It’s good to see same-sex marriage being discussed again in Oz. Despite all the naysayers and bigots I’m sure it’s inevitable in some form, though it may not come as quickly or as easily as it should.
In the last couple of weeks the opponents of it have come out of the woodwork – right wing conservative politicians, religious nuts, and homophobes (often combined into one neat package). It’s a line-up of all the people I hope never to bump into in real life. There’s a fair representation of cunts in there, and they should be called out for it. The rest are either confused, stupid or misguided.
A good example of the stupid is the report this morning about a married couple threatening to divorce if same-sex marriage is legalised – because, they claim, the concept of marriage would become meaningless. Pretty nutty, but somehow not surprising. A quick walk around the office reveal that these nutters, quite rightly, are being ridiculed. I read a tweet that summed up the logic of it by stating that the same couple would oppose euthanasia by choosing to live forever.
Anyway, I don’t want to get up on my soapbox about this. I’m a liberal, intelligent, compassionate human being and so my support for such a bill should be self-evident. Rather I want to focus on one of the recurring objections to same-sex marriage that shits me no end.
Over and over again I hear the same old tired and ignorant complaint that marriage is about procreation – having kids. Ergo, since gay couples can’t have them naturally then they shouldn’t be entitled to get married.
Outside of a church handbook in some backward part of the world where does it say that purpose of marriage is having children? There are thousands, probably millions, of couples out there who deliberately choose not to become parents. It’s rough on them. Is their marriage invalidated by this decree? Is marriage void without children? Where does love fit into this?
It’s a foolish argument parlayed by foolish people (amazing how many foolish people are bigots too), and views marriage purely through the prism of religious belief – ignoring the fact that few Australians these days give two hoots about the church. In any case, if that’s the objection then it’s easily overcome by bypassing traditional ‘marriage’ by adopting a simple, legally binding union between two people, regardless of sexual preference.
Civil unions already occur. People do not ‘unite’ because they want to have babies – they do so because they love each other, want to be with each other, and want their union recognised. To refuse that to same-sex couples is not only discriminatory, it’s cruel.