I'm probably preaching to the choir here, but let's give 'er a go, shall we?
Please read the following as actual reportage. It's not an analogy, a simile or a metaphor. The subject under discussion really is the eating of peas on a Thursday.
Religious group A believe that eating peas on a Thursday is an abomination unto the Lord.
Religious group B, interpreting the same scripture, believe that eating peas on a Thursday is perfectly fine.
Group C maintain that there is no god, and that the eating of peas on a Thursday should be left up to individual conscience.
***
A large minority of group A petition parliament to have a law passed, making the eating of peas on a Thursday illegal not just for themselves, but for people of groups B and C as well.
Given that opinion on the morality of eating peas on a Thursday is split,* the government looks at research into whether any harm can be shown to accrue from eating peas on a Thursday.
*Yes, yes, 'split-peas.' Very punny. CoughRemcoughigiuscough.
Virtually all medical experts who aren't affiliated with religious group A state that eating peas on a Thursday has no detrimental effect on the human body. In fact, they say, some people who have a particular affinity for peas seem to be a lot happier and less stressed if they're able to eat peas on Thursdays.
Many of the less dogmatic of the experts affiliated with group A state that it's purely a religious edict, and that peas on Thursdays aren't detrimental to bodily health.
Only the small minority of experts who are already dogmatic members of group A are of the stated opinion that eating peas on a Thursday is harmful.
The government weighs the evidence, taking into account possible biases of the various experts, and states that eating peas on a Thursday is legal, but not mandatory. If your religion forbids you to eat peas on a Thursday, they say, then you are under no legal obligation to eat peas on a Thursday. However, they go on to say, no one should be forced against their will to forgo peas on a Thursday.
First make a note of your reaction. Was the government decision practical and sensible?
Now go back and read it again, but this time as an analogy wherein the eating of peas on a Thursday is standing in for same-sex marriage.
Now do you think the government decision is practical and sensible?
If you thought the government was wrong in the first, pea-eating, scenario, I'd be mildly interested in your reasoning—though I suspect you're beyond reason. Try reading it again, imagining yourself as a member of group B or C—or, if you can stretch that far, as a person with a pronounced taste for peas.
If your answer changed as the subject changed, I'd really like you to explain why in the comments. How do the two scenarios differ in principle?
—Daz
My reaction to the peas debate was that the government should have no say in the matter and should not waste public money looking into the question.
The same goes for same sex marriage.
Yeah, in an ideal world I’d agree. My peas analogy featured a government being asked to make same-sex marriage illegal, whereas in the real world, they’re being asked to keep something illegal that wasn’t legal before. Unfortunately, that means they’re already involved.
Ah. I see your point. So, this all goes back to the Medieval dominance of the Church in England and its insistence that we all abide by its arbitrary beliefs. No change there, then.
Aye, that’s about the shape of it.
Oh, and congratulations on finding a reasonable reason for disagreeing with the government in my first scenario. I should’ve known some clever git would make me regret that bit of snark I threw in…
All I am saying, is give peas a chance.