A guest post by a member of Conservative Future Stirling, and a personal friend of mine - Alan Grant
The debate surrounding same-sex marriage usually takes the following form. The proposer, in this case those supporting same-sex marriage begin by stating that they feel that same-sex couples deserve to be allowed to get married. There is usually a brief pause and then the no side open up a series of arguments surrounding around outdated notions of what the contract of marriage is and what it does all the while sprinkling a little bit of whichever bronze-age creation myth in which they happen to have been brought up with some straight up bigotry and voila, the debate is half over. The next stage usually involves the yes side demonstrating at length (which, when dealing with the kind of argument they are faced with is admittedly not too long) just how ridiculous the no campaign is, after which each side packs up it's things and goes home. However, if we on the yes side (in case you hadn't guessed) are going to be adults about this issue, we cannot continue to rely on the no campaign offering us it's flabby underdeveloped torso into which to plunge our dagger. We have to argue on the merits of our case and prove to people not just why they should not back the no campaign but show them, categorically, why society would be better of with same-sex nuptials.
It is my humble suggestion that they yes campaign needs to focus on our two strongest arguments, in absence of an accepted political cliche, I suggest, for what it may be worth, to call them the argument from social justice and stability and the argument from prosperity.
The first of these, to the best of my knowledge, newly entitled arguments centres around, as the name would suggest, social justice and stability. The social justice aspect is fairly simple; how can a society which has decided that not only is homosexuality a form of legal sexual activity but is also a form of love and ought to be treated as equal to heterosexual love, allow for the mechanisms in place to enshrine and protect that love to be different depending on the sexual equipment of the parties to it? The answer is, it cannot. Either love is love or it is not, history (particularly modern American history) is fraught with situations which show that 'separate but equal' is never properly equal and there is no reason to suspect this of changing in recent times. In terms of stability, the argument is a little more complex. It is very difficult to argue that marriage is not good for society; when two people find love and wish to spend their lives together in a relationship which protects them (and continues to do so should the marriage fail, divorce being one of the more brilliant solutions to human problems in as much as it protects both parties indiscriminately) they generally become more productive members of society. Their actions promote positive societal values such as, fidelity, trust, love and companionship as well as providing stable homes for the raising of children. What could be more beneficial to the stability of society than allowing the maximum number of people the opportunity to enter into agreements which allow for these things? Simply put, legalising same-sex marriages would strengthen the institution of marriage and extend it's beneficial impact on society to it's maximum potential.
Even though the argument from social stability and justice out to be enough in itself to successfully garner a yes answer from anyone it is always advisable, when engaged in debate, to have reinforcements available, just in case your interlocutor is of a particularly callous economically minded nature. In the event of such an occasion I suggest using the argument from prosperity to seal the deal. With the exception of a few militant anarchists and left-wingers there are very few people who would be so brazen as to argue that prosperity and economic growth are bad for society. Add to this the fact that most married couples have one income more than and roughly the same expenses as a single person and the conclusion is obvious, married people tend to be more productive (in the strict profit/loss sense of the word). This leads us to the conclusion that married people are more productive, presumably as a result of the security of their union, amongst other factors. Therefore, it would seem impossible to argue that the act of opening up the facility to increase the amount of disposable income within the economy to the maximum extent would not serve as an for economic growth. If you add to this the fact that married couples tend to be savers (an excellent factor of economic stimulus) as well as the marriage industry itself being larger than most would believe, there seems to be no viable economic case against same-sex marriage.
If after presenting the two arguments above a yes campaigner still finds themselves up against a brick wall of bigoted opposition then I suggest only this. Remind your opponent that they are not talking about arbitrary fishing policy, or the finer points of the budget or about a new strategy of defence. This debate surrounds normal people, who are in love and just want a chance to have all the happiness which is the option of heterosexual people, they do not have to like it, they do not even have to privately approve of it but they ought not to stand in the way of love. The world we live in is barren and seemingly hopeless enough so how can they justify standing in the way of two people who just want to be happy together?
Closing this argument is a task which I never find particularly easy so I will take my lead from Keith Olbermann, formally of MSNBC and now of Current TV. He ended his passionate plea on the subject of Proposition 8 in California with these words from Omar Khayyam, and I propose to do the same, 'So I be written in the book of love, I do not care about that book above, erase my name or write it as you will, so I be written in the book of love'.
