Posted on

A Challenge To Those Who Support “Gay Marriage”


A Challenge To Those Who Support “Gay Marriage”
Vostra Guida
Apr 11 ,2013

(Washington State Attorney General has filed a consumer protection lawsuit against a florist who refused to supply flowers for a same-sex wedding.  The florist told the couple “I am sorry.  I can’t do your wedding because of my relationship with Jesus Chris.”  The lawsuit seeks to force the florist to supply flowers for gay weddings and seeks a $2,000 fine for every violation.)  

A Challenge To Those Who Support “Gay Marriage”
By Vostra Guida

The concept of so-called “gay marriage” is surrounded with high levels of emotions on all sides of the debate, and has come into even sharper focus this year due in large part to two cases recently argued before the Supreme Court, and the fact that the President of the United States and a slew of “Johnny-Come-Lately” politicians have endorsed the idea of government sanctioned gay marriage.

Yet for centuries, it was presumed that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and today there are many federal laws that rely on the definition of “marriage” and/or “spouse” (including laws relating to social security, taxes, immigration, employee benefits, etc.).  At present, federal law (the Defense of Marriage Act) defines “marriage” as “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.”  That same law also defines the word “spouse” as referencing only “a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”   It should come as no surprise that I continue to support those definitions.

The main arguments in favor of gay marriage tend to focus on the “right” of homosexuals to be happy and to marry the person they love, and to be treated equally under the law.  But what we have not heard from supporters of gay marriage is what they propose for the new definitions of “marriage” and “spouse” to be used in connection with federal laws like the ones mentioned above.

So for those who have declared your support for gay marriage, I have a challenge for you:

1) Please propose new definitions of “marriage” and “spouse” that include homosexual relationships and that can be used in connection with federal laws.

2) If those definitions are not also inclusive of all varieties of relationships (for example, incestuous relationships, zoophilic relationships, or polygamous relationships — whether heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual) please provide the justification(s) for treating those relationships differently from typical heterosexual and homosexual relationships such that denying people who wish to enter into such marriages may be denied the same “right to be happy, marry who they love, and be treated equally under the law.”

In responding, please keep in mind that people involved in all of the aforementioned types of relationships are capable of conceiving children artificially (some requiring sperm or egg donations or a rented uterus) and/or are capable of adopting children, just like people in heterosexual and homosexual relationships.  Some may be too old to have children or have no interest in having children, just like people in heterosexual and homosexual relationships.

The above challenge is a serious exercise.  In order to understand whether redefining “marriage” and “spouse” is justified, workable, and generally a good idea, we need to know what the proposed new definitions will be and how those definitions are justified.

11 thoughts on “A Challenge To Those Who Support “Gay Marriage”

  1. You’ve got to be kidding:”Zoophilia” (jeopardy answer?), incest, a who really cares flower supplier for a who really cares wedding, courtesy of a taxpaid attorney general, a dizzying foray into human sexual biology, Yikes! Sounds like counterpoint to the incessant array of biased atricles from the gang at the Record ( at least they spare us the details). Whatever happened to real concerns, struggling families, nice little individual lives?

  2. people might take your challenge seriously if it weren’t so obviously meant to degrade the idea of marriage equality.

    1. I think the point is that if you don’t like the current definition, offer a new definition, and if it is not inclusive of all types of relationships explain why those do not deserve “marriage equality.” Seems like a fair exercise to me. What is your problem with the exercise, No. 2?

  3. Marriage is a legal union between no more than two human beings of the age of consent who are not already immediate family members.


    This American didn’t have to Think too hard for that.

    1. You did not answer the second part. Since your definition excludes incestuous relationships, zoophilic relationships, or polygamous relationships — whether heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual) you were supposed to provide the justification(s) for treating those relationships differently from typical heterosexual and homosexual relationships.

      Perhaps you should think a little harder next time. Anyone can come up with a definition — the hard part is defending the definition when it excludes others.

      1. Ok, the animal part is easy: because animals are fucking animals, despite what crazy pet parents think. Polygamy is fine with me as far as morality is concerned, but for the purpose of allowing tax deductions, and spouses covered under health insurance plans, the limit should be one, for fraud prevention and cost containment reasons.

        As for incest, now that I think about it, if people in Red States want to marry their brothers, sisters, cousins: fine. Strike that clause from my definition. I don’t think it’s the best thing they could do genetically (see European monarchy), but it’s not for me to judge them.

        There you go. Sorry your little strawman crumbled so easily, and that you fear homosexual marriage for whatever reason you fear it.

        1. Rob, first, please look up the word “strawman” as I made no strawman argument. I simply pointed out that you did not address the second part of the author’s challenge. Second, people who feel the need to use foul language usually do so because their argument does not stand on its own. Such language is part of the reason why people can’t have a civil discussion about an important issue. I’ve read other blog posts of yours and generally you are better than that. I know four letter words too, but let’s try to keep this out of the gutter.

          Now, I will try to summarize your response. 1) People who love animals are crazy and thus should not be allowed to marry them. 2) Polygamy is ok morally, but the state should not allow multiple person marriages to prevent fraud and contain costs. 3) Incestual marriage should be allowed.

          I think your response gets to the author’s point. Many people who like the idea of “gay marriage” would disagree with you as to your stance on incest. Others may disagree with your treatment of polygamists, while others (the “crazy pet parents” as you call them) would feel that they are being unjustly discriminated against for choosing to spend their lives and give their hearts to their cats.

          Seems like the challenge was to force people to stop relying on general statements like “I support gay marriage” and actual think about how the law would have to be crafted to accomodate that concept and how that law would be justified such that opening up the concept of marriage to homosexual relationships while denying it to other types of relationships is justifiable. Comment # 9 below provides the answer to what is unique about heterosexual relationships justifying the state’s interest in promoting it. But what is special about homosexual relationships that justify gay marriage and not other types of marriages?

  4. So far, I haven’t seen anyone actually try to go through the proposed exercise. All I see is people providing excuses, making accusations and avoiding the hard part of the exercise — justifying exclusions in any proposed definition. The author has a good point.

  5. Methinks thou doth protest too much. What a stupid “challenge”. The word “gay” was hijacked which is a shame as it used to reference fun innocent times circa late 1800’s, early 1900’s. It sure doesn’t mean happy, light fun anymore. Ditto for “marriage” as a permutation that’s being injected into the general population’s conscience as the new norm. If it walks like a duck, it is. Let’s call the whole thing off….

  6. The reason for state sanctioned traditional marriage (and the perks that go with it) is that the state has an interest in promoting heterosexual relationships which produce the next generation of citizens and has an interest in encouraging parents to take care of their children. Yes, not all heterosexual couples want children or can have them, but the basis for promoting marriage is rooted in this concept.

    In contrast, the state has no interest in promoting homosexual marriage unless one subscribes to the idea that the state has an interesting in making sure that we are allowed to marry who we love. But if that is the basis for the state’s interest, then there is no basis for denying anyone the right to marry who they love — whether it is multiple people or incestual , etc. Thus, if we sanction gay marriage on the basis of “they should be allowed to marry who they love” what is the justification for not sanctioning other relationships? So the real question is what is the basis for sanctioning gay marriage beyond “they should be allowed to marry who they love.”

  7. See, the people at Slate are now openly admitting that they want to legalize polygamy too.

    Stay tuned for siblings, animals and blow up dolls.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *