I see it! That's not adultery those people in
Eliza Mundy's piece (Post 203) are calling "non-monogamy." Because
they don't start pure. There can't
be adulteration. Gays who hammer
out a contract recognizing that "it's okay to be non-monogamous,"
husbands who propose "non-monogamy," wives who accept, have agreed on impurity. So no issue.
But don't we have an adjacent
issue? As soon as those gays,
those husbands, those wives, go to a Christian minister to marry them, maybe as soon
as they ask society to give their relationship the traditional name
"marriage," they raise the issue of qualification. Gary Hall saw it right away: this
ceremony, this name, is for promisers of purity.
So you have to pick your issue. You can't win at both.
No comments:
Post a Comment