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.
