My blog has moved!

You should be automatically redirected. If not, visit
http://burrintheburgh.com
and update your bookmarks.

Saturday, December 31, 2005

A Match (Mer)maid in Heaven?

Check this out. This is whimsical, but is not a joke.

OK, so the nuptials this past week between a wealthy British woman and a dolphin don't exactly qualify as a legal marriage. But I defy any defender of gay marriage to explain why it shouldn't be.

Who gets to define marriage? I say we let natural law and common law along with thousands of years of Judeo-Christian tradition decide. According to these sources, generally speaking, there will be agreement that marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman. While the Old Testament does portray instances of polygamy, it seems to be mostly a non-issue by the time of Christ. Unquestionably, the teachings of Jesus and St. Paul forge the basis for the traditional view. And certainly, even Genesis (Adam and Eve) is supportive.

But according to some, marriage should be able to be defined by the whims and preferences of a particular society. In that case, how can polygamy or polyandry not be legalized? Or marriage between children? Or between close relatives, such as mother and son or sister and brother, etc.? Why not group marriage? Why not marriage with oneself? Or with an inanimate object? Or with a deity? Or between a 41-year-old British millionairess and a dolphin.

HT: Watersblogged

Sphere: Related Content

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Almost a logical fallacy.

Bob Waters said...

In Holland, polygamy and polyandry are legal.

Rob Berry said...

I defy any defender of gay marriage to explain why it shouldn't be.

I'll take that bet. Please see my article Married Dolphins: The Next Right-Wing Bogeyman for an explanation of why Sharon Tendler's wedding shouldn't qualify as a legal marriage, but gay marriage should.

Rob Berry said...

Thanks for reading and commenting on my article; I've posted a reply.

New Curriculum at Concordia Theological Seminary