The final issue in framing the gay/lesbian marriage question is whether a redefinition of marriage creates a slippery slope down which the entire concept of legal unions become null and void.
Think of it in this manner. If gay/lesbian marriage is allowed to exist under the definition of marriage, then the next step down the slippery slope is the legalization of all kinds of human unions:
- Polygamy: one man with many wives, one woman with many husbands
- "Multigamy": multiple men and women in a single union
- Incestual marriages: brother/sisters, father/daughters, mother/sons, etc.
- Marriage invitro: marriage contracts of underage boys/girls to future spouses
You say that one does not lead to the other, but that's not true. If gay/lesbian marriages are supported under the changed definition of marriage then it would be wrong to disallow the above forms of human unions simply because they are repugnant or that you don't believe in them.
Gays/lesbians would be extremely hypocritical if they opposed any of the above forms of unions. This is why the definition of marriage must remain the union of 1 man and 1 woman. Slippery slopes are usually breached and the LOUCs are then effected.
Remember, the gay/lesbian lifestyle is a choice not biology since if it was biological then it would have extinguished itself long ago due to the inability of homosexuality to reproduce. Only lately has medical technology allowed for the insemination of non-heterosexual unions. Before this level of medical progress, homosexuality, if indeed biological as the gay/lesbians like to asset, would have died out due to inability to procreate and continue their gene patterns responsible for their condition.
Sorry, can't have it both ways, folks.
No comments:
Post a Comment