What constitutes a mixed marriage? Let's consider the possibilities.
First, what about a marriage between a human and a chimpanzee? Now that's mixed alright. But a marriage it is not. First of all it is not legal . . . anywhere. There is no precedent for it. And it just doesn't happen. But most importantly, it contributes nothing to the survival and perpetuation of any species on the face of the earth.
Next, a marriage between a black person and a white person. Here we have two members of the human race. What's mixed about that? People of varying skin colors and cultures have been intermarrying at ever-increasing rates for centuries. At the pace this is taking place today all humans will one day be of the same color.
Thirdly, we hear a lot lately about two people of the same gender getting 'married'. That is neither mixed nor can it be considered marriage. The institutiuon of marriage goes back farther than anyone can recount. It has a purpose and an outcome; it is sanctioned by every society ever known to man. It is at the foundation of the very survival and perpetuation of the human race. But, you say, not every marriage results in the production of offspring. That is true, however we must consider the general rule, not the exceptions. Nature makes exceptions everywhere. Babies born with more or less than the standard number of arms, legs or even heads, do not discount the norm. Call it what you may, two persons of the same gender do not constitute a marriage.
Fourthly, we come to a marriage between one man and one woman. Now that is a true 'mixed' marriage. If nature has a purpose, that is the arrangement that fulfils that purpose. Marriage does not need to be defined as such - it is understood. It has been that way since the dawn of civilization. It is a part of the natural environment. Even a marriage consisting of a person of one gender with multiple persons of the opposite gender does not change the general rule; it is still a 'mixed' marriage.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 8
I guess my opinion would be to say that I believe in letting people self-define their own relationships. So long as only consenting adults are involved, it is none of my business what they do or how they define their relationships.
I can understand that any and every faith is free to decide amongst their own adherents what they will sanction as a marriage, and no faith should be forced to sanction anything they don't approve of. But if two men or two women wish to cohabit in a relationship of permanence and call it a marriage, I am not going to quibble with them over semantics.
I have, and always have had, many gay friends. I've yet to attend a gay wedding ceremony (legal here in Canada), but if invited I would attend, celebrate and congratulate as I would any other couple.
Even visiting a spouse in the hospital entitles one to more privileges than visiting a friend in the hospital.
But more importantly, the personal relationships of others is none of my business, no matter how they are defined or how they are titled.
Donald..political correctness has nothing to do with tolerance. I can say that you are very frank and honest with your opinions, however I find your position with regards to this subject as repugnant as you find the personal activities of gays. You speak as if you consider homosexuality a choice...I do not agree. While it is possible for gays to suppress their feelings, I do not see that they should have to do so. I can't understand the compulsion gays feel to form same sex relationships...I really don't. But what business is it of mine?
you've expressed well the feelings I've had for years. However, in recent years I've had to rethink some of my positions and try to become more accepting of others interpretation of society. The dictionary definition, I discovered, does allow the use of the word marriage to be most any kind of union or joining and, at least in the dictionary I looked at, it never singled the word out to mean the union between a man and a woman as I've always thought it did.
I am uncomfortable around someone I know is gay as I don't want to lead them to believe I'm interested in that lifestyle and yet I don't want to offend the person who is gay. I firmly believe that it is an accident of birth that causes the most of them to be bay and I thank the good lord that I was not cursed with this affliction.
Like Michael, I cannot see what business it is of mine if someone who is gay wishes to join with another gay to build their lives. It will not damage my marriage in any way. I do support giving gays the privilege of some kind of union which provides the same legal protections as does marriage. Whether that is civil unions or some other named arrangement, I cannot say but simple fairness says we should do it.
I'm not afraid of the gay persons luring all our young people into the lifestyle. It makes no sense! Why would anyone go against their natural impulses to reap the scorn and persecution of the rest of society? Those who are clearly straight will remain so and those who are gay will remain that. I knew before I started school that I was drawn to the opposite sex and that never changed over the years.