Poll of the Day > Is there any form of marriage you oppose?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Topic title. Is there some form of marriage you disapprove of or that is illegal and you approve of?
---

if I can't marry a cactus, what's the point?
---

Mofuji posted...

if I can't marry a cactus, what's the point?

Why do that?

They're all pricks.

I don't approve of any forms of marriage
---

TheWorstPoster posted...

Mofuji posted...

if I can't marry a cactus, what's the point?

Why do that?

They're all pricks.

It hurts so good.
---

man and chair
---

Smarkil posted...

I don't approve of any forms of marriage

---

I was going to say all except for the first one, but there are states that allows marriage for 16-17 year olds so it would fall under that.
---

Animals and minors. Anyone that can't consent, basically. No consent=no bueno.
---

adjl posted...

Animals and minors. Anyone that can't consent, basically. No consent=no bueno.

Exactly this for me

just the underage and animal one really, ok?
---

adjl posted...

Animals and minors. Anyone that can't consent, basically. No consent=no bueno.

lol acting as if animals have given consent on anything we have done to them.

Eat us, kill us, enslave us, castrate us, but for Godsake please dont marry us!

Given that marriage has always been between at least one man and at least one woman, anything that doesn't fit that definition is automatically ruled out. Other than that, just consenting adults with added restrictions barring things like bride-grooming or husband-grooming. (And, of course, married couples with close genetic ties -- immediate family -- shouldn't be allowed to have kids. I'm looking at you, Game of Thrones! Prince Joffrey showed us the dangers there.)

adjl posted...

Animals and minors. Anyone that can't consent, basically. No consent=no bueno.

Because apparently between the ages of 17 and 18 a youth is magically endowed with the knowledge of Solomon? >_>
---

I oppose incest/beastiality marriages. Under 18... Sort of. I think 16 and up should be able to consent, considering that's age of consent for sex here.
---

dioxxys posted...

lol acting as if animals have given consent on anything we have done to them.

Eat us, kill us, enslave us, castrate us, but for Godsake please dont marry us!

Not so much, but it's more about defining rules about sex than it is defining rules about how to treat animals. The bottom line is not to have sex with somebody that doesn't consent, and animals can't consent. Ergo, bestiality is no good, and bestial marriage is similarly no good.

Zeus posted...

Because apparently between the ages of 17 and 18 a youth is magically endowed with the knowledge of Solomon? >_>

That is how age of consent laws work, yes. Obviously, defining a discrete limit is going to result in some grey areas, and this isn't a matter where an arbitrary age threshold is going to magically make the necessary maturity difference, but it's also not something where waiting a couple years will be the end of the world (and you're definitely going to be hard-pressed to say that somebody under 15 is mature enough to consent to marrying an adult). Saying "don't marry minors" does the job quite adequately.

Zeus posted...

Given that marriage has always been between at least one man and at least one woman, anything that doesn't fit that definition is automatically ruled out.

You heard it here folks: If it's not the way it's always been done, it's bad. Guess we'd better stop treating diseases and go back to living in caves.
---

green dragon posted...

adjl posted...

Animals and minors. Anyone that can't consent, basically. No consent=no bueno.

Exactly this for me

---

PK_Spam posted...

green dragon posted...

adjl posted...

Animals and minors. Anyone that can't consent, basically. No consent=no bueno.

Exactly this for me

i agree with robot, ok?
---

No, I do not oppose any of them.

adjl posted...

Zeus posted...

Given that marriage has always been between at least one man and at least one woman, anything that doesn't fit that definition is automatically ruled out.

You heard it here folks: If it's not the way it's always been done, it's bad. Guess we'd better stop treating diseases and go back to living in caves.

Among the other problems with that moronic analogy is the fact that marriage didn't exist as a formal ceremony until *after* medicines were already in use in virtually every society. And, if you want to dismissing things because humanity has been doing them forever, you might try not eating.
---

Zeus posted...

moronic analogy

Zeus posted...

And, if you want to dismissing things because humanity has been doing them forever, you might try not eating.

Come on, man. Come on.

Currant_Kaiser posted...

Zeus posted...

moronic analogy

Zeus posted...

And, if you want to dismissing things because humanity has been doing them forever, you might try not eating.

Come on, man. Come on.

A bad analogy deserves a bad analogy. #TwoCanPlayThatGame
---

Zeus posted...

Among the other problems with that moronic analogy is the fact that marriage didn't exist as a formal ceremony until *after* medicines were already in use in virtually every society.

I feel like you rather completely missed the point. Maybe try again.

Zeus posted...

And, if you want to dismissing things because humanity has been doing them forever, you might try not eating.

Actually, that's a better analogy than I think you realize. The things we eat now aren't the things we ate when we lived in caves, because we've developed so many new technologies and ways to handle food. The result is a much broader range of flavours and nutritional options that has thoroughly enriched eating for all humans that have access to these developments. Obviously, nobody's going to say we should stop eating because humanity's been doing it forever (again, you're quite completely missing the point), but pretty much everybody would agree that modern cuisine is better than historical cuisine, because it's been allowed to progress.
---

I really should have included 'human/robot/doll' in hindsight.
---

Zeus posted...

Given that marriage has always been between at least one man and at least one woman, anything that doesn't fit that definition is automatically ruled out.

Lol. Just lol. Time for your pills, Zeus.
---

Zeus posted...

Given that marriage has always been between at least one man and at least one woman, anything that doesn't fit that definition is automatically ruled out. Other than that, just consenting adults with added restrictions barring things like bride-grooming or husband-grooming. (And, of course, married couples with close genetic ties -- immediate family -- shouldn't be allowed to have kids. I'm looking at you, Game of Thrones! Prince Joffrey showed us the dangers there.)

adjl posted...

Animals and minors. Anyone that can't consent, basically. No consent=no bueno.

Because apparently between the ages of 17 and 18 a youth is magically endowed with the knowledge of Solomon? >_>

Pretty spot on.

green dragon posted...

adjl posted...

Animals and minors. Anyone that can't consent, basically. No consent=no bueno.

Exactly this for me

I find it funny that, ignoring the multiple option, people are less opposed to marrying their twin sisters in a polygamous marriage than they are marrying someone who is 17. Of course with the 'multiple' option I'm sure that number is different.
---

Unbridled9 posted...

I find it funny that, ignoring the multiple option, people are less opposed to marrying their twin sisters in a polygamous marriage than they are marrying someone who is 17. Of course with the 'multiple' option I'm sure that number is different.

As I said, consent is the only important thing. Confirming consent can get hazy in cases of incest, because grooming is a thing, but provided all involved parties are consenting adults, they can do whatever they want.
---

adjl posted...

Unbridled9 posted...

I find it funny that, ignoring the multiple option, people are less opposed to marrying their twin sisters in a polygamous marriage than they are marrying someone who is 17. Of course with the 'multiple' option I'm sure that number is different.

As I said, consent is the only important thing. Confirming consent can get hazy in cases of incest, because grooming is a thing, but provided all involved parties are consenting adults, they can do whatever they want.

But then, say, couldn't a woman consent to having sex with her dog and the dog 'consent' by engaging in the act?
---

Unbridled9 posted...

adjl posted...

Unbridled9 posted...

I find it funny that, ignoring the multiple option, people are less opposed to marrying their twin sisters in a polygamous marriage than they are marrying someone who is 17. Of course with the 'multiple' option I'm sure that number is different.

As I said, consent is the only important thing. Confirming consent can get hazy in cases of incest, because grooming is a thing, but provided all involved parties are consenting adults, they can do whatever they want.

But then, say, couldn't a woman consent to having sex with her dog and the dog 'consent' by engaging in the act?

No, because animals can't consent. It gets a little shaky when it's women engaging in bestiality, since the animal's doing most of the work and therefore clearly wants to be doing it, but there's a similar issue as appears with minors in that you can't claim that the dog understands anything beyond "me horny, me hump," and having sex with them is therefore exploitative.

Whatever the animal's instincts and subsequent desires might be, there's definitely a major power imbalance between an animal and a human in a sexual relationship, and power imbalances in sexual relationships are no bueno. Ergo, bestiality's bad.
---

TheWorstPoster posted...

Mofuji posted...

if I can't marry a cactus, what's the point?

Why do that?

They're all pricks.

Kek

adjl posted...

power imbalances in sexual relationships are no bueno

I disagree.
---

I still find it hilarious that adjl wants animals to give consent on sex but yet they are incapable of consenting to being fixed, turned into mincemeat, forced into captivity, enslaved, etc.

Its like peoples reasons for disapproving of bestiality are illegitimate, considering all the other things we do to animals without their consent. Just face it, animals dont have rights.

I say this as a person who thinks bestiality is appalling but the general reasoning against it is flawed because its highly hypocritical. "Well consent matters to me in terms of sex but anywhere else it doesnt matter lolololol."

Veedrock- posted...

adjl posted...

power imbalances in sexual relationships are no bueno

I disagree.

Same.

Its just some peoples fetish to be dominated jeez

For me, marriage should be the classic between a man and a woman. If a man wants to marry a horse, let him go to international waters.

adjl posted...

Animals and minors. Anyone that can't consent, basically. No consent=no bueno.

---

Forced marriage of any kind.

Marriage between two people who don't love each other just due to having a child.

Marriage between an adult and a minor (14 or younger to set a hard rule, depends on the situation after that).

Other then that, as long as both parties are consenting, more power to them. Relatives are not the best idea honestly, but with birth control etc, no real reason why it couldn't happen as long as it wasn't some kind of direct relative with authority over a much younger person (especially a parent, no father/daughter marriages, at least not till the daughter was much older and not living at home for years or something).
---

dioxxys posted...

I still find it hilarious that adjl wants animals to give consent on sex but yet they are incapable of consenting to being fixed, turned into mincemeat, forced into captivity, enslaved, etc.

Its like peoples reasons for disapproving of bestiality are illegitimate, considering all the other things we do to animals without their consent. Just face it, animals dont have rights.

I mostly see it as setting a standard for human behaviour, rather than a standard for how animals are treated. Humans should be expected to secure consent before engaging in sexual activity. If they can't (as is the case with non-sentient beings), don't sex them. Animal rights are another matter entirely.

Though, that said, I'd say those other things you mentioned are more justifiable than having sex with animals is. They at least serve some sort of practical purpose. Slaughtering an animal may be unsavory, but sustenance is a much more legitimate justification than having a pre-warmed fleshlight.

dioxxys posted...

Veedrock- posted...

adjl posted...

power imbalances in sexual relationships are no bueno

I disagree.

Same.

Its just some peoples fetish to be dominated jeez

Non-consensual power imbalances, then. Sub/dom play is certainly a thing, but that submission is consensual because the dom has been invited to fill that role. Imbalances created by willingly giving up power are fine, but not imbalances where one party inherently has more power than the other (this is the same problem with teacher-student or boss-employee relationships).
---

adjl posted...

I mostly see it as setting a standard for human behaviour, rather than a standard for how animals are treated.

By that logic we're setting a standard that allows us to kill humans for their meat.

adjl posted...

Though, that said, I'd say those other things you mentioned are more justifiable than having sex with animals is. They at least serve some sort of practical purpose. Slaughtering an animal may be unsavory, but sustenance is a much more legitimate justification than having a pre-warmed fleshlight.

The problem with this is that you're only measuring justifiability by how exactly it benefits humans, completely ignoring the well-being of an animal. From the animal's perspective, I'm sure it'd much rather get fucked, with or without consent, than get slaughtered. Fucking an animal and leaving it alive would seem to me to be more justifiable than killing it.

I oppose forced marriages, that's it.

I oppose all marriage. All of it should be illegal. ALL OF IT!!!

"Oh, I want to marry this girl. We have been dating for 3 years and have been saving ourselves for..."

NO, NO MARRIAGE!!! JUST FUCK AND ENJOY LIFE WITHOUT INVOLVING OTHER PEOPLE IN YOUR RELATIONSHIP!!!!!
---

Currant_Kaiser posted...

By that logic we're setting a standard that allows us to kill humans for their meat.

Were it not for a separate standard that protects human life? Yes. In the interest of preserving humanity's interests, though, killing humans for their meat is not considered okay.

Currant_Kaiser posted...

The problem with this is that you're only measuring justifiability by how exactly it benefits humans

Of course I am. I'm a human, and humans act as benefits humans. Self-interest always governs interactions with other species.
---

just going to put it like this. as long as its between of legal age consenting adults I couldn't care less.
---

Between females and males, it's 2017 people c'mon, diversify that shit.
---

All of them
---

Only child marriage.
---

I oppose:

minors - except to each other if they really want to. Adult and Minor not so much.
animals and other forms of intelligent beings - until they are sapient enough to be on the same level emotionally and intellectually as humans
incestuous - nope. birth defects and what not. I'm playing the nature card now. Nature truly does not intend to create inbreeds.

Under 18 is usually pretty strange. And animal is just lol.

Also, multiples wives is just weird but I guess I'm not opposed to it. I just think you're a real frikin weirdo.
---

fuzi11 posted...

incestuous - nope. birth defects and what not. I'm playing the nature card now. Nature truly does not intend to create inbreeds.

I'm inclined to disregard the nature angle against incest because there are just so many ways to work around it now. Genetic testing can confirm just what the risks are far better than any guess based on consanguinity estimates can, and even when the risks are confirmed to be high, marriage doesn't have to involve biological children anyway (either not having kids, surrogacy, or adoption). Yeah, nature doesn't like inbreeding, which is why most people have the Westermarck effect, but in cases where that's deficient, there doesn't have to be any actual harm. Just a couple extra hoops to jump through.

That, and making it illegal on the basis of the child's genetic health is logically the same as restricting people with confirmed genetic disorders from reproducing, which is pretty shaky territory. There are certainly arguments to be made in favour of such restrictions, so that approach isn't completely invalid, but that is something you need to consider before taking this approach, if you want to be logically consistent.
---

Zeus posted...

Because apparently between the ages of 17 and 18 a youth is magically endowed with the knowledge of Solomon? >_>

I knew about Solomon Grundy way before I was 17 or 18.
---