[Vision2020] gay marriage and bananas

[Douglas]

Visionaries,

Joan says:
>Can’t we simply continue to recognize marriage as contractual monogamy, 
>expanding it only with regard to the sex of the spouses?  Just as I can 
>light a cigarette without starting a forest fire, I should also be able to 
>marry my same-sex partner without exposing myself to the unwanted 
>attentions of King Fahd.

This is only the case when the logic you use to justify the same/sex 
marriage does not apply equally well to other alternative unions, and can 
be used as readily by them. If Wilson does not get to impose his morality 
on homosexuals, then why do the homosexuals want him to be able to impose 
it on polygamists? Some citizens don't want marriage restricted to heteros. 
Other citizens don't want it restricted to couples. By what standard do we 
make decisions about marriage law? Is it religious? Secular? Pragmatic? 
What standard do you want imposed, and why? All law is imposed morality. 
What morality do you want to impose -- and why are you so sure you are right?

Scott says that equality is his standard and is backed by the United States 
Constitution. Which in its turn is suspended in midair on a great 
epistemological sky hook. What was your standard, Scott, when the 
Constitution supported slavery?

Donovan says that the whole issue revolves around consent. So tell us -- at 
what age does sexual consent become possible? Should teenagers be legally 
permitted to experiment with their sexuality? Are you guys abstinence 
crusaders now?

And I would appreciate it if anyone could give me the name of any gay pride 
parade that has banned the participation of NAMBLA.


Cordially,

Douglas Wilson



At 05:19 PM 8/6/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>Slippery slopes, indeed.  And the road to hell is paved with banana peels.
>
>Doug and others wonder what dire things will happen if we reject the 
>religious (Meaning fundamentalist Christian?  Meaning modern?  Meaning 
>Western?) definition of marriage as applying only to one-man plus 
>one-woman unions.  If we’re forced to recognize the validity of man-man 
>and woman-woman marriages, won’t this lead inevitably to polygyny, 
>polyandry, dog and pony shows, Caligula, Lot’s daughters, Elizabeth 
>Taylor, Mickey Rooney, and a host of other fevered (and largely imaginary) 
>embraces?
>
>I don’t see why it should.  Sure, history, anthropology, and a cursory 
>look at the Bible tell me that polygamy has long been a popular and 
>successful familial arrangement.  It worked for the Biblical patriarchs, 
>and it seems to be working right now for the wealthier denizens of the 
>Middle East.
>(Islamic law dictates that you can only have as many wives as you can 
>afford to support.  That’s the difference between King Fahd of Saudi 
>Arabia and Tom Green of Utah.  One has an oil well; the other has 
>welfare.)  Polygamy is a fact of life in much of the world.  But why would 
>recognizing gay marriage in this country oblige us also to adopt 
>polygamy?  By recognizing that there are religions other than Doug’s, and 
>that those religions recognize other forms of marriage, must we embark on 
>a top to bottom overthrow of all U.S. family law?  Can’t we simply 
>continue to recognize marriage as contractual monogamy, expanding it only 
>with regard to the sex of the spouses?  Just as I can light a cigarette 
>without starting a forest fire, I should also be able to marry my same-sex 
>partner without exposing myself to the unwanted attentions of King 
>Fahd.  (Stay away from me, sirrah!  I shall never be yours!)
>
>Once again, I fear we’ve been invited to elope with a straw man.  He’s 
>come armed with some daisies and a Whitman’s sampler, but he doesn’t fool me.
>His head is full of hay and he’s making me sneeze.  While I think it would 
>be fun if the earth were flat -- a little clever map manipulation and we 
>could rid ourselves of some odious Carnival cruise ships -- circumstances 
>force me to admit that it’s round.  The definition of marriage has changed 
>repeatedly throughout human history to suit the people and cultures who 
>have felt a need to codify and police human sexual relationships.  If 
>there’s something more to it, if God has had a hand in its practice and 
>definition, then he’s been mighty fickle -- even within the confines of a 
>single religious tradition.  What’s sauce for Abraham is anathema for 
>Paul.  How can that be?  Either eternal God cannot make up his mind, or 
>marriage is a human construct.
>
>Legally a spinster but try telling my wife that,
>Joan
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
>http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
>
>_____________________________________________________
>List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the 
>communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯