Okay, sure, we could do that. But that would be fundamentally different from what we currently call marriage, inasmuch as we wouldn’t be granting any sort of legal rights or change in status to the folks involved. It would be an entirely ceremonial act, more similar to awarding a medal than to legalizing a marriage.
The more space this analogy gets, the more stupid it appears. I didn’t think that was actually possible.
“Your honor, if you let same sex couples marry, the Maytag repairman is a rapist.”
“Your honor, if you let women be lawyers, my shoes have to register for the draft.”
“Your honor, if you let black people vote, my washcloth can be a dentist.”
No it is not just a matter of degree. A contract by its very nature requires consent from both sides, and the possibility of penalty if one side defaults - based on the terms of the contract. If it does not this it is not a contract, no more than the tail of Lincoln’s horse is a fifth leg.
Now, if you can demonstrate that marriage involves both man and woman in the same fundamental way, you might be on to something. If you think that marriage is created by God you’d be fine so long as you can produce God to back you up. Otherwise no. We’ve always done it that way doesn’t work either. Certain cultures did not let women enter into contracts - we changed that with no fundamental change to the meaning of contract. That is a lot closer to the SSM case than your example.
What does it mean to have a contract with myself, or with an inanimate entity, that distinguishes the situation from one where there is no contract? Outside of the existence of the contract itself, of course.
I am willing to let this washing machine lie until such a time as people actually begin to ask for contracts (of any sort) with appliances. Chasing theoreticals which do not intersect the real world is the stuff of sophomoric bull sessions.
Wait a second.
I can’t believe I’m going to defend this retarded analogy, but I can’t just let this go.
If we start from the perspective that marriage, “by its very nature,” is a union of a man and a woman, then your reasoning is upended.
In other words, you accord to your side the benefit of an unchanging “very nature.” You ask the other side to produce God to verify his assent to the way marriage is defined, but don’t produce God yourself to testify to the allegedly unchanging, ceaselessly eternal nature of a contract.
The real answer is very simple: marriage is a human construct, just like a contract is. Enough support existed to accept that marriage could exist between a man and a woman to validate that vision of marriage; enough support existed to accept that marriage could also exist between a woman and a woman as well.
If there were wide-spread acceptance of a “contract” between a person and a file cabinet, we’d make it so, by changing aspects of contract law to handle the new definition. But there is effectively zero support for such a zany idea.
Although it’s worth pointing out that civil forfeiture cases proceed all the time in which one party is the United States and the other party is a 2008 Chevy Traverse.
When such cases are litigated, we have rules that sustain the legal fiction that the Chevy is a party to the litigation.
If we had the will and interest in doing so, we could just as easily craft laws that sustain the legal fiction of a surfboard consenting to a contract. We don’t, because it’s a useless concept.
Same-sex marriage, in contrast, is a useful concept.
End of story.
The thing is, I don’t think we can start from that proposition in the same way that we can start from the proposition that a contract, by its very nature, is an agreement between two or more consenting parties. This is, in the OP, the first two bullet points (or hyphen points, whatever).
It’s very clear what’s meant by a marriage between two men. There are folks who think it’s a bad idea, but nobody is confused by what it means. That’s because everyone understands that a marriage is a system by which two people join their lives together in specific legal and social ways. Yes, many people think opposite-sex coupling is a necessary feature of marriages, but even they understand what same-sex marriage would look like. Even they understand that a marriage between two men would entail exactly the same legal rights and responsibilities as a marriage between a man and a woman.
By contrast, it’s entirely unclear what a contract would mean if there were only one consenting party. Explaining this new arrangement essentially requires defining the word “contract” from the ground up, getting rid of everything that makes a contract a contract.
It’s clear why SSM should be called “marriage”: other than the genders of the participants, everything else is exactly the same. it’s entirely unclear why the washing-machine situation should be called “marriage”, since virtually nothing is the same. The rights aren’t the same, the privileges aren’t the same, the level of consent isn’t the same.
It’s not simply a case of what’s necessary to an institution, it’s a case of what an institution entails. The difference between same-sex marriage and one-member contract is a difference between redefining a single necessary condition and redefining everything about the institution.
“Consent” is a really difficult concept for a lot of people who argue the anti-SSM side. I don’t think it’s surprising that the same political institutions that argue against SSM seem to have trouble figuring out rape.
I think everyone is overlooking the really important question, here: where the fuck did that second “l” in cleanlosexuals come from? It’s not homlosexuals. It’s not heterlosexuals. Why the hell is is cleanlosexuals?
The “l” stands for laundry.
What I’m really thinking is:
Why the heck would anybody in their right minds want to marry or have intimate sexual intercourse with an object. They don’t breath or show any human function, don’t have genitals.
Now, is this really what people should be debating on? Whether a person has the right to marry or whatever his/her furniture…
Oh, yeah, look at you–all pristine and white, but we know better oh yeah we do. With your lid wide open like that–I’m gonna cram you full of laundry–dirty laundry–I’m gonna put my dirty underwear in there. And I’m gonna set you to HOT and add laundry detergent, and crank your little dial over and just let you run. Yeah that’s right.
Oh, crap
Uh, guys I didn’t mean to post that to the boards. Crapcrapcrap.
Uh, mods, a little help here please? Maybe we could just delete that last post entirely, thanks.
I didn’t claim that marriage being fundamentally between man and woman only could be justified through God - just that was one justification, and pretty much what most people use who defend the inherent definition of marriage. If you define marriage as inherently eternal, you have the same issue when the state allows divorce.
This is not a matter of support - which is why I brought up the Lincoln quote. This is a matter whether the concept (a human concept, like all concepts) makes any sense in the expanded form. As we’ve seen expanding marriage does not seem to change much.
Here is the wiki definition, not that you need it
We have voluntarily, we have intends. A washer - or a baby - cannot volunteer or intend to do anything.
There would seem to be more fundamental consequences than just “changing the law.” If a contract can be entered into with an inanimate object, certainly a contract can be entered into with a minor. Or a fetus. That’s one way of banning abortion. If a contract no longer has to be voluntary, then a contract entered into when one party is under duress should be binding also.
So, it is not just a matter of writing in “and machines” after “adults and legal entities” in the law. On the other hand, we’ve seen that altering the laws for SSM creates no such upheaval. Of course extending contract rights to women caused no such problems. Extending contract rights down to the age of 13, say, might not be a good idea but wouldn’t cause this kind of problem either.
Is the Traverse said to be in a contractual agreement with anyone? If not, cute but irrelevant. There can be litigation involving those two young to enter into contracts, right?
Utility has little to do with it. I can imagine utility - for some - in allowing contracts with people or things where they are not now valid. And allowing SSM is more a matter or rights than utility. Certainly there are places where being allowed to be married is useful, but there are other ways of granting the same utility without allowing marriage. There are plenty of people, in fact plenty of Dopers, who don’t find marriage all that useful.
I’m not sure there is an issue in terms of SSM, but in our contract with a machine world a man could unilaterally create a contract to have sex with someone he wants to rape. If your remove the concept of voluntary, why not?
Oh yeah I am ready for the spin cycle, baby. Drain and spin… gimme that SPINNNNNNNN!!!
You clearly have not visited the right kind of store. Or the right kind of butcher shop for that matter. 
Handle, what, exactly? What is there to handle in a contract between a person and an inanimate object? The object can’t assent to the contract terms, as it is inanimate. It cannot present a defense in court, inanimate. It does not choose to uphold its end of the contract, and cannot file suit if the person fails to uphold their end. You can guess why.
Conceptually, what does a contract with a inanimate object change about the world that needs government recognition?
You’ve never heard of a dildo?