Redefining marriage

[libby]

Question to you all. The redefinition of marriage is being considered now in Maine. If traditional marriage, one man/one woman, loses this battle, has the legal groundwork been set for legal recognition and extention of benefits to polygamous (sp?) couple, gay or straight?
Is the definition of marriage fluid or static? If a fundamentalist Mormon has four wives and 26 children, will employers be compelled to provide medical benefits for them all?
Did the U.S. define marriage legally way back when they forced the Mormons to give it up?

[libertytyranny]

I could care less if gay people want to get married..good for them I am happy they have found partners that they love...but I'm against it. Because of this exact reason. Changing the definition of marriage can only lead to the eventual "recognition" of all types of "non traditional" marriages. Many years ago..gays were not accepted at all..marriage was not even thought of as a possibility..and yet here we are today with states allowing it...who is to say..that with enough lobbies..and enough campaigning and money and tv commercials..that the same wont be for polygamy? or polyandry? or marriage to animals? or to children? or to inanimate objects? Sounds silly right? well ask your parents or grandparents if they ever thought they would see gays marry...or many many years ago...if they thought they would ever see interracial marriages... Truthfully all of these groups could use the exact same logic as the gay lobby..."animals need love too,love is blind, we deserve to be happy like everyone else, people who love animals have existed in society for hundreds of years, who are we to deny love, we are a non traditional family, we are both consenting, why should you care if we marry...etc" exact same logic..same phrases..same emotional appeal could work for any of the "non traditional" marriage types above. Without a good hard definition now..these things will inevitably happen. I am afraid..that even with a definition...it will anyway, with time.

[libby]

Well, the thing with animals and children is that they cannot give consent. Although, I suppose if a 12 or 13 y/o girl is old enough to consent to an abortion, she should be legally considered old enough to consent to a marriage.

Every other relationship will seek legitimacy, though.

[StadEMS3]

MAN MARRIES DOG IN INDIA!!!#Video

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by libertytyranny

I could care less if gay people want to get married..good for them I am happy they have found partners that they love...but I'm against it. Because of this exact reason. Changing the definition of marriage can only lead to the eventual "recognition" of all types of "non traditional" marriages. Many years ago..gays were not accepted at all..marriage was not even thought of as a possibility..and yet here we are today with states allowing it...who is to say..that with enough lobbies..and enough campaigning and money and tv commercials..that the same wont be for polygamy? or polyandry? or marriage to animals? or to children? or to inanimate objects? Sounds silly right? well ask your parents or grandparents if they ever thought they would see gays marry...or many many years ago...if they thought they would ever see interracial marriages... Truthfully all of these groups could use the exact same logic as the gay lobby..."animals need love too,love is blind, we deserve to be happy like everyone else, people who love animals have existed in society for hundreds of years, who are we to deny love, we are a non traditional family, we are both consenting, why should you care if we marry...etc" exact same logic..same phrases..same emotional appeal could work for any of the "non traditional" marriage types above. Without a good hard definition now..these things will inevitably happen. I am afraid..that even with a definition...it will anyway, with time.

There isnt a comparison between a marriage of adults and a marriage of animals and/or children. One is union between consenting adults the other involves those that can not consent.

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by StadEMS3

MAN MARRIES DOG IN INDIA!!!#Video

Other countries also allow polygamy and gay marriages, without adverse impact to the society

[bcp (Premo)]

Originally Posted by libby

Did the U.S. define marriage legally way back when they forced the Mormons to give it up?

I cant remember the specifics, (I will look them up later) however the Supreme Court did decide on that issue, their findings were that there would only be one wife because it was what had been considered a society standard.
Since there was not an issue at the time, they did not rule on same sex specifically, However, based on the Historical society standard...

So, if that ruling from back in the late 1800s? were overturned, then it would once again open up the possible legal union of more than one wife. (although, I cant come up with why any man would want this)

But as I have always stated, Just because the government allows something, it does not mean I have to accept, or acknowledge it as legitimate.

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by StadEMS3

MAN MARRIES DOG IN INDIA!!!#Video

Link

Man in India Marries Dog to Atone for Stoning to Death Mating Canines

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

NEW DELHI — Selva Kumar had been hounded for 15 years by the memory of a horrible act he'd committed as a teenager.

As an 18-year-old he had stoned and clubbed to death two dogs he found engaged in mating. He then hung their carcasses from a tree.

That's when his personal suffering began.

"After that my legs and hands got paralyzed and I lost hearing in one ear," Kumar told the Hindustan Times newspaper.

Kumar, now 33 and living in the southern Indian district of Sivaganga, could no longer take the physical pain of the "dog curse," so he sought the advice of an astrologer.

Her cure for his maladies?

"Marry a dog."

Which is just what Kumar did on Sunday.

In a ceremony befitting a beautiful Indian bride, the #####, a former 10-year-old stray named "Selvi," was bathed and dressed in a ceremonial orange sari with a garland of flowers adorning her neck. She was then brought to the temple in Tamil Nadu to be presented to Kumar by members of his family.

Kumar, sitting beside his bride, recited his marriage vows, declaring, "I will take care of it until its death." Then, the "couple" was declared married.

Deeply superstitious people in rural India sometimes organize weddings to dogs and other animals, believing it can ward off certain curses.

No word on if this is considered a legally state sanctioned marriage, but based on the reports here and here, its just a ceremonial marriage.

Same thing can occur here in the US. The other 2 sources do state this was just a ceremony to lift a curse, he will be looking for a real (human) bride.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

Other countries also allow polygamy and gay marriages, without adverse impact to the society

Can you site the studies that were done that show you are correct, that there was no adverse impact to their societies - or are you just assuming the result because it's what you want to believe?

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by This_person

Can you site the studies that were done that show you are correct, that there was no adverse impact to their societies - or are you just assuming the result because it's what you want to believe?

Why bother, I can (and have) post the countries that allow Gay Marriage, with no harm demonstrated, but you'll claim they havent allowed it long enough (for you) to be satisfied.

Since your for allowing the Government to prohibit Law Abiding Citizens from consentual entering a union, you obviously have some type of study that shows Gay Marriage would adversly affect society.

Of course it will be interesting to see how you explain allowing the Government to interfere with Law Abiding Citizens when there is no demonstrated harm, but against the Government interference when harm has been clearly demonstrated.