Redefining Marriage

@clrumfelt (5437)
United States
April 24, 2009 6:59pm CST
Call me old fashioned, but in my opinion the states are messing with the family unit too much when they started redefining marriage. However, since the federal government failed to define marriage by law, it has obviously come under the category of "states rights." In some states two men or two woman can be married to each other by law, whereas it was illegal in the past. Why not carry the trend a bit further than it is going now? How about bigamy. Lots of people would like to have more than one wife legally, or possibly even more than one husband. Why couldn't a state legalize bigamy? Or, how about moving legal marrying age to age 12 or 13. As long as we're redefining marriage, why not? Here's an even more interesting idea. How about letting each family write their own marraige contract expressing what kind of marraige they want their family to have, and registering it with the state, and then do what they want for their family. Potentially, anyone of legal age could make up their own definition of marriage, register it with the state and go live in marital bliss. I think messing with the institution of marraige and the family is a recipe for disaster in our society. What do you think?
4 people like this
11 responses
@reinydawn (11649)
• United States
25 Apr 09
I think the "institution" of marraige is still pretty sound. BUT with the changes our society has gone through, I think this is another place that needs to be revisited. Some of us are more resistant to change than others, and this is just a change that we're going through. And as with any change, there are growing pains... If we didn't take the opportunity to review our current legislations - state or federal - I think we'd still have slaves and women would not be allowed to vote...
3 people like this
@Ravenladyj (22937)
• United States
25 Apr 09
EXCELLENT POST!! and you nailed it IMO when you said: If we didn't take the opportunity to review our current legislations - state or federal - I think we'd still have slaves and women would not be allowed to vote...
2 people like this
@sid556 (30999)
• United States
25 Apr 09
I have to place my vote in on this one. REinydawn said it perfectly!
2 people like this
@clrumfelt (5437)
• United States
25 Apr 09
Even it is good to revisit the laws and sometimes bring change, there is also something to be said for keeping what we already have if it is better than the alternative. I think the institution of marraige applies here.
1 person likes this
@miamilady (4924)
• United States
25 Apr 09
The divorce rate is already fifty percent. How much more messed up can marriages become by changing the definition? I don't have a problem with people doing what is right for them.
2 people like this
@anniepa (27248)
• United States
25 Apr 09
OMG, my former wacko Senator, Rick Santorum is a member of myLot! Didn't you forget to mention bestiality? Legalizing gay marriage will lead to that, too, remember when you said that on TV not too long before you got voted out of office...lol? Annie
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13923)
• United States
25 Apr 09
All jokes aside, what do you think of his bigamy example? Unlike other things he brought up, bigamy involves consenting adults and is actually sanctioned by some religions. Would you support legalization of this? If not, why not?
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27248)
• United States
25 Apr 09
You're trying to trick me, Taskr, I can tell...lol! You know what, I watch "Big Love" and it's strange how there can be fictional characters who do things I consider to be unacceptable or even downright rotten but they can still be somehow likable if they're portrayed in a sympathetic way. But, no, I think it's fine to simply say marriage is between two consenting adults of the human race. No bigamy, no pedophilia, no bestiality, just two mature human beings who choose to be committed to each other. Rick Santorum really said those things several years ago, I forget who was interviewing him now but I clearly remember sitting there watching with my mom, who was probably about 87 or 88 at the time, and laughing my a$$ off. Annie
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13923)
• United States
25 Apr 09
"You're trying to trick me, Taskr, I can tell...lol!" I promise I'm not trying to trick you. I was actually going to start a thread on just that topic, but now that this one is out I don't want to be redundant. I might still start a thread since this one started off with some judgmental attitudes in the OP and was destined to become a fight. "But, no, I think it's fine to simply say marriage is between two consenting adults of the human race. No bigamy, no pedophilia, no bestiality, just two mature human beings who choose to be committed to each other." But why should we limit it to two? Keep in mind, we are talking about consenting adults. I'm not addressing the other crap (beast, pedo, etc.) because I think that was only brought up to piss people off. Couldn't one argue first amendment rights? If my religion sanctions plural marriage, why should the government forbid me from practicing it? Also keep in mind, that gay marriage is recognized almost everywhere in the country even if it is performed elsewhere. Bigamy on the other hand can and WILL be prosecuted as a crime if anyone is caught practicing it. Can you imagine gay people being prosecuted as criminals for being married?
1 person likes this
• United States
25 Apr 09
i think that if 2 guys or 2 girls want to marry let them we have no right to judge them for that , i don't think the goverment should of stoped it in the first place the goverment has no right to tell people who they can marry thats like trying to tell them who they can love it's bull sh*t i think , plus there are diffrent meanings for a marridge depending on where you go or who does it for you not all are the same.
1 person likes this
@nv_jenn (207)
• Canada
25 Apr 09
Sooo true. Who is the government to tell us who we are allowed to marry, whether that is the way it used to be or not. That is just saying that the government has been wrong all along. The only person that can tell me who I am going to love is myself. If I choose to love and marry a women then I am going to find a way and do so. Although that is not my choice I do believe if it was then I would appreciate being able to live the way I choose and not the way the government and a bunch of papers is going to tell me regardless.
1 person likes this
@clrumfelt (5437)
• United States
25 Apr 09
I have no problem with guys and gals doing whatever they want with their relationship. It is their business to have a civil union or not. I do not like the government changing the definition of marriage to suit the fancy of those who want it. The PEOPLE polled in many places where it has been done are overwhelmingly against it but the government has allowed a few loud and rowdy individuals to overrule the will of the people and that just wrong. Specific laws could be made allowing civil unions some rights without changing the definition of marriage for the whole population.
1 person likes this
@nv_jenn (207)
• Canada
25 Apr 09
It doesn't matter who was polled and who agree'd to let it "pass". It's noones choice and regardless of who approces that is how the person chooses to live their lives and they should be allowed to while receiving the same respect as a "normal" relationship. Who determines normal? This year this is normal and next year there is a whole new fad.... Forget what society says and live your life the way you choose too.
1 person likes this
@suspenseful (40316)
• Canada
25 Apr 09
I think the state forgets that God ordained marriage and they think that in prehistoric times that the cave man just grabbed whatever female or whomever by the hair, clubbed them, and had s*x with them and then just left them while they hunted dinosaurs and saber tooth tigers. And this continued until the State decided to institute marriage. According to this philosophy, the State makes the laws in what marriage it proposes. So if women die in childbirth, they will say that a man can have ten or as many wives as he likes and can have his pick of the slave girls. Then if women and men have the same lifespan, they can say that one man, one wife for life. And if they want to cut down the population they can say that a man can have s*x with a boy to have a vent for his urges. But if you stick to what God ordained, a man leaves his parents and cleaves to his wife, then you have no problem. It used to be that the elders of the village or the parents made the contact and later it was the religious leaders. In some places, they have civil ceremonies and that is just as binding as marrying in Church like in New York City. But once you start deciding that the State has the right to change who marries who, you are messing with things.
@clrumfelt (5437)
• United States
26 Apr 09
You have made some interesting observations. Marriage may have gone through the various stages from barbaric to civilized over the years, and it seems it is taking a wrong turn at this point in time.
@clorissa123 (4930)
• United States
25 Apr 09
Our system of "Defining marriage" is somewhat messed up already. If you talk to some illegal immigrants, such mexicans; majority of them don't have certificate of marriage. They married simply by words, and verbal agreement on both parties. I think marriage at will is depending on both sides, and they choose whether they live together, or really "married to each other." A certificate just a proof that their marriage is regarded by the state of laws, that is all.
1 person likes this
@clrumfelt (5437)
• United States
26 Apr 09
I don't think we should expect that lawbreakers like illegal aliens would honor the sacred state of marriage any more than they honor the laws of the USA, which is they do not. Agreed marriage is messed up somewhat, but it still has a certain amount of dignity in most states and hopefully those who wish it to keep what dignity it has left will unite and say a resounding ,"enough!" to those govt. officials who are trying to denigrate it further.
@sid556 (30999)
• United States
25 Apr 09
I think people worry far more about this than they should. I mean the institution of marriage is not nearly as sacred as it was back when I was a kid. No-fault divorce changed all that. When I was growing up, I only knew one family that did not have both parents living in the home...& married. Now you have all sorts of blended families and single family homes. We are talking about 2 people who love each other and plan on spending their lives together. It is only fair that they be allowed to marry and get the same benefits as any other couple who chooses to get married. People get married just to get a green card and you don't hear such flak...it is all legal. It does not have to be a religious ceremony. There supposedly was separation of church and state years ago. I got married by a JP and there was not a drop of religion involved and it was a legal & binding marriage. It won't hurt you or your family if a gay couple gets married...really it won't. The institution of marriage & family has been messed with by hetro couples for years and years. There is nothing to be all worried about on this one. These people are not marrying carelessly...they are fighting to get married.
1 person likes this
@clrumfelt (5437)
• United States
26 Apr 09
I keep hoping someone will draw a line and say "no more!" and keep whatever dignity still exists in the battered institution of marriage. When I was growing up divorce was still a dirty word. It's sad how much the family has broken down since then.
@fwangaa (3058)
• China
25 Apr 09
I think we should make stitic grim law limited the age of the marriage. Many young are married at a small age and can’t take a lot of energy to bring their children. and they don’t ability to bring their children. they don’t know how to do for their children’s questions. And they don’t feel ???relaxed for them too. We should one husband and one wife. I don’t think to have many wife too. All of the ones are all the same. Every one are not perfect. You don’t find the perfect ones. And don’t you want others discard you suddenly, we must need law bind us.
1 person likes this
@clrumfelt (5437)
• United States
25 Apr 09
I agree. Children need to be protected from entering into a marriage when they are too young. I also agree marriage should be between one man and one woman. That's the best way. No changes needed.
@zweeb82 (5713)
• Malaysia
25 Apr 09
It's just like blaming God that He's cruel for all the wars that are happening in the world when in the 1st place no one wanted to obey the guidelines He has given us for living?I think I will elaborate no further
1 person likes this
@clrumfelt (5437)
• United States
25 Apr 09
Good point. It was God who gave us the institution of marriage and defined it. Any definition of marriage other than God's is a counterfeit. A pretend version of what marriage is truly intended to be.
• United States
27 Apr 09
It is and if it wasn't then you wouldn't hear such an uproar. The people that say we need to be open minded are the closed minded ones in the first place. They don't want to think of traditional marriage as the key to producing happy healthy children, they want to be selfish and do it for themselves, not for their kids (if they adopt).
1 person likes this
@Citychic (4071)
• United States
25 Apr 09
Redefining marriage. Hey there, I agree with you. We don't need to redefine marriage. We simply need more people to stay true to their commitments.........