Hi, in the interest of honest and unbiased representation of the truth, I'd just like to point out a few things:
"Throughout history and in virtually all human societies marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman."
Now while this statement may be strictly true, as you haven't said that all societies exclusively practice heterosexual marriage, I think that we can all agree tradition and history are not always the best way of doing things. To cite only a few examples, the traditional place of a woman was in the home, raising children. Would you also say that a woman doesn't have the right to choose her place in society just because its traditional? And would you also say someone of a lower social class cannot make his or her way up into better fortunes because traditionally that was much harder? Of course, I can't say for sure that your answer to either of those questions is no, but I think your outright bigotry would be more evident if you said yes. Either way, tradition is really no more than tradition, and no tradition should be justified simply because its traditional.
As you might imagine, in the more 'traditional' past, there were many reasons why such a tradition might have existed. The technology and medical knowledge to conceive of a child without sexual intercourse between a man and a woman have only recently been developed. Evidently, there was no way to have a child in a same sex marriage without adoption before this technology was developed, and adoption was far less common, to the point of non-existence in much of humanity's past. So you might imagine that only the tradition of opposite sex marriage developed. However, the need for such inequality has long since passed, and more progressive ideas are taking it's place.
"Marriage reflects the complementary natures of men and women."
Such a statement fails to understand the complexity of sexual and romantic attraction. Although currently a majority of the population (perhaps 80-90%) finds their personality complemented by someone of the opposite sex, to say that the nature of all men is complemented by women, and vice versa, is at best ignorant and a gross simplification of a complex truth.
"Although death and divorce may prevent it, the evidence shows that children do best with a married mother and a father."
Following on from the previous statement this also continues a theme which supposedly only applies to heterosexual couples. Before such an assumption could be credible, evidence would need to be supplied, adjusting its results to account for the many factors which may have nothing to do with the actual parenting. For example, a child of two lesbian or gay parents may experience social stigma at having two mothers or fathers, and may suffer at school because of it. The same could have been said of the children of black or mixed race couples a few decades ago. But this doesn't mean that denying the couple marriage will solve the problem of social stigma; indeed, it will help to lessen it, as fellow children see that the marriage of two people is a perfectly normal thing.
"Civil partnerships already provide all the legal benefits of marriage so there's no need to redefine marriage."
You are correct in saying civil partnerships provide legal benefits, but I think its fair to say that if you thought they were truly equal to marriage that you wouldn't support them. Civil partnerships send the message to society that a certain type of people are not worthy of a right given to everyone else, and while recognized by the state, are often not considered credible by society. It fosters discrimination and segregation.
"It's not discriminatory to support traditional marriage. Same-sex couples may choose to have a civil partnership but no one has the right to redefine marriage for the rest of us."
Yes, as pointed out in my last paragraph, it is. You're so called traditional marriage actively prevents a specific type of people from marrying. If one understands the meaning of the word to mean differentiating between people of different types, it is very clearly discriminatory to support a discriminatory institution. Furthermore, marriage has been redefined on many occasions, simply within british history, such as the legalization of divorce.
I would agree with you that it would be completely against your human rights for me or any other person to redefine the confines of your marriage, perhaps by forcing you to marry someone of the same sex, as you've made a loving commitment to your partner that it would be completely unreasonable for anyone to ask you to change. But unless there is direct involvement in your marital affairs, legalization of gay marriage does not redefine 'the rest of our marriages'. However, if you feel so strongly about it, perhaps the campaign should be about the renaming of 'marriage' as 'heterosexual marriage' and the introduction of 'marriage' for all people who don't mind sharing their institution with a few raging homosexuals.
"If marriage is redefined, those who believe in traditional marriage will be sidelined."
Er… no.
"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."
In what way would my career be harmed if someone else got married? Gay couples are already allowed to adopt, and a marriage would provide a stable and safe environment for children to be brought up in. If the exclusion of straight couples in adoption procedures becomes a problem, I'm sure the government can legislate against it.
"If marriage is redefined once, what is to stop it being redefined to allow polygamy?"
Until you explain why this would be a bad thing, this possibility fails to shock me or convert me to your misinformed and discriminatory cause. If you are really curious, I am not polyamorous (nor am I gay, bisexual, or straight), but there is absolutely no reason for me to prevent more than two people from marrying (although only in the rarely heard of group marriage form, rather that a man having multiple wives, as I feel this is discriminatory to women). The way you presented such a possibility makes it sound as if you think the government is dead set on driving people towards perceived indecency, whereas it seems to me that all they are trying to do is legalize gay marriage, allowing tens of thousands of people a better chance in life. If its any consolation, regardless of my opinions about it, many people would agree with you about polygamy, and I highly doubt the government will rush to legalize it any time soon.
"People should not feel pressurised to go along with same-sex marriage just because of political correctness. They should be free to express their views. The Government will be launching a public consultation on proposals to redefine marriage. This will provide an opportunity for members of the public to make their views known"
Yeah, we wouldn't want any straight people marrying other straight people of the same sex. Don't marry unless you feel attracted to him/her. I understand that that isn't the full scope of what you meant, and I think this is important to say: I'm not against the expression of distaste for same sex marriage. After all, I'm a strong supporter of human rights, and I'm only able to express my own views to you because of this right to free speech. And as a supporter of human rights, I support a person's right to marry.
I've explained to my satisfaction, and to yours, I hope, that all of your arguments are misrepresentative of the truth, incorrect, discriminatory and misinformed. Any rational person supporting the exclusion of same sex couples would be expected to take some time to reevaluate his/her opinions after being exposed to such new information. However, if past experience is anything to go by, this will not occur. I can only assume that your opposition to same sex marriage is therefor not based on an objective and rational interpretation of the facts, and is actually fueled by hatred, fear, or a homophobic interpretation of a religious doctrine. Whatever the case, I would be very glad to hear from you about your (hopefully revised) opinions about same sex marriage.
