Legalization of All Consensual Marriage

[Othelos]

Minors cannot give legal consent, hence the term "age of consent"

See you're deing them their rights.If the child agrees why stop it?

Because minors aren't fully capable of comprehending what they are doing. Even 18 year olds can't, but you can only keep people as children for so long.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Minors cannot give legal consent, hence the term "age of consent"

See you're deing them their rights.If the child agrees why stop it?

No, it's really not. Children are judged to be incapable of making such decisions as a possible life long commitment, thus you must be of majority age to enter into it. Marriage, like voting, is not a right that extends to minors.

[Godular]

Minors cannot give legal consent, hence the term "age of consent"

See you're deing them their rights.If the child agrees why stop it?

You are bound and determined to make gay marriage / polyamory into bestiality/pedophilia, aren't you?

As already stated by at least five other people, consent is the limit that matters.

[Threlizdun]

The topic had been raised in the SCOTUS Same-Sex Marriage thread that always seems to be raised when discussing same-sex marriage. "If same-sex couples can marry then soon polygamy and incest will be legal". Now usually this is just rejected as a straw man and an example of the slippery slope fallacy, but I must question why people who believe that it is wrong to deny marriage on grounds of race, sex, or gender identity believe that those who consent to polygamy, group marriage, or incestuous marriage should not be entitled to the same protection.

You clearly understand that polygamy and group marriage are not the same thing: you say "polygamy and group marriage" 3 times in your first post.

Now group marriage sounds OK to me, providing it has the same condition as monogamous marriage: if one partner wishes to leave, the marriage is dissolved. But polygamy isn't always like that is it?

Nor is group marriage or even monogamy. Marriage varies from culture to culture. If we are able to allow equality in monogamous and group marriages, then why not polygamous ones?

Your poll doesn't seem to cover those options separately. In order to express approval of "group marriage" I also have to approve something called "polygamous partners" which you haven't even defined. I voted #1 #2 #5 #6

Polygamous partners are simply people in a polygamous relationship.

Oh please. Don't be hysterical.

Look, if 12 people want to be in a group relationship, we can't stop them.

....Luckily enough I don't know such people.

Aww, I think I'm a pretty cool person.

[Val Halla]

You clearly understand that polygamy and group marriage are not the same thing: you say "polygamy and group marriage" 3 times in your first post.

Now group marriage sounds OK to me, providing it has the same condition as monogamous marriage: if one partner wishes to leave, the marriage is dissolved. But polygamy isn't always like that is it?

Nor is group marriage or even monogamy. Marriage varies from culture to culture. If we are able to allow equality in monogamous and group marriages, then why not polygamous ones?

Your poll doesn't seem to cover those options separately. In order to express approval of "group marriage" I also have to approve something called "polygamous partners" which you haven't even defined. I voted #1 #2 #5 #6

Polygamous partners are simply people in a polygamous relationship.

....Luckily enough I don't know such people.

Aww, I think I'm a pretty cool person.

I agree.

Jesus, the things people said about non traditional relationships were true, the world would have collapsed.

[Galloism]

Key word, since you clearly missed it: Consent.

So what about marriage between underage children and adults.If the child agrees why not?

Are you suggesting gay people are unable to make their own decisions because their immature brains are unable to comprehend long term consequences?

[Threlizdun]

Nor is group marriage or even monogamy. Marriage varies from culture to culture. If we are able to allow equality in monogamous and group marriages, then why not polygamous ones?

Polygamous partners are simply people in a polygamous relationship.


Aww, I think I'm a pretty cool person.

I agree.

Jesus, the things people said about non traditional relationships were true, the world would have collapsed.

Well, it's wrong to really even argue that traditional relationships exist in the first place.

[Val Halla]

I agree.

Jesus, the things people said about non traditional relationships were true, the world would have collapsed.

Well, it's wrong to really even argue that traditional relationships exist in the first place.

If I am interpreting what you say correctly, this is from the morality of the masses. Of which I am under NO obligation to conform to. Sorry if I got that wrong though. :/

[Dyakovo]

There wouldn't be so many divorce rates if people were more approachable about open marriages.

I mean sure there is a community of swingers, but they aren't that big in concern to the divorcee population.

I do agree that open marriages are good things, and divorce rates are lower in them. But it's not for everyone, I'm not forcing gay marriage or polygamy on somebody who isn't homosexual or polyamorous. The fact that divorce rates are high out of that means that sort of marriage needs tighter regulation IMO.

Divorce is not inherently bad, nor would tighter regulations do anything to prevent it from happening.

[Val Halla]

I do agree that open marriages are good things, and divorce rates are lower in them. But it's not for everyone, I'm not forcing gay marriage or polygamy on somebody who isn't homosexual or polyamorous. The fact that divorce rates are high out of that means that sort of marriage needs tighter regulation IMO.

Divorce is not inherently bad, nor would tighter regulations do anything to prevent it from happening.

It's a costly process, and bad marriages are a large contributor to domestic abuse.

[Dyakovo]

Divorce is not inherently bad, nor would tighter regulations do anything to prevent it from happening.

It's a costly process

Not necessarily, and it's a separate issue that can and should be addressed on it's own.

and bad marriages are a large contributor to domestic abuse.

You might be putting the cart before the horse there, nor does it address what I said in any way.

[Godular]

Divorce is not inherently bad, nor would tighter regulations do anything to prevent it from happening.

It's a costly process, and bad marriages are a large contributor to domestic abuse.

Should that not be the other way round?

[Chessmistress]

I would say "marry who you want, given all involved persons are consentient adults".
But I have to admit I have some concerns about the idea of poligyny.

[Val Halla]

I would say "marry who you want, given all involved persons are consentient adults".
But I have to admit I have some concerns about the idea of poligyny.

And what would those concerns be? I have no clue why people are so against it. Well, I do, but I don't see why they'd e so vehemently against it. It isn't for everyone, but it shouldn't be for no one.

[Dyakovo]

I would say "marry who you want, given all involved persons are consentient adults".
But I have to admit I have some concerns about the idea of poligyny.

And what would those concerns be? I have no clue why people are so against it. Well, I do, but I don't see why they'd e so vehemently against it. It isn't for everyone, but it shouldn't be for no one.

Because polygyny has a rather bad history.

[Val Halla]

And what would those concerns be? I have no clue why people are so against it. Well, I do, but I don't see why they'd e so vehemently against it. It isn't for everyone, but it shouldn't be for no one.

Because polygyny has a rather bad history.

Lots of things have a bad history. Hell, most things do. Doesn't make it bad.

[Occupied Deutschland]

And what would those concerns be? I have no clue why people are so against it. Well, I do, but I don't see why they'd e so vehemently against it. It isn't for everyone, but it shouldn't be for no one.

Because polygyny has a rather bad history.

Marriage has a rather bad history as well, if we're going to go down that route of thought.

[Othelos]

It's definitely not for everyone, though. Personally, I don't have the emotional energy to be romantically involved with two or more people. Hell, I barely even have enough for one person, if that.

Yeah, I get that fine. But people say nasty things about it. Why, I don't know. And it's damn offensive when people say it's disgusting.

It definitely is. I don't understand why people can't be mature enough to just not care.

[Val Halla]

Yeah, I get that fine. But people say nasty things about it. Why, I don't know. And it's damn offensive when people say it's disgusting.

It definitely is. I don't understand why people can't be mature enough to just not care.

Scratch that, I do know. People are immature, and uneducated on subject. Y'know when kids go "Ha, gay"? It's paramount to that.

[Dyakovo]

Because polygyny has a rather bad history.

Lots of things have a bad history. Hell, most things do. Doesn't make it bad.

Polygyny also is rather bad for the women involved in most of the places where it is currently legal. Now, I'm not saying that it shouldn't be legal based on this (nor is Chessmistress, if I read their post right), just that there is reason to be careful about crafting the relevant laws for it. This actually applies to polygamy in general, not just polygyny.

[Chessmistress]

I would say "marry who you want, given all involved persons are consentient adults".
But I have to admit I have some concerns about the idea of poligyny.

And what would those concerns be? I have no clue why people are so against it. Well, I do, but I don't see why they'd e so vehemently against it. It isn't for everyone, but it shouldn't be for no one.

Poligyny was a milestone in discrimination against women.
The real notion behind polygyny have historically always been the "ownership" of the wives.
Indeed, even in the main party inspired by Radical Feminism, Swedish "F!", there were some problems about that
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_ ... ve_(Sweden)#Founding_of_the_political_party

a new Cohabitation Act (Swedish: sammanlevnadsbalk) which would encompass a new legal status for private relationships between more than two people, irrespective of gender, thereby possibly opening up for polygamy.

It's a very complex issue, basically, the maximum freedom should be allowed when it comes to relationships, but, on the other hand I really think that feminism can't support polygyny: because it's basically faulted and sexist due inherent gender bias. Even the word "poligamy" is mislead: it's always, in reality, only about men "owning" multiple wives, and the opposite, poliandry, was always historically far less common.
It's, again, a clash between a formal equality and a substantive equality.
But I admit that in such case I'm not very sure what is the right position to keep, it's a very complicated issue, because obiouvsly we should never oppose to polyamory, nor even to a regularization of polyamory.

[Boquestia]

Im in love with my husband/wife/dog/sister/baseballglove

[Dukats]

Can't belive that liberals have boundaries.

[Godular]

Can't belive that liberals have boundaries.

Fucked up your worldview with that filthy filthy logic and reasoning stuff, hmm?

[Dukats]

Im in love with my husband/wife/dog/sister/baseballglove

Marry them all.