I give up; I know I can’t fight it anymore.
Even though for so long I have believed that marriage is supposed to be the holy union of a man and a woman, as God designed, my opinions based on ancient texts must change. Otherwise, I will never be able to run a bakery, work at Home Depot, get preferential government bids, or dress up like a unicorn riding a rainbow (and you know how much I’ve wanted to do that).
Therefore, I am going to revamp my definition of marriage in order to fall in line with society at large. After all, love is all that matters, right? So……
Marriage, is not the union of of just one man and one woman, it is the union of two people, male or female, who love each other…wait, that can’t be right…that would be too narrow…let’s try again…
Marriage, is the union of however many people who love…wait…
Marriage, is the union of two…no, one person and one animal…wait…
Marriage, is the union of human to human or animal…DANG IT!…wait…
Marriage, is the union of human, animal, and/or plant that love each other…What?
How do we know if the dog that married the woman really wanted to go through with the vows? How can a dog vow anything? Or a horse? Or whatever? I don’t get that one.
Anyway…
Marriage, is the union of two or more living and breathing beings…Oh, good Lord!…WAIT!…
Marriage, is the union between two or more living and breathing beings, AND/OR amusement park rides…(Seriously? Yep.)…wait…just wait!!…
How do inanimate objects abide by a covenant, express love, raise a family, etc.? For that matter, how do animals and humans reproduce?
Good grief! All I am trying to do is be fair and open to all forms of love, you know? I mean, as a Christian I am not suppose to judge how other people express their understanding of love and marriage; I’m just supposed to accept them. Marriage, therefore, should be left up to whomever and whatever feels some form of attraction – and who am I to call it anything but pure?
However, the more I try to be open and inclusive, the more Pandora gets upset that I’m breaking the lid on her box. Once we open wide the redefinition of marriage, where to we stop? Who is to say another person’s opinion is wrong? Who is hypocritical enough to label someone else’s nuptial wishes perverted or insane?
So, let’s try this again…
Marriage, is the union between a man and/or a woman, and/or an animal, and/or, a piece of construction equipment, and/or a child…
WAIT!
A CHILD?!!
(They do it in Africa all the time. And who’s to judge the loving folks at NAMBLA? Who do we think we are, God?)
Marriage, is the union between a man and/or a woman, and/or an animal, and/or, a piece of construction equipment, and/or a child…wait…
What about those diagnosed with multiple personalities? What about family members who really, really love each other? My God! The possibilities are endless!
The ethical ramifications of all this are insane!
The way God intended – period.
Oh, I don’t know…maybe I should just go back to the way God designed it (Genesis 2:24). It sure would be a lot more simple, wouldn’t it?
Now, let the hate mail commence.
Links:
The Recovering Legalist 
Hi Anthony…
Just wanted to stop by to let you know that your sentiment in this post isn’t a unique thought and certainly isn’t new. In fact, this seems to be one of the go-to tactics for this who are intent on denying civil rights to others who aren’t like them.
It’s a slippery slope argument and a bad one at that…
So let’s clear it up, shall we?
“Consenting. Adults.”
That’s it. If those two things don’t apply to your scenarios, your scenarios are not applicable.
Have a good one!
LikeLike
Of course I disagree, but thanks for stopping by.
LikeLike
Of course we can agree to disagree on the applicability of your scenarios but it’s still true that they don’t apply within the qualifier on posited on consent and adults. Obviously a ferris wheel (or dog or horse or tree or child) cannot consent. And a child isn’t an adult so it doesn’t work there either.
It’s just a friendly challenge: does your position hold up if you accept my qualifier? That is, can you make a good argument for why consenting adults should not be permitted to enter into a contract with one another?
LikeLike
I see your point, Andrew. It would only make sense if marriage was between to consenting adults. However, what I am suggesting is that because of a growing culture that prohibits “judging” or anything morally definitive, everything regarding marriage is up in the air.
Now, if we consider “consenting adults” as the only qualifier, then where does that really leave us? How many consenting adults? Who determines the definition of “adult”? Is the “consenting adults” qualifier good enough for whatever two or more adults want to do? For instance, if there are no other moral qualifiers or absolutes, is assisted suicide, even in mass, appropriate and good for all if all consent?
Of course, when we discuss marriage we must understand that you and I are looking at it from different frameworks. I see it as a relationship ordained by God with predetermined guidelines and spiritual implications; you see it simply as a contract that must comply to whatever social mores are applicable to the place and time. For me, “consenting adults” is only part of what makes up a marriage, but it’s definitely a part. For many others, however, who only look to one’s personal happiness as the sole qualifier of what constitutes right and wrong, marrying a dog, a child, or a Ferris wheel is perfectly acceptable.
But no, I don’t see how a Ferris wheel or tree or dog can consent (well, maybe a dog – they’ll agree to almost anything for a treat).
LikeLike
A contract between consenting adults to cohabitate, share their assets, and exclusively share the sexual parts with only another is not up to society to legislate. To each his own in my opinion. I see no way for me to legislate civil unions in country that is supposed to allow me to do all I want short of the end of your nose.
But this calling such a union marriage doesn’t make it marriage anymore the throwing a handful of balling bearings in the air and calling the result rain. Call it what you like. Do it if you like. Even God gives us that options. The result is the same in the end, hurt.
LikeLike
hey man, I’m down with that.
they don’t need to be called “marriages” if “civil unions” entail the same public / legal implications in the eyes of the state that marriages do.
really if nomenclature is the only issue here, I think we’re good.
LikeLike
Pingback: The Law and Marriage | Toad'sTool