Comments on: Legalize All Forms of Marriage?

By: boiwondr76

boiwondr76 — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 19:39:56 +0000

The freedom to make choices [that do not hurt another or impinge on another's rights] is often times a tricky one because tons of us make choices that hurt ourselves. Are such behaviors and choices really determined by the individual, or are they hugely influenced by society, environment and how one was raised? Since it is often too difficult to determine such influences, freedom of choice remains. Hence, polygamy should be legal in my un-educated law opinion [;)] When’s the next polygamy pride parade? I’m on board [um, well not really]

Choices like killing one’s father after years of abuse are different. The action hurt another individual. I digress. I ramble. I think I need sleep.

By: UMLawGirl07

UMLawGirl07 — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 17:44:49 +0000

You’re right, Jami. That’s what I meant when I said the “real issue of consent”. How do we measure that? Who decides? Polygamy has, arguably, been a device for the further subjugation of women. I don’t want that (well, I don’t want polygamy either). But, logically, I see no reason why the state should interfere with free choice that doesn’t hurt another.

By: Jami

Jami — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 15:49:41 +0000

OK, straining hard to hold back the wiseass in me, I’ll be serious for a second and say that my belief is that as long as the parties involved consent to the union without coercion and are mature enough to understand the ramifications of their actions, then both the sex of and the number of parties is a moot point. That rules out children and animals and others not competent to make such decisions. (And of course, now we get into the issue of who decides competency or lack of coercion, but that’s for another time.)

By: UMLawGirl07

UMLawGirl07 — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 02:39:24 +0000

I also think that marriage between consenting adults should be allowed in all forms, possibly (perhaps even probably) including polygamy. That distinguishes it from both children (not adults) and animals (not human). However, the problem with polygamy is the real issue of consent. I don’t have quick access to the studies, but many people have cogently argued that polygamy is not always truly consenual. If we could resolve that problem I, personally, would have no problem with it. Having said that, I wouldn’t practice it either.

There is another counter-argument, of course. People have argued that marriage is defined as between TWO consenting adults (opposite or same sex) and no more. That argument fails, in my estimation, as a means of promoting gay marriage because it relies simply on tradition. Well, tradiiton also says it’s one man and one woman. Tradition alone is insufficient.

By: Jami

Jami — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 15:50:54 +0000

And gay marriage also opens the door to marrying animals and children, too. Or so I’ve been told.