NationStates Jolt Archive

We have quite a few topics on marriage here - but they seem to all focus on gay marriage. Why not look at what else NSG approves or disapproves of ?

Feel free to explain your choices, especially if you only agree with subsets - for instance if you have no problem with one man marrying multiple women, but oppose the reverse.

And yes, there are people who wish to marry fictional characters. We recently even had a thread on them.

Bah! Do what thou wilt! Do whatever rocks your boat. This is getting tiring.

Bah! Do what thou wilt! Do whatever rocks your boat. This is getting tiring.

Be sure to read the polloptions ;)

I see marriage as a legal contract. Consenting adults can enter into this contract.

A fictional character, animal, minor child, dead person, or any other individual/object that cannot enter into a legal contract would obviously not be able to get married.

When people talk about how they want to marry their toaster or their dog, they seem to think it's a one-way deal. Like you can marry something the way you'd rent a car. I see it as a MUTUAL deal, and if the other party can't/won't consent then there's no deal.

I see marriage as a legal contract. Consenting adults can enter into this contract.

A fictional character, animal, minor child, dead person, or any other individual/object that cannot enter into a legal contract would obviously not be able to get married.

When people talk about how they want to marry their toaster or their dog, they seem to think it's a one-way deal. Like you can marry something the way you'd rent a car. I see it as a MUTUAL deal, and if the other party can't/won't consent then there's no deal.

This.

Which is why I selected the marriages with family members as well as arranged marriages. If all involved parties agree, there's no reason to put up legal obstacles.

Be sure to read the polloptions ;)

I did and allow me to say, marriage between a human and an anime character should be recognized by the state and the church, in my eyes. (I hope you know I'm not being serious...)

I hold to this: do whatever rocks your boat.

Between Prop 8, Mormons and gay marriage (not to mention Obama is the devil or the US's at war with Russia), I'm starting to have delussions.:tongue:

Anything is fine by me. :)

The bit about fictional characters irritates me. And not really because I'm opposed to marrying something that can't give consent. Animals and children cannot consent to marriage and its consummation, despite the fact that they can be harmed by it. A fictional character would obviously not be harmed by a consummation of marriage. But marriage does serve a certian societal purpose and getting legal recognition for a relationship that entirely takes place in someone's imagination and placing it on the same level as other relationships? That strikes me as a waste of time and resources. I'm not saying someone should be prohibitted from engaging in what they see as a relationship to Heidi, but attempting to obtain legal recognition for it goes too far.

Aside from those who cannot consent, I oppose marriage between immediate family, given how it leads to genetic defects.

I have no issue with someone marrying a fictional character, but I don't think it deserves legal recognition.

Aside from those who cannot consent, I oppose marriage between immediate family, given how it leads to genetic defects.

I have no issue with someone marrying a fictional character, but I don't think it deserves legal recognition.

And here I was thinking that procreation with close family members can lead to genetic defects... I had no idea that marriage can have the same effects.

Bah! Do what thou wilt! Do whatever rocks your boat. This is getting tiring.

What about marriage between a child and an adult though? I doubt the child can give consent...

Aside from those who cannot consent, I oppose marriage between immediate family, given how it leads to genetic defects.

Do you also oppose marriages between nonrelated people with inheritable diseases/genetic defects then ?

And here I was thinking that procreation with close family members can lead to genetic defects... I had no idea that marriage can have the same effects.

Note that for some people the purpose of marriage is to facilitate procreation.

I was hoping to marry the Sea

First, easy ones:
One man, one woman - N
Gay marriage - Y
Polygamic marriage - Y, especially if all are the same gender
Marriage between close family - Maybe. The objection would be complicating legal family relations.
Marriage between distant family - Y. No problem here.
Marriage between different "social classes", "races" or religions - I doubt anyone would object.
Arranged marriages - Nothing wrong with them, they usually go better than acting on impulse.


Now, three other kinds are more difficult.

Children - No. They are unable to give consent.

Nonhuman - Yes. The Humanity should develop itself, in the only way it can now. And probably after heavy enough genetic modification and electronic enhancements, the question whether the child is still human will remain controversial. That doesn't mean they should be denied the right to marry. Of course, it would need an alternate test for ability to consent than age, say a test of the ability to make well-weighed decisions.

Fictional - Mu. It can't be allowed or forbidden, as the other entity doesn't legally exist.
But as for entities that exist legally but not physically, maybe. On one hand, it's freedom of contract, on the other, something feels inexplicably wrong about marrying a corporation.

Marriage between different "social classes", "races" or religions - I doubt anyone would object.

Throughout history many have - and still do. Marriage between black and white ? Better not live in Klan territory.
"Social classes" ? Societies that value "Castes" still exist and really do not like it if you ignore the boundaries.
And protestant grandma might very well object if you marry a Catholic. That may even cost you your right to the throne of Britain after all.

And here I was thinking that procreation with close family members can lead to genetic defects... I had no idea that marriage can have the same effects.

Incestuous marriage leads to the emission of dangerous radiation, which can cause genetic defects and cancer.

And here I was thinking that procreation with close family members can lead to genetic defects... I had no idea that marriage can have the same effects.
It is also important to remember that, statistically speaking, there are far more likely causes for genetic disorders.

If your sole issue with family members marrying is that their offspring may have genetic problems, then you must also conclude that marriage should be prohibited for the following:

-Women over the age of 35, and potentially men over the age of 40 (research is still being done).
-Individuals who are known to carry at least one copy of a genetic disorder
-Individuals who HAVE a full-blown disorder. (I.e., individuals with cystic fibrosis would be legally barred from marriage.)
-Women and men who are known to have been exposed to various mutagens and/or carcinogenic compounds.
-Women and men who have already produced at least one child with a genetic abnormality.

The likelihood of a woman over 35 having a child with a genetic abnormality is actually HIGHER than the odds that two first cousins will produce a child with a genetic abnormality.

I see marriage as a legal contract. Consenting adults can enter into this contract.

A fictional character, animal, minor child, dead person, or any other individual/object that cannot enter into a legal contract would obviously not be able to get married.

When people talk about how they want to marry their toaster or their dog, they seem to think it's a one-way deal. Like you can marry something the way you'd rent a car. I see it as a MUTUAL deal, and if the other party can't/won't consent then there's no deal.
This.

I disapprove of marriage of adult to child or (in some cultures) child to child because children below a certain age are not competent to give consent to bind themselves to a legal contract/agreement.

There are cultures in which children can be married to adults, but they do not live together or have any sexual contact until the child is an adult, but the child also does not get to give consent to the arrangement, either. An example would be some Himalayan (high mountain regions of Nepal) tribes that practice polyandry, in which a woman marries a man and gets all his younger brothers into the bargain, automatically, whether they like it or not.

To me, the big deal breaker on marriage is that it has to be MUTUAL CONSENT BY EACH PARTY'S OWN FREE WILL. That's MY standard. Any hint of lack of consent or pressure being applied kills the whole deal, as far as I'm concerned, so that automatically has me stamp NO on child marriage of any kind.

As long as all parties are able to consent and willing to consent and do consent, then let consenting adults do as they please.

Now, that only speaks to what I approve/disapprove of. What the state should recognize legally is a different matter. Obviously, I don't think the state should recognize child marriage, for the reasons given, nor should it recognize any form of marriage where free and willing consent is not clear. I also see good public health arguments against marriage between close family (close = 1st cousins or closer), as well as the fact that incest also usually involves some form of abuse and coercion as well, so that should not be legally recognized. Polygamy/Polyandry can be complicated as to the specifics of just what a state is recognizing when it recognizes a marriage, so that would have to be worked out, but I see no inherent arguments against it, per se. Some societies handle it well enough. As for marriage to an imaginary, mythical or fictional being -- well, that's what Catholic nuns do, isn't it? "Marry" Christ, in a way? Since there is only one taxpaying person involved in such a "marriage," I see no reason for the state to concern itself with it at all.

It is also important to remember that, statistically speaking, there are far more likely causes for genetic disorders.

If your sole issue with family members marrying is that their offspring may have genetic problems, then you must also conclude that marriage should be prohibited for the following:

-Women over the age of 35, and potentially men over the age of 40 (research is still being done).
-Individuals who are known to carry at least one copy of a genetic disorder
-Individuals who HAVE a full-blown disorder. (I.e., individuals with cystic fibrosis would be legally barred from marriage.)
-Women and men who are known to have been exposed to various mutagens and/or carcinogenic compounds.
-Women and men who have already produced at least one child with a genetic abnormality.

The likelihood of a woman over 35 having a child with a genetic abnormality is actually HIGHER than the odds that two first cousins will produce a child with a genetic abnormality.


Good news indeed for the people of Arkansas

I see marriage as a legal contract. Consenting adults can enter into this contract.

A fictional character, animal, minor child, dead person, or any other individual/object that cannot enter into a legal contract would obviously not be able to get married.

When people talk about how they want to marry their toaster or their dog, they seem to think it's a one-way deal. Like you can marry something the way you'd rent a car. I see it as a MUTUAL deal, and if the other party can't/won't consent then there's no deal.

This ^
However, I would add that mutuality is not really possible in a multi-partner arrangement: in typical polygamous marriages, the wives have duties to the husband, the husbands has rights over the wife; that is not mutuality.

First, easy ones:
One man, one woman - N

Why or were you just trying to prove a point?

Throughout history many have - and still do. Marriage between black and white ? Better not live in Klan territory.
"Social classes" ? Societies that value "Castes" still exist and really do not like it if you ignore the boundaries.
And protestant grandma might very well object if you marry a Catholic. That may even cost you your right to the throne of Britain after all.
Yes, but it's the grandma objecting, not the government. And throne is a privilege, not a right.
In any remotely modern society, with separation of church from state and statutory equality, the castes and the religions aren't even in the picture.


It is also important to remember that, statistically speaking, there are far more likely causes for genetic disorders.
[...]
-Women over the age of 35, and potentially men over the age of 40 (research is still being done). Explicitly *genetic* disorders?
There's a lot of these things, and the incidence of disorders is AFAIK low. OTOH people observed that marrying your mother or sister often leads to freaks long ago.


-Individuals who are known to carry at least one copy of a genetic disorder
-Individuals who HAVE a full-blown disorder. (I.e., individuals with cystic fibrosis would be legally barred from marriage.)
-Women and men who are known to have been exposed to various mutagens and/or carcinogenic compounds.
-Women and men who have already produced at least one child with a genetic abnormality.
While I don't exactly support banning reproduction for these groups, I wouldn't be protesting against it if it were banned. In the modern overpopulated world, reproduction should be considered a privilege, not a right.

Why or were you just trying to prove a point?
Try to think of it yourself. There's actually more reasons than for any other group.

Try to think of it yourself. There's actually more reasons than for any other group.

It is 1:30 in the morning mate, I am past thinking about it for myself. Unless it is saying something like One man, one woman thus it is one man being married and no one else is there. And the same goes for one woman.

It is 1:30 in the morning mate, I am past thinking about it for myself. Unless it is saying something like One man, one woman thus it is one man being married and no one else is there. And the same goes for one woman.

It probably is. Feel free to mentally replace the , with + .

This ^
However, I would add that mutuality is not really possible in a multi-partner arrangement: in typical polygamous marriages, the wives have duties to the husband, the husbands has rights over the wife; that is not mutuality.
I would argue that such inequality is a fault of the given culture, but not an inherent feature of poly marriage.

Historically and currently, there are cultures in which polygamy/andry does not involve coercion or inequality. In some poly-marrying cultures, it was/is a mere convenience to get as many kids as possible out of the parents' home at once. In some, the "tag-along" spouses (sisters/brothers) may not really be considered married the way the "main" one is, and can be further married off when they grow up and/or find someone else they'd rather be with. It's just that the "main" spouses become responsible for them until then instead of their parents.

In other poly-marrying cultures, especially polyandry cultures, it is an economic system, in which one woman marries several men, creating a more productive and stable support system for the raising of her children than just one man could provide. You see this among some indigenous South American peoples, where women choose husbands for their skills, wealth, social status, and where the list of their other husbands counts in considering whether a woman is a good match or not -- what the rest of the team looks like, as it were.

There is nothing inherent in poly-marriage that undermines a requirement for mutual consent. There are cultures in the world where poly-marriage does not create a "boss over subordinates" situation and where all members are free to accept or refuse a marriage proposal and to divorce out of a marriage -- i.e. give, withhold, or withdraw consent.

But in cultures which already have ingrained gender inequality associated with family/marriage, then it is more likely that poly-marriage will be coercive, abusive and/or unequal.

It probably is. Feel free to mentally replace the , with + .

Well that's what I thought you meant orginally. That's why I thought Vault10 was trying to prove a point in that sense.

This ^
However, I would add that mutuality is not really possible in a multi-partner arrangement: in typical polygamous marriages, the wives have duties to the husband, the husbands has rights over the wife; that is not mutuality.
Darling, in the typical MONOGAMOUS marriage there is not mutuality, because in the majority of the world women are still viewed as the lesser partner. In the majority of the world, women are explicitly viewed as lesser citizens by the laws of the land.

What you are describing is a problem of sexism and gender discrimination, not a problem with polygamy.

Historically and currently, there are cultures in which polygamy/andry

Small nitpick: polygamy encompasses polyandry (woman with multiple husbands), polygyny (man with multiple wives) and "group marriages" (mixtures). The gamy/andry is therefor not necessary.

In the majority of the world, women are explicitly viewed as lesser citizens by the laws of the land.

In OUR laws, at least, the rights and duties should be the same. Whether the social attitudes treat both equally, in practice, the question was about what we "should" recognize in our laws.
You don't have to tell ME that "should" and "is" are sometimes very different...

Small nitpick: polygamy encompasses polyandry (woman with multiple husbands), polygyny (man with multiple wives) and "group marriages" (mixtures). The gamy/andry is therefor not necessary.
Thank you. I'll have you killed for that very pedantic nitpick, but I will accept and use the correction from now on.

If a sensible adult human and a sensible adult hydralisk want to get hitched, it's not your privilege to stand between them and say no. :p

It is 1:30 in the morning mate, I am past thinking about it for myself. Unless it is saying something like One man, one woman thus it is one man being married and no one else is there. And the same goes for one woman.
A good catch on the OP, but it's not that. Frankly, I'm not being that serious as to actually honestly IRL support banning it, but otherwise I said this seriously. Man+woman marriage is held sacred for it's traditional, but it's the most problematic arrangement.



Small nitpick: polygamy encompasses polyandry (woman with multiple husbands), polygyny (man with multiple wives) and "group marriages" (mixtures).
BTW, what is the neolatin name for a mantrain marriage?

BTW, what is the neolatin name for a mantrain marriage?

Fred Phelps's secret life. :p

A good catch on the OP, but it's not that. Frankly, I'm not being that serious as to actually honestly IRL support banning it, but otherwise I said this seriously. Man+woman marriage is held sacred for it's traditional, but it's the most problematic arrangement.

I am intrigued. Why is it the most problematic arrangement?

In OUR laws, at least, the rights and duties should be the same. Whether the social attitudes treat both equally, in practice, the question was about what we "should" recognize in our laws.
You don't have to tell ME that "should" and "is" are sometimes very different...
Yes, however, it is one thing to say such is a fault of a system itself, and other to say it is the fault of the people using the system. If you are going to recognize that other cultures can have polygamy (r.i.p. Alma Mater) without gender inequality, then you should specify that you are only talking about what should or should not be recognized in a given place/culture/society. Otherwise, it sounds like you are applying the problems to the system universally, everywhere.

I agree that polygamy in, for instance, the US is a problem, but I don't think that is the fault of polygamy itself.

If a sensible adult human and a sensible adult hydralisk want to get hitched, it's not your privilege to stand between them and say no. :p

For Adun !
And I indeed have no idea what to call an all-male or all-female polygamous arrangement using pseudo-greek or latin...

What about marriage between a child and an adult though? I doubt the child can give consent...

All I care about are marriages between anime characters and humans.:eek2:


With this in mind (and I hope you all know I'm joiking) Wil-kun, of course marriage between beings that cannot consent is wrong. That goes without question.:wink: But after much debate, after much thought about wether gays should be allowed to marry, Proposition 8, Mormonism, separation between church and state and the like, the talk about marriage is starting to grate on my nerves. What's more, I should keep my own counsel and stop posting in this thread altogether.

I am intrigued. Why is it the most problematic arrangement?
As I said, it's best for everyone to first think of the reasons on their own. Such a marriage is too familiar a thing to need me to point out the issues.

What's more, I should keep my own counsel and stop posting in this thread altogether.

But I like seeing the kitty pic :(

I see marriage as a legal contract. Consenting adults can enter into this contract.

A fictional character, animal, minor child, dead person, or any other individual/object that cannot enter into a legal contract would obviously not be able to get married.

Yet we have children actors, dancers, singers, workers. All of there children have entered in to a contract, and therefore they can enter in to marriage.

Yet we have children actors, dancers, singers, workers. All of there children have entered in to a contract, and therefore they can enter in to marriage.Haha, no.

But I like seeing the kitty pic :(

Add me to your buddy list.;)

Actually, I believe its their parents who sign the contracts, so the marriage equivalent is an arranged marriage.

Haha, no.

Exactly. It's not the same thing. A working contract and a marriage contract are entirely different in what they entail.

Exactly. It's not the same thing. A working contract and a marriage contract are entirely different in what they entail.Not only that, the kids can't sign the contracts.

Not only that, the kids can't sign the contracts.

Indeed, those are usually signed by a legal guradian.

This ^
However, I would add that mutuality is not really possible in a multi-partner arrangement: in typical polygamous marriages, the wives have duties to the husband, the husbands has rights over the wife; that is not mutuality.

Only in the same sense that in regular marriages there has been a history of subservience by women.

Exactly. It's not the same thing. A working contract and a marriage contract are entirely different in what they entail.

How so? Both entail you to certain actions and limits, and both cam legally be severed at any time.

How so? Both entail you to certain actions and limits, and both cam legally be severed at any time.How much, how long, and as what a child can work is subject to far more restrictions than a normal work contract. Children can't actually work like adults can, nor is working for a certain amount of time a day somehow comparable to entering a life partnership. Parents and guardians can give consent to the former, the latter not so much.

Apart from that, casts entail you to certain actions and limits and can be severed at any time. Is a cast like marriage?

How so? Both entail you to certain actions and limits, and both cam legally be severed at any time.

But it's not the same. There's no consent involved. In the acting contract, the child knows, most of the time, what he/she will be doing and these also entail having a legal guardian sign the contract. I don't think the same principle applies to a marriage contract.

How so? Both entail you to certain actions and limits, and both cam legally be severed at any time.
Plus, as you have ignored both times it was previously pointed out to you, children do not sign work contracts by themselves. Their legal guardians sign for them. So, no, children are not able to give consent to contractually bind themselves.

Next?

I see marriage as a legal contract. Consenting adults can enter into this contract.

A fictional character, animal, minor child, dead person, or any other individual/object that cannot enter into a legal contract would obviously not be able to get married.

When people talk about how they want to marry their toaster or their dog, they seem to think it's a one-way deal. Like you can marry something the way you'd rent a car. I see it as a MUTUAL deal, and if the other party can't/won't consent then there's no deal.

This

This is also why I have some problem with Arranged marries, if both parties truly consent despite being "set up" by their parents fine but if they are bound to the contract against their will because of tradition then it is not fine