Humor: Evolution of Defense of Marriage Act

[GinaDouglas]

1996: Marriage is between one man and one woman.

2016: Marriage is between two people.

2036: Marriage is between people.

2056: Marriage is between living beings.

[mickie88]

i like that and as it should hopefully progress, and probably will by 2056, star trek never challenged those boundaries, but other shows like Mistresses is, its British but it's still the way it should be!! 

[Miniar]

the last of that should be "between two sentient beings" imo.

[mickie88]

that'll be in 2076!! lol. because by that time we probably will have meant beings that have no corporeal form and are therefore physically devoid of sex, gender and of physical being....jmo.

[Jamie-o]

2056: Marriage is between living beings.

But that would be discrimination against necrophiliacs. 

[stacyB]

the last of that should be "between two sentient beings" imo.

Two sentient beings? Why? <insert blonde joke here>

Seriously, that would greatly depend on the definition of sentient. We already know Commander Data is "fully functional in multiple techniques", and that holograms are considered sentient, though not necessarily lifeforms. But marriage?

I would like to think that we would evolve where the silly notion of marriage becomes some arcahic afterthought... we find a (soul) mate as we see fit, and thats the only definition of a union.... and why should that be defined as two BTW?

Also, if we conquer disease and aging, do we still want to be together till "death do us part"?

To quote Meatloaf

"So Im praying for the end of time to hurry and arrive, cause if I have to spend another minute with you I dont think that I could ever survive"

[NicholeW.]

if we conquer disease and aging, do we still want to be together till "death do us part"?

We don't do that already in the majority of instances. There have been some recent studies indicating that monogamy may be more culturally inclined in patriarchies particularly. Life expectancy increases and medicine have made "til death do us part" a considerably longer-termed promise than it was in earlier days.  

[stacyB]

1996: Marriage is between one man and one woman.

2016: Marriage is between two people.

2036: Marriage is between people.

2056: Marriage is between living beings.

I showed this to a friend of mine, she had the following comment...

"If you ask me the only thing missing from each is the word 'consenting'"....

An interesting take, hadnt thought of that...

[NicholeW.]

I showed this to a friend of mine, she had the following comment...

"If you ask me the only thing missing from each is the word 'consenting'"....

An interesting take, hadnt thought of that...

Smart friend. I spoz it's harder for non perps or those who don't work around victims to think of that as they prolly just imagine that everyone is consenting. *sigh*

[GinaDouglas]

I don't think that "consenting" is part of DOMA as it currently exists.  Not to say it shouldn't be, but that's why they are written as they are.  But, knowing our culture, consenting will be in the last evolution of the law.

[mickie88]

I would like to think that we would evolve where the silly notion of marriage becomes some arcahic afterthought... we find a (soul) mate as we see fit, and thats the only definition of a union.... and why should that be defined as two BTW?


true, Denobulans and possible other species have more than one mate. i had almost forgot about that!!

[stacyB]

Perhaps the focus is on the wrong part of this...

Not that its a bad idea to focus on what it is that makes a union... certainly would help to break down the barriers of prejudice and close-mindedness...

But how will marriage itself be defined in the future?

* As some legal entity by which a society provides benefits and taxes its citizens (i.e. the IRS marriage penalty)?

* Some religious bond that fulfills whatever particular dogma is practiced in some notion of a religion?

* Some spiritual bonding of 'n' number of souls that forms the basis of a promise that the mere cohabitation of said same souls cannot alone provide?

Given the high rate of divorce marriage itself does not seem to provide the stability that one would seek... so why would we continue to strive for such an archaic notion as we move forward in time?

Maybe we should be blowing the dust off of the original concept and reexamine it for what it really is... what does it take for someone to promise to be true and monogamous and not go wandering off looking for some quickie in a corner room of the Motel 6?

[Janet_Girl]

I have been married for 37 years.  Ok it was between three different spouses and separated apart of the years.  But still they weren't all bad.

Someday people wont care about the old standards.  It will be between two people and only them.  The State will just have to realize that people need that connection and gender shouldn't matter.

[Miniar]

I'm only "married" legally for the legal benefits. Me and hubby however consider having a spiritual joining ritual at some point and that would be done amongst friends for entirely emotional reasons.
IF there were no "legal benefits" to marriage, we would have only done the later.