One of the most ludicrous arguments I’ve heard in a long time.
I don’t know why I do this to myself, but I read Christopher Pearson’s article in the Australian about gay marriage. The crux of his argument against gay marriage is its impact on national fertility. He claims that
Among the reasons the Greens are so keen on same-sex marriage is that they want to reduce the population and drive down national fertility. Their refusal to discriminate positively in favour of heterosexuality and uphold the distinctive value of normal marriage shows their political project yet again for what it is: a dead end.
How does Pearson think allowing gay marriage would affect fertility. Is he suggesting that some heterosexual couples will be so put off marriage if homosexuals are allowed into the club that they will refuse to marry themselves and would certainly not have children out of wedlock? Or perhaps he thinks that some gay couples, faced with the prospect of not be allowed to marry, will be do drawn to the holy state of matrimony that they will turn straight, marry someone of the opposite sex and have children?
Even if the question of marriage was just about children, which it clearly is not (is he about to outlaw child-rearing outside of marriage or for infertile heterosexual couples?), Pearson’s logic is fundamentally flawed.
