Q&A with Branden Mattox: Gay Marriage, Polygamy, Beastieality and Pedophilia, Oh My!

 

Q&A with The Love Under Fire Campaign?

Q: If we allow gay marriage, then what's next? Polygamy, beastieality, incestuous or pedophilic marriages? I don't mean to be rude or insensitive, but if we are to be fair in allowing alternative forms of marriage like gay marriage on the argument for the right to marry the person of choice, then we must also allow all other alternative matchups to declare marriage as well. If we do this, than our society is rolling down a slippery slope and unraveling the fabric which has held it together for millenias. I mean where would the logical boundary end with the very concept and definition of marriage? In the same way if we allow a cat to be called a dog, then what does it mean to be a dog? If we are to have the concept of dog it can not include cat. That does not mean that we should be mean to the cat or torture it or not include them in feeding time, we just should not allow it to change the definition of what it means to be a dog.

A: ::eyes glazed @_@:: Ooookay! Because I believe your questions are sincerely set forth and not in the spirit of disrespect, I will try to answer your questions...one at a time. Oh Lord Jesus it's a fire! This is a loaded one: ahem 

• "If we allow gay marriage, then what's next?" Gay people get married and live gayily ever after just like the rest of the married population. THE END.

• "Polygamy, beastieality, incestuous or pedophilic marriages?" Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgendered people are not asking to be involved in polygamy. Or at least the vast majority are not. They are asking to be able to partake in marriage. Now I am aware that in other parts of the world, the concept of marriage does include polygamy. Where polygamy is quite normal it is important to bear in mind, that the cultural motives are vastly different from the reasons people get married in the modern Western world. Polygamy exists for the most part in strictly patriarchal and agrarian societies and the primary motives are toward the acquisition of property and progeny. A man's social status in these societies is based largely upon not only how much land he owns but also how many wives he has who can produce him a tribe of children he would then be the highly regarded father of. While I am not judging this set up, clearly this does not work in our society where our women are equal and it is quite expensive to have so many children. In agrarian societies, having more children to work the field is actually an asset to the production and thus the wealth of a family. Clearly these things are not the concerns of most lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgendered people in the US and it is a logistical misfit for most Americans. This is because, not only are our women free and equal, we have child labor laws and educational requirements which would prevent our children from being used as assets to fuel production.

Because we have equal protections under the law and women are equal, if we allow men to engage in the traditional polygamous set up, we must also allow our women the same right to hold multiple marriages concurrently, even those already married to a man who is then married to other women. Then what would we have? A whole city married to itself? How would we define our families even for the purpose of inheritence? Could you imagine the brawl over inheritence at the death of a wealthy person married to people who are married to other people. And how would we determine who the children are if he is then stepfather of a whole city? Clearly this is a mess, and just does not work in our society. And this is why marriage in our culture has evolved with our economy to become only between two people partnering in life. Even then, the acquisition of property and social status was still a high motive for marrying a particular person. This has not completely gone away but clearly these concerns in today's world has taken a backseat to love, romance, affection and life partnership. At this level, the idea of polygamy throws of the romantic balance of what we have come to understand as matrimony. How many people would be just fine with their spouse going off for a honeymoon with their new spouse? They might want to retalliate and get them a new spouse and have a honeymoon? Then how are we to define married people from single people, I ask you? We have come to make the distinction by an exclusive, intimate and mutual commitment between two people which are then binded in contract. This contract then affords rights which protect and acknowledge the mutual ownership of property and the legal authority to make decisions on each other's behalf. You would only sensibly enter into such a contract if you were confident that this person is committed to you and has your best interests at heart and vice-versa and it delights you to exclusively share whatever you own with that person. This is love. This is marriage in our culture. And this is what it means to have a spouse which is expected to be the most important relationship in a person's life outside of the spiritual connection with SOURCE. Two men and two women are just as capable of participating in such a relationship as anyone because they are capable of romantic love for one another. They want marriage for the same reasons as anyone wants to be married in our society. This is why we should allow LGBT people to partake in the civil rights of marriage and can not afford to give legal legitimacy to polygamous relationships.

 

Denying legal acknowledgement of polygamous relationships is not discrimination because no one is allowed to legally partake in such a relationship, just as no one is allowed to steal. Now if you feel that exclusive heterosexual marriage is also not discrimination because no one is allowed to engage in same-sex marriage in Georgia, then you fail to acknowledge the findings of professional science of the American Psycological Association giving legitimacy and validity to the natural conditions of the same-sex attractions of those who want to. If you believe that homosexuality is a valid and natural condition which is immutable in most people and that we are citizens, then you can not claim rights for yourself that are not afforded to homosexuals and not consider it discrimination. The 14th amendment outlaws legal discrimination. So not only as a gay man, I am telling you that you just don't get it, I don't need you to get it. The American Psychological Associaton has clinically determined homosexuality not to be a mental disorder, so then it must be natural, I am a citizen, and thus I must have access to every legal right that is available to you. Like it or not. In this case, that right is to hold marriage rights with the person I love and choose as a spouse. Oppose this notion and you are opposing your constitution. Now take that to the courts.

• Beastieality? While some are stricken with the urge, the American Psychological Association has not determined this to be sane disposition. Let's pretend it was though, if you find me a horse who is a citizen who pays taxes, votes and can read, understand and sign a contract, then you might have a point. Until then, case closed.

• Incest? While intimate attractions can occur between siblings or very closely related people on rare occasions, there is no known sexuality which predisposes people to being attracted exclusively to people they are closely related to. What would such a person do if they had no siblings, first cousins, parents or children to be sexually attracted to? So, incestuous attractions are illegitimate as a sexuality and a class of people and thus the 14th amendment does not pertain to such relationships. Because no incestuous relationships, straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered or otherwise can gain legal marriage rights, this is not discrimination either. Also if heterosexual siblings or parent and child were to mate, they are very likely to produce genetically disordered offspring. They would have to be barred from mating which would not make for a functional marriage. And while homosexual siblings can not mutually produce offspring, it is discrimination to allow homosexual siblings to get married and not heterosexual siblings. So, no closely related people should be allowed to marry. Nevertheless, find me a class of sibling-lovers, those who clinically can not be attracted to others unless they are known to be their siblings and you might again have an argument which holds water. Until then, case closed.

• Pedophilic marriages? Minors can't sign contracts. When it comes to understanding and accepting the commitment of marriage, this is for good reasons. Case closed.

• "I don't mean to be rude or insensitive, but if we are to be fair in allowing alternative forms of marriage like gay marriage on the argument for the right to marry the person of choice, then we must allow all other alternative matchups to declare marriage as well. If we do this, than our society is rolling down a slippery slope and unraveling the fabric which has held it together for millenias." If LGBT couples are allowed to partake in marriage rights, straight people will continue to get married just as they did before and society will march on. I promise you.

• "I mean where would the logical boundary end with the very concept and definition of marriage?" Two adult citizens, unrelated who are commited to each other as intimate life partners.

• "In the same way if we allow a cat to be called a dog, then what does it mean to be a dog?" Now this is your best rhetorical question yet. The reasons we have names for things is to differentiate between those things when referring to them and not as an instrument of discrimination. Just like you said, "That does not mean that we should be mean to the cat or torture it or not include them in feeding time. We just should not allow it to change the definition of what it means to be a dog." I agree. A definition of marriage that can fit all loving and intimate couples is exactly what I stated above, "Two adult citizens, unrelated who are commited to each other as intimate life partners." Now if you want to make specific reference to heterosexual spouses than just say husband and wife, and we will know exactly what you mean. If you want to make reference to LGBT spouses than say husband and husband, wife and wife or simply, same-sex spouses and we will get the picture. Allowing LGBT couples to marry can never change the specific definition of what it means for a man and woman to be married to each other. So in that sense, we are not trying to call a cat a dog. But when it comes to legal rights and feeding time, both cat and dog, straights and gays get treated equally. In 2013, there is still a distinction in the notion of what it means to be a white person and what it means to be a black person but the persons shall be treated fairly and equally under the law and they can now be both described as citizens, so says the constitution. When Blacks gained citizenship rights, they did not change the definition and the obligations of what it means to be a citizen. They got included in the definition. Nor did they change the definition of what it means to be White, other than a superior race. The institution of marriage itself is not defined by who it is denied to. 

Have anymore burning questions? E-mail to Dir.LoveUnderFire@aol.com