The Privatization of Marriage

[Rivers]

In the same-sex marriage debate, I have heard it argued that the government should have no involvement whatsoever.  Let individuals and churches define marriage for themselves.  Its an intriguing idea and seems ideal from a libertarian perspective.

I don't see this ever happening, but if it did, I am curious about how the LDS church would handle such a situation.  The church currently recognizes all legal heterosexual marriages as valid.  How would the church decide what or what is not a valid marriage if marriage were privatized?

[Jane_Doe]

The moral implications of this are so huge, even without bringing in the LDS part.

For example, would you personally acknowledge the marriage between a 52 year old guy and his 28 and 18 year old brides?  How about bro/sister?  Minors?  Non-humans?  Etc, etc, down a never ending rabbit hole....

[ksfisher]

Woman marries DOG in 'romantic' wedding ceremony - after marriage to man didn't work out

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/woman-marries-dog-romantic-wedding-3225948

[Rivers]

26 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

The moral implications of this are so huge, even without bringing in the LDS part.

For example, would you personally acknowledge the marriage between a 52 year old guy and his 28 and 18 year old brides?  How about bro/sister?  Minors?  Non-humans?  Etc, etc, down a never ending rabbit hole....

 

27 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

The moral implications of this are so huge, even without bringing in the LDS part.

For example, would you personally acknowledge the marriage between a 52 year old guy and his 28 and 18 year old brides?  How about bro/sister?  Minors?  Non-humans?  Etc, etc, down a never ending rabbit hole....

I don't have a problem with polygamy among consenting adults. 

[JLHPROF]

48 minutes ago, Rivers said:

 

I don't have a problem with polygamy among consenting adults. 

I don't have a problem with anything that God commands.  I work under the premise that God knows better than I do and when he gives direction it's in our best interest to obey.

[cdowis]

9 hours ago, Rivers said:

 

I don't have a problem with polygamy among consenting adults. 

Now that we hae SSM, do you have a problem with mixed or group marriage, a collage of males and females having a bisexual, group intimate relationship, where the father of the children are unidentified?  Is this family arrangement acceptable or healthy  in society.  To me this is just an organized orgy on a permanent basis.

How would a divorce work under this arrangement. By majority vote?

Edited February 15, 2017 by cdowis

[Buckeye]

11 hours ago, Rivers said:

In the same-sex marriage debate, I have heard it argued that the government should have no involvement whatsoever.  Let individuals and churches define marriage for themselves.  Its an intriguing idea and seems ideal from a libertarian perspective.

I don't see this ever happening, but if it did, I am curious about how the LDS church would handle such a situation.  The church currently recognizes all legal heterosexual marriages as valid.  How would the church decide what or what is not a valid marriage if marriage were privatized?

You're right that it's not going to happen. Literally 1000s of federal laws, obligations, and benefits are dependent on marital status. Does anyone really think it wise to kill off spousal benefits tied to Social Security or Veterns status? Or visitation and medical decision rights granted to spouses? Seriously, it's a non-starter.

But .... if it did happen, I would expect the Church to continue to view heterosexual civil marriages (and marriages performed by other faiths) are sufficient to comply with the law of chastity, but not sufficient to provide any union beyond death. So no real change. 

[Jane_Doe]

12 hours ago, Rivers said:

 

I don't have a problem with polygamy among consenting adults. 

But consenting 17 year olds should be forbidden?  Relationships between consenting adults and non-humans?  Do you REALLY think anyone should be able to get married to anything?

Running with just one example of how marriage legally effects things: a army man is married to his wife, and his wife receives benefits paid for by you (as taxpayer).  Are you ok paying twice as much for his two wives?  How about for his 7 wives?  How about spouse benefits to his dog whom he has declared to be his spouse?  (Do you see how this is becoming such a mess instantly?).    

Edited February 15, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[Gray]

12 hours ago, Rivers said:

In the same-sex marriage debate, I have heard it argued that the government should have no involvement whatsoever.  Let individuals and churches define marriage for themselves.  Its an intriguing idea and seems ideal from a libertarian perspective.

I don't see this ever happening, but if it did, I am curious about how the LDS church would handle such a situation.  The church currently recognizes all legal heterosexual marriages as valid.  How would the church decide what or what is not a valid marriage if marriage were privatized?

Good question. All marriage was private in Biblical times (as far as I know) - presumably we must consider those marriages to have been legitimate. 

Edited February 15, 2017 by Gray

[Maestrophil]

I am sure the church would have an easy time laying out what qualified as an acceptable marriage.  Perhaps marriage would even become like baptism, that if you convert, you get "remarried" by a bishop or in the temple.  Who knows.  I, personally am one of those who would love to see government get out of the marriage regulation business.  Married people are taxed differently because of dual income.  Take away all benefit based on marriage, and offer benefits for children only, which is what propagates our society.

[JLHPROF]

13 hours ago, Rivers said:

 

I don't have a problem with polygamy among consenting adults.

 

5 hours ago, cdowis said:

Now that we hae SSM, do you have a problem with mixed or group marriage, a collage of males and females having a bisexual, group intimate relationship, where the father of the children are unidentified?  Is this family arrangement acceptable or healthy  in society.  To me this is just an organized orgy on a permanent basis.

How would a divorce work under this arrangement. By majority vote?

Polygamy is different than the group marriages you describe.
Cdowis, i giving your hyperbolic scenario you are implying that polygamy is as immoral as these "group marriages" and "orgies" would be.
This is not in keeping with your usual TBM approach to issues.  Implying that polygamy is immoral because  Satan's counterfeit is clearly immoral is a false comparison.

Polygamy among consenting adults WHEN God allows a worthy people to live that law is not inherently immoral.  Rivers is right.
 

[cinepro]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

Polygamy is different than the group marriages you describe.
Cdowis, i giving your hyperbolic scenario you are implying that polygamy is as immoral as these "group marriages" and "orgies" would be.

 

It's only an "orgy" until someone has to do the dishes.

[thesometimesaint]

3 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

But consenting 17 year olds should be forbidden?

It is legal for a 14 year old to get married in New York.

SEE http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/NY-Advocates-Demand-Lawmakers-Raise-Marriage-Age-From-14-413798863.html

[thesometimesaint]

26 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

Polygamy is different than the group marriages you describe.
Cdowis, i giving your hyperbolic scenario you are implying that polygamy is as immoral as these "group marriages" and "orgies" would be.
This is not in keeping with your usual TBM approach to issues.  Implying that polygamy is immoral because  Satan's counterfeit is clearly immoral is a false comparison.

Polygamy among consenting adults WHEN God allows a worthy people to live that law is not inherently immoral.  Rivers is right.
 

In multi-religious society like ours. Which God is the one we make into law?

[JLHPROF]

29 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

In multi-religious society like ours. Which God is the one we make into law?

That depends which direction we are heading.

And that really isn't related to the "group marriages" = polygamy comparison Cdowis made.

[bluebell]

I haven't read the thread yet so this could have been mentioned, but i think the government could easily get out of the marriage business by offering civil unions instead.  Legally civil unions would be exactly like marriage is now (with all the laws and restrictions that that implies) but without the need for the government to legitimize or validate any union as a 'marriage'. 

People, however, could call their unions whatever they wanted to.

[rockpond]

6 hours ago, cdowis said:

Now that we hae SSM, do you have a problem with mixed or group marriage, a collage of males and females having a bisexual, group intimate relationship, where the father of the children are unidentified?  Is this family arrangement acceptable or healthy  in society.  To me this is just an organized orgy on a permanent basis.

This kind of stuff cracks me up coming from believing LDS.  I think we ought to be slow to criticize poly-amorous relationships given that our second prophet had 55 wives, 59 children, and ten divorces.  He married over a half dozen teenagers when he was in his 40's. And we (traditionally) believe that what he did was ordained of God.

[rongo]

35 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I haven't read the thread yet so this could have been mentioned, but i think the government could easily get out of the marriage business by offering civil unions instead.  Legally civil unions would be exactly like marriage is now (with all the laws and restrictions that that implies) but without the need for the government to legitimize or validate any union as a 'marriage'. 

People, however, could call their unions whatever they wanted to.

Why does the government have to offer anything?

Discussion about this has led me to think of things I never have before. For example, who bears the cost of benefits to multiple spouses? LDS-offshoot groups "bleed the beast" and commit a lot of welfare fraud.

The thought about requiring converts to be remarried LDS (like with baptism) was interesting to me. I don't know how I feel about that. But, I do like the thought of there being no government involvement (approval or disapproval) of marriage. I'm also one who would like for federal income tax to be done away with, and if it had to remain, to eliminate exemptions and deductions (yes, even tithes and offerings). But that's not a popular view among most LDS  . . .  

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

Why does the government have to offer anything?

Discussion about this has led me to think of things I never have before. For example, who bears the cost of benefits to multiple spouses? LDS-offshoot groups "bleed the beast" and commit a lot of welfare fraud.

The thought about requiring converts to be remarried LDS (like with baptism) was interesting to me. I don't know how I feel about that. But, I do like the thought of there being no government involvement (approval or disapproval) of marriage. I'm also one who would like for federal income tax to be done away with, and if it had to remain, to eliminate exemptions and deductions (yes, even tithes and offerings). But that's not a popular view among most LDS  . . .  

I think it's in the best interest of governments (and the societies they are trying to create) to regulate relationships such as marriage.  It gives them the right of oversight, which i think it necessary on a basic level. 

It would be a giant mess if marriage and divorce was determined by the state (because you and your spouse might be married in Utah but not in Wyoming).  Think about divorce where one spouse moves out of state.  Or separations where there is no legal divorce but one spouse moves to a state where their marriage isn't legal while the other spouse stays in a state where it is.  Would we have to extradite people from state to state to get them to face up to divorce decrees that the state they were found in doesn't recognize?  Not good.   Marriage and divorce is messy enough without making it more confusing and adding more red tape.  There really isn't an upside to keeping the federal government out of it and leaving it in the hands of the state.

And have neither federal nor state recognition is even more of a mess.  Everything would be a free for all.  I can't even imagine the disaster that divorce would be without the government's ability to intervene.  Everyone would be forced to use lawyers to draw up contracts to regulate the most basic committed relationships in case they dissolve.  We already need that even with government regulations-it would only get messier and more expensive without them.

Beyond that, I think the children need to protection that regulated marriage offers.  It doesn't offer a lot, for sure, but it does offer something.  

[Bernard Gui]

17 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

The moral implications of this are so huge, even without bringing in the LDS part.

For example, would you personally acknowledge the marriage between a 52 year old guy and his 28 and 18 year old brides?  How about bro/sister?  Minors?  Non-humans?  Etc, etc, down a never ending rabbit hole....

Given the destruction of the definition of marriage that has just happened, what possible objections can be raised to those scenarios as long as both (or more) humans consent? Who is to say a person cannot marry an animal? Of course

they cannot reproduce, but that is no longer a criteria for marriage. The next frontier, I predict, is the normalization of pedophilia.

Edited February 15, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think it's in the best interest of governments (and the societies they are trying to create) to regulate relationships such as marriage.  It gives them the right of oversight, which i think it necessary on a basic level. 

It would be a giant mess if marriage and divorce was determined by the state (because you and your spouse might be married in Utah but not in Wyoming).  Think about divorce where one spouse moves out of state.  Or separations where there is no legal divorce but one spouse moves to a state where their marriage isn't legal while the other spouse stays in a state where it is.  Would we have to extradite people from state to state to get them to face up to divorce decrees that the state they were found in doesn't recognize?  Not good.   Marriage and divorce is messy enough without making it more confusing and adding more red tape.  There really isn't an upside to keeping the federal government out of it and leaving it in the hands of the state.

And have neither federal nor state recognition is even more of a mess.  Everything would be a free for all.  I can't even imagine the disaster that divorce would be without the government's ability to intervene.  Everyone would be forced to use lawyers to draw up contracts to regulate the most basic committed relationships in case they dissolve.  We already need that even with government regulations-it would only get messier and more expensive without them.

Beyond that, I think the children need to protection that regulated marriage offers.  It doesn't offer a lot, for sure, but it does offer something.  

Most of those objections would be resolved by creating legally contracted unions between whatever. The Church would simply add the sealings based on its definition of one man/one woman celestial marriage. 

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Given the destruction of the definition of marriage that has just happened, what possible objections can be raised to those scenarios as long as both (or more) humans consent? Who is to say a person cannot marry an animal? Of course

they cannot reproduce, but that is no longer a criteria for marriage. The next frontier, I predict, is the normalization of pedophilia.

Animals cannot consent.  Nor are they granted legal rights by our constitution.

I don't see any evidence suggesting that pedophilia will be normalized.

Edited February 15, 2017 by rockpond

[Bernard Gui]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Animals cannot consent.  Nor are they granted legal rights by our constitution.

I don't see any evidence suggesting that pedophilia will be normalized.

Quote

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/08/what-can-be-done-about-pedophilia/279024/

So are pedophiles “born that way”?

In studies, pedophiles show signs that their sexual interests are related to brain structure and that at least some differences existed in their brains before birth. For example, pedophiles show greatly elevated rates of non-right-handedness and minor physical anomalies. Thus, although pedophilia should never be confused with homosexuality, pedophilia can be meaningfully described as a sexual orientation. Scientists have more specifically called it an “age orientation.” Caution has to be used, however, so as not to confuse the scientific use of the phrase “sexual orientation” with its use in law. Because the phrase “sexual orientation” has been used as shorthand (or as a euphemism) for homosexuality, there exist laws and policies barring discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation.” These were not likely intended to refer to pedophilia.

Is it reasonable to be afraid that, if we recognize pedophilia as a sexual orientation, we will have to consider it socially acceptable?

It is reasonable for questions of social acceptability to be directed at behaviors. People are responsible for their behaviors, not their thoughts or sexual attractions. For example, we very readily acknowledge that a typical heterosexual man will, while just walking down the street, find some women sexually attractive. We would not, however, conclude it is socially acceptable for him to coerce any of those women into sex. Thinking of pedophilia as an innate characteristic that a person did not choose and cannot change can go a very long way in helping society come to a rational response to the problem—one that can help prevent molestation of children.

Can someone be cured of pedophilic desires? For example, could a pedophile through treatment go on to have either no sexual desire or a fundamentally different kind of sexual orientation?

The best treatments we have available for pedophiles help them develop the skills they need to live a healthy, offense-free life and, in some cases, to block their sex drives (if they feel it would help them). We have not yet found a way to convert pedophiles into non-pedophiles that are any more effective than the many failed attempts to convert gay men and lesbians into heterosexuals.

Reminds one of the attitude toward homosexuality in days of yore.

Edited February 15, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[rockpond]

37 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Reminds one of the attitude toward homosexuality in days of yore.

It does.  Except I don't see any signs of societal acceptance of pedophilia.

[rongo]

54 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think it's in the best interest of governments (and the societies they are trying to create) to regulate relationships such as marriage.  It gives them the right of oversight, which i think it necessary on a basic level. 

It would be a giant mess if marriage and divorce was determined by the state (because you and your spouse might be married in Utah but not in Wyoming).  Think about divorce where one spouse moves out of state.  Or separations where there is no legal divorce but one spouse moves to a state where their marriage isn't legal while the other spouse stays in a state where it is.  Would we have to extradite people from state to state to get them to face up to divorce decrees that the state they were found in doesn't recognize?  Not good.   Marriage and divorce is messy enough without making it more confusing and adding more red tape.  There really isn't an upside to keeping the federal government out of it and leaving it in the hands of the state.

And have neither federal nor state recognition is even more of a mess.  Everything would be a free for all.  I can't even imagine the disaster that divorce would be without the government's ability to intervene.  Everyone would be forced to use lawyers to draw up contracts to regulate the most basic committed relationships in case they dissolve.  We already need that even with government regulations-it would only get messier and more expensive without them.

Beyond that, I think the children need to protection that regulated marriage offers.  It doesn't offer a lot, for sure, but it does offer something.  

This is also a lot for me to think about.  

The logistical problems requiring governmental regulation seem to center mainly around dealing with the wreckage left from failed relationships --- in spades, when children are involved. Given that divorce is increasingly a problem everywhere (even in the Church), enforcing legal custody, support, and divorce rulings would be worse without government-regulated marriage, it seems.

It seems to me that with marriage disintegrating as it is (the number of students I have as a teacher with complicated flow charts of responsible adults to contact is astounding --- i.e., different last names, complex relationships, etc.), this is set to become a bigger problem with or without government regulation.