Arguments are taking place all over the world at the moment as to the issue of gay marriage; here in the UK, over the pond in the US, the other side of the world in Oz. A lot of people are talking about it and sure, there are a lot of different reasons flying around as to why gay people should be allowed to get married just the same as straight people, and why they shouldn’t.

The Coalition for Marriage (C4M) is the umbrella organisation in the UK that is campaigning against Government plans to equalise marriage. On their website, they say:

If marriage is redefined, those who believe in traditional marriage will be sidelined. People’s careers could be harmed, couples seeking to adopt or foster could be excluded, and schools would inevitably have to teach the new definition to children. If marriage is redefined once, what is to stop it being redefined to allow polygamy?

If you, like me, read that and thought ‘tosh!’ then you probably needn’t even read the rest of what I have to say, but if you’re a bit on the fence, then by all means, read on.

Let’s first note that ALL of what C4M say there is baseless tripe.

Those who believe in “traditional marriage” (whatever that is) will not be sidelined. Straight couples will carry on getting married in churches, and registry offices, and hotels all over the country. They will carry on procreating, and they will get on with their lives just as they do now. The world, believe it or not, will not stop turning.

People’s careers could be harmed? How so? Because they… get married? I don’t get it. I mean, I can’t even come up with a counterargument for this because, quite frankly, I don’t understand how anyone’s career could be harmed by the State allowing two people who love each other to get married. It’s almost laughable.

Couples seeking to adopt/foster could be excluded – again, I don’t get it – and schools would have to teach the new definition. Okay, well, children may be children, but I can’t see it being that hard to teach a child that marriage is simply when two people who love each other come together in a legal union, to commit to one another, and to mark their love publicly and for the rest of their lives. The people at C4M are clearly underestimating our kids.

And, a-ha, polygamy! Yes, allowing gay marriage will lead to multiple-person marriages, maybe even incestuous marriages, or person-animal marriages, or underage marriages! For goodness sake, GET REAL. This is nothing but a bucket of codswallop.

Let’s get something straight (if you pardon the pun): equalising marriage isn’t about sidelining anyone, or discriminating against straight couples. It’s about giving gay couples the same rights as their straight counterparts and showing that they are just as valued by society as anybody else.

“Civil partnerships already provide all the legal benefits of marriage so there’s no need to redefine marriage”, they say. Well, there you go then. Case closed. Or is it?

No, it isn’t. To be equal but different is not to be equal. If the people at C4M consider gay people equal then why shouldn’t they be allowed to get married just the same as straight people? There is no such thing as ‘different equality’ and that’s because the logic of the concept is unfeasible.

Another thing that C4M state on their website baffles me:

Throughout history and in virtually all human societies marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman. Marriage reflects the complementary natures of men and women. Although death and divorce may prevent it, the evidence shows that children do best with a married mother and a father.

Yes, that’s right. They have the cheek to talk about history and divorce in the same paragraph! To that I have nine letters of response: Henry VIII. Anyone remember what he did? Yes, he redefined marriage. The Vatican wouldn’t give the old womaniser his way so he said, ‘Sod it!’ (I’m paraphrasing there, just in case you didn’t know), and went ahead and got divorced. Twice. And even chopped two of his wives’ heads off. Of course, that did no damage to marriage…

So they say that “divorce may prevent it [marriage]”, as though divorce were some strange and inexplicable natural phenomenon. Divorce is a human construct which effectively redefined – modernised – marriage! Fair enough, it doesn’t seem modern these days to insist on a divorce because your wife won’t give you a son, but still, it was modern then.

And we too must be modern today. We live in the 21st century where, in law at least, everyone is equal. Theoretically, we don’t discriminate against people because of their gender, their age, their religion, the colour of their skin, or their sexuality. So why – oh why? – do we carry on with this bizarre situation where, more or less, gay couples can get married, but they can’t call it a marriage, because we’re scared of offending the religious zealots who insist that marriage is their plaything?

It is not. Not anymore, at least.

The institution of marriage belongs to everyone in society and so, the State has a duty to provide for straight couples and gay couples alike, as though – God forbid – they were no different. (Wink wink.)

Same-sex couples may choose to have a civil partnership but no one has the right to redefine marriage for the rest of us.

Clearly, these people are nothing more than homophobes. This isn’t about ‘going against God’s will’ or some nonsense like that. This is the same old ‘them and us’ argument.

The blacks and the whites. The women and the men. The poor and the rich. The Muslims and the Christians. The homosexuals and the heterosexuals.

It’s about time we all took a stand for genuine equality and showed that we are proud to live in a tolerant society where love is love, no matter what.