The number of Conservative MPs that opposed the recent gay marriage bill struck me as unnervingly large. I probably shouldn’t be surprised, the very nature of the word that describes the party suggests that we ignore the needs of our society to progress, and while that is an out of date way of looking at that side of the political spectrum these days it would seem there are still some very prominent voices on that side that are taking the word to its lexical extremes. BBC news showed this, rather troubling side, in the form of an MP whose argument against making gay marriage legal was that marriage ‘has always been between a man and a woman’, which makes me wonder whether the man in question has heard the words ‘argument’, ‘from’ and ‘antiquity’ in the same phrase.
People have always died from vicious diseases, that doesn’t mean that we should make sure that these deaths continue into the future (an extreme parallel I know, but it just goes to show how little logic actually goes into a statement such as that). I fail to see how other people being allowed to find happiness in the same way others currently can could have any possible negative impacts besides those imposed by bigots such as those opposing this legislation.
All in all, I’m pretty certain that if we were in the opposite circumstances, those heterosexual politicians would not be using the parallel world fact that ‘marriage has always been between two people of the same gender’ to proclaim that they should not be given equal rights.
Surely politicians of all people know to think about the connotations of what they say before they say it? Isn’t that why all their speeches are written for them and have absolutely no substance so they can’t get blamed for anything, or be called up on actually saying they’re going to tackle something?