Originally posted by kingdanwa
Some fear that removing biological considerations will lead to positions like the one quoted above.
Perhaps I didn't make it clear, but we have already removed almost all
biological considerations by now. We no longer have unilateral monogamy --
women are not subjugated to men but equal, and men cannot have
more than one wife -- we no longer strive to have as many children as
physically possible, we utilize birth control, we don't condone forcible
sexual exchange, &c. These are all contrary to the primal biological driving
forces.
Further, the issues addressed in Civil Marriage focus on rights for
property and children. Biologically, females had no rights because we
are patriarchal. Competetive infanticide (killing another male's offspring)
was an accepted reality. Certainly, you don't want to appeal to these
characteristics for the way in which males and females ought to interact.
Further, homoeroticism has a biological drive and has existed as long
as we have recorded history and no doubt before that. That is, we
have records of male-male companionship along with a wife going back
thousands of years. So, an appeal to 'biological norms' is really not a
good argument
against homoeroticism in any event.
So, I would say that the biological component is
irrelevant to any
'civilized' discussion of marriage (i.e., a discussion about 'Civic Marriage'😉.
The issue being contested by NAMBLA is the 'age of consent.' It is clear
that a five-year old lacks the capacity for consenting to sexual relationships
because 1) A five-year old is not a sexually mature individual; 2) Does
not understand what is being consented to; 3) Is still under the legal
guardianship of its parents; &c. &c.
The issue is more thorny with pubescing males (say 12 or 13). The
legality of the issue centers on whether a 13-year old, say, is capable
of making an informed judgment about sex with a 40-year old.
Of course, at 18, the sexual encounter would be legal, at 17 years, 364
days, 23 hours, and 59 minutes, it would not be. That sort of arbitrary
'line in the sand' is always questionable.
But a 'slippery slope' argument is not really a meaningful one; that is,
the objection isn't: If we allow gay marriage, we have to allow NAMBLA's
point of view, too. You can see that there are very different considerations
at work: Gay marriage is between two fully consenting adults, indistinguishable
except by their choice in partner from heterosexual marriage. We would let
the gay man marry a woman, if he chose; we would not let the little boy
marry a woman instead of a man. The reason we don't let the little boy
marry is because he is incapable understanding what consent means.
I hope this clears up why a NAMBLA citation really has no place in a
discussion about Civic Marriage.
Nemesio