Why I Oppose Same-Sex “Marriage”
By Jerry A. Kane
As a rule I don’t engage fools in their folly, but I have on occasions made exceptions to address former students. Following a post on my Facebook timeline about General Mills’ opposition to Minnesota’s marriage amendment, a former student took umbrage at my comments opposing same-sex marriage:
I.M. Kane: Why should “marriage” equality include only homosexuals? Shouldn’t equality include all other sexual preferences as well? Remember, a can of worms always has more than one worm inside. I oppose homosexual “marriage” for reasons of sanity, not bigotry. Even the sexually licentious, depraved societies of ancient Greece and Rome had more sense than to impose homosexual “marriage” on the hoi polloi. “Tis the times’ plague, when madmen lead the blind.”
Student: Oh, ok…….the easily and often dredged-up “reasoning” that pulls at this particular thread: now–same-sex marriage….later–inter-species marriage….even later–a guy can marry his beer mug. Well pulling at that thread quickly unravels such a specious argument! Defending a position by stretching out the opposing position to absurd hypothetical extremes is standard practice of those who can’t or refuse to do the heavy intellectual lifting needed to do battle on the abstract plane. It’s what the left does all the time! “If concealed carry becomes widespread in America, then it will be like the wild west writ large, and blood will flow down the main streets of every single town”……does that crap sound familiar? Oh, but it’s bad when a lib does that, but conservatives are on the right side of the arguments so it’s all good….yeah, right boss (rolls eyes). By all means though, show me the throngs of people who are just beside themselves waiting to obtain legal status for their “holy” union to their goldfish or cat, or toaster oven, or whatever. Show me such rabble and I’ll concede your point.
“I oppose homosexual “marriage” for reasons of sanity, not bigotry.”………so people who support same-sex marriage don’t just have have a different opinion, they suffer a deficit in sanity in your view. NO THAT DOESN’T SOUND BIGOTED AT ALL! When I hear that kind of stuff from the anti-gay marriage crowd, I actually do feel like my sanity is slipping!
“Even the sexually licentious, depraved societies of ancient Greece and Rome had more sense than to impose homosexual “marriage” on the hoi polloi.”…….No Mr. Kane, we LGBTs will not make you marry a dude. That comes later……then later you’ll have to marry an ostrich……then even later you’ll be exchanging vows with your lawn mower. OH NUTS, I EXPOSED OUR SECRET PLAN!
I.M. Kane: Do I need to remind you that my opinions are based on careful research and facts, not on personal beliefs or prejudices? My opinions are not arrived at haphazardly and are not based on feelings or parroted rhetoric.
You mock my reasoning as “dredged-up” and suggest that it is fallacious because I’m using slippery slope reasoning to argue that same-sex marriage will lead to incestuous marriages, polygamy, and even human-animal marriages. Granted a slippery slope argument is considered a fallacious form of reasoning; however, the slippery slope argument is logically valid where a chain of logical relationships or relevant probabilities has been established.
For at least a thousand years, Western civilization has recognized marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and for over two hundred years the United States has defined marriage as the union of two people of opposite sex who are not close blood relatives.
Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would allow for the definition to expand beyond recognition. If marriage is redefined as the union of consenting adults who profess to love each other, there is no principled reason to exclude others who want legal recognition and social acceptance of their unions. How could you justify excluding a bisexual from marrying two other people when exclusion would mean the denial of that person’s sexuality? How could you exclude homosexual brothers from marring each other, or homosexual siblings who want a triad marriage?
If two men can marry, why does it matter if they’re brothers, and why limit the number to two? After all, there’s no risk of genetic deformity in the case of homosexual incest. If homosexual marriage is permitted, why not permit incestuous and polygamous marriages? The only reason not to permit them is that people find them morally repugnant.
Western societies have tied marriage to members of the opposite sex, reproduction, and traditional morality. Similarly, the West has forbidden incest and polygamy on the grounds of public morality. Homosexuals who want to marry are not being denied their civil rights. They can marry if they want; they just can’t marry someone of the same sex, close blood relatives, or more than one person.
The truth is same-sex marriage is a ruse. What homosexuals really want is moral equivalence with heterosexuals, and they are willing to destroy marriage, one of this nation’s most crucial institutions, in their no-holes-barred attempt to get it.
What you want to do is move a moral line that’s been fixed in western culture for over a millennium. You call me a bigot because I am unwilling to move the line, yet you want to re-draw it; then limit marriage to heterosexual and homosexual couples based on your sense of morality. Doesn’t that make you a bigot, too? Aren’t you denying consenting adults who profess to love each other and want to marry close blood relatives or more than one person their right to do so?
You say marriage is a civil right and that homosexuals are being denied their civil rights when they are denied the right to marry, but if that’s true, aren’t you denying close blood relatives and polygamists their civil rights by denying them the right to marry? Your sense of morality refuses to accept their professed love for each other as legitimate, so you don’t want their marriages to be recognized or sanctioned by the state, to which I concur except that my sense of morality also applies to same-sex marriages.
“But he cursed me when I proved it to him
Then I whispered, ‘Not even you can hide
You wrote, “show me the throngs of people who are just beside themselves waiting to obtain legal status for their “holy” union to their goldfish or cat, or toaster oven, or whatever. Show me such rabble and I’ll concede your point.”
How extraordinarily naïve to believe that redefining marriage would have no serious repercussions or lasting effects on the social fabric of this nation.
Polygamy is legal in over four dozen nations. Islam, the world’s second-largest religion, allows a Muslim man to marry up to four women. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a right to polygamy in 1878 in Reynolds v. United States; but if same-sex marriage becomes a constitutional right, the Court’s reasoning in Reynolds would be superseded by the new arguments against traditional marriage. Polygamy laws would easily be overturned.
When the only basis for marriage is love or the desire of the parties to get married, it logically follows that polygamy, polyandry, incest, and bestiality would eventually be permissible. Depravity knows no bounds and the rabble line up to prove it:
“I want to marry my mother” – Zimbabwean man at