Which is more immoral?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I say option 1, definately, although both should be legal.

[John Dibble]

Considering both involve consenting adults, I don't see either as immoral at all.

[Emsworth]

As far as my perspective is concerned, neither is immoral. And, furthermore, as far as my perspective is concerned, something is either moral or not -- it cannot be more immoral than something else.

[George W. Bush]

In my Religion option #2 is a Sin, option one is gross, but #2 is much worse.

[KillerPollo]

Considering both involve consenting adults, I don't see either as immoral at all.

The gay one said the "same age" Nowhere does it imply that they're "consenting adults".

[John Dibble]

Considering both involve consenting adults, I don't see either as immoral at all.

The gay one said the "same age" Nowhere does it imply that they're "consenting adults".

I made an assumption considering that minors can't get married. You can argue that gays can't either, but the question implied they could. Anyways, I don't think it was meant to be implied that they could be children.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Correction. I should've said "Two adults of the same gender and age", but it's also kind of common sense.

[King]

Neither are immoral, just considered unusual by today's social-norm.

[opebo]

Obviously neither is 'immoral' in any way.

[KillerPollo]

Obviously neither is 'immoral' in any way.

Only if opebo is involved in either of tose.

[nclib]

In general, neither are immoral.

[Max Power]

Considering both involve consenting adults, I don't see either as immoral at all.

[nini2287]

Both should be legal.  There is nothing wrong with option 2, option 1 is a bit weird so I voted for that.

[Speed of Sound]

Both should be legal.  There is nothing wrong with option 2, option 1 is a bit weird so I voted for that.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

neither is immoral at all

[Hatman 🍁]

Option one is the only immoral one of these choices. That, and it should be illegal. Number two is perfectly acceptable.

[Platypus]

Both should be legal. There is nothing wrong with option 2, option 1 is a bit weird so I voted for that.

[Ebowed]

Option 1 easily.

[Bono]

Option one is the only immoral one of these choices. That, and it should be illegal. Number two is perfectly acceptable.

Is there any reason it should be illegal, except "I don't like it and I'm a control freak?"

[Nym90]

Neither.

However, in practice, option 1 is often motivated by greed more than by love. So long as both people are aware of this and ok with it, however, it's not immoral.

[Hatman 🍁]

Option one is the only immoral one of these choices. That, and it should be illegal. Number two is perfectly acceptable.

Is there any reason it should be illegal, except "I don't like it and I'm a control freak?"

Yes, it's anti-equality. Marriage is about the equality of two partners, such things cannot happen with a gross age discrepancy as the one suggested.

[Emsworth]

Yes, it's anti-equality. Marriage is about the equality of two partners, such things cannot happen with a gross age discrepancy as the one suggested.

How do you decide what the maximum moral age difference is? A difference of twenty years (or whatever else) is moral, but twenty years and one day is not?

[Hatman 🍁]

Yes, it's anti-equality. Marriage is about the equality of two partners, such things cannot happen with a gross age discrepancy as the one suggested.

How do you decide what the maximum moral age difference is? A difference of twenty years (or whatever else) is moral, but twenty years and one day is not?

It's a %, not an age of course. An 80 year old has a lot more in common with a 100 year old than an 20 year old and a 40 year old. The former is acceptable, while the ladder is not.

[Emsworth]

Yes, it's anti-equality. Marriage is about the equality of two partners, such things cannot happen with a gross age discrepancy as the one suggested.

How do you decide what the maximum moral age difference is? A difference of twenty years (or whatever else) is moral, but twenty years and one day is not?

It's a %, not an age of course. An 80 year old has a lot more in common with a 100 year old than an 20 year old and a 40 year old. The former is acceptable, while the ladder is not.

Okay, so a 50% age difference (or whatever else) is acceptable, but 50.1% is not?

[Speed of Sound]

i dont think you should be able to stop anyone from getting married if they love eachother. noone has to live with any consequences but them.