When gay marriage activists sold the idea of same-sex marriage, their key points (other than the “if you disagree you are teh bigot!” that most of the lower-information supporters prattled endlessly) were:
- The idea that marriage is purely about raising children is obsolete – people who don’t intend to, or can’t, have children, are married all the time, even in churches.
- With the idea of procreation left out of the equation, why, really, shouldn’t two people who love each other be able to be married?
This, of course, introduced some new questions; if, indeed, “love” is the basis for marriage, why can’t three or more people love each other enough to get married, by that same token?
There was one other case I’ve been wondering about for the past few years; what kind of “love” do we mean, here?
Who Wrote The Book Of Love?: There are different kinds of love; the Bible breaks “love” down into three categories:
- “Eros” – physical attraction
- “Philos” – “brotherly” love, or deep friendship
- “Agape” (pronounced: “ogg-OPP-ay”): unconditional love – usually associated with divinity, sometimes also of the “Greater love hath nobody that they lay down their life…” variety.
The Vapours: With that in mind, gay groups in New Zealand are up in arms over a couple of guys – Travis McIntosh and Matt McCormick, who happen to be longtime utterly heterosexual pals – who got married as part of a radio station promotion.
They are not amused:
Otago University Students’ Association Queer Support co-ordinator Neill Ballantyne, of Dunedin, said the wedding was an”insult” because marriage equality was a”hard fought” battle for gay people.
“Something like this trivialises what we fought for.” The competition promoted the marriage of two men as something negative,”as something outrageous that you’d never consider”, Mr Ballantyne said.
LegaliseLove Aotearoa Wellington co-chairman Joseph Habgood said the competition attacked the legitimacy of same-sex marriages.
“The point of this competition is that men marrying each other is still something they think is worth having a laugh at …
Both of these gentlemen bring up two responses:
Yuk It Up: In a free society, marriage – no matter who is doing it – is always worth having a laugh at. There is no right not to be offended.
More seriously?: Mr. Habgood’s organization’s name, “LegalizeLove”, should give you a hint here.
Gay activists convinced a plurality of representatives that “marriageable love” didn’t just involve people who practiced “Eros” in the heteronormative manner.
So why must marriageable love include “Eros” (to say nothing of “Eros” between just two people) at all? By the standard we’ve been convinced/forced to accept, all love is equal. Why not “Philos?”
(And if the “Deep brotherly love” is only “love of Rugby”, as indeed seems to be the case? Love is love, dammit!)
Cue The Outrage Industry: Perhaps it’s time for “Philos” activists to take to the streets to fight for Pal Marriage. To combat the “Homonormative” hatred that is denying rights to other people whose love for each other is no less valid than that of any gay couple.