The key absurd question to put to any gay marriage supporter: Do you believe that the distinction throughout all of human history that marriage was between a man and a woman was arbitrary, inconsequential, and therefore ultimately it was synonymous with "two persons" all along?
"If marriage were merely a publicly recognized close personal relationship between two adults, then an argument might be made that it violates equality rights to insist arbitrarily that the adults in question be of opposite sex."
Why do we have laws dealing with consanguinity and minimum age and polygamy?
p. 23 In what sense can we say that marriage as a concept and as an institution for state involvement makes no sense in a gay marriage context?
p. 23 Explain how the Ontario Supreme Court reasoned from 1) finding marriage discriminatory, to 2) It's actually being discriminatory once it stripped marriage of having anything to do with procreation.
footnote p. 35: "Marriage, it is said, is an intimate relationship between adults. Jill and Jane are intimate adults. Therefore Jill and Jane must be allowed to marry or their rights will be violated. And what prevents them from marrying? The common-law definition. Conclusion? We must change the definition. And to what will we change it? Well, to 'a union of two persons' -- that is to an intimate relationship between adults. If the Supreme Court is looking for tautology, there it is! And if this dishonest argumentation, which takes its conclusion as a premise, is not acknowledged as such and rooted out, the integrity of the law will certainly be the next casualty of same-sex 'marriage.'"
No comments:
Post a Comment