To the editor:
Stuart Diamond's recent assertion that the marriage equality movement does not have "a single grain of rational or moral merit" (Letter, the Times, Friday, June 8) and that we can only use "intimidation and name-calling to try to silence those who oppose" could not be further from reality.
In truth, it is Mr. Diamond's position that does not hold up to rational inquiry.
Mr. Diamond's rhetoric contains no sound arguments against marriage equality. No matter what or who you assert your source is, non-verifiable statements are no different in practice from absolute fiction and have no place in deciding public policy. The only thing he gains in quoting the Bible to me is an agreement on the position the Bible takes, however irrelevant I find it.
In addition, his fiery statements of a "sea of immorality" and "amoral filth"¬ù are unsubstantial filler, meant to evoke an emotional reaction rather than focus on the merits of his argument. This is understandable, as there is not only no merit in what Mr. Diamond has written, but he lacks any actual argument.
Even non-religious apologists against marriage equality fail to present any cohesive arguments. They usually rest on a naturalistic fallacy "implying that if something is natural, it is also right"¬ù — or wind up cornering themselves into a definition of marriage that they themselves do not agree with.
The correct and de facto historically accurate definition of marriage remains: an implicit contract between individuals that grants certain rights and privileges. Trying to separate marriage from "civil unions" is a matter of semantics and distraction from the actual issue.
Anti-equality prejudice is founded on the same structure and lack of rationale that segregationists touted against interracial marriage in previous centuries.
It is inevitable that justice "and equality" shall prevail.