Friday, 14 June 2013

An FAQ about Gay marriage.

The gay rights movement has always been something that I have felt strongly about. My own sexual preferences aside, I just don't understand why one group of people is denied the right to fall in love. Love is universal, or so I believe. It occurs in nature, therefore it is natural. If swans can mate for life then why is it frowned upon for a group of humans to do the same? Love, as the old song goes, is many a splendored thing and in my humble opinion, there isn't enough of it in the world. Here in the UK at the moment we are trying to get the gay marriage bill passed, it's already half way through and I am confident that it will pass. We're basically trying to eradicate the ideas of civil partnerships and replace it with the word marriage. It's only a word, but it's one step closer to true equality for all. Over in America, however, they're still trying to make it legal at all, in any shape or form. As I understand it, there are still many states that don't even allow civil ceremonies. My knowledge on the whole thing is limited, but whenever I read something about it, I always come across the same arguments against it and they are so utterly stupid, that I simply need to voice my opinion on them. So here are some of the most used arguments against gay marriage and equality and my responses underneath. (I have copied these from the first page I found on google that had them all down in one place.)

"It Is Not Marriage...
Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses."

If calling something marriage does not make it marriage, then I propose that your heterosexual union is not a marriage. If you claim that calling something a name does not make it so, then surely it goes both ways? What makes your union a marriage that cannot be used to call a homosexual union a marriage? The only difference is that (only) one of you has a penis. Really, if you truly love each other, then I don't see any difference. Homosexuality has been rife ever since man first became man and look, millions of years later, we're still here. I really don't think that homosexuality is a threat to the ongoing progressions of our species. If it was, we'd have died out by now. 

"Marriage is for Procreation...
If the gays get married then they are not procreating, therefore the human race is in danger of dying out. Marriage should be kept for heterosexual couples so that they can ensure the continuation of the human race."

Wow. That's a lot of pressure for a newly wed couple. "Come on Dave, we need to save all of humanity..." Not exactly the sexiest example of pillow talk. First of all, human beings have been reproducing since before the very idea of marriage was invented. I'm fairly certain early men were sticking their little soldiers into their women-folk as often as they felt like it without needing a reason besides the fact that they wanted to. The act of sex comes about because of normal physical urges. Sometimes certain parts of the body just want to be played with for a little while. It's in-built and natural. There is nothing in nature that says "you have to shag because you are married." If that was the case then I would have never have met my parents as they would have been locked in their room 24/7 and I'd have a lot of brothers and sisters. My father would be disabled because of exhaustion, not a work accident. My friend and her husband are in a childless marriage as my friends husband is infertile. Does this mean that their marriage is fake? It feels real to them. They love each other and wanted to make it so that if anything happened to one of them, the other was safe from worries like homelessness and poverty. Marriage is basically a nice little word for "legal". Contracts have been signed, property has been shared and metal rings have been exchanged. Marriage is a man-made idea, it comes from humans, not nature. There are no monkies in the jungles of godknows where getting hitched. I promise you this. There are monkies shagging and having babies, but none of them are exchanging vows in order to do this. 


It's against my religion. My holy words say that it's bad."

Good for you. It's not against mine. I don't have one. What else do your holy words say is bad? Shaving? Eating meat on a Tuesday? Do you follow all of the rules properly? Probably not but that's your choice. If you want to follow those rules then go for it, but they are YOUR rules, no-one elses. It's not up to you to decide how someone else lives their life. They're not hurting you, so why are you trying to hurt them? I'm not religious. I admire those that are, I'm sure your religion has been a great comfort to you in times of need, but you have absolutely no right to use it to cause harm on anyone. It's just plain spiteful. Despite my lack of religion though, let me quote from yours. "Judge not lest ye be judged." Yeah. Think about that.


If we allow gay unions then it will encourage our children to be gay and teach them that it's ok."

Good. Because seriously, there are too many kids out there that are hating themselves and trying to lead a life that isn't for them in order to make YOU happy. Growing up is difficult enough without being made to think that you're not good enough or that you don't deserve to be loved. I have two sons, and though I'm not very good at this parenting lark, the only thing that I want them to be confident in is the fact that I love them unconditionally. No matter what. The idea of either of my children growing up to think that I could wake up one day and just not love them anymore terrifies me. Love is natural, and a mothers love, doubly so. There is nothing in the world that will EVER stop me from loving them, especially such a stupid thing as loving the "wrong" person. Many people will cry "but don't you want grandchildren?!" to that. And honestly, I'm ambivalent about the whole thing. I will love any child of my child, obviously. However, it's not something I'm desperate for. It's not something I crave or need. All I want is for my children to be happy. And if either having or not having children makes them happy, then I'm happy that they are happy. It's their decision, not mine.

"It Will Lead to Marriage Involving Animals, Siblings, Children, or Groups of People!"

I hate to burst your bubble here, but that already happens. There are people out there, who classify themselves as heterosexual, who are doing these things. I'm not denying that homosexuals do it too, but it's not limited to a specific gender preference. For instance, the 50 year old school janitor who likes to watch the little girls undress. He isn't a homosexual, quite the opposite in fact. So how is allowing gay marriage going to have any effect on this pervert? Quite simply, it isn't. And as it stands, gay marriage is illegal in your state, legalising it doesn't mean that you have to legalise paedophillia or bestiality. You can legalise one thing and keep the others illegal. It's not all one great big package, it's like a breakfast menu, you can pick and choose from the group. The thing that no-one is picking up on though, is that homosexual sex is (usually) consensual  Both parties agree and no-one gets hurt. In bestiality or paedophilia, one party doesn't agree, it's non-consensual and as such as classified as rape and the non-consenting party has to live with the ordeal for years afterwards. No-one in a consenting gay union goes through any kind of ordeal and no-one has to live with the repercussions afterwards. That is why it's ridiculous to class it in with such other acts. The reason we frown upon incest is because it limits the expansion of the gene pool and after a few generations of inbreeding, genetic mutations can occur which can lead to the offspring dying early, being brain damaged or even just so freaking ugly that no-one is going to want to shag them. No matter how drunk. That is a very good reason to try and avoid shagging a family member, however unions of the same sex will not result in children. Not without the aid of medical science or the adoption of an unwanted child anyway, so the gene pool is left untainted and free from mutations that might pass down the family line. If given the choice between legalising a union that can cause defects in a future generation or legalising a union that will not result in a future generation (bearing in mind that some heterosexual unions cannot conceive a child either) then which one is the most logical one to pick? Yeah, gay unions are the safest bet and that is why they should be legalised, they are not harming anyone. 

"It's just not natural..."

Excuse me, but are you wearing glasses? Do you enjoy air conditioning? Do you eat processed foods? Do you live in a house that is kept comfortable during winter with the aid of central heating? Do you wear polyester? None of those things are natural, they are all man-made. If you can enjoy those things then your argument is invalid. Quite besides which, actually homosexuality IS natural. Homosexuality is found throughout the animal kingdom and homosexual acts are often used as a way to blow off steam or solve problems. Really, if you think about it, it's only humans that have a problem with sex and how it should be used. Sex is a natural act and since before humans were human, man was trying to stick his little friend into anything and everything. It's another one of those pesky natural urges. 

"It Offends God..."

Really? You don't think that an all knowing and all seeing deity has better things to be watching than a bit of man on man action? And if he did create the heavens and the earth and all things in them like you believe, then why did he let them be gay in the first place? Personally I don't believe in an omnipotent sky-beard, but I'm fairly certain that if one existed, he wouldn't be looking down on us going "oh dear, they're at it again... tut tut tut." He'd be like "right, that's bad, lets get that sorted with a good bit of smiting." Yeah, I've read the bible (which is more than some christians have) and I remember that he was really into a good bit of smiting now and again. And floods. He loved himself a good flood. If god really disapproves then he'll do something about it. Clearly, the fact that he hasn't means that he couldn't give a toss. And I don't blame him. Who one man loves is not a matter up for debate. It's between him and the man he loves who hopefully loves him in return. Is my friend destroying your life by loving someone? You don't know him, you've never met him and probably never will. He recently married (civil ceremony)  his partner of 6 years and they are very happy together. Is their union affecting your life? Are you suddenly unable to use your legs? Have you gone deaf in one ear? Have you lost all of your money? Your house? Your partner or children all because my friend decided to let himself be happy? The answer is no, you spiteful biggot. His life has absolutely NO effect on your life whatsoever and your need to destroy his is purely down to a psychotic need to control everything around you. Just because you don't approve of it doesn't make it bad. Just look at music of the 1950's, the first talking pictures and the black rights movement. People disapproved of them at first and look at them now. The world is a better place for them being in it. Why are you stopping the world from being a better place?