Liberal Commits Suicide

[Forged]

Why is a desicion between two consenting adults about how they intend on spending their life an issue of the state.

Polygamy is a complicated issue I really can't argue on.

Some guy marrying his dog is out because the dog can not give consent

Incest is out because of the negative effects.

A man marrying a 14 year old is out because the 14 year old can not give legal consent

Other than that I don't see how marriage is any of the states buisness.

Just so we're all clear about where you stand...
You can't/won't address the most complicated issue (polygamy).  You feel the state should prevent inter-species marriages, incest (which does not require marriage, btw), and under-age marriages, and that otherwise the state should stay out of it?  Does this not seem a little bit silly, to say the state should step in and forbid these cases, and otherwise keep its nose out of things?  If you're going to bring the govt. in at all, it's going to get involved in all the aspects, not just blocking a few cases- that's how things usually go.  Besides, if the state stays out of marriage aside from those cases, what's to stop "consenting" (and I use this loosely since some parties may not be of legal status to consent in a legally binding way) individuals from setting up one of those cases and just not mentioning it to the state at all?  If the state isn't involved in marriages in general, these exceptional cases will have just as much documentation as more legitimate unions -- none at all.

I respect your position that the state shouldn't be involved, but you seem to be arguing for it both to be involved and not to be involved, which is at best a mess and at worst a contradiction.

Unless something is blatantlly damaging
i.e the child of an incest couple or the child in an adult-child relationship, or the poor dog getting fucked in the ass.
I don't see why the state should care.  I am not arguing for or against polygamy however because I simplly don't know enough about it to be for or against it.

[Adron]

I think the government should stay out of marriages and just issue civil unions between any people who want one. Marriage is something religious, and there should be freedom of religion.

Recently in Utah (I know because the area I live in is Mormon-ville) a radical Mormon group was recently busted for committing polygamy, which included a thirteen- and a fourteen-year old girl (who was with the guy).  There are good reasons that marraige at that age is not legal (psychological trauma, potential pregnancy, inability to raise a child or provide for a family) and also why polygamy in general is not legal (inability to support an extremely large family comes to mind).

I don't understand how they busted someone for polygamy. They might have busted people for sex with minors?

Polygamy in general should be legal and the government should issue civil unions. Inability to support an extremely large family is not the right issue. If you care only about supportability, limiting the number of children between single man single woman would make more sense than limiting number of women with number of men. Most every adult can produce an income, so adding more to a relation isn't as much a problem as adding children. You would also have to outlaw sexual relations outside marriage...

[hismajesty]

and there should be freedom of religion.

Freedom of religion has to do with being able to worship how you want, not about who you can marry.

[Adron]

and there should be freedom of religion.

Freedom of religion has to do with being able to worship how you want, not about who you can marry.

Actually, it does. Marriage between a man and a woman is common in the regular christian religion. Not all religions proscribe that you should live that way though. Not even all christians are supposed to make such families - think celibacy, and marrying your god.

[Hazard]

and there should be freedom of religion.

Freedom of religion has to do with being able to worship how you want, not about who you can marry.

Actually, it does. Marriage between a man and a woman is common in the regular christian religion. Not all religions proscribe that you should live that way though. Not even all christians are supposed to make such families - think celibacy, and marrying your god.

Adron... that doesn't make sense. The freedom to worship as you please does not dictate what marriage is.

[Adron]

Adron... that doesn't make sense. The freedom to worship as you please does not dictate what marriage is.

Of course not. How could it? That's exactly what I'm saying. If you're free to practise your religion as you please, then noone outside is telling you how to worship, confirm, marry, baptize, or perform other religious practise.

[hismajesty]

Atheists get married.

[Adron]

Atheists get married.

I think there's a confusion in terms here. I wish there were more different words available. Atheists do get married, but are they getting a christian marriage, with the priest and the church, or are they just getting a civil union to declare their love and get the legal benefits?

Someone who is deeply christian will do the church thing, and that specifies a lot of things about virginity before marriage, marriage between man and woman, etc, and that's OK.

Someone who is not might have completely different views on what kind of union they're supposed to live in. Perhaps they live in huts, all women on one side of the village, all men on the other, and the Seer tells them when to celebrate fertility and reproduce?

[hismajesty]

I'm just trying to make a point that, "freedom of religion" is a completely different matter from marriage. Sure, people get married in a church, but the church doesn't have to match their religion. If you're not a member of the church, however, you do have to pay to have your wedding there. Our constitution allows us to worship how we want, it doesn't say we can marry whatever we want.

[Adron]

I'm just trying to make a point that, "freedom of religion" is a completely different matter from marriage. Sure, people get married in a church, but the church doesn't have to match their religion. If you're not a member of the church, however, you do have to pay to have your wedding there. Our constitution allows us to worship how we want, it doesn't say we can marry whatever we want.

I.e. as long as your religion proscribes marriage between a single man and a single woman, it's OK. I think that kind of relationship is something religion usually says a lot about otherwise. Fertility and children were important things to pray for.

[Arta]

It does seem to me that Bush is trying to enshrine in law the christian concept of marriage...

[Adron]

It does seem to me that Bush is trying to enshrine in law the christian concept of marriage...

That's what it seems like to me too.

[Hazard]

It does seem to me that Bush is trying to enshrine in law the christian concept of marriage...

More than just one religion shares the "christian concept" of one man v. one woman.

[Arta]

Ok,  then the Christian + whoever else concept of marriage.

[hismajesty]

* hismajesty[yL] notes that even if Kerry were elected, 11 states would have still banned gay marriage on 11/2/04.