In question 2, Mr. Briggs asked the question “why two?” and later says that we can’t use the historical fact that marriage is traditionally between two people because these people were usually a man and a woman. Usually, means that there are known instances of two males getting married in the past.
Marriage has always been between two people, even in the case of polygamy, where only one person is married to multiple people. Each of these marriages was between two individuals.
To say that tradition and history are not on the side of gay marriage is like saying that a woman is not a person because historically and traditionally women were not considered a person by the law; in fact, until the mid- 19th century they were considered the property of their father or their husband. The one in charge was receiving monetary compensation if the woman got of rape, because of the loss of value of the woman.
Why two? First, because bigamy is illegal; although it is possible, that in the future, society might see it differently. Second, marriage is a contract, and a contract is usually between two peoples or parties, except for few exceptions, even a collective bargaining is a contract between two parties. Third, in our society couples are considered as a single economic unit. This is why the government will transfer the social security benefit to spouses after death of one partner.
The reality is that society evolves and that women are now considered equal to men by the law. Slavery is now illegal even though it is not completely eliminated It also happens that more and more people realizes that gay couples donâ€™t infringe on any of their liberties or freedoms, that what people do in their own bedroom does not concerns anyone as long as it is between two consenting adults.
Mr. Briggs claims that the government cannot define what marriage is, but he failed to notice that by limiting it to a bond between a man and a woman the government is defining what marriage is. In doing so it poses the definition dictated by religion, not by nature. Freedom and liberty apply to each individual. Rights are individual as I explained earlier. One person has the right to think that gay sex is disgusting; while no one is forcing anyone to have gay sex. The person that finds gay sex disgusting still has the right to be disgusted by it. But for the state to limit the definition of marriage to a man and a woman, like it is dictated by religion, infringes upon the freedom of the individual who donâ€™t share the same religious beliefs. By the way, religious beliefs seem to play a large role in if a person is for or against gay marriage, though there are few atheists that are against it.
I answered part of the “Why two?” in Part I. History is no savior for SSM advocates. Mr Allard here says another reason for pairings is because “bigamy is illegal.” That’s either begging the question or a non sequitur. We are arguing whether SSM should be illegal, and SSM isn’t bigamy, which is defined as a man marrying more than one woman or woman marrying more than one man where the extra “partners” are ignorant of each other. But because bigamy is illegal is further historical evidence that society recognized the triumph of man-woman pairings and not that it favored pairings per se. And even if a man is allowed to marry two or more wives (or a woman two or more husbands), this is still irrelevant to whether SSM is right or wrong.
That people once unfairly discriminated against or made slaves of women, blacks, Hispanics, or whomever is irrelevant to whether SSM is right or wrong. No, strike that. It is irrelevant and highly misleading. Even if nobody ever had a choice in their sexual “orientation”, everybody always has a choice about their behavior. Possessing a skin color or biological sex is what makes us human and is not an act or behavior, and cannot be since there is no choice. Possessing a disposition is not an act. An act is an act. We’re asking whether an act is right or wrong. The nearest equivalents to this argument would be those times where societies forbade individuals who committed certain acts from marrying. And what were these? Too obvious, too obvious.
Allard says “that by limiting [marriage] to a bond between a man and a woman the government is defining what marriage is.” I never claimed this: indeed, I claimed the opposite. I said and say the governments historically acted in recognition of the truth that marriage is only man-woman, that government built certain rules and procedures around this truth. I specifically said that any of these government rules—I used Social Security benefits as an example—is not what marriage is. It is curious, however, that in this country’s recent Supreme Court ruling on DOMA, this view of marriage, i.e. “access to benefits,” was its basis. This only proves the fallacy’s popularity—and the left’s inveterate preoccupation with money.
Let me be clear: nobody, and perforce no government, has the right to define what marriage is. All anybody can do is to infer the highly scientific natural answer that marriage is for-life mating of a man and a woman for the purposes of procreation. Anything other than this is not marriage, but something else. To cut off anticipated replies: not everybody gets what they want; that they do not or can not is irrelevant.
Government can of course impel its citizens to obey. It can make people call red “white”. But that would not make red white. It can claim it is the law of the land that cold is “hot” and hot “cold.” The bureaucracy that enforces these laws might not like these precepts, but they will claim they were just following orders.
The governments of Canada, immanently the USA, France and others have assumed this curious mislabeling power. They now insist that everybody must call what is not marriage “marriage” (and to say oppositely, at least in Canada, is now a “hate” crime).
This usurpation has, instead of producing gloom and the kind of unrelenting nausea felt when it is announced one cannot get out of seeing a Roland Emmerich movie, has inspired me. Yes: from this chaff I was able to spin a golden answer, a solution which will satisfy both sides of the debate. So stunning is this stroke that I cannot reveal it until the end of this series. So compelling is it that to show it now would be unfair to Mr Allard, who still has three arguments left.
Whoever does not act like a lady or gentleman in responding will be banned.