Gay Marriage

So, the lawful marriage of homosexual couples under the eyes of the government is a subject I'm passionate about. Not because I am gay (do I even need to qualify that?), but because I simply cannot stand aside and watch as ignorance and superstition feed the ravenous hatred and bigotry that is so prevalent right now.

I have come to conclusion that I am not pro gay marriage; I'm anti- straight marriage. I don't believe that gay couples should be able to marry so much as I think that straight couples should only be able to be granted civil unions. Marriage is a religious institution; leave it to the houses of superstition to perform the ceremony.

However, the above statement is really just an argument in semantics. A couple, in either Civil or Matrimonial Union, should have equal rights regardless of the sexes of the individuals involved; otherwise, it's sexism.

Interestingly, I've heard the argument that gays do, in fact, have the same right to marry as straights: they are perfectly free to marry a member of the opposite sex, just like everybody else.

The argument falls back on the definition of marriage; the troglodytes who oppose gay marriage provide the following criteria for marriage; you may marry somebody:

• of marriagable age,


• who consents,


• is unmarried,


• and of the opposite sex

What we need to change is the fourth criterion, the one about the opposite sex.

The argument that I've been hearing lately from the assholes on the other side of Proposition 8 could almost be the definition of slippery slope fallacy.

Basically, they contend, if we can "arbitrarily" change on criterion-- the one about being the opposite sex-- why do we retain the others? Generally, you'll hear something along the lines of: "I want to marry my dog, a tree and a couple 3-year-olds. Surely this is equally as valid as arbitrarily removing the sex requirement of the traditional definition?"

Turns out they're wrong. Myriad arguments can be made as to the necessity of the other three criteria: age and consent assure that nobody is being married against their will, and that children are not being molestet; the "unmarried" criterion simply ensures that monogamy remains the norm. This, too, is a candidate for deletion, but let's just assume the monogamy is necessary for the proper functioning of society with respect to government and taxation.

Before we continue, it will be instructive to define the purpose of marriage.

Is marriage designed for the production of children? Not exclusively so, or else couples would need to pass a fertility test before partaking of nuptials; being childfree would be grounds for forced separation and probably legal action on behalf on the part of the state.

Is marriage designed to raise children? Again, not exclusively so; childrearing is sufficient but not necessary reason to be united in legal matrimony. Even if it was, gay couples have been shown to be equally as effective as parents when it comes to raising children.

Is marriage designed to give people who love each other? No. People have been married not because the participants were willing, but because there were advantages to their respective families for doing so, and punishments for refusing. European nobility comes to mind immediately as an example, but this phenomenon is not exclusive to rich inbred whitefolk.

It is this last point that I would like to emphasize. Gay-marriage opponents point out that marriage is not dependent upon "love"; this is both a sad preview of their view of human relationships, and straw that breaks their argument-camel's back.

Very well. Supposing, for the moment, that this is somehow relevant, the opponents have just flushed the relevance of one of their favorite (fallacious) arguments down the drain; that is, the argument that homosexuality is a choice is now entirely irrelevant to the matter.

Because it is pretty well concurred that sexual orientation is not a choice, gay-marriage proponents win the argument either way: believing that homosexuality is voluntary and denying couples the right to marry based on sex is overt discrimination; stating that love is immaterial to the institution of marriage means that you have no reason for maintaining heterosexual-only marriage.


To summarize, here is a list of everything that will happen if gays are allowed to marry:

• Gay couples will get married.

Notice how "holocaust", "persecution of heterosexuals", and "end of the world" are not included on that list?


The reason that there is no "slippery slope" as a result of allowing gays to marry is because removal of the other critera actually leads to bad things. I have provided a list of the remaining three criteria, and what would happen if they were to be removed:

• Age of Consent: Removing this criteria means that babies and small children are molested. If you can't see why this is bad, kill yourself. Seriously.


• Individual gives Consent: non-cooperative marriage is a unique combination of kidnapping and rape. In this instance, the two-for-one is not a good deal. Again, if you don't understand this, I strongly encourage self-termination.


• Individual Is Not Married: This is in place to prevent polygamy and/or polyamory. While pluralistic marriage arrangements are not necessarily bad, they do tend to lead to unfavorable power distributions and the easier exploitation/abuse of the weaker individuals within the marriage group. At this time, I have no comment on whether or not this should be made illegal. I'm leaning towards "not".

In addition to these three, some states have restrictions on the consanguinity of the potential couple; ostensibly, this is to prevent incestuous relationships from ever producing children. While this is a noble goal, the same reproductive restrictions are not placed on other factors, such as drug and alcohol usage or financial stability. These factors are far more likely to negatively impact a child's health, so I have not included incest laws in my criteria.