Gay marriage: in perspective

Well, the votes were cast last night and, after due process through the Lords etc, gay marriage will be legalised - hooray.  Despite the dire warnings of the naysayers, I think the above graphic probably sums up its long-term impact upon our society.  I'd forgotten that I have been to a gay marriage ceremony a long time ago - it was in North Carolina around 1995 and, quadruple shock horror, the officiating priest was female (way before we had them in the UK).  I'm sure we'll reach the same position over here when such events are seen as the celebration they are, rather than a step on the ladder to societal collapse.

 Having said all that, I must admit that my opinion could have been swayed if I had come across the following cogently argued case against gay marriage a little earlier.  I just love the way the author's bigotry, racism and misogyny are so skillfully conflated.  I do hope he remembers to take his medication today.


1. Marriage is eugenic, feminism dysgenic.
2. More female MPs proportionately will support gay marriage than male MPs, calling into question their moral judgement and ability to think rationally and independently.
3. The fact that more female Tory MPs will support gay marriage than male Tory MPs is evidence of their moral judgement and ability to think rationally and independently.
4. Our political classes do not respect marriage.
5. Our political classes do not know how to respect marriage.
6. If our political classes respected marriage, they would see the necessity of privileging married couples over unmarried couples.
7. Currently, not a single political party you will have heard of proposes privileging married couples.
8. Marriage is for the rearing of children and so is exclusively for male-female pairings who are not in the prohibited degrees of consanguinity capable of procreative sex.
9. Just because there are childless married couples does not detract from the original nature and purpose of marriage.
10. Catholics could have their marriage annulled (ie treated as it never happened) if one of the couple is infertile, which demonstrates the original purpose of marriage, which is to have children.
11. Gay marriage is immoral because it is not necessary.
12. Gay marriage is not necessary because same-sex couples already have the civil partnership, allowing them to take free of inheritance tax which starts at 40%.
13. It is not necessary in the long-term national interest to legalise gay marriage.
14. It is destructive to the long-term national interest to legalise gay marriage because if gay marriage is an option then more people will avail themselves of it.
15. If more people avail themselves of gay marriage then there will be fewer children being born to husbands and wives.
16. If there are fewer children being born to husbands and wives then there will be a labour shortage.
17. If there is a labour shortage more immigrants will be allowed in
18. If there is even more immigration people will get even more alarmed and resentful causing social unrest and anarchy.
19. The reason why married couples should be treated as a degree above same-sex couples, all things being equal, is that married couples are the ones whose children are most likely to be brought up in an environment that produces well-adjusted adults capable of becoming useful citizens.
20. Same-sex couples do not produce offspring with their civil partner.
21. Same sex couples do not undergo the sacrifice, burden and inconvenience of rearing the next generation.
22. If same-sex couples were capable of sexual reproduction only then would it be moral to have gay marriage.
23. It is as well to acknowledge that it was feminism that was the thin end of the wedge that led to gay marriage. For some reason, most women do not mind about gay marriage. It is either because marriage was the invention of a man and they spitefully wish to destroy his creation, or because they are too stupid and irresponsible to grasp the pivotal role of marriage in regulating human relations.