Teacher: “Why is it that only two people are married at once—couples, that is to say—and not three, four, or more? Why not triples, quadruples and higher?”
Student: “Well, history has always shown it takes two to tango.”
Teacher: “Are you sure you want that as your official answer?”
Student: “Well, yes. There have been cases of one man marrying several wives, but the wives weren’t also married to each other. To a far lesser extent, I have heard of the same thing reversed. One wife and several husbands; but again, the men in those situations weren’t married to each other; just to the wife.”
Teacher: “Then I’m afraid I have to mark you incorrect. That only two people are married at a time, or rather marriage was in pairs, even though some of the pairs were shared, must and could only be the result of irrational animus, bigotry, and hatred.”
Student: “You are the teacher, so you must be right. But could you explain?”
Teacher: “Certainly. You see, when it came to pass in our culture that two men or two women wanted to claim to be married to each other, they had no logical argument to support their desire. They could not point to biology or science, for instance, for those harsh realities insisted that families were for procreation, as that subject is understood writ large. Same-sex pairs could not use history to support their desires, either. For, you see, history did support the idea that only pairs could be considered married, but history also insisted that it was only men and women who could marry each other. History is thus prejudiced. And you have to take it whole. Picking and choosing which bit of history to rely upon is arbitrary and illogical.”
Student: “I take your point. Or points.”
Teacher: “Yes. So since science was of no help, and neither history, it was judged that both reality and history were bigoted, hateful things, and that any who called to these subjects were themselves filled with irrational animus and were thus bigots. Do you see?”
Student: “Yes, I think I finally do.”
Teacher: “Now it will make sense that even prisoners—male prisoners—will be able to declare their marriages to one another. Still only in pairs, of course.”
Student: “Can you quote from a competent authority for that claim? I ask with all respect. Plus I need footnotes for my thesis.”
Teacher: “I can. I quote from the Newsmax article “Gay Marriages Now in Prison“. Ahem:
British inmates Marc Goodwin and Mikhail Gallatinov became the first men to marry one another in the British penal system last year, despite serving life sentences for “hate crimes targeting homosexuals,” the Standard reports.
According to The Guardian, Gallatinov is a convicted pedophile who was convicted in 1997 of murdering a man he met through a gay chat line. Goodwin was sentenced in 2007 for killing Malcolm Benfold, 57, in what was described by police as “a savage, senseless homophobic attack that resulted in the death of a harmless man.”
Gallatinov’s mother, Christina Williams, said she was “glad he’s found love again,” after an earlier ex-boyfriend was moved by prison officials.
Writing for the Standard, Jonathan V. Last questions if “the homophobic murders [could] have been committed by gay men — in which case, they weren’t really “homophobic,” then, were they? Or did Goodwin and Gallatinov’s sexuality evolve in prison?
Student: “Would you classify this as Love at First Sight?”
Teacher: “The evidence supports that view, but I’m afraid without knowing more we cannot say for certain.”
Student: “You don’t find that this article is, well…a tad homophobic? After all, pointing out one of the new ‘husbands’ was a pervert and murderer might lead people to think there is something wrong with homosexual acts.”
Teacher: “Oh, no, I don’t think so. It is only irrational animus, bigotry and, of course, hatred that would lead somebody to fail to praise the many benefits of, for instance, sodomy. For, you see, if sodomy is not bad—and we mustn’t say it is—then it must be good. And what is good must be praised, supported, and even encouraged. All can see this simple point, which is why the news report has done no harm in reporting the facts.”
Student: “I see. Truly you are a wise teacher.”