Redefining Marriage

Gay people love to redefine words. The word gay itself didn’t always mean homosexual. For most of its history, the word gay mean jolly or joyful, synonymous to carefree. In this this fashion the word fabulous has been co-opted by the gay community to FABULOUS, as described in Urban Dictionary to “the ultimate compliment in the gay community.” Now, the queer as folk people want to redefine the word marriage.

Homosexuality has existed since as long as marriage itself, for it has to exist if the bible bans it as many Christians believe. We have found pottery fragments and murals from ancient Greek and Roman archeological sites. Even in these ancient cultures where homosexuality was allowed, marriage was between a man and a woman. It is only now that certain people want to redefine marriage to be between two people that love each, no matter their sex.

The simple argument for gay marriage is that the current concept of marriage, between a man and a woman, discriminates against gay couples. The idea, concept, and word marriage itself doesn’t discriminate but there are laws that surrounding health care, inheritance, and other benefits that are applied only to married couples, not co-habitating couples, or it’s complicated relations, etc. So as it has been done before, the approach to addressing these issues is to co-opt the word marriage to mean something entirely different.

As described earlier, the word gay didn’t always have to define homosexuality. But the one thing that the gay community does well is redefine terms and the word gay wasn’t enough to encompasses everyone in the community. In fact, word gay is not inclusive enough that the gay community uses the following term: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning, Intersex, and Asexual (LGBTQIA). In a similar fashion, I wouldn’t be surprised if the word marriage will eventually take a similar inclusive approach if we redefine it.

So if we are to redefine marriage to be between two people that love each other, I think it is not inclusive enough. We should ensure that all sexual subcultures can participant in the marriage 2.0. Why should we stop at two people, we should include polygamist too. So we should define marriage to be between any number of people that love each other. But even with this definition there are state laws that govern he age of consent, we should remove those discriminatory laws and redefine marriage to be between any number of consent post-pubescent individuals that love each other. But event his is not inclusive enough because some people love their family members or real dolls or pets or some other inanimate object in a way we don’t understand.

Leave a Reply, Join the Conversation