Commenter 'anonymous' took exception to my satire on New York's new Gay Marriage Law.
I had suggested that other kinds of 'unions'-- such as polygamy, made as much sense as same sex-unions, and that if restricting marriage to one-man one-woman was a denial of rights to gays, then restricting marriage to two people was a denial of rights to polygamists. I mentioned onanists, necrophiliacs, and zoophilists as well.
This is absolute rubbish.
If the traditional natural-law restriction of marriage to heterosexual couples is a denial of gay rights, then it is a denial of rights to all people whose sexual desires run to nontraditional. One could of course deny the right to marry an underage child-- to protect the child-- but do three wives and seven husbands need protection, if it's consensual? What's so special about two? Sounds like non-two-phobia to me.
What about spinsters? Why should marriage be restricted to multiples? Why can't a person marry himself? There are tangible benefits to marriage, and goodness knows that there is abundant self-love out there, crying out for rights.
Why restrict marriage to living human beings? Necrophilia is inherently consensual (unless it was in the will). Not likely the betrothed will complain.
What about zoophilia? You aren't speciesist, are you? We could put some humane constraints on the marriage-- no more than a 100 pound difference between spouses, no farm animals unless the farm-work was shared by the couple, etc.
Rubbish, you say. So on what basis do you object to marriage without borders?
1) It's crazy. People say that about gay marriage.
2) It makes me sick. (see # 1)
3) It's bad for the kids. (see # 1)
4) It's not natural to mate with lots of other people, or with dead people, or with animals. (see # 1)
4) Egnor's an a**hole for bringing this up. Yep.
The problem with gay marriage is that it is not rubbish. It will have profound effects. It will not provide the blessings of marriage to gays in any significant number. Gay marriage will simply end marriage. It will render marriage an accoutrement, like not wearing animal skins or dallying in mysticism. That's what it is becoming in many countries where it has been law (i.e. Sweden). Ever wonder why proponents didn't promote examples of the effect that gay marriage has already had in other countries that have it?
So here's my challenge, anonymous: give me the reasons that polygamists and necrophiliacs and zoophiles can't marry? Why are they denied the rights to legal recognition of their love? Only as a supporter of gay marriage you can't use natural law arguments or tradition arguments or yuck arguments. What do you have left?
This is not rubbish: gay marriage is not marriage. It is the beginning of the end of marriage. It is a long step in the rendering of the foundational bond of our civilization indistinguishable from the bar scene in Star Wars.
Perhaps that was the intention.