In Australia at the moment, we’re doing a survey (not a vote) of all Australians. The survey asks one question:
Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?
First of all, it seems odd that they’re asking everyone. Wouldn’t it make more sense to just ask the gays?
And even if you must ask people who will not be affected by the result, you still shouldn’t be asking everyone. Ricky Gervais puts it better than I would if I tried (with regards to Brexit):
There shouldn’t have been a referendum. Why do we ask the general public what they think? The average person’s an idiot. We’ve still got labels on bottles of bleach that say ‘do not drink’, right? Well take that off, for two years, then have a referendum.
Good one, Ricky.
Anyway, with those mistakes put to one side, I believe they’re asking the wrong question. Or rather, too few questions.
The slippery slope logical fallacy is an easy one to fall for. Those that want you to answer “no” will tell you that if you let the fags marry, the next thing you know, they’ll be teaching your children gay sexual positions in Physical Education class.
So, for the person that doesn’t know any gay people, the safe bet is to just say no, right?
I mean, if you say yes to same-sex marriage, it maybe leads to bestiality in back alleys for the kids, but if you say no — there’s really no downside.
We really need to start with a question that is impervious the the slippery slope argument. I propose:
Should same-sex couples be allowed to hold hands on the couch while watching TV at home?
You’re asking people to think of the gays as real humans doing something that is most definitely none of anyone else’s business. This hopefully gets people in the right frame of mind.
Also, with this as the first question, the statisticians at the ABS will be able to gather up all the responses, and immediately throw out the ones that answered ‘no’ to this first question.
While we’re at it, we should really weed out the truly antiquated thinkers:
Should the law be changed to make being homosexual illegal?
We’re talking about arrests and jail time for being gay here. I’d bet an entire cake that our country has some yes-men for this one. Their responses could probably be thrown out too.
Should same-sex couples be allowed to refer to their significant other as girlfriend/boyfriend?
Follow up question:
Should same-sex couples be allowed to refer to their significant other as a husband/wife?
They wouldn’t be married in the eyes of the law of course. The question is simply should it be made illegal to refer to your significant other as husband/wife without the certificate?
My uncle misuses the term like this, but his significant other is a ‘wife’. He’s not married, he’s just a hippy that doesn’t believe in getting the certificate from the man and doesn’t want to be a 57 year old saying ‘girlfriend’.
Could we let the gays get away with this, without going through the rigmarole of changing the law? Surely that’s cheaper, anyway.
Should same-sex couples be allowed to wear wedding rings/bands?
Again, they wouldn’t be officially married, but the holey symbol of matrimony would be there for all to see. Is that OK? Does that somehow lead to random sex changes for toddlers?
Here’s the one where so-called ‘reasonable’ human beings will start to say no:
Should same-sex couples be allowed to raise children?
I love this interview with Karina Okotel. She’s quite clear on her stance on poofter parents: “I don’t have any issue with gay people parenting”.
Have you taken leave of your bigot senses, woman?
So, a couple can raise several human beings to adulthood, over several decades, no doubt exposing them too all sorts of debauchery along the way, but the issuance of a certificate, a row in a database somewhere, is out of the question?
What in the name of God Almighty is wrong with this woman’s head?
I don’t know anything about her, but I’m guessing the Bible is somehow involved. I think being raised by a 2,000 year old book from an early age is the only way to get to that conflict of idiotic ideals and common sense mixed up in the same person.
“The Bible doesn’t explicitly say queers can’t raise children, so I’ll default to common decency.”
And then, only after asking people to consider the above, should we get to the final question:
Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to apply for a marriage certificate with the Registry of Births, Deaths & Marriages?
I assume they’re already allowed to have a birth and a death certificate. We might as well make it a trifecta.
There’s a silver lining to all this by the way. On a global, long term scale, the sooner religion dies out the better. Having public discussions like this highlights that religion is synonymous with bigotry — that can only help.
Of course, religion will probably never go away completely, but I’d be content with it falling down below 10% by the end of my life. At that prevalence it becomes like tennis — some people enjoy it, and good for them, but they don’t have any disproportionate influence on society.
Then, finally, we can stop living by rules written 2,000 years ago and just get on with things.