In the first of a series of four articles on the same-sex marriage debate we are publishing today, Blaise Joseph argues that its proponents have failed to make their case:
This week’s ABC’s QandA program was a perfect example of how advocates for gay marriage are incapable of putting a strong case for gay marriage but get away without having to debate it. The program was a “Gen Y special”, with five “Gen Y” panelists. They were all in violent agreement on the issue of gay marriage. The arguments they presented in favour of gay marriage were:
- Marriage should be “between love and love” not a man and a woman.
- Banning gay marriage is like banning interracial marriage.
- “It’s inevitable”.
- “It’s so easy to change”.
- It will “make people happy”.
This is the case for gay marriage – it is an intellectual embarrassment. The fact that the ABC didn’t have a panelist (or even a tweet!) to challenge this happy consensus indicates they consider opposition to gay marriage so small that it can be disregarded.
But community support for gay marriage is grossly exaggerated. An Essential Media Poll from March this year, which simply asked “Do you think people of the same sex should or should not be allowed to marry?” showed support below 50%. When people make the assertion that the majority of Australians support gay marriage they cite a Galaxy poll showing 62% support. However, this poll was commissioned by the gay marriage lobby and the question contained a long preamble asserting other countries have introduced gay marriage, before asking whether Australia should follow suit. This is a clear case of push polling and can’t be taken seriously. In any case, our views on gay marriage should be shaped by what definition of marriage is best for society, not polling.
As a supporter of the current definition of marriage, I approach the issue from a public policy perspective. That is, what is the social benefit of having marriage, why does Government recognise particular types of relationships, and what definition of marriage justifies this in the best way.
Supporters of gay marriage, on the other hand, don’t consider the social impact of marriage. In fact, their whole case is based on the idea that two people of the same sex marrying each other doesn’t affect anyone else. They see marriage as an individual “right” and never put forward their alternative definition of marriage as between “two consenting adults” as being beneficial for society. In short, they don’t really care about marriage as a public policy so long as it doesn’t “discriminate”. This line of argument is effective, especially among my generation, because of its simplicity. However, the entire approach is contradictory – to say that the legal definition of marriage, meaning the social significance Australia attaches to marriage, does not affect society is an oxymoron.
The massive furphy which arises from this perspective, and often dominates the debate, is the idea that the argument about gay marriage is purely around gay rights, and whether you think gays should have a “right” to marry or not. This is ridiculous: defining marriage as between a man and a woman is not in any way denigrating gays. There is nothing “homophobic” about simply saying that heterosexual relationships make a unique contribution to society and marriage should recognise this. Proof of this is that many gays oppose gay marriage – this is because marriage laws are fundamentally a question of what’s best for society rather than a question of individual rights.
Once we accept this basic principle, we can actually have a rational policy discussion on the core of the debate: what is marriage and why do we have it? Marriage is when Government takes the extraordinary step of recognising a particular relationship as having a social significance. Everyone accepts that marriage is a sexual relationship. This nullifies the gay marriage argument of “marriage should be between love and love”. What they mean is any loving couple in a sexual relationship. Now, the question is: why? The only logical justification for this widely accepted principle is that a sexual relationship contributes something to society which non-sexual relationships physically cannot.
Heterosexual relationships are unique in this regard. They involve organic bodily union, through coitus. This, in turn, is inherently, innately linked to procreation, as part of the natural cycle of life and fundamental to the survival of humanity. Obviously, this is not the case with homosexual couples, because they are physically different relationships. Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman because society acknowledges the communal significance of the procreational aspect of heterosexual relationships. Changing the legal definition of marriage to “any two consenting adults” would mean the institution losing its significance.
The standard response to this line of reasoning is some puerile comment like “oh, so you’re saying infertile couples can’t get married?" This simplistic rebuttal completely misses the point. Firstly, heterosexual relationships as a whole, not any given one relationship, are an essential part of society by their very physical nature. The principle that heterosexual couples make a unique contribution to society is indisputable, and marriage is a recognition of this. Furthermore, it is ridiculous to say that any aspect of our understanding of marriage depends on all marriages adhering to that idea. For example, we all recognise marriage as involving love. But many marriages don’t really involve love (some involve domestic violence and even murder), but that doesn’t mean we can’t say love is important to marriage. The argument that procreation is unrelated to marriage, simply because some married couples don’t produce children, is ludicrous.
Besides, if you accept that the ability to procreate is irrelevant to marriage, then there are no logical reasons whatsoever as to why marriage should be a sexual relationship (rather than a non-sexual relationship, such as between two siblings), a relationship between two people (as opposed to three or more in a polygamous relationship), or a legally recognised and regulated relationship (since other forms of friendship aren’t legally recognised or regulated). Supporters of gay marriage have always failed to provide a coherent definition of marriage which explains these restrictions. The current definition is the only coherent, logical definition of marriage.
Despite this, there is a lot of pressure on politicians to support gay marriage due to the relentless campaign by the gay marriage lobby. But politicians should have the courage of their convictions to assess the definition of marriage on its merits. We should be thankful that at least our Prime Minister understands this.
Blaise Joseph is an 18 year old first-year Commerce student at the University of New South Wales. Blaise is am from Canberra and took a gap year in 2010 working at the Department of Broadband, Communications, and the Digital Economy.
Supporters of gay marriage .. don’t consider the social impact of marriage. In fact, their whole case is based on the idea that two people of the same sex marrying each other doesn’t affect anyone else. They see marriage as an individual “right” and never put forward their alternative definition of marriage as between “two consenting adults” as being beneficial for society.
That's just one group of supporters.
Another group of supporters are liberals (small l), who regard reliance on the 'good of society' as a socialist concept.
These demand that people who seek to supervise the private lives of individuals prove their case, and not vice versa, and start with a presumption in favour of liberty. From their perspective it is essentially irrelevant whether we approve or disapprove of gays getting married, because it is a private matter and none of the business of the government.
So, Mr 18 year old Joseph. Justify your socialist views.
Posted by: DavidLeyonhjelm | July 1, 2011 at 11:34 AM
Marriage is all about legal regonition- and nothing to do with biology, love or anything else. I don't understand how the granting of this legal regonition to people who cannot bear their own children, would hinder the biological urges of hetrosexual couples (married or not) and deminish their copacity to produce kiddies. Can you please explain this further?
Posted by: pk | July 1, 2011 at 11:44 AM
Marriage is of course a legal recognition - but the question is why do we legally recognise certain types of relationships. My argument is that marriage is (and always has been) between a man and a woman because it is a recognition of the communal significance of the physical nature of heterosexual relationships, and hence gay marriage is nonsensical.
I did not say anything like "legal regonition to people who cannot bear their own children, would hinder the biological urges of hetrosexual couples (married or not) and deminish their copacity to produce kiddies." Read the article.
Posted by: Blaise Joseph | July 1, 2011 at 12:31 PM
"Marriage is all about legal regonition- and nothing to do with biology, love or anything else."
I agree with you PK, but it does beg the question why this issue is so important to the gay community?
In eyes of Centrelink, Same sex couples and defacto couples living together have the legal rights as married couples.
http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/individuals/member_couple.htm
There is not extra recognition if you are married.
All states and territories have made changes to other laws to ensure same sex equality.
Really gay marriage is about shoving it up the church and religious groups.
Posted by: Richo | July 1, 2011 at 12:40 PM
What a brilliant article, good to hear some common sense.
"So, Mr 18 year old Joseph. Justify your socialist views."
I think he did, it's in the interests of society that it replicates itself – who'd have thought? – and so society has an interest in relations between a man and a woman. Relationships where children are involved shouldn't be able to be discarded like changing clothes – the family unit is best for raising children, so that's what government and society want to encourage.
Posted by: Andreas | July 1, 2011 at 12:46 PM
As I explain in the article: "Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman because society acknowledges the communal significance of the procreational aspect of heterosexual relationships." So there is a clear justification for the government recognising this type of relationship, but this is not the case with gay marriage.
I don't see how this is "socialist" - a clear majority of liberals would agree with me.
Posted by: Blaise Joseph | July 1, 2011 at 12:46 PM
Good article Blaise. I am yet to hear a coherent argument from gay marriage supporters of why, under their definition of marriage, it cannot also be extended to multiple-partner relationships if marriage is only about love and consent. If removing discrimination from the marriage act is the basis of their claim, then shouldn't restrictions on age, family marriage and bigamy etc also be removed?
Defining marriage itself is an act of discrimination because we are saying what it is and what it isn't. For those who conceive of marriage in a way outside its definition, marriage will always be seen as discriminatory. As a society we either hold to the objective, natural reality of marriage as the union of a man or a woman, or we give in to the revisionist tendency not to deprive people of that which they desire and allow marriage to become completely arbitrary and divorced of its historical roots. The latter option renders marriage completely meaningless.
Posted by: Ben | July 1, 2011 at 12:49 PM
society acknowledges the communal significance
Appeals to communal concurrence like this are socialist. Liberalism is about individualism, not collectivism.
There is no communal interest here. Humans are not in danger of becoming extinct just because gays get married.
Posted by: DavidLeyonhjelm | July 1, 2011 at 12:51 PM
Ben - "As a society we either hold to the objective, natural reality..."
Why does society necessarily equal government to you?
Would you not rather empower institutions (churches etc) to be able to enforce this through social mores?
TVA
Posted by: Tim Andrews | July 1, 2011 at 01:02 PM
Hi Blaise, very impressed with your article - especially considering your age. Your confidence and clarity have really hit the nail on the head.
I particularly like your sharp responses to points made which obviously do not engage the actual questions. You clearly have thought about this long and hard.
I have a few questions I would like to ask though that is maybe better not done on a public forum. Can you flick me through an email at [email protected]?
Cheers, Nick
Posted by: Nick | July 1, 2011 at 01:04 PM
I totally agree with the writer. Marriage can only happen between man and a woman. This is not a question of Individual rights. It is a question of what is right and what is wrong.
There is no discrimination against anyone in Marriage Act. Those who identify themselves as "Homosexuals" can also marry under Marriage Act. The only difference is that they can only marry someone of different sex.
There is no room for any homosexual marriage in Australia. Its non-negotiable!
Posted by: Mark Sharma | July 1, 2011 at 02:02 PM
Most staunch opponents of 'gay marriage' would be shocked to discover that homosexual relationships have also been around since the beginning of time, and that many same-sex couples have made contributions to their societies greater than they might have as individuals. Truth be told, it's as much of a traditional institution as the current definition of marriage, just one concerning a much smaller percentage of the population.
I'm not gay myself, so on a personal level I don't care if the law changes or not. But I have actually witnessed ludicrous situations where people were not allowed to visit their long term partners in intensive care wards ('family' only), were thrown out of their house with no inheritance when their partner died without a will, or forced to separate because they were citizens of different countries and not eligible for spousal visas. Most people would regard this as unfair treatment, even if you find the notion of homosexuality personally distasteful.
Given that modern-day, state-sanctioned marriage is as practical in purpose as it is traditional, I don't see any good reason why there shouldn't be fair legal rights extended to same-sex couples.
Posted by: Marksouth | July 1, 2011 at 05:29 PM
these issues you raise can and are addressed by society but need not infringe on thousands of years of tradition and a defintion of what marriage is.
Posted by: oldskool | July 1, 2011 at 06:00 PM
You're right, and I bet if they were addressed in law, this marriage debate would disappear almost overnight.
Posted by: Marksouth | July 1, 2011 at 06:26 PM
Blaise, in practicality, what do we actually gain from the current definiton of marriage? What sudden, negative change will we see resulting from same sex marriage? David Leyon is right - there is no communal interest here. We are not going to decrease our population, nor harm society by legalising same sex marriage. Personally I am in favour of deregulating marriage completely, but I'd rather see same sex marriage than the status quo, because the status quo does not offer any societal benefits, other than this 'tradition' you speak of. Is 'tradition' enough to deprive a group of a right they desire so badly?
Posted by: Jessica Musulin | July 1, 2011 at 09:32 PM
DavidLeyonhjelm said: "So, Mr 18 year old Joseph. Justify your socialist views."
Did you read the piece David? Your condescending reference to his age is cheap. Rather than encourage free speech, you seek to shame the young.
Oh. Yeah. And the communist and socialist parties are pushing for "gay marriage" across Europe, so you might want to think about that one a little longer before you pick on 18-year-old students.
Also, how is the taxpayer-funded ABC pointing a gun to conservative heads for cash freedom-y? Stacking TV shows with pro-designer fatherless family
activists is Orwellian, in case you haven't noticed.
Posted by: Ben | July 1, 2011 at 09:58 PM
Jessica: firstly, a particular group wanting marriage defined a certain way is not how you go about defining marriage - you define marriage based on what makes sense and what is a coherent definition, as explained in my article.
In regards to the practicality of marriage, there is nothing we'd practically gain from changing the definition of marriage. But I would argue that, as John Howard (apparently a socialist) said:
"Traditional marriage is one of the bedrock institutions of our society, and I don't want anything to occur that further weakens it. Marriage as we understand it in our society is about children, having children, raising them, providing for the survival of the species.
And I think if the same status is given in our society to gay unions as are given to traditional marriage we will weaken that bedrock institution."
Posted by: Blaise Joseph | July 2, 2011 at 10:01 AM
But other countries have legalised same-sex marriage without any catastrophe. Why should I believe that it will 'weaken the bedrock of our society'?
The only thing we can objectively say about legalising same-sex marriage is that it will please those in favour of it and piss off those against it. By referring to vague notions like the 'bedrock of society' you necessarily bring your personal moral views into the debate. A libertarian would apply a presumption against government intervention and a conservative would apply a presumption in favour of the status quo.
I would apply a presumption against allowing people to regulate behaviour which doesn't affect them, regardless of whether those people form a majority. Since there is no evidence that same-sex marriage harms society as a whole and many people are in favour of it, why should we prohibit it?
As to those who argue that if we legalise same-sex marriage we might as well legalise marriage in other relationships, I would also support polygamous marriage if:
- there was no evidence that it is harmful to society; and
- there were many people in polygamous relationships who wanted them recognised as marriages.
I don't think either is the case (although I'm not sure about the first point), and I'd consider my position further if a pro-polygamous marriage movement emerged.
Incestuous and child marriages are different because it would be illegal for the parties to have sex.
Posted by: liberal elitist | July 4, 2011 at 01:24 PM
"Furthermore, it is ridiculous to say that any aspect of our understanding of marriage depends on all marriages adhering to that idea."
Umm... exactly...
So if some marriages don't adhere to the 'norm' of being between a male and a female who are capable of bearing children, it is not going to alter the overall understanding of what marriage is, or devalue marriages either individually or overall.
PS - you failed to mention that the Essential Media poll you referenced also showed that opposition to same sex marriage was only 40%
Posted by: CeeJay | July 5, 2011 at 02:31 PM
'Incestuous and child marriages are different because it would be illegal for the parties to have sex.'
You beg the question of why it is illegal for such parties to have sex. Where is your basis for saying that the state should prosecute those who have sex under these terms? A world where we just change the definition of marriage because same-sex partners would like to be married is also a world where the law becomes subject to the wishes and desires even of a tiny minority.
Posted by: Ian | August 24, 2011 at 03:39 PM
The parallel you attempt to draw here is not valid. Actually bearing children is not integral to the definition of marriage but the possibility of coitus and conception with a life-long commitment of fidelity is. No sexual coitus is possible with any gay or lesbian couple unless we change the definition of coitus and no procreation between gays/lesbians is possible either.
Posted by: Ian | August 24, 2011 at 03:48 PM
Marksouth, As you say, fair legal rights should be extended to same-sex couples and there the discussion should end. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman which might result in the creation and support of a family.
Posted by: Gemini | August 28, 2011 at 10:38 PM
I've never seen a greater farrago of meaningless waffle dressed up as pseudo-intellectual pretension. Same-sex marriage will hurt no-one. It is not some magical gateway to the permission of criminal perversion, nor an assault on the nation's child-bearing statistics. If it is to be conceived of as an assault on some mythical bedrock of tradition, then I would much prefer moving towards the increased happiness of the nation's citizens, than cleaving to some nebulous 'tradition' whose only value seems to be in keeping some people locked into a status as second class citizens.
Your notions of marriage are outdated, and in fact invalidate many existing marriages completely. Blaise Joseph, learn to structure an argument. Learn about notions like evidentiary support and definition of terms. The single failing of the right in presenting a cogent argument, is the tendency to find an ideological conclusion first, and then uncomfortably mold the 'facts' of your argument to suit your conclusion.
You people are simple-minded, foolish creatures whose attempts to appear reasonable are laughable.
I would urge you all to grow up and join the rest of us here in the 21st century.
Posted by: Mike | September 15, 2011 at 07:58 AM
Oh you fool. Child marriages are illegal because of the notion of consent. I hope I don't have to explain to you what consent is. A child cannot give consent to sex or marriage because of the broad assumption, represented in law, that a child cannot be well-informed enough to grant consent. Prohibitions against incest spring from the same origins, protecting a minor against the sexual depredations of an older family member.
Your final sentence is nonsense. A single issue, supported by a majority of Australians (whether you like that fact or not), is not an instance of the law being changed or controlled by a minority. If anything it represents the polar opposite - a situation where the law remains unchanged, despite majority support for change. Your misreading of the interaction of public support and change to the law in this instance, cannot be immediately assumed as a licence for minority demographics to effect sweeping legal change continually on a permanent basis.
Stop pretending to be intelligent dumb-ass.
Posted by: Mike | September 15, 2011 at 08:11 AM
Oh yeah, Mike, and your arguments are sooooo intellectual! In spite of the fact that it's just a personal attacking rant and doesn't actually address anything said in the article, you come across as such a measured, reasonable, intelligent person.
And since you're so intelligent, why don't you read up on the issue a bit more? Why don't you read this paper (http://ssrn.com/abstract=1722155, click on one-click download) for example? That is, if some of the words aren't too complicated for you.
Posted by: Tommy | September 16, 2011 at 04:42 PM
SSRN Abstract Database Search Results
The abstract you requested was not found.
Please check your search criteria and try again.
Interesting bit o research there Tommy.
Posted by: Vikas Nayak | September 16, 2011 at 07:22 PM
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155##
click on one-click download
sorry :)
Posted by: Tommy | September 16, 2011 at 07:38 PM
Seriously though, worth a read.
Posted by: Tommy | September 16, 2011 at 07:39 PM
That article is farcical
http://wakingupnow.com/blog/reply-to-george-vi-marriage-man-woman
Posted by: mick | September 17, 2011 at 01:15 AM
mick, the only thing farcical is that response! That author quotes out of context, resorts to puerile mocking, and doesn't actually engage with the thrust of the argument. George et al. responded to several rebuttals of their paper from other professors, (see http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/12/2217 and http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/263679/real-marriage-sherif-girgis) but that "waking up now" blog is, as you'd expect from an online blog, an intellectiual embarrassment.
Posted by: Tommy | September 17, 2011 at 08:24 AM
It's marriages like Kim Kardashian's marriage which undermine the insitution of marriage, not gay marriage. Here the 'social significance' with Marriage is that gay people do it cuz they love each other, not because they can make $17 Million out of their wedding, much like Kardashian did.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/springracing/8368026/kim-kardashian-files-for-divorce
Posted by: A Liberal | November 1, 2011 at 12:23 PM
A Liberal, that is amazing - you actually think Kim Kardashian is an argument for gay marriage. I guess we can add that to the list of stupid arguments at the top of this article.
I can't believe people are actually so illogical that they would redefine marriage based on one silly case - incredible.
Posted by: Tommy | December 4, 2011 at 09:43 AM
The world is on fire and this is what we are all shouting at each other about, for god's sake people...!
Posted by: Lillith | December 5, 2011 at 01:36 AM
Excellent article Blaise, well done. This formula has worked succesfully for thousands of years.
Posted by: MattP | March 20, 2012 at 08:44 PM
Finally! Someone looking at this issue from a logical rather than an emotional point of view. And you're only 18! You would hope issues of public policy that could involve changing one of the pillars of our society would be debated fairly and based on logic, but sadly the gay hype has overtaken Australia!
Posted by: Heidi | July 17, 2012 at 04:33 PM
Mike, there is no need to dissolve into personal attacks, name-calling and label-placing immaturity if you have logic to base your debate on. It makes me chuckle when these aggressive same-sex marriage supporters employ the same level of maturity to this debate that cranky children would in a school yard. Yet somehow they still have the audaciousness to assert that they are "superior" and "progressive" and everyone else is inferior because they disagree with them. To me, this seems nothing more than an adult tantrum.
Posted by: Heidi | July 17, 2012 at 04:43 PM
Yes, I agree Heidi. Very impressive 18 year old.
Posted by: fran | May 2, 2013 at 04:46 AM