Agents against change ...

While we're on the topic of tiring of people who want to oppress the LGBT community & keep them separate & make sure they can't live openly, honestly and freely as committed & married couples in society, I tire of their nonsensical arguments.

When they can't appeal to reason & open communication, they resort to scaremongering, such as saying the LGBT community is going to cause a breakdown in the moral fibre of society, they will be harvesting straight couples' children for the gay cause, somehow allowing two people to marry will result in people wanting to marry animals, etc., etc..  With these points they merely show themselves to be fools.

When they can't scare people into following their points of view, they resort to trying to convince people that the LGBT community is not deserving of equality, because they are somehow not whole people ... they are not created in God's image, they are sexual deviants who should be shown (or trained) how to be 'normal', they are a result of a broken world and should be pitied but not equal.  With these arguments they just show themselves to be bigots, wanting to get people to side with them, because they're somehow superior (ie. school bully mentality).

If that doesn't work, then they resort to the argument that the LGBT community has never had equality before, and things have been ok, so why change now?  We've never had equal marriage before, so why introduce it now?  Of course, if this argument had been successful with other equality issues in the past, we wouldn't have women in the workplace, mixed marriages, the disability discrimination act and we'd still have slavery.  This is never a good argument against change and just shows them to be irrational and bigoted.

On BBC Breakfast this morning, MP Peter Bone claimed that Equal Marriage should not be introduced, because it wasn't in the Conservative Party Manifesto (appealing to the 'Why introduce change now' method of reasoning).  I'd like to address this fallacy.  It was indeed in the Conservative Party Manifesto 2010 - A Contract for Equalities (page 14), where it states:

We support civil partnerships and will
recognise civil partnerships in the tax system.
our plans to end the couple penalty in the
tax credits system and to introduce a new
system of flexible parental leave will apply
to all couples, regardless of whether they are
heterosexual or same sex couples.
We will also consider the case for changing the
law to allow civil partnerships to be called and
classified as marriage.

It was also covered by the press (see Pink News article here), so can't have been a surprise.

However, this has already been covered with Peter Bone by the LGBTory group (covered in this article by Pink News).  This seems to show another strategy that those against Equal Marriage attempt to employ ... they ignore the evidence, and keep making their claims, in the hope that saying it often enough will convince people of it's truth.

They're running out of reasons to oppress ... I'll be interested to see what comes up next.