Saturday, November 20, 2010
The most common word that is heard alongside the term ‘gay ‘marriage’, is ‘progressive’, a term which is also used to justify it. But what is never defined is what ‘progressive’ actually is. The word is just crudely swung around in an attempt to cudgel those ‘backward’ traditionalists who dare to hold tight to old fashioned religious values.
But the real question is if gay marriage is progressive, then what about polygamy? What about incestuous relationships? Why would these not be progressive ideals too?
The only criteria that these self-proclaimed ‘progressives’ are advocating for defining ‘marriage’, is ‘love’, that’s it! So if reciprocal love is the only defining criteria, then on what basis do they reject brothers and sisters from demanding the same rights to marriage? What basis do they then have for rejecting the claims of discrimination against those who want to wed into polygamous marriage? None.
As soon as you redefine marriage away from the obviously harmonious match between one man and one woman into a cohabitation of only ‘love’, then you open the flood gates to any and all variations of cohabitation. If rejecting gay marriage is discrimination, then so isn’t rejecting all other forms such as polygamy, incest, bigamy, bestiality, objectophilia? What is stopping a landslide of subsequent marriage redefinitions to encompass all these different forms of cohabitations? Nothing, in fact according to the logic of the gay marriage advocates, discriminating against all the above forms of relationships who wish to marry is just as bad as discriminating against gay marriage.
Even if marriage is only redefined to include gay unions, then this has a significant impact on those people who don’t want their own marriage vows to be diluted to include gay unions. There are many people who don’t want the marriage bond that holds them together to be some motley hotchpotch union that lacks any form of coherent meaning or significance. They certainly don’t want to be married under a form of union that they find offensive!
This raises the obvious solution of having a totally separate form of union distinct from heterosexual ‘marriage’. It is certainly feasible to have a separate form of union that the ostensibly named ‘progressives’ find comfortable. This would seem to me to be a win-win scenario. It would keep the traditionalists happy as well as those advocating gay marriage.
But what I really don’t get is why those advocating gay marriage, who would almost exclusively be secular atheists, would want to adopt the Christian tradition of marriage anyway? The institution of marriage in the West has always been a Christian tradition, one deeply rooted in Christian ethics, morality and tradition.
Why would those advocates of gay marriage want to hijack this explicitly Christian institution when they openly ridicule every aspect of Christianity? They routinely mock the conservative values of Christianity and even more severely mock the people who hold them. It is for this reason that I simply do not see any sense in them adopting marriage in the first place.
The most diplomatic and practical solution seems to me to create another distinctly separate form of union that encompasses gay unions, heterosexual unions if they wish and every other form of union that they deem progressive.
They would obviously have the same rights as traditional religious marriage, but would have a legal union that they find far more appropriate to their ideas of ‘social progression’. This would certainly keep the vast majority of the religious population happy, giving them the important distinction between hetero and homosexual unions.