The gay marriage debate stirs passion on both sides. Our freedom insures the right of personal choice. It guarantees that consenting adults can love and live with whomever they choose. What freedom does not automatically insure is the right to overturn centuries of tradition, spiritual teaching and moral belief, merely to placate one minority’s desire to make normal and mainstream that which is not.

Since no one is denied the right to marry, changing the legal definition based solely on sexual preference is asking a lot.

Gays and lesbians claim discrimination as one reason for redefining marriage while ignoring that any new definition, by existence, is discriminatory.

Those who seek to end marital discrimination for one minority should represent all minorities currently barred from wedded bliss because of sexual preference or familial connection. To establish credibility, gay marriage supporters must have the courage of their conviction and refuse any state imposed definition of marriage. Anything less perpetuates discrimination against a variety of individuals and renders the pro-gay marriage position disingenuous.

If same sex couples deserve the right to marry then bisexuals loving members of both sexes deserve nothing less. Straight men and women have been known to love two people at the same time. If all three are agreeable then they too should have the right to marry. Polygamy is currently illegal. Such discrimination should be addressed with no less urgency than what is expected by gays and lesbians. How about adult children and a parent?

The claim is that no one has the right to tell another individual whom they can or cannot love and marry. We are not to judge or discriminate. We can only go with the position as presented.

Actor Jeremy Irons, interviewed by the Huffington Post a few days ago, was asked about gay marriage. His interesting response will raise eyebrows. Mr. Irons questioned whether gay marriage could, in the future, encourage a father and son to marry as a way of avoiding the inheritance tax.

In a litigious society such as ours there is no legal angle too far fetched. You may disagree with him but Irons’ question is insightful and legitimate. There was a time when same sex marriage was not a serious discussion.

Before dismissing Irons as just an actor, remember that voices from the entertainment industry are some of the loudest on the topic of gay marriage. In fact, Hollywood speaks from a more widely accepted pulpit than the clergy who, unlike entertainment icons, understand and have studied the origin of marriage.

I wrote recently about the low information voter. Proponents of gay marriage fall into that category. Those who feel they have evolved into new enlightenment may be full of anticipation, but they reveal a naivety in believing a redefinition of marriage means societal smooth sailing.

Based on the arguments presented it is clear few care whether redefining marriage is a legal Pandora’s Box or what opening it might mean in terms of societal ramification.

Unknown roads lie ahead. They are roads we will be forced to travel if we tamper with marriage and alter the Almighty’s original design.