Marriage is, by nature, discriminatory.
In order to define marriage, you have to exclude people. Otherwise, there would be no way to define it. Just like a country that can't define its borders, when marriage is not defined, it soon becomes meaningless and ceases to exist.
That's why the term "marriage equality" is a fantasy.
The thousands-of-years-old definition of marriage is a covenant for lifelong fidelity and commitment between man and woman. That definition excludes people- it excludes a man and another man who want to get married, as well as three or four or five people who "love" each other and want to get married, and family members who want to get married. It excludes marriage between a human and an animal, a marriage of a person to himself, and just about anything else.
But to have marriage equality, we have to allow all of those things.
At some point, the people who are proponents of gay marriage, which are not using the term "gay marriage" but rather "marriage equality" to give it a more compassionate sound, are going to have to become bigots. They will, at some point, have to tell consenting adults that they do not have the right to be married.
For example, two brothers over age 21 want to get married. They wave the "marriage equality" flag and demand their right to be married. What do we do? Do we become bigots and tell them no? Or do we allow them to get married?
How about a woman who loves her cat so very much that she wants to marry her cat? Believe me, it will happen (after all, California is still part of the US). Do we become bigots and discriminate against her, telling her she can't marry an animal? Well, all she has to do is wave the "marriage equality" flag. She can even quote President Obama who says that all people have equal rights under the law. Therefore, she marries her cat. Otherwise we deny her her "rights."
How about a group of ten people who fall in love and wanted a ten-person marriage? Out comes the "marriage equality" flag again.
So the question is- at what point do we all become bigots and deny people their rights?
We have two options. One, we allow anyone and everyone to get married. No definition, no exclusions, marriage equality for all. The result? Marriage dissolves completely and becomes as worthless as Weimar Republic money.
Two, we begin to discriminate and become bigots, telling people that some people can be married and others can't.
This is where the "marriage equality" fight is headed. The same arguments that the pro-gay marriage people are using to demand the rights of gays to marry can be used for any and all other groups as well.
Marriage is discriminatory. A country without borders ceases to exist. A cell without a cell membrane ceases to exist. An institution such as marriage that does not have clearly defined borders and is not discriminatory ceases to exist as well. Like Syndrome said in The Incredibles, "When everyone is special, no one is special."
So, the question for "marriage equality" supporters is this- at what point do you become a bigot and deny someone the right to marry? What is your line?
If your line is "marriage is between two people"- you have become a bigot against polyamorous relationships.
If your line is "marriage is between three or less"- you have become a bigot against the foursome who wants to get married.
If your line is "consenting adults"- you have become a bigot against a man who wants to marry a child, as well as the man who wants to marry his horse.
If your line is "anyone and everyone at any place at any time under any circumstances can get married" then you have just opened the door for mass chaos and the eventual destruction of the basis for civilization- the family.
So, at what point will you become the bigot that you are accusing traditional marriage supporters of being?
In order to define marriage, you have to exclude people. Otherwise, there would be no way to define it. Just like a country that can't define its borders, when marriage is not defined, it soon becomes meaningless and ceases to exist.
That's why the term "marriage equality" is a fantasy.
The thousands-of-years-old definition of marriage is a covenant for lifelong fidelity and commitment between man and woman. That definition excludes people- it excludes a man and another man who want to get married, as well as three or four or five people who "love" each other and want to get married, and family members who want to get married. It excludes marriage between a human and an animal, a marriage of a person to himself, and just about anything else.
But to have marriage equality, we have to allow all of those things.
At some point, the people who are proponents of gay marriage, which are not using the term "gay marriage" but rather "marriage equality" to give it a more compassionate sound, are going to have to become bigots. They will, at some point, have to tell consenting adults that they do not have the right to be married.
For example, two brothers over age 21 want to get married. They wave the "marriage equality" flag and demand their right to be married. What do we do? Do we become bigots and tell them no? Or do we allow them to get married?
How about a woman who loves her cat so very much that she wants to marry her cat? Believe me, it will happen (after all, California is still part of the US). Do we become bigots and discriminate against her, telling her she can't marry an animal? Well, all she has to do is wave the "marriage equality" flag. She can even quote President Obama who says that all people have equal rights under the law. Therefore, she marries her cat. Otherwise we deny her her "rights."
How about a group of ten people who fall in love and wanted a ten-person marriage? Out comes the "marriage equality" flag again.
So the question is- at what point do we all become bigots and deny people their rights?
We have two options. One, we allow anyone and everyone to get married. No definition, no exclusions, marriage equality for all. The result? Marriage dissolves completely and becomes as worthless as Weimar Republic money.
Two, we begin to discriminate and become bigots, telling people that some people can be married and others can't.
This is where the "marriage equality" fight is headed. The same arguments that the pro-gay marriage people are using to demand the rights of gays to marry can be used for any and all other groups as well.
Marriage is discriminatory. A country without borders ceases to exist. A cell without a cell membrane ceases to exist. An institution such as marriage that does not have clearly defined borders and is not discriminatory ceases to exist as well. Like Syndrome said in The Incredibles, "When everyone is special, no one is special."
So, the question for "marriage equality" supporters is this- at what point do you become a bigot and deny someone the right to marry? What is your line?
If your line is "marriage is between two people"- you have become a bigot against polyamorous relationships.
If your line is "marriage is between three or less"- you have become a bigot against the foursome who wants to get married.
If your line is "consenting adults"- you have become a bigot against a man who wants to marry a child, as well as the man who wants to marry his horse.
If your line is "anyone and everyone at any place at any time under any circumstances can get married" then you have just opened the door for mass chaos and the eventual destruction of the basis for civilization- the family.
So, at what point will you become the bigot that you are accusing traditional marriage supporters of being?
Well said. Reminds me of C.S. Lewis in "Mere Christianity" arguing for a firm definition of Christianity to keep the word from becoming meaningless.
ReplyDeleteThank you for this insightful analysis of the phrase "marriage equality" pointing out its internal inconsistencies. I strongly differed with your previous article which takes us in the wrong direction toward an "anything goes adoption" mentality based on misinformation. I still believe your adoption policy will do children harm. But you make excellent sense here and i thank you for it.
ReplyDeleteThere is an agenda here. Your next to last paragraph sums it up nicely. I do not believe that anything short of total destruction of the family will do for people whose agenda moves forward under the dubious banner of marriage equality. We are in a spiritual, not a political, battle. The enemies attack on the first institution ordained by God is intentional and direct.
ReplyDelete