“Gay Marriage” != “Freedom”

There seems to be some confusion among liberty lovers about the same-sex marriage issue.  They seem to think that supporting same-sex marriage is supporting liberty.  After all, why should the state interfere in the lives of two private parties? Alternatively, it is promoted as an “equal rights” issue; same-sex couples should have the same “right” as heterosexual couples to marry.  Well, there’s some good news on that front: people with a homosexual orientation have exactly the same right as heterosexuals to marry someone of the opposite gender.

On the Ron Paul Forums (www.libertyforest.com), one posed the question “What is ‘traditional marriage’ and who gets to decide [what that means]?”  Well, even in polygamy, the union is heterosexual.  Have even the cultures that notoriously embraced homosexuality (as is supposed with ancient Greece) considered marriage to be anything but a heterosexual union?  I submit that the correct answer is “No”.  Even polygamy is a heterosexual union, because marriage, by definition, is a heterosexual union.  Just like apple pie, by definition, contains apples.  There is no such thing as an apple pie made with peaches rather than apples.

The problem with liberty-lovers who support “same-sex marriage” is that they are supporting greater government intrusion into our lives, not less.  When gov’t legalizes “same-sex marriage”, it will then be possible for people to be fined or imprisoned for their deeply and sincerely held religious beliefs.  The proponents of “same-sex marriage” will learn all too soon that, in the name of “promoting liberty”, they have granted the government a broad swath of new dictatorial powers.

Advertisements

9 Responses to ““Gay Marriage” != “Freedom””

  1. “There is no such thing as an apple pie made with peaches rather than apples.”

    And there is no such thing as a marriage without human beings in it.

    Their gender, as we can see based on the states and countries that allow it, does not matter any more than the type of apples you use in your pie.

  2. That one’s love partner must be human certainly is one of the elements that define what marriage is, but one cannot exclude the other elements–that the union is heterosexual being a primary one–that also go into marriage’s definition. It is not enough that two people “love each other.” Just as it is not enough that the peach pie has a tasty, flaky crust just like the apple pie.

    • “but one cannot exclude the other elements–that the union is heterosexual being a primary one–that also go into marriage’s definition.”

      Sure I can. It’s quite easy, actually. Ignore the gender and marriage remains the same, except that slightly more people are able to legally do it. That’s it.

      “It is not enough that two people “love each other.””

      Why not?

      People are different enough. Gender is just one other difference. My marriage is probably nothing like yours. But not significantly more different than it would be if it were a same-sex marriage.

      • And when one is faced with a pie filled with peaches, one can decide to call it an apple pie by ignoring the “contains apples” qualification that traditionally is associated with apple pies.

        It isn’t enough that people love each other because marriage entails more than a loving relationship. For most of history, and in most of the world, marriages are arranged by the parents; love comes after marriage, if at all.

  3. “one can decide to call it an apple pie by ignoring the “contains apples” qualification that traditionally is associated with apple pies.”

    I disagree with your analogy.

    I submit that you are complaining because this other pie that you aren’t eating has golden-delicious apples, and yours has granny smith apples.

    “For most of history, and in most of the world, marriages are arranged by the parents; love comes after marriage, if at all.”

    And for most of history, men purchased their wives and had multiple wives.

    So what?

    Marriage is what it is now. Don’t care how it used to be.

  4. Nice attempt to twist the analogy, but I disagree. The “granny smith vs red delicious” would better fit the “inter-racial marriage” issue, since both granny smith and red delicious are apples, and qualify to be used in true apple pie. Same-sex marriage is peaches vs. apples, because marriage is defined as a heterosexual union. That is its definition.

  5. Marriage is what it is, which is what it always was: a heterosexual union for the purposes of companionship and procreation. Same-sex relationships do not qualify.

    • And apparently neither do heterosexuals who can’t or don’t want to have children.

      Good to know.

      • Yes; part of the purpose of marriage is child-bearing and child-rearing. Whether a particular couple wishes not to have children is irrelevant. Most heterosexual couples have the ability to have children. Same-sex couples never can bear children(with each other).

        This says nothing about their qualifications to be parents through adoption. I am merely discussing one aspect of the definition of marriage.

        As interesting as this discussion is, it is a rabbit trail from my main point, which is the opposition I have to using government violence to try to force people to agree with a proposition that isn’t true (i.e. that “same sex marriage” is legitimately marriage). Gov’t should remove itself (or be removed) from the issue entirely.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: