Like Button

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

The Marriage Equity Train

"We love each other. We want to be committed to each other. We want to be a family."

That's it. That defines "marriage" to a growing number of people. Where does it go? Like a runaway train on a 6% downgrade, about anywhere it wants.

Look under "strange marriages" and you'll find a host of entries. One site lists a woman that married the Eiffel Tower, a man that married himself, a Swedish woman who has been married to the Berlin Wall for 30 years, a Japanese man who married a character from a Nintendo game, a man who married a pillow, a woman who married a snake, and a woman who married her ex-boyfriend. "Wait!" you say. "What's so strange about that one?" He was dead.

From Ripley's Believe It or Not you'll find a German man who married his cat and two greyhounds who got married complete with bridal dress and wedding cake.

At globalvisas.com there is a list of marriages for which visas would not likely be granted. There is the church organist who married a fairground ride, a Hindu fellow that married a stray dog to make up for stoning two dogs, a Sudanese man who married a goat, and a cutting-edge British postal worker who married a sheep ... you know, because why shouldn't he engage in inter-species marriage?

Another site lists multiple people who married themselves, a woman who married a dolphin, and a Michigan telemarketer who married his silicon sex doll.

So what? Funny? I suppose. Sure. But what looks like "strange" and "humorous" becomes ominous if the current trend continues. The "current trend" is "Marriage equity means that anyone should be able to marry if they love each other" without any regard for what "marriage" means. ABC News did a story a couple of years ago about "the next generation after the gay and transgender communities". Who is that? The polyamorists. With the theft of "marriage" (obviously my phrase, not theirs) in six states (at the time of the story), they "say their cause should be next." Polygamy, polyamory, incest, where does it stop? If indeed "We love each other. We want to be committed to each other. We want to be a family" is the standard by which we will be operating, limiting that to two of any gender will be a bit difficult and narrow-minded, won't it? Finding a reasonable basis on which to say "Two people are okay, but more are not" or "It's alright if two people of the same gender want to marry, but a woman marrying a dolphin is crazy" gets a bit difficult. But, you go ahead with your plans. You go ahead and assure us it won't make any difference if we redefine marriage. You go ahead and speak in terms of "marriage equity". Since I've already taken my stand at the historical, traditional, even biblical starting point, it will be interesting -- sad, painful, destructive, sure, but interesting -- to see how bizarre this will get when the train's wheels jump the tracks on its way down this long descent.

7 comments:

Marshall Art said...

Having driven a load on a 6% grade, I know how steep that really is. Nothing in a car, but quite a bit for a semi or a train to try and stop once momentum is built up. Just thought I'd add that as I recalled the first time I approached a road with the warning of a 6% grade. Didn't think anything of it until I was going down it.

As to the post, it shows just how widespread the various ideas of what constitutes a marriage. The "equity" supporters might use this type of thing to show just how "normal" their preference is, and so too the polygamists. But none of it falls within the true definition.

Stan said...

Yeah, having just driven a 6% grade a week ago in a car and knowing the runaway effect, I thought I'd use it here. You get the idea.

Pastor Timothy said...

OK, then we make the Eiffel tower prove its love to whoever wants to marry it, same with the cats, goats, pillows, etc. For all we know, the Eiffel Tower was forced into that marriage unwillingly.

Stan said...

Oh, come on, Pastor Tim. Everyone knows that when a wedding occurs there is the mandatory "If anyone has any reason that these two should not be married" statement. The Tower said nothing at all. Clearly it was willing.

Marshall Art said...

I believe the Eiffel Tower's ex had an objection, but she was denied the ability to voice it by the Tower's best man. Or so I had heard.

Dan said...

I can't imagine my wife leaving me for some inanimate object... though for the Eiffel Tower? mmmmmmm perhaps.

This makes me wonder, in a divorce can the woman sue France for alimony?

Stan said...

She can only sue France if she married France. Given the host of oddities out there, I'm sure that's coming.