Depends what 'LAW' you are speaking of.
The laws of man or the laws of GOD.
Your analogy of law is something I will never agree with.
But to take your assumptions at face value, you do bring up interesting non secular concepts.
Since the objective would appear to devoid the laws of GOD into the laws of ‘people’ (or some resemblance of humanity) why define ‘marriage’ between two persons at all?
In your ‘concept’ incestual and polygamy marriages should be legal in the eyes of the laws of ‘man’.
So Mother can marry Son, Mother can Marry Daughter, Father can Marry both Son and Daughter, etc (so much for incest). I could waste my time all night citing the scenarios that would come out of such a hypothesis of incest and polygamy, but everyone here should understand the social impact of such foolish behavior.
Why ‘limit’ marriage between ‘people and or peoples? Why be so narrow minded as not to include PETA and inanimate objects? Animals and blow up dolls need loving too!
:down:
B) xUT
I prefer to deal with US law and the USC as that is the law that governs the land we live in and the one that a US judge should use to determine guilt or innocence. Given my posts on here you really needed to ask that question? Given that every religion has different laws and different gods (or so it seems) gods law seems hardly relevant in a conversation about US law and the USC.
I would argue that to limit the concept of marriage/union to humans because humans are the only species that is sentient enough to understand the concept of such a union and as such, is the only species that can give an informed consent to partake in the union.
I think you are getting hung up on the term 'marriage'. What happens if my older sister were to loose her job. For what ever reason she is unable to find suitable employment. I happen o be single and work for hospital as a RN with great health insurance. Why should I not be able to join my sister legally (make up what ever term you want to define it) so as to provide her with health insurance?
As I argued earlier, try and convince religion to take back the term 'marriage' as a solely religious venture and force the state to only grant (insert new name here) licenses. You will fail because then as you said, marriage wil devolve into who knows what. A man will be allowed to marry his toaster or hamster. There will be no regulations as any religious institution will be allowed to marry anyone/thing they chose. Right now, the state/Fed is the only thing protecting what was once a religious endeavor and allowing religion define who may join in a legal contract and who may not. Take State protection away from religion and you are left with nothing. Unless of course you just mind your own business and don't worry about what others are doing with their private lives. We all know that won't happen because religion seems to always want to stick it's nose where it does not belong.
As far as polygamy is concerned, what business is it of yours? If three chicks are willing to share one guy or three guys want to share one woman, what the heck do I care? As long as there are not tax incentives beyond one person and as long as companies are not obligated to provide benifits to more than one person, why not? What right it is of the state to say no? It is not as if guys do not have more than one girlfriend or vice versa. What vested interest does the state have in dictating how I choose ro live my life. If I want to share my estate with the five women I am knocking nasties with then that is my choice.
And before you go all "I think it's immoral crap' on me I don' like it either. That is why I have one wife, have not cheated nor do I intend too. I don't like to share my stuff and neither does she. That is why I chose not too. Just because you and I chose not too does not mean someone else has to make the same choice.
