If they change the definition of marriage to same sex, what will be the next group to demand marriage status?

Question

Will it be NAMBLA (National "Man-Boy Love" Association)?

Will it be incest couples?

Will it be polygamists?
If bisexuals demand marriage status, then that would be a combination of same-sex and polygamy. And in that case, it wouldn't make sense to allow polygamy only for bisexuals and not for heterosexuals especially since, unlike so-called same sex marriage, hetero polygamy actually has historical precedence.

I'm not for any of these perversions of the sacred institute of Holy Matrimony. I'm only trying to show how it would be hypocritical to change the definition to only accommodate one kind of sexually deviant group.
.

How ironic! Someone asks me if I am tolerant, and then they threaten to censor my question.
.

Answer 1

You may be on to something. I was beginning to wonder if the day comes that there are no contraints on anything. Marry whoever or whatever you like. Maybe someone will go on about how much they love their dog and then tell you a person can't help who they love.

Answer 2

Sigh, this question was answered earlier today. Marriage between consenting adults, whether heterosexual or same sex is no threat to anyone.
Why do you people keep thinking that if you let gays marry then all these other "horrible" things will happen.
What is it about gay marriage that threatens you so much. It isn't a slippery slope, it is a right guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You can go back and hide in your closet now.

Answer 3

i'm often unfavourable to gay marriage because of the fact it incredibly is one among those trivial situation that's being inflated to create controversy the place none is mandatory. the undertaking is which you're using the be conscious "marriage" that's traditionally defined as a heterosexual relationship. call it something else. the reason i discover this situation ridiculous is that homosexuals represent an fairly tiny minority. I see no rationalization why their time table ought to be on the vanguard of politics different than for the certainty that it became created to the two piss off religious human beings, or positioned homosexuals interior the spotlight (i'm guessing it incredibly is the significant reason). the undertaking with progressives is they constantly might desire to discover something to "progression" on. the place their thought of progression is dismantling all of our previous values and traditions. I understand that it incredibly is the US, yet because of the fact the Civil conflict the US grew to grow to be extra of a centralized usa. in the past then it became a genuinely a unfastened conglomeration of States and territories. If human beings had diverse existence or religious ideals that have been in comparison to of their locality they relocated to a place that suited them. subsequently Utah and the flourishing of Mormonism there. it would be super if homosexuals ought to establish their very own community someplace the place they might frolic in peace and team spirit and no-one might hassle them, yet unluckily, that dreaded 14th exchange defeats that threat. I abhor the certainty that maximum persons of persons might desire to bend over to assuage a tiny yet very vocal minority team. in spite of the undeniable fact that it incredibly is the USA and democracy is our meant government. So then if maximum persons disagrees with something for despite reason and places it to regulation, the minority could learn how to stay with it rather of ad infinitum complaining approximately how their rights are being violated. you spot the want of the persons could be respected. If some choose comes to a decision to overrule the want of maximum persons since it incredibly is "unconstitutional" then we do no longer likely have a functioning democracy, yet a judicial dictatorship. for my area, those divisive subjects will basically bring about extra social issues. If adequate somewhat everyone seems to be displeased, the Union must be threatened returned. I see secession of numerous States as a diverse threat interior the destiny.

Answer 4

Your examples are, themselves, perversions. Each implies subjugation, assuming that polygamy retains its historical standard, or represents a clearly understood and well-documented health risk to children born from the union.

And if you would like to protect "holy matrimony," then same-sex couples would be more than happy to unite under the auspices of a civil union...granted the same privileges as every other married couple. Holy or not.

Also, I would ask that you refrain from identifying homosexuality as sexual deviance. Medically trained psychaitrists would strongly disagree with your categorization. If you have a point to make, keep it civil (pun intended).

And regarding your crusade to eliminate perversions of the sacred institute, consider criminalizing extramarital affairs, and I would be happy to hear you out.

Sincerely,
Happily married.

Answer 5

There used to be a king that spent $1 million every year on the marriage of a single pair of pigeons (1 male and 1 female).

Answer 6

sexually deviant group? Okay, here's a question for you. Do you see yourself tolerant? IF so, how so?

I know where the edit button is and I know how to use it.

freakn' weird how quick you can get a thumbs down around here.

I wasn't going to sensor your question, I said "EDIT", that was to add to my response.

Do you understand that there are certain laws inside of Matrimony that protect the spouse in case of death? It's just not right for a couple to be with each other for years and if one dies, the immediate family can come in a take all the assets. If there are other forms of protecting couples, I'm all for hearing them. But to just sit in condemnation is just not right.

Answer 7

What do you care who marries who? NAMBLA is a bunch of freaks, but polygamists? Why's it your business if a man wants to marry a bunch of women and the women are perfectly happy with the arrangement? AND they can find a priest or something who's willing to marry them?

This wouldn't be a problem if the government would stay out of marriages altogether. Then it would be purely a religious issue, and if your religion allowed for any manner of strange pairings (or more), whatever.

Answer 8

"THEY" can change any laws that man has made "THEY" want to, but it still won't change " marriage"; which God created between one male and one female! The union represents the Son of God, Jesus and His church.
The man is the 'head' of the home, and the female is the 'heart' of it. Head only means the responsible provider and protector and priest under the direction of the Lord. The 'heart' encourages, honors and nurtures the head.
You can deviate from this divine plan all you want to, but it really doesn't change anything except your soul's relationship with it's Creator. God told us how life works best and He aughta know, He IS the manufacturer of the product and knows how to make it operate at optimum potential. Ignore that all you want to, you DO have freewill choice, but remember, we were advised to "choose life and blessings and renounce death and curses."
You can have civil unions, shack-ups, group mates, free-love, whatever... and NEWS ALERT: God isn't changing His ordained plan or His divine arrangement. Family AND marriage IS what it is and to alter the definition into an aberation or alternative to suit yourself or fitting the definition into a legal parameter of modern liberal thinking just doesn't mean anything to people who truly accept God's way as THE only way.
The consequences are still there even if you say "I have a right and it's guaranteed by the constitution"..., well yes, and so are the end results of violating God's instructions. God is not mocked, whatsoever a man sows that shall he also reap. Looks like you can only sow into your own life since you are reaping it..., a circle. You bless or curse your own life by your willfullness and rebellious determination. Go for it! God's not surprised. He wrote 66 books to warn and instruct and give living example, and still you don't listen?

Answer 9

get off your soapbox,you are way off,but i know you cant help it.there is nothing holy about any marriage,if there was,divorce would not exist,besides whats perverse to you may not be perverse to others.homosexuality is far from perverse.your incest couples/polygamy thing is not an fair comparison.

Answer 10

Oh please this is such a weak argument

1. NAMBLA will never be allowed because it's MORALLY wrong and ILLEGAL.
2. Incest will never be allowed because it's unhealthy
3. polygamists will never be allowed because it goes against the def of a marriage...ONE person to ONE person. and the govt would never allow for so many tax breaks. but if they did oh well.

so polygamy will be your best bet.

MAYBE to solve this issue they should just entirely BAN the acknowledgement of marriage in the govt ALL TOGETHER

Answer 11

pets and humans,....all sorts of weird stuff.... is that marriage, ewwww, I dont think so. It would be cool if they would make a separate catagory and give them the same legal rights. "Life partner certified" or whatever.