So I watched this latest Maddow clip (still hot btw), and the ignorant republican tries to make the argument that because of a supposedly loose definition of marriage by the Massachusetts of Marriage, that eventually one can marry their horse. But I ask you: what if you could marry your horse? What then?
You’d have to imagine a person who would be willing to marry their horse. Would it be someone genuinely in love with thier horse or someone protesting? Or tax purposes? In either case; what harm does it do to YOUR marriage.
Unless I’ve misunderstood the institution, as it’s presented in modern day, it’s an agreement (of whatever quality) between two parties. The strength of our agreement has absoultely no relation to the strength of another. “Our love stands alone?” 11 year old girls are being married to 41 year old men. I mean, yeah technically, this marriage. But the real question is: Just because some corrupt or deluded imam has condoned this action; does that give you free reign to cheat on your wife?
Obviously not.
Or is this unwillingness/resistance to “gay” marriage a deflection of one’s own insecurities about their own, officially sanctioned, marriage. Part of marriage is publicly recognizing one another; to look at the other and say: “Yes. That is mine!” in a crowd of people. Especially when they’re at their worst. But if one is so foolish as to want to recognize their horse as that “person” then by all means let them. It doesn’t diminish the relationship/agreement that I have with my wife/dog. Furthermore, by no means does the law protect them from shunning and ridicule. Both of which are, and should, be legal. “Society must have standards.”
But that aside, the real question (in my perverted mind) is: would you be OK with a human marrying another species? Avatar, is that OK? Would you marry something without a body? (think Ghost with Patrick Swazey only real and alien).
So what is marriage EXACTLY?
I couldn’t say. It’s up to you and your cat(s).
