You are the one who needs to sell your position, if you want to change peoples minds.
Flenser, you’re making a mistaken inference. First of all, I’m not necessarily arguing for any position, although — not to be a tease — I will do so below. I’m pointing out that the arguments people have presented against gay marriage don’t stand up to much scrutiny. The best evidence I could hope for to show this is the fact that, given some logical scrutiny, the arguments become pretty heated without ever making a lot of progress.
Second, I’m specifically pointing out that our society is, in many ways, not just the product of weakened traditions, but the product of actively rejecting tradition: chattel slavery, the Divine Right of <del>The Descendents of The Biggest Thug</del> Kings, established religion, that only men have the right to participate in politics.
Now, as far as what I’m arguing for, or rather shall now argue for:
- I’m arguing that, first of all, I take it as self-evident (that is, axiomatic; I take it to be obvious and state it as such as a basis of my further arguments) that we are all endowed with certain inalienable rights
- that among these rights are the right to security in one’s person against force imposed by others, to make free choices without coercion, and to live one’s life to suit one’s own desires, limited only by the equal and concomitant rights held by others
- that chief among these rights is the right to make decisions based on one’s religion, or lack of religion, without coercion, within the limits of one’s conscience and the equal and concomitant rights I mentioned above.
As a consequence of these axiomatic assertions, I believe that neither legal privileges nor legal impediments can properly be applied to one person that are not equally applied to another, except to the degree necessary to preserve the equal and concomitant rights of others, or to preserve the rights of those incompetent to make decisions for themselves, as with children, or those in whom reason is impared.
I believe, therefore, that the right of two people to contract a civil relationship in which they agree to jointly own property, and assume certain obligations, one to the other, is a right that is possessed by everyone, if it in fact possessed by anyone. Further, the right to choose freely the other party to such a contract without restriction is inherently a consequence of these self-evident assumptions.
To the extent that such restrictions are based in religious belief or social tradition, I hold these restrictions to be morally without force, and void, except among those who voluntarily hold those religious beliefs, excepting only those restrictions needed to maintain the equal and concomitant rights of others.
Restrictions, imposed by law or social compulsion, that violate these self-evident rights are inherently immoral and unjust. To the extent that they can be ignored, they are justly ignored; to the extent that they cannot be ignored, they are justly fought in the name of the rights of Man.
Neither majority vote, nor “social contract”, can make that which is unjust, just.
To the extent that I think “marriage” should be an issue of government at all, I only believe that civil partnership, open to all, can be morally justified. To the extent that “marriage” is defined by tradition or religious believe, it can only be applicible to those who hold those beliefs freely, without coercion.
