Originally posted by DoctorScribblesLet's try normative.
State whether you are posing the question in a descriptive sense or a normative sense. That is, whether you want to know about the way the world is, or the way it ought to be.
Is there any way for people of various belief systems to have a meaningful discussion? Or are there simply too many "authorities" to appeal to?
(Besides Jesus, the Bible, and the all powerful "personal opinion," what other authorities do people actually bring to the table?)
Originally posted by Nemesio"We condemn sexual abuse and all forms of coercion. Freely-chosen relationships differ from unwanted sex. Present laws, which focus only on the age of the participants, ignore the quality of their relationships. We know that differences in age do not preclude mutual, loving interaction between persons. NAMBLA is strongly opposed to age-of-consent laws and all other restrictions which deny men and boys the full enjoyment of their bodies and control over their own lives."
They are purely social.
So, the question is, does government have any business getting involved in this in the first
place? The answer is most surely: no. But, given that they are involved and will most certainly
remain involved, we must ask: is there any just reason why these rights should be afforded to
only male-female pairs?
Again, the an ...[text shortened]... of Civic marriage are not biological driven; there is
no 'natural' to which one can appeal.
Some fear that removing biological considerations will lead to positions like the one quoted above.
How would you respond?
(It seems to me like "Catholic Priest / altar boy" jokes are quite common in these threads: is that only because of the abuse of power, having nothing to do with the male/male or old/young issues?)
Originally posted by kingdanwaWell, there are any number of ethical theories that people might invoke when analyzing the question of what ought to constitute marriage.
Let's try normative.
Is there any way for people of various belief systems to have a meaningful discussion? Or are there simply too many "authorities" to appeal to?
(Besides Jesus, the Bible, and the all powerful "personal opinion," what other authorities do people actually bring to the table?)
For example, a Communist would be primarily interested in how marriage affects individual versus collective identity, and how it affects economic equality or disparity.
A Feminist would be concerned with how marriage perpetuates or alters historical perceptions about women.
A proponent of Rawls' Theory of Justice would be interested in what people in the Original Position would determine to be a fair notion of marriage.
An Objectivist would be concerned primarily with considering how various notions of marriage restrict the rights of individuals to rationally pursue values free of forcible coercion.
A Democrat or Republican would be interested in determining which notions of marriage will alienate or win over the most voters.
A Hedonist would be interested in what sorts of marriage enable the maximization of pleasure.
A Utilitarian would be interested in analyzing what notions of marriage enable the maximization of the realization of various values.
A Muslim would be interested in how various notions of marriage conform to the teachings of the Koran.
A Catholic would be interested in how various notions of marriage conform to the Roman Catholic Catechism.
And on and on.
For any of these groups, it should be clear that a debate between two people within one group is bound to be more fruitful (i.e., erroneous analysis discovered and corrected, with both parties thereafter being better informed and thus more likely to be holding correct beliefs with respect to their fundamental principles) than one between members of different groups. The disparity between the principles will affect the degree of fruitfulness. For example, a Hedonist and a Utilitarian could have a worthwhile discussion since they share some fundamental common ground, while a Feminist and a Muslim ought to find something better to do than to try to figure out who is right.
Originally posted by kingdanwaPerhaps I didn't make it clear, but we have already removed almost all
Some fear that removing biological considerations will lead to positions like the one quoted above.
biological considerations by now. We no longer have unilateral monogamy --
women are not subjugated to men but equal, and men cannot have
more than one wife -- we no longer strive to have as many children as
physically possible, we utilize birth control, we don't condone forcible
sexual exchange, &c. These are all contrary to the primal biological driving
forces.
Further, the issues addressed in Civil Marriage focus on rights for
property and children. Biologically, females had no rights because we
are patriarchal. Competetive infanticide (killing another male's offspring)
was an accepted reality. Certainly, you don't want to appeal to these
characteristics for the way in which males and females ought to interact.
Further, homoeroticism has a biological drive and has existed as long
as we have recorded history and no doubt before that. That is, we
have records of male-male companionship along with a wife going back
thousands of years. So, an appeal to 'biological norms' is really not a
good argument against homoeroticism in any event.
So, I would say that the biological component is irrelevant to any
'civilized' discussion of marriage (i.e., a discussion about 'Civic Marriage'😉.
The issue being contested by NAMBLA is the 'age of consent.' It is clear
that a five-year old lacks the capacity for consenting to sexual relationships
because 1) A five-year old is not a sexually mature individual; 2) Does
not understand what is being consented to; 3) Is still under the legal
guardianship of its parents; &c. &c.
The issue is more thorny with pubescing males (say 12 or 13). The
legality of the issue centers on whether a 13-year old, say, is capable
of making an informed judgment about sex with a 40-year old.
Of course, at 18, the sexual encounter would be legal, at 17 years, 364
days, 23 hours, and 59 minutes, it would not be. That sort of arbitrary
'line in the sand' is always questionable.
But a 'slippery slope' argument is not really a meaningful one; that is,
the objection isn't: If we allow gay marriage, we have to allow NAMBLA's
point of view, too. You can see that there are very different considerations
at work: Gay marriage is between two fully consenting adults, indistinguishable
except by their choice in partner from heterosexual marriage. We would let
the gay man marry a woman, if he chose; we would not let the little boy
marry a woman instead of a man. The reason we don't let the little boy
marry is because he is incapable understanding what consent means.
I hope this clears up why a NAMBLA citation really has no place in a
discussion about Civic Marriage.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI'm not so sure I agree. If we are not limiting ourselves to particular cultures or ideologies, then there are numerous examples of societies and cultures for which consent has no bearing on marriage.
I hope this clears up why a NAMBLA citation really has no place in a
discussion about Civic Marriage.
Nemesio
Wasn't it God's chosen people who were prepared to give their daughters over to the Sodomites, and whom God instructued during the course of various land grabs to take the local women as their wives? Arranged marriages still are the norm in various cultures today: kids marry whoever their parents arrange for them to marry, and that's that. Further, there are various rules around the world making this and that sort of divorce illegal; in some places, even after a woman no longer consents to being married, by law she must remain married. And you don't have to look to the Old Testament or Iran to find examples. In recent United States history, a man could legally rape his wife in many states.
So, if you consider such things to be civic marriage, and since consent is not a characteristic of them, then you need an additional reason beyond the lack of consent to reject NAMBLA-style unions as not being civic marriage or as irrelevant to the discussion of what marriage should be.
Originally posted by NemesioI wasn't attempting a slippery slope worst case scenario.
But a 'slippery slope' argument is not really a meaningful one
Earlier you said that "Civic marriage purely deals with property, children, and proxy rights." In the case of male-male or female-female couples, biology has already eliminated the chance for the couple to have children. So, civic marriage then deals with property and proxy rights.
If a 5 year old boy and a 40 year old man fall in love, is there any reason they shouldn't be married? Five year olds make choices all the time. They know exactly which toys they like (thus, they also bring property to the relationship).
In many public discussion relating to the definition of marriage, "love" and "commitment" seem to be called upon as values that justify any kind of marriage. Little boys love. They love their mom, they love ice cream, etc. Little boys know about commitment (just look at their rigorous little league schedules). Would you be amenable to the idea of a 5 year old boy and a 40 year old man marrying if the 5 year old's parents consented?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI consider consent to be a requisite of marriage. Naturally, there are societies in which consent
I'm not so sure I agree. If we are not limiting ourselves to particular cultures or ideologies, then there are numerous examples of societies and cultures for which consent has no bearing on marriage.
is not an elemental part of the marriage process. I consider those forms of Civic Marriage to be
flawed for similar reasons as I consider slavery or rape to be flawed. I have no problem objecting
to or labelling a particular culture's practice as barbaric (or elegant), and one in which the woman
is property or unable to express her consent qualifies as barbaric. If I need to elaborate, I
will; I thought the purpose of this discussion was to flesh out what makes for a good Civic
Marriage, not what sorts of Civic Marriages exist. I'm sure all sorts of bizarre forms of such
unions exist; I simply believe that they ought not be models for people interested in justice or
equality amongst individuals.
Nemesio
Originally posted by kingdanwa
Earlier you said that "Civic marriage purely deals with property, children, and proxy rights." In the case of male-male or female-female couples, biology has already eliminated the chance for the couple to have children. So, civic marriage then deals with property and proxy rights.
But, as I've said, biology is irrelevant. Adoption is a well-established institution where I'm from,
and male-male or female-female couples are able to adopt in most of the places I've lived.
Further, the only children such couples can't have are ones in which both individuals are the
biological parent; as a society, we have no objection to step-parents and afford them all the
rights, priviliges and responsibilities as biological parents.
If a 5 year old boy and a 40 year old man fall in love, is there any reason they shouldn't be married? Five year olds make choices all the time. They know exactly which toys they like (thus, they also bring property to the relationship).
I'm pretty sure I answered this question. A five-year old is incapable of making an informed
decision regarding marriage and the committments entailed. A five-year old has only the vaguest
sense of property, cannot make effective decisions when confronted with complicated scenarios,
and certainly does not have the physical or psychological aparatus for a sexual relationship
(such characteristics develop at the end of puberty).
In many public discussion relating to the definition of marriage, "love" and "commitment" seem to be called upon as values that justify any kind of marriage. Little boys love. They love their mom, they love ice cream, etc. Little boys know about commitment (just look at their rigorous little league schedules). Would you be amenable to the idea of a 5 year old boy and a 40 year old man marrying if the 5 year old's parents consented?
Again, little boys cannot 'love.' That aparatus doesn't evolve until puberty. They do not know
about commitment; they know about routine. They cannot consent, and if parents consented
by proxy, then my objections would be akin to those in an arranged marriage.
Nemesio
Perhaps this could be a good solution:
Allow not only male-male and female-female couples, but also male-boy couples to adopt, as long as they are in a committed and loving relationship.
And as far as understanding commitment and the complexity of informed decisions, we could require all those intending to marry to take an exam, evaluating their competency. (This breakthrough might also lead to a a similar examination that couples would be required to take before producing offspring.)
Here's my real question:
If a 5 year old boy could score as well as an 18 year old on such a marital competency exam, would that union then have your blessing (assuming again that they are in love and are committed to one another)?
Originally posted by kingdanwa
If a 5 year old boy could score as well as an 18 year old on such a marital competency exam, would that union then have your blessing (assuming again that they are in love and are committed to one another)?
Let me qualify part of the question before answering: If you're in a committed relationship or
marriage of some sort, then you know that there is no 'exam' that adults could take that would
be reliable indicators of whether they would be good husbands or wives. But let's assume we're
working with some futuristic, high-tech mind-reading gadget that can accurately assess the
brain's maturity with respect to decision-making, delayed gratification, notions of quid pro quo,
ability to read facial expressions -- that is, all of the things that we know develop over the
course of time in the normal mind (just as we know things develop physically in the womb).
In theory, why would anyone object? This miraculous five-year old has the mind of an adult
and therefore ought to be entitled to make adult decisions. Of course, such a thing is absolutely
impossible in the way that a 10-week old fetus can't breathe on its own because it lacks lungs.
Let's phrase it this way: If I could transplant your brain into the body of a five-year old boy,
should you be allowed to marry? Yes, assuming that the juvenile state of hormones in your body
wouldn't affect your decision-making (which it may, say neurobiologists), I see no reason to
afford you the rights and priviliges of an adult just because you're in the body of a child. It's
your adult brain -- the experiences you've had which form the framework for interpretting the
courses of actions you should take -- that allows for the ability to consent.
If your brain -- with all its contents, memories, experiences, desires, interests, and so forth --
were transported into the body of a five-year old boy, don't you think you should be entitled to
the rights of an adult (again, assuming that the juvenile hormone state didn't affect the way
in which you made decisions)?
I assume that you have asked these questions in earnest and don't intend some weird smear
campaign saying that I support NAMBLA or some such thing.
Allow not only male-male and female-female couples, but also male-boy couples to adopt, as long as they are in a committed and loving relationship.
Again, assuming the impossible transpires (a five-year old with the brain of an adult), no objection.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioThat does what to the point it does not mean as much as it used too,
Of course they fall apart more today: women are no longer property and woman is no longer a
social outcast for being a divorceé.
What is very telling is that the divorce rate among those who classify themselves as Christian isn't
statistically distinct from those who do not, even though there is an unequivocal Jesus-made
prohibition on divorce. I'd ...[text shortened]... his site over fifty, there is at least one or two people who have gotten a divorce.
Nemesio
if as you say and I believe you are correct it doesn’t mean as much
as it used to in Christian circles, why would mean more else where?
I'm not sure why you made the point about women being owned, but
maybe you believe marriage is not a partnership or a blending, but
instead it means ownership of one sex over the other.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJay
That does what to the point it does not mean as much as it used too,
if as you say and I believe you are correct it doesn’t mean as much
as it used to in Christian circles, why would mean more else where?
I have no idea what this sentence is trying to say.
I'm not sure why you made the point about women being owned, but
maybe you believe marriage is not a partnership or a blending, but
instead it means ownership of one sex over the other.
My point was if a woman was socially unable to leave -- either because she had no rights
because she was property, or because disobedience was rewarded with beatings, or because
a divorced woman was basically a social leper -- then divorce rates would naturally be lower
because the man was getting all he needed.
The observation that divorces are more common today than during the Reformation does not
entail that the quality of marriages five hundred years ago were any better; indeed, they were
probably just as bad or perhaps worse.
Nemesio
Originally posted by KellyJayAs I was pointing out, your statement cannot be answered until you specify:
You are of the opinion that marriages do not fall apart with more
regularity than they used too in the past?
Kelly
1. What do you mean by now? What date range? What country / culture?
2. What do you mean by "in the past", what date range / country /culture?
Also, one must ask what you mean by 'fall apart'. In Zambia, I do not believe that there are less 'happy marriages' than in the past, though I do think it is easier for women to get out of unhappy marriages, but again that depends on specifically which group of people. The people in the rural areas which is a fairly large proportion of the population are still living in the same cultural situation as they did 100 years ago and divorce is generally frowned upon but probably does happen. But with hundreds of tribes cultures vary. Polygamy is still common in some areas for example.
I do believe that in the Western 1st world countries less people are getting married as their culture is putting less pressure on them to do so.
Don't forget that for any world wide statistics, India and China are a significant component and I really do not know much about what is going on there, though from what I know of Indians there is probably still very strong cultural issues surrounding marriage, including arranged marriages etc.
Originally posted by KellyJayIn Zambia, a woman is essentially property. She is bought from her parents, if you get her pregnant before marrying her you may pay 'damages' to her parents etc. If the man dies his relatives may show up and take all his property leaving the wife with nothing. The man may beat up his wife, sleep with whoever he likes etc etc. In some cases this culture is changing as education levels improve and economic opportunities for women improve. Most marriages that end now that would not have in the past are probably better ended, so maybe it is a good thing that marriages do not last as long. In fact I would say that an increase in the divorce rate might actually be seen as the complete opposite of a sign of moral decay.
I'm not sure why you made the point about women being owned, but
maybe you believe marriage is not a partnership or a blending, but
instead it means ownership of one sex over the other.
Kelly
I do however know a number of people who are married and have been married for 10 years or more with no divorce in sight.
Originally posted by NemesioMany adults who are married (or are at least legally able to be married) don't possess the skills you are describing. America isn't really a breeding ground for "delayed gratification." When it comes to 18 year olds and "maturity with respect to decision-making," I don't think our society excels.
But let's assume we're
working with some futuristic, high-tech mind-reading gadget that can accurately assess the
brain's maturity with respect to decision-making, delayed gratification, notions of quid pro quo,
ability to read facial expressions -- that is, all of the things that we know develop over the
course of time in the normal mind (just as we know things develop physically in the womb).
With respect to facial expressions, infants are highly capably of understanding. If you smile at a baby, more of than not it will giggle or smile back. If you frown at one in displeasure, it responds accordingly. Similarly, many of my friends (which perhaps says something about the circles I move in) are clueless about the facial expressions of those around them.
But even if you're right, which I am not convinced of, is competency really the key question? What about the mentally retarded (name whatever mental illness you want, like bi-polar, etc.)? Or what about the very elderly? We often talk about the elderly being like children again in the thinking. Does that mean, that after a certain age, people should no longer be able to marry?
If competency is key, we ought to be able to come up with a test. Your scenario about requiring some futuristic technology just to determine if a person knows what s/he is doing is far-fetched. We test kids all the time. The very fact that you're claiming that kids can't understand assumes that there is some way to measure that.
Quick summary (and perhaps clarification):
1. If competency is all that matters, then we should re-evaluate the legality of many marriages (narcissists, bi-polar, autistic, retarded, alcohol and drug related issues, the elderly, etc.).
2.If we can determine that a 5 year old is incompetent, then couldn't we use the same methods (whatever they are) to determine if a 5 year old is competent?