Unrestricted "marriage" for everyone and everything- why not?


#1

Just an observation- it's interesting that homosexuals want to be able to freely "marry" each other, but get indignant when these "marriages" are spoken of in the general vicinity of talk of multiple-party "marriages," or brother "marrying" sister, or someone "marrying" a pet or livestock, or someone "marrying" their imaginary friend, or? It's as if once homosexuals are allowed into the house of matrimony they want to slam and lock the door on all of the other good folks who want to get "married" after their own fashion too. Why should they care if uncle Bob and his of-age niece get "married," or some cat lady wants to "marry" all 36 of her feline companions. It doesn't harm or cheapen the homosexual "marriage..." does it? I mean, how could it?

I'm coming around to the point of view that anyone who wants to "marry" any other person or persons, any other being or inanimate object, even his or her own self, should be allowed to do so. In a world gone mad, what does it matter? There will still only be one*** marriage ***recognized by God.;)


#2

[quote="Faithdancer, post:1, topic:306061"]
Just an observation- it's interesting that homosexuals want to be able to freely "marry" each other, but get indignant when these "marriages" are spoken of in the general vicinity of talk of multiple-party "marriages," or brother "marrying" sister, or someone "marrying" a pet or livestock, or someone "marrying" their imaginary friend, or? It's as if once homosexuals are allowed into the house of matrimony they want to slam and lock the door on all of the other good folks who want to get "married" after their own fashion too. Why should they care if uncle Bob and his of-age niece get "married," or some cat lady wants to "marry" all 36 of her feline companions. It doesn't harm or cheapen the homosexual "marriage..." does it? I mean, how could it?

I'm coming around to the point of view that anyone who wants to "marry" any other person or persons, any other being or inanimate object, even his or her own self, should be allowed to do so. In a world gone mad, what does it matter? There will still only be one*** marriage ***recognized by God.;)

[/quote]

Well marriage in the Church will always be only between a man and a woman, but outside of the Church it doesn't matter what the civil government allows for marriage. Your example about marrying animals is odd because animals can't consent to marriage. But we must not worry about what the civil government does in regards to marriage. The Church will only perform true marriages and we can let the pagans do as they please.

God Bless.


#3

[quote="Chrish1975, post:2, topic:306061"]
Well marriage in the Church will always be only between a man and a woman, but outside of the Church it doesn't matter what the civil government allows for marriage. Your example about marrying animals is odd because animals can't consent to marriage. But we must not worry about what the civil government does in regards to marriage. The Church will only perform true marriages and we can let the pagans do as they please.

God Bless.

[/quote]

:thumbsup: Well said. But ah, my friend, why should a little thing like consent stand in the way, when Divine and natural law are now irrelevant! And extending the absurdity, if naturally complementary genders are irrelevant, why should a pulse be relevant- or even any material suppositum at all? Why should number be relevant? (I've always had a schoolboy crush on zero, such an elusive and mysterious quantity) And when the extraterrestrials finally arrive- if they haven't already- what better way to welcome them to the family than with a shotgun wedding?

Imagine if ultimately, everybody were married to everybody else- and everything else! The possibilities are endless! (Except, perhaps continuation of the species and the natural family- but these are trifling details!).

Sorry, I do tend to belabor the point.:shrug: :cool:


#4

It denies the truth of our religion to support same sex marriage...


#5

[quote="Faithdancer, post:1, topic:306061"]
Just an observation- it's interesting that homosexuals want to be able to freely "marry" each other, but get indignant when these "marriages" are spoken of in the general vicinity of talk of multiple-party "marriages," or brother "marrying" sister, or someone "marrying" a pet or livestock, or someone "marrying" their imaginary friend, or? It's as if once homosexuals are allowed into the house of matrimony they want to slam and lock the door on all of the other good folks who want to get "married" after their own fashion too.

[/quote]

It's because most of them either
[LIST=1]
*]haven't followed their arguments to their logical conclusion
*]don't realise that they are actually tools as part of a larger agenda
*]are lying to you
[/LIST]
I used to be one of those folk who supported same-sex civil union, but changed my mind long ago (and I'm quite disappointed that there are a number of Catholics on here who still support it). The reason why marriage shouldn't become a degenerate free-for-all, or same-sex civil unions shouldn't be allowed, is because the state should exist for the purpose of encouraging the people to be good, and that if you give them an inch, they'll take a mile. Ain't worth it.

And just to comment on your first post (cause you're a cool dude), everything you've said could be the logical result of changing the definition of marriage. "Gay marriage" advocates all argue that we shouldn't get in the way of "love", but if love is the only requirement for marriage, then who is anyone to stop a man marrying several people, or their direct relative, or a pet, or an inanimate object, if he loves them?


#6

[quote="Faithdancer, post:1, topic:306061"]
Just an observation- it's interesting that homosexuals want to be able to freely "marry" each other, but get indignant when these "marriages" are spoken of in the general vicinity of talk of multiple-party "marriages," or brother "marrying" sister, or someone "marrying" a pet or livestock, or someone "marrying" their imaginary friend, or? It's as if once homosexuals are allowed into the house of matrimony they want to slam and lock the door on all of the other good folks who want to get "married" after their own fashion too. Why should they care if uncle Bob and his of-age niece get "married," or some cat lady wants to "marry" all 36 of her feline companions. It doesn't harm or cheapen the homosexual "marriage..." does it? I mean, how could it?

I'm coming around to the point of view that anyone who wants to "marry" any other person or persons, any other being or inanimate object, even his or her own self, should be allowed to do so. In a world gone mad, what does it matter? There will still only be one*** marriage ***recognized by God.;)

[/quote]

When did we discover that animals and imaginary people could give consent? When did we find out that it's genetically safe for closely related peope to produce offspring?


#7

Don't equal protection under the law and due process trump consent and trivial inbreeding concerns?:rolleyes:


#8

[quote="Threep, post:5, topic:306061"]
It's because most of them either
[LIST=1]
*]haven't followed their arguments to their logical conclusion
*]don't realise that they are actually tools as part of a larger agenda
*]are lying to you
[/LIST]
I used to be one of those folk who supported same-sex civil union, but changed my mind long ago (and I'm quite disappointed that there are a number of Catholics on here who still support it). The reason why marriage shouldn't become a degenerate free-for-all, or same-sex civil unions shouldn't be allowed, is because the state should exist for the purpose of encouraging the people to be good, and that if you give them an inch, they'll take a mile. Ain't worth it.

And just to comment on your first post (cause you're a cool dude), everything you've said could be the logical result of changing the definition of marriage. "Gay marriage" advocates all argue that we shouldn't get in the way of "love", but if love is the only requirement for marriage, then who is anyone to stop a man marrying several people, or their direct relative, or a pet, or an inanimate object, if he loves them?

[/quote]

Exactly! We can infer that a brass spittoon would love its user, if it could only speak, considering all the attention it receives. If that seems illogical, well, how is it fair that logic- for example "one man, one woman" or "fetuses are human beings" should interfere?

Thank you for the compliment as well, and my compliments of the day to you!:)


#9

[quote="Luna_Lovecraft, post:6, topic:306061"]
When did we discover that animals and imaginary people could give consent? When did we find out that it's genetically safe for closely related peope to produce offspring?

[/quote]

There are many who would argue that animals can consent to sex. Take it up with them.

Why do they need to reproduce? I thought marriage was all about ~love~ and not about creating and raising children. Who are you to stop love? Isn't love all we need?! (Not charity though, just eros).


#10

[quote="Threep, post:9, topic:306061"]
Why do they need to reproduce? I thought marriage was all about ~love~ and not about creating and raising children. Who are you to stop love? Isn't love all we need?! (Not charity though, just eros).

[/quote]

Excellent point! You are so right- reproduction is completely gone from the equation now. And certainly children can be raised by a couple who are genetically close...or by three or six or ten people (it takes a village)... or by a man and his beloved kangaroo.


#11

[quote="Faithdancer, post:10, topic:306061"]
Excellent point! You are so right- reproduction is completely gone from the equation now. And certainly children can be raised by a couple who are genetically close...or by three or six or ten people (it takes a village)... or by a man and his beloved kangaroo.

[/quote]

Well of course it's out of the equation, as is gender, relation, and age!

How handy would it be to have a kangaroo bride? You wouldn't need a pram at all!!


#12

I doubt animals will be able to marry people, as the argument over consent exists. Just because the dog likes its owner, doesn't mean its consenting to a relationship. Even the term "likes" is completely subjective and unable to be really proven.

I do find it irritating that so many people, including Catholics, speak of "civil" marriage leglislated by the government being somehow different than "Catholic" marriage. Marriage has existed in every single human society, all of them recognising the importance of the male female relationship and the nature that it is ordered towards procreation.

The government needs to keep its damn nose out of it and leave it as it is, Legal/govt. recognition is actually quite a new thing. Religion doesn't "own" marriage, Catholicism doesn't have a monopoloy on it. Its existed even before we had a word for it. The govt's don't own it. Its not about human rights, its not about denying gays "equality" those are just silly strawman sob story rhetorical arguments that have no basis in reality or fact.

One man, one woman, both consenting, both of age, both unrelated. That's what marriage is. The govt can try and change it, heretic Christian churches can try, crazy cults can try and change it, but the reality will not be altered, even if the law tries to say otherwise.

All it does is devalue the individuals in a same sex relationship, because all they're doing is living a lie, one endorsed by the government.

But if love and consent and I suppose age are all that matters, it wont be long before the extremists mormons are lining up with their 20 wives. Way to go modern day slavery and debasment of women!


#13

[quote="Luna_Lovecraft, post:6, topic:306061"]
When did we discover that animals and imaginary people could give consent? When did we find out that it's genetically safe for closely related peope to produce offspring?

[/quote]

When did we discover that it is morally or spiritually safe for individuals to give into same sex attraction?


#14

[quote="Peter_Plato, post:13, topic:306061"]

What makes you think age will remain the same? The increase in the age of consent is only very recent as well. They'll push for this as well, just wait and see (liberals have already tried it in the past).


#15

[quote="Faithdancer, post:1, topic:306061"]
Just an observation- it's interesting that homosexuals want to be able to freely "marry" each other, but get indignant when these "marriages" are spoken of in the general vicinity of talk of multiple-party "marriages," or brother "marrying" sister, or someone "marrying" a pet or livestock, or someone "marrying" their imaginary friend, or? It's as if once homosexuals are allowed into the house of matrimony they want to slam and lock the door on all of the other good folks who want to get "married" after their own fashion too. Why should they care if **uncle Bob and his of-age niece get "married," **or some cat lady wants to "marry" all 36 of her feline companions. It doesn't harm or cheapen the homosexual "marriage..." does it? I mean, how could it?

I'm coming around to the point of view that anyone who wants to "marry" any other person or persons, any other being or inanimate object, even his or her own self, should be allowed to do so. In a world gone mad, what does it matter? There will still only be one*** marriage ***recognized by God.;)

[/quote]

Depending on the state they probably can...

Marriage wont be extended beyond those who can sign a legal contract because from the state's perspective it is a legal contract.


#16

[quote="Dakota_Roberts, post:15, topic:306061"]
Depending on the state they probably can...

Marriage wont be extended beyond those who can sign a legal contract because from the state's perspective it is a legal contract.

[/quote]

Are there still states where minors under a certain age can be married with their parent or guardian's written consent? In such a case there would b a legal contract...


#17

[quote="Faithdancer, post:16, topic:306061"]
Are there still states where minors under a certain age can be married with their parent or guardian's written consent? In such a case there would b a legal contract...

[/quote]

Yes, I believe in Massachusetts with parental and judge consent the ages are 14 for males and 12 for females although how many centuries old that is I don't know.


#18

Now that gay marriage is legal in some places, I can't for the life of me figure out why the Mormons can't have more than one wife. If marriage isn't between one man and one woman, then why does it have to be limited to two people?

Can you imagine your husband telling you that if you don't see things his way, he'll just go out and get himself an extra wife who agrees with him!


#19

[quote="Listener, post:18, topic:306061"]
Now that gay marriage is legal in some places, I can't for the life of me figure out why the Mormons can't have more than one wife. If marriage isn't between one man and one woman, then why does it have to be limited to two people?

Can you imagine your husband telling you that if you don't see things his way, he'll just go out and get himself an extra wife who agrees with him!

[/quote]

Yes, I think the legalization of same sex "marriage" has indeed opened a Pandora's box of polygamy and other aberrations. As I said in the beginning, I predict that those militant homosexualists who have agitated for same sex "marriage" approval will fight the designation of "marriage" being given to ever more outlandish arrangements. After all, won't that lessen the "dignity" of their own "marriages?" (Leaving aside the question of whether something that goes against Divine and natural law can be "dignified" in the first place).


#20

[quote="Dakota_Roberts, post:17, topic:306061"]
Yes, I believe in Massachusetts with parental and judge consent the ages are 14 for males and 12 for females although how many centuries old that is I don't know.

[/quote]

You are indeed correct, according to this site: family.findlaw.com/marriage/state-by-state-marriage-age-of-consent-laws.html
It also appears that in many states the age of consent varies from 12 years and upwards, with parental and/or judicial approval.

No word yet on whether or not both parties have to be human, mammalian, vertebrate, or even "living." Can one marry a corpse, then? In France, definitely, and according to the same Wiki article (hey, it's Wiki, gotta be true!): "In 2009 a posthumous wedding ceremony was held in Batavia, Illinois for Annie Hopkins, who had died of spinal muscular atrophy. Annie Hopkins had said that she wanted a wedding celebration instead of a funeral. The wedding celebration was open to the public and was a fundraiser for the Annie Hopkins Foundation Scholarship Fund, named after her. Since there was no apparent groom in this marriage, it is better classified as a wedding-themed funeral than a posthumous marriage.

On March 10, 1987 a man from Miami named Isaac Woginiak died of a heart attack, without marrying his alleged fiancée. Two weeks later, Circuit Judge George Orr ordered the court clerk to sign a marriage license on behalf of Woginiak."

source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posthumous_marriage

Gotta love these Circuit Court judges!


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.