With the race to get “marriage equality” (which it’s not, so I may have to dedicate another post to it so that I can explain) spread across the United States since the Windsor case, I’ve been at a loss to understand exactly the reasoning behind it. Most of the arguments that I’ve heard are either non sequitur, or appeals to emotion, or arguments with false premises, to support the assertion that people who engage in homosexual behavior should be allowed to marry. I have yet to hear one convincing argument that, somehow, two people of the same sex should enjoy the same privileges afforded to two people of the opposite sex in the marital terms, because for something to be considered as an equal, it has to have the same qualities as what it’s being compared to.
That is the primary reason that comparing same-sex “mirage” to interracial marriage fails. The qualities that compose an interracial marriage are the same as one that is not interracial, that two people of opposite sex are joining together in a marital union. Two people of the same sex is fundamentally different in composition and potential outcome from two people of the opposite sex, and I just don’t understand why people cant see it.
I hear “equality” being shouted but see nothing equal.
What’s the best way to compare this? I guess we have to think mathematically:
How do we get to the number “2”? By adding “1” to “1”. That means that one plus one is definitional to getting “2”. Now, what is so special about “2”, why do we insist that “2” is definitional to marriage (this is why the “marriage equality” meme logically falls apart, hint-hint). The instant one insists that “2” is an inherent quality of marriage, the argument begins to unravel because it begs the question, “two what?” And the instant that one begins to answer the question, apart from what has been revealed in nature, they automatically close the gate and expose the flaws in their logic, except in the case of man-woman, heterosexual, monogamous, marriage.
If we say that only “two people who love one another” should be allowed to marry“, what about three, or six, or, heck, ten; well, looking at the animal rights movement, what if animals are declared “people”?
One thing is for sure, no one is thinking about this question logically, and no clearer proof is the fallacious arguments used to justify the decision to allow it.