The Same Sex Marriage Debate

Daniel Emerson argues in article 3/4 in today's debate series that the same sex marriage debate is a distraction:

Recently we in Australia have had the resurgence of the same sex marriage debate. Pushed mostly by the current rise of radical left wing organizations such as: the political popularity of the Australian Greens, some far left lobby groups and the media savvy Australian Sex Party. This topic is a very deep and emotional debate topic for those on both sides of the political divide. Differing polls have been quoted as saying a majority of Australia either does or doesn’t support the changing of the marriage act based on the political agenda of the pollster. Asking people whatever question you want, and seeking the desired outcome is inevitable with the agenda some of these groups are pushing.

The left would deem this to be simply about stopping the discrimination of gays and lesbians; about allowing them the deserved right to marry in a union. However the issue is substantially more complex than the single-surfaced layer they have recognised here. Most wouldn’t know that Gays & Lesbians have the exact same rights when it comes to housing, civil rights, and equality on every level under the law. Unsatisfied with this array of rights they push and push to change the marriage act. A marriage Act which, a majority of Australia, would consider one of the most sacred weave’s that bind family.

Even though Gays and Lesbians only represent 1 to 2 per cent of the population, the radical Greens Party, and other organizations, want to institute change a political policy that would affect Australia as a whole. Furthermore; it would completely undermine centuries of tradition. This also would be a slippery slope both in legal legislation about private institutions rights. It would lead to some independent, religious or exclusive schools (such as Islamic or Catholic) being forced to accept these changes even though they would most likely go against the will of the staff, parents and the school.

For the student having to attend a school based on their parent’s political agenda, potential discrimination and bullying could ensue. Attendance at such a school would undoubtedly promote their family’s political stance in such a way that probability of exclusion would be amplified dramatically. This impacts on the psychological development of our very own children. We must remember that freedom of religion is a basic human right, and that parents have the right to enrol their children in schools that reflect, and teach, the values they believe are important. Therefore, legalizing same sex marriages would open a door to another form of discrimination and bullying upon our children. Replacing one form of discrimination, for another.

Political and legal commentators have speculated that if the marriage act was changed once to recognize marriage as between anything other than one man and one woman, it would lead to a ‘slippery slope’ approach in being changed again to not exclude any other groups in society that might feel left out.

The allowance of gay marriage would be a segway into a debate over plural marriage, ie: triads. Three people getting married, or even the possibility of people marrying pets, would be legalised on the basis of being ‘fair’ to all forms of relationships. The controversial yet unofficial marriage of a pet to its owner has already occurred in Germany, a country which is on the brink of legalizing same sex marriage. Is this where you want the sacred act of marriage to be headed for in Australia?

On another note, it’s an absolute hypocrisy for those sitting on the left of the political spectrum. To be pushing this agenda, and screaming discrimination about the topic of changing the marriage act, yet when challenged or questioned on it, (as should be part of any healthy democratic process) they respond with inappropriate fury and hate. A solid example of this hypocrisy is the hate directed at the Australian Christian Lobbies QLD director Wendy Francis, with her being called such horrible things as a homophobe, a bigot and a f***ing idiot. All these rude comments formed over Francis’ taking sexual advertising out of the public sphere. Over relocating it where it’s not able to be accessed by Children, as part of the ACL’s outdoor advertising G-rated campaign. Whatever happened to accepting people of all political persuasions, not discriminating against people for what they believe and engaging in a civil debate?

Now this debate has been argued for a much longer time in places such as the United States, and despite this, in every state where same-sex marriage has been put to the people in a referendum, it has been defeated even in very liberal states such as California and Maine and I believe if put to a vote here in Australia, it would be defeated in the same way if the people were given the chance to vote. Furthermore: if the schools weren’t to co-operate then they too would be discriminated against. This would be through the loss of funding if, or when, they refuse to follow what the government has dictated.

Marriage to so many people worldwide is a sacred and wonderful thing. Many people are getting married every-single-day. We see images of a beautiful bride in a flowing white dress, walking down the aisle as soft organ music plays in the background. And there stands her beloved, at the altar, in his crisp black suit, ready to take his vows and commit to life together in holy matrimony. Let’s not tarnish this sacred tradition, and let’s not complicate and clog the political and legal systems with this debate. There is much more serious matters for our country to battle in this time. Note: our failing immigration system, terrorism and combating plague. Let’s not replace one form of discrimination with another, and let’s not fight for a right that leads segway into a man marrying his cat. Just let us not.

Daniel Emerson describes himself as a "conservative political commentator, tech junkie, social contributor and youth activist." If you disagree with this post, please email tandrews@menzieshouse.com.au with a submission so we can publish all sides of the debate! 

Comments

[oldskool]

1.

It wasn't many years ago that the gay lobby was claiming 10% of the population was gay. any idiot can tell that no where near 10% of people are gay.

another failed piece of propaganda from the looney left

[Richo]

2.

A fair point regarding the possible move by polygamy groups to also have their 'right' to get married.

I am not sure how it would go down in schools. Religious schools are generally protected under freedom of religion laws, but it would definitely create controversy.

If gay marriage was to become law, would the gay lobby stop moaning and complaining? I doubt it, so what would they want next?

[Mark Sharma]

3.

I didnt read the whole thing but I believe the author is saying that we should leave the marriage the way it is. If that's the case then he is right!

[Steve Michelson]

4.

Daniel Emerson describes himself as a "conservative political commentator, tech junkie, social contributor and youth activist."

I'd describe him as a clodhopper.

[Jessica Musulin]

5.

1. Social progression and matters like immigration and terrorism are not mutually exclusive. If legalising SSM prevents us fighting terrorism, then we have some pretty shitty politicians.

2. We can't legalise SSM because kids will be bullied: really? Seriously? I think if SSM was legalised, views would become more progressive, and we'd see less bullying to begin with anyway.

3. Marriage is a contract. Animals cannot consent to contracts under the law. Your argument fails there.

4. What is wrong with polygamy so long as the parties are consenting? Are individuals so stupid that they cannot make their own informed choices about their own relationships?

5. Tradition is important, sure, but if the government legalised SSM, what would actually change? We wouldn't all 'turn gay', our population wouldn't decline, and society would be just fine. Why is tradition so important that it can be justified to deprive a group of people a right they desire so badly?

Disclaimer: I prefer deregulating marriage to SSM, but it is at least better than the status quo.

[Ben]

6.

Excellent points. In Canada, they're now pushing for polygamy, meaning that the Left lied or are dumb. This is social engineering. Children are just social experiments, to some.

George Weigel (National Review) also makes this great point (quote):

We all know, or thought we knew, what marriage is, and to add the qualifier “gay” or “same-sex” is a tacit admission by the proponents of the practice that it requires an appeal to authority to enforce what seems strange, odd, not right. The verbal tic of “gay marriage” or “same-sex” marriage is thus itself a rhetorical warning sign that what was done in Albany was an exercise in raw state power, the state’s asserting that it can do X simply because it claims that it has the power to do so.

And that is an exercise of power that libertarians ought, in theory, to resist, not support.

End quote. They've decided that the state can redefine pre-government institutions, as Orwell warned.

[Jim]

7.

Easily the best part of this article is the by-line.

Can someone please tell these kids they are not "conservative political commentators" because they once had a half-baked, poorly written article published on Menzies House?

[TJ]

8.

I don't 100% support the 'abuse' targeted at Wendy Francis, but it was not simply in response to her advertising debacle, but in response to a range of her views previously stated. In fact, at least one of those facebook groups was created before she ever opened her mouth in the public forum about advertising.

And in response to the first commenter, the claim of 10% of the population being claim was originally a statement of gay, lesbian, bisexual and even those who identify as heterosexual but have had even a single same-sex liason in the past. Not to mention, that the 2% statistic is those who IDENTIFY as gay. Needless to say that there are many who are not comfortable in disclosing (or even personally accepting to themself) such information.

[SignedIn]

9.

"Political and legal commentators have speculated..."

LoL
A link to comments by Bill O'Reilly????

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

Seriously? You're trying to make a serious point with these comments by Bill O'Reilly?

"Bill O'Reilly again theorized that the legalization of gay marriage could lead to interspecies marriages"

As marriage requires consent this argument is nonsense.

btw- segway????

segway - a two wheeled self-balancing personal transport
segue - a smooth transition from one topic or section to the next.

Fail much?

[SignedIn]

10.

Let’s not tarnish this sacred tradition by allowing ..

- Protestants and Catholics to marry each other
- Christians and Muslims to marry each other
- Whites and Coloureds to marry each other
- Royalty and Commoners to marry each other

oh but wait .. we do!
Marriage has evolved over the years - it will continue to do so!

[Soren]

11.

@The Author...

RE: "A solid example of this hypocrisy is the hate directed at the Australian Christian Lobbies QLD director Wendy Francis, with her being called such horrible things as a homophobe, a bigot and a f***ing idiot ... Whatever happened to accepting people of all political persuasions, not discriminating against people for what they believe and engaging in a civil debate?"

Well for me personally, civility disappeared the moment I heard the ACL's Jim Wallace on TV one morning, unashamedly comparing me to an animal-fucker or a child-molester.

Compared to that, poor widdle Wendy's "f'n idiot" is positively flirtatious!

Get with the program - this ACL gay-hate mob is absolutely vile. THEY completely set the low tone, so it's just pathetic that they want to cry victim when they get a taste of their own medicine.

RE: "All these rude comments formed over Francis’ taking sexual advertising out of the public sphere."

Oh just so slightly wrong! Those complaints weren't about "sexual advertising". They were objecting to images of poofs!! (shock horror!)

Did you actually read the ACL form-letter that made up the majority of the complaints sent to Adhsel. They were positively dripping with invective about homosexuals.

Pft.

[Ben]

12.

What, until it's just anything we want it to be? Then marriage will be utterly meaningless. Perhaps that's exactly what some of the revisionists really want.

[Ben]

13.

It seems there can only be one victim group in this whole sorry saga and that's the homosexuals, as that fits the nice little leftist narrative that some terrible injustice is being perpetrated against them that can only be resolved by turning the idea of marriage and family on it's head. You fail to mention that 84 Commonwealth laws were amended in 2008/2008 so that homosexual couples are now treated in exactly the same way as heterosexual couples - even AME admit that. So where's the injustice? If you cared to do some research you'd find that Wendy Francis has previously complained about a number of other sexualized ads and won, but on this occasion she seems to have caught the attention of the victim group of the month. If Wendy is personally responsible for each of the Adshel complaints, I'm guessing you're taking personal responsibility for the abuse directed towards her?

[Soren]

14.

@The Author.

A more pathetic, self-interested set of arguments against gay marriage I've never seen collected in one spot.

Let's see...

1. "Most wouldn’t know that Gays & Lesbians have the exact same rights when it comes to housing, civil rights, and equality on every level under the law."

False. The "exact same" right and "equality on every level" would include the right to marry our partner.

As you say yourself, marriage is such a "wonderful thing", how could you even suggest that even the provision of *similar* rights (up to a point) is "equal" to such wonderfulness?

You have contradicted yourself.

2. "let’s not fight for a right that leads segway into a man marrying his cat."

Comparing two loving, CONSENTING adults to animals (who, despite what the Bible teaches, CAN'T TALK and give their consent) is at once insulting and idiotic.

In any event, you have failed to explain how same-sex marriage leads even to polygamy any more than hetero-marriage would, so your point is not made - even WITHOUT your disgusting comparison of gay marriage to bestiality.

You have even failed to explain why polygamy shouldn't be allowed at all, just made an assumption. But that's another topic altogether

3. "it would completely undermine centuries of tradition."

You like tradition, so you would be aware that traditionally marriage has taken many forms, and purposes. From arranged marriages to seal the exchange of property and the like, to the rampant polygamy condoned throughout the Bible.

Traditionally, divorce wasn't allowed. Why don't you spend as much time campaigning against that as you do against the gays? Surely divorce is a bigger threat to marriage than gay-marriage?? Unless your obsession with gays goes further than simply the marriage debate, of course.

Traditionally, slavery was ok. You like that tradition, do you?

Traditionally, women couldn't vote.

Traditionally, people cured diseases with slugs.

SO WHAT!?

Do you see? Just because something is traditional, doesn't mean it is good.

4. "it is only 1-2% of the population [references please???]"

If it's such a small number, what's your problem?

Less flippantly, though... are you SERIOUSLY saying that the number of people being discriminated against is a factor in whether people should care or not? Oh please!

And regarding putting people's rights to popular vote, if they'd listened to opinions such as that in the USA, miscegenation

You have heard the the description of democracy as being two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner?

This "minority" argument really only betrays your "I'm alright mate" attitude towards life; easy enough to be callous when you're part of the status quo, I'd imagine.

5. "For the student having to attend a school based on their parent’s political agenda"

Oh you are a little robot aren't you? Do you really think the relationships of gay people are worth nothing, and this whole thing is merely a "political agenda"???

Where the hell is your empathy? These are peoples LIVES you're sticking your oar into here, not simply some "political agenda"!?

Here's the hot tip: not everyone thinks in the same terms as a Young Liberal. Sheesh!

6. "potential discrimination and bullying could ensue... Therefore, legalizing same sex marriages would open a door to another form of discrimination and bullying upon our children."

Ludicrous. You're arguing that I shouldn't have children because bigots like yourself might bully them?

Here's a suggestion; how about you raise YOUR children not to be little homophobes instead of interfering in my life, you arrogant little upstart.

7. "It would lead to some independent, religious or exclusive schools (such as Islamic or Catholic) being forced to accept these changes even though they would most likely go against the will of the staff, parents and the school."

What does this even mean!?

Please explain why I should care one jot or tittle what the beliefs of the staff at some cathlic school are!?

What on Earth does that have to do with me marrying my partner???

Are you SERIOUSLY SUGGESTING the Catholic school system (or indeed the Catholic chruch) should have ANY SAY in how I live my life if I'm not a catholic?

Oh dear!

------

Now finally, amongst all these lame excuses you've rattled of to withhold this "wonderful institution", nowhere do you give what I suspect is your real reason.

Why won't you anti-equality activists simply just say what's REALLY on your mind, instead of all these confected excuses?

One is left with the suspicion that your reason is so stupid even you can't bear to write it down in black and white for the world to see.

P.S. Love the photo of the author grinning like a fool from ear to ear at what is presumably a wedding. It's so nice to see someone enjoying something that he wants to make sure other people can't enjoy themselves. Such a charitable thought from a lovely young man.

[Soren]

15.

"It seems there can only be one victim group in this whole sorry saga and that's the homosexuals"

Not at all, I agree that the ACL is an anathema to me. But the objective difference (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that I have no interest in how christians live their lives, and do not go out of my way to interfere in their personal lives.

The ACL, on the other hand, is obsessed with homosexuals; notably the restriction of rights, and the effort to ensure that society at large does not see gay as "okay". (Best not seen at all, in fact!)

We know that their position comes from biblical scripture - including (often literal) respect to the Old Testament (well, the bits of it they pick out, anyway! ;-)

It would be naive to believe that the ACL members have no antipathy to gay people either because of their religious beliefs, or personal bigotry, or both. We have seen the ANZAC day tweets and the the ones from Wendy's "office". I don't think there's any doubt about that.

We CERTAINLY know the ACL supporters who post on their website are the most egregious bunch of bigots and ignorant haters. (The ACL would do well to censor their supporters' comments as much as their detractors - for their own benefit!)

I am just a guy living my life, and there is basically this organisation that is waging war on me because of some insane belief of theirs in an ancient religion!

In a nutshell, they seem to think that everyone should follow the Christian rules even if they're not a christian! How impertinent! If they'd just bugger off and mind their own business for a change they wouldn't ATTRACT the WELL-EARNED lambastings they seem to be getting more and more these days.

>> "If you cared to do some research you'd find that Wendy Francis has previously complained about a number of other sexualized ads and won, but on this occasion she seems to have caught the attention of the victim group of the month."

Oh give me a break! Who cares if she's had a couple of ads removed in the past because they were a bit sexy? I'm actually inclined to agree with her that some ads go too far, and I'm not even that prudish!

This doesn't mean she objected to this particular ad for the same reason.

Are you SERIOUSLY arguing there was no anti-gay sentiments expressed to Adshel in order to ustify the ad's removal?

I HAVE read the complaints, I'd remind you...

The real kicker is that the ad itself is so CONSPICUOUSLY UN-SEXY! It's two guys, fully-clothed, hugging!

It's clearly the ad's brazen acknowledgement that normal-looking gay people might actually exist that the ACL got all huffy about!

"If Wendy is personally responsible for each of the Adshel complaints"

I dunno if she personally wrote the form letter, or wrote versions of it for different people or what, but it was definitely one person's thoughts, regurgitated and embellished 30-odd times.

"I'm guessing you're taking personal responsibility for the abuse directed towards her?"

It doesn't matter if it were Wendy herself or not, since she publicly endorsed the whole endeavour afterwards.

In any event, Wendy represents the ACL, and these are the ACL's supporters. There is no doubt in my mind that the ACL is largely a gay-hate lobby, amongst other things.

I would love to see you convince me otherwise, though!!

[Adnrew]

16.

Daniel Emerson is a Christian homophobe. BIG TIME!
What a load of crap. His argument shows that he is a bigot. Nothing more, nothing less.

[henry]

17.

Mr. Emerson's ancestors were probably in favour of the White Australia Policy.

YELLOW PERIL! *muwhahahah*

[Ben]

18.

Sorry, how exactly are individuals and organisations who support the time-honoured definition of marriage interfering in your personal life? Homosexuals are already full members of society and have the same rights and entitlements as all other members of society. The only apparent difference is that you don't have the ability to call a same-sex relationship 'marriage'.

[Soren]

19.

@Ben "Sorry, how exactly are individuals and organisations who support the time-honoured definition of marriage interfering in your personal life?"

Well, which "time-honoured" definition do you mean...?

- The one which existed before Christianity was even dreamed up?

- The one in which divorce was not permitted - and CERTAINLY not re-marriage after divorce? That definition, is it?

- Or do you mean one of the MANY definitions in the Bible, such as the polygamous Abraham (and his bevy of concubines!)?

- Or do you mean the same-sex marriage which has been honored for some time in other countries?

Please be more precise when you're asking questions in future!

But your question is fatuous anyway, no matter which definition of marriage you're referring to...

You seem to be asking how people who want to prevent me from marrying my partner are interfering in my life?

Does that not strike you as a rather silly question, Ben?? You're having a larf, right!? Hahaha. V. Funny!

---

@"Homosexuals are already full members of society and have the same rights and entitlements as all other members of society. The only apparent difference is that you don't have the ability to call a same-sex relationship 'marriage'."

You seem to be arguing that the ability to call it "marriage" isn't that big a deal. Nothing to get worked up about, huh?

Fine...

- if it's no big deal to you, then what's the problem, eh?? What do you care one way or the other? Why even bother commenting on a forum such as this one on the topic?

- if it IS a big deal, then your assessment that homosexuals have "the same rights and entitlements" is simply incorrect!

Either way, your "argument" for preventing my marriage from occurring is piss-weak, Ben.

Personally, I don't know how you can live with yourself being such an interfering busy-body, I'm simply not like that; I keep myself to myself, and what other people want to do with their lives is fine by me, as long as it's not harming anyone!

Personally, I don't think Christians should be allowed to marry and reproduce since they're all a bit retarded (that sort of magical bullshit might have been excusable in the 12th Century, but to still believe that rubbish in the 21st? Oh please! hahaha) BUT...I'd never lift a finger to interfere in their lives they way they seem hell-bent on interfering with mine. That's what makes me a better person.

Oh well, that's life I suppose! :-)

[Michael Webb]

20.

Nothing can be done to save real marriage sad to say. It is more a reflection upon our general community rather than demonising the political parties.

We cannot do the impossible. Civil unions is our best holding position however after watching COMPASS on the ABC where the homosexual men and women are saying they really do want marriage, the next fall back position is to just not allow that to happen in the Church through political imposition.

As one gay man said to me: 'if the anti same sex marriage pushers are serious, why don;t they go back to the days when legislation would have me arrested for what I do at home'.

I think this man is smart.

The whole Western world will succumb to this legal change eventually. There are not the numbers to hold it back.

Time to just be in politics to lessen the influence of one's economic enemies methinks and to forget the 'professional''Christians' and their culture war dumb approach to mixing it in the poltical game.

Sure, vote for real marriage and for life but do so whilst mixing it with the mainstream and not the kind of pretend Labor people- many of whom are ALP pragmatists and quite a few DLP-ers too. Best one can do is just jump in for the socio-economics, in my case for the working class and to forget the silly 'professional' 'Christians' who do not have a clue how to mix nor how to genuinely take up industrial issues for real working people.

[Nelson Koh]

21.

At the rate things are going and unless a clear definitive boundary is drawn that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, I forsee that it will eventuate into Bestial Marriage! Sci-fi movies of bestial beings (crosses between humans and animals) could well become a reality!

[Debate blog-Julio]

22.

The fact that this is a debate that should a society without complex or is looking to break some taboo subjects. Religion must be left aside when it comes to equality, but not when it comes to traditions. I hope that our traditions will never be put ahead of the civil rights of a person and that will be knocking down the barriers that will ultimately shelves in a place where it is impossible to find a certain logic and may create problems without the need for it.

[Dan]

23.

Daniel,
Great contribution to the debate.
Clear thinking.
Dan Flynn