Tuesday, October 22, 2013


Another "conservative case for same-sex 'marriage'"  This one is by a certain Mr. Hinkle, who thinks he can convince conservatives in his Commonwealth of Virginia simply by using the same words they use such as, say, "virtue" and "monogamy".  But nowadays what words mean is up for grabs.

I just want to focus on Mr. Hinkle's second point:

"Social conservatives believe sexual promiscuity is bad for the body and corrosive to the soul — that the sexual revolution’s encouragement of licentiousness has degraded social norms and debased our common virtue. If they are right about that, then allowing homosexuals to enter lifetime monogamy ought to be altogether desirable — just as it is desirable for heterosexuals, and for the same reasons."

The re-definition of marriage required to accommodate homosexuals necessarily unties marriage from any bodily act.  It must do so to satisfy the demands of "equality".  If you make coitus the act that consummates a marriage, then you exclude homosexuals, and doing so is bigotry.  But if you make any act between two people that leads to orgasm as what consummates a marriage,  then you have just excluded the asexuals, and that also is an outrageous injustice.  Furthermore, given that there are as many kinks as there are fantasies, it would be impossible for the law to acknowledge every single potentially orgasmic act.  What?  Two dacryphiliacs request an annulment because of Sjögren's Syndrome?  Can an autagonistophiliac marriage be annulled because of stage fright?  In short, what constitutes consummation becomes hopelessly subjective, thereby making it impossible for the law to acknowledge any objective or coherent concept of marital consummation.  Thus, the law will have to jettison it altogether and therewith the idea that marriage has anything at all to do with sexual activity of any sort. And if marriage has nothing to do with sex, it can no longer be used as a way to discourage promiscuity.  Hinkle's second point, therefore, fails.

No comments: