Your hot button issue

[Gustaf]

Freedom to live your own life, i.e. unwarranted intrusions by the state (or someone else) into my life, or someone else's. This could be Ebowed wanting to forbid adults from marrying each other, my classmates taking my money to arrange parties I won't go to or my government selling information about me to private companies.

[Gustaf]

What's wrong with working in the kitchen?  My father-in-law is doctor and he works in the kitchen every night reparing dinner for his family.

The point is that was their only option.  It was a prison.

There is nothing dishonorable about working in a kitchen.  There is nothing more enjoyable in life than eating.  Being a cook is sacred trust.

You're honestly comparing cooking dinner with working as, say, a dish-washer in a ghetto? I bet that you're not gonna work as a cook.

[Gustaf]

And I was starting to like you; positive feelings just went down the drain.  If you oppose letting a mother and son marry, you are forbidding adults from marrying each other.

Incest is more of a special case, but age differences? I've actually answered this in the thread though...and I'm sorry that you dislike me so much; I don't harbour such ill feelings for you. I just strongly disagree with you on this issue.

[Gustaf]

See, that's the thing: prohibiting consentual incest and having age differences are both restrictions on marriage.  You can't say it's "not the same thing."  How's it different?  Why do you claim to be so pro freedom for marriage and then support one type of restriction?

And my ill feelings stem not from disagreement on a minor issue but rather the fact that you had to bring me up personally in this thread.

So is banning interracial marriage. We're not discussing incestous relationships. I stated in the thread that I'm leaning towards allowing that too. I think this kind of argumentation is more dangerous to your posiion than to mine. Why stop at age limits? What about geographical distances, cultural back-grounds, political views, interests?

[Gustaf]

Interracial marriage really is not the same thing as a 19 year old marrying a 70 year old.

OK, I'm gonna break this down to a simple question. Do you think that it's impossible for a 29-year old and a 45-year old to be in love?

[Gustaf]

No.  And I never proposed a 15 year limit.

No, I'm sorry, it was 20-year...so, you think it's impossible for a 29-year old and 49-year old to really love each other?

[Gustaf]

No.  And I never proposed a 15 year limit.

No, I'm sorry, it was 20-year...so, you think it's impossible for a 29-year old and 49-year old to really love each other?

No.  20 years is a bit too tight; 30 years is better.  Also, it's not about love, it's about marriage; I support no age of consent limits past those that establish the age of consent as 16 or 15.  You seem to think I'm going to get a policeman in every bedroom to stop 20 year olds and 50 year olds at having sex with each other.

Well, you said 20-year in your original post. If you want to out-law something I supposed that you would want this law to be upheld, yes. Maybe that was presumptous of me.

My point is, how can you justify preventing two people who love each other from marrying? Can you see how cruel such a law would be? They wouldn't hurt anyone. You actually wants to ruin people's lives for no good reason.

[Gustaf]

I did say 20 years originally and rethought the position.

I don't want to "ruin" people's lives.  I just don't think people should marry outside of their age groups.  This is why we do not let 14 year olds marry 22 year olds.  In four years, that marriage would be acceptable, but not at the time.  Similarly, a college student should not be able to marry a senior citizen.  Marriages with huge age differences are unequal (not to mention rare).

If they're so rare why do you need to wipe them out? You can think that all you want...but why do you have to out-law it? I don't think people should buy ridiculously over-priced clothes or watch horribly bad movies either. I think it makes them worse people and stupefies them. But I don't want to out-law it.

And the reason for not letting 14-year olds marry is that they're too young to make such decisions for themselves.

Look, if you think someone is mature and intelligent enough to be allowed to vote, don't you think they should be allowed to pick their husband or wife as well?

[Gustaf]

If you want to compare marriage to bad movies or overpriced clothes, I guess you can see how little seriously you take marriage.

Like I said, I don't advocate marriages outside of age groups.  A senior citizen really shouldn't be marrying a college student.  A 65 year old and 25 year old getting married?  Such government-sanctioned relationships increase adultery, remarriage, and divorce rates.  Also, such marriages are not really equal, much in the same way that a "marriage" between a 10 year old and a 20 year old is not equal.  Age groups aren't made up for fun.

And no, I don't think that anyone who is elligible to vote should be able to marry their sister, despite being solidly pro voting rights (support lowering the voting age to 16, full voting rights for criminals and ex-cons).

Why are they competent enough to decide how the country should be run but not able to pick their own life-partners?

And I agree a with you on that a college student probably shouldn't marry a senior citizen. My point with movies or clothes is that I'm not trying to shape a "paradise according to me society" and you shouldn't either. Because it isn't your right to do so. You're not a God witht the right to say "you and you can marry, your marriage and your love is equal, but you and you cannot".

[Gustaf]

There are lots of ways in which a marriage can be unequal you know...should those also be out-lawed? What if my wife is richer or smarter or better educated than me? Shouldn't that also be prohibited?

And, once again, isn't it possible for people with that age gap to love each other? And if it is, don't you think it is cruel to forbid them from marrying? And you've gone from a 20-year gap to a 50-year gap. This indicates that you don't really have a clear idea of exactly when a marriage becomes "wrong", "immoral" or "inequal".

[Gustaf]

Eh, sure...I'm not really that interested in either of 'em. Guns, I lean towards having some restrictions, but retain the basic freedom for law-abiding citizens to own fire-arms. Drugs, I'm sort of split...I'm basically not convinced enought to change the status quo at this point, though I lean towards legalization. I'm sort of partial to a system where it's criminal to sell drugs, but not to use it.

You don't think age differences can be relative? You know, people can be very different within the same age group. I have a lot more in common with a lot of people in different age groups than my own than with many people in my own.

Do you realize that your argument could have been used just as well to prevent interracial marriages? I can assure you that an interracial marriage in the 50s would have been very unequal.

[Gustaf]

You don't think age differences can be relative? You know, people can be very different within the same age group. I have a lot more in common with a lot of people in different age groups than my own than with many people in my own.

I mean to make no implications about maturity, only physical characteristics.  Many children are more mature than some adults; I oppose marriages with a mature child and mature adult because of the physical differences in those two age groups.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Coming from a state where there is still sizable opposition to interracial marriage, I realize the similarity between the arguments, but I do not find any scientific or ethical reason to prohibit people of different "races" to marry.  There are, however, sometimes cultural barriers that should be worked out in the pre marital stages of a relationship.  But on the basis of race alone, there is no moral opposition to it that is sound.  Allowing interracial marriages is a step in the direction of equality, not a step backwards.

The scientific consensus not too long ago was that there were decisive racial differences. My point is that a line of argument that would historically placed a person on the wrong side should be treated with some suspicion.

Secondly, do you base your opposition to marriages with big age gaps on the idea that people with different physical constitutions cannot have a good marriage?