Legalization of All Consensual Marriage

[Chessmistress]

What a child needs, in my mind, is two kinds of parents. One needs to be firm, assertive, dominant, but ultimately fair. One needs to be more benevolent, warm hearted and kind. This is what is most vital to a family. Provided a child has both, it doesn't matter.

I do not agree.
It sounds too much similar to old and already debunked gender roles...

[Val Halla]

What a child needs, in my mind, is two kinds of parents. One needs to be firm, assertive, dominant, but ultimately fair. One needs to be more benevolent, warm hearted and kind. This is what is most vital to a family. Provided a child has both, it doesn't matter.

I do not agree.
It sounds too much similar to old and already debunked gender roles...

I did not say that gender had a role in it. A woman can be powerful, a man can be kind hearted.

[Godular]

I do not agree.
It sounds too much similar to old and already debunked gender roles...

I did not say that gender had a role in it. A woman can be powerful, a man can be kind hearted.

Who does what or has which qualities is irrelevant. The only thing that would matter is whether the individuals WANT to raise a child and are prepared for the responsibility.

Also, even though child rearing is a big part of the whole marriage thing, it should not be a deciding factor in deciding who can marry who.

[Draakonite]

What a child needs, in my mind, is two kinds of parents. One needs to be firm, assertive, dominant, but ultimately fair. One needs to be more benevolent, warm hearted and kind. This is what is most vital to a family. Provided a child has both, it doesn't matter.

I do not agree.
It sounds too much similar to old and already debunked gender roles...

Judging from personal experience, experience of friends and from the media, a "firm, assertive, dominant, but ultimately fair" mother versus a "benevolent, warm hearted and kind" father isn't at all uncommon.
So im thinking it doesn't have anything at all to do with gender roles.

[Draakonite]

I did not say that gender had a role in it. A woman can be powerful, a man can be kind hearted.

Who does what or has which qualities is irrelevant. The only thing that would matter is whether the individuals WANT to raise a child and are prepared for the responsibility.

Also, even though child rearing is a big part of the whole marriage thing, it should not be a deciding factor in deciding who can marry who.

Well, until marriages get lower taxes with the sole reason being the upbringing of children, it should be the deciding factor.

[Godular]

Who does what or has which qualities is irrelevant. The only thing that would matter is whether the individuals WANT to raise a child and are prepared for the responsibility.

Also, even though child rearing is a big part of the whole marriage thing, it should not be a deciding factor in deciding who can marry who.

Well, until marriages get lower taxes with the sole reason being the upbringing of children, it should be the deciding factor.

At which point we return to 'fuck those elderly couples and sterile couples! No babies, no marriage! RAWR I AM JUST AND WISE!'

[Wulfenia]

As long as everyone is consenting, there really shouldn't be a problem.

[Draakonite]

Well, until marriages get lower taxes with the sole reason being the upbringing of children, it should be the deciding factor.

At which point we return to 'fuck those elderly couples and sterile couples! No babies, no marriage! RAWR I AM JUST AND WISE!'

And why do those elderly couples get benefits, while elderly singles don't?

Edit: Damn, since when do elderly pay taxes?
Why should sterile couples (who don't intend to adopt) get benefits, while singles don't? What use does the government/taxpayer get out of two people living together?

[The Remnants of Kobol]

Heterosexual marriage, same-sex marriage, polygamist marriage, marriage to an inanimate object... I don't care.

"Inanimate object"? Oh no.

I'm not going to let Joe the Plumber split his taxable income with his favourite wrench and pay less tax as though he's supporting another human being with material needs. Group marriage maybe, but only a person should be eligible to be a member of any marriage.

Then have the laws state that only "living people" qualify for the spousal benefits. That wouldn't be too difficult.

[Draakonite]

"Inanimate object"? Oh no.

I'm not going to let Joe the Plumber split his taxable income with his favourite wrench and pay less tax as though he's supporting another human being with material needs. Group marriage maybe, but only a person should be eligible to be a member of any marriage.

Then have the laws state that only "living people" qualify for the spousal benefits. That wouldn't be too difficult.

What's stopping a person from renting a church and make a big wedding ceremony?
you won't be listed in governmental documents, only. But inanimate objects can't sign a certificate of marriage, anyway.

[Threlizdun]

Really, always? There has never in history been in instance of people practicing polygyny because they actually love each other? Marriage is harmful because of the effects patriarchy has had upon it; it is not inherently harmful.

Indeed: it's not inherently harmful, is harmful because of the effects of the patriarchy.
Tell me, please: there's still patriarchy or we have already eliminated it?
I wasn't aware about new developments of the situation

So do you propose annulling all marriages until patriarchy ends then? You are attacking something that has suffered symptoms of the problem rather than the problem itself. It is just as possible for a poligynous relationship to be as healthy and equal as any other relationship. You cannot say that because some of them have been bad we should be reluctant to accept all of them, as then we would have to oppose marriage in its entirety.

It's a very simply issue. If they consent, then they should be allowed to do it. It really isn't anyone else's business.

"When power is severely unbalanced true consent cannot exist" - see Saudi Arabi in example, then just think about similar communities within the western countries. Think about it for a moment. That's exactly why even "F!" party in Sweden becomed a little dubious about it. And that's why I'm dubious too, but that doesn't means I'm opposed.

Which is why laws exist that prohibit people from being coerced into marriage. If people choose to enter a relationship together, we shouldn't stop them.

[Val Halla]

Indeed: it's not inherently harmful, is harmful because of the effects of the patriarchy.
Tell me, please: there's still patriarchy or we have already eliminated it?
I wasn't aware about new developments of the situation

So do you propose annulling all marriages until patriarchy ends then? You are attacking something that has suffered symptoms of the problem rather than the problem itself. It is just as possible for a poligynous relationship to be as healthy and equal as any other relationship. You cannot say that because some of them have been bad we should be reluctant to accept all of them, as then we would have to oppose marriage in its entirety.

"When power is severely unbalanced true consent cannot exist" - see Saudi Arabi in example, then just think about similar communities within the western countries. Think about it for a moment. That's exactly why even "F!" party in Sweden becomed a little dubious about it. And that's why I'm dubious too, but that doesn't means I'm opposed.

Which is why laws exist that prohibit people from being coerced into marriage. If people choose to enter a relationship together, we shouldn't stop them.

Agreed. But what should be the marital age of consent? 18? 16? 21?

[Brits n Tea]

I am open to more modern versions of marriage, such as between gays and transgenders however marrying multiple people goes too far. Marriage is about loyalty to one partner.

[Threlizdun]

So do you propose annulling all marriages until patriarchy ends then? You are attacking something that has suffered symptoms of the problem rather than the problem itself. It is just as possible for a poligynous relationship to be as healthy and equal as any other relationship. You cannot say that because some of them have been bad we should be reluctant to accept all of them, as then we would have to oppose marriage in its entirety.

Which is why laws exist that prohibit people from being coerced into marriage. If people choose to enter a relationship together, we shouldn't stop them.

Agreed. But what should be the marital age of consent? 18? 16? 21?

I would say 16 generally, though 18 isn't terrible in my mind. Consent to marriage definitely is a more lasting decision than consent to sex.

I am open to more modern versions of marriage, such as between gays and transgenders however marrying multiple people goes too far. Marriage is about loyalty to one partner.

Marriage is about different things to every culture. For several cultures today marriage between multiple people is accepted. In some societies throughout history it was the norm. I am inclined to view marriage as an ultimate expression of love and devotion to a partner. This is not something I see in any way restricting to a single person unless you have agreed to be monogamous. My girlfriend's spouses don't believe that her love for them is lessened in any way by her love for others. I don't see it as lessening her for me. It makes me happy to know that she is with people who make her happy.

[Val Halla]

Agreed. But what should be the marital age of consent? 18? 16? 21?

I would say 16 generally, though 18 isn't terrible in my mind. Consent to marriage definitely is a more lasting decision than consent to sex.

I am open to more modern versions of marriage, such as between gays and transgenders however marrying multiple people goes too far. Marriage is about loyalty to one partner.

Marriage is about different things to every culture. For several cultures today marriage between multiple people is accepted. In some societies throughout history it was the norm. I am inclined to view marriage as an ultimate expression of love and devotion to a partner. This is not something I see in any way restricting to a single person unless you have agreed to be monogamous. My girlfriend's spouses don't believe that her love for them is lessened in any way by her love for others. I don't see it as lessening her for me. It makes me happy to know that she is with people who make her happy.

I think hat's where local culture comes in. I wouldn't trust a British 16 year old to be married, but maybe a Swedish one would be different? I also think that age gaps are important. Maybe hhave 16 year olds able to marry 16-20 year olds, but 18+ it's fine? I don't know, I've no intention of getting married.

[Eastfield Lodge]

So do you propose annulling all marriages until patriarchy ends then? You are attacking something that has suffered symptoms of the problem rather than the problem itself. It is just as possible for a poligynous relationship to be as healthy and equal as any other relationship. You cannot say that because some of them have been bad we should be reluctant to accept all of them, as then we would have to oppose marriage in its entirety.

Which is why laws exist that prohibit people from being coerced into marriage. If people choose to enter a relationship together, we shouldn't stop them.

Agreed. But what should be the marital age of consent? 18? 16? 21?

30. *nods*
By then, a lot of couples will know whether they want to get married or not. More time to find a life partner before committing and all that.[/jk]
Honestly, I'd just peg it at the age of majority unless there's some real call to change it.

[Luziyca]

I think that marriages among family members should not be permitted, or marrying children. Same-sex marriage and the traditional marriage of one man, one wife is fine, but I am not really so sure about polygamous/polyandrous marriages, regardless of sexual orientation.

[Chessmistress]

So do you propose annulling all marriages until patriarchy ends then? You are attacking something that has suffered symptoms of the problem rather than the problem itself. It is just as possible for a poligynous relationship to be as healthy and equal as any other relationship. You cannot say that because some of them have been bad we should be reluctant to accept all of them, as then we would have to oppose marriage in its entirety.

Again: I’m NOT against marriage, not at all.
Indeed I voted "yes" to all options in the poll.
Have you read my thoughts about implementation of laws, on a gender basis, against violence on women, similar to Convention of Istanbul?

Which is why laws exist that prohibit people from being coerced into marriage. If people choose to enter a relationship together, we shouldn't stop them.

Fact is that laws are not so good. But it will be, sooner, at least in Europe, thanks to Convention of Istanbul.

Agreed. But what should be the marital age of consent? 18? 16? 21?

25. Brain is not fully developed until about 25, so I would say that even for consent to sex it should be 25, but I understand it's practically unenforceable, so for sex it should be 21.
We can talk about consent as long as we want: fact is that if brain is not fully developed, consent is not true.

[Dyakovo]

I am open to more modern versions of marriage, such as between gays and transgenders however marrying multiple people goes too far. Marriage is about loyalty to one partner.

Only if those involved choose for it to be about that.

[Othelos]

I am open to more modern versions of marriage, such as between gays and transgenders however marrying multiple people goes too far. Marriage is about loyalty to one partner.

Only if you want it to be.

[Conscentia]

I am open to more modern versions of marriage, such as between gays and transgenders however marrying multiple people goes too far. Marriage is about loyalty to one partner.

Why should it be the government's business to regulate people's personal loyalties?
If you don't want to marry someone who won't be exclusive, then don't. If you don't mind, then that's your decision to make. The government shouldn't be wasting public paper and bureaucrat time on defining, regulating, or registering personal relationships.

[MERIZoC]

I am open to more modern versions of marriage, such as between gays and transgenders however marrying multiple people goes too far. Marriage is about loyalty to one partner.

If people want it to be. Many have the emotional capacity to be loyal to multiple people, surprise, surprise.

[Conservative Values]

Marriage is a contract between two people. Giving decision rights and powers to a team husbands/wives of people creates problems because they may not always agree, then whose opinion wins? I say keep it one-person and one-other-person.

[Threlizdun]

Marriage is a contract between two people. Giving decision rights and powers to a team husbands/wives of people creates problems because they may not always agree, then whose opinion wins? I say keep it one-person and one-other-person.

People may not always agree on a monogamous relationshp. Marriage certainly isn't just a contract between two people.

[Conservative Values]

Marriage is a contract between two people. Giving decision rights and powers to a team husbands/wives of people creates problems because they may not always agree, then whose opinion wins? I say keep it one-person and one-other-person.

People may not always agree on a monogamous relationshp. Marriage certainly isn't just a contract between two people.

...Yes it is, always has been in our modern legal system. And when one person in a marriage becomes unfit to manage their own lives their husband/wife can make decisions for them. That isn't as clean and pretty when there are four husbands and wives.

Now old-school polygamy when you could have multiple people in the marriage but only the man gets to decide, that's pretty clean and neat legally speaking. So that would work, but I have a feeling that isn't desirable.