The other day one of my favourite columnists, Tim Blair said
that in any debate you should side with the team that sounds less crazy. He then noted that the “No Campaign” for
Same Sex Marriage (SSM) or Marriage Equality (as they like to call it) have used
the argument that saying “Yes” to this proposal will, through the slippery
slope lead to people wanting to marry cabbages.
I haven’t seen this particular argument used but maybe it has; there's a wacko in every crowd.
The “Yes campaign” do not need the wacky outliers however to
put forward a crazy argument. It’s right
there in their preferred slogan, “Marriage Equality”. Leaving aside the argument that at all competent
men and women are already equally free to marry another person of the opposite
sex, (this statement having no traction with the “marriage equality” crowd due
to the fact that they wish to marry someone of the same sex) SSM can never be equal to a normal
marriage. They are just not the same
thing. It’s scientifically
impossible. Don’t call me a hater. Blame God.
Blame Mother Nature. Blame Gaia. Blame whoever, it’s out of our control.
When a man and a woman get married they form a family,
whether or not they have children, because one is a husband and the other is a
wife. They have a complimentary but equal union. A SSM cannot have this. Two women come together – there is no
husband. Two men come together - there
is no wife. We heteros looking in from
the outside try to assign these roles to a same sex couple but the people
inside know that these concepts do not work in their relationship. So a
SSM cannot achieve equality with a normal marriage because it is missing either
a husband or a wife and having two of the other cannot provide what is missing.
A SSM is also unequal because it is always barren. It is true that some normal marriages are
also barren but a SSM is barren by design.
One or both partners may have children with someone else, through sperm
donation or surrogacy or previous relationships but the two people in a SSM
will never produce their own offspring; unlike a normal marriage which is fertile and where people
often produce children by accident.
Children in a SSM environment are necessarily the products of a broken
home with all the problems that that entails.
So the SSM advocates will say that this is not what they
mean by equality, apparently they only mean equality before the law. SS couples already have equality before the
law. If you register your relationship
with the government you are entitled to the same rights as a de facto
couple. One gay man told me that he
needed to register his relationship, like a dog, but a marriage celebrant does
the same thing. Government paperwork is
government paperwork. So they are
campaigning for something they already have.
How crazy is that?
So what do they really want?
They want a stick to hit conservatives, religious people and anyone who disapproves
of their lifestyle with. This is clear
from, as Malcolm Turnbull would say, looking at the countries that already
have SSM. While Americans have a bill of
rights protecting religious freedoms, it does not protect you from having to
defend yourself in court if your business chooses not to participate in a SSM
due to your religious beliefs. In
Britain it is not okay for Catholic Schools to be homophobic or against
SSM. Children in Australian public primary
schools are being taught about homosexual sex and the parents are not informed
of these classes or allowed to opt out.
The Safe Schools program was introduced in Victoria in 2010 and
nationally in 2014 and has been recently been repealed in NSW.
People are ridiculed when they invoke the slippery slope argument but
we’ve been sliding down that sucker since they brought in the no-fault
divorce. SSM won't lead to people marrying cabbages but saying that the slippery slope doesn’t exist and that this change won't affect all Australians is crazy.
