Our great writing is also available in print. I have been told my natural urges are a choice. I have been told I do not deserve equal rights. I have even been told I am going to hell. I do not believe all opponents of gay marriage are hateful. Some have just not been exposed to the right arguments, and so I will demonstrate here that each anti-gay marriage argument ultimately serves to oppress or imply the lesser status of the minority of which I am a part.
In rallying against the introduction of equal marriage, religious campaigners have frequently stressed that their objections are not driven by homophobia, and have deployed numerous arguments to demonstrate this. To the untrained ear these arguments sound like they may have grounding in reason, but on closer inspection reveal themselves as homophobic. What follows is a handy guide to spotting, and refuting, these arguments Type A: The Insidiously Homophobic Arguments 1.
To imply that including same-sex couples within the definition of marriage will somehow be detrimental or even destructive for the institution is to suggest gay people must be inherently poisonous. It also implies a nefarious gay mafia that is out to wreck marriage for straight people. Naturally if such a mafia existed I would be bound by a code of honour to deny its existence. If marriage was truly traditional, interracial couples would not be allowed to wed, one could marry a child, ceremonies would be arranged by parents to share familial wealth and the Church of England would still be under the authority of the Pope.
The Office for National Statistics shows how civil, non-religious marriage made up 68 per cent of all marriages in the UK during It conveniently forgets the 48 countries where polygamy is still practised.
It also omits from history the married gay couples of ancient China and Rome, Mormon polygamy, and the ancient Egyptians who could marry their sisters. The assertion is obviously false. The love and care homosexual couples routinely provide children are, it would seem, irrelevant. Perhaps it would help to reiterate that gay people are not confused about gender, they are just gay. It is the churches who are deeply confused about gender and sexuality.
I would ask them to stop focusing on my genitals, and start paying attention to my humanity. Not so confusing really. May I refer him to the elderly or infertile straight couples who cannot produce children?
If a complementary relationship hinges on procreative sex, are these relationships unnatural? Should they be allowed to marry? Dozens of studies have shown gay people to be entirely capable of raising children. While it is true that many reputable studies have shown two-parent families tend to be most beneficial, the gender of the parents has never been shown to matter.
The studies cited by actively homophobic organisations like the Coalition for Marriage were funded by anti-gay organisations, or have basic methodology flaws — for example, they would compare married straight couples with un-wed gay couples, or they would take a person who may have had a single curious experience with the same sex and define them as exclusively homosexual.
Sometimes, the even more disingenuous will reference studies [PDF] which do not even acknowledge gay parents. Same-sex parents are simply presumed by biased researchers to be equivalent to single parents and step-parents, and therefore use the data interchangeably, which as anyone with an ounce of scientific literacy knows is not the way such studies work. When marriage is a civil, legal institution of the state, the citizenship has a right to redefine marriage in accordance with established equality laws.
It should come as no surprise that the directors of the organisation are religious and manipulation of the results was easy. A single person could submit their signature online multiple times providing they used different email addresses which were not verified. Programs that allow for anonymity of IP addresses also enabled anyone around the world to add their signature.
The majority of UK polls demonstrate a majority in favour of gay marriage. Even if most people were against gay marriage, which polls consistently show is not the case, majority will is no justification for the exclusion of a minority.
Our relationships are just as loving and valid as heterosexual relationships, but our current marriage laws suggest it is not. We are equally human and we should be treated by the law as such.
It has nothing to do with approval, and has everything to do with equality. One does not compromise equal rights otherwise they are not equal rights. We can conclude this because there is absolutely no evidence to suggest gay marriage will harm society. Have the 11 countries where gay marriage is legal crumbled yet?
Ultimately the argument turns out to be hyperbolic nonsense designed to instil confusion, fear, and mistrust of gay people. It is also beside the point - straight couples are not precluded from marriage on the basis they may be unfaithful, so why should gay people?
That does not mean we should have the right to marry. May also take the form: The Really Silly Homophobic Arguments Civil rights activists looked fabulous with hoses and guns turned on them.
We are all mere lambs of our Queen Gaga. People actually use this argument. How come thousands of people voice their support for gay marriage in polls? I do not imagine there are many people who believe they deserve fewer rights or who desire to be second-class citizens.
We do not appreciate you mischaracterising what millions of us do and do not want, and squaring reality to fit your Catholic bigotry. Yes, gay people can already get married … to people of the opposite gender. No, they are not allowed to marry the people they actually love.
Dire warnings of slippery slopes are scaremongering. In the countries that have so far legalised same-sex marriage, courts have always rejected calls for the legalisation of polygamy. This had nothing to do with homosexuality. The gay mafia was not involved. But, as everyone should know, passion and reason are complementary.
But then he is a homophobe and a bigot. There is not a single one of his arguments that does not imply the lesser state of homosexuals, or serve to justify the discrimination. In fact the recent government proposals are only for the legalisation of civil same-sex marriage, and do not allow for ceremonies to be conducted on religious sites. It is an entirely secular proposal, yet Carey and various churches and church-goers are keen to make the civil rights of homosexuals their business.
This article was brought to you by New Humanist, a quarterly journal of ideas, science and culture. To support our journalism, please subscribe. A simple way to support New Humanist, share this article with friends.