Originally posted by kingdanwa
Many 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.
Possessing the ability to do so and exercising that ability are two different things. A five-year
old simply lacks the ability. Many 18-year olds have it be elect not to use it.
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.
Infants are born with the capacity for recognizing a handful of primal facial expressions, yes.
However, study after study shows that even during a child's pubescence, the subtleties of
facial expressions -- the distinction between fear and anger, or joy and exasperation -- are not
present. I picked facial expressions as one of many criterial elements which make for adult
relationships.
But even if you're right, which I am not convinced of, is competency really the key question?
By competency, what do you mean? I never used the word competency, although if we define
it the same, I would likely consider it a key element. I merely brought up the ability to consent
as criterial for Civic Marriage (something which Biological Proto-Marriage lacks). If someone
does not or cannot consent, then I do not think the marriage can take place. A five-year old
simply cannot meaningfully consent to marriage because he doesn't understand even vaguely
what it would entail, what it would require of him, and so forth. His brain has not evolved to
the degree that the ability to consent is present.
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?
I would contend that it's not about age per se. Like I said above, it seems silly to me
that I can get arrested for banging a chick aged 17 years, 364 days, but will suffer no legal
penalties for banging her the next day. It would seem to me that the delusionally insane or
profoundly demented or debilitatingly mentally retarded would be incapable of consenting. And,
if they are incapable of consenting, the marriage couldn't take place.
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.
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.).
Like I said, I never spoke about competency although I supsect it plays a role. I spoke about
consent. I addressed this issue in the context of Biological Proto-Marriage in which consent is
not a relevant issue which would undermine any attempt for Civil Marriage to be based on some
biological precedents.
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?
You didn't answer my question: If we transplanted your brain into the body of a child, don't you
think you should be entitled to the rights and priviliges of an adult (again, assuming that the
hormone difference didn't affect your ability to render judgments in an adult fashion)?
The reason we can determine that a five-year old is unable to consent is because the neurological
apparatus for consent is not fully formed at five, just like the lungs are not fully formed in a
fetus of 10 weeks. It's not a matter of a test or even allowing for a precocious child. The
question is like asking: why can't a five-year old donate his sperm? Because at five, the body
isn't producing sperm.
Nemesio
Originally posted by kingdanwaOriginally posted by Nemesio
But I'm not sure you've ever defined marriage, or identified who gets to define it.
Civic marriage is about the rights for one's partner -- medical decisions, property and estate, and so forth.
I should also add Civic Marriage deals with custody of any progeny, biological or adopted.
Currently the government defines it, and they arbitrarily define it with a single biological component
(gender) while ignoring all the other biological components (women as property, unilateral monogamy).
Either the government should get out of marriage altogether or utilize a just interpretation of it,
one which deals solely with the civic aspects of it and stop pretending that it's utilizing some
biological precedent.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI thought most governments when trying to justify refusing same gender marriage based their argument on religion or tradition not biological precedent.
Either the government should get out of marriage altogether or utilize a just interpretation of it,
one which deals solely with the civic aspects of it and stop pretending that it's utilizing some
biological precedent.[/b]
So, if they stick to the civic aspects, do you think that polygamy should be legalised?
Originally posted by kingdanwaThe Bible has a very clear definition of marriage, marriage is a God ordained picture of God's relationship with his people. Marriage is a blood covenant (or contract) between a Man and a Woman. The Man promises to care and provide for the Woman on every level and the Woman promises to do the same on every level.
Is marriage primarily a secular issue, a religious issue, or some sort of blend?
Does the Bible offer a clear definition of marriage? What about the Qur'an, Constitution, or any other document that people appeal to? Should countries, states, counties, or individuals decide what "marriage" is?
(Your thoughtful responses will assist me in my argument ...[text shortened]... righteousness" ) , and 3. almost universally define marriage as one man and one woman.)
Unfortunately, God's definition of marriage is not the same as "Man's" definition. As with everything God's ordained marriage to be a specific way but because we are human we screw it up.
Originally posted by twhitehead
I thought most governments when trying to justify refusing same gender marriage based their argument on religion or tradition not biological precedent.
Well, in America, basing on the former is unConstitutional. And anywhere,
basing on the latter is just stupid, since many traditions are destructive,
sexist, racist, or whatever. Of late, the claim to 'biology' is the outstanding
one since the other two don't hold any water.
So, if they stick to the civic aspects, do you think that polygamy should be legalised?
Well, the current governmental aparatus is set up for rights between
two people; the changing of the gender of one doesn't actually entail
any substantive alteration. In order for polygamy to be legalized, the
actual content of the law would have to change.
That is, if your spouse dies, you retain his/her stuff without penalty; if
s/he becomes incapacitated you become his/her proxy, &c. If there are,
say four spouses, and one becomes incapacitated, and two are in favor
of one treatment, and one is in favor of the other, how is this handled?
If there are three spouses, and two want to divorce the one, how is this
handled? Or if there are three and only two want to marry a fourth?
Further, if there are children, between spouse A and B, what rights does
spouse C have? &c, &c, &c.
These are all contributing factors which make the comparison somewhat
specious. The increase in numbers would entail a vast reworking of the
legal entailments, whereas a change in gender would change none of them.
In order to legalize polygamy, one would have to rewrite the entire corpus
of law surrounding marriage. Presumably, the laws would vary based on
the number of people involved (three spouses versus nine spouses).
In theory, it should be permitted -- assuming that everyone's rights are
protected, &c -- , but it's not a simple exchange like allowing same-sex
unions/marriage.
Keep in mind that I think State-sponsored unions ought to be
abolished (man-woman and otherwise) and that all of these things should
be private affairs (with lawyers setting up contracts and so forth), and
I have no opposition to a group of consenting adults making up some sort
of contractual deal amongst themselves (although I myself think
polygamy is a bad idea for other reasons).
Nemesio