Posted on 03/20/2012 2:35:25 PM PDT by NYer
Let the further absurdities begin. Having redefined marriage, the secular world may discover it has actually undefined marriage. For in removing so basic an aspect of the definition of marriage (a male and a female), proponents of gay “marriage” will have a hard time excluding any newcomers to the the now opened-ended notion of “marriage.” Consider the following story from Yahoo News:
Last week, Nadine Schweigert married herself in a symbolic wedding ceremony. The 36-year-old divorced mom of three wore blue satin and clutched a bouquet of white roses as she walked down the aisle before a gathering of 45 friends and family members in Fargo, North Dakota…..
She vowed to “to enjoy inhabiting my own life and to relish a lifelong love affair with my beautiful self,”…the ring was exchanged with the bride and her “inner-groom,” guests were encouraged to “blow kisses at the world,” and later, eat cake. Schweigert, who followed the ceremony with a solo honeymoon in New Orleans, claims the wedding was her way of showing the world she’s learned to love and accept herself as a woman flying solo. …Schweigert’s 11-year-old son was her biggest critic: “He said, ‘I love you, but I’m embarrassed for you right now.’” [1]
Of course the woman did not marry herself, that is impossible. But why let reality get in the way of wordsmithing and living in a self defined world?
The intrepid reporter could not avoid adding his own commentary:
I believe everyone has the right to marry, regardless of sexual preference…. For some people being alone is what feels most natural. Shouldn’t they too be entitled to tax breaks? …Some people are actually proud of their solo relationship status and even ready to commit to it. Maybe if more people could reap the benefits of a wedding without a partner, there would be a lower national divorce rate.… -Piper Weiss, Shine Senior Features Editor, Single [2]
Let’s overlook the logical fallacy and abuse of the English language in the phrase “solo relationship” for the absurdity is evident enough; and it you don’t see it, I have a square circle to sell you. Let’s also overlook the bizarre non-sequitur that single “marriages” would somehow result in a lower “divorce” rate. For as absurd as the notion of self-”marriage” is, the notion of divorcing one’s own self is even more absurd. Where would one go from oneself?
But absurd is the word for the whole strange redefinition of marriage movement. The secular world, having sown in the wind, now reaps the whirlwind. If something as outlandish as two men together can be called “marriage,” who is to say that any other part of the definition cannot be tampered with? Why should marriage be between only two? Here come the polygamists. And apparently too, here come the soloists like Ms (Mrs?) Schweigert. And while we’re at it, who is to say marriage has to be between two humans? Bring on the bestiality advocates as well as those who would like to effect marriages between their pets.
Absurd? Sure! But so is two men getting “married.” And I would wonder how advocates of homosexual “marriage” would be able to answer Ms. (Mrs?) Schweigert’s (s’ ??) salvo, as well as the silly conclusions of the reporter? Are they not hoisted on the petard of their own “logic?” For if something as basic as sexual identity can be removed from the definition of marriage, who is to say that duality, and even humanity, cannot be removed? Can the homosexual community and advocates of homosexual “marriage” really say such things as polygamy and bestiality are a bridge too far? Why? On what basis?
I have a solution. Back to the Bible, back to Natural Law, and back to tradition. Yes, Scripture, and the natural Law and tradition it reflects, is easier and clearer. God set forth marriage in Genesis pretty well: One man (Adam) for one woman (Eve). God calls her a “suitable” partner for Adam (Gn 2:18). And Adam was to cling to his wife in a stable life long relationship (Gn 2:24), and their fundamental task was to be fruitful and multiply (Gen 1:28). (Which would be pretty hard if the first and archetypal couple were homosexual or solo-sexual – (is that a word?)).
Now for those polygamy advocates, who will surely opine here that the Patriarchs had multiple wives, I will only say here that the Scriptures do not approve of things, simply because they report them. The fact is, polygamy always led to trouble and, as Israel matured, it was set aside. The Patriarchs erred by departing from God’s plan for marriage.
So here we are, going into the waters of ever deeper absurdity. A woman “married” herself (she did no such thing). And soon enough the “soloists” will be at City Hall demanding licenses and benefits. The polygamists will be there with them, and Lord only knows what other combinations.
In the end, if anything is marriage, nothing is marriage. We need to stop using the word and return to the older “Holy Matrimony.” The word “marriage” is becoming increasingly meaningless.
Restoration of the term “Matrimony”, ping!
Told ya so!
And in Seattle a couple months back some lady married a building. Hurray for “marriage equality” the slipper slope from absurdity to even more absurd.
Didn’t some tattooed basketball player from the Chicago Bulloney marry himself a few years ago? I think he listed himself as both Dennis Rodman and Denise Rodman in the press release.
So now she can go...consummate the marriage with herself...with a clear conscience.
Wjhen 3 people have sex it’s a threesome, when 2 people have sex it’s called a twosome, now we know why she is called haddsome!
Not a surprise.
Jane Lynch beat her to it.
According to the information posted at the link, her character married herself, not Jane Lynch.
“entitled to tax breaks”?
They want to destroy the very foundation of western civilization for “tax breaks”???
Geez, what a narcissist she is!
Pathetic.
PING!
Is she going to file her taxes jointly? As Curly would say: Soitenly!
“The secular world, having sown in the wind, now reaps the whirlwind. If something as outlandish as two men together can be called “marriage,” who is to say that any other part of the definition cannot be tampered with?”
The state’s definition could always be tampered with, as it is simply whatever judges, pols or the majority think it can be at anyone time. The first big tampering was divorce and remarriage, followed by no-fault divorce and so on.
Freegards, thanks for all the pings
If you’ve gotta be creative, why not marry a dead guy? They are getting baptized these days, so it wouldn’t be that weird. ;)
I love this!!! My husband and I live within the bounds of Holy Matrimony. We vowed to each other before God, with a priest officiating, in a church. Since they have usurped “marriage”, we need to define ourselves differently.
Any suggestions on how to refer to one’s marriage under this term? Do we still use Husband and Wife?
If you married yourself more than once could you be charged with bigamy? How about three times or more if you wanted to be a polygamist?
Right, but I couldn’t remember her character’s name! Eeeks!
Her lunacy notwithstanding, what about the 45 morons who witnessed this event.
Call me old fashioned but I believe that attending a wedding is offering support and assent to the relationship and commitment.
I must hang in really good circles. I know very few who are divorced. Only one of my friends marriages failed. But, I’ve had a couple opportunities to attend a second marriage and declined.
Schweigert’s 11-year-old son was her biggest critic: “He said, ‘I love you, but I’m embarrassed for you right now.’”
At least her kid thinks straight.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.