The gay marriage debate puzzles me, in the ways that so many of these kinds of debates puzzle me: everyone seems to be arguing about the wrong things.

The arguments against it seem to consist of the idea that if God and John Howard decreed that marriage doesn’t include same sex couples it must be true; and that children need a mother and a father, and any move to allow gay marriage will somehow result in Australian primary schools all turning into a replay of Lord of the Flies.

Mindboggling stuff, and if it sounds like I’m making a straw man argument, well, have a listen to this

The legal definition of marriage, inserted into the Marriage Act in 2004 under John Howard, is: “Marriage, means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life." If the antis are so wedded to this definition, why are they silent on the issues of adultery and divorce? Why is it only the “man and woman” bit that matters to them? If Oh-Won’t-Someone-Think-Of-The-Children is the basis of their argument, why aren’t they demanding that we ban single parents?

The answer is, of course, that their objections have nothing to do with their poorly stated position, but are the product of fear and ignorance, which are difficult to mould into a rational argument.

As for that last refuge of the ignorant, the slippery slope argument, no, it doesn't hold any water either. If we allow gays to marry then anything could happen, a man could marry his dog, his bicycle, even his favourite pair of trousers. There’ll be an avalanche of people marrying each other’s trousers, parents will abandon their children and run off to polygamous trouser-marrying communes, society will collapse and we’ll all be eaten by giant reptiles. It shows a breathtaking lack of comprehension of the most basic human psychology. Marriage is an atavistic concept and it’s been around much longer than God or John Howard. It’s mostly driven by the need to ensure survival of offspring and partly by human requirements for community and companionship. Long term commitments between two people support those both those objectives, and the need for them is not going to change as long as we have brains (I use the term loosely) and reproductive organs.

Sadly though, the advocates of gay marriage don’t seem to be doing a better job of arguing their case. It all seems a bit petulant-foot-stamping, it’s-not-fair, don’t-you-oppress-me, which might be all very fun and empowering, but it misses the point by a pink mile.

Governments should not be enacting laws banning anything other than direct physical harm to life or property. Freedom of speech and thought, without fear of political or judicial interference has to be protected from the self righteous minority who believe they have the right to impose their prejudices on others. And that’s not a slippery slope argument, it’s an absolute.

Two people arranging some new outfits, a big party and making a promise to stay together until they change their mind, does no physical harm to anyone or any thing. Calling it marriage, civil unions, registered relationship is meaningless semantics and the very idea of governments legislating what words people can use to describe their relationships is abhorrent.

People may well feel offended or threatened by gay marriage, if they do they should be able to say so as loudly as they choose; but they should absolutely NOT have the right to pressure governments into legislating against it.

+ 1

+ 1