If the definition is no longer just one man and one woman because a group of people say so, then what is the basis for restriciting the definition of marriage at any point? Why can't some say marriage is a man and two or more women or a woman and two or more men? Why can marriage be between a human and an animal? If there are no absolute paramaters for what marriage is, then whoever has the most influence and the loudest voice can determine what it is....
2006-09-07 10:16:57 · 12 answers · asked by nobodiesinc 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Interesting question.
In some places marriage IS between a man and two or more women, in which case I don't see why it couldn't be between a woman and more than one man (although I think either relationship would cause unnecessary complications in most cases, but hey, if a woman is stupid enough to want to share her man with another woman that's her lookout). However, in the case of a person and an animal, the animal can't give consent. A child cannot give informed consent. I see marriage as a union between consenting adults.
Now if you're talking about the legal definition of marriage and the possibility of gay marriage, I am of the opinion that there should be provision for a legal union between two people who are committed to each other. I don't really give a fig what you call it, but I do think that the homosexual lobby should be satisfied with calling it a civil union (or something other than marriage) simply to make it more palatable to the rest of the population. As long as the legal rights are the same, it doesn't matter what you call it. At any rate, it'll still be called a marriage in everyday speech, it's not like people are going to call themselves "civilly united".
2006-09-07 10:33:19 · answer #1 · answered by DaBasset - BYBs kill dogs 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It wasn't always defined as between one man and one woman, it's changed in the past, what's the big deal with change now? I mean, read the OT. Solomon had more than a few wives, and apparently concubines were just fine.
As for the human/animal thing, as soon as you can prove to a court of law that the animal has legal standing and understands it's rights and responsibilites, and is consentingly entering into this contract (and able to sign the marriage license), then I suppose a human could marry an animal. As animals have no legal standing, cannot understand their rights, and cannot give consent, I'm thinking that's rather impossible.
I personally would have no problem with polygamy or polygeny, as long as all involved understand the committment and consent. It's really not about definitions/acceptance/tolerance or anything like that for me, it's about privileges and rights, plain and simple.
2006-09-07 17:24:21 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
From a legal perspective, marriage is a contract that infers specific legal rights and obligations. Only consentual adults may engage in it, even if the 'one man one woman' rule is relaxed.
Animals, children, dead people, etc. will always be excluded for that reason, but you're right that it might expand to multiple men, women, hermaphrodites, etc. The cost of freedom to you, is tolerance of freedom for others. The current 'one man one woman' is actually the result of an arbitrary restriction on freedom from the loudest voice in the past.
2006-09-07 17:28:12 · answer #3 · answered by lenny 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Why would anyone want to marry an animal....and if they do maybe they aren't well.
The Bible says a man can have as many wives as he can afford to keep... so it is no moral guide and Biblical marriage certainly is not just between one man and one woman.
But lets stay within the human species please...if two people love each other and wish to marry it is not going to make any others rush out and marry animals...I don't understand your weird lack of reasoning at all.
2006-09-07 17:42:53 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Marriage defines the love and commitment for. This is a direct quote from something I read somewhere once.
**“Do you promise to take your beloved wife for richer or poorer, in health and illness…?” Take these vows to the deeper meaning rather than the obvious. ‘Richer’ may mean happy moments. ‘Poorer’ for worse. ‘Health’ for peace. ‘Illness’ for misunderstanding. This is why marriage is sacred; why sexual contact is sacred- it’s a promise, spoken and unspoken, of vowing to be there for the one you love so deeply.
Sad to say, but marriage and sex are losing their meaning in this world. One-night stands are so normal now, as is abortion. Yet man still has the gall to speak of morality? Sounds highly hypocritical to me.**
In other words, marriage does not matter gender. I know a gay couple who honestly are the only people I have ever seen who truly love each other, who would die for each other. Never have I met a straight couple that I could say the same for.
Fact- Marriage needs to be CONSENTUAL. A dog cannot agree or uphold the vows marriage takes. And while I believe in monogamy, live and let live.
And, for your arguement, what about people who marry solely for convenience? If you honestly believe that all couples marry for love, you are dead wrong. Some marry for money, children, etc, and never for love.
Marriage needs boundaries, but said boundaries need to be restricted solely to HUMANS. Not animals. Bestility is the same as rape. Polygamy, I think, makes you seem like you care more for sex than love.
Homo/bi/heterosexual. Love is love.
2006-09-07 17:39:16 · answer #5 · answered by Adrik V 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
That is exactly the point that our president (and others) was trying to make when he tried to pass a law defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman. By defining marriage that way, you are also defining what is not considered marriage.
2006-09-07 17:24:30 · answer #6 · answered by xox_bass_player_xox 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
So why not let the persons involved decide their own limits? And, actually, two persons who want to marry against your personals ideas of right and wrong don't need influence and loud voice to make that decision as long as you keep from stopping them on religious, prejudiced or just conservative grounds.
Only your desired legislation make them need influence and loud voice to fight for their desired choice of life and marriage-partner.
2006-09-07 18:03:43 · answer #7 · answered by juexue 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
for most of human history marriage has been a property contract ...exchanging goods between two families....and religious leaders wern't even involved... so I think you are correct....No religoius leader has the right to say what is allowed in a civil business contract....or that you can discriminate against any racial,or ethnic group who wnats to have that contract
2006-09-07 17:21:54 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If God wanted us (Men) to have 4 wives there would be 4 women born for every one man.
Case Closed.
I had a Muslim actually tell me that there WERE 4 women born for every 1 Man!!!!!!!!
Never did get the "proof"
Peace!
2006-09-07 17:26:23 · answer #9 · answered by C 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
your still a rude jackass.
2006-09-07 18:08:26 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋