When gay marriage is finally allowed, western society will crumble into a cesspit of depravity. It will open up a Pandora’s box of evil and the devil will rule, metaphorically of course, over humanity. Homosexuals will, ironically, multiply, and heterosexuals will perversely become the minority, ridiculed for being such a bore. We’ll then move onto marrying more than one person – love as singular being a misguided romantic notion of course – and the merits of bestiality will be debated in Parliament because, hey, we’re animals, they’re animals, let’s dance. We’ll loot, rape and murder. Life as we know it will cease to exist. Fucking gays, man, fucking it right up.
Though those in a position of power are reluctant to call it so black and white as articulated above, the arguments made against gay marriage, because they are so antiquated and nonsensical, leak truths. We hear about tradition, that marriage is a longstanding institution between a man and a woman, that it’ll have a devastating effect on legislation, that gay people have an equivalent in civil partnerships. Everyone’s happy. But this is a façade. What is implied is that they believe homosexuality is not normal. Some, though they never say it publically, go further and think of it as an abomination, unnatural in every way, a warning sign of either an individual’s moral failure or that of society as a whole. Because a man and a man and a woman and a woman cannot procreate, well then, evidently something is amiss. Cardinal Keith O’Brien and Lord Brennan QC have been exceptions to the debate. Their language has been honest. Though they are both misguided, their candour is welcome. We agree to disagree.
It matters very little how opponents of gay marriage express their sentiments, how carefully they word their objections; their unwillingness to extend equality to homosexuals is prejudicial. Again, it’s an embellishment of what the true narrative is: we have one rule for heterosexuals and one for you, the gays, there’s no need to mix it up. Keep it safe, let’s stick to out boundaries and we won’t pollute the clean water of life. A similar style of argument was reasoned against black people and people from ethic minorities not so long ago. By virtue of having a different colour or physical aesthetic, one could be seen to be inferior. In the US, segregation was a cheap attempt to solve the problem through dividing the races, while modestly extending the rights of black people. That was called progress, which I suppose it was. The Nazis obsessive malevolence towards Jewish people shows us how far our ignorant, confused and obsessive ideas can go. You. Me. Distinction.
It’s hard to even fathom that in the year 2012, a consultation on the matter is evening being considered. A truly free and progressive society would, by a sense of justice and fairness and egalitarianism, extend marriage to homosexuals immediately. But I’m being naïve. It’s a symptom of our times. As women were denied the vote way beyond the wisdom of the time, so too are gays still subjected to inequalities in today’s open society. And even then, if and when it becomes an act of law, so what? There are countless people who are more than happy spending a life together without ever getting married. They may even have children and heaven forbid bring them up as well as any parents can. Should we place such a high regard on this institution? It’s a human construct, therefore, not biologically programmed. We could contend that the only thing that really matters is if one person loves another. Whatever their sex if they want to get married, let them, if they don’t, well, no harm, no foul.
For more of the debate, visit Liberal Conspiracy here.