Quote:
Originally Posted by Larv
Now, here’s the rub in many good people’s eyes: What about the polygamists and members of other groups of preferred sexuality, or combinations there of? Yes, maybe even bestiality, necrophilia, incest, and other permutations of nature will gain a legal foothold with the legalization of same-sex marriage. So, with my philosopher’s hat on, I have to as if this is where we’re headed.
I’d be willing to bet London to a brick that more than half of the American population privately feels this way, rightly or wrongly.
|
I agree it is the rub. I alluded to this earlier, and for all I know, it was brought up much earlier before I arrived on this thread.
Same-sex marriage as legal process is gateway for other forms of atypical unions. Things that may very much be considered taboo today, could be deemed legal unions (and marriage) in rather short order. I don't think it will be within same decade as the inevitable okay that will come with same-sex marriage, but I believe it is bound to happen.
I tend to go two ways on this. First, I believe it all ought to be allowed. For me, it has to do with the spiritual principle that we are all joined anyhow, so let's not allow our prejudices to blind us to what marriage actually is within our species (of consciousness).
But since it could be another 10,000 years before humanity sees things as if we are literally all in this together, then I say another viable solution is to cleanse the proverbial waters of all forms of human defined marriages. Meaning heterosexuals no longer are allowed to use the term "marriage" in relation to their unions, and in so doing, every other type of human relationship would be made to follow suit. Privately, people could call their unions whatever they want, but publicly, marriage would be looked at as primitive concept from our past, that only led to division as we couldn't quite work out the idea that this word could apply to anyone and everyone. And instead certain factions of society attempted to claim ownership as if their relationships reflected "true" marriage.
While the two ways I look at this seem opposed, I see both as realistic. The latter one would (perhaps) prevent us from going to a place that I see as inevitable, which is confronting even more "taboo and yucky" forms of human relationships in the vein of "true marriage" and the former idea allows us to accept marriage in a way that isn't exclusive. Cause if marriage is seen to be exclusive, uh yeah, you can (and will) count me out.
