Stop your progress, gays -- polygamists might get some ideas
Hey women: Don't you dare push for the right to vote because that might le ad to infants or canines wanting the same!
Hey African-Americans: Don't push for integration because that might cause widely dissimilar groups to draw a connection from your fight and use it as a springboard for their own cases.
Hey early 20th century foes of Prohibition: Don't stand up for one's legal right to purchase and consume alcoholic beverages, as that might lead certain fetishists to brand and market a six-pack of piss.
Hey gays who are pushing for the injustices that have been waged against your liberties: Don't push for the legal relationship recognition that you fully deserve, as such might help polygamists.
Such is the argument of some of our Florida-based opponents. This from the Tallahassee Democrat:
"This is not the end game. There are many people who want to bring their aberrant forms of marriage to the table, and once you open the door, there's really no end to it," he said. "If marriage means anything, then marriage means nothing."
Stemberger said "logic, biology, tradition and common sense" dictate that marriage is not for homosexuals.
He further cited law-review articles and statements by proponents of polygamy and group marriage who claim there is no legal reason to limit marriage to one man and one woman.
"These are not crazies," he said. "These folks are where homosexual activists were 25 years ago. The problem is, when you unlock that door, there's really no end to the argument of where we're going to define marriage."
There is no line of logic from our opponents that's more annoying than the idea that this specific fight for equality is a "slippery slope." They act as if we are just the first act of an "immorality play" that's being performed out on the world's stage. To many of our foes, we're not humans with actual grounds for advancement. No, no -- instead we're litmus tests for whether or not their version of a pleasant society is going to be steamrolled by all that is "wicked." It's as if they've all of a sudden adopted the persona of Madame FearMongera: "Pro-Family" Psychic, with their crystal ball giving them insight that we could never understand. And it's really frickin' unfair!
You know what? Other groups very well might come along and try and use gay marriage as a test case for their own desired advancements, since legislation of morality is at play in the gay-centric marriage equality battle. We all have the right to push for the change we wish to see in the world. And when those other groups make their cases, we all will have the opportunity to form opinions regarding our support for them. But the righteousness or non-righteousness of subsequent movements has zero bearing on the current debate, and it is completely unfair to suggest that it does! What we are talking about is the now. We have to deal with the present issues informed by the past struggles, not deal with a one-sided, fear-mongery presentation of a possible future!
We very well may cross some of the predicted bridges someday, and we have a duty to accurately assess them when they arise. But to suggest that we should destroy the inroads that we've already made so as to not enable others to piggyback on our progress is as unfair as simplistically writing off our relationships as "aberrant" arrangements that are precluded by common sense! Come to think of it, it is that last idea that is truly in danger of begetting more and worse ideas!
Proposed ban on gay marriage sparks debate [Tallahassee Democrat]
What would stop polygamy from being governmentally recognized if same-sex marriage became accepted? Well, I would say the same things that stop it currently, whatever those things may be.
I don't understand why same-sex marriage must be seen as a stepping stone to polgamy for the simple fact that same-sex marriage and polygamy are not on the same path. They are each their own unique "variations" of marriage as it is known now, and polygamy could just as easily sprout directly from "traditional marriage" as it could as off-shoot of newly-recognized same-sex marriage. If there really was a push for legal polygamy, it would be occuring already, separately from the same-sex marriage fight. It's almost insulting to polygamists to assume they are just waiting around for same-sex marriage to go through so that they can strike, using as their sole reason "Hey, you let them do it!"
The "slippery slope" effect may be true for something like, say, if you let one student go to the bathroom, they will all want to go, but to extend that simple logic to a debate as large and complex as this one is irresponsible.
Posted by: Eric L | Mar 27, 2008 3:00:23 PM
Well it's all about the fear, Eric. They know that polygamy freaks out more people than same-sex marriage, so they work that angle. But yes, it is an independent matter that will play out regardless of what happens with same-sex marriage.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Mar 27, 2008 3:06:36 PM
It's an interesting insight into their "scale of immorality" and how they view what is worse than something else. At least same-sex marriage seems to be at the top of the slope, huh!
Posted by: Eric L | Mar 27, 2008 3:16:43 PM
It's odd how Christians keep bringing up polygamy, beacause it was morally right and practiced by Christians past.
Posted by: Zack | Mar 28, 2008 12:53:34 AMcomments powered by Disqus