Marriage?

BoxerLover75 said:
For my fellow Zoo's who became exclusive I always wondered, did you ever marry you them? Was it just an internal acceptance and love? Or did you have a ceremony? Id love to know
Click to expand...
Your are not the only person to inquire about such things:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1334993/Joseph-Guiso-marries-dog-Honey-sunset-ceremony.html

Someone has gone through with this idea. Sure, it's quite one sided. However, I see nothing "wrong" with the human making such a commitment. Obviously, there's no legally binding document; but it can help the human side of things. So many here have expressed how helpful it is just to find a community here at ZooVille. So, if this helps the human, then it can also help the non-human in the relationship because the human may have an easier time justifying things in his own mind, and thereby going to greater lengths to provide for his zoo partner in ways that are far more beneficial to the non-human animal than if it was "just a pet".

Remember, there have been one-sided and non-consenting marriages between people throughout history, so even a legally binding marriage can have the absence of a "mutual" agreement between parties. Please don't misunderstand me, I do NOT condone such one-sided marriages between people. All I'm saying here is that people have done this for centuries and it was upheld in the communities. Again I'm NOT condoning this AT ALL. I do personally believe that marriage between people MUST be mutual. It's just that the dog in the link I provided can only benefit from such a human commitment, so I see no harm in this. I would never have anything negative to say against such "marriages".
 
I also see nothing wrong with a human making a commitment to their non-human, but this does not constitute a "marriage" in my mind. How can it, when one participant is not even aware that it took place?
While I don't doubt that history has included many non-consenting "marriages", I do not recognize these as such. Rather, these have been contracts where one individual is allowed to legally rape the other. This is because the definition of marriage has changed over time. The current definition from Merriam-Webster is the only one I recognize:
"the state of being united as spouses in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law"

This does bring up the interesting point that what constitutes a marriage is a matter of opinion. For example while I and others do not recognize any non-consenting ceremonies, there are places around the world that not only allow these but also still refuse to recognize same-sex unions.
 
Lol. I see some of the language brigade is at it again. An animal cannot "marry" a human. And for the people who try and word the shit out of love and understanding and relationship better clarify that marriage isn't how YOU define it. Marriage already has a definition which no animal can ever understand or is in the realm of understanding.
Buy on the other hand, marriage might be a moot idea in this day. Probably useless unless you are desperate to lower your tax at the expense of half your money in say 7 to 10 years (average length of a Western marriage)
 
Japip said:
Marriage already has a definition
Click to expand...
False. There exist several different definitions for marriage, depending on who you ask. Head over to the middle east, they will tell you marriage cannot exist between two same sex partners. In some places marriage can take place between groups of people (polygamy) yet in USA such marriages are not recognized.

As for myself, I do not recognize marriages performed without consent.
 
amorousdog5 said:
False. There exist several different definitions for marriage, depending on who you ask. Head over to the middle east, they will tell you marriage cannot exist between two same sex partners. In some places marriage can take place between groups of people (polygamy) yet in USA such marriages are not recognized.

As for myself, I do not recognize marriages performed without consent.
Click to expand...
False? The act of marriage is the same. It fucking doesn't matter WHO is in it. It can 2 whatever the fuck. Man or woman. Age can vary. The fundamentals don't change. It distributes and defines legal and ethical responsibilities protected by law. What was false in that. It's like Mars bars and Snickers are different when I am defining chocolate
 
Japip said:
It can 2 whatever the fuck.
Click to expand...
Right here you say 2 specifically. Does that mean you also do not recognize polygamous marriages? If not, why not? Why is a ceremony involving 2 people a marriage while more is not? Also if it's two whatever the fuck, would you say a man can marry a tree? What about a non-living object like a rock? Some dictionary definitions say marriage must be recognized by culture, while others say it must be recognized by law. Which is correct and why?

Marriage does not have a single agreed upon definition.
 
amorousdog5 said:
Right here you say 2 specifically. Does that mean you also do not recognize polygamous marriages? If not, why not? Why is a ceremony involving 2 people a marriage while more is not? Also if it's two whatever the fuck, would you say a man can marry a tree? What about a non-living object like a rock? Some dictionary definitions say marriage must be recognized by culture, while others say it must be recognized by law. Which is correct and why?

Marriage does not have a single agreed upon definition.
Click to expand...
Jaysus you do have a lot of spare time don’t you. Did you read my whole message or like to sound intelligent without making a single relevant point.
 
Japip said:
Jaysus you do have a lot of spare time don’t you. Did you read my whole message or like to sound intelligent without making a single relevant point.
Click to expand...
Seems like you completely missed my point. Those were mostly questions about marriage different people and cultures will answer differently. There is no universal agreement on these points about marriage, so there is no universal definition for marriage. The rock and tree thing was to demonstrate that it's not two whatever, there are limits. What those limits are is another point of contention that different people will dispute.
 
BoxerLover75 said:
For my fellow Zoo's who became exclusive I always wondered, did you ever marry you them? Was it just an internal acceptance and love? Or did you have a ceremony? Id love to know
Click to expand...
For me, it's an internal acceptance and shared love for each other. Notice that I've removed the word "just" in one location and added the word "shared" in another location. And for me, this is a quasi equivalent to a "common law" marriage. 🐕
 
LuvelyLeda said:
That's a really interesting way to put it, cause I think this topic is usually pretty cringe. I totally agree, it would be one sided because marriage is obviously a human thing, but making a personal commitment to your partner by doing something that would make it feel "official" would probably still benefit the two of you. It wouldn't have to be a wedding, or even anything big. I've seen news articles of people actually having full marriage ceremonies with their dog, but I never took them seriously. There was one chick I saw in an article that said she was marrying her dog because she gave up on dating men. It sounded like her wedding was about giving up on dating than it was about committing to her dog. :cautious:

Is it corny? Ya. Is it necessary? No, but I admit there is something special about doing something that will remind you of your commitment to something, or someone.
Click to expand...
And it can speak volumes about the human and how caring (s)he is to their animal companion.

I see nothing but good in this... 🐕
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top