When Marriage Can Be Anything, Marriage Can Be Anything

People are "marrying" roller coasters, and themselves.

By William M Briggs Published on January 8, 2017

It is only irrational animus, bigotry, and hatred that causes some to deny that human beings and fairground rides cannot marry. Love is love, and sometimes love extends to the soaring tracks, twisting hairpin curves, and thrilling loop-de-loops of roller coasters.

Yes. Two women have married, not each other, which would not be unusual these days, but each has married a roller coaster. Not the same roller coaster, of course; that would be absurd; different roller coasters.

One lady, a Miss Wolfe, 33, church organist, fell in love with the roller coaster in Knoebels Amusement Park, Pennsylvania. According to one report, “Although she faces discrimination from employers, most of her family and friends have been supportive. ‘I’m not hurting anyone and I can’t help it,’ she said. ‘It’s a part of who I am.'”

Don’t scoff. No one chooses to be an objectum-sexual; it is something which is forced upon one. What’s that? What’s an objectum-sexual? As defined by the second wedded lady, Linda, 56, who tied her knot to the backside of a roller coaster, an objectum-sexual is a person who “has romantic feelings for inanimate objects.”

Psychology Today reports many are objectum-sexuals, folks who view their objects of love as “equal” partners. Who isn’t for Equality? Reports are coming in from the across the globe of objectum-sexuals marrying smart phones, steam engines, video game characters, rocks, trees, dolls, electronic devices, radios, pillows, cars, and, yes, the Eiffel Tower.

The Self-Sexuals

Animus, bigotry, and hatred not only motivates people to deny the rights of objectum-sexuals, but also to disparage the needs and desires of self-sexuals. Self-sexuals are people who love best themselves, making it natural that the objects of their matrimonial instincts are, well, themselves.

No less conservative an organ than Good Housekeeping reports that “self-marriage is a small but growing movement, with consultants and self-wedding planners popping up across the world.”

One such person is Brooklynite Erika Anderson who recently married herself. “It wasn’t an easy decision,” she said. “I had cold feet for 35 years. But then I decided it was time to settle down. To get myself a whole damn apartment. To celebrate birthday #36 by wearing an engagement ring and saying: YES TO ME. I even made a registry, because this is America.”

There is even, because this is America, a website, I Married Me, which advises readers to “Choose love.” Love is, after all, love. The site provides the unofficial motto for the self-marriage movement, “To honor myself is to understand and acknowledge that I am worthy”. Anybody can marry themselves, even folks who are already married to others, or to objects.

“It’s not a legal process — you won’t get any tax breaks for marrying yourself. It’s more a ‘rebuke’ of tradition, says Rebecca Traister, author of All the Single Ladies: Unmarried Women and the Rise of an Independent Nation.


The Rebuke of History and Tradition and Nature

Tradition insists that marriage is between one man, one woman; the two become “one flesh.” The pairs came together to procreate and care for not just each other, but for their created families. Marriages were the result of the natural state of mankind, driven by necessities of biology, the environment, and even religion. No government dared risk interfering with this fundamental and organic process. To have meddled would have invited charges of monumental hubris.

But things change. Governments recognized Equality trumped Nature, and so mandated that history and tradition be overthrown. But first they were borrowed from. History and tradition insisted that marriage was the state between two people, so government meddling dictated any two people could marry.

But it will quickly be realized (and is being realized) that history and tradition can be no guide whatsoever, because history and tradition, while they do say marriage was for pairs, also insist, in the strongest possible terms, that marriage is only for man-woman pairs.

So history and tradition must be rebuked.

Those who want to keep with capital-Tradition are no longer allowed to do so. Traditionalists are still allowed to marry one another in the traditional way, but they are now forced to agree that government-defined “marriages” are equivalent to actual marriages. Governments have not, as yet, moved to “bless” object- and self-marriages, but there is no good reason for them not to.

And if people can marry roller coasters and themselves, why cannot sons marry their mothers? Cosmopolitan reports, “A Mom Fell in Love With Her Son and Plans to Have Children With Him,” which they call “genetic sexual attraction”. There is already a forum for interested people. Why not marriage?

After all, when marriage can be anything, marriage can be anything.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Paul

    If two brothers screw each other is it still incest?

    • Mike

      if they love each other why can’t they marry one another and share in life’s ups and downs together?

      • Paul

        LOL, any and all people have the ability to love each other and share in life’s ups and downs together. Marriage or even sex isn’t a prerequisite. I love my brother, we share in life’s ups and downs, we’re not married and don’t screw each other either.

        • Mike

          i know i was being sarcastic.

        • David

          So you think it’s good to take away other people’s rights with no justification, so long as they can live without it.

          And you people still don’t get how monstrous you are? Really?

          • Gary

            The “right” to marry someone of the same sex was granted by the government, and can be removed by the government.

          • David

            Yes, and taking away rights is what a fascist does

          • Gary

            When a “right” is granted by a government that it has no authority to grant, then correcting that situation is justified.

          • David

            So you are in favor of repealing the outdated second amendment? Radical idea there, well beyond what any liberal suggests. But if you feel that way, then I guess you feel that the 2nd amendment must be repealed.

          • Gary

            The second amendment is not outdated. It is essential to keeping the citizens free from a corrupt government. But, should enough people ever want to repeal it, there is a legal procedure for doing that. And, there is a legal procedure for repealing same-sex marriage.

          • David

            Yes, the 2nd amendment keeps us safe, just like this magical rock that keeps Tigers away protects us all.

            And you elected the most corrupt government in history about to be sworn in, who we know is a Russian puppet. When does that magical 2nd amendment kick in and give us the president 4 million more Americans voted for?

          • Gary

            Trump was elected according to law. If you don’t like the laws, you can try to have them changed.

          • David

            Ah, so you mean that the 2nd amendment is completely and totally useless and outdated, since any corrupt government would be elected by law, and therefore the 2nd amendment would not stop it.

            Well, since according to you, it fails at its only purpose and keeps getting Americans slaughtered, I assume that’s why you think it should be repealed?

          • Paul

            No….deplorable, didn’t you get the memo from your hero?

          • David

            Ah, so you’re not one of the people reacting to economic factors that she said one sentence later made up half his voters, and admit that you are instead part of the 13% of people who are just screaming sacks full of hate.

          • Paul

            LOL, nice try. She thinks anyone committed to the Judeo Christian ethic , the Constitution and common sense is deplorable. News flash: Two dudes humping ain’t normal. You wanna hump your own sex go for it, but don’t sit there trying to tell me it’s normal. A dude is a dude, a gal is a gal. They don’t change. No matter what surgery, no matter the makeup or wardrobe they’re still a dud and a gal just as they were born. It’s not hatred, it’s plain old common sense, stating the obvious honest truth instead of sipping the liberal koolaid.

          • David

            I love how Right Wing “christians” are trying to force the made up term ‘Judeo christian’, because saying the real word – Abraham in- would force them to admit that Islam is as closely related to their faith as Judaism is.

            But she definitely doesn’t think that the people who love their neighbour, give to the poor, renounce weapons, treat prisoners well, let refugees into the country, and respect actual Christian values are deplorable. She lives her Christian values.

            It’s more those who try to dress up their bile, their hatred, their phobias in the traipsing of vague religious justification and claim that it’s Christianity, those are the deplorable ones. The ones who ignore everything Jesus taught.

            And no, you think it’s not normal. So you are free to not be gay if you think it’s weird. But people who are gay don’t have to listen to you, because it’s their life, not yours, you fascist.

            Hey, I think that you are weird and should never be allowed to marry. You are an ugly fat stupid sack of lies. But that doesn’t mean I get to dictate your life. You are free to do what you want if it’s not hurting anyone. Just like gay people are free to do what they want if it’s not hurting anyone. Do you understand yet?

            You hate gay people. I hate you. Neither opinion means anyone should be deprived of rights.

          • Paul

            Hate? Who said anything about hate other than you?

            Hillary living a Christian life? Glad I wasn’t drinking any water just then or I would have sprayed it all over my keyboard. This is getting more hilarious by the post. You’re at least good for entertainment since you’re so full of fiction.

          • David

            You did, when you talked about wanting to take rights away. You oppose love. What exactly is that other than hate.

            She lives according to ACTUAL Christianity, not the rich worshipping hate based doctrine that Republicans invented to turn Evangelical Americans into Republicans after they mobilized them in the 70s to fight integration (Bob Jones excluding African Americans, look up some actual history).

            So she’s a Christian in that she follows Christ, not in that she does whatever Republicans tell her to.

          • Paul

            A person who supports sodomy, abortion and corrupting the institution of marriage is no Christian. Her God is self and govt.

            Libs love to talk of freedom but that goes out the window when a Christian objects to supporting a homosexual ceremony. Fine them and force them to comply! Force their kids to be indoctrinated with their nonsense at school! Punish the frugal and hard working by stealing their money so some freak can get a free addadictomy. Violate the 2nd amendment and steal private property. Yea, we all know your version of free, free at someone elses expense.

          • David

            Right, like I said, she is a REAL Christian, not the hate fueled Christ ignoring phony kind you are. You don’t get to define what Christian means.

            What part of the phrase “if it’s not hurting anyone” do you fail to wrap your brain around? Discriminating against someone, is hurting. Trying to deprive kids of facts so they can stupid and believing the right wing propaganda, is hurting someone.refusing to actually contribute for the benefits you get from society, is hurting someone. Letting madmen go on sprees shooting up African American churches, is hurting someone.

            And because I can see the little wheels in your tiny tint brain working, no, a fetus is not a person. You are stupid and think it is, but I don’t have to share your delusion. We deal with actual people who are real. Those are the ones you aren’t allowed to hurt.

            And the Republican version of free means free at poor people’s, minorities, and the next generations expense.

          • Paul

            LOL, ripe stuff once again, thanks for the entertainment. Real Christians actually follow the teachings of the Bible, you know, stuff like homosexual acts are an abomination, don’t murder, don’t steal, don’t lie, the list goes on.

            Lemme guess, unborn children are merely parasitic tumors in your twisted mind. I’ve heard it all before.

            It’s been fun and entertaining, but I’m off to work so the govt can steal it to pay for your free food, free housing, free abortions, free liberal education, etc.

            You can have the last word here, but Jesus has the ultimate last word and your hateful twisted religion isn’t following Him, you don’t know Him and He certainly won’t know you.

          • David

            Homosexual acts are just as much an abomination as eating shellfish or pork. I assume you treat then in the same way.

            Yes, a true Christian is told to not lie. So that means all the lies you Republicans said about Hillary Clinton for the last 30 years mean you aren’t a Christian? Or is there a hidden subclause- thou shalt not give false testament, unless it would help you attack a woman you don’t like?

            And I noticed you missed a few other things the bible calls abominations – owning weapons, trying to attack foreigners seeking refuge in your city, being rich, praying in public. Wonder why you forgot those things.

            No, an unborn child is just an unwanted growth that is inside the mothers body, dependant on her and her alone, and she has the only say over it. You want to join this discussion? You get a fetus lodged in you.

            I make $60 k a year doing repairs. I know Republican brains are always inherently selfish, so they don’t understand standing up for the rights of anyone bit themselves, but I am fighting for the people who need welfare to live because it’s the Christian thing to do, not because I benefit directly from it.

            A huh. Let me say this – your religion worships Ayn Rand more than it does a single word that Jesus said.

          • Gary

            If you are trying to make yourself out to be a Christian, you might as well give that up. You have already proven you’re not a Christian.

            By the way, if you want the government to adhere to the Mosaic Law, then they will have to begin executing homosexuals and adulterers. That would eliminate a lot of your friends. Maybe even you.

          • David

            Right. I’m an actual Christian. Not the Ayn Rand worshipping hate fueled death cult that decides to call itself a Christian. I worship Jesus, the brown skinned Palestinian Jew.

            And I don’t want any religious law implemented; I want a secular law system that values every American equally important sorry that idea fills you with so much hate.

  • 6Proverbs16

    Controversies about marriage have persisted since the time of the Jesus of Nazareth:

    Mark 12:
    8 Then the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 19 “Teacher,” they said, “Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother. 20 Now there were seven brothers. The first one married and died without leaving any children. 21 The second one married the widow, but he also died, leaving no child. It was the same with the third. 22 In fact, none of the seven left any children. Last of all, the woman died too. 23 At the resurrection[c] whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?” 24 Jesus replied, “Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? 25 When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven….

    Your writing – with parody and comedy well deployed – is just the same thing as asked of Jesus: ‘Master, what about this? And what if that happens? Then what does that mean about marriage?’

    YOU HAVE Jesus’ answer: “you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? 25 When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven”

    Jesus made clear that marriage is something humans do BEFORE God’s redemption of the world in the Kingdom of God. In the Kingdom of God – after redemption of the world – there will be NO marriage. Human will be like angels in heaven … who do not marry. WOW!

    Social-Control Christians don’t like the words of the Lord Jesus Christ. They like their own worldly wisdom about marriage. Social-Control Christians are just like Sharia Law Muslims: only their way will do about marriage, gender roles, and family rules. Social-Control Christians have their own Imams and Fatwahs.

    Proof of that is that Social-Control Christians have nothing to say about Jesus’ actual words about marriage. We’ve cited the key passage to you. What have you do say?

    Importantly you must also discuss the context of Jesus’ actual words about marriage. That context, in Mark’s Gospel, is that Jesus, immediately!, following his discourse in marriage launched into revelation of what God requires:

    28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
    29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.[e] 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’[f] 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[g] There is no commandment greater than these.”
    32 “Well said, teacher,” the man replied. “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. 33 To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.”
    34 When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions.

    AH! Wonderfull Lord Jesus. You have taught us clearly, directly, and without confusion what the Social-Control Christian want to make confusing. Marriage may be good but is absolutely not the everlasting good. Those married on earth are NOT married in heaven. Social-Control Christians love to talk about marriage as ‘eternal’ but they are liars. Who said that they are liars: The Lord Jesus Christ, clearly, directly, and without confusion. What does Jesus say is the goal of all human relationships, if married, or if not married: Love your neighbor as yourself.

    Social-control Christians do not love as Jesus commanded. They prefer their Sharia Law, their Imams, and their Fatwahs.

    • Patmos

      It’s hard to tell exactly what you’re rambling on about, but you mostly seem to be wanting to turn the grace of God into a license to sin. You want a response to your gibberish? Here, from the man himself, probably the most adamant social control Christian to ever walk the face of the earth:

      “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
      For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” -Matthew 5:17-18

      Here’s an idea for you, quit being so selfish.

      “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.” -Matthew 16:24

      • 6Proverbs16

        Thank you. I’ve added clarification from two points of view:

        what Christians are required to provide in a democracy:

        In the social world of a democracy Christians must give sound rationales – developed through valid and reliable research, and within the parameter of sound ethical reasoning

        scriptures that further tell Christians that they make far too much of marriage as a device of social-control:

        Matthew 19:10:
        The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

        The Disciples who knew Jesus and heard his words and his tone of voice and saw his gestures and had a chance to ask questions and hear answers (not recorded in the text), concluded “it is better not to marry”. So again, we see that marriage was not to Jesus what Social-Control Christians say that it is. They can argue that marriage is ‘this’ or ‘that’ from later traditions but they cannot argue from the words of Jesus.

      • 6Proverbs16

        …. your quotation from Matthew is about Christian liberty not about social control. Liberty not control, because Jesus did fulfill all the prophets and did fulfill all the law in Jesus’ atoning passion and death, which God the Creator accepted as fulfillment, announced in Jesus glorious resurrection. You seem to have forgotten that …. duh! …. for some reason.

    • Jim Walker

      Our marriage vows : In death do us part… and Jesus says in heaven we are all like angels….
      You just pulled that verse meant for us in heaven, to earth.

  • Gary

    If the definition of marriage can be changed, then why not other things? Why can’t 2+2 = whatever someone wants it to be? If each of us gets to define whatever we want any way we want it, then the meaning of everything is up for grabs. But, if some woman wants to “marry” an amusement ride, or herself, I am willing to leave them to their insanity. Just as long as they don’t try to force me to participate by acting as if I recognize their fantasy to be legitimate. The objection I have to “same-sex marriage” is that the government and the laws back it up. If two men wanted to consider themselves to be married, I wouldn’t care. Its the legality of it that I object to. If their arrangement weren’t legal, and the government wouldn’t try to make me accept it, they can “be married” if they want to. Just as long as I don’t have to associate with them, I’m good.

    • JTLiuzza

      No. The Church, Her truth, the Sacraments are literally all we have. Allowing mockery of Matrimony endangers us all. And we should also be concerned for the particular souls engaged in such delusion, for their souls hang in the balance.

      • Gary

        Do you mean the Catholic Church? If you do, then I’m not Catholic.

        How would you prevent people from mocking marriage?

      • Aliquantillus

        The problem with the Church is that this institution is in a transition process of adapting itself to the new secular morality, as is clear from the ideas in Amoris Laetitia, the Apostolic Exhortation issued after the two Synods on the Family in 2014 and 2015. The words and actions of Pope Francis suggest that he doesn’t care much about the uniqueness of Christian marriage. If two partners “love” one another it appears to be OK to him. Neither divorce and remarriage, nor homosexual unions seem to bother him much.

      • John Michael

        Oh please..people don’t have souls.. there is no heaven and there is no hell..please grow up

        • Gary

          Many of us believe people DO have souls, which continue to exist, either in Heaven or in Hell, after our physical bodies have died. You can disagree with that belief if you want. When you die, you will find out if you were wrong.

      • David

        I’m not familiar with all the Churches truths. Which of them excused priests molesting young boys? It’s good to know you unquestioningly follow what you are told to do by an institution which covered up the biggest pedophilia racket in human history.

    • John Michael

      No one is asking you to accept anything. You just to understand that you live in a country where SSM exists

      • Gary

        You just asked me to accept ssm. And in doing that, you also asked me to accept homosexuality. In some states and cities, it is illegal to discriminate against lgbtq, which is another way in which I, and others, are being asked (told) to accept lgbtq. In order to have any sort of acceptance of lgbtq or ssm, I would have to violate my religious beliefs. I won’t do that.

        • David

          No, you are being told to sit down and shut up about something that in no way affects you, and to treat everyone with basic human dignity and not care what they do in the bedroom. If ssm breaks your tiny monkey brain, just keep your lips shut about it.

          • Gary

            I am not going to sit down and shut up about it. What the government does has an affect on everyone, directly or indirectly. People who participate in homosexual behavior, or endorse it, as you have done, demonstrate that they have no dignity, and I am not going to pretend they do.

          • David

            There is no possible effect that Obergefel could have on you except that you can no longer be happy that gay people do not get to be happy.

            How exactly is standing up for the rights of the actually persecuted against people with insane persecution complexes undignified.

            Also, you and any other Republican would look a tiny bit less obviously hypocritical when you claim you’re “defending the sanctity of marriage”, if you hadn’t just elected a twice divorced playboy interviewee rapist, married to a trophy wife half his age, who has admitted to sexually assaulting women.

          • Gary

            God never granted anyone the right to marry someone of the same sex. And any so called right the government grants, it can take away.

            I personally don’t care if two people of the same sex consider themselves to be “married” to each other. I object to the government endorsing such nonsense. The US Constitution has no requirement for ssm, contradicting the claims of the five judges who said it does.

            I am not a Republican, but I did vote for Trump. I preferred someone else. I voted for Trump in order to prevent Clinton from becoming President. And because Trump said he will appoint people to the Supreme Court who will be limited by the US Constitution. We’ll see if he does what he promised.

          • David

            God granted the incestuous pairings of Lot, Noah, Reuben, Nah or, Abraham, and the list goes on. He also allowed the polygamous marriages of King Solomon, Jacob, Esau, Moses, and the list goes on.

            But we don’t allow the Christian traditions of incestuous marriage or polygamous marriage. The separation of church and state means you can’t force your religion on anyone else, so you aren’t allowed to say “I think the invisible sky man doesn’t like it” to take away people’s rights.

            So since you don’t have any other justification for your opposition other than a burning desire to implement the Christian version of Sharia law, then you can clearly see exactly why the constitution demands the practise, as well as why every justice who voted against should be disbarred.

            So you respect the constitution. I assume that’s why you think senate Republicans should be thrown out for refusing to do their constitutional duty and hearing and approving Merrick Garland?

            Or like all fascists, by “the constitution”, do you actually mean “the bits of the constitution that support what I want to do and ignore everything else”.

          • Gary

            God does not allow incest, or homosexuality, or adultery. (Leviticus 18)

            The separation of church and state does not mean the laws cannot be moral. And, the term isn’t in the Constitution anyway.

            I searched the US Constitution for a requirement that same-sex marriage must be legal, but it isn’t in there. Neither does it mention anything about “gay rights”. And, it does not prohibit the government from limiting marriage to a man and a woman. It seems the five supreme court judges who ruled in favor of ssm lied. That’s right, they LIED! For which THEY should be impeached, and disbarred.

            You cannot find support for what you want in the US Constitution. Actually, you can’t find it anywhere other than in your perverted mind.

          • David

            And yet he allowed it many times in the bible. Or does God change his mind? Okay, God changed his mind about this too. Same way he forbid eating pork or shellfish, or wearing mixed fabric, or tattoos, or cutting your beard.

            Yes, laws should be moral. Moral, not religious. Meaning that you need to find a moral argument for your laws, not just “sky man said so”. None of you homophobes could find any moral argument against it even today.

            What part of no discrimination confuses you?

          • Gary

            Since God defines morality, there is no way to have morality without religion. If you leave God out, then morality becomes nothing more than human opinion, which has no authority.

            Everyone discriminates against someone. I discriminate against lgbtq every day.

          • David

            God’s opinion has no authority to those who do not believe he exists. So we use logic and reason, and morality that is built on making society function. You can follow God in your own life if you believe in him. You cannot force anyone who does not to adhere to the word of something we have no proof exists.

          • Gary

            But God has the authority to dictate morality for everyone, whether they believe He exists or not. And God also has the ability to hold people accountable to his moral law. And he does.

            Awhile ago, you were claiming to be a Christian. Now you claim there is no proof of God’s existence. I knew you were evil, but now I’m starting to question your sanity.

          • David

            You still don’t get it do you? In the constitution of the United states, every faith is equally valid. If someone says that they worship a flying spaghetti monster who says that all manufactured light is blasphemy, he does not get to dictate how you live your life despite that he thinks that his God has said so. And it doesn’t matter how strong your faith – you cannot push it on another. Everything must be based on what we can tangibly prove is real.

            If you think there is scientific proof of God’s existence, then I doubt your sanity. Almighty God is not beholden to the laws that govern our Universe, and has set in motion a world wherein we, his followers, must have faith. Without faith but with proof, how can there be free will, and without free will, how can we be moral and show we have risen above evil to be good and loving?

            We must be good people without Almighty God standing before us as a tangible threat. We must take the message of loving our neighbour not because we have proof we will go to hell if we do not, bur because it is right.

            We do not follow Almighty God because he will throw us in hell if we do not – that is not a loving Creator, that is a tyrant. We follow Almighty God because he has laid out for us a path through which we may be better Christians, and better humans, and leave this world with good deeds that live on, even as we cross to the next life.

          • Gary

            The US Constitution does not say every faith is equally valid. It says people have the freedom to have any religion they want, but it says nothing about the validity of any particular belief.

            The Constitution does not allow the government to dictate what religion someone must have, or force them to attend church, or force them to give money to a religion. But, the Constitution does allow the government to have laws that are moral. The laws can also be immoral, and they sometimes are, but they are not required to be by the Constitution.

            God defines morality. That is true, whether anyone believes it or not. Its reality. Lawmakers would be wise to keep that in mind. So would judges. Unfortunately, the majority on the US Supreme Court ignored that reality when they legalized abortion and same sex marriage.

          • David

            “The US Constitution does not say every faith is equally valid. It says people have the freedom to have any religion they want, but it says nothing about the validity of any particular belief”

            Opening lines of the first amendment – Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion. In the eyes of the government, all faiths must be treated as equal.

            “God defines morality. That is true, whether anyone believes it or not. Its reality”

            It is reality to you. To a number of people, morality is what we as humans judge is needed to fulfill a society. That is partly why God dictated morality in the past, so that people could survive. Do not eat shellfish. Do not eat pork. Are these foods really evil? Or was shellfish likely to be as good as poison to people wandering in the desert for 40 years, and was pork riddled with parasites?

            No tattoos, a warning against cutting a man’s beard. Guides by God to keep people from infecting themselves with unhygienic tools.

            Forgiving debt, commands to pay your workers fairly. Lessons needed for a harmonious society. Lessons we would do well to learn now.

            God does not set us rules merely on a whim, to laugh at us jumping through hoops. A being such as that would never send Their son to earth to die for all of us. God loves us all. God wants only for us to be safe, happy and peaceful, as all parents for their children. We are given rules so that we may be safe, but we are also given reason and intelligence to know if a rule is needed. Our morality, our reason, these things both come from God, and we must use the latter to know the why of the former, so that we may retire rules that are not needed to keep our world peaceful and safe.

            The ten laws – these we will observe above all others, for we know they will always be needed. But a man lying with another man? Like so many others of Deuteronomy, it is an old rule, of an old world.

          • Tomasina Serveaux

            God this, God that… Why should anyone believe you know anything about God? Anyone can say God tells them this, that, or the other. Nobody can prove it.

          • Tomasina Serveaux

            People in the Bible knew no more about sex than what they could see their farm animals doing. Why should we care what they imagined God said to them about human sexual relationships?

          • Gary

            They didn’t “imagine” God said things to them, they knew God did. You can ignore what God said, if you want to, but you won’t be able to ignore the consequences of that.

          • Eve

            It’s not possible for “gay marriage” to not affect anyone seeing a marriage is institution founded for the good of he general public. It is a “social construct” after all (and no that does not make it any less valid or liable to be “redefined” on whims). Because of gay marriage being legalized and deemed a “right” people are now being forced to engage in the ceremonies, children in schools are being taught that sodomy is normal and equal to normal human mating, and even worse some children are being raised by these “married gay couples”so how exactly is gay marriage no affecting anyone? That was actually the whole point to begin with, the only way “gay marriage” can even grant rights is by making it wrong to oppose it thereby forcing everyone in society to condone it.

          • David

            Okay, now replace the word gay with interracial here, and try to find any reason a person 50 years ago wouldn’t say the same and be just as wrong today as you are.

          • Eve

            why? They are not the same at all because sex is not akin to race especially in the context of family which is what marriage is primarily about. A black man and a white woman can mate and create children, those children will benefit most if their parents which happen to be different races in this case are committed to each other and this will give them have access to their siblings as well as their extended family. Gay marriage requires, by it’s nature a break down of the family, it demands children be separated or have strained relationships with at least one parent and thereby their extended family all together or it suggests that marriage has nothing to do with children or family which is equally as destructive. Unlike so called “interracial” marriage, “Gay marriage” is literally doing the exact opposite of what marriage was designed to do, it’s not about family at all the whole premise of “gay marriage” is to equate two types of relationships that are not in fact equal our society values heterosexuality because that is how we PERPETUATE our species so homosexuality will NEVER be equal all this attempt to equate it to hetero unions is only causing harm especially to children who are now being passed around like pets to gays because “they’re just like us”. Lastly the legalization of interracial marriage (which was not always banned but whatever) DID affect the greater society as intended to, so this argument about how “gay marriage” won’t affect anyone is in no way refuted by bringing up interracial marriage.

          • David

            So if either partner is infertile, I assume you are saying that their marriage makes a mockery of the institution too? And are we forgetting adoption?

          • Eve

            No because infertility is merely coincidental. An infertile person can’t have children with anyone a gay person can but with someone of the opposite sex. So the problem with an infertile hetero couple is the actual infertility or health issue causing it whole the problem with the gay couple is the gayness itself. The reason a gay couple can’t have kids is because the nature of union is not fertile. Now marriage is an institution it is based on PRINCIPLE not any one particular case because its for society not any one individual so allowing couples who in principle cannot reproduce or who should not reproduce, like say a father and daughter, changes mariage to be about something other than establishing a family. Now this would be fine except children are still being born and so the need for families to form and be stable is still there couples who can have kids and are doing the thing that makes them should understand that their commitment is important for those kids but now marriage is all about the couple and not about the family, now marraige is something people fo for their own enjoyment rather then as an obligation to family and society. This is highlighted by the gay marriage ruling.

            And techinically speaking a marriage is not valid unless it is consummated through the human mating act, hmmm I wonder why such a concept suh as consummation exists in all human societies???? Maybe it’s because marriage is about starting a family not “fweeelinggs”.

          • David

            Ah, so it’s about broad strokes and not individuals. I assume that’s why every year we pick two million males and two million females of peak breeding age, pair them off and declare them married. Oh wait, we don’t do that, because getting married based on your ability to have babies is utterly insane.

            Of course, the busting out of It’s different cause I said so”. Amazing how we need a separate law banning marriage for gay people, but not the infertile since we can overlook what is by your logic, an ev3n greater insult to the institution of marriage.

            It’s amazing how “adoption”, a word anti-choicers will scream reflexively over and over when discussing abortion, suddenly becomes nonexistent whenever gay families comes up. Gay couples can adopt children. There, I just solved your entire “It’s about kids!” mental breakdown.

            Unless you want to claim it’s impossible for adopted children to be loved the same way you love your own children. You monster.

            And yes, I don’t doubt that marriages were always about S-E-X. Which is what consumption is. Not seeing anywhere saying a marriage wasn’t official til it produced a baby.

        • Tomasina Serveaux

          Why do you think it’s any of your business who marries whom? Just stick to worrying about your own sex life. I’m sure Jesus will be perfectly happy with that.

          • Gary

            Who marries whom is my business as long as the government spends my tax money on it, and when the government demands that I recognize legal marriages.

  • Howard Rosenbaum

    Deception cannot exist w/out there first be truth. Every inane reference suggesting an alternate take on a correct conception of marriage invariably substantiates the original by virtue of it’s duplicity. Duplicity in that to qualify their alternative to marriage ( as defined by the originator of the initial concept ) they must affirm at least in part, the original. Happily their compromise of the term marriage does not & cannot challenge the authenticity of the initial idea. What it does is substitute truth w/a lie. You know, they “exchanged the truth of God for a lie ..” Truth transcends cultural conventions. Lies inevitably get lost in the mix. So yes, as long as these alternatives to the biblical construct of marriage are entertained, then as noted, ” marriage can be anything ” …

    • Tomasina Serveaux

      The biblical construct of marriage was for a man to have as many wives as he could support. This included little girls taken as the prizes in a war, and were in addition to concubines and slave women. Just read the stories of Moses and Abraham, and Numbers 31. Women (young girls, really) were just another commodity. If they were raped, they were damaged goods. If they could not bear children, they were defective.

      • Howard Rosenbaum

        Yeah, & because of the hardness of their hearts Moses permitted them to put away their wives. The bible faithfully records the cultural discrepancies of the day. Wasn’t always in the woman’s best interests nor was it a seal of God’s approval. Never was a perfect world – at least not after that first “indiscretion” in the garden …

  • Ye Olde Statistician

    Is anyone aware that marriage existed in all cultures since the dawn of time? The very name “marriage” in Roman culture meant “to provide [a young man] with a young woman,” the IE root for a young woman being *mari. The term “matrimony” for the state indicates its purpose: to transform young girls into mothers [matres]. One of the three procedures for doing so [usus] requires only that the man and woman live together openly and uninterruptedly for a specified period of time, what English Common Law called “Common Law Marriage,” indicating that no ceremony or State recognition was required. German tribal law was that “the act makes the marriage,” so if a man and woman performed the marital act together, then they were ipso facto married, hence the prevalence of elopements and bridal kidnappings in Germanic folk tales. In Plato’s The Laws we read that the laws governing marriage were intended for the formation of families, so the same purpose ran through Greek culture.

    Some cultures which allowed powerful males to have multiple wives, such as the pagan Irish or the Arabs, the wives were not considered to be married to one another; so it was still one man, one woman. It was just that the one man had entered into multiple marriages. Often this was for political reasons, forming alliances with other chieftains. Marriage-for-love [Friedehe] was a medieval Christian invention. Among the Irish, the ceatminter was the principle wife and the adaltrach was the mistress in strict precedence.

    The Church became involved in the 11th century IIRC due to the scandal of “woods marriages.” See common law marriage and usus, above. That’s where the man and woman did the deed in secret, he promised her he would respect her in the morning, and then come the dawn it was he-said; she-said. So Lateran II (again IIRC) said the vows must be exchanged in public before witnesses. The priest or bishop stood as witness for the church and to this very day the man and woman are the ministers of the sacrament of matrimony and the priest is the witness. They are not married “by” the priest. They marry each other “before” the priest.

    • David

      And polygamy being tied to marriage for that length of time? Yes? No? Anyone with a brain there?

  • David

    “Tradition insists that marriage is between one man, one woman; the two become “one flesh””

    No, tradition, if we look at the actual history of the practise and not a cherry picked slice of the last 200 years, was that marriage was one man and many wives, as a means of establishing partnerships between families, or alliances between kingdoms. Or does King Solomon just get omitted from reality because it’s inconvenient

  • David

    It’s amazing how conservatives are gleeful about the fact that they are incapable of understanding consent. And yet you wonder why we need to treat you like rapists.

    • Mo86

      @ David

      Instead of spewing filth, address the points made in this article. You know you cannot. That’s why stupid insults, bigotry and hatred is all you have to offer. And you know it.

      You KNOW it.

      • David

        Okay. The points are stupid because conservatives cannot understand the concept of consent.

    • Rabbitsandwiches1

      So if a father and his son want to get married, it’s all right as long as they’re both consenting adults?

      • David

        No, because you cannot marry the person you raised, since what you taught them formed the basis for their entire foundation of logic and capacity to give consent. There is no proof that you didn’t raise them solely to not know they could ever refuse you and that they have to marry you. The exact same way pedophile priests influence altar boys to think being molested is good and what God wants, and God will be angry if they don’t let father Mike do what they want and never tell their parents.

        You figuring out how consent works yet?

        • Rabbitsandwiches1

          So if the father didn’t raise his son, then it would be okay?

          • David

            ….so a man leaves the woman he impregnated before his son is born, finds out he is gay, his son is raised by a single morher who at no point ever mentions his absentee biological father, by pure chance the man discovers his biological son, and, without either knowing of their relationship to one another, they fall in love, but they discover that they are father and son in between falling in love and getting married, but still want to press on.

            Where on earth do you live that this is a common thing? I’m pretty sure that this is so insanely and outlandish lyrics unlikely that not even a soap opera has ever done it. We don’t make laws just for insane hypotheticals that likely will not ever occur, we make them for things that either have happened or are in any way likely to happen.

          • Rabbitsandwiches1

            I didn’t say it was common. Yet it has happened that parents and children separated at birth later meet and claim they have fallen in love with one another. They are not legally allowed to be married, even if they are same sex or sterile, or even if they don’t plan to have sex at all (so that no children could be born).

            “We don’t make laws just for insane hypotheticals that likely will not ever occur, we make them for things that either have happened or are in any way likely to happen.”

            So you would take away someone’s rights simply because their circumstances are rare? So if there were only 100 gay couples on the planet, you would ban them from being married, or even imprison them (as is threatened with related couples who want to get married) them for it?

            If it is as rare as you believe it is, then there would be no harm in making it legal.

          • David

            You do understand that when you say that it has happened, you need to give examples of it? When has this happened and where? You need to back up your statement that the above situation I outlined occurred.

            I didn’t say it shouldn’t be legal because it’s rare. I’m still not convinced it has ever occurred. We are not just talking about an absentee father coming back, since the existence of the fictionalised ideal of their father can impact upon the child’s psyche in a way that would make consent dubious. The son has to believe another man to be his father and only discover that the man he’s fallen in love with is his father after they’ve already fallen in love. I am almost certain that this set of circumstances, has not occurred.

            Like, the closest example anywhere to what you are describing occurs only in Greek Mythology, and even then that was a mother not a father.

  • Mo86

    I’ve been saying this for years. The only response I get from the same-sex “marriage” crowd is, “Yeah, but that’s different!”

    They never can explain how.

    • David

      They can – the phrase ” they cannot consent” – it’s just that you cannot understand them.

  • Shaquille Davis

    Homophobe. False equivalence abound.

Gotta Serve Somebody
Joe Dallas
More from The Stream
Connect with Us