Marriage has been a hot button issue for at least the last decade when it comes to it definition and who can get married. Traditionally marriage has been defined as a man and a woman uniting their lives in either a civil or religious wedding ceremony. Until recently there was never any question as to what the formula for marriage was… you could ask anyone on the street and they would tell you with no hesitation.
Under the current definition of marriage, anyone can get married. It is a right already established and open to everyone. If you are a man, you can marry a woman — providing of course neither of you are already married (and not part of a religious cult). However now many are decrying that marriage is a right denied to a certain group of people — a group that is self-selected with no means of validation or confirmation — and certainly no proof that it is a grouping of natural genetics. Of course I speak of the homosexual community, who with no changes to laws have the right to enter into marriage, provided they follow the definition. A man can marry a woman. Even if that man has chosen to live a homosexual lifestyle, if he’s honest about his choice with his wife, he can legally marry.
Of course, since the purpose of marriage is to facilitate families – man and woman procreate and bear children, there isn’t really much reason for a gay man or woman to enter into proper marriage — but that would be their choice, that right is not denied to them by anyone except their own decisions.
Nevertheless that’s not good enough and marriage as society knows it has been under attack of late.
The formula of marriage
The formula, as stated above, is simple and was never in question. Until now. The math was simple and the variables were assumed by everyone with basic thinking skills. But since we as a society always rightly assumed that marriage was a man and a woman, perhaps all the other assumed components of the formula must also be called into question. If one variable can be modified, then logic dictates that all the variables can be likewise modified. If you bring this logic up to proponents of gay marriage, they will balk and cry foul at such a preposterous notion. But while they get to say that the genders of the parties in question should be malleable against the protests of most of society, what gives them the right to declare the other variables are set in stone?
So… the clear and understood formula for marriage has always been:
ONE UNMARRIED HUMAN MALE OF CONSENTING AGE
+ ONE UNMARRIED HUMAN FEMALE OF CONSENTING AGE
= MARRIAGE
There. We just always assumed that everyone knew this (because they used to), but now it’s being mucked around with and expecting the same result.
Like the old Ziploc commercial (and basic third grade art class) taught us:
YELLOW + BLUE = GREEN (primary color values only of course)
So let’s see. I want YELLOW + YELLOW = GREEN. Nope. Doesn’t work, it’s still YELLOW. What about BLUE + BLUE? Nope… that’s just BLUE. What about BLUE + YELLOW? Yes! Still GREEN!
We can pass laws to say that GREEN is now composed of YELLOW + YELLOW or BLUE + BLUE, but will such a law truly make it so? (That’s rhetorical).
All the other variables
If the gay lobby gets their say (as they have in several states) then their definition of marriage would be:
ONE UNMARRIED HUMAN {ANY GENDER} OF CONSENTING AGE
+ ONE UNMARRIED HUMAN {ANY GENDER} OF CONSENTING AGE
= MARRIAGE
But who are those narrow minded bigots who get to determine that’s where it stops? The other variables are fair game too.
Number of people
We assume it’s two people making up a marriage, but who says? What is one man wants to be married to three women. Not in three marriages, but one marriage comprising four people. Who has the right to tell them no?
Marital status
Likewise, if someone is already married to another, what’s to stop them from marrying someone else? And another? And another? What right do we have to limit such? A person can be involved in multiple corporations, so why not multiple marriages?
Species
Again, we assume humans… but why? Perhaps “it’s okay to love your dogs, just not LOVE your dogs” is too narrow (sorry liberal nutcase Janeane Garafalo). This is where the logic of the gay marriage argument being used against them really drives them batty. But not as much as:
Age of participants
Society sets an age of consent to protect minors, but again who gets to say what that age is? You bring up the obvious sicko groups like NAMBLA and the gay marriage proponents immediately dismiss your argument. But that doesn’t make it invalid.
Sure people don’t like slippery slope arguments — but that’s usually because they don’t like logical conclusions being drawn from their own illogical statements. Nevertheless either marriage is defined or it’s completely changeable in all aspects.
Therefore, if the gay lobby gets their way, this is where the definition of marriage would really end up:
{ANY NUMBER} {MARRIED OR UNMARRIED} {ANY SPECIES} {ANY GENDER} {OF ANY AGE}
+ {ANY NUMBER} {MARRIED OR UNMARRIED} {ANY SPECIES} {ANY GENDER} {OF ANY AGE}
= MARRIAGE
(as well as {ANY COLOR}+{ANY COLOR} = GREEN)
It’s like “Marriage Mad-Libs”. And that still leaves out people who want to marry inanimate objects. But come on, we have to draw the line somewhere. Right?