The video is presented in a casual, jovial light backed by playful music and angular 2D graphics, but there’s a sinister undertone throughout, such as the simple statement in relation to sexual reproduction that ‘no two men and no two women can ever do this’, and in the fallacious arguments against gay marriage.
‘For the sake of our children’
The idea that marriage is all about creating families consisting of heterosexual couples for children of these families appears to be the Iona Institute’s main argument and culminates in the parting statement ‘for the sake of our children’.
Their argument is that all children need a ‘loving mum and dad’, and by allowing gay marriage this denies this for children of homosexual couples. Of course this argument doesn’t make sense for several different reasons:
- Gay marriage has nothing to do with having children. It is simply about the marriage of two people of the same sex. Some gay couples will have children, but others won’t. That’s something completely different.
- Earlier in the video, the Iona Institute make the case that ‘[the purpose of heterosexual marriage] is unique and important: to give [the] children the love of their mum and dad in one family’. The sex of parents has nothing to do with how much love they give their children. You can have a family with an apathetic mum and a dad who don’t give much love to their children, or a family consisting of a gay couple who give their children all the love in the world. What’s more, a gay couple and children can still be considered a family unit, just as a family with a heterosexual couple or a single parent can be.
- The statement that all children long for a ‘loving mum and dad’ also doesn’t make sense. I’d argue that children simply yearn for love from parental figures, regardless of their sex.
The whole child-oriented argument against gay marriage presents the idea that it’s wrong for a child to be raised in a family consisting of two male or two female parents. From my own experiences, it’s an uncommon scenario.
But if this is all really ‘for the sake of the children’, the solution to rectify this is not to make propaganda like this which abhors gay marriage, it’s to welcome families with same-sex parents and make it less of a stigma.
The brilliant irony in the video of course is in the part which seeks to label the case against gay marriage as non-discriminatory1:
As can be seen, the second definition they list in grey states that ‘discrimination’ is:
treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor [of a] person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which [the] thing belongs rather on individual merit; racial and religious discrimination.
Surely the argument that a man and woman’s love of a child is valid, but a gay couple’s love is not is exactly what this definition of discrimination states?
I still find it shocking that so many people hold these kinds of beliefs and broadcast them so openly, when to me they are so misguided and unaccommodating. It’s also scary how they are hidden behind campaigns such as these which have a friendly and playful façade, which gives them false justification and the impression that there’s nothing wrong with them.
I look forward to the day where we don’t discriminate based on sexuality and we call the legal and social union of two people – regardless of their sexes – simply ‘marriage’.
It seems that this part is simply creating a big asterisk against the anti-gay-marriage stance and trying to say “look, this isn’t technically discrimination!” to quell criticism rather than getting to the issue of the argument. ↩