Now that homosexuals can marry, the Defense of Marriage Act not withstanding, let’s consider other concepts of marriage. Compassionate liberals often opine that anything goes if it does not harm others. Thus, we have homosexual marriage, recreational marijuana, homeless encampments, consensual recreation sex, embracing illegal immigrants, etc. Homosexuals who want to marry, and their supporters, tout long-lasting “loving and committed relationships” should be respected and legally codified with marriage. Fine. Let’s consider other relationships. Let’s say, for example, I have decided, after long “loving relationships” with other women not my wife, that I want to marry them also. My wife agrees. Alternatively, my wife, after long and “loving relationships” with other men, has decided she wants to marry them also. I agree. Surely our liberal friends would agree to these marriages as the relationships are “loving and committed” and mutually agreeable to all concerned. No harm, no foul. We have just asked that polygamy and polyandry, now rightly considered immoral and illegal, be made legal, codified, and accepted. Neither of the above relationships, however, harms anyone. The relationships are unearthly, but “loving and committed.”
The children of these marriages would have “loving and committed” parents. Those are some justifications for homosexual marriage, aren’t they? To carry this argument to an illogical absurd extreme, why can’t I marry my dogs, cat, etc? We have been in long and lasting “loving relationships,” albeit nonsexual, and marriage codifies their status. Pandora’s box has been opened. Beware the consequences.