I’m not going to preach or pontificate, or at the very least I’ll try to keep all preachiness and pontifications to a minimum. I simply thought that maybe an every-mans view of the issue may be more tolerable to some than the endless opinions of the pseudo-intellectuals, politicians and religious zealots.
I may, however, swear and cast aspersions.
Before I begin I also want to say; being a guy that is into chicks I straight up acknowledge that there are many people out there far more knowledgeable on the subject than I am. You know, people that have actual experience being in same sex relationships and are therefore far more qualified to comment on how marital prejudice personally affects them and their relationships.
In Australia same sex marriage isn’t a thing that exists. Weird right? Australia, the land of sun, surf and being raucous while drinking too much isn’t chill when it comes to two consenting adults wanting to get married.
Under federal law same sex couples in de facto relationships do have the same legal rights as their different sex counterparts. Well, aside from that time the United Nations Human Rights Committee called Australia out for breaching its human rights obligations and not allowing divorce proceedings for same sex couples that married abroad.
However, as it stands, same sex couples in Australia can’t get married.
So recently, in a populist and weak willed move lacking in any testicular fortitude, the current Australian government began the process of undertaking a country wide postal vote to gauge the populations willingness to accept a change to the Australian Marriage Laws to include same sex couples.
With the campaign to win postal votes in full swing this divisive issue is, um, dividing the country and essentially forcing people to choose between two camps. The YES camp, full of condescending, leftist, know-it-all, wankers and the oft forgotten same sex attracted peeps. And the NO coalition, primarily made up of redneck bogans and the religious zealots of the alt-right.
Modern politics everybody!
Excluding the same sex attracted peeps (wtf!?!), both parties are equally ugly, though in this instance, the YES voting camp of condescending, leftist, know-it-all wankers, and, you know, the same sex attracted peeps, are on the right side of the war.
In my most humble of opinions.
The NO voting opponents of the proposal to change the Australian Marriage Law are more than willing to pop up in the news media, or facebook feeds, to openly espouse their views regarding how letting two people of the same gender marry will destroy us all and irrevocably ruin the fabric of decency in Australian culture.
However, despite the vigour of their rhetoric, I’m yet to hear any cognisant argument as to why anyone would want to oppose such a change. All I hear are the same basic ass arguments which all fall apart under the slightest scrutiny.
Here. We. Go.
- Same sex marriage is threat to freedom of speech and expression.
I feel it’s kinda the opposite of that… but there’s purportedly a fear held by the NO campaigners/voters that freedom of speech will become endangered should same sex marriage become legal. That it may become unlawful to express disdain towards the idea of same sex marriage.
Personally, this is the sole point the NO campaigners have expressed that I have actually given more than a passing thought to.
In Australia we already have Hate Speech Laws which, at a Federal level, primarily only cover racial vilification. Though the states have differing addenda attached to said laws that cover various other situations.
I’ll openly admit that I haven’t quite made peace with the Hate Speech Laws.
Don’t get me wrong, judging / persecuting / vilifying someone based on their race, colour, ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender identity, HIV/AIDS status or sexual orientation is fucking weak.
If someone is an asshole, they’re an asshole. It has absolutely nothing to do with any of the above. Just vilify assholes you know? Regardless of their race, colour, ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender identity, HIV/AIDS status or sexual orientation.
However, I understand the fear of not being able to express ones self due to possible governmental legal action. Which is precisely what I think the NO campaign is banking on.
Fear. It’s kinda their deal.
When it comes to free speech, I’m an all or nothing kinda guy. No matter how repulsive I find what is being said. So I’ll admit, this particularly hideous slice of fearmongering taps into what I personally hold dear.
Kudos, assholes, well played.
However, once you look beyond the surface, it becomes clear that the NO campaigners/supporters are far less concerned with actual freedom of speech than they are of using the idea of a hypothetical loss of freedom of speech to propagate their exclusionary vision.
It’s quite insidious.
To support this point I give you the following…
In a moment so completely mind blowing in its utter lack of self awareness, former Prime Minister and ardent NO campaigner Tony Abbott supported a petition to ban Macklemore performing his song Same Love at the NRL Grand Final. A petition created by NO voting former NFL player Tony Wall.
The situation would be hilarious if it wasn’t so frustratingly mental.
I will concede that legalising same sex marriage may indeed be a threat to some people’s willingness to openly express bigoted views, and I’m kinda ok with that. I mean, don’t get me wrong, you should be completely free to think and say whatever you want.
Much in the same way I should be free to think and say what an utter bigoted fucktard you are for thinking it’s morally wrong for same sex couples to get married.
Freedom of speech man, it’s a double edged sword.
- It will destroy religious freedoms.
There are people out there that unironically think the “We must protect the religious freedoms that restrict other peoples freedoms!” angle is completely legitimate. Fuck man, if you can’t see the idiocy of such a thought I don’t know what to tell you.
Go with god.
- Same sex couples already have (mostly) the same rights as married couples, marriage is just symbolic.
So… if it’s only symbolic… why the fuck do you care so much? It’s a bit rich to try and have it both ways.
Furthermore, how in the blue hell does two completely random people getting married affect your marriage?
If two completely random people getting married does somehow affect your marriage… your marriage must be pretty goddamn flimsy.
- What about the moral decline! Where does it end? With people marrying animals?! Or cars?! Or children?! Won’t somebody please think of the children!!
Eesh. Now we’re scraping the bottom of the barrel.
There is this thing called consent.
Then tell your children about it.
- Marriage is between a man and a woman.
Is it? Say’s who? I mean, marriage is not some immutable force of nature that can’t be changed.
It’s not fucking gravity.
We, as humans, have the power to change it. Marriage can be whatever we want it to be.
So, yeah. That’s my two cents. Your mileage may vary.
For the record, I don’t want to get married. The idea of marriage terrifies the shit out of me and I strongly believe anyone that willingly enters into such a pact is demonstrably mad.
That doesn’t mean that I think peeps wishing to surrender to the madness shouldn’t have the right to do so. Regardless of the gender of the person they want to marry.
In conclusion, I get that peeps already supportive of same sex marriage will, more than likely, agree with my assertion that it’s perfectly reasonable to support marriage equality.
I also get that those opposed to same sex marriage may write me off as a condescending, leftist, know-it-all wanker.
Which I get.
But if you’re against same sex marriage, and you’ve made it this far, I implore you to really think about it.
It’s such a small hurdle to get over.