Well, I do think there will be some limitations: marriage will be limited to humans. Brothers and sisters (and any immediate family members (Easy Boys! Not THOSE members!) and all forms of incestuous marriage would also be rejected due to 'immediate and severe harm' as the litmus test (deformed offspring). Otherwise, I really cannot see why there would be a legal, constitutional standing to limiting marriage to two people. ??
People said the same type of thing several decades ago about what is common place now.
What if the parties involved get themselves sterilized or for some reason cannot conceive? Or just make a provision to automatically abort any resulting pregnancy in those cases, or if a child is born anyway, just kill it? That way we can assure those people their rights too. Absurd and far fetched?
We are currently unmoored and adrift to the prevailing winds. Slippery slope in living color.
EVERYTHING is up for re-definition without an absolute moral standard. Therefore ANYTHING is possible. And its happening fast.
I read somewhere that some pedophiles are now looking for equal treatment using the same argument. That would certainly be a RED line for me. I really don't care who you marry but do not mess with one of my grandkids.
I agree (emphasis bolded from your comment) and I fear for the environment mine will have to live and grow up in.
From what basis would you successfully argue against such a thing when the precedent is a (non) standard that is readily re-definable? Its just YOUR line you don't want crossed, but perhaps not someone else's. Would we let a stranger offer our 5 year old a candy bar and then molest them, all the while saying the child is free to decide what's right and wrong for them? Why not?
Perhaps we
should be caring who people marry when it paves the way to things like this, just as the ignored voices warned would happen.
No person is an island. It doesn't just affect them. It affects you and me, and more importantly, our kids and grandkids.
