This is not a piece written to insult or vilify anyone. It is not an anti-LGBT rant. Rather, it is an appeal to what we used to call common-sense, to see the reality of what Australia is being confronted with in the fight to preserve marriage. In the interests of objectivity, I must disclose that I am a Christian, but my argument here is not from a religious perspective.
In the debate over Same Sex Marriage (SSM), the problem is that nobody seems to ask the most important question “What is marriage?” I don’t mean the legal definition, as that is what all the argument is about, but more “What is the purpose of marriage?” Putting aside any religious viewpoint, it is a societal construct that has been recognised in virtually every human society, and its purpose is to provide the widely-acknowledged best structure for the continuation of the human race – ie a father, mother and children.
In a secular world based on evolution, the only real purpose of the human race is to propagate itself through offspring, and marriage has evolved to provide that vehicle. In more enlightened times, Western society made provisions for its success by offering preferential tax allowances to married couples, but the intelligentsia decreed that this was discriminatory against de facto couples, and “we” blindly accepted that “they” know best.
The argument against marriage, and in favour of de facto relationships, was “Why do you need a piece of paper to prove your commitment to each other?” So, rather than encouraging de facto couples to get married, governments removed the preferential tax treatment and made it such that an unwed couple, both working, would have a greater tax benefit than a married couple with a stay-at-home Mum! These same “thought leaders” are now telling us that the “piece of paper” is so important that it must be available to people of the same sex who love each other!
Is that not duplicitous? One moment marriage was not important at all, the next its importance is so great that withholding it from a certain section of society is deemed a major cause of anxiety and trauma in the mental wellbeing of that section of the population.
If marriage, across all human societies, has as its primary purpose the protection of the propagation of the human race, why does marriage interest homosexuals? I’m sure some same-sex attracted people would argue that they long to be parents too, and undoubtedly that holds true, since it is a basic human instinct to want to continue your family line. But the reality of nature is that to continue one’s lineage requires the involvement of a member of the opposite sex somewhere along the line! Yes, we can create children by other means these days, but surely a society where an ever-increasing number of children do not have natural parents is not one that will survive very long?
So why is marriage important to the same-sex attracted community? In its true meaning they have no need of it, it serves no purpose whatsoever from a financial perspective, and it certainly can’t provide them with a child that continues their shared lineages! By recognising and understanding the true concept of marriage, there is absolutely nothing to be gained by society in redefining it to meet the demands of “marriage equality”, so the only possible explanation for these demands is a covert campaign to destroy marriage.
Marriage is not simply about “love between two people”, as supporters of “marriage equality” would argue. Indeed, given the number of arranged marriages throughout the history of the world, you could argue it’s not even about love, but is a practical arrangement to protect the continuation of society. It is not about having your “special day” to celebrate with your friends and family, like you would your 21st birthday, or your 50th. Marriage, and the relationship it encompasses between father, mother and their children, has a much deeper significance to the well-being of the human race. We need to respect the fact that it has existed so widely and for so long as evidence that it is a precious thing in its existing form. Is it not the height of arrogance to suggest that all the human societies over many thousands of years got it wrong, and that “we” are the truly enlightened ones?
As for the consequences of redefining marriage, they are enormous. It should be noted that the terminology has moved from “Same-Sex Marriage” to the less confronting “Marriage Equality” (because nobody can argue against the concept of equality, can they?). But we must not be blinded by the claims that we are only talking about allowing same-sex attracted people to marry. “Equality” opens up much wider possibilities. If marriage can be redefined once, then it can, and will, be again!
Once redefined, marriage will have no real value as a concept in our society, and there is then no absolute against which to measure the efficacy of future challenges. There can be little or no sensible argument against polygamy for example. This is not far-fetched, nor “illogical and outright offensive” as Penny Wong would have us believe. The UK Greens Party are considering polyamory as a viable alternative to marriage between two people, and already in the US a plural marriage request has been submitted in Montana.
Then, if the concept of marriage that has existed since antiquity is no longer upheld, why can’t a man marry his sister? It might be argued that it is distasteful, but that is an irrelevant argument! It could be argued that such a union shouldn’t be allowed as it might produce children with disabilities, but then the prevalence of having children later to accommodate one’s career also makes that a bigger possibility among other couples who are allowed to wed!
But let’s assume that the government has the wisdom to disallow brother-sister marriage on the grounds of potential gene pool issues. Then the question becomes “Well can a man marry his biological brother?” If SSM is legalised, and obviously there is no possibility of brothers creating a child together, what logical argument is there against it? If it is not wrong in the eyes of the people involved, and there is no harm done to anyone else, then surely it becomes a hate crime to speak out against such a union. So, it must be allowed – it is their right to enjoy the happiness that their love demands! And if that is allowed, on what grounds do we then continue to disallow brother-sister, father-daughter or mother-son relationships? Wouldn’t that be discrimination?
Taking it a step further, what about a man or woman and their pet? It might be for companionship purposes, or to protect the animal’s financial well-being in the event of the human partner’s untimely death. Now, the logical argument might be that for even a redefined marriage to take place, all parties must consent to the marriage (in order to save children from predators!). However, while a dog may not speak, it can surely show its devoted love for its owner, and many pets are demonstrably traumatised when separated from their loved ones. Surely, then, it could be construed that it would not withhold its consent to marry if it could speak? If there is no negative response, then it must be a positive one by process of elimination, which equates to consent! And if “love” is the only qualification required for marriage, then it must be allowed too.
If you think that is preposterous, the US Nonhuman Rights Project is already arguing that chimpanzees are legal persons, and Australia’s bio-ethicist, Peter Singer, has campaigned for years to allow apes to have “human” rights. If they become legal persons with rights, then they must be allowed to marry under the new definition of marriage.
So, if marriage has no absolute value to society, then all of these things and others would logically have to be allowed over time. Is that really what the majority of the “equality” supporters want to see happen? I hope not, but then the citizens of Rome did not foresee the end of their empire as they allowed great political and cultural changes, and the people of Germany, in the 1930s, did not foresee the catastrophic consequences of allowing Hitler’s rhetoric and bullying tactics to grow.
Australians are now being bullied into accepting the rhetoric in support of SSM. If you dare to speak out against it, you are vilified for being intolerant. Yet the intolerance of those in favour of SSM is such that if the Labor Party chooses to bind all members to the party policy on marriage, then any member who dissents in a parliamentary vote will automatically be expelled from the party!
Please do not let this happen!