The following quotation from Liz Feldman is doing the rounds on Facebook at the moment:
Personally, I am very excited about “gay marriage”, or as I like to call it, “marriage”. Because I had lunch this afternoon, I didn’t have “gay lunch”. And I parked my car, I didn’t “gay park” it.
This is inexpressibly stupid. Do you want to change the law so that you can be married to more than one person at a time? Try this argument:
Personally, I am very excited about “polygamous marriage”, or as I like to call it, “marriage”. Because I had lunch this afternoon, I didn’t have “polygamous lunch”. And I parked my car, I didn’t “polygamous park” it.
Or maybe you want to go ancient Egyptian and marry your sibling?
Personally, I am very excited about “incestuous marriage”, or as I like to call it, “marriage”. Because I had lunch this afternoon, I didn’t have “incestuous lunch”. And I parked my car, I didn’t “incestuous park” it.
Just in case it really needs to be said: I am not equating homosexuality with polygamy or incest. I am showing the stupidity of one very stupid argument by pointing out what else it would justify.
2 comments:
A good argument ad absurdum. What I've often wondered is what the gay marriage crowd hopes to achieve at the end of it all. They ruin the traditional vision of marriage, undermine the law's basis in marriage as the fundamental unit of law, put aside the good will of "traditionalists" and have society accept and smile upon everything they do in the bedroom (not to mention opening the door for future legal calamity and societal confusion). Then what? Happiness forever? Security and legal protection? Stable relationships? Or the still-lingering sense that something is horribly, dreadfully, wrong. (ironically I just posted a similar sort of exchange at my site)
I'm thinking that what that crowd, or at least what those directing the crowd, hope to acheive is the delegitimization of marriage.
Post a Comment