This isn't going to be a rant against same-sex marriage. I was just wondering about this comment I saw on another blog:

"Love is love, and that’s what marriage really is about."

Is it? Besides the fact that when we are discussing legal marriage, love has nothing to do with it (two people can become legally married without "loving" each other at all, there's no "love test" before they are married) … How can we say what marriage really is about if we are free to redefine it whenever we feel like it? Why then couldn't it be redefined in the future to include whatever people happen to feel like at the time?

"Wait!" you might say, "this is just a bad 'slippery slope' fallacious argument." I don't think that's the case here.

For example, now that same-sex marriages are legal in Canada, are legal polygamous marriages next? A Canadian government report recommends repealing the polygamy ban in Canada. Okay, so let's say we redefine marriage again to include polygamous marriages. (China, by the way, used to allow polygamous marriages, but banned them in 1953. They're also communist, so, erm, take that for what you will.)

So, including polygamous marriages should cover us, right? What about (some of you will guess what's coming) if someone wanted to marry an animal? Okay, surely I'm being facetious, right? No one would seriously argue for that … right? Well, a Hindu woman recently married a snake in India. Now, I'm of course not trying to suggest that if same-sex marriage is allowed, that also marrying animals must or should be allowed. I'm just posing the question: Why not? Not emotionally (if you argue "because it's wrong" that's the same as someone arguing same-sex marriage is wrong "because it's wrong"), but logically.

The main answer I come up with is in regards to "consent". Both parties must be aware and consenting to be married. But the problem with that is if the definition of marriage is up to be redefined whenever we want, why not redefine it such that consent is not necessary? Or what about certain types of arranged marriages where the participants are not given any choice, ie, no consent? If those marriages are recognized (so the argument goes) then consent cannot be the critical part of the definition.

Just for the record, when questioned regarding divorce, Jesus responded by quoting Genesis 2:24, "This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one." (NLT) At the end of the day, our government is not Christian and therefore the legal definition of marriage does not have to conform to the Christian definition, nor even the historical definition. As long as churches are not forced to marry people against their (the church's) beliefs, we should be fine. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't consider the social and logical implications of redefining marriage.