The Privatization of Marriage

[bluebell]

43 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

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

Because children can never consent, i don't see the similarities to homosexuality between adults, even in days of yore, that you seem to.  The only similarity that i see is in the 'born that way' argument.

That is significant though for those who argue that because people are born homosexual, living a homosexual lifestyle (for lack of a better term) must be morally acceptable.  

That is an argument that pedophilia pretty much destroys.  Beyond that i don't see any use in comparing the two.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

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. 

Like i said earlier, the government could easily get out of the marriage business by granting civil unions.  But they would essentially operate and be exactly like a marriage, just without the title.  Government regulation of and involvement in the relationship would still be necessary or every negative thing in my post would still ensue.

That's why government "has to offer something".  

[JLHPROF]

59 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

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

 

21 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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

But there have been societies in the past that accepted it.  What society will accept and won't accept changes according to culture and time.  And there is no reason to believe it is always moving in the right direction.

If current culture and society were ever to disintegrate to the point of a new one emerging (think Post-Roman empire) who is to say what it will look like.
Heck, that kind of describes what LDS call the Millennial reign.  I suspect many current cultural norms will become very quickly relics of the past in that situation.

Consider the many possibilities that if LDS doctrine is correct would mean for a society reigned over by Christ directly.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

But there have been societies in the past that accepted it.  What society will accept and won't accept changes according to culture and time.  And there is no reason to believe it is always moving in the right direction.

If current culture and society were ever to disintegrate to the point of a new one emerging (think Post-Roman empire) who is to say what it will look like.
Heck, that kind of describes what LDS call the Millennial reign.  I suspect many current cultural norms will become very quickly relics of the past in that situation.

Consider the many possibilities that if LDS doctrine is correct would mean for a society reigned over by Christ directly.

Yes, societies change.  We can see significant shifts even within the relatively small LDS culture over a period of less than 200 years.

But, in response to Bernard's prediction that the "next frontier" would be the normalization of pedophilia -- I don't see any trends or signs in western culture to support such a conclusion.

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes, societies change.  We can see significant shifts even within the relatively small LDS culture over a period of less than 200 years.

But, in response to Bernard's prediction that the "next frontier" would be the normalization of pedophilia -- I don't see any trends or signs in western culture to support such a conclusion.

Yes, but you could have said the same thing about homosexuality as recently as 75 years ago.

50 years from now society could easily be facing pedophilia rights marches, lawsuits, etc.
Or conversely (as to my Millennium thought) Christ ruling and reigning and the wicked having been consumed, could see homosexuality or at least SSM as things of the past.  Much like Ancient Greek and Roman pedophilia.
Or to some people's horror, polygamy could be reinstated.

As to the signs and trends in western culture, I remember the 1980's like they were yesterday.  Pre-cell phone/smart phone/Wi-Fi/Apps/hashtags etc.
Blink too slowly and the signs suddenly appear.
 

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes, but you could have said the same thing about homosexuality as recently as 75 years ago.

50 years from now society could easily be facing pedophilia rights marches, lawsuits, etc.
Or conversely (as to my Millennium thought) Christ ruling and reigning and the wicked having been consumed, could see homosexuality or at least SSM as things of the past.  Much like Ancient Greek and Roman pedophilia.
Or to some people's horror, polygamy could be reinstated.

As to the signs and trends in western culture, I remember the 1980's like they were yesterday.  Pre-cell phone/smart phone/Wi-Fi/Apps/hashtags etc.
Blink too slowly and the signs suddenly appear.
 

I wasn't around 75 years ago so I'll have to take your word for it.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

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?).    

More than likely, even if marriage was privatized in the sense that people could get married to anyone they wanted, behaviour would still be limited and laws that were defining what married people could get that unmarried couldn't would simply be written as civil partnerships (iirc some countries have already gone this route).  Marriage in and of itself at that time would not grant anyone tax advantages anymore than nongovernment approved marriage ceremonies these days do (for example, there were same sex marriage ceremonies taking place before they were given legal status, they had no effect on legal standing of the partners, no tax breaks, no legal right to children or property in the case of death of one partner, etc).  Laws not allowing civil partnerships between adults and minors without parental permission as well as with no humans, etc. could be enacted if not already in place.  Certainly laws banning marriage between humans and no humans do not stop people from going through private ceremonies or just viewing the nonhuman as a spouse even now.  I highly doubt law enforcement gets involved unless the animal is being abused or there is an attempt to claim legal rights.

If the marriage process is simply turned over to private groups to handle as are many former government done jobs, then the same laws that apply when the government does the stuff will apply to the private companies...they will just attempt to streamline the process to make it more profitable, not open it up to anyone who wants it.

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes, but you could have said the same thing about homosexuality as recently as 75 years ago.

I think there is a much bigger 'predator' vibe attached to pedophilia than adult homosexuality, though there was some sense of homosexuals as predators seducing others into the behaviour, in part because many with homosexual attraction went ahead and got married and so appeared to be fully heterosexual and thus it wasn't natural to them, they had to be lured.  

Coercion, however, was seen as less a factor in homosexuality, I believe, than it is with pedophilia.  It is coercion that seems to me to be the main issue with pedophilia.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Because children can never consent, i don't see the similarities to homosexuality between adults, even in days of yore, that you seem to.  The only similarity that i see is in the 'born that way' argument.

That is significant though for those who argue that because people are born homosexual, living a homosexual lifestyle (for lack of a better term) must be morally acceptable.  

That is an argument that pedophilia pretty much destroys.  Beyond that i don't see any use in comparing the two.

There has been changes over time, both in extending and shortening the age of childhood, but since pedophilia is defined as attraction to children (technically prepubescent though applied commonly to any youth so that is what I am using here, legally I believe they use the term minor rather than "child") it wouldn't be legally pedophilia if minors were seen as younger than 12 and not less than 18 even though it would be seen as pedophilia today.

However lowering age of consent is a different issue than legalizing pedophilia, though the first would probably be used in the second.  In many ways our society is approving in greater numbers of lowering the age of consent given the general acceptance of teens having sex...just not with adults, as if other teens can't put as much pressure on a youth as an adult can (the same difference in attitude towards women having sex with youth as opposed to men exists, as if boys would be somehow more resistant to emotional manipulation than girls or that it is socially okay because boys want sex more than girls; given that girls generally test as more emotionally mature than boys of their own age, the prejudice is the opposite of reality in all likelihood). In other ways they are raising age of consent in a nonlegal sense as society generally believes getting married later is better.

That still wouldn't affect pedophilia on prepubescent children...though even that age is dropping for girls (not sure about boys).  I just read an article saying that those involved with youth needed to stop being shocked with girls at age 8 developing breasts, etc as it was moving out of the rare stage in the States.

Edited February 15, 2017 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

 it wouldn't be legally pedophilia if minors were seen as younger than 12 and not less than 18 even though it would be seen as pedophilia today.

Age of consent and age of majority have changed almost as much and as often as other societal standards on marriage.
Who knows whether it will stay at 18.  So has our view of childhood.  Interesting to read about - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_childhood

• The history of childhood has been a topic of interest in social history since the highly influential book Centuries of Childhood, published by French historian Philippe Ariès in 1960. He argued that "childhood" is a concept created by modern society. Ariès studied paintings, gravestones, furniture, and school records and found that before the 17th-century, children were represented as mini-adults.
• The modern attitude to children emerged by the late 19th century; the Victorian middle and upper classes emphasized the role of the family and the sanctity of the child, - an attitude that has remained dominant in Western societies ever since.  This can be seen in the emergence of the new genre of children's literature. Instead of the didactic nature of children's books of a previous age, authors began to write humorous, child-oriented books, more attuned to the child's imagination

(The development of Children's literature is a particular interest of mine).

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Maestrophil said:

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.

It wouldn't be a bad idea to treat a stay at home parent as a paid child giver.  Studies show there are benefits to home care, imo, and if financial stress was taken off by giving the same benefits to a stay at home parent as one would a working parent who had to pay for child care, this could be helpful.  For example, less likely to send a sick child to school if one was at home already.  Also would increase volunteerism as well as I have noticed parental involvement in school drops significantly when both parents work outside the home.  Only stay at home parents could afford the time to be room parents or help with after school or lunchtime extracurricular activities such as choir or science club, though on occasion we would get a parent who had flexible enough hours they could go on field trips or help with class parties.  Even night time activities were mostly carried by stay at home parents because organizing took so much time.

Childless couples with two incomes would seem to have less need of tax help.  I wonder if only giving tax help for children though would further delay marriage and thus lower the numbers of children produced.

And there are benefits to marriage in terms of healthier citizens.  It might be worth it in additional health care costs to continue subsidizing marriage, especially as the population ages. 

Edited February 15, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

4 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

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

But not give full legal consent.  As a minor, the parent gives legal consent to the marriage as well as the minor. (or so I believe not reading your article).

Edited February 15, 2017 by Calm

[Jane_Doe]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

More than likely, even if marriage was privatized in the sense that people could get married to anyone they wanted, behaviour would still be limited and laws that were defining what married people could get that unmarried couldn't would simply be written as civil partnerships (iirc some countries have already gone this route).  Marriage in and of itself at that time would not grant anyone tax advantages anymore than nongovernment approved marriage ceremonies these days do (for example, there were same sex marriage ceremonies taking place before they were given legal status, they had no effect on legal standing of the partners, no tax breaks, no legal right to children or property in the case of death of one partner, etc).  Laws not allowing civil partnerships between adults and minors without parental permission as well as with no humans, etc. could be enacted if not already in place.  Certainly laws banning marriage between humans and no humans do not stop people from going through private ceremonies or just viewing the nonhuman as a spouse even now.  I highly doubt law enforcement gets involved unless the animal is being abused or there is an attempt to claim legal rights.

If the marriage process is simply turned over to private groups to handle as are many former government done jobs, then the same laws that apply when the government does the stuff will apply to the private companies...they will just attempt to streamline the process to make it more profitable, not open it up to anyone who wants it.

But do you really see the American people being ok abolishing tax breaks for married people?  I don't (nothing to do with marriage, more just people don't want to give up any tax breaks).  

[cdowis]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

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.

HAHHAHAHa He did not ha e sex with men, his wives did not have sex with other men.  We know the father of his children.

You have a very very very sick sense of humor.  I am  disgusted.  Goodbye to you playing in the sewer of your mind.

Edited February 16, 2017 by cdowis

[Bernard Gui]

Double post.

 

Edited February 16, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

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

Quote

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.....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....

 

 

[Bernard Gui]

Double post. Sorry.

Edited February 16, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

Because children can never consent, i don't see the similarities to homosexuality between adults, even in days of yore, that you seem to.  The only similarity that i see is in the 'born that way' argument.

That is significant though for those who argue that because people are born homosexual, living a homosexual lifestyle (for lack of a better term) must be morally acceptable.  

That is an argument that pedophilia pretty much destroys.  Beyond that i don't see any use in comparing the two.

There are currently movements that would allow children to consent. Unfortunately, those folks don't think their argument is destroyed by any kind of moral argument. I don't think this kind of apology for pedophelia would have been well-received say 20-30 years ago.

In any case, it surprises me a little that such an apology would appear in The Atlantic, but stranger things happen. Time will tell where this all goes.

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

But not give full legal consent.  As a minor, the parent gives legal consent to the marriage as well as the minor. (or so I believe not reading your article).

What is the difference? 

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

Like i said earlier, the government could easily get out of the marriage business by granting civil unions.  But they would essentially operate and be exactly like a marriage, just without the title.  Government regulation of and involvement in the relationship would still be necessary or every negative thing in my post would still ensue.

That's why government "has to offer something".  

What would the government's interests be in restricting the numbers or orientations of participants in a civil union? On what grounds would, say, a brother and sister be denied a civil union if they both consented?

Edited February 16, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

It wouldn't be a bad idea to treat a stay at home parent as a paid child giver.  Studies show there are benefits to home care, imo, and if financial stress was taken off by giving the same benefits to a stay at home parent as one would a working parent who had to pay for child care, this could be helpful.  For example, less likely to send a sick child to school if one was at home already.  Also would increase volunteerism as well as I have noticed parental involvement in school drops significantly when both parents work outside the home.  Only stay at home parents could afford the time to be room parents or help with after school or lunchtime extracurricular activities such as choir or science club, though on occasion we would get a parent who had flexible enough hours they could go on field trips or help with class parties.  Even night time activities were mostly carried by stay at home parents because organizing took so much time.

Childless couples with two incomes would seem to have less need of tax help.  I wonder if only giving tax help for children though would further delay marriage and thus lower the numbers of children produced.

And there are benefits to marriage in terms of healthier citizens.  It might be worth it in additional health care costs to continue subsidizing marriage, especially as the population ages. 

What is necessary about the number 2 from the government's point of view? Wouldn't 3 incomes or 4 be better? 

 

Edited February 16, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

What is the difference? 

The difference between what?

 My point is a minor can't get married unless a parent agrees, but a parent can't force a minor to marry against their will.  In either situation marriage/sexual relationship would be seen legally as rape.  Only when both agree is the marriage legal.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

What is necessary about the number 2?

 

What is "number 2"?

Not everything given tax benefits are necessary, but some may end up saving money in the long run, like the combination of not having sick kids at school or day care and having more school volunteers and other things stay at home parents can provide or having citizens with better health.

Edited February 16, 2017 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

The difference between what?

 My point is a minor can't get married unless a parent agrees, but a parent can't force a minor to marry against their will.  In either situation marriage/sexual relationship would be seen legally as rape.  Only when both agree is the marriage legal.

Between a 14-year-old deciding for him/herself and a parent deciding for them? 

[Bernard Gui]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

What is "number 2"?

Not everything given tax benefits are necessary, but some may end up saving money in the long run, like the combination of not having sick kids at school or day care and having more school volunteers and other things stay at home parents can provide or having citizens with better health.

Number two as in couple, partnership, parents (2). What is compelling enough about 2 that makes it better than any other combination?