*sighs*

[conuly]

So, somebody posted that annoying flashy image saying that "Marriage is not about Race, Religion, National Origin, Gender, Physical Disability, Et Cetera" on a couple of comms I'm in.

Wait... physical disability?

Which is pretty much what I said, prompting the reply that "well, people with mental disabilities have to be screened to make sure that they understand and consent to marriage".

Maybe I'm wrong here, but I thought that depression was considered a mental disability? And bipolar disorder? And our favorite syndrome, asperger's (let's not get into that debate again, I have a point to make)? And I suppose dyslexia could be considered a mental disability, being as how it's a disability of the mind (though I recognize that this isn't the normal term used), and ADD, and... well, other things. Heck, one could make the case that being in love is a mental disability.

But maybe I'm mistaken.

Comments

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

You'd think being married (in a good relationship of course) would be GOOD for someone's mental health.

[leora.livejournal.com]

Possibly. But someone who has is too mentally retarded to understand the ramifications of marriage, or things like sex leads to a risk of having children, etc. cannot really give consent. It's been a problem in some institutions, where adults with the mental equivalence of say 3 year olds (although you can argue over any "mental equivalence" terms as it's not the same as being 3, but let's go with it now as it's a more general point) have often been raped. And it's hard to draw the line between rape and consent, as it is with young children, which is why we have statutory rape in the first place.

Similarly, someone who is psychotic may or may not be able to correctly give consent. Someone who is non-verbal may or may not be able to communicate whether they give consent.

This is why "screened" is the right term. There are people who carefully analyze, in individual cases where it is questionable, which people can be considered able to give consent and which can't. The prolbem is if you just open it all up, then there are many people who could be convinced to act like they're giving consent and it would be rape.

These are extreme cases of mental disability, but it does ruin the phrase to say "and mental disability, except in some extreme cases."

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

It's difficult, understandable, but it's something that shouldn't be taken lightly by those who DO any sort of screening. Unfortunately, as a society, we've been too judgemental about those who can have relationships. Did you know now you need 90 days to consent to a tubal during a csection because women on welfare in the 70s were asked on the table or in labor if they wanted it, and were pressured to get sterilized? And it happened, of course, to skew towards minorities.

Do you know what kind of screening is done now? In a place like an institution where they have you under close supervision, it would be easier to deny someone the right to marry but what about outside of that?

[leora.livejournal.com]

I don't really know details, but I doubt it's done lightly. I've only heard of it being done in institutions, and not always for marriage, but also to see who may room with whom. And the only time I've really heard it spoken of, it's been by people who found it incredibly difficult. THey agonized over wanting to let people have fulfilling human relationships, which we know that most people can enjoy regardless of IQ, versus not wanting people to be raped or abused, which is a serious risk.

As institutionalization becomes less common and more people are cared for in other ways (a trend I am quite fond of, btw) there will probably need to be something worked out to determine how to protect and best serve the needs of people in these cases. But I'm not sure if anything is yet or how it'd be done.

It's not a job I'd want to have. It's just too hard to make a decision like that.

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

Also reminds me of a Brother (Catholic, St. Francis of ASsisi order) who pretty much said that my husband should get an annulment because he heard that I was considered sterile. The judgement there was that I was a waste of good Christian sperm. (The doctors were wrong, and I left the church.)

No wonder I get antsy about people making judgements about marrying. ;)

[leora.livejournal.com]

*sighs* There are and probably have always been many horrible things done along these lines. I'm not fond of the many forced sterilizations, coerced sterilizations, and people trying to convince others not to marry. I read no_pity, a community for people with any sort of disability or who deal with disability issues, and far too often I read stories about people who have to deal with the family of their lovers trying to convince their lovers to break up. Oh no, it'd ruin your life to be with the person you love, because that person has $insert_disability_here.

But really, these problems are cultural. They all stem from the culture having bad views on disability issues and a whole lot of ignorance. I think the only way to fix them is to change the cultural attitudes, so that a generation of doctors, priests, etc. can grow up with better views and it will flow into their work.