C’est manifique! Monsieur Président Francois Hollande on Friday finally signed into law the right for Gay couples to marry and adopt. This makes France the the 9th in Europe and 14th country in the world to legalise same-sex marriage. They join a long list now including; Canada, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, South Africa Uruguay, Argentina and New Zealand.
However, I sadly made the continual mistake of watching Question Time where the subject of Gay Marriage was raised in the light of the Gay Marriage Bill soon returning to the House of Commons for a Third and final reading. Once again, I was left tearing my hair out when individuals start to speak up against the bill and once again, it was the usual pile of sh*t: “But marriage is about pro-creation.” (So infertile and elderly couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry?) and “Marriage is a sacred vow before God.” (Since everyone is Christian and you’re totally allowed to force your religious views on others?).
Given the relative success of my dissection of Mr Scruton’s Guardian article last week, I thought it might be apt to have a similar post analysing the Coalition for Marriage’s (C4M) article: “10 reasons why the Government is wrong to redefine Marriage“, this should be fun…
Reason 1: It will undermine marriage
Now this in itself is very unclear, but it gets more entertaining when the C4M gives ‘evidence’ for this claim.
“In Spain, after gay marriage was introduced, marriage rates across the whole population plummeted. In the Netherlands too there has been a significant fall in the marriage rate since marriage was redefined.”
Seems the C4M never read our Comments policy. Marriage rates may or may not be down, but you’re claiming a correlation (a very dubious one at that given you have a sample of a mere two countries) is a causation. Sadly, societies and the world is not that easy to read. There’s correlations all the time in society, doesn’t mean that there’s a causation link.
Reason 2: Marriage is part of our history
Personally, I can’t believe I’m bothering to address this point. Yes, straight marriage is part of our history, but so the active persecution of LGBTQ folks, denying equality to women and the ‘lovely’ bubonic plague. What we just happened to have always done is no barometer for what is right and what we should do today.
Reason 3: Equality already exists
Really?! I’m not sure why I’m doing this post now given how much is going to piss me off for the rest of the day. Well C4M, let’s put this hypothetical to you now. If you lived 1950s segregated America and there are two segregated schools in the same town (one white and one black) and they’re both good schools where children achieved similar results, would you call that equality?
Reason 4: Impact on schools
“The current law requires schools to teach children about the importance of marriage. If marriage is given a new definition, it will be endorsed in schools. According to expert legal advice, any teacher who fails to endorse same-sex marriage in the classroom could be dismissed. Parents will have no legal right to withdraw their children from lessons which endorse same-sex marriage across the curriculum.”
Teachers would be dismissed if they fail to talk about Gay marriage in their official role as a Teacher and parents can’t withdraw their children from lessons? Good. Teachers already can’t force their own beliefs on the children entrusted in their care. That’s why we can’t have science teachers not teach evolution and then big-up creationism. We already have a messed up sex education system in England and Wales where parents can withdraw their children from the classes, I see this as no different.
Reason 5: Thin end of the wedge
“If we redefine marriage once, what’s to stop marriage being redefined yet further? If marriage is solely about love and commitment between consenting adults, what’s to say we shouldn’t recognise threeway relationships?”
Once again, I’ll have to refer you to our Comments Policy, namely this fallacy. Just because we allow something doesn’t mean it’s then going to be taken to the extreme. Although, personally, I have no problem with polyamory marriages, so suck on that C4M!
Reason 6: Marginalises the majority
Majority?? Really? I’d be happy to cite many polls showing overwhelming support in favour of this bill, but then again, since when is public opinion a definitive barometer of what is right?
Reason 7: Many Gay people don’t want it
“Polling shows that only a minority of gay people (39 per cent) believe gay marriage is a priority.”
Like Nash (couldn’t resist a dig), you’re confusing apathy with an issue to mean it is not worthwhile addressing. But let’s say I accept this poll you’ve cited C4M, the problem is this would show apathy not opposition.
Reason 8: The public don’t want it
Again, I’d be happy to cite lots of polls, but I’d rather draw your attention to the first paragraph of this. In the 1940s, two-thirds of Americans supported segregation, do you think they were right?
Reason 9: A huge change to society
Well this is scaremongering at its finest. The only part I think that’s worthwhile picking up on is this:
“The Church of England has warned that it could lead to disestablishment and a constitutional crisis.”
Good. Anything else?
Reason 10: Freedom of conscience will be eroded
I’m so pissed off with C4M now that this isn’t even worthwhile responding to it’s so dishonest and untrue.
Take heed opponents of equal marriage, your arguments have debunked thousands of times, yet you still come along and believe you’re the first to spout these ideas. This is the result of a lack of critical thinking. My God people, you piss me right off sometimes.