Who Should Have The Right To Marry?

[Nat]

The slippery slope argument that often comes up regarding gay marriage often gets me a bit unnerved.

Because there are people in this country who also can't have the marriage arrangement they want.

The thing that comes up most in my mind is polygamy - why not?

But there are other restrictions too. Age restrictions, relatedness restrictions (which vary by state).

Assuming we're talking about all participants being human and consenting - who should and should not have the right to marry and why?

[Scorp]

OMG Nat, this video is awesome!!! LOVE IT!!!

I may have to steal this and post it on facebook...

[Electrocell]

LOL great video. As far as who should have the right to marry --------two consenting adults .

[The_Lady_Snow]

If you *general* want to get married and you're of age in your *general* state & wish to partake in marriage/weddings/nuptials/I Do's then it's your civil right to do so if you *still general* want.

I personally don't care so much about marrying someone than I do my rights...

[Nadeest]

In general, the relatedness issue is due to the genetics of the situation. Inbreeding tends to produce children with inherited problems, though I am probably phrasing this wrong. As far as the age of consent; yes, states have different ages when people are allowed to get married. Some allow minors (at or after a certain age) to get married, if the minor child has the parent's consent to the marriage. In general, the idea, to my mind, is that the state is trying to ensure that both parties to the marriage are consenting adults, or at least have the blessings of their parents to this marriage.

As far as polygamy goes, why not polyandry as well? Actually, I am in favor of legalizing polyamory.

The one thing that I am absolutely against is only allowing one type of sexual orientation to get married. My opinion is that if they are consenting adults, why shouldn't they get married if they wish to do so?

[iamkeri1]

For myself, personally, I am pretty strongly monogamous, but throughout my adult life I have intellectually seen the many advantages to "group" marriages of one kind or another. Four adults, joined in some kind of legal agreement provide incredible economic andvantages and stability for each other. Hell I don't care if 20 people want to share this kind of bond, but four is the group I have given most thought to.

Tkis kind of family provides the opportunity for more choices for the individuals involved. Want to go to school? "Sure we can afford that. The other three of us will support you whille to go so you can concentrate on going to school. And Hey... you can have dinner ready for us when we get home from work, and Oh yah maybe now we can have that garden we've been wanting and YOU can do the weeding." Want to have a baby or change careers or just take a few months off work because you're stressed out? All those things could be negotiated because of the multiple income factor in the family. Expenses would be greatly reduced as well. The home would have to be somewhat larger to assure private space for everyone, but comparing this unit to couples or individuals living separately, the amount of "stuff" they need to buy would be reduced. Less lawnmowers, less yard tools of all kinds, less refrigerators, washers, dryers, dishes, silverware, towels...and picture the potential for clothing swaps!

There would be lots more emotional support as well, less likelihood for loneliness, more potential to find an understanding person when you need to talk. If one partner dies or divorces, there are three remaining partnera to share the emotional and financial devastation.

It is not something that we are trained for in our society, but really, it makes a lot of sense.

Oh I meant to say, while in college, I read two books by Robert Rimmer that helped inform my beliefs. They are "The Harrad Experiment" and "Proposition 31"

Smooches,
Keri

[Hollylane]

Originally Posted by Scorp

OMG Nat, this video is awesome!!! LOVE IT!!!

I may have to steal this and post it on facebook...

I did steal it, and put it on FB (great idea!)...It is frigging AWESOME! I never did really care for Samuel L. Jackson, but now...I am a HUGE fan.

[Angeltoes]

Any consenting adult, of course. I personally will never legally marry anyone again because I don't see the point anymore. If you love each other you stay together if you don't you go.

[Nat]

How about convicted serial murderers on death row?

[Angeltoes]

Originally Posted by Nat

How about convicted serial murderers on death row?

They don't have the right to vote in the U.S...so why should they have the right to marry? I'm more interested in the fundamental rights of the average person.

[Glenn]

At least one condemned inmate gets married every two months in San Quentin. Even the most wicked scum get dozens of marriage proposals from women, and are allowed to marry. So, while they can, your average LBGT couple who probably never hurt anybody in their lives can't get married? NO!

[Kent]

I believe anyone in love should have the right to marry!!!

[lusciouskiwi]

Originally Posted by Angeltoes

Any consenting adult, of course. I personally will never legally marry anyone again because I don't see the point anymore. If you love each other you stay together if you don't you go.

If same-sex marriage had been recognised back in 2005 AND international same-sex recognised, then maybe I'd still be living in the States. We were friends with a gay couple in the same situation, A is Italian and B is American. They split up eventually. It's really tough. I know a Chinese lesbian here in Malaysia. Her partner is American. The Malaysian partner is banned from the US for x years because somehow immigration figured out she was on her way to stay with her partner.

[Kätzchen]

Originally Posted by Nat

The slippery slope argument that often comes up regarding gay marriage often gets me a bit unnerved.

Because there are people in this country who also can't have the marriage arrangement they want.

The thing that comes up most in my mind is polygamy - why not?

But there are other restrictions too. Age restrictions, relatedness restrictions (which vary by state).

Assuming we're talking about all participants being human and consenting - who should and should not have the right to marry and why?

Nat, I thought about you today and this forum thread...


Marriage is such a tricky subject. It really is.


I am not sure how the discussion about marriage will go, but when I was riding the train to work today I came across an article in a local, independent newspaper that covered issues Asian women are facing when they marry an American citizen. They leave their home country in search of a better life than the one they live in thier homeland and once here, Asian women are treated like slaves. Not only within their own marriages, but often because of not knowing who to turn to for help or violating their immigration status which largely operates in connection with their marital status, they end up working two or three jobs, have no life and suffer terrible emotional and physical patterns of abuse within the marriage they committed to, just to find a particular freedom they couldnt' find in their home country, etc.


Aside from the article I read this afternoon, I couldn't help but think of this forum discussion on what marriage means.


I think of marriage as an institution, in and of itself, but not as an institution that is a complete stand-alone project. To me, it is not just about two people who are in love and get married. It's never that simple, in my mind. While I believe that any parties consenting (human beings) - regardless of how they identify outside the heterocentric sphere - should be permitted to avail themselves of a marital contract (marriage), I also feel that marriage finds its roots in White Priviledge. What I am trying to say is that White Priviledge shares a martial arrangement with a heterocentric think-tank.


When I think about marriage, I think of it as also sharing a bed with economic opportunity, tax benefits, legal benefits, the benefit of aligning oneself with the widely held perception that 'if you're married, then you're a family' - but as most of us who identify somewhere on the continuum of what constitutes being Gay, Lesbian, Bi-, Trans, or Queer, we know intutitively that this is a false construct because we have subverted popular cultural values by constructing our own constellations of who we feel is part of our family. We create our own lines of kinship because we've been excluded from macro- and micro- institutions that others deny membership to us.


I have no idea where I am going with my post tonight, but I do know that for me, Marriage is not a contractual issue to take lightly. On the surface, it appears that there are worthwhile social benefits. But marriage comes with a price index that scares me.


When I think of marriage, I think in terms of what price will I pay to avail myself of the many so-called benefits of marriage and over time, will the price index still reflect the same values held at today's standards and if those standards change over time, then will the 'price index' of Marriage be worth the price one once percieved a marriage to be?

As the years go by, I am not quite sure that marriage is all that one contrives it to be. I don't even know if I find marriage all that alluring as it once was to me, when I was younger and possessed less life experience than the set of life experiences I possess today.


As time goes by, I would count myself extremely lucky to have a relationship of minds with the person I feel closest to that lasted longer than prior relationships I have had - marital or not. I would feel extremely blessed if I had a relatonship that weathered lifes hardships and joys and endured over a significant period of time for much longer than those in my past. I'm not there yet by any means, but I know that participating in a marital relationship, as it is currently defined by today's standards, is less likely to happen for me before my time on earth is over.

[Martina]

there is no slippery slope. That idea associates -- as is stated -- lgtbtq and poly marriage with statutory rape and incest. If someone is under age, she or he can not and should not marry.

the slippery slope argument is offensive in the extreme and made largely by christian fundamentalists claiming that if gay marriage is permitted, child abuse, incest, and even bestiality will ensue.

Do not give that argument legitimacy.