Marriage is:

[OtherCheek]

What if a group of 100 people representing both sexes wanted to have a group marriage and have that marriage grow like a church, adding members regularly to their marriage. Would this be OK for the government to endorse?

[Ansgar Seraph]

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.

Well, I believe that we've gone over those specific questions before but sure:

Polygamy: I've got no problem with polygamous marriages. The legal aspects of the unions would necessarily have to account for multiple partners (e.g., your parents die and your non-biological mom gains control of their estates. When she dies, do you have equal inheritance rights as her biological children?). I assume that the legal complications would be legion but I'm not against polygamy or polygany per se.

Siblings getting married presents potential genetic problems for progeny. Inasmuch as those would be relatively insignificant over short generational spans, I don't see much reason to prevent such unions in modern society. Historically, yes, but not so much today.

Parent/child marriages would have negative implications for progeny, even without generations of inbreeding. More importantly, such unions have a pretty clear conflict of equality, as pancreasman mentioned: it would very difficult to make the case that the child was acting fully in her/his self-interest and was not making a manipulated choice. I think that society has a clear interest in prohibiting such unions.

—Sam

[Ansgar Seraph]

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?

That's what we call "far-fetched." Is our society in any danger of categorizing 12 year-olds as legal adults, with all the accompanying rights and responsibilities?

[Ansgar Seraph]

What if a group of 100 people representing both sexes wanted to have a group marriage and have that marriage grow like a church, adding members regularly to their marriage. Would this be OK for the government to endorse?

No, I don't think so — the concept of "union" becomes entirely too tenuous under such circumstances, not to mention being a hellish legal prospect.

[rogue06]

Polygamy: I've got no problem with polygamous marriages.

Looking at polgamy in modern America I certainly have some problems with it.

There is the sexual abuse of the women and girls which is relatively well known, but less known is what happens to the boys in these communities. Not wanting competition for these girls and young women the vast majority are simply taken to a nearby city and dumped off on a street corner to fend for themselves any way they can. Most live lives as male prostitutes and criminals just trying to survive. That explains why you see so few males in the pictures and videos of the women and children that were removed from the compound. See HERE as well.

One of the many other problems is that many of the polgamists will have a dozen kids or more and then go on welfare so that the rest of us can finance their lifestyle.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Looking at polgamy in modern America I certainly have some problems with it.

There is the sexual abuse of the women and girls which is relatively well known, but less known is what happens to the boys in these communities. Not wanting competition for these girls and young women the vast majority are simply taken to a nearby city and dumped off on a street corner to fend for themselves any way they can. Most live lives as male prostitutes and criminals just trying to survive. That explains why you see so few males in the pictures and videos of the women and children that were removed from the compound. See HERE as well.

One of the many other problems is that many of the polgamists will have a dozen kids or more and then go on welfare so that the rest of us can finance their lifestyle.

Well, yes. That's a good point. I'd draw a distinction, however, and say that the kind of polygamy we're seeing practiced in modern America isn't polygamy as we use the term in the general sense. It's a much darker, more cult-like brand of polygamy. As such, the exercise of polygamy in these circumstances may well be a selective sample size that would not be representative of the whole if polygamy were legal.

That said, if it can be compellingly shown that a given union, be it specific or general, results in a great deal of harm to individuals or the surrounding society, the government has good reason to prohibit that exercise. If polygamy would systematically result in these sorts of cases, I wouldn't want it legalized.

—Sam

[OtherCheek]

No, I don't think so — the concept of "union" becomes entirely too tenuous under such circumstances, not to mention being a hellish legal prospect.

Sounds like something a lot of U.S. lawyers would squarely support, then.

[OtherCheek]

That's what we call "far-fetched." Is our society in any danger of categorizing 12 year-olds as legal adults, with all the accompanying rights and responsibilities?

I'm old enough to remember what was considered "far-fetched" only 20 years ago. But not today, in our advanced society.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Sounds like something a lot of U.S. lawyers would squarely support, then.

Not likely; much better to get paid well for 10 hours work than to devote entirely too much time to a project and still only get paid for 10 hours work!

[Ansgar Seraph]

I'm old enough to remember what was considered "far-fetched" only 20 years ago. But not today, in our advanced society.

This is called FUD — fear, uncertainty, doubt. There is no chance for 12 year-olds to be considered legal adults. And making the comparison serves only to mask the fact that same-sex marriage is about consenting adults. It's along the same line of questioning as "If we allow two men to get married, why not a man and a horse?" If it were an honest objection, it'd be nihilistic. Most of the time, it's just cynical.

If we're looking at what ought to be done regarding same-sex marriage, it's appropriate to bound ourselves with some objectivity and realism. A child of 12 is not, by any proper standard, an adult and cannot make decisions with such large ramifications. Any society that would allow such a thing is pretty obviously morally wrong from almost any perspective. The same cannot be said with same-sex marriage.

—Sam

[OtherCheek]

This is called FUD — fear, uncertainty, doubt. There is no chance for 12 year-olds to be considered legal adults. And making the comparison serves only to mask the fact that same-sex marriage is about consenting adults. It's along the same line of questioning as "If we allow two men to get married, why not a man and a horse?" If it were an honest objection, it'd be nihilistic. Most of the time, it's just cynical.

If we're looking at what ought to be done regarding same-sex marriage, it's appropriate to bound ourselves with some objectivity and realism. A child of 12 is not, by any proper standard, an adult and cannot make decisions with such large ramifications. Any society that would allow such a thing is pretty obviously morally wrong from almost any perspective. The same cannot be said with same-sex marriage.

—Sam

But if you change the legal definition of "adult" then it's ok isn't it? I know some 12 year olds who make much smarter more intelligent decisions than 30 year olds.

[Ansgar Seraph]

But if you change the legal definition of "adult" then it's ok isn't it? I know some 12 year olds who make much smarter more intelligent decisions than 30 year olds.

You seem to believe that changing a definition changes something in reality. Such is not often the case, nor do I really think that you're confused about the maturity level of children. So why persist with the "Slippery Slope" fallacy?

[OtherCheek]

You seem to believe that changing a definition changes something in reality.

*Lightbulb*

Changing the definition of marriage won't change the reality that homosexuality is morally wrong.

Such is not often the case, nor do I really think that you're confused about the maturity level of children. So why persist with the "Slippery Slope" fallacy?

I DO know 12 year olds who are more mentally mature than some 30 year olds. That's the truth. "Slippery Slope" is no fallacy. Just like flirting with danger is no fallacy.

[Ansgar Seraph]

*Lightbulb*

Changing the definition of marriage won't change the reality that homosexuality is morally wrong.

No one said that it would. The morality of homosexual behavior (which does not include same-sex cohabitation, for what it's worth) was never to be determined by legalizing same-sex marriage.

I DO know 12 year olds who are more mentally mature than some 30 year olds. That's the truth. "Slippery Slope" is no fallacy. Just like flirting with danger is no fallacy.

And if you think that gets you past the slippery slope you're offering here, then you aren't really interested in where other people draw rational lines when it comes to marriage. Any line that is off your moral compass allows, by necessity, for all sorts of other equivocations, no matter how ridiculous or clearly harmful they might be.

—Sam

[robertb]

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?

I think that was in mine, as I have been cutting the lawn ever since.