'll have to admit, by your line of inquiry, that the definition of "marriage" has changed . . . and changed recently, at that. So, if you want to say that the traditional, thousands-of-years-old definition of "marriage" is "a union between one man and one woman," you're opening yourself wide to the exact same questions.

It's a self-defeating line of questioning: either the definition has changed in societies over time, allowing us to change it again as society sees fit or whatever "traditional" definition you would come up with is subject to the same simplistic objections that you list above. What's to gain?

—Sam

I'm playing the permissive side of the argument (which I don't agree with by the way), but I'm trying to see where same-sex supporters would draw the line. I'm wondering where you would draw the line on limitations, if any.

So, the questions stand, and I would like to hear your position on those questions.

[Psychic Missile]

I'd say what Ansgar Seraph and pancreasman said in posts 4 and 5, and I'd support the allowance of obtaining a legal marriage in regards to the situations OtherCheek listed in post 6.

[OtherCheek]

You edited that post after I answered it. To be clear, I'd think about plural marriage but I would oppose A father marrying his daughter on the basis of biology and the impossibility of an a relationship based on equivalent power. Similarly, a teacher should not marry a student.

Such limitations and restrictions would need to be written into the legal definition because "self-evident" definitions of terms seems to have failed for some when it comes to the definition of "Marriage"

[OtherCheek]

I'd say what Ansgar Seraph and pancreasman said in posts 4 and 5, and I'd support the allowance of obtaining a legal marriage in regards to the situations OtherCheek listed in post 6.

What about a special-interest group's effort to have the government change the definition of "adult" to include 12 and older? And the definition of "child" to be younger than 12? Would you support that?

[Psychic Missile]

What about a special-interest group's effort to have the government change the definition of "adult" to include 12 and older? And the definition of "child" to be younger than 12? Would you support that?

No, because only biological adults should be able to consent as far as the law is concerned.

[OtherCheek]

No, because only biological adults should be able to consent as far as the law is concerned.

And if a group wanted to change the definition of "biological adult" because they felt discriminated against, would you support that?