“Defend your children, they can be taken by two gay men”: A scoping review of the conflating and diversionary discourses used in same-sex marriage debates

Abstract

The use of direct popular votes such as plebiscites, referendums, and postal surveys to determine the right of same-sex couples to marry have proliferated in recent years, particularly across the Global North. By including the public in the decision-making process, serious debates have been fermented about the morality of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) rights. Based on a scoping review of the available English language literature, this paper maps the key findings from 24 peer reviewed studies to offer a cross-national analysis of conflating and diversionary discourses used by pro- and anti-SSM advocates. This paper finds that despite ostensibly being about LGBTQ + sexual rights, these debates commonly conflate SSM with other unsubstantiated ‘threats’, categorised here as operating across the global, national, and individual levels. The findings suggest that SSM debates consistently conflated the issue with international human rights discourses, alongside notions of ‘race’, gender, family, and reproduction as a strategy to garner public opinion. This study reveals a complex network of discourses where the rights of LGBTQ + people are continuously harnessed for political agendas extending beyond the specific efforts to legislate SSM. This paper concludes with the limitations of this review and possible directions for future research.