IT HAS been apparent that the marriage-equality debate is an important issue among homosexual and some heterosexual groups.
However, while there seems to be a lot of random opinions being thrown in, I don’t think the actual facts have been presented. I will aim to clarify some things for the readers in this letter.
“Marriage is about religion.”
This is a false statement. Marriage is a secular contract presided over by the government, like taxes.
Religious people get married, atheists get married, agnostics get married.
All these groups get divorced and these groups even remarry.
Some churches won’t marry interracial couples, or previously divorced couples. They’re welcome to do that, as it’s their right.
But that doesn’t preclude these people from marriage altogether, because it’s secular.
“It only affects a small number of people, so why bother?” The “only them” argument has consistently been shown, throughout history, to be reprehensible.
We can’t afford to stand by while “only them” becomes a chorus of our own inability to act.
One day, and this is the lesson we still haven’t learnt, is that “only them” could become “only you”.
It’s a lonely outpost.
Would they care to make the same argument about disability funding?
“It’s about procreation or children’s rights.”
Then you might also want to ban marriages that take place later in life, beyond a couple’s childbearing years.
Or you might consider banning marriage for heterosexual couples who don’t want children.
Families are about procreation, adoption or surrogacy.
Marriage is about love between two individuals. And as the Finance Minister pointed out, since when has marriage been a prerequisite for children?
“What’s next, bestiality and incest?” Oh please! Animals can’t provide consent, and bestiality is an avenue where consent can’t be provided in a “loving” relationship.
Unless your donkey has a Speak ‘n’ Say, there is no consent.
And there are medical reasons why incest is frowned upon.
But there is no decent, scientific, medical or moral reason why two loving, consenting, non-related adults should not be afforded the same rights as the majority.
“What about morals? You may destroy the sanctity of marriage.”
Only gay marriage could do this – not 43-minute weddings, not two heterosexuals jacked up on cocaine slurring the words “I do”, while two homosexual men in love are forced to say “I would”.
The morality argument is an insult to human intelligence.
“Can’t we just call them civil unions?”
This is just a nice way to gloss over the issue. In actual fact, it still creates a divide. Equality is not about the words themselves, but what rights are available and who has access to them.
“But the Marriage Act clearly says it is between a man and woman.”
Yes, it does. Unfortunately, that act wasn’t amended by scholars in the 4th century. It was amended by John Howard in 2004.
It was a deliberate move to exclude and it didn’t take long to execute.
Amending the act would be simple and absolutely no impediment to the debate whatsoever.
These are some simple facts about homosexual marriage and the arguments that this necessary change faces.
While we would all like to make the argument and stay steeped in tradition, along with racial discrimination and women not being allowed to vote (let’s not forget that, Ms Gillard), it’s about time we gave up the needless stupidity of arguments against human rights and made a move for equal love and equal rights.