Same-Sex Marriage in Australia

So Australia is now participating in a voluntary non-binding postal survey asking whether the law should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry. If it’s a majority “No” result, nothing will happen. If it’s a majority “Yes” result, our politicians in parliament have the option to look at that result, decide whether they want to vote on it, and then have said vote amongst themselves if they so choose. The whole thing is a real crummy and incompetent way to address the issue, and the postal system that has been designated is rife with opportunities for abuse/misuse, but here we are. A big chance to make a change. Of course, with the issue once again brought into the political limelight, the debate has started up once again. And it shouldn’t be a shocking surprise that I’ll be voting “Yes” on it when my survey comes in the mail.

The topic of same-sex marriage or “Marriage Equality” has been recurringly and hotly debated in Australia for at least more than a decade at this point. Whether it was on TV, Radio, Newspapers or Facebook, just about every argument for or against legalizing it has been trotted out by both sides: whether they be appeals to emotion, facts, tradition or populism. While it’s always been polarized, the tone of the debate has become increasingly vitriolic with the passing years, as more and more people in both online and offline spaces found less and less patience with the arguments of the opposition. Further exacerbating the issue was the growing number for developed first world countries legalizing it, along with various polls showing a majority in favour of changing the law. Needless to say, if you’re publicly opposed to same-sex marriage in this day and age, for whatever reason, you’re now more likely than ever to receive a pretty harsh response. And plenty would say it’s justified, me included.

I used to be much more passionate about this topic, so much so that I’d get into pointless extended and heated debates with strangers on Facebook over it, and would jump at any chance to see it talked about on TV. About a week ago I went and marched in a pro same-sex marriage rally in Brisbane, and it was an exhilarating and heart-warming experience. It was a positive and energetic atmosphere, with thousands of supporters and at most around ten counter protesters yelling about sin and comparing being gay to incest and cannibalism. Their presence was expected, but still surreal to see. I’d always been nervous and hesitant going to an event like this, as I’m a non-confrontational person by nature and didn’t think it was my place to advocate for people who could speak for themselves. But the whole thing got me in a pretty positive mood about the survey, as the public outpouring of support was fantastic. People of all ages and backgrounds united under a common cause, enjoying each other’s company in advocating something they genuinely believed in. It partly re-ignited my passion for the topic, even if only in that buzzing moment.

Polls can be telling, but not 100% trusted. Trump and Brexit showed the world that reality. So in combination with the postal system for this survey, I’m left with no idea as to how this result will turn out. It’s easy to sit in an echo chamber and be self-assured as to your own correctness, ideal even. But over the past few weeks, I’ve been exposing myself more and more to the arguments against same-sex marriage, even though at this point I’m fairly well acquainted with them. And my mind ultimately hasn’t changed with regards to what I see them as. When you ignore the most inflammatory and vitriolic elements, you see familiar patterns of thought.

There is a genuine fear of society changing, a fear of adults and children being forced to accept things they don’t fully understand, a fear of things moving too fast without regards to the potential consequences. They believe marriage as an institution, despite how much it’s changed over time from culture to culture in both a social and legal sense, is fundamentally connected to creating and raising children. They think children will always do better with their biological mother and father, and they disregard the studies on the children raised by same-sex couples as having too small self-selected sample sizes, and not addressing what they see as the relevant issues with regards to children’s health. They think it’s too soon to tell what the effects of same-sex marriage will be, as the first country to legalize it did so in 2001, and 10-20 years is not long enough to notice any negative effects. They worry about religious and political freedom of thought and speech, about the increasing normalisation of homosexuality and transgender people, about the “inherently special” role of heterosexuality and traditional gender roles going by the wayside. There are some who aren’t super religious or politically minded who are opposing same-sex marriage simply because they “don’t like being talked down to” or hate “political correctness.” They think the right to think and say that LGBT people are immoral, unnatural or disgusting is just as important and worthy of respect as the right of LGBT people to live openly without being subject to violence or legal discrimination. They think that changes to the defacto couple laws in 2008 rid Australia of any legal discrimination against same-sex relationships. They don’t see any cognitive dissonance between their views and their ability to treat their LGBT friends and family as human beings of equal worth.

Again, none of this is new. And again, despite coming from a genuine place of concern, it’s still irrational and unfounded.

Ultimately, for me it comes down to this:

  • Marriage as an institution has changed and will continue to change along with larger society. No single group has a monopoly on the definition of marriage, and in our modern society people get married for love, money, family, security, religion or tradition. Sometimes they’ll say they’re getting married for one reason, when actually it’s another. The “sanctity” of the institution is a myth that rarely holds up in practice, and has long since passed.

 

 

  • The core recurring tenets of humanity are Life (Birth), Sex (Love/Reproduction) and Death. Marriage is still important to society, as it embodies the tenet of Sex. We are living in times were sex is becoming increasingly disconnected from its purely functional purpose of reproduction, and closer to solely being a consensual display of extremely intimate affection and communion between humans. Marriage is a social and legal confirmation of that communion, and wedding ceremonies are a public and grandiose celebration of that communion. By denying same-sex couples the ability to enter the institution of marriage and label their relationships thusly, you are denying them a part of their humanity.

 

 

  • Civil Unions were a temporary sate based compromise early on that many on both sides of the debate were not 100% happy with. LGBT advocates didn’t want to be “separate but equal” and anti-LGBT advocates thought Civil Unions and their respective marital ceremonies were “too close” to what they saw as traditional marriages and wedding ceremonies. It once again came down to LGBT people wanting be seen as legally and socially equal and their opponents not wanting an inch of it.

 

  • LGBT people exist, and have always existed. There are LGBT children, and children who are directly or indirectly exposed to or raised by LGBT people. Criminalization or social stigma can’t or won’t change that reality. There are adults alive now who have been raised by same-sex couples who can vouch for them being just as wholesome and loving or neglectful and shitty as any heterosexual parents. Waiting 60-100 years to see “the real effects” of same-sex parenting is unrealistic and reeks of being disingenuous.

 

  • Pregnancy, fertility, children or plans to raise children are not a current pre-requisite for being allowed to legally marry. Neither is strict monogamy, despite the “till death do us part” in the current vows. Apparently there is more assumed sanctity and public good in a short lived, abusive, sham marriage between a heterosexual man and woman with neglected or mistreated kids born from accident, than a committed life long relationship between two women or two men who never have any children.

 

  • Children who were conceived via surrogacy or IVF for heterosexual or same-sex couples deserve to know where they came from and who their biological parents are, but that doesn’t automatically mean that said biological parents are fit or able to raise said children. Your true parents are the ones who raised you with love and care, not who gave birth to you. Injustices of the past that involved children taken from single mothers or aboriginal families against their will is not the same as friends or family of same-sex couples offering to help in the conception of children.

 

  • Thanks to centuries of legal discrimination and social demonization, LGBT people have higher rates of depression, anxiety, drug and alcohol abuse, and suicide. The “potential damage” done to society by accepting and normalizing LGBT people is vastly outweighed by the damage already done (and continued) against LGBT people in attempts to socially and legally suppress their existence and influence. No matter how much you might hate something like the Safe Schools Program, it’s goals and content are inevitably or already part of our society as long as LGBT people aren’t being violently oppressed.

 

  • The animosity directed at “No” campaigners and their views is not equivalent to the hatred LGBT people have suffered or still suffer today. Calling someone a bigot or a homophobe for their point of view is not morally equivalent to calling LGBT people degenerates or comparing them to child abusers or Nazis (who put LGBT people in concentration camps to be castrated and executed). One of these is a set of ideas that can change, is open to being challenged, and can directly or indirectly lead to harm being caused to certain people. The other is a shared immutable characteristic that is both harmless and intrinsically tied to being human.

 

  • The decline of public support for various religious or political points of view is inevitable as society changes. Our collective concept of what is moral and acceptable to think or say will always be in flux, a negotiated standard that shifts as time passes and our understanding of the world and humanity grows. Anti-LGBT views, no matter how politely stated or shrouded in concern (genuine or otherwise) for tangential issues, doesn’t change their inherently ignorant, un-civil or hateful core basis.

Sooo…yeah. When you see people instinctively dismiss the arguments against same-sex marriage, it’s probably because they don’t see any rational or logical basis for most, if not all of them. I’ve also heard libertarian and radical LGBT activist arguments against it, saying the institution of marriage is archaic and that the government has no place in the bedrooms of the general public. While I can see where they’re coming from, I still strongly disagree, as the institution of marriage isn’t as patriarchal as it used to be, and everyone should at least have the choice to participate. If you’re genuinely opposed to marriage, than you can boycott it by not getting married, and hope for its supposed decline as it gradually fades out of fashion. As for the government giving legal benefits to married couples, I struggle to see what the downside to that is? Further changes to defacto laws might be in order to further bridge that gap anyway.

But the people who compare being LGBT to paedophiles or wanting to marry the Sydney Harbour Bridge are not one dimensional cartoon supervillains, despite the insanity and cruelty of their beliefs and words. The type of people who go on TV to “debate” the humanity of LGBT people and their capability as parents, are the same people who might donate to charity and care deeply for their own children. It’s contradictory and hypocritical, but it’s par the course for human beings. To the people who have decided to #VoteNo because they don’t like being talked down to or being called ignorant and bigoted, I’ve got nothing for you, sorry. Once again, it seems like a marginalized minority is being forced to play nice with people who hold their livelihood in the balance. I’ll be repeating it till the day I die, but at some point we’re gonna have to accept that we’re not as informed, rational or intelligent as we like to think ourselves to be. Which means that, yes, when someone calls you bigoted or ignorant, they’re not 100% wrong just because you want them to be. You’re a human being after all, we all are.

Whoever reads this probably won’t be convinced of my point of view, as just about everyone has made up their mind at this point on this issue. So I’m not gonna yell at you to #VoteYes, because that’s a fruitless exercise. This was more me just venting and getting my current thoughts out in an extended form. So, if you got all the way to this point, thanks for reading. But as much as I can cynically see through such phrases as “Love Is “Love”, I doesn’t hurt repeating it as a general rule to think about.

 

Tags: , , , ,

Leave a comment