Marriage: What is its definition, and who gets ...
23 Oct '07 22:00Originally posted by kingdanwa
Many adults who are married (or are at least legally able to be married) don't possess the skills you are describing. America isn't really a breeding ground for "delayed gratification." When it comes to 18 year olds and "maturity with respect to decision-making," I don't think our society excels.
Possessing the ability to do so and exercising that ability are two different things. A five-year
old simply lacks the ability. Many 18-year olds have it be elect not to use it.
With respect to facial expressions, infants are highly capably of understanding. If you smile at a baby, more of than not it will giggle or smile back. If you frown at one in displeasure, it responds accordingly. Similarly, many of my friends (which perhaps says something about the circles I move in) are clueless about the facial expressions of those around them.
Infants are born with the capacity for recognizing a handful of primal facial expressions, yes.
However, study after study shows that even during a child's pubescence, the subtleties of
facial expressions -- the distinction between fear and anger, or joy and exasperation -- are not
present. I picked facial expressions as one of many criterial elements which make for adult
relationships.
But even if you're right, which I am not convinced of, is competency really the key question?
By competency, what do you mean? I never used the word competency, although if we define
it the same, I would likely consider it a key element. I merely brought up the ability to consent
as criterial for Civic Marriage (something which Biological Proto-Marriage lacks). If someone
does not or cannot consent, then I do not think the marriage can take place. A five-year old
simply cannot meaningfully consent to marriage because he doesn't understand even vaguely
what it would entail, what it would require of him, and so forth. His brain has not evolved to
the degree that the ability to consent is present.
What about the mentally retarded (name whatever mental illness you want, like bi-polar, etc.)? Or what about the very elderly? We often talk about the elderly being like children again in the thinking. Does that mean, that after a certain age, people should no longer be able to marry?
I would contend that it's not about age per se. Like I said above, it seems silly to me
that I can get arrested for banging a chick aged 17 years, 364 days, but will suffer no legal
penalties for banging her the next day. It would seem to me that the delusionally insane or
profoundly demented or debilitatingly mentally retarded would be incapable of consenting. And,
if they are incapable of consenting, the marriage couldn't take place.
If competency is key, we ought to be able to come up with a test. Your scenario about requiring some futuristic technology just to determine if a person knows what s/he is doing is far-fetched. We test kids all the time. The very fact that you're claiming that kids can't understand assumes that there is some way to measure that.
1. If competency is all that matters, then we should re-evaluate the legality of many marriages (narcissists, bi-polar, autistic, retarded, alcohol and drug related issues, the elderly, etc.).
Like I said, I never spoke about competency although I supsect it plays a role. I spoke about
consent. I addressed this issue in the context of Biological Proto-Marriage in which consent is
not a relevant issue which would undermine any attempt for Civil Marriage to be based on some
biological precedents.
2.If we can determine that a 5 year old is incompetent, then couldn't we use the same methods (whatever they are) to determine if a 5 year old is competent?
You didn't answer my question: If we transplanted your brain into the body of a child, don't you
think you should be entitled to the rights and priviliges of an adult (again, assuming that the
hormone difference didn't affect your ability to render judgments in an adult fashion)?
The reason we can determine that a five-year old is unable to consent is because the neurological
apparatus for consent is not fully formed at five, just like the lungs are not fully formed in a
fetus of 10 weeks. It's not a matter of a test or even allowing for a precocious child. The
question is like asking: why can't a five-year old donate his sperm? Because at five, the body
isn't producing sperm.
Nemesio
Many adults who are married (or are at least legally able to be married) don't possess the skills you are describing. America isn't really a breeding ground for "delayed gratification." When it comes to 18 year olds and "maturity with respect to decision-making," I don't think our society excels.
Possessing the ability to do so and exercising that ability are two different things. A five-year
old simply lacks the ability. Many 18-year olds have it be elect not to use it.
With respect to facial expressions, infants are highly capably of understanding. If you smile at a baby, more of than not it will giggle or smile back. If you frown at one in displeasure, it responds accordingly. Similarly, many of my friends (which perhaps says something about the circles I move in) are clueless about the facial expressions of those around them.
Infants are born with the capacity for recognizing a handful of primal facial expressions, yes.
However, study after study shows that even during a child's pubescence, the subtleties of
facial expressions -- the distinction between fear and anger, or joy and exasperation -- are not
present. I picked facial expressions as one of many criterial elements which make for adult
relationships.
But even if you're right, which I am not convinced of, is competency really the key question?
By competency, what do you mean? I never used the word competency, although if we define
it the same, I would likely consider it a key element. I merely brought up the ability to consent
as criterial for Civic Marriage (something which Biological Proto-Marriage lacks). If someone
does not or cannot consent, then I do not think the marriage can take place. A five-year old
simply cannot meaningfully consent to marriage because he doesn't understand even vaguely
what it would entail, what it would require of him, and so forth. His brain has not evolved to
the degree that the ability to consent is present.
What about the mentally retarded (name whatever mental illness you want, like bi-polar, etc.)? Or what about the very elderly? We often talk about the elderly being like children again in the thinking. Does that mean, that after a certain age, people should no longer be able to marry?
I would contend that it's not about age per se. Like I said above, it seems silly to me
that I can get arrested for banging a chick aged 17 years, 364 days, but will suffer no legal
penalties for banging her the next day. It would seem to me that the delusionally insane or
profoundly demented or debilitatingly mentally retarded would be incapable of consenting. And,
if they are incapable of consenting, the marriage couldn't take place.
If competency is key, we ought to be able to come up with a test. Your scenario about requiring some futuristic technology just to determine if a person knows what s/he is doing is far-fetched. We test kids all the time. The very fact that you're claiming that kids can't understand assumes that there is some way to measure that.
1. If competency is all that matters, then we should re-evaluate the legality of many marriages (narcissists, bi-polar, autistic, retarded, alcohol and drug related issues, the elderly, etc.).
Like I said, I never spoke about competency although I supsect it plays a role. I spoke about
consent. I addressed this issue in the context of Biological Proto-Marriage in which consent is
not a relevant issue which would undermine any attempt for Civil Marriage to be based on some
biological precedents.
2.If we can determine that a 5 year old is incompetent, then couldn't we use the same methods (whatever they are) to determine if a 5 year old is competent?
You didn't answer my question: If we transplanted your brain into the body of a child, don't you
think you should be entitled to the rights and priviliges of an adult (again, assuming that the
hormone difference didn't affect your ability to render judgments in an adult fashion)?
The reason we can determine that a five-year old is unable to consent is because the neurological
apparatus for consent is not fully formed at five, just like the lungs are not fully formed in a
fetus of 10 weeks. It's not a matter of a test or even allowing for a precocious child. The
question is like asking: why can't a five-year old donate his sperm? Because at five, the body
isn't producing sperm.
Nemesio
Back to Top