Sunday, June 30, 2013

The absolute, worst argument against gay marriage.

I have to wonder why anyone takes the Heritage Foundation seriously, but more so now with Jim DeMint at the helm.  For this morning on MTP, he offered what is the absolute worst argument against gay marriage:  Because it suppresses the rights of people who believe that gay marriage is wrong.

By Jim DeMint's logic, we the people who support the rights of free, black men and women (re: 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments), trampled on the rights of racist bigots.

The problem with Jim Demint's argument is, is that gay marriage does not impose a toll on those who do not support gay marriage.  It does not cost non-gay families personal fees, a loss of personal freedoms, a loss of religious freedoms, or a loss of personal dignity.

Now, I know that some people seem to think that this will lead to the legalization of polygamy or to marriage between humans and non-humans.  So how does this break down?

The reason why we have laws against polygamy, is because polygamy has long been associated with the suppression of freedoms of women, particularly female children, who were married off to men, especially those of wealth.  In this, polygamy reinforces unequal rights.  But at some point in the future, when women have gained earning parity and the glass ceiling has been completely and permanently shattered, anti-polygamy laws will no longer be required or seem important in the support of equality.

We might yet allow marriage between humans and non-humans.  Of course, we haven't yet found aliens from other planets, but if we meet aliens from other planets, why wouldn't we be allowed to intermarry?  It's absurd that we wouldn't be allowed to, after all, 50 years of science fiction have pointed towards that belief -- think Spock.

But can you marry your dog or a giraffe?  Well, again the problem remains that of rights.  Non-humans on this planet have long been assigned the designation of property, and their rights have been assigned to their owners and their would-be owners.  If you think about it, your pet dog doesn't have the ability to defend its rights -- if granted -- in a court room; it must be assigned to a human -- its owner -- or interested party.  In essence, the point still comes back to the subversion of rights.  If all non-humans on Earth were granted equal human rights, their rights would be easily trampled upon because those non-humans do not have the personal ability to defend their rights in court (bark once if your human husband mistreated you?).

That does not mean that at some point in the future, we couldn't grant interspecies marriage equality.  After all, at some point we might be able to both boost the intelligence of non-humans, coupled with an ability to communicate with ease with non-humans.  Which of course means that you'll never be able to marry your Ken or Barbie Doll.

Bottom line: Gay marriage may seem immoral or distasteful to many, but it doesn't impede or otherwise trample on the rights of those who find it immoral or distasteful, no matter how you slice it.

No comments: