If traditional marriage is redefined by socially liberal people, there will be a new definition of marriage.
Once it is redefined, it can be redefined again. I'm not saying that marriage would be redefined again, but it is very possible. I imagine if the idea of same-sex marriage were floated even in the 1960-70's people would be appalled. See how times change?
If marriage were re-defined, it would open the door to polygamy and plural marriages.
Homosexuals and lesbians could marry were marriage re-defined, but bisexuals - to an extent - could not.
I imagine that, sooner or later, they (at least some) would be screaming to be allowed the right marry the two people they love (both male and female).
Polygamists would be screaming for the right to legally marry were marriage re-defined. They already are, in fact. Gays certainly don't want to talk about that happening.
In the context of same-sex marriage, socially liberal people often bring up African-Americans not being allowed to marry whites (and vice versa) at one time. But that is comparing apples to oranges. One is born black. It is genetic. Homosexuals are not "born that way." Homosexuality is not genetic, and attempts to find a genetic link to homosexuality or a homosexual gene, have failed. The top minds on this say that there is no homosexual gene.
Additionally, socially liberal people often say that DOMA is a violation of either the 4 or 14th Amendment. But, if one looks closely at those two Amendments, DOMA does not violate them at all.
Socially liberal people often say that DOMA, or bans on same sex marriage, are 'tyranny of the majority'.
Wanting to re-define marriage (via the courts) to allow homosexuals to marry, plural marriages, or polygamy is tyranny of the minority then. They continue to try to ram this issue down our throats.
Why must gay activists, liberal Democrats, and socially liberal people be so divisive?
What say you to this?
Hey turd burglers......mandate THIS!!!
Anybody know where George Washington's marriage license is kept these days?
Ain't these the guys who've been screaming for years to "Get Government Out Of The Bedroom!"?
The Left will never rest in their eternal mission to destroy bourgeois civilization and replace it with the totalitarian garrison state of their dreams. If they can wreck traditional marriage and family structures they will be 90% of the way home.
Simple Translation:
We're irrellevant, mentally ill folks... and since we can't get you to pander to our mental illness.. we will continue to attack your sensibilities simply because we can.
This is gonna go over real well with every decent American.
The left gets loonier all the time.
This is a good counter to the argument that gays can't get married because they can't have kids together. You know, the "marriage is for procreation" argument. I always thought that was the lamest argument, and this shows why.
Hopefully, this will keep traditional marriage supporters to the strong arguments they do have.
It's the childishness of homosexual lobbyists that always amazes me. Wanting all the perks of adults, while refusing to act like adults. On this organization's Web site, they explain the initiative in words to this effect: "The Christian Right says the purpose of marriage is to have children, and we can't have children—so we can't marry. Well, some of those . . . straight people can't have children, either, so there. We'll show you how it feels: We'll nullify your right to marry. After all, if you can't breed, you're just like us."
Their argument is basically Catholic-envy, since the Catholic Church has provisions for declaring that a marriage has been null. The Church says no marriage has taken place if the couple either didn't understand the step they were taking, or were unable or unwilling to live up to their promises.
Like most comfortably ignorant Leftists, the lobbyists think that the Church teaches that the only purpose of marriage is becoming baby machines. Not so. A man and woman incapable of having children together are still capable, in theological terms, of marriage. As Catholics are taught, there are two purposes to marriage: unitive and procreative. Sex in particular is a means of enhancing spiritual unity with your spouse. Procreation is a miraculous benefit of marriage that we must be open to; the unitive purpose is non-negotiable. Everyone understands this, on some level. The lobbyists' implicit claim is that homosexuality is unitive in a way that merits the name "marriage." But it's not truly unitive; it's thwarted and perverse, the refuge of people too hurt to identify with their own sex and bond with the opposite sex.
Perverse behavior can't be a sacrament. In secular terms, such relations are too damaged and unhealthy to serve as building blocks for society. These poor people are so confused that they've raised a good question. It has an an answer, and it's up to us to give it loud and clear. Everyone will benefit.
My wife and I would have met this requirement. In fact, we had the second one on the way by the third anniversary.
The gay marriage advocates should be careful about opening this can of worms.
If heteros have to produce children within three years, or face annulment, then homosexual couples have the same requirement. And once annulled, the homosexual couples would have to start the whole process of getting their marriage reinstated only after they have shown due diligence in learning whether they are physically capable of becoming parents.
Or we could just go to "limited" cohabitation contracts, which are renewed upon the payment of an annual fee to the civil authorities, in which children are not involved at all. The gender of the contracting individuals would not be a matter of concern to the civil authorities in the least, but evasion of payment of the annual fee would become a criminally prosecutable offense.
Take care what it is that you wish for.
So in other words - if my Wife and I lived there under this proposed law, we would currently be an unmarried couple with two children - we waited some 12 years to have our first child...
I sure miss the days when Homosexuals just stayed in the closet...
"I imagine if the idea of same-sex marriage were floated even in the 1960-70's people would be appalled. See how times change?"
I'm one of the aging dinosaurs on this site, having been born in 1950.
In the 1960s, if a conservative had said that normalizing sex outside of marriage would eventually lead to same-sex marriage, people would have laughed at how hysterical some conservatives are, how driven by exaggerated fears. Gay marriage simply would not have been considered a realistic possibility except in the most radical circles. Ditto for GLSEN clubs. Homosexuals promoting tolerance of homosexuality in the schools? You've got to be kidding.
I remember rumors going around my (middle class) high school in conservative Richmond, VA, about a boy (one of the class leaders) and a girl who had been caught - hold your breath - making out!
I remember how restrained people were in talking about sexual matters back then. You can pick up on this a little from old television programs.
I also remember reading an article in the NY Times in the summer of 1971, about how a female student from Barnard and a male student from Columbia had decided to live together. It was a long article which speculated that this probably pointed to a new trend in society.
I also recollect someone scoffing at the idea with me that "nice girls don't do it" in the mid-1970s.
Notice how my recollections don't even touch on gay marriage. The new and shocking trends back then were sex outside of marriage and after that, cohabitation.
"In the context of same-sex marriage, socially liberal people often bring up African-Americans not being allowed to marry whites (and vice versa) at one time."
The courts struck down the last barrier to interracial marriage in 1967. The automatic assumption back then was that interracial marriage would involve a man and a woman. Legitimazing interracial marriage was thus a true expansion of marriage because the basic tenants of marriage (male/female, don't marry a close relative, don't marry someone under age, etc.) were left intact. Gay marriage is not an expansion of marriage; it is a redefinition.