From time to time we get unsolicited letters relating to one or other of our campaigns or policy stances. This one queries why the minority of LGBTI people in our community are being “allowed to undermine the rights of the majority.” RSA board member Hugh Harris responds …
To RSA: On Civil Liberties and Human Rights, by Marianne Melnikas
I take great offense at Gay Marriage that is marriage equality. The LGBTI group will never have the equality of heterosexual couples. Why, simple as a norm a heterosexual couple can produce offspring without the need for a surrogate, donor egg or donor sperm. Yes some heterosexual couples do have trouble conceiving and need assistant of IVF, however this is not the norm.
For LGBTI people they will always need assistance to reproduce, why should a minority have a access to a program which was originally set up to assist otherwise childless heterosexual couples. Now it is down to whoever has the money.
As to actual marriage ceremony, it should be confined to civil ceremonies only, the State does not have the right to tell any religious body what services they can or cannot undertake.
LGBTI play both sides of the coin, they co-habitat and claim to be single when claiming Government Assistance. Yet a heterosexual couple are less able to make the same claims.
An individual, regardless of their sexual orientation, should not be forced to provide a service to a LGBTI couple wishing to marry or arrange to have a child. The right of the individual is being set aside to satisfy the LGBTI group, therefore discrimination is taking place which is not being addressed.
Why is this? Why are a minority Group being allowed to undermine the rights of the majority?
To Marianne Melnikas Re: Offense at Marriage Equality
Thank you to for your letter to the Rationalist Society of Australia outlining your “great offense at Gay Marriage”. Your argument provides an insight into some of the objections to Same Sex Marriage. In responding I’d like to try to clarify precisely what your offense at gay marriage entails, because your argument appears to fall prey to the fallacy of the non sequitur. As I’m sure you’re aware, this occurs when the conclusion does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement, often referred to in shorthand as “does not follow”.
You say “the LGBTI group” will never have equality with heterosexuals because “as a norm” they don’t produce offspring. And then, you readily acknowledge that some heterosexual couples cannot produce children either. You ask why should the minority LGBTI community, who will “always” need assistance to reproduce, have access to IVF which was set up for childless heterosexual couples? Well Marianne, why shouldn’t they have access to IVF? You seem to have omitted your reasons for excluding them. Aren’t both the LGBTI community and childless couples minority groups? What exactly is your rationale for wanting to grant the rights of one minority group and deny the other?
Even if IVF was set up for heterosexual couples, there’s no reason why this fact should exclude other couples. We need to assess the legitimacy of your reasoning to prohibit LGBTI couples. Perhaps a clue is found in your first sentence highlighting your “great offense”. Why take offense? Implied within your argument is the premise that because LGBTI couples cannot naturally have children, they should not be allowed to. You might also recognise this as the “naturalistic fallacy” — ie, just because something is natural does not necessarily mean it is right or good. MIT cognitive scientist Steven Pinker describes this as follows:
“The naturalistic fallacy is the idea that what is found in nature is good. It was the basis for social Darwinism, the belief that helping the poor and sick would get in the way of evolution, which depends on the survival of the fittest. Today, biologists denounce the naturalistic fallacy because they want to describe the natural world honestly, without people deriving morals about how we ought to behave (as in: If birds and beasts engage in adultery, infanticide, cannibalism, it must be OK)”.
I’m confident you don’t ascribe to the naturalistic fallacy, and so I’m confused as to your “great offense”. Is it because of their sexuality? Because they’re not normal or immoral? They offend you because they are different?
You go on to assert several ways you feel LGBTI couples are infringing on the rights of individuals. Individuals may be forced to provide services to gay couples wanting to marry. But aren’t LGBTI people individuals also? What about their rights? It appears you want to deny their right to marry and raise children because they are a “minority” and “not the norm”.
But equality does not depend on what is the norm.
We assign rights on the basis of our shared humanity, rather than how similar we are to each other. That’s the whole basis of civil rights. That’s why it’s offensive to segregate black people, to refuse to service them or to relegate them to the back of the bus. Our rights do not depend on being part of the majority. Quite the opposite, in fact, as modern notions of human rights are rooted in the post-World War 2 Declaration of Human Rights which specifically sought to protect minorities.
You make the curious claim that governments should not have the right to tell any religious body what services they can or cannot undertake. Notwithstanding the fact that no government has proposed that churches be forced to perform same sex marriages, your assertion also subordinates our democratically elected government to any group claiming to be religious. Is this intentional? Should any religious body have carte blanche to perform any religious service? Think of exorcisms, animal or child sacrifice, circumcision, crucifixions, self-flagellation (such as Ashura day), sharia punishments, infant dropping, vine jumping and countless other harmful practices. I’m confident your answer would be no.
You claim that LGBTI couples cohabit but claim to be single, while claiming Government assistance, whereas heterosexuals are less able to do so. What evidence do you have of this claim? Wouldn’t this be a consequence of the law disallowing them to marry? So, if we make Same Sex Marriage a reality your problem is solved.
Feel free to respond with the missing premises of your argument. Irrespective, I hope this response provides some food for thought.
Rationalist Society of Australia
We received no further correspondence from Ms Melnikas.