Not too long ago in my law class, we were discussing gay “marriage”: some advocating it, others opposing it (one specific individual going so far as to say we should kill homosexuals – something I vigorously oppose, perhaps more so than I oppose gay “marriage”).
As usual, the argument for gay “marriage” went something like this: if two persons love each other, they should be allowed to marry each other, regardless if they’re both members of the same sex. Convincing? Of course not. Emotional? Somewhat. Stupid? Completely.
My argument against gay “marriage” went something like this: I oppose gay “marriage” for the same reasons everyone else in my class opposes incestous “marriage.” A girl quickly responded by saying (I’m paraphrasing): “Ok, fine. The government should define marriage as being between two people who love each other but are not related.”
What’s wrong with her counter-argument? It backfires on her (and on everyone else who subscribes to it). I oppose gay “marriage” because I subscribe to a code of morality. She, and everyone else in the class, oppose incestous “marriage” because they, too, subscribe to a code of morality, one which is violated when, say, a brother and a sister fall in love and decide they want to marry each other. If I have no right, as gay “marriage” supporters argue, to impose my code of morality on gays by not allowing them to marry, then what gives them the right to impose, by their own reasoning and logic, their code of morality on incestous couples by opposing marriage between them? I see an utter lack of consistency, if you ask me.
Though my argument was hardly legal, I think it was a serious blow to gay “marriage” supporters (at least in my class).
But wait! My law teacher came up with a wonderful solution: let’s get rid of the institution of marriage! Right, Mr. Dando.
(From a previous blog post of mine)