Posted by Tina
I said it would happen; I didn’t expect it to happen this quickly. Now that we don’t base marriage on a union between a man and a woman but instead on the more generic and free basis of “love,” anything goes! In Ghana a woman has married her dog:
Accra – A Ghanaian woman has married her dog because it has qualities she had seen only in her late father. Emily Mabou, 29, of Aburi, married the 18-month-old dog in a ceremony attended by a traditional priest and local, curious villagers, reports the Daily Dose.
Her younger brother David Mabou said her family boycotted the wedding which they felt was “a stupid step to combat her loneliness”.
But Ms Mabou said: “For so long, I’ve been praying for a life partner who will have all the qualities of my dad. My dad was kind, faithful, and loyal to my mum, and he never let her down.
“I’ve been in relationships with so many men…, and they are all the same… skirt-chasers and cheaters. My dog is kind, and loyal to me and he treats me with so much respect.”
In the ceremony, the priest warned villagers not to mock the wedding, but to “rejoice with her as she has found happiness at last”.
Just a quirky lady? Probably…for now.
But with love as the new legal standard for marriage who knows what tomorrow will bring?
LOL
This is the USA and why not worry about oneself and not everybody else’s life?
Freedom seems to be only applicable to the TP’s definition?
Marriage is no more than a legal contract and commitment between 2 people.
If said parties want to involve the religion of their choice it is their right but not necessary.
To try and dictate a religion to others is dictatorship, not freedom
Tina: “I said it would happen; I didn’t expect it to happen this quickly. Now that we don’t base marriage on a union between a man and a woman but instead on the more generic and free basis of “love,” anything goes!”
A few questions:
1) Is this a legally recognized marriage by the country of Ghana?
2) If so, how exactly does such a marriage work? Does this country view dogs as citizens who can legally sign a marriage contract? Will the dog be entitled to death benefits, social security, filing joint taxes, life rights, visitation rights, the whole shebang?
3) If this is not a legally recognized marriage, do you see how absolutely stupid your argument is?
4) I mean, you do know that crazy people have been having crazy fake marriage ceremonies with all kinds of shit for hundreds–nay, probably thousands–of years, right?
5) You do realize that love is not “the legal standard of marriage” anywhere, right? The legal standards today in most states are age of consent, lack of a close blood relation, and gender. Since most people now recognize that the government should not and cannot discriminate based on gender unless they have a damn good reason–and opponents of SSM have not been able to present one–that arbitrary standard is on its way out the door, just as the arbitrary standard of race was done away with not so very long ago.
6) I understand that you do not think love should be the legal standard of marriage–neither do I–but can you see why so many people see it as a moral standard?
Chris changes in the law catches up with the mores of society, especially in a society that does not value traditional boundaries and clamors for whatever they want.
The purpose behind traditional marriage laws has been to create stability in society and provide a solid, stable home for children that are/were the natural result of the union. As you know I am also against easy divorce laws. I think people should commit for life in relationships that result in children, so I believe in the general traditional standard.
I posted this not because Ghana had legalized marriage as between a human and a dog but because of the acceptance and social normalization aspects of the story. It surprised me, for instance, that the priest was supportive of her decision and her family was not.
Now to answer your questions:
1. The article mentioned only the presence of a local “traditional priest”. I don’t know what that means exactly. Ghana is religiously diverse and tolerant. Wikipedia’s reference about the “traditional religion” of the country does not mention priests or any other type of leadership figure. You can read about marriage laws in Ghana here and here. I would guess the answer to your question is no but the article wasn’t specific.
2. Since #1 is uncertain, and my guess is no, I will let you do your own research.
3. Thank you for yet another example of that superior, hostile, contentious, attitude. You never disappoint even when you start out reasonably well.
4. Still can’t shelve the hostility.
5. I thought for a minute you had serious questions. Your first was just a tool used to set up a opportunity to be a real jerk…congrats! You accomplished your goal.
6. Morality was the standard for marriage being defined as a union between a man and a woman…the morality of the family unit…the moral obligation two people have to the children they will likely produce. Marriage has already broken down in our society but it was a foundational stone only a few decades ago. As the family has broken down so has our society. Strong families with both mother and father present are fundamental and necessary for the stability of a community.
Of course science is doing its best to accommodate:
Soon Heather really will be able to have two mommies!
I can see why two people who have chosen to live a different lifestyle, especially two people who already have children and have either divorced or never married, want to create a sense of family. I don’t get why, when you have demanded acceptance of the difference, you would want to remake it into something traditional artificially by changing the definition of a word. I understand the desire to have the same benefits apply, especially to children, and the same inheritance and hospital visitation rights…I do not think changing marriage law had to be the solution to those problems and unfair restrictions. I see nothing immoral about civil union law and most people accepted that solution as rational and fair.
The immoral attitude against interracial marriage was not the same in my opinion. The discrimination was evil because some people didn’t recognize the person of color as a human being…in some cases marriage between black men and women were not even recognized for the same despicable reason.
It isn’t our marriage law that discriminates. Any man can marry any woman.
It is the laws that applying all the goodies and tax breaks that were unavailable to gays living together, sometimes with children, that were/are discriminatory. Society tried hard for several decades to accommodated with Civil Union laws…but that wasn’t enough. The word marriage itself had to be fundamentally transformed to mean something entirely different. I think it creates confusion for kids. Intolerance has shifted; now people with convictions, religious or not,about traditional marriage are not tolerated.
Our nation is fast becoming a society without the boundaries that help to create civility. One of the first steps was relaxing divorce laws; another was legalizing abortion. In both cases we lowered the bar allowing people to break commitments, set aside responsibilities, and change the way we view and value life and human reproduction.
Levels of crime, drug use, promiscuous behaviors have increased. Standards in education have fallen. People are more self-centered and less likely to put the welfare of their own children and future generations ahead of themselves and their personal wants.
If people want to live outside the traditional boundaries of society it is their business and none of mine. I hate to see our society alter traditions by changing the meaning and definition of words and values. Gay people should be respected and included as human beings and enjoy the same rights and privileges as others but they should also honor those things that traditionally make civil society strong. Family with mother and father present and committed is the strongest unit and the one unit I believe we should preserve through marriage. Other relationships and family formations are not lesser, just different, and we have always had them in our society, but we did not think it necessary to call them marriages. (Basically because we knew they weren’t).