In our age of unreason, people are quick to point out what they think to be logical fallacies. But while they can name them, they are seldom so good at identifying them correctly.
For instance, when traditionalists who objected to the silly contradiction known as gay marriage pointed out that this would lead to polygamy, the paragons of progressivism protested that this was a slippery slope. And so it was; the kind that we would, sooner or later, be compelled to slide down.
Marriage, as is understood in sensible eras, is the binding of one man to one woman for life. We have long since abrogated this last condition, as "til death do us part" has become "til one of us has decided we are unhappy." This was lamentable. It was also probably the source of all of our trouble.
Recently, the gays have clamoured for the right to get married. This "right" has been granted in some states; sooner or later it will be granted in all. Which is to say that we have dispensed with the arduous necessity of insisting that a man be married to a woman.
All that remains of this venerable institution, so far as I can see, is that two people, of whatever sex--I mean gender; one must never deign to notice biological reality--are joined together for some indeterminate amount of time.
We wretched conservatives thereupon insisted that the two person requirement was likewise arbitrary and intolerant, and that, therefore, it too would be swept aside. Strictly speaking, this is not polygamy, which actually has a precedent in the annals of human history. It is more of a monstrosity, a twisted triangle of sorts, or, in my own state, a horrid hexagon:
The Legislature’s proposed allowance for up to six adults to claim
biological parentage of the same child takes the marriage debate to a
new level. No longer will people be asking whether every child has the
right to a mom and a dad — or whether same-sex couples can raise
children just as well as opposite-sex couples. Now a child can have up
to six persons whom the law will recognize as “presumptive biological
Now, this is not marriage as such, but that is to miss the point. None of this nonsense bears much resemblance to marriage; these pale imitations approach it only, perhaps, by analogy. And while the six "presumptive biological parents" are not entering into a partnership with each other, there is no logical reason why they should be prevented from doing so.
Gay "marriage" could only become a reality in a culture which was hopelessly confused about the subject. In this sense, then, it does not matter: for a nation that seriously contemplates such a thing is already deeply morally confused--at best. The paucity of gays, as I have already pointed out, will ensure that gay marriage remains largely a symbol: a sure sign that those evil reactionaries have been ousted by the progressives.
I only wish they would wipe the smugness off of their faces long enough to properly identify a logical fallacy; or to open a dictionary.