Fully morally independent beings should, provided that they do not violate the wishes of another or cause them harm, be allowed to do whatever the fuck they want to do.

I can't say as I much like the "violate the wishes" bit (presumably, if I choose to use drugs, I'm "violating the wishes" of those who think drug use is bad), but other than that, right on.

1. Recognize anyone as married who wants to be married (if they are adult, morally independent, etc.).

2. Don’t recognize any marriages.

Option 2, please.

Perhaps "violate the wishes of" would be better phrased as "impose upon anonther against their will," without, let us be clear, this imposition being interpreted in a too narrowly physical sense.

Fair enough.

children and animals are not fully morally independent beings, so a union involving them could not really be consensual.

If the child or animal consents, then the union is consentual. The latter is improbable, but the former is a possibility; thus you have a consentual marriage between adult and child.

If the child or animal consents, then the union is consentual.

I think Curt's point was that neither a child nor an animal is capable of giving meaningful consent in this context. While this is a debatable point, and depends heavily on what one means by a "child", I think he's basically correct.

I guess all I'm saying is, while it's easy to see why an animal can't give meaningful consent, I'm having a hard time picturing a situation where a child couldn't. Clearly, a toddler babbling nonsense might agree in some haphazard occurence, but what about a twelve-year-old girl? Is her consent valid?

It doesn't really matter where you draw the line, whether it be at 12 or 15 or 18 or 21, but unless you think that newborns are morally independent beings you will have to concede that for practical purposes there is a certain age beneath which people cannot give meaningful consent, and hence cannot participate in marriage. As for animals, you would have to propose some way by which an animal could even communicate its consent to anything before the idea could be considered at all seriously.

Not that "consent" has always and everywhere been considered a necessary component of marriage. Sometimes it has been actively discouraged.

One of the prices you pay for having a weblog where you invite people to respond to your posts is that you have people like me who will inflict their opinion upon you in return. For instance what about gay marriage? To me there are two arguments against it. One is the argument of tradition and the other is the yuk factor. Why now after ten thousand years of marriage being between man and woman should we change things this way? As a libertarian I have always supported the right of consenting adults to do what ever they want in privacy but I don’t want to know about it. That is why I was glad to see sodomy laws overturned. Now this is considered the Neanderthal position. Why do things have to move so frickin fast? According to the proponents of change, it is because of the horrible injustice of being thought of as being different and therefore, per see, inferior. If marriage is so great how come so many people get divorced? But if gays think the grass is so much greener, why not work for change by moral persuasion and appeals to communal good will, instead of judicial fait and aggressive political pressure. The issue is framed as a civil rights issue. We are expected to believe that the denial of gay marriage which has existed since time immemorial is as bad as slavery or racism. Well it isn’t. It shows how little people really have to complain about that they would make such an issue of this. Hay, I don’t really hate it all that bad anyway. I got used to guys with ear rings and I’m getting used to girls with tattoos bigger than a Marine’s and besides I’m a big Andrew Sullivan fan. It will make for an interesting future though, such as the first gay president or the first gay King of England. What would you call his partner?

Dave,

I can't speak for Curt, but I've pretty consistently been a proponent of the idea that all marriage should be privatized, be it straight, gay, incestuous, polyamorous, whatever. In other words, it shouldn't be the state's (or, necessarily, anyone else's) business who can or can't get married.

"For instance what about gay marriage? To me there are two arguments against it. One is the argument of tradition and the other is the yuk factor."

Well, I must say that I do admire your honesty in admitting that your only real reasons for opposing gay marriage are tradition and aesthetic revulsion. That being said, I imagine that the reason most people don't admit that these are their real reasons is because they know at some level that they aren't very good reasons. As for tradition, I have never been opposed to tradition as justification when no difference of quality separates various alternatives, but in this case it is easily superceded by higher considerations of justice. As for aesthetic distaste, that is no kind of a principle at all.

"But if gays think the grass is so much greener, why not work for change by moral persuasion and appeals to communal good will, instead of judicial fait and aggressive political pressure. The issue is framed as a civil rights issue. We are expected to believe that the denial of gay marriage which has existed since time immemorial is as bad as slavery or racism."

Well, not to go around stating the obvious, but I actually am trying to persuade you and all the other people of good will in the world by means of "moral persuasion." Of course, you may not be persuaded by the justice of it, but I have never framed the issue in a coercive manner nor have I supported the courts who are "imposing" gay marriage. I am simply presenting my personal view that people with an eye to moral consistency and fairness will see the rightness of my view and change their minds and actions of their own volition. I am no supporter of "judicial fiats" and, like my brother, would just as soon in some ways that this whole tawdry charade of marriage be pushed out of the realm of governmental edict. But, if marriage for some, quid pro quo. Finally, whatever other people think, I have never claimed that the marriage debate is a civil rights issue on a par with slavery or racism, although now that you mention it, at this current moment in our country I would say that both official and unofficial discrimination against homosexuals is probably worse than racial discrimination, since the government does not permit official discrimination on the basis of race, whereas it does officially discriminate against homosexuals both in the military and in the granting of marriage licenses. As for unofficial discrimination, in the past couple of years I have heard of at least as many homosexuals being murdered on account of their sexuality as I have people being killed on account of their race. Not to mention that ministers and evangelists all over the land would not dare to denounce black people, for example, or call dark skin an evil, but they have no problem calling homosexuality, which I might remind you is no more chosen than skin color, a sin and a crime against the Lord.

I would say that both official and unofficial discrimination against homosexuals is probably worse than racial discrimination, since the government does not permit official discrimination on the basis of race,

That's not entirely true, as affirmative action programs, preferential admissions, etc. are forms of racial discrimination.

True, but the victims of this type of official discrimination are typically white people, who don't usually suffer much from unofficial discrimination, whereas the victims of unofficial discrimination are generally racial minorities. Therefore, since official and unofficial discrimination affect different groups, I would say that the overall effect of racial discrimination is more diluted than discrimination against homosexuals, who suffer from both official and unofficial discrimination (I also don't know very many parents who would disown their children because of their skin color, which is not an entirely uncommon response to an admission of homosexuality).

Shonk -“I’ve the idea that all marriage should be privatized, be it straight, gay, incestuous, polyamorous, whatever. In other words, it shouldn’t be the state’s (or, necessarily, anyone else’s) business who can or can’t get married.”
At one time I thought that was the way things were going. The marriage license was just a piece of paper. Gays just wanted the government (the police) to leave them alone. The average gay person scorned state sponsored marriage as a part of the anachronistic system that oppressed them. Then things got crazy. You had alimony and then palimony. Even Liberace’s boyfriend wanted palimony. The latest fad, gay marriage (government enforcement of desired social status), is only peripherally related to justice for gays, which I support. My only plea to gays is to slow down. The average person just gets tired of being told that every thing they were brought up with has to be jettisoned and right now or face charges of bigotry.
Curt, I agree that if perfect equivalence between gay and strait persons be assumed, equality in marriage should follow. Does the fact that the vast majority of humanity feels differently carry no weight? Are people are just stupid or evil? No, there is just something yucky about two men standing up at the front of a church kissing. There are all sorts of prohibitions against people doing yucky things. What about walking around naked or openly urinating on the sidewalk? I can’t explain it. It is just offensive. I do realize that this is just cultural, but we are urged to respect others cultures. Why is it wrong to ask respect for our culture? In the mean time gays should be big about it, quit waving red flags and secretly just keep doing like they want, just like everyone else. Is that so horrible?

"What about walking around naked or openly urinating on the sidewalk?"

And quite frankly, except for purely sanitary reasons, I can't think of any good reason why these should be forbidden either. "Indecent exposure"? Please. The "yuck" factor isn't even consistent on its own terms, since you can watch cadavers get slowly dissected on TV but not ordinary naked living bodies.

Autopsies on TV? Ugh! Where is my channel changer? I hope that what’s on TV doesn’t set the standards for the real world. Also, if you hear about a town where people go around naked and pee on the sidewalks, let me know so I can avoid visiting there