Wednesday, 5 October 2011

Polygamous lunch

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.