Thirty Follies of Same-Sex Marriage Legislation and its Promotion

Abstract
A. The Legalization of Same-Sex Marriage
Political and institutional Follies
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Political (vote loser) Democratic (being railroaded through Parliament) Priority (basing its urgency on a minority interest of some among 0.1%) Civil (imposing a totalitarian acceptance on society) National Heritage (losing the nations Christian heritage of conjugal marriage as the bedrock of society and the universal norm) Institutional (assuming marriages legitimacy lies not in its inherent nature as recognized down history but in the States legislation) Legal (a fiction, opening up other challengers to the reality of marriage) Constitutional (embarrassing the Queen as Governor of the Church of England) Conceptual (distinguishing civil and religious marriage, thus confusing the marriage institution with the wedding ceremony)

Philosophical and moral Follies

10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Philosophical (redefining meaning of marriage) Societal (altering understanding of marriage for everyone) Simplistic (diluting the meaning of marriage) Moral (undermining natural order, turning a moral wrong into a civil right) Spiritual (affirming a lifestyle offensive to God with serious consequences) Covenantal (turning a monogamous covenant into an open contract)

Scientific and social Follies

16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Scientific (claiming to replicate same benefits found in conjugal marriage) Social (lacking gender complementarity for couples & children) Focal (focusing on adult wants instead of childs needs) Equality (denying every childs right normally to a mum and a dad) Biological (circumventing nature to renew the human race) Medical (practices harmful to health)

B. The Promotion of Same-Sex Marriage

1. Comparative (SSM as an evolutionary step in marriage reform, not recognizing the administrative rather than essential nature of past changes. 2. Timid (reflecting a culture of fear of causing offense to gay minority, e.g. no reference to serious heath risks, as with smoking, drugs, etc) 3. Arrogant (telling other nations to accept gay agenda we know better?) 4. Hasty (no proper research into likely sociological implications) 5. Consequential (slippery slope from taboo to tolerance to normalization encouraging other loving groups) 6. Diversity (disapproval of diverse expressions of love called discriminatory) 7. Discriminatory (selective of SSM while retaining taboo on incest, etc) 8. Disingenuous (championing diversity while denying other sexualities equal rights) 9. Legislative (category error regarding consummation applied to SSM)

Thirty Follies of Same-Sex Marriage Legislation and its Promotion

The British Governments proposed bill to legalize same-sex marriage is utter folly on more than twenty counts. Political and institutional follies
1. It is political folly since those conservative-minded voters who will vow never to vote for a party that introduced Same-Sex Marriage, are many more than the miniscule number of the gay community who might thereby be persuaded to switch their allegiance to the Conservatives, George Osbornes optimism notwithstanding. (He ignored the fact that the majority of States in the USA have not voted for SameSex Marriage.) 2. It is democratic folly, being introduced by a Government that has not mentioned it in an Election Manifesto, a Queens Speech, or Green Paper, and being railroaded through Parliament with the aid of an Opposition that will whip all its members in favour. 3. It is a priority folly, as one High Court Judge has pointed out: "So much energy and time has been put into this debate for 0.1% of the population, when we have a crisis of family breakdown. (-Sir Paul Coleridge) Patently there are other more urgent issues to address!

4. It is civil folly, since, by imposing its totalitarian acceptance on all society, it will
inevitably repress any who oppose its validation and promotion of a gay lifestyle, whether in the public square or within the family. Those objecting to the revisionist definition of marriage will be labeled bigots and penalized for discrimination.

5. It is national heritage folly, as the nations Christian heritage of conjugal marriage as the bedrock of society and the universal norm is being lost.
6. It is institutional folly in so far as it replaces a basic and foundational social institution that extends back to the furthest known reaches of recorded history (R.S. Harris) by a contract to a lifestyle choice that has no similar historical foundation to encourage fidelity and permanence. Marriage is not a creation of the State whose proper role is recognition of a marital union whose legitimacy lies in its inherent nature rather than in the States legislation. 7. It is legal folly in so much as the passing of any same-sex marriage legislation would produce a legal fiction (legal on paper, but not in intelligent accord with reality), since marriage is intrinsically between a man and a woman. Further it would open the door to legal challenges to authorise incestuous marriages and other more bizarre marriages, such as polyamory.

8. It is constitutional folly for, as Prof Tom Devine, OBE, the Scottish historian,
pointed out, it will be very difficult for the Queen to sign a bill enforcing in law what the Church of England, of which she is Governor, does not allow in its canons. 9. It is conceptual folly, mistaking the wedding ceremony for marriage as an institution, which is the implication of distinguishing two categories of marriage, civil and religious. Fundamentally changing the States understanding of marriage means the nature of marriages solemnized in churches and other places of worship would also be changed. (Harris)

Philosophical and moral follies

10. It is philosophical folly to redefine so fundamental a word as marriage, as the following much quoted dialogue from Alice in the Looking Glass illustrates: When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, It means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less. The question is, said Alice, whether you can make words mean so many different things.

The question is, said Humpty Dumpty, which is to be master thats all. The intrinsic and indispensable properties that serve to characterize and identify marriage including its primary purpose - perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children - are inherent and unchanging in nature, no matter how the State or Law attempts to redefine it purely in the narrow individualistic terms of subjective love and mutual commitment. SSM is a basic category error. 11. It is societal folly since gay campaigners do not want to create a legal institution called "same-sex marriage", but want to redefine the one definition of marriage that applies to all of us, denying a five thousand year understanding of marriage as the union of a man and woman, as recognized worldwide by most nations laws. 12. It is simplistic folly since it dilutes the meaning of marriage to an understanding of love that extends no further than the couple themselves. 13. It is moral folly since it promotes as normal and good what, until recently, was generally considered immoral and abnormal (and still is by most societies worldwide), undermining the natural order and morality by turning a moral wrong into a civil right. 14. In the view of Christians who hold to Biblical teaching it is also spiritual folly, legalizing a lifestyle that, according to Scripture, offends God. For where Gods clear commands are ignored, spiritual deafness ensues with all the serious consequences of living outside of His guidance. 15. It is covenantal folly, since the level of monogamous loyalty is notoriously low in gay relationships. Thus Lord Giddens acknowledges that male gays, the prime everyday experimenters, challenge the traditional integration of marriage and monogamy. Inclusion of gays in marriage increases promiscuity that can only weaken a great institution that is covenantal in nature rather than contractual!

Scientific and social follies

16. It is scientific folly since ideological beliefs about marriage that presume the benefits enjoyed by married men and women can be replicated in a different grouping (i.e. those in a same-sex union) has no place in social science.

17. It is social folly, since well-adjusted families are the basis of a healthy society, and
families with one-gender parents will inevitably be lacking certain elements of stable family life, such as the bodily union of one flesh that contributes profoundly to a couples emotional stability. Furthermore the ingredient of complementarity, both in the couple themselves and as parents bringing up children, is missing, resulting in weaker family development overall. 18. It is a focal folly since it focuses on what adults want rather than on what kids need (i.e. what marriage is primarily about). 19. It is equality folly since it deliberately (by choice as opposed to unavoidably) denies the equal right of every child to know and, to the extent possible, be cared for by the two people who brought him or her into the world. Further, its very design denies children of a SS family the right to have both a mum and a dad. To equate the role and contribution of a mother with that of a father (and vice versa) is to fly in the face of the sociological facts. 20. It is biological folly since, if the SS spouses want a child, they must circumvent nature to do so since they will always be dependent on heterosexual begetting; same-sex parents will always have to import this element of marriage into their relationship. 21. It is medical folly since it promotes biologically abnormal sexual behaviour and practices that are harmful to health.

Follies of The Promotion of Same-Sex Marriage

1. It is a comparative folly to argue that SSM is just another evolutionary step in marriage reform, since this fails to recognize the administrative nature of changes of such steps in the past, which have not impacted on the essential meaning of marriage as an institution. 2. It is a timid folly, since the strategy to promote it (e.g. in schools) reflects a culture of fear of causing offense to the small minority whose sexual practice actually involves serious risks to health. 3. It is arrogant folly for the Government to work to increase international recognition of same-sex relationships whether that was civil partner-ships or civil marriages for same-sex couples (2012 Consultation), as if it knows best with the moral right to judge the norms of other societies. 4. It is hasty folly, a social experiment being rushed through parliament without adequate research into the likely sociological implications. 5. It is consequential folly as unintended consequences such as polygamy and polyamory cannot be ruled out as gay history since the 1960s has witnessed a slippery slope from taboo to tolerance to normalization. 6. It is diversity folly to argue that because of the diverse ways in which people express love for one another exercising moral disapproval is discriminatory and thus undermines equality, since no one first principle can demand that every other value and belief defer to it. 7. It is discriminatory folly, since, while claiming to be anti-discriminatory in demanding equal right to marriage for same-sex adults on the grounds of same mutual love and commitment as found in heterosexual marriage, it discriminates against any other group of mutually loving and committed persons (e.g. siblings,) joining the marriage club. Why this taboo? 8. It is disingenuous folly to deny association with other taboo sexualities while appealing to diversity and inclusive principles for acceptance of SSM. 9. It is legislative folly, requiring so many changes in current laws, not least, as the Government Consultation document acknowledges, in the matter of consummation (an issue in conventional marriage, a nonsense and involving a category error when applied to same-sex union).

- Paul Burgess (29/12/12)

(In response to the Governments proposals for legalizing SSM)