As I've viewed the debate over “homosexual marriage” since attending law school thirty years ago, it has appeared to me that the hundreds and thousands of law school review articles and debates in the press and pronouncements of the courts are like a shell game. However, just recently, I've noticed a pronounced difference between a real-life shell game and the marriage debate. The shell game is much fairer. In the shell game, the gamer and the mark (the one to be fleeced by the sleight of hand of the gamer) at least begin on solid footing, for the gamer shows the mark the three shells and the pea, which is supposed to be placed under one of the shells and then uncovered by the mark after the mark watches the gamer scramble the three shells. However, in the homosexual marriage debate, you never see the pea, and there’s only one shell. The mark has to ask himself, “Was there ever a pea at all?”
Consider the following debate as exemplary of the evolution of the homosexual marriage debate. This is a mirror of the legal debate, and you better believe that it rises no higher than the shrill scream of a person who wants their way no matter what. It is between the circle person, who is anti-homosexual marriage, and the square person, who is pro-homosexual marriage. For the sake of space on the written page, we’ll name them Pro-Circle and Pro-Square.
Pro-Square: “Do you believe that there’s a difference between circles and squares?”
Pro-Circle: “Well, yes, of course, there’s a difference.”
Pro-Square: “You’re a bigot!”
Pro-Circle: “Why do you call me a bigot? The difference is self-evident; squares have four corners, and circles have none. It has been that way for eons of time in practically every society that has ever existed.”
Pro-Square: “Well, there you have it. You prove you’re a bigot by excluding squares from the definition of circles!”
Pro-Circle: “So, let me get this straight. To say that a square is not a circle is bigotry, and to say that the definition of circle should include squares is what you’re all about. Am I right?”
Pro-Square: “You’re correct. I am loving and tolerant, and you are a bigot, sir.”
Pro-Circle: “But a square is not a circle; it has never been one and can never be one.”
Pro-Square: “Bigot! Prove that a square is not a circle.”
Pro-Circle: “But I already stated the self-evident, geometrical proof that a square has four corners, and a circle has no corners but only a smooth, equi-radius curve for a boundary.”
Pro-Square: “But they both have boundaries and they’re both shapes, correct?”
Pro-Circle: “Yes, but . . .”
Pro-Square: “There! You’re a bigot, as I told you before. Squares should be equivalent to circles.”
Pro-Circle: “But it’s not bigotry; it’s the very definition of a circle to exclude shapes that have corners, like squares.”
Pro-Square: “I have demanded before that you prove that the square shape is not included within the definition of circle. And you have failed miserably.”
Pro-Circle: “Uh . . .”
Pro-Square: “There, you see, you have absolutely no defense for your intolerant and hateful exclusion of squares from the definition of circle. In fact, every time you open your mouth, you simply prove further and further that you are a hateful bigot because you believe in excluding squares from the definition of circle!”
Pro-Circle: “But I’m not a bigot, and I don’t hate you. I simply believe there’s a difference between the two shapes.”
Pro-Square: “I’m not convinced. You make me feel excluded and hated and discriminated against because you won’t accept that squares are equivalent to circles. You are a hateful, intolerant, bigot. This is becoming intolerable even talking to you. Have you no shame for excluding squares from the definition of circles?! You are despicable!”
Pro-Circle: “Whoa, let’s slow down here. I don’t hate you and never intended to make you feel discriminated against. It’s just that circles and squares have always been defined as different. I know, I know, you disagree. Here’s a question for you. What about triangles? Can’t they be circles if it’s intolerant and hateful to say squares are not circles, then surely it would be intolerant and hateful to say that triangles are not circles too, right?”
Pro-Square: “There you go, degrading yourself and your argument by bringing up that tired triangle argument. You truly are a most miserable, despicable hater, if you’re going to bring triangles into this discussion.”
Pro-Circle: “Hold on, you’re the one that said it’s hateful to leave squares out of the definition of circles. Why aren't you a hater for leaving triangles out? I don’t get it.”
Pro-Square: “No, you don’t get it!”
Pro-Circle: “Is that your comeback?”
Pro-Square: “It’s not a comeback. Your argument is too disgusting to be even entitled to a comeback.”
Pro-Circle: “Okay. Where do we go from here?”
Pro-Square: “I’ll tell you where we go; you get rid of your antiquated hateful definition of circle and include squares. That’s where we go, and you better do it fast, or I’ll sue you so quick, it’ll make your head spin!”
Pro-Circle: “Would that be a circular spin or a square spin?”
Pro-Square: “Don’t be cute, bigot.”
Pro-Circle: “I’m sorry, that was uncalled for. I’ll go back to logical arguments for your sake. Answer me this. When did the thousands of years of human history and geometry and logic suddenly become hateful and bigoted?”
Pro-Square: “First of all, you have totally missed it. Second, that history, as you call it, proves what I've been saying all along.”
Pro-Circle: “I would think that it would help my argument about defining circle as a no-corner shape.”
Pro-Square: “No, it proves you’re a fundamentalist, fanatical, backward hateful bigot who agrees with the persecution we Pro-Squares have suffered under.”
Pro-Circle: “Oh. I’m stumped. There’s something wrong here, and I’m trying to put my finger on it.”
Pro-Square: “You see, you can’t even come up with a logical defense for your discriminatory, bigoted definition of circle. Just give it up.”
Pro-Circle: “Well, it just seems as if changing the definition of circle might be a dangerous thing. I can’t prove it because no society has ever done it. I wonder what kind of geometry and architecture we’d have, what effect it might have on language and understanding of what shape is being discussed, and just leaving out something as important as corners in the definition of squares seems, well, dishonest in some deep, fundamental way.”
Pro-Square: “Oh, now you’re going to bring in the religious aspect aren't you? I thought you religious people believed in a loving God and loving your neighbor and all that stuff. How does defining a circle in order to purposely exclude squares live up to your religion. Hypocrite!”
Pro-Circle: “Um, I don’t think it’s purposeful exclusion really. But I think you've missed my point. It’s a radical change in something important, and our society hasn't really determined what the consequences of the change may be.”
Pro-Square: “The future will be better because we Pro-Squares won’t feel excluded any longer, and we’ll provide a broader, more inclusive society. What are you afraid of? It’s not like you won’t have circles any more; you still get to keep your no-cornered shapes, as you call them.”
Pro-Circle: “But not three-cornered shapes, right?”
Pro-Square: “Well, not yet.”
Pro-Circle: “Wait, I thought you said earlier that my mention of triangles as perhaps being entitled to being included in the definition was utterly disgusting to the point it didn't even deserve a response?”
Pro-Square: “Society might evolve to the point that triangles are also not excluded, I don’t know. We’ll just have to see.”
Pro-Circle: “You’re right. I don’t get it. It seems that you still can have squares without defining them as circles, and we wouldn't have the problems I’m concerned about. It also seems that you don’t really have a good answer to what I've said, but you basically continue to accuse me of having no argument and hating you as if I were trying to get you to change the definition of square, which I have not attempted to do once in this argument. Also, it seems that there’s no such thing as right and wrong anymore; values just evolve. One day squares are not circles, the next they are. One day, triangles are not circles, but one day they might be. I still don’t think I’m a bigot, and you certainly haven’t convinced me that squares are the same as circles, but it looks like you've got the power players behind you – the president, the courts, the media, who also agree with you. They also think that squares should be included in the definition of circle. I guess I’ll just have to go along with the crowd.”
Pro-Square: “I see you’re still stuck in the dark ages, but I warn you that unless you fully come around and reject out of your mind that bigoted, hateful definition of circle, we will hunt you down and render you powerless to resist or say a peep in opposition to our cause to make squares the equals of circles.”
Pro-Circle: “My, that is so tolerant and liberty-loving. I guess you don’t need an argument, do you?”
No comments:
Post a Comment