RECENT  POSTS:  » In which another anti-gay group forces politicos to Gladys Kravitz our way into one family's divorce drama » In 2008, the AFA was the same on LGBT rights as President Obama; and I was a flying unicorn » The Hitching Post plot thickens in a truly remarkable way » On Rivka, Robert and their dirty, self-victimizing, anti-intellectual blame game » POTUS believes in fifty-state equality, happy with way it's playing out » But your subjective view of 'real' marriage is factually irrelevant, Ryan » Flip Benham (yes, their dad) reportedly protesting outside NC weddings » TV's Duggar family continues anti-LGBT activism » Caught ya: Far-right's latest marriage 'victim' edited website to make more solid legal case » Read: Wyoming to become our 32nd marriage equality state  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

05/19/2008

If marriage is dangerous precedent, then Adam & Eve set it!

by Jeremy Hooper

Imageserverdb-1-1Writing a typically queer-hostile piece for Baptist Press, columnist Kelly Boggs makes the tried-and-untrue assertion that the legal recognition of Adam & Steve's wedding is going to lead to a day wherein an infant can simultaneously marry both his dad and his pet monkey. He makes many flawed statements while jumping over the logical chasms, but this will give you the general gist of his commentary:

If liberals and homosexual activists are correct and marriage is nothing more than a social construct that must be adapted to society as culture becomes more depraved, then it is just a matter of time until adult incest, polygamy, polyamory and bestiality are all accepted as legitimate "relationships." And those who practice such aberrant behavior will be allowed to marry.

Lest you think my argument is an overreaction, it should be noted that there are activists who advocate for all the above. In fact, there are those in academia who believe the social stigma should be removed from all of the aforementioned behaviors. If the activists and academicians have their way, one day marriage will indeed be for all who desire to wed -– whoever or whatever.

Okay, so first off: The first sentence is flawed in its structure. "Liberals and homosexual activists" are not suggesting that marriage is "a social construct that must be adapted to society as culture becomes more depraved." What we are suggesting is that marriage is a concept that should've ALWAYS been accommodating to gay and lesbian couples! Extending the freedom to marry the partner of their choosing is not exemplary of a society becoming more depraved, but rather more enlightened.

But looking beyond the clumsy syntax -- the tired old arguments once again being trotted out by Mr. Boggs are deeply offensive not only in terms of the blatant way they try and connect gayness with a whole slew of other unrelated concepts, but also in the way they include homosexuality AT ALL. For you see, gay marriage is a wholly unnecessary middle man in Mr. Bogg's line of logic. If one wants to make a case for brother-sister marriage, man-woman-woman-woman nuptials, or man-iguana matrimony, then they have every right to do so. And they have this right not because gays are getting married. They have the right because marriage exists in ANY form within the system of civil government to which their citizenship is bound!

The social conservatives are so in love with the whole "slippery slope" concept of same-sex marriage, that frankly we're shocked none of them have tried to wed the fear-mongery tactic. But if they did want to take the strategy to court to stand up for their right to marry it, then their case would be judged on its own merits. And the same goes for polygamy, incest, bestiality, and any other notion the "pro-family" team's playbook may suggest as they continue along their quest to keep gays legally single. All are different situations, and all have to be gauged on their own basis! With the extension or marriage to gay couples, the system as we know it didn't really change. It still involves two humans who fall somewhere on the understood scale of sexual orientation pledging a lifetime commitment in the eyes of the law. There's no real metamorphosis there is form or structure. But If one does want to change components like number or species of participants, then they're going to have to make rational points that both prove their arrangement's worthiness and hold up to legal scrutiny.

In his piece, Mr. Boggs goes on to suggest that if the California Supreme Court really believed their ruling, then "they would have removed all barriers to marriage," and that if they are to stay legally consistent, then "they eventually will...allow any and every 'marriage' arrangement." But why does he make this oversimplified presumption? That's like saying if those who worked to lower the voting age believed in their push, then three-year-old Kelsey Jacobs would currently be serving as a superdelegate for "Hillawy Cwinton." Or that if those who de-segregated schools believed in their cause, then today's teens might have a donkey for a lab partner.

Now, the above examples admittedly sound a little ridiculous; but that's because their development was guided by Mr. Bogg's ridiculous line of reasoning. What he is suggesting is that by making a reasoned stand for progress, then we pull down the barrier for any and everyone else to piggyback upon it. But that's simply not the case. The truth is that history is filled with situations in which courts, lawmakers, and the populace have corrected flaws in the system without opening up a precedential valve through which any and everything can enter regardless of individual merit. And it is wrong to suggest otherwise. Our system of government deserves more credit than that!!!

Lousy legal logic [BP News]

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

Marriage is a basic civil right that should be attainable by all Americans if they choose. For those for have a problem with this check out our short produced to educate & defuse the controversy. It has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue: www.OUTTAKEonline.com

Posted by: Charlotte | May 19, 2008 9:47:18 AM

When we awarded women the right to vote we did not eventually give dogs the right to vote.

It is articles like this that reassure me our side is winning. If the only argument you have against something is to bring up something else then your case is pretty weak. What is the argument against same-sex marriage on it's own without vague ethereal imagery like "fabric of society" or illogical connections like "men will marry their ape children?" They can't tell you an argument against same-sex marriage on it's own because there isn't one.

Posted by: Gabe | May 19, 2008 10:38:32 AM

Does he not know that if interspecies (man/dog, woman/cat, etc.) marriages were allowed, these conservative "christian"/republican types would be first in line to do so?

Says fellow conservative and anti-abortion activist Neal Horsley: "When you grow up on a farm in Georgia, your first girlfriend is a mule."

HEE-HAW

http://youtube.com/watch?v=WOKbrdYevfQ

http://www.newshounds.us/2005/05/06/bizarre_sex_habits_of_the_extreme_rightwing.php

Gays and lesbians may be marrying somebody of the same gender, but at least they aren't courting and lusting after livestock!

Posted by: Scott | May 19, 2008 11:54:52 AM

Legalizing marriage for same-sex couples extends a specific right that some people currently have to make it a right that all people have.

Legalizing marriages that incorporate polygamy, incest, or bestiality would be creating a new right that no one currently has. These ideas would be separate structures (even separate from each other) in which sexual orientation could play its own factor. For example, incestual marriage could be legalized and still not allow same-sex parternings.

This is all goes back to the point that sexual orientation is an inherent human trait and not a tendency, desire, or preference. Your orientation comes first, and all the rest comes second. The line needs to stop being blurred.

Posted by: Eric L | May 19, 2008 12:13:03 PM

But why would they "marry the fear-mongery cow" when they can get all the milk that they want for free! And that is assuming that it it the milk that they are after. (Though, on second thought instead of a cow, a vampire analogy might fit better. . . )

Posted by: Dick Mills | May 19, 2008 2:11:23 PM

uhh... there is no adam nor eve

Posted by: hapbt | May 23, 2008 2:51:08 PM

Lol, hapbt. It's just a defacto statement for the origins of hetero marriage, not a theological statement.

Posted by: G-A-Y | May 23, 2008 2:53:47 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails