Proposition 8.2
Based on my dear readers' insightful comments in response to my last post as well as on some of my own freethinking ideas, I would like to present to you an updated proposal for how the law of the land in the State of California shall henceforth be amended to define the institution of marriage:
Free Your Mind!
Lets start with the idea often promoted by the proponents of gay marriage that "Love is Love" no matter how unconventional it might seem. Then, as it was rightfully pointed out by codeflux and sannichka, it should be reasonable to ask whether love for one's goat ought to be recognized as a valid pretext for marriage. People often care for their pets far more than for anybody else in the world, so why not allow a proud owner -- or a whole family -- to marry their favorite canine or feline? It also should be clear that the legal notion of consent cannot be properly applied to species which are routinely sterilized or even euthanized. Besides, there is an important societal benefit to legalizing, regulating and taxing any sexual practices concerning animals, which might otherwise be subjected to inhumane treatment and unnecessary cruelty.
An equally legitimate issue raised by discordian and budhist_milf is whether a man should be allowed to marry a shiny red Corvette if he is truly in love with his car. By the same logic, can a woman marry her entire shoe collection? Can a kid obsessed about gaming marry his Xbox and should The Cult of MicroSoft be granted a legal right to virtually officiate such weddings? Even more importantly, should a person be allowed to just marry him- or herself to signify the one true love of their life?
Now, lets take this one step further. What if one wants to express their undying love for their deceased grand-grandfather by marrying them? Can death really stop our love? Surely, going down this slippery slope soon enough we'll be having discussions like this one on the front pages of our beloved SF Examiner, only not in terms of criminal activity but the logistics of dragging a dead deer into the town hall to sanctify a marriage between a loving man and a rotting corpse.
Nevertheless, in the spirit of seeing love in any form as worthy of being consecrated by the bonds of matrimony, I propose the following definition:
"The State of California recognizes marriage as an institution that grants fundamental rights protected by law to any number of people, animals or inanimate objects, whether dead or alive, imaginary or real, as long as mutual love can be demonstrated amongst all of the sufficiently intelligent parties entering into the agreement and a fee of one hundred dollars can be paid by cash or check by each party whose legal name appears on the marriage license. Any discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation or lack thereof shall be strictly prohibited by law."
If you don't agree with my new definition, I officially pronounce you a backwards bigot not worthy of setting your foot on the hallowed grounds of the State of California, the most welcoming and the most tolerant place on the planet!
Free Your Mind!
Lets start with the idea often promoted by the proponents of gay marriage that "Love is Love" no matter how unconventional it might seem. Then, as it was rightfully pointed out by codeflux and sannichka, it should be reasonable to ask whether love for one's goat ought to be recognized as a valid pretext for marriage. People often care for their pets far more than for anybody else in the world, so why not allow a proud owner -- or a whole family -- to marry their favorite canine or feline? It also should be clear that the legal notion of consent cannot be properly applied to species which are routinely sterilized or even euthanized. Besides, there is an important societal benefit to legalizing, regulating and taxing any sexual practices concerning animals, which might otherwise be subjected to inhumane treatment and unnecessary cruelty.
An equally legitimate issue raised by discordian and budhist_milf is whether a man should be allowed to marry a shiny red Corvette if he is truly in love with his car. By the same logic, can a woman marry her entire shoe collection? Can a kid obsessed about gaming marry his Xbox and should The Cult of MicroSoft be granted a legal right to virtually officiate such weddings? Even more importantly, should a person be allowed to just marry him- or herself to signify the one true love of their life?
Now, lets take this one step further. What if one wants to express their undying love for their deceased grand-grandfather by marrying them? Can death really stop our love? Surely, going down this slippery slope soon enough we'll be having discussions like this one on the front pages of our beloved SF Examiner, only not in terms of criminal activity but the logistics of dragging a dead deer into the town hall to sanctify a marriage between a loving man and a rotting corpse.
Nevertheless, in the spirit of seeing love in any form as worthy of being consecrated by the bonds of matrimony, I propose the following definition:
"The State of California recognizes marriage as an institution that grants fundamental rights protected by law to any number of people, animals or inanimate objects, whether dead or alive, imaginary or real, as long as mutual love can be demonstrated amongst all of the sufficiently intelligent parties entering into the agreement and a fee of one hundred dollars can be paid by cash or check by each party whose legal name appears on the marriage license. Any discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation or lack thereof shall be strictly prohibited by law."
If you don't agree with my new definition, I officially pronounce you a backwards bigot not worthy of setting your foot on the hallowed grounds of the State of California, the most welcoming and the most tolerant place on the planet!