...and a woman can marry a woman, why not:
A man and two women,
a woman and three men and a baby,
a woman and a fish and a donkey,
a brother, sister and their mother,
17 drunk young teenagers,
a rock, paper, scissors and a cow,
a 3mth old baby, a dog, several chickens, a 78 yo woman, the Chicago bulls, a clam, and george bush.
I think (hope?) you get the point...
2006-08-14 15:33:22 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Family & Relationships ➔ Marriage & Divorce
The point is that is that the "rules" for marriage change - not too long ago it was illegal in Alabama for a mixed-race marriage, so the point is that the definition of marriage becomes fuzzier and fuzzier as more people "demand" that right. The problem is that what seems ridiculous (can anyone imagine why a mixed race marriage would be frowned upon today?), it does lead to some very scary decisions - relatives couldn't marry because of genetic disorders, why do you think the Royal Families are such nutcases? A dad in Detroit married his daughter because she grew up with her mom in Florida and didn't know him as her dad - where do you draw the line? Statutory rape ages are being reduced, marriages at 14 and younger as other cultures merge - so there seem to be no absolutes.
2006-08-14 15:47:43 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
I'm wondering if the same question(s) was asked when the first civil marriage license was made legal and issued.
You DO know that civil marriage is a relatively new process, don't you?
Not so long ago in the nations history, a church marriage was all that was required for two people to marry. Then 'The Code' came into being (tax laws). That changed everything. From that point forward civil marriages became the norm and the church could no longer claim sole proprietorship on marriage.
I know for a fact that one or two of your questions were asked prior to the legalization of interracial marriage -- approximately 35 years ago. What do you think were the answers THEN?
I think (hope?) YOU get the point...
Best Wishes!
2006-08-14 23:51:08 · answer #2 · answered by Specious λ Neurotica 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Oh Oh, how about an octopus, Elvis Presley, 4 camels, The Big Bad Wolf, a pair of Siamese twins, the Dali Lama, and the entire cast of Wicked.
Or, or maybe two trout, Gloria Swanson, The Country Bears, 6 pigs, a helicopter and Sigmund the sea-monster.
I'm really thinking...Ronald McDonald, the flying monkey's, Celine Dion....
2006-08-15 15:28:39 · answer #3 · answered by The Tiki God 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I see what you are saying and you are wrong. I am a happily married woman for over 15 years and homosexuals getting married does not not threaten or diminish my relationship in any way. Why can't they have the same basic rights to choose a person to go through life with?
The same species is totally different than a fish. Your thought process kind of scares me though, that is a big leap to make from person to person, to person to animal.
2006-08-14 22:42:17 · answer #4 · answered by Mrs. Mad Maddy 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
They have nothing to do with each other. I hate it when people make stupid analogies like this. A marriage is between TWO CONSENTING ADULTS and you have no place to infringe on that right. Take your right wing Christian Republicanazi ideology somewhere else, you close minded jerk.
2006-08-14 22:40:55 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
LOL! Analogies like yours are the reason why there are too many things wrong with this country.
2006-08-14 22:45:08 · answer #6 · answered by cheetah7 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Freak! Get a life and ask some real questions.
2006-08-14 22:41:17 · answer #7 · answered by bean 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Because that is just sick....I feel even 2 men or 2 woman is sick and the bible says that people who are gay will go to hell for it
2006-08-14 22:40:59 · answer #8 · answered by momma2 2 · 0⤊ 4⤋
iiii hate u
2006-08-14 22:38:29 · answer #9 · answered by dbz8866 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Have you take your medicine?
2006-08-14 22:52:29 · answer #10 · answered by evelyn_01 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋