• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

What's Next For Marriage Equality?

Pinkie-Dawn

Vampire Waifu
9,528
Posts
11
Years
  • Now that gay marriages have been legalized in the United States, what's next for marriage equality? The only types of marriages that have yet to be legalized is polygamy marriage, sibling marriage, adult-child marriage, and adult-animal marriage. Conservatives used several of these marriages listed for their slippery slope fallacy to warn us for what happens when gay marriage is legalized. After reading this article, I feel that polygamy marriages is next in line to be legalized, and based on how incest, pedophilia, and beastiality are illegal for scientific reasons, it'll be the last obstacle to reach full marriage equality in the United States (since some countries and almost every species of animals do practice polygamy). Do you believe polygamy is the last form of marriage to be legalized, or is gay marriage enough for full marriage equality?
     
    25,555
    Posts
    12
    Years
  • Okay... I feel confident is saying that at least two of the last three of your suggestions will never happen because they are unjust, cruel and damaging to the one not a human adult in the equation. If marriage equality includes that then I have decided I have reversed my opinion.

    As for Polygamy/Incest... being completely honest I could see these actually being legalized eventually although I doubt you'll ever de-stigmatize them.

    But really, there's still a lot of work to be done when it comes to homosexual marriage anyway. There's still a stigma carried in places that needs to be done with and this is just the US. A lot of countries are still behind the times and are yet to legalise it at all.
     
    Last edited:

    Somewhere_

    i don't know where
    4,494
    Posts
    8
    Years
  • Gay marriage is certainly progress!

    I think polygamy will be next. Then maybe sibling marriage, which is nasty and degenerate in my opinion. Same with adult-animal "relationships." Do what ya want I dont care. In my opinion, they are inevitable. Personally, I dont think these types of marriage equality aren't as important as gay marriage equality, but I still support legalization.

    Fuck child-adult relationships. Fuck pedophiles. Fuck anyone who has an interest in being in a sexual or love relationship with children or supports this sexuality. I hope this stays illegal forever. Unconditionally. Laws against this should be strictly enforced with no exceptions. Pedophiles are sickening and these parasitical, cruel, evil people should be physically removed from society. Its NOT consensual.

    Unfortunately i have been seeing more and more people supporting this sexuality. Maybe the legalization of child-adult relationships is inevitable as well. Maybe the slippery slope argument has credence. Thankfully its only circumstantial evidence and supporters are an extreme minority. But every movement starts as a minority.
     

    Her

    11,468
    Posts
    15
    Years
    • Seen May 19, 2024
    Animal-human will not happen. Not putting further thought into that. As for adult-child (read: paedophilia), an unfortunate reality is that these kinds of marriages still exist in certain developing countries. I don't think I need to elaborate on the cruelty present in such arrangements. But that will fade away before the end of this century. If not socially, then definitely legally. Not that the Western world is exactly immune from this either - hell, there's even that famous controversy in America with Jerry Lee Lewis marrying his 13 year old cousin like 60 years ago. But a) again, God willing, adult-child marriages will cease to be a thing and b) there will never be any sort of widespread legalisation, let alone social acceptance, of adult-child marriage in the US, which I guess is the point of the thread. So let's just get those two out of the way.

    As for incestuous and polygamous marriages... well, we need to take a step back here. I am highly doubtful that either of these scenarios will come about while the age-old concept of marriage is still the defining idea of a loving partnership. I think it is inevitable that marriage will eventually be relegated to strictly religious spheres, with civil unions being the default/only partnership akin to marriage recognised. Until this happens, I do not think it likely that either polygamous or incestuous unions will even be considered for legal recognition. I can't see this redefining of where marriage stands in society happening for another two decades at the very least, let alone the time gap from initial support to legal recognition. Not even going to try put a timestamp on when legitimate discussions of polygamous/incestious relationships would take place.

    Now, on to the aforementioned relationships in particular.

    I've been very clear about where I stand on incest in the past - the whole genetics issue aside, truly happy incestuous relationships free of abuse or coercion are few and far inbetween and I adamantly stand by the point that it is safer to uphold the legal & social taboo to protect the many, than approve the love of the extremely few. Legislating based on consent is a very risky thing in this situation, and given the rates of molestation and abuse present in incest, I cannot see any reason to change the current status quo on the matter. Any attempts to allow more direct incestuous relationships than marrying your first cousin will most certainly face a level of opposition that would make the campaigning against same-sex marriage seem negligible.

    Polygamous relationships, on the other hand, have a strong possibility of being legalised if my aforementioned point about the redefinition of marriage comes into play. But rather being strictly defined as 'polygamy', I think a general legal recognition of polyamorous unions would be far more likely and polygamy would just so happen to come in under that. This would go for practically any country I would imagine, though Australia would still be dragging its feet by about two decades if such a thing were to happen.

    In any case, there is still a long way to go in terms of destigmatising marriages where gay people are involved, let alone the stigma against trans people. Focus on that before we even consider the above. As far as I am concerned, same-sex marriage is the last true barrier based on inalienable aspects of a person's being - the other barriers, warranted or dubious, are based on choices or abuse.
     

    CoffeeDrink

    GET WHILE THE GETTIN'S GOOD
    1,250
    Posts
    10
    Years
  • Okay, due to a glitch rendering my previous post nul and void, I'll keep this brief.

    Animal-human is possible. It's happened before, and to be honest I don't see any issue in regards to the state. If they marry am animal, they need to get a marriage license and perhaps a notary. These people tend to throw lavish weddings for no apparent reason and boost their spending which helps out our economy (if barely). That and it's an animal. I mean, come on. You only have to file taxes for one individual. Unless they mark them as a dependant... then I don't know.

    Alright, on to multiple marriages. No. Just... no. Every civil lawyer's nightmare. Miles of paperwork and a horror story to the United States government (I can see it passing, but only due to reality television). Every party needs to be accounted for. All children, all claims, all properties, every asset, every item, dollar, coin, every car, every certificate, passport, license, etc. Now, if one child is taken, they most likely get all children taken away due to the fact that if one party is irresponsible enough to warrant CPS getting involved then that means the entire group of individuals can them be deemed unfit for care and results in a Flux of children entering the system. Legalwise, no. Paperwork, yes. On paper it sounds okay, but... err... on paper it is very, very bad. Not to mention if one party decides to divorce, then that means, theoretically, that any party can file for custody. Good God.

    Inter-marriage has happened before, so I wouldn't be too surprised. Besides being taboo, I'm sure it rarely happens and cases where there have been accidental marriages between cousins, even they haven't realized it themselves until after the fact so that leads me to believe the state wouldn't have a clue either way. Actually putting it forth as law? Probably not gonna happen.

    For Child-Adult: see Sharia. Talked about this before. It is a real danger.
     

    Ivysaur

    Grass dinosaur extraordinaire
    21,082
    Posts
    17
    Years
  • I'm too lazy to make a proper post so I'll quote a Tumblr thread.


    2015: Man-on-man marriage
    2017: Man-on-child marriage
    2019: Man-on-dog marriage
    2021: Man-on-car marriage
    2023: Hopefully the world ends by then tbh

    Two consenting adults, be they man and woman, man and man, woman and woman, or any other combination not specified by the above, are now granted the right (as they always should have had) to enter a legally binding contract and obtain all its attached benefits.
    Children cannot give consent. Children cannot legally sign contracts. Children cannot get married.
    Animals cannot give consent. Animals cannot legally sign contracts. Animals cannot get married.
    Optimus Prime is a sentient being and leader of the entire Autobot race and I don't think you have any place telling him who his people can and cannot marry. If he is okay with Rewind and Chromedome or Astoria and Powerglide then you need to step off.

    It's very easy to make that mistake here if you persist in thinking of marriage as "a man and his chosen marriage object" rather than, you know, "two people choosing to marry each other.
    Says something about how some people view heterosexual marriage.
    DING DING DING DING DING we have a winner. None of these people have ever expressed a worry that dogs will start wanting to marry men, or that houseplants will start wanting to marry cars. This way of thinking only makes sense if your view of straight marriage depends on "man actively choosing, woman passively chosen" and gay marriage only fits into your worldview as the distortion "man actively choosing wrong thing," as though it's a Sesame Street comedy sketch with Mr. Noodle trying to marry a pocket watch by mistake, presumably with his pants on his head.

    Interestingly enough, I've never heard someone warn us about women wanting to marry anything, either.

    This, holy ****, yes. Literally until now I never understood how people couldn't understand "can't enter into a legally binding contract" when it came to children, animals, whatever. And now it's clear as ****ing day. And even grosser than I realized.

    This said, the idea of poligamy as "one man and several wives" fills squarely within this description (see, I wouldn't be really opposed against polygamous marriages in which a group of people, say three men and two women, ask for marriage, not one in which Man A asks to acquire a new wife on top of his current one). But, as you can see, in the real world you don't see that kind of debate arising at all. Because, for the time being, we have decided that marriage is a contract between two consenting adults to form a family, and thus it makes no sense to arbitrarily say that the consenting relationship between two certain adults is somehow not correct. By this rationale, sibling marriage could perhaps be allowed if there actually happens to be any sort of demand (the only logical argument against it is inbreeding, and there is nothing forcing you to have babies at any point now that anticonceptives exist, so...).

    But the point is, most of the examples you named aren't "two consenting adults", so no clue how they fit as marriage. Poligamy requires broadly redefining marriage (which is quite a leap), and sibling marriage has... no real demand right now, so my opinion is: nah, no slippery slope of any kind.

    After all, you know, same sex marriage has been legalised in dozens of countries before the US and none has started considering human-animal marriages yet. And I tell you as a citizen of a country with gay marriages since 2005.
     
    2,413
    Posts
    16
    Years
  • The only real question I see here is allowing polygamy or not.

    Marriage takes a binding and clear consent by parties who are able to act for themselves and not easily manipulated. The beings that are the most easily abused/manipulated are: animals, children, and family members. Many people stay/keep contact with abusive family members well into adulthood because they are 'family', so this is an un-even ground for giving proper and equal consent. Animals have protection from abuse in many places, and are getting more each day, so there is no way anyone would let them be put in that type of situation.

    Polygamy is the only question, because it requires consent from multiple adults, and it would have to work better akin to polyamory instead of having an open relationship. aka, if Partner 1 wants to get Partner 3, Partner 2 must ALSO consent to the marriage between those two. It won't even be legal under the "one person can have a bunch of wives" option, as it causes so many problems, there's a reason we got rid of it before.
     

    CoffeeDrink

    GET WHILE THE GETTIN'S GOOD
    1,250
    Posts
    10
    Years
  • Like I said before, the issue with polygamy, I feel, is a state driven issue in and of itself.

    There is a huge legal hole that would need to be filled. It really has nothing to do with redefining marriage so much as making people 'comfortable' about different view points. The legal standing for polygamy is one of those things where I wouldn't even know where to begin to tackle the issue.

    How many people can you marry at a time? Is there an expiration? Is there a maximum capacity? Who adopts the children? Who is a dependent on which tax form?

    Say, if you have a group of, say five married individuals all within the same group. And these five individuals have 10 children total and they all claim 10 children as dependents. That looks fishy to me. That looks fishy to the government, and it's a legality nightmare trying to separate where the law begins and the marriages end.

    People still get married to commit fraud, Dodge taxes, take advantages of health care. I think before any group should tackle the issue of polygamy an entirely new set of laws, rules, codes, and courts would need to be established to set up and play.

    Like I said, if one individual is found unfit, are they all unfit? They allowed that individual to remain near the children, so... gross negligence? There are just too many variables and too many loopholes that this type of marriage can slip through.

    Some people dismiss marriage as just marriage when it really isn't so simple. Married couples gain certain benefits that unmarried individuals do not. Married couples can file together and I don't know how that would be handled by more than two individuals. Crazy.
     
    Last edited:
    10,769
    Posts
    14
    Years
  • I think people as a whole would need to learn more about polygamy before they could begin to see it as acceptable, and right now I don't think many people know more than the most basic definition.

    If there ever does come a time where knowledge/discussion/acceptance of 3-or-more people relationships becomes a fairly widespread thing I think it will start with people questioning the very concept of marriage. Because currently the only places where polygamy is legal are places that have some dodgy human rights records, importantly some of the highest rates of forced child marriages. So that's the first thing people opposed to the idea would bring up and I don't think it would be wrong for them to do so (though their personal reasons for objecting to polygamy might be more based in their own morals/fears/beliefs/etc. and this is just a convenient excuse.) It would be a legitimate concern because as a society we're not accustomed to the idea of three+ people being in a equal relationship so we'd not know how to conceptualize the idea and would worry about someone being taken advantage. I don't think it's wrong to worry about people being taken advantage of, even if one's motivations for the concern are questionable.

    From my own (very limited) understanding of adults in consenting 3+ people relationships there does seem to be reason for concern as a third person added to an existing twosome can lack equal footing. (Whether that's accurate or not, it's what I've gleamed.) And so if we're talking about the idea of people (these polygamous individuals) seeking marriage and we're also talking about the idea of inequality within the relationship I think it follows that we'd start to talk about inequality in two-people relationships too, in the kinds of marriages we have now. (Which I think would move us toward questioning the idea of marriage as a whole.) And if we are moving toward a marriage-for-religious, civil union-for-legal division I could see marriages becoming less and less relevant to the point where the law (which is less bound by tradition than religion) wouldn't care if three or more people wanted some kind of equal relationship because it could be handled like a business partnership for the purposes of legal access and rights regarding the lives of the others in the relationship (such as hospital visitation rights). And if these groups don't get the approval from religious groups, well, they might not really care.

    Basically I see the possibility of polygamous relationships gaining steam only if religion loses importance. But I'm mostly talking about Western societies where polygamy is currently illegal.
     

    zakisrage

    In the trunk on Highway 10
    500
    Posts
    10
    Years
  • Honestly, gay marriage is enough.

    Polygamy is a backwards custom that is best kept in the Third World. Keep sibling marriage illegal too - we're not in Ancient Egypt. Adult-child marriage and human-animal marriage are both disgusting and should be kept illegal too.
     

    Oddball_

    Magical Senpai and god of the closet.
    866
    Posts
    9
    Years
  • If three+ people all equally want to be married, I dont see why not. I wont be doing their paperwork
     
    611
    Posts
    12
    Years
    • Age 26
    • Seen Jun 26, 2023
    It's very easy to make that mistake here if you persist in thinking of marriage as "a man and his chosen marriage object" rather than, you know, "two people choosing to marry each other. None of these people have ever expressed a worry that dogs will start wanting to marry men, or that houseplants will start wanting to marry cars. This way of thinking only makes sense if your view of straight marriage depends on "man actively choosing, woman passively chosen" and gay marriage only fits into your worldview as the distortion "man actively choosing wrong thing," as though it's a Sesame Street comedy sketch with Mr. Noodle trying to marry a pocket watch by mistake, presumably with his pants on his head.

    YES. OH MY GOD. YES.

    Anyone who honestly wants to say that Pedophilia/Bestiality/Incest deserve the same rights as same-sex marriage need to be thrown off the nearest cliff. Into a pool of starving sharks. Thank you.

    A marriage should be a relationship between 2 or more CONSENTING ADULTS. Genders should not matter, the number of people in the relationship should not matter. SPECIES MATTERS. AGE MATTERS. Stop acting like because 2 women or 2 men get married that now we have to legalize a relationship where there is 1 or more parties that cannot give consent.

    You don't have to like Poly relationships (I, for one, do not) to see how some people enjoy that lifestyle and consent to be in that kind of relationship. There is no reason to keep that illegal if everyone involved wants to be involved. There should be regulations, obviously, as there are cults and religions that *force* girls and women into polygamist lifestyles with men that are going to rape them, but forced/arranged marriages in general should be completely banned and punishable by life in prison (because it is, in fact, rape). That's not up for debate because being okay with forced marriages, where one or more parties is discontent, is equivalent to being okay with rape. So. That's on you, if you feel that way.

    Now I will say, 99.9% of the people I've seen talking about how same-sex marriage means that now all of these things will become legal are conservatives people who were unhappy about the legalization of same-sex marriage to begin with. So it's hard to completely take that argument seriously, because we already know that group of people are dramatic, argument starting, trolls. I know more than anything they're just trying to ruffle the feathers of those that condone same sex marriage and somehow compare it to raping animals or children. Realistically, this is not the case.

    There has never been an argument between two consenting adults getting married aside from marrying outside of your race, or marrying someone who has the same gender as you. That's it. So, starting arguments that now we can marry animals or marry children or marry our uncles is just ridiculous. This is no different from marrying any other consenting adult, except that now we can choose whatever gender we want instead of the hetero-normative idea that one man + one woman is the only kind of legitimate, morally sound relationship there is.

    That being said, I'm ready to see more acceptance for the entire LGBTQ+ spectrum instead of just assuming everyone in a same-sex marriage is gay. There are bi/pan/poly-sexuals that are in same sex marriages. There are bi/pan/poly-sexuals that are in a marriage with two separate genders (myself included).


    EDIT: Wanted to add and say that polygamy is NOT the only kind of multiple person marriage there is. Polygamy just covers one man with many women. There is also one woman with many men, one *gender* with many *assorted genders*, and even a relationship where the whole group is ONE relationship and they all marry each other. Again, you don't have to 'like' it, but there are people that are in that kind of relationship and are all adults, consenting, and super happy in that lifestyle. So.
     
    2,138
    Posts
    11
    Years
  • So, there are two major categories in which we can progress in equality.

    1. Legal equity
    2. Cultural equity

    These two are often related. Though, marriage equality as an isolated right is "equal" there are other rights and privileges that can impact the dynamic of marriage. For instance, men and women are not legally or culturally equitable, the same goes for African-Americans and LGBTQ Americans. Though, this applies to other rights as well. However, love seems to be an important right. If the ability to express love is somehow suppressed either within relationships or between different marriages based upon cultural and legal disparities divorce, stress, and/or marital unhappiness are imminent.

    African American marriage for instance is impacted by racial inequity in the law and culture which has different impacts upon opportunity, education, healthcare, criminal punishment, ect. All of those are not only psychically influencing African-Americans (as far as happiness and stress), but these legally and cultural inequities can physically limit freedom and the ability of choice. These inequities make the task of holding families and marriages together difficult.

    Women in heterosexual marriages often suffer intramarital inequity. When women are not able to be independent it can place men in a position of dominance and limit womens' choices. Love is a mutually-recognized process which requires equity among partners.

    So in both of these examples we can see how there can be marriage inequity among partners (one or more partners dominate the other) or between marriages (some marriage relationships have more options than others).

    Same-sex marriage is only the tip of the iceberg of marriage equality and cultivating societies in which expressions and displays of love are least limited.
     

    Somewhere_

    i don't know where
    4,494
    Posts
    8
    Years
  • So, there are two major categories in which we can progress in equality.

    1. Legal equity
    2. Cultural equity

    These two are often related. Though, marriage equality as an isolated right is "equal" there are other rights and privileges that can impact the dynamic of marriage. For instance, men and women are not legally or culturally equitable, the same goes for African-Americans and LGBTQ Americans. Though, this applies to other rights as well. However, love seems to be an important right. If the ability to express love is somehow suppressed either within relationships or between different marriages based upon cultural and legal disparities divorce, stress, and/or marital unhappiness are imminent.

    African American marriage for instance is impacted by racial inequity in the law and culture which has different impacts upon opportunity, education, healthcare, criminal punishment, ect. All of those are not only psychically influencing African-Americans (as far as happiness and stress), but these legally and cultural inequities can physically limit freedom and the ability of choice. These inequities make the task of holding families and marriages together difficult.

    Women in heterosexual marriages often suffer intramarital inequity. When women are not able to be independent it can place men in a position of dominance and limit womens' choices. Love is a mutually-recognized process which requires equity among partners.

    So in both of these examples we can see how there can be marriage inequity among partners (one or more partners dominate the other) or between marriages (some marriage relationships have more options than others).

    Same-sex marriage is only the tip of the iceberg of marriage equality and cultivating societies in which expressions and displays of love are least limited.

    Have you read "The Sexual Contract" by Carole Paterson? She argues that all relationships are social contracts. Both parties in a marriage agree to the same terms, and their social contract dictates their roles. Meaning it is women who agree to this "inequity" in marriages. Just a thought.

    You are right that culture is extremely important in influencing marriage customs. Culture can also impact social contracts.
     
    91
    Posts
    8
    Years
  • I don't want to sound like a downer, but honestly, unless there is a change in the Catholic church's stance on marriage, there will never be true equality in terms of marriage.

    I suppose I'd best start in elaborating on what I mean by that. Though I have been raised Catholic, I fully support LGBTQ+ marriage. I think that a truly loving God who made these gay, bi, lesbian, transgender, etc. individuals would want them to be treated as equals when compared to non-members of the LGBTQ+ community, and thus wouldn't disallow marriage between them. Obviously, that's not necessarily the stance that the Catholic church takes, but hey, that's what I believe, and I'm sticking to it. Granted, the point of this post isn't to elaborate on my beliefs, I just wanted to clarify that while I support true marriage equality, I simply don't think it will take place barring a change in the church's stance on it.

    It's no secret that most people who disagree with the idea of marriage equality for LGBTQ+ individuals tend to have a conservative political background. Some of those people subscribe to the Catholic doctrine. Granted, these things don't always have to go hand-in-hand (see my personal view above), but they do get paired together more often than not. People who are Catholic and politically conservative tend to cite religious reasons for disliking things such as gay marriage, and thus, until the religion that they subscribe to pushes them to accept LGBTQ+ marriage as equivalent to straight marriage, they will most likely not budge in terms of their opinion on the matter. Therefore, true marriage equality cannot be achieved without a change in the church's stance on LGBTQ+ marriage as a whole.
     

    Somewhere_

    i don't know where
    4,494
    Posts
    8
    Years
  • I don't want to sound like a downer, but honestly, unless there is a change in the Catholic church's stance on marriage, there will never be true equality in terms of marriage.

    I suppose I'd best start in elaborating on what I mean by that. Though I have been raised Catholic, I fully support LGBTQ+ marriage. I think that a truly loving God who made these gay, bi, lesbian, transgender, etc. individuals would want them to be treated as equals when compared to non-members of the LGBTQ+ community, and thus wouldn't disallow marriage between them. Obviously, that's not necessarily the stance that the Catholic church takes, but hey, that's what I believe, and I'm sticking to it. Granted, the point of this post isn't to elaborate on my beliefs, I just wanted to clarify that while I support true marriage equality, I simply don't think it will take place barring a change in the church's stance on it.

    It's no secret that most people who disagree with the idea of marriage equality for LGBTQ+ individuals tend to have a conservative political background. Some of those people subscribe to the Catholic doctrine. Granted, these things don't always have to go hand-in-hand (see my personal view above), but they do get paired together more often than not. People who are Catholic and politically conservative tend to cite religious reasons for disliking things such as gay marriage, and thus, until the religion that they subscribe to pushes them to accept LGBTQ+ marriage as equivalent to straight marriage, they will most likely not budge in terms of their opinion on the matter. Therefore, true marriage equality cannot be achieved without a change in the church's stance on LGBTQ+ marriage as a whole.

    Then how has gay marriage been legalized? Among other laws in favor of LGBTQ+?

    22% of the population is Catholic and 53% are Protestant. I would wager that about half (probably less) are fundamentalist.
     
    91
    Posts
    8
    Years
  • While there were obviously other factors, it has been legalized because of the separation between church and state. I didn't mean that litigation won't be passed to assist with the promotion of LGBTQ+ rights in the future, I meant that no matter what is passed, there will still be a significant chunk of the American populace that doesn't see gay marriage as equivalent to straight marriage, among other things.
     

    Kayasaya

    Digital Artist
    9
    Posts
    11
    Years
  • I feel that marriage should be legal in every term as long as this points are respected:


    *All the people involved into it are aware of the situation of the future husband/wife (How many other wifes it has, how many child, job position).

    *All the involved are alright with the others lifestyle and situation.

    *Is with the objective to help out each other (Economically, emotionally, psychologically and physically).

    *In case of being a family member involved, forbid the reproduction because they will bring someone who will suffer of genetic diseases.

    *All the involved should be 16 or older (At that age they should be able to know what they are doing), but if some involved is younger than 18 (16-18) should have parent permission (they still pay off the school, still have wright to decide).


    This gets out of the formula pedophilia and zoophilia (because an animal can not "be aware" of sheit), so i believe that besides that, everyone as individual should decide what he/she wants to do with his/her life.
     

    Pinkie-Dawn

    Vampire Waifu
    9,528
    Posts
    11
    Years

  • *All the involved should be 16 or older (At that age they should be able to know what they are doing), but if some involved is younger than 18 (16-18) should have parent permission (they still pay off the school, still have wright to decide).


    This gets out of the formula pedophilia and zoophilia (because an animal can not "be aware" of sheit), so i believe that besides that, everyone as individual should decide what he/she wants to do with his/her life.

    Isn't marrying a 16-year-old and 17-year-old still technically considered as pedophilia regardless of the age of consent? Because people can still get charged for child pornography if the person in the image is under 18, even if it's not the age of consent, since 18 is viewed as THE age of being a full-grown adult.
     

    Kayasaya

    Digital Artist
    9
    Posts
    11
    Years
  • Isn't marrying a 16-year-old and 17-year-old still technically considered as pedophilia regardless of the age of consent? Because people can still get charged for child pornography if the person in the image is under 18, even if it's not the age of consent, since 18 is viewed as THE age of being a full-grown adult.

    Technically it is, but the law already allows to marry girls and boys after 15 y/o in most countries and a lot of US states with parents permission, and i don't imagine a full conscious teenager wanting to date a 40 yo man, call me crazy, but at 16 and 17 they are like smart enough and conscious enough to take decisions. And pornography is not the same as sex itself, i mean, i started having sex at 16, neither my couple or me got not traumatized, felt raped nor felt abused now that we see to the past, and we are still couple (im 19 yo now, she is 21, which made that technically pedophilia cause i was 16 and she was 18) and we are not married, but as good and long as the relationship goes, i don't see trouble if we wanted to marry when i was 17, or if a couple starts dating when one of them is like 20 years old and the other one is 15, i don't see why wouldn't they be able to marry if the younger gets to the 17 and is happy with its couple. Ik sex and marriage is not the same, but the point of marriage is forming a "family", which at the end of the day is making a full trust relationship, ive seen boys with 14 more mature than dudes with 40, at the end of the day, i feel that the "full grown age" should be the point where we can make our own choices, because at 18 you are not even "full grown" phisically speaking, you stop growing about 20-23 years as male and 16-19 as female.
     
    Back
    Top