One of the silliest things about the debate over so-called gay marriage was the persistent mischaracterization of it being an effort to "redefine" the institution. To redefine something, you have to actually advocate an alternative definition. Yet no matter how often conservatives, traditionalists, and Christians asked LGBT revolutionaries to provide their substitute definition, one was never forthcoming.
In truth then, there was never an effort to redefine marriage at all, but rather to "un-define" the relationship – an attempt not just to obliterate the fundamental moral parameters for what should be considered legal, married partnerships, but to slanderously label the proposition of any moral boundaries for the institution as "bigotry."
It was the height of foolishness to think that approach could be embraced without inviting monumental cultural consequence. Even as we were dismissed as hysterical alarmists, and heralds of the slippery slope logical fallacy, more than a few of us were acknowledging the Pandora's box that was being carelessly thrown open.
No one with a brain was ever equating gay relationships with polygamous ones, pedophiliac ones, incestuous ones, or interspecies ones. But the legitimate argument that was being made – and summarily, intentionally ignored by both the sexual revolutionaries and a complicit, activist media – suggested that once moral guideposts are uprooted to accommodate one group, they can't be arbitrarily thrown back into the ground to deny another.
So I'm interested to know from those who dismissed that exceedingly realistic and sober logic as hyperbolic alarmism, what do you say to this current case from New York:
A lawsuit filed in New York by a parent wanting to marry his or her adult child is seeking to overturn the state's laws against incest… "Through the enduring bond of marriage, two persons, whatever relationship they might otherwise have with one another, can find a greater level of expression, intimacy and spirituality," the lawsuit alleges.
Though incest laws are often justified on the basis of preventing genetic deformities in offspring, the New York couple in question are identified as "PAACNP" (Parent and Adult Child Non-Procreationable), meaning they are incapable of bearing children. Given that reality, the lawsuit alleges that the state has no compelling interest, only one based on moral and social preference, to prohibit the union.
So what exactly can be the cultural objection to this? Even if you think this is bad for society, what legal leg is there left to stand on? We accepted to thunderous applause the through-deprived, emotionally saturated positions espoused by pop culture activists like Ellen DeGeneres who famously argued,
"People are gonna be who they're gonna be, and we need to learn to love them for who they are and let them love who they want to love."
- So how would we refuse this New York parent and adult child when they argue the same?
- How do we reject their desire to be legally and socially accepted for "who they are?"
- How do we deny their expression of love just because it isn't something we would personally choose ourselves?
The answer is we don't. That was always the consequence of choosing to un-define marriage. The institution became a meaningless term to be contorted and bent in whatever direction the winds of personal preference were blowing. There's good reason to be concerned about which way they will blow next.