Why just saying ‘No’ is as an affront to the proponents of marriage redefinition

On the same day that the Parliament passed legislating policing speech in order to protect the feelings of same-sex attracted and their supporters, Israel Folau, a notable rugby league player, was embroiled in controversy for the following remark:

“I love and respect all people for who they are and their opinions. but personally, I will not support gay marriage.”

Yes, in 2017, this is a controversial statement. It can’t be because those in same-sex relationships do not have the same freedom as those in opposite sex relationships because nothing prevents either from cohabiting nor from having their relationship recognized by the law. Further, the rights and privileges that both enjoy are exactly the same following changes introduced in the late 2000s that effectively recognize no differences between married or de facto couples with respect to property, financial, or other arrangements. So freedom and equality are dealt with. What other possible causes could explain the affront that so many of the proponents of marriage redefinition? Well, there is what is most obvious, approval, and this is necessary, morally, and psychologically.

Among the bougie members of the Yes case, they believe it is important, morally speaking, that same-sex relationships, are held in the same esteem that they think marriage provides opposite-sex relationships. They do not understand that the two, marriage and opposite-sex unions, are intimately connected, but seem to think that marriage independently confers such esteem on opposite-sex unions as if they were two different things. And so they think that redefining marriage, so that it includes same-sex unions, would confer the same esteem on same-sex unions among those who respect marriage. This is simply not true.

Further, the need for moral approval among bougie same-sex attracted and their supporters is psychological important. There is, despite the aggressive acclamation of diversity, a desperate need among these same people to have their difference rendered negligible, and this is endlessly and emblematically repeated in their rhetoric: equal love; marriage equality; and, love is love. We are consistently bombarded by these claim that all these very different people, relationships, families etc. are still…the same as the natural family. This is particularly strong among the parents of same-sex attracted individuals.

If this is the case, and moral approval is what is being sought here, then any argument that the No case provides, however clearly, coherently, and respectfully made, will be felt as an argument against same-sex unions, and thereby, as an attack upon persons attracted to the same-sex, by the bougie proponents of marriage redefinition.  There is simply no way of escaping this, and moreover, this is the predominant reason why laws enacted to protect the feelings of what the state now identifies as LGBTQI persons should be construed as a direct attack on No case.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *