Kevin Donnelly argues against same sex marriage from
Tony Abbott was right to argue in favour of traditional marriage after his party room vote. There are good reasons why people oppose same-sex marriage and the cultural left should understand that, writes Kevin Donnelly.
In last night's speech after the majority of Liberal/National MPs voted in favour of the current policy on same-sex marriage, Prime Minister Tony Abbott was right to argue that marriage should be between a man and a woman and that the Australian people should decide if there is to be a change.
Those wanting to introduce a private member's bill to change the definition of marriage, such as Liberal MP Warren Entsch, must now realise that the matter is settled until the people decide.
This is especially the case as many of the arguments in favour of same-sex marriage are flawed. Those wanting change argue that defining marriage as involving a man and a woman discriminates against lesbians and homosexuals.
Ignored is that there are many examples where society and the law allow discrimination to occur. Women-only gyms and clubs are allowed to exclude men and those under 18 are not allowed to view X-rated films and videos.
Many on the cultural left, often the strongest supporters of same-sex marriage, also argue in favour of positive discrimination where they believe some people should be treated differently to others.
Enforcing quotas to get more women into Parliament and bonus schemes to allow greater numbers of disadvantaged students into university are premised on the belief that not all should be treated equally and that it is permissible to discriminate.
Also ignored, for all intents and purposes, is that gays and lesbians already have the same rights as de-facto heterosexual couples. Commonwealth legislation was introduced under the then Rudd government, as noted by the Parliamentary Library:
(It) significantly changed the legal status of same-sex couples, recognising them on an equal footing to de facto couples in areas as diverse as taxation law, social security law, immigration and superannuation.
A second strategy employed by same-sex marriage advocates is to argue that anyone who disagrees is bigoted and homophobic. Wrong. The reality is that many of those opposed to redefining marriage do so for sound and carefully thought through reasons.
Christians, for example, believe that marriage is a sacrament blessed by God that can only be defined as involving a man and a woman. While there are some parts of the Old Testament that vilify homosexuals, the New Testament teaches that all are created in the image of God and that all deserve love and respect.
As stated by the Pastoral Letter, "don't mess with marriage", written by the Australian Catholic Bishops:
Every man, woman and child has great dignity and worth which can never be taken away. This includes those who experience same-sex attraction. They must be treated with respect, sensitivity and love.
It is also possible to argue from a secular standpoint, with minor exceptions, that heterosexual marriage is the norm across most cultures and for thousands of years. In his book, Inventing The Individual, Larry Siedentop described the significance and place of the family in ancient Greece and Rome and presents heterosexual relationships and children as defining characteristics.
When arguing that the definition of marriage must be changed to include same-sex couples, advocates often argue that the love between a man and a man and a woman and a woman is the same as that experienced by heterosexuals.
From a biological point of view, such is clearly not the case. Such is the physiology involved in procreation, and not withstanding the availability of surrogacy and in vitro fertilisation, that it requires a man and a woman. The optimum environment in which to raise a child also involves a mother and a father.
To state such is the case is not to deny that same-sex couples can have lasting, intimate and fulfilling relationships; rather, it is to argue that such a union should not be equated with marriage. It is also true, in most states and territories, that same-sex couples can adopt children or be foster parents.
Senator Penny Wong, in a recent debate organised by the National Press Club, argued that changing the marriage act to include same-sex attracted couples does not represent a threat to religious freedom.
The Senator argued that religious organisations and those individuals opposed to same-sex marriage had nothing to fear as, if the law is changed, the right to discriminate on religious grounds would be protected.
The evidence, both here and overseas, proves such is not the case. In Victoria, a tribunal found that the owners of a holiday camp who refused to host a group wanting to promote gay friendly activities had unfairly discriminated against the group.
In Tasmania, critics are threatening to take Archbishop Julian Porteous to the anti-discrimination commission for circulating to Catholic schools the Church's Pastoral Letter detailing its opposition to redefining marriage to include same-sex couples.
In America and England, faith-based adoption agencies have been pressured and some forced to close as a result of not being willing to facilitate the adoption of children by gay and lesbian couples.
The institution of marriage involving a woman and a man for the purpose of having children is one of the bedrocks of Australian society and is common across cultures and has existed for generations. There are good reasons why it is so enduring.
Dr Kevin Donnelly is a senior research fellow at the Australian Catholic University and Director of the Education Standards Institute.
In last night's speech after the majority of Liberal/National MPs voted in favour of the current policy on same-sex marriage, Prime Minister Tony Abbott was right to argue that marriage should be between a man and a woman and that the Australian people should decide if there is to be a change.
Those wanting to introduce a private member's bill to change the definition of marriage, such as Liberal MP Warren Entsch, must now realise that the matter is settled until the people decide.
This is especially the case as many of the arguments in favour of same-sex marriage are flawed. Those wanting change argue that defining marriage as involving a man and a woman discriminates against lesbians and homosexuals.
Ignored is that there are many examples where society and the law allow discrimination to occur. Women-only gyms and clubs are allowed to exclude men and those under 18 are not allowed to view X-rated films and videos.
Many on the cultural left, often the strongest supporters of same-sex marriage, also argue in favour of positive discrimination where they believe some people should be treated differently to others.
Enforcing quotas to get more women into Parliament and bonus schemes to allow greater numbers of disadvantaged students into university are premised on the belief that not all should be treated equally and that it is permissible to discriminate.
Also ignored, for all intents and purposes, is that gays and lesbians already have the same rights as de-facto heterosexual couples. Commonwealth legislation was introduced under the then Rudd government, as noted by the Parliamentary Library:
(It) significantly changed the legal status of same-sex couples, recognising them on an equal footing to de facto couples in areas as diverse as taxation law, social security law, immigration and superannuation.
A second strategy employed by same-sex marriage advocates is to argue that anyone who disagrees is bigoted and homophobic. Wrong. The reality is that many of those opposed to redefining marriage do so for sound and carefully thought through reasons.
Christians, for example, believe that marriage is a sacrament blessed by God that can only be defined as involving a man and a woman. While there are some parts of the Old Testament that vilify homosexuals, the New Testament teaches that all are created in the image of God and that all deserve love and respect.
As stated by the Pastoral Letter, "don't mess with marriage", written by the Australian Catholic Bishops:
Every man, woman and child has great dignity and worth which can never be taken away. This includes those who experience same-sex attraction. They must be treated with respect, sensitivity and love.
It is also possible to argue from a secular standpoint, with minor exceptions, that heterosexual marriage is the norm across most cultures and for thousands of years. In his book, Inventing The Individual, Larry Siedentop described the significance and place of the family in ancient Greece and Rome and presents heterosexual relationships and children as defining characteristics.
When arguing that the definition of marriage must be changed to include same-sex couples, advocates often argue that the love between a man and a man and a woman and a woman is the same as that experienced by heterosexuals.
From a biological point of view, such is clearly not the case. Such is the physiology involved in procreation, and not withstanding the availability of surrogacy and in vitro fertilisation, that it requires a man and a woman. The optimum environment in which to raise a child also involves a mother and a father.
To state such is the case is not to deny that same-sex couples can have lasting, intimate and fulfilling relationships; rather, it is to argue that such a union should not be equated with marriage. It is also true, in most states and territories, that same-sex couples can adopt children or be foster parents.
Senator Penny Wong, in a recent debate organised by the National Press Club, argued that changing the marriage act to include same-sex attracted couples does not represent a threat to religious freedom.
The Senator argued that religious organisations and those individuals opposed to same-sex marriage had nothing to fear as, if the law is changed, the right to discriminate on religious grounds would be protected.
The evidence, both here and overseas, proves such is not the case. In Victoria, a tribunal found that the owners of a holiday camp who refused to host a group wanting to promote gay friendly activities had unfairly discriminated against the group.
In Tasmania, critics are threatening to take Archbishop Julian Porteous to the anti-discrimination commission for circulating to Catholic schools the Church's Pastoral Letter detailing its opposition to redefining marriage to include same-sex couples.
In America and England, faith-based adoption agencies have been pressured and some forced to close as a result of not being willing to facilitate the adoption of children by gay and lesbian couples.
The institution of marriage involving a woman and a man for the purpose of having children is one of the bedrocks of Australian society and is common across cultures and has existed for generations. There are good reasons why it is so enduring.
Dr Kevin Donnelly is a senior research fellow at the Australian Catholic University and Director of the Education Standards Institute.
