This article from my local paper is about the Labor candidate for the federal seal of Indi. It’s a political free swing for the candidate, because it’s on same sex marriage (SSM), where opposition is forbidden.
The candidate’s opponents might be grumpy about the easy run he gets, but I am more interested in the incoherent argument. The conclusion in no way matches the points made: a classic non sequitur. It runs like this:
- Eric (the candidate) has two mums. These mums have been together since 1980
- One mum, Roslyn, was turned away from IVF in the early 1990s
- Consequently, Roslyn went to Canberra for IVF, having to lie to get in. She had twin boys
- The family was nervous about schooling, but “right through school there was never any issue”
- Nowadays, things have changed and same-sex couples do get into IVF locally
- The two mums don’t want to marry
- THEREFORE Eric thinks the campaign for SSM very important
One of these points is not like the others.
The whole article makes it clear that the situation today, as understood by this lesbian couple, is accepting. Medicine, school, and society provide the safety they need. They are not in danger, nor excluded, but fit in well.
So, I would expect, the conclusion is that there is no need for changes in marriage law. Redefinition of marriage – which I argue is a great risk – is simply unnecessary.
On the basis of everything being fine, legal change is necessary. Couldn’t there be just one question from the journalist testing the strength of argument? Obviously not.