Knowing the enemy

[kengr]

From a comment on tumblr:

A lot of people are saying that Gays being aloud to marry will cause people to marry animals and objects. Well they already do that !

No, it's not that they think allowing gay marriage (actually, allowing legal recognition of such, I first attended a gay marriage ceremony in the 70s!) will *cause* people to marry animals/objects/etc.

It's that they think gays marrying is *morally equivalent* to those other things. And thus, if we give legal recognition of same sex marriages, we'd not be able to deny legal recognition to the others.

It's an important point, because it makes a *huge* difference in the arguments that you can *try* to change their minds with. It also avoids you looking "stupid" to these folks by arguing against a stand they don't have.

Comments

[dornbeast.livejournal.com]

I can think of a simple phrase that would put paid to that lunacy.

"Mutual consent."

If it isn't part of the legal definition of marriage, it should be. Heck, let's go crazy and add "uncoerced" just to make sure.

The idea being that since animals and objects can not consent to marriage, nobody can marry them. "Uncoerced" means that I can't force somebody to marry me with a shotgun. All that would be necessary to finish it off is something that makes it clear that parents can't marry their child off, although I'd allow for something that translated as, "you get first chance when he turns eighteen."