Good news for the definition of marriage...

[sixone]

Actually marriage wasn't redefined but paired down to the essentials as we can now see they have always been. Marriage has always been about legalizing a domestic commitment to the one person who turns you on.

That part's patently false. Even in biblical times, marriages were intended to benefit not only the spouses, but also their families.

Even when marrying for love became an ideal, men were expected to satisfy their sexual needs both with their wife and outside the marriage.

 

[quixoticduck]

The lama I was going to marry will be so disappointed...

Sad times but did your llama friend consent?

interestingly the second time in a few minutes that a llama has been mentioned... (llama is an android app).

 

[sportage]

I think the whole marriage thing has been handled wrong. What should be up for debate is opening the doors to reform for so called traditional marriage itself. Not just same sex.

The question should be... Should marriage in general be open to reform?
That should be put to the public for a vote. General marriage reform.
Then, and with considering the poor state of traditional marriage in general, then the people could say yes, traditional marriage has been for the most part a farce.
Too many divorcees. Too many single parents. Too many children in one parent homes.

Let marriage be opened for reform.
From there, any group wanting to challenge traditional marriage could do so.
Same sex? Sure. Group marriage? Yes. Mixed race marriage? Why not.
Most every challenge to traditional marriage could go to the courts. Period.

And if it had been agreed by the people to open marriage up for reform, then legally any level headed legal challenge would have to be supported by law thru the courts.
Favorable rulings from the courts down the line. Bing bing bing...
This would not only give legal validity to same sex marriage, but likely to most every other type of known marriage. As long the definition is within reason.

No marrying to animals, objects, children, inanimate objects, etc etc.
But as long as the challenge addresses human adults of legal age, then why not allow marriage?
Not to allow would be discrimination, when weighted against the once so called traditional marriage, which is no longer a singular valid concept via the people's voice.
After that, if the people want to also go even further and re examine the age requirements of marriage, say lowering the legal age down to the middle or late teens, then so be it.
But as far as traditional marriage goes, redefine that term to include any mix of sex, race, and number.
Just as long as they are all human, all adults, and all are willing par takers into that union.

Same sex marriage would become a blip in the world of redefined traditional marriage.
Even some anti same sex marriage folks might find some other marriage options open up that they would wish to take part in.
Maybe not same sex, but possibly some guy having the option to marry two or more women? Same sex would become just one option of many newly opened options.
And I know there are many men out there that would love to have several wives.
Maybe even under the same roof?

 

[nehalem256]

No marrying to animals, objects, children, inanimate objects, etc etc.
But as long as the challenge addresses human adults of legal age, then why not allow marriage?

Why are you restricting marriage to adult humans? Even microsoft is okay with letting children marry.

And just because one of the members in a relationship is a llama does not make the love any less real. Love is love.

 

[Moonbeam]

If love is letting someone wallow in illness and calling it healthy, I will take your insult gladly.

The illness is in your head.

 

[Moonbeam]

That part's patently false. Even in biblical times, marriages were intended to benefit not only the spouses, but also their families.

Even when marrying for love became an ideal, men were expected to satisfy their sexual needs both with their wife and outside the marriage.

Again, I used poor words. I wasn't referring to thousands of years but the history of marriage in this country. In talking this out with LunarRay privately, I believe now that you are probably right, that you could probably pull of such a deal. The price of course would be, that you would not be in a romantically motivated relationship. That, in my opinion, would be somewhat sad given the presence of a healthy, non defective inclination to pair bond, as I believe is written in to most people's genes.

 

[michal1980]

typical liberalism.

don't like the definition - change it.

 

[nehalem256]

Again, I used poor words. I wasn't referring to thousands of years but the history of marriage in this country. In talking this out with LunarRay privately, I believe now that you are probably right, that you could probably pull of such a deal. The price of course would be, that you would not be in a romantically motivated relationship. That, in my opinion, would be somewhat sad given the presence of a healthy, non defective inclination to pair bond, as I believe is written in to most people's genes.

No problem Moonbeam as per the definition you posted nothing is wrong with have more than one marriage.

So she can marry one person in order to get monetary compensation. And marry another for the pair bonding. ()

 

[sixone]

Again, I used poor words. I wasn't referring to thousands of years but the history of marriage in this country. In talking this out with LunarRay privately, I believe now that you are probably right, that you could probably pull of such a deal. The price of course would be, that you would not be in a romantically motivated relationship. That, in my opinion, would be somewhat sad given the presence of a healthy, non defective inclination to pair bond, as I believe is written in to most people's genes.

Perhaps, but as long as two people are better off than they were before, that's a good thing.

It would take a lot of though and a couple of lawyers to sort out the details of such an arrangement, to protect both parties.