[DJ FC]

I kinda like this guy:

Ah, yes, all opponents of same-sex "marriage" are just "hateful bigots who hate freedom". And supporters of that absurdity on 3 legs you call same-sex "marriage" go on to accuse opponents of that absurdity as being "closed minded" and "bigoted"? Hopefully I'm not the only one seeing the giant "hypocrite" sign hanging on the necks of supporters of same-sex "marriage". Really, this type of empty rhetoric does nothing but portray supporters of same-sex "marriage" as even more fanatically dogmatic than any God-forsaken caricature of conservatives. The thought process of same-sex "marriage" supporters goes something like this: "Oh, look at this guy; he is opposed to same-sex 'marriage' so he just must be wrong and hateful and bigoted and must hate freedom." Never once is it ever even considered that an opponent of same-sex "marriage" might have, well, you know, good reasons to be opposed to such an absurdity. I will now proceed to present various reasoned arguments against this absurdity of same-sex "marriage": Where procreation is, in principle, impossible, marriage is meaningless and logically impossible. ("In principle" means "relating to the definition of" as in "not relating to particular circumstances." So if an orange happens to have a bug residing in its insides, the bug is not part of the definition of an orange; it doesn't change what the orange is in principle.) Human beings reason and make laws by means of concepts and definitions. And if one doesn't know how to operate with respect to those concepts and definitions, that individual cannot make laws. Examples of individuals who are impotent or who are infertile or past the childbearing age do not change the definition of marriage in principle because between a man and a woman, in principle, procreation is always possible. It is this very possibility which gave rise to the institution of marriage in the first place as a matter of law and government. But as when procreation is impossible, as with two males or two females, it isn't that this is incidentally impossible; it is impossible in principle! Yet if you say that this is a "marriage," you are saying that marriage could be understood in principle apart from procreation. You have, in fact, changed its definition in such a way to destroy the necessity of the institution since the only reason it has existed in human society and civilizations is to regulate, from a social viewpoint, the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation. So by supporting "same-sex marriage," you're acting as if the institution has no basis apart from your own arbitrary whim.

Defenders of "same-sex marriage" claim that what really matters in a marriage is just that the partners are lovingly committed to one another. They also claim that marriage is conventional and not grounded in the natural order of things, so that it is up to us to decide what marriage is about in light of changing standards. But given the first premise, there is no way they can consistently rule out the legitimacy of polygamous marriages or incestuous marriages; and given their second premise, there is also no way they can insist in principle on their "loving commitment" criterion for marriage in a way that would rule out "marriages" between people and animals, living people and corpses, or indeed anything whatsoever that someone might want to call "marriage." For someone could always argue that even the "loving commitment" criterion is as arbitrary and open to challenge as the heterosexual criterion is. Yet defenders of "same-sex marriage" also claim that they are opposed to these other purported forms of "marriage." Therefore, their position is incoherent.