Looking at same-sex marriage from a social, equality and non-religious perspective

Much of the debate around same-sex marriage has been biased towards the religious merits and condemnations of it, which I have refuted elsewhere. I think we should instead look at it from a perspective of fairness.

One’s sexuality is something one has little choice over. Sexual orientation – whether one is sexually attracted to men, women or both – is only one part of sexuality. It makes no differences whether this is something we are born as or become through the environment, it is something we on the whole can’t control.

If one can’t choose whether one is sexually attracted to men and women, is is fair to deny one the right to marry, simply because one doesn’t love someone of the opposite sex? Why should someone be denied the right to get married – the ultimate form of union – simply because they are designed to love people of the same sex as them, whether they want to or not.

It is discrimination, whether or not it is illegal, to deny someone a benefit that other people in society are entitled, simply because a physical or mental difference exists between them that make it difficult to access that benefit on the same terms as others.

In the social model of disability one is not disabled unless others are not accommodating one’s disabilities. Equally with marriage, society is disabling same-sex couples by not accepting that they have differences that would make them unable to access the same opportunities as people without their characteristics.

Equality Training – Ethics or Prejudice?

Richard Wiseman posts a quiz on his blog. This type of quiz is used a lot in equality training to expose people’s prejudices. Often they try to get people to support saving a woman and child over a gay man or old man, or they try to get people to choose saving a surgeon over a disabled person or politician, or similar types of discrimination. Richard Wiseman’s was:

Time for a poll.  The sinking of the Costa Concordia has made me wonder whether the old adage of ‘women and children first’ still applies.  So, if you are a guy, imagine that you were on the ship.  It is sinking and there are a limited number of lifeboats.  You are not with your partner or children.  Would you follow the ‘women and children first’ rule?  Be honest – it is all anonymous!  Vote now….

My answer is simple: save myself and the child

It would be against my ‘religion’ to put the woman and child before myself, which is based on a personal interpretation of the Abrahamic texts. I answered both questions by the way. Whilst my sex is man, my gender is 19% female and 81% male so I had a right to answer the one relating to females. So I voted that most men would put women and children they have no relationship with before themselves. But then most of these men are probably walkovers who are pathetic excuses for human beings.

Survival of the fittest – If there were only two spaces on the boat, I’d take the kid and let the woman drown. Neither she, nor any other person is more important than me – they are certainly not above God!