No matter how well-versed we may be in the arguments against same-sex marriage, it always helps to go back to the basics of the “no” case.
As columnist John Skinner notes, few arguments against same-sex marriage are heard in the mainstream news, while pro-same-sex marriage arguments are constantly being pushed and promoted:
“Those pushing the debate for “marriage equality” assume the change is a self-evident good and we should all be on board. I wonder how many Australians have just assumed same-sex marriage has no consequences and haven't heard the case against the issue.”
As we begin a new year of debate on this critical issue, here are 3 reasons why we should think twice before legislating to rewrite our marriage laws:
1. Same-sex marriage advocates have proven themselves to be “violent and vitriolic”.
These traits were clearly demonstrated in the Mercure Hotel incident, when same-sex marriage activists made threats of violence toward staff in order to stamp out a meeting about traditional marriage:
Staff at the Mercure Hotel were threatened by same-sex marriage advocates via social media and phone calls, all because the hotel had taken a conference room booking from a collection of pro-traditional marriage groups, including Marriage Alliance. Boycotts are the order of the day, and they can be “easily extended to anyone connected to the target on the grounds that they are somehow helping your opponent”.
2. Same-sex marriage advocates demonise those who disagree with them.
Archbishop Julian Porteous of Tasmania and the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference were told they had a ‘case to answer’ before the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Commission for distributing factually based and respectful material regarding the consequences of same-sex marriage to parents of students enrolled in Catholic schools.
[I]f the [marriage] law is changed, any of us who wishes to say out loud that the truth of marriage is a man-woman thing could find themselves hauled before a tribunal or commission for breaking the law. Stripping marriage of the gender requirement sends a powerful legal and cultural message that gender is no longer relevant in the institution which is the building block of society.”
It becomes increasingly clear that a logical, fact-based argument for same-sex marriage does not exist. Since same-sex marriage activists cannot hold their own against the biologically based, natural argument for traditional marriage, they must resort to demonising traditional marriage supporters, and using any means necessary to silence them:
“Legal action against dissenters is a real and present threat. Reports of florists, bakers, and photographers being litigated against and fined for living out their conscientiously-held beliefs about marriage are easily dismissed as from the 'only in America' file.
3. Under current law, same-sex couples are already treated “equal” to opposite-sex couples.
As Skinner points out, there have been many recent changes in legislation aimed at making same-sex couples more “equal” in the eyes of the law. In fact, Skinner calls the idea of inequality “a myth”:
[M]ost Australians assume is that there is material discrimination against same-sex couples. Few know about the 85 laws changed in 2008 giving same-sex couples equality under the law with heterosexual couples.
Deputy Opposition Leader, Tanya Plibersek, confirmed that this change in law removed all legal discrimination against same-sex couples:
“We changed 85 laws at the time… We removed every piece of legal discrimination against gay men, lesbians and same-sex couples on the statute books.”
In summary, there is truly no argument for “marriage equality” because both same-sex and hetero-sexual couples are treated equally under the law. What is not “equal” however is the way traditional marriage supporters and same-sex marriage supporters treat one another.
What do you think? Is there a solid argument for same-sex marriage, or is the concept a distortion of an already equally treated society?