Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:What does ... Peterson mean by “minority”?
I think he likely just means that you can't get married if you're underage. Being a minor is being in the state of minority.
The fact that minors and siblings can't marry is a good rebuttal to the hypothetical position that absolutely everybody should be able to marry whomever they choose. It's irrelevant to the point that Peterson was actually addressing, though, which was Exiled's suggestion that civil partnerships are back-of-the-bus marriage. It's irrelevant because (at least in most jurisdictions) minors and siblings can't form civil partnerships, either. So these cases offer no precedent for certain classes of people being allowed civil partnerships but not marriage, which was the point at issue.
In fact the precedents of minority and siblinghood preventing marriage tend to support same-sex marriage. First of all they are precedents for marriage being allowed whenever civil unions are allowed. Secondly they suggest, by being the only examples, that marriage is only forbidden for reasons like prevention of inbreeding or lack of legal adulthood. Neither of these is an issue for same-sex marriage of adults. So if the impossibilities of incestuous or underage marriage are the paradigms for forbidding marriage, same-sex marriage ought to be fine.
The only cases in which marriage has been forbidden to unrelated adults would seem to have been interracial unions that were forbidden by anti-miscegenation laws. Those laws existed for reasons that really were very much like the reasons given today for forbidding same-sex marriage. Interracial marriage was said to be unnatural and offensive to God, and also to be a threat to same-race marriage because as soon as interracial marriage was allowed everyone would be tempted to do it. Exiled's Jim Crow argument is more serious than Peterson seems to realize.