How liberal/conservative are you?
Self marriage:
Polygamy:
Human-animal marriage:
Types of marriage:
I voted man/woman, man/man and woman/woman, but I could be convinced on the polygamy ones.
Well, at a very minimum, marriage is multiple entities coming together and forming some kind of joint entity, so that “self-marriage” woo-babble crap is right out (if you’re one person before and one person after, nothing happened, sorry). Dolls (:rolleyes:), animals, robots, and computers are pretty much the same. Based on what we know today, they have no way of expressing any desire to be married or even awareness of the concept of marriage, so that type of marriage doesn’t exist either. (I’m not sure I’d even say I “don’t support” these so far. They all exist for only one side. A marriage is a union, and a union of one is just a person. I support people existing, but I’m sure that’s not what’s really meant.)
I’m not touching the child categories without a better explanation of what “slightly below” means.
I’m not opposed to polygamy in very theoretical terms, but it requires such a major rework of how marriage works (unlike same-sex marriage, which was just a new coat of paint) that I’m not willing to say I support it. I’d probably only consider supporting it if it was one big marriage-corporation as opposed to one person independently marrying several others.
So I ticked the three boxes for two adults marrying each other.
No “none of the above” option?:dubious:
I don’t agree with polygamy or bestiality. If 2 consenting adults want to get married regardless of whether they are the same gender or not, then fine with me. I actually don’t care much about the debate TBH, I was married once now I’m not. gay people have the right to suffer as well as straight people.
What about man and boy, and woman and girl?
Not that I’d support them.
FTR, I voted for two consenting adults being able to marry, regardless of gender.
:dubious::rolleyes: Is that not just another term for Bachelor/spinsterhood?
the answer is consenting adults.
Heck. marry anyone you want. Also, don’t marry anyone you don’t want. So, I guess that includes all types involving consenting adults (and/or inanimate objects, as they don’t really have interests in any case).
I do find it pretty funny that “unconventional” forms of marriage are on the rise while regular heterosexuals are increasingly not bothering getting married at all. Who knows , maybe in a couple of centuries, gay marriages and polyamorous configurations (and marriages to vacuum cleaners) will be the only marriages around.
Two consenting adults capable of entering into a contract. That rules out underage persons, animals, and devices.
I personally believe that polygamy would be more of a legal definition of a family, whereas marriage is defining a couple. That opens an entirely different can of worms where degrees of relationship are contractually defined among persons not genetically related.
( I notice you do not ask about consanguinity. I tend to oppose incestual marriage as being unnecessary - blood relatives are already legally recognized as being “kin,” as so most of the legal issues marriage addresses are moot. I do not know of any jurisdictions where it would be a problem for a brother and sister to take out a mortgage together, or to have anyone challenge their mutual decision to name each other for survivor benefits. I stand prepared to be corrected on this point.)
The type where everyone involved is a consenting adult.
I like the idea of little old ladies marrying their cats to each other, complete with wedding dress and top hat. I find it a little bigoted that you didn’t include a choice for animals of different species to marry.
Pretty much this, with the additional requirement that all parties be humans. Since we can’t communicate on any meaningful level with animals, robots, or inanimate objects, how on Earth can we presume to legislate relationships with them?
This. Even if the specific arrangement seems icky to me. The perception of ickiness is not a reliable aid to public policy.
If it happens that robots, computers, or creatures of other species become capable of adult informed consent, then I’d support them as well.
That being said, I’m aware that some forms of marriage may require a few legal changes to our existing frameworks. I’m also aware that some people may be pressured into marriages; such pressure is wrong. Marriage should be voluntary.
If “slightly below adulthood” means 16 and above i voted for those. Also animal + animal of the same species, nothing wrong with that. All the consenting adult choices also of course.
I’m for marriage between persons capable of valid legal consent.
Right off the bat that includes all three monogamous human pairings, no problem with any of them(*).
Polyamorous marriages would require some more complicated adjustments in the social and legal effects and conditions involved, but once those could be taken care of, why not consider it.
As to how would a future society evaluate whether a self-aware AI meets a standard for individual personhood, well that’s just purely speculative and right now it’s pointless to debate IMO.
Animals, nonsentient artificial objects, etc.? Out of the question, nonsensical. THAT would mean changing and debasing the meaning of marriage. (Self? Silly.)
(* Although I wonder about why the inclusion of “Slightly below adulthood” as an explicitly distinct category. **We already allow that so that for instance a 16-year old [down to 14 in some states] can marry with parental or court permission. Why would we throw *that *into question now? Are people out there saying they’d trade “allow all legal adults to do what they want” in exchange for “but make sure none of them goes near my 16 year old daughter?”)
It’s not really about being liberal, supporting some of these choices would just make you insane.
I support two adult humans (can’t believe I have to specify the human part) of any combination of genders.
Not really. It would be the liberal value of tolerance, tolerating people with views different than your own. That includes people you think are crazy.
And, yes, I know, that’s one area where this board is practically conservative.
BTW, I’m okay with everything but human/animal, as there’s actual possible harm to the animal there, without any assurances of consent. Otherwise, I’m a pretty much live and let live type person in this area.
As long as the crazy people can lead productive lives, I don’t really care if they believe they are married to a building or whatever, and thus have no problem with them getting a certificate saying they are. Though it would require consent of the building’s owner.
Generally opposed to marriage.
This,
which is why I selected responses 1 through 6.
I have absolutely no problem with polygamy. If the parties are able to manage it mentally and emotionally, who am I, or anyone else for that matter, to say they shouldn’t be allowed to cohabit and have it recognized as a marriage? Who would they be hurting, exactly?
Of course I am for straight marriage, and gay marriage as well, the prohibition of which has always seemed ridiculous to me.