Should ALL tyoes of marriage be legalized?

[Philomena]

I meant no offense we're just debating.

Not really, you're making an offensive statement about someone being on a particular side because of some stereotype or another about people who feel a certain way about one thing would feel a certain way about another. You need to give content as to why not agreeing with certain types of marriages means you're against all types of marriages, which makes no sense whatsoever.

At any rate, I believe the law is that children younger than the age of 18 are allowed to marry as long as the parents give consent. I personally don't really want to think about marriage until I'm at least 25. It seems like something that would be better of waiting for. Marriage means that you're going to devote your entire life to one person, you want to make sure it's the right decision. I guess I'm on the line for this one, I think people should be able to make their own decisions, but with divorce rates as high as they are, it's just clear people need to know what they really want before making such a commitment.

Marriage is between two people. It's really a definition of love that we as humans came up with, to force that idea onto animals would be about as bad as trying to change someone's religion. We can't communicate with animals to even try to convince them our ideals are beneficial in whatever ways. As @Mailbox_Bomber put it, it doesn't matter what you get off to, but animals can't consent to marriage, it's just something they can't possibly know about.

As for objects, that's weird, and really not the point of marriage. Again, marriage is between two people, to commit to an object is really just pointless, it accomplishes nothing for you in any way. You can love it all you want but to marry it is just completely defeating the purpose.

As for polygamy, as long as all parties consent to it. Again it's a sticky situation in terms of if everyone really believes that it's the right decision, but they should be able to make that choice if they so desire. I personally don't see it working out very well for the most part, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did.

[Cyrus]

The issue is consent. Objects and animals are completely unable to give consent, so any marriage to them would be completely nonviable (ignoring moral reasoning here). As for marriage to minors, fun fact: In many countries people aged 16-18 CAN marry, but only with their parents permission, also the marriage can easily be annulled.

If all members involved are of age, able to give consent, and then give consent, then I say you should be able to marry whoever you are in love with.

If you say no to one type of marriage you become the opponents of gay marriage everyone so despises.

This is a logical fallacy. Being opposed to one thing doesn't automatically make you opposed to something else in the same vein. For example, someone may not like chocolate ice cream, but they love vanilla. Their opinion on one does not then pass over to the other one, and it should never be assumed otherwise.

[Red]

Not really, you're making an offensive statement about someone being on a particular side because of some stereotype or another about people who feel a certain way about one thing would feel a certain way about another. You need to give content as to why not agreeing with certain types of marriages means you're against all types of marriages, which makes no sense whatsoever

@Totoro I tried to quote you to but this will have to do.

It appears I was misread. What I meant was that, if you are for one type of marriage that would presumably make you for all types of marriage. It was my presumption.

[Cyrus]

@Totoro I tried to quote you to but this will have to do.

It appears I was misread. What I meant was that, if you are for one type of marriage that would presumably make you for all types of marriage. It was my presumption.

That is, once again, a logical fallacy. No two things are exactly the same, and as such it cannot be assumed that supporting one thing means someone supports another, and vice versa.

[Nightseeker]

That is, once again, a logical fallacy. No two things are exactly the same, and as such it cannot be assumed that supporting one thing means someone supports another, and vice versa.

And this, and my sexuality regarding his statement, is why I was offended. Thank all of you for explaining this to him.

[Cyrus]

And this, and my sexuality regarding his statement, is why I was offended. Thank all of you for explaining this to him.

No worries, I think he understands now why it caused offense as well

[Keldeo]

-Marriage to minors: No way, marriage should be for adults b/c you never really know what you want when you're a kid! And on the adults hand, you're gonna have to wait!
-Marriages to objects: I have seen reports on this, like someone marrying the Eiffel Tower and the Berlin Wall! I think its a bit odd though, there is a name for when people start to become obsessed with objects, I learned it like yesterday but I cant remember .
-Bestiality Marriages: Only if the animal had the intelligence or ability to show/express consent, iv'e done some research but I know some animals are pretty smart (dolphins , etc)! Maybe over time other species will evolve to be more intelligent!
-Polygamy/Polyandry: No? Never really thought about it!

What it boils down to is if it's consensual (with age of consent considered) or not. If it is, it should be legal. Period.

I agree with this 100%

I actually enjoyed chatting about this, I should look at these threads more often

[Rosie]

I think if they are in love then they should be allowed to marry

[Philomena]

-Marriage to minors: No way, marriage should be for adults b/c you never really know what you want when you're a kid! And on the adults hand, you're gonna have to wait!
-Marriages to objects: I have seen reports on this, like someone marrying the Eiffel Tower and the Berlin Wall! I think its a bit odd though, there is a name for when people start to become obsessed with objects, I learned it like yesterday but I cant remember .
-Bestiality Marriages: Only if the animal had the intelligence or ability to show/express consent, iv'e done some research but I know some animals are pretty smart (dolphins , etc)! Maybe over time other species will evolve to be more intelligent!
-Polygamy/Polyandry: No? Never really thought about it!


I agree with this 100%

I actually enjoyed chatting about this, I should look at these threads more often

Honestly, if we can start communicating with dolphins, I would possibly look into getting to know some.

Would be interesting... not saying I'd definitely marry one, but assuming that was a possibility I'd be open to a relationship developing.

[NowhereMan]

No, no, no, no, and no.

Everyone here has pretty much explained the reasons well enough.

It appears I was misread. What I meant was that, if you are for one type of marriage that would presumably make you for all types of marriage. It was my presumption.

By saying that you could be putting putting gay marriage (and indirectly, gay people) on the same level as marriage to an inanimate object or an animal, things that aren't human. This is similar to the kind of argument that gay marriage opposers use ("if we legalize gay marriage, next people will want to marry their dog"). It can be rather offensive.

I want to assume that isn't what you meant to imply with your posts.