[Vision2020] gay marriage and bananas

[Joan Opyr]

Slippery slopes, indeed.  And the road to hell is paved with banana peels.

Doug and others wonder what dire things will happen if we reject the 
religious (Meaning fundamentalist Christian?  Meaning modern?  Meaning 
Western?) definition of marriage as applying only to one-man plus one-woman 
unions.  If we’re forced to recognize the validity of man-man and 
woman-woman marriages, won’t this lead inevitably to polygyny, polyandry, 
dog and pony shows, Caligula, Lot’s daughters, Elizabeth Taylor, Mickey 
Rooney, and a host of other fevered (and largely imaginary) embraces?

I don’t see why it should.  Sure, history, anthropology, and a cursory look 
at the Bible tell me that polygamy has long been a popular and successful 
familial arrangement.  It worked for the Biblical patriarchs, and it seems 
to be working right now for the wealthier denizens of the Middle East.  
(Islamic law dictates that you can only have as many wives as you can afford 
to support.  That’s the difference between King Fahd of Saudi Arabia and Tom 
Green of Utah.  One has an oil well; the other has welfare.)  Polygamy is a 
fact of life in much of the world.  But why would recognizing gay marriage 
in this country oblige us also to adopt polygamy?  By recognizing that there 
are religions other than Doug’s, and that those religions recognize other 
forms of marriage, must we embark on a top to bottom overthrow of all U.S. 
family law?  Can’t we simply continue to recognize marriage as contractual 
monogamy, expanding it only with regard to the sex of the spouses?  Just as 
I can light a cigarette without starting a forest fire, I should also be 
able to marry my same-sex partner without exposing myself to the unwanted 
attentions of King Fahd.  (Stay away from me, sirrah!  I shall never be 
yours!)

Once again, I fear we’ve been invited to elope with a straw man.  He’s come 
armed with some daisies and a Whitman’s sampler, but he doesn’t fool me.  
His head is full of hay and he’s making me sneeze.  While I think it would 
be fun if the earth were flat -- a little clever map manipulation and we 
could rid ourselves of some odious Carnival cruise ships -- circumstances 
force me to admit that it’s round.  The definition of marriage has changed 
repeatedly throughout human history to suit the people and cultures who have 
felt a need to codify and police human sexual relationships.  If there’s 
something more to it, if God has had a hand in its practice and definition, 
then he’s been mighty fickle -- even within the confines of a single 
religious tradition.  What’s sauce for Abraham is anathema for Paul.  How 
can that be?  Either eternal God cannot make up his mind, or marriage is a 
human construct.

Legally a spinster but try telling my wife that,
Joan

_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online  
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963