Right: Dr David van Gend, a GP and Queensland secretary for the World Federation of Doctors who Respect Human Life: "... the tragedy and brokenness of a motherless or fatherless home should not be inflicted on a child by the law of the land."
.
Arguments against legalising gay marriage
1. Marriage is traditionally a union between a man and a woman
It has been argued that gay marriage should not be allowed because it denies the fundamental nature and purpose of marriage.
The argument is made that marriage is primarily an institution intended for the conception and rearing of children. Christopher Pearson, writing in The Australian on November 20, 2010, stated, 'Most men are not naturally disposed to be monogamous ... One of the purposes of marriage is to bind them to their spouses and children for the long haul and to give the state's approval to those who enter such a contract and abide by its terms.'
Pearson further stated, 'Another of the purposes of marriage is to affirm that parenthood is a big, and in most cases the primary, contribution a couple can make, both to their own fulfillment and the public good.
It follows that societies which want to sustain their population size, let alone increase their fertility level, should positively discriminate in favour of stable, heterosexual relationships and assert the preferability of adolescents making a normal transition to heterosexual adulthood.'
Relatedly it has been claimed that legalising gay marriage would encourage gay parenting. There are those who believe that this would be unfair to the children concerned. In an article published in On Line Opinion on November 24, 2010, Dr David van Gend stated, 'The most serious objection to gay marriage is that it means gay parenting, and gay parenting means depriving a child of either his mother or his father. A child deserves at least the chance of a mum and a dad in her life, and same-sex marriage makes that impossible.'
David van Gend went on to argue, 'There are already tragic situations where a child is deprived of a mother or a father - such as the death or desertion of a parent. Some broken families reform as a homosexual household, and nothing can or should be done about that. But the tragedy and brokenness of a motherless or fatherless home should not be inflicted on a child by the law of the land.'
2. Allowing gay marriage will undermine the institution of marriage
It has been claimed that marriage as an institution has been under concerted attack for at least a generation and that allowing same-sex marriage would merely compound this.
On August 13, 2010, Dr Alan Carlson, the editor of 'The Family in America' gave an address in Sydney in which he stated, 'Australia has not been immune from other legal changes over the last several decades, which taken together have weakened marriage as an institution. These include the elimination of legal distinctions between births in- and out-of-wedlock; abortion laws that ignore the claims of the husband/father; the acceptance of cohabitation as a legal status, providing some of the benefits of marriage without the corresponding duties; [and] the elimination of "fault" in divorce proceedings, which has had the effect of rewarding infidelity while ending the community's interest in marriage preservation'
Opponents of gay marriage claim that legalising such unions would be the final legislative step in a steady trend toward the undermining of the institution of marriage.
Tim Cannon of the Australian Family Association has stated, 'The institution of marriage is an ancient and long-standing one. Before tampering with such an institution according to present trends in public opinion, legislators should carefully consider why a public institution of marriage exists at all.
We suggest that marriage is not an exercise by which the state arbitrarily recognises and celebrates some relationships but not others. To the contrary, marriage is the means by which the state deliberately identifies and protects a particular type of relationship - the uniquely progenerative male-female relationship - which carries a unique (and not inconsiderable) significance for both contemporary Australian society, and for the entire human species.'
According to such social critics, to change the definition of marriage is to damage it. They therefore hold that if Australia were to redefine marriage to include same-sex unions, then the institution of marriage in this country would be harmed.
3. Politicians should act according to their best judgement, not simply be directed by the wishes of the majority.
It has been argued that the fact that a majority of the electorate now appears to support same-sex marriage is not sufficient reason for the Australian parliament to enact it. There are many decisions governments take which would not be endorsed by a majority of voters. Many surveys have indicated that a majority of the electorate support the re-introduction of capital punishment. This however, is an issue on which Australian parliaments have exercised moral leadership, arguing that capital punishment is not merely ineffective but contrary to the moral values that best typify this country.
Opponents of same-sex marriage argue that our parliamentarians need to act similarly in relation to this issue.
They claim that a majority of Australian have unclear and ill-considered views in relation to the institution of marriage. The fact that over forty percent of Australian marriages end in divorce is taken to indicate that many within the electorate are confused about the nature and value of the institution - perhaps both entering it and leaving it too easily. It has been suggested that instituting supposed same-sex marriage would only serve to exacerbate such trends.
Scott McInnes, in an opinion piece published in On Line Opinion on December 17, 2010, stated, 'On the issue of gay marriage, [politicians'] duty is to determine the morally relevant principles and arrive at the most morally defensible position. Consulting the electorate can only be justified in so far as it assists the member to discharge that duty.'
Mr McInnes went on to argue, 'When our elected representatives consult us, we should remind them of the job we are paying them to do: to make reasoned and principled decisions on our behalf. In deciding how they should vote, we should ask them to exercise their own best judgment and conscience, without fear or favour. This will relieve them of the impossible task of determining "the moral will of the people" and refocus their responsibility where it properly resides.'
Placing the responsibility for making the best possible decision in the hands of Australia's parliamentarians means that their views should not simply be shaped by the majority opinion on an issue.
4. Same-sex couples already have significant legal and civil rights
It has been claimed that the legalisation of same-sex marriage is essentially a symbolic issue as same sex couples already enjoy most of the legal and civil writes that attach to heterosexual couples.
The Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, has stated her belief that Australian customs and traditions dictate that marriage within this country should remain a union between a man and a woman. She has, however, stated that her government and preceding governments have taken steps to do all possible to ensure that homosexual couples have equal rights under the law.
Ms Gillard has stated, 'We believe the marriage act is appropriate in its current form that is recognising that marriage is between a man and a woman, but we have as a government taken steps to equalise treatment for gay couples.'
At the end of 2008 the Australian Government amended eighty-four laws which discriminated against same-sex couples in a wide range of areas including taxation, social security, employment, Medicare, veteran's affairs, superannuation, worker's compensation and family law. Some of the new or amended laws were effectively immediately while others commenced on 1 July 2009.
Looking in more detail at some specific instances, same sex couples are now treated equally to heterosexual couples in income and assets tests for entering aged care facilities. Under the new laws, the home of same sex couple is not counted in the assets test. Same sex partners are recognised under Federal and state compensation laws. This means that if one partner died in a work-related accident, the other partner may be entitled to compensation. Same sex partners are recognised under motor accident compensation laws. This means that should a same-sex partner be killed or injured in a road accident, the other partner may be entitled to compensation.
Opponents of gay marriage argue that same-sex couples are not effectively discriminated against under the law as they have most of the rights available to married heterosexual couples. All they are denied is access to a type of socially-sanctioned union for which their particular choices or inclinations disqualify them.
5. Legalising same sex-marriage would encourage the legalisation of less conventional unions
It has been claimed that by legalising same sex marriage the Australian government would encourage other unconventional unions to seek to be legalised. The main instances that are usually given are polygamous and/or bisexual unions.
Bill Muehlenberg is the secretary of the Family Council of Victoria, and lectures in ethics and philosophy at various Melbourne theological colleges. Mr Muehlenberg has noted that Canada is in the process of reviewing its laws against polygamy. He argues that this move is a consequence of Canada having legalised same-sex marriage. Mr Muehlenberg states, 'If marriage is no longer one man, one woman for life, then any number of alternatives seems to be possible. If homosexuals can argue that a loving committed relationship should qualify anyone for the institution of marriage, then other equally binding and loving unions should be recognised.'
Mr Muehlenberg claims that if Australia legalises same-sex marriage then our legislators may find themselves in a situation where they cannot reasonably deny claims for legalisation from groups and couples whose unions Australian society would not accept.
Mr Muehlenberg argues, 'The same arguments used for legalising same-sex marriage could be used to argue for legalising incest, polygamy, and any number of other sexual combinations.
If a man wanted to have a long-term sexual relationship with his daughter, or if three women wanted to do the same, how could any society argue against it, if it has already overturned the traditional understanding of marriage?'
6. Same-sex marriage is against the belief systems of many churches
Christian denominations oppose same-sex marriage as contrary to the will of God, which they believe proscribes marriage as the union between a man and a woman.
The Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne has a section of its Internet site given over to Life, Marriage and Family. There the following statement is made about the nature of marriage. 'Marriage, as both a natural institution and a sacred union, is rooted in God's plan for creation. The truth that marriage can only exist between a man and a woman is woven deeply into the human spirit. The Church's teaching on marriage expresses a truth, therefore, that can be perceived first and foremost by human reason. This truth has been confirmed by divine Revelation in Sacred Scripture.'
Behind this statement is the belief that God's purpose is to create human beings who can be brought to knowledge and union with Him. Christian religions maintain that men and women cooperate in that divine purpose when they produce children. It is primarily for this reason that the Catholic Church, for example, sanctifies marriage as a sacrament.
The Life, Marriage and Family section of the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne's Internet site goes on to explain why from a Catholic perspective a marriage between same-sex couples would be both impossible and not what the Catholic Church believes God to have ordained. 'A same-sex union contradicts the nature and purposes of marriage. It is not based on the natural complementarity of male and female. It cannot achieve the natural purpose of sexual union, that is, to cooperate with God to create new life. Because persons in a same-sex union cannot enter into a true conjugal union, it is wrong to equate their relationship to a marriage.'
Christian denominations not only maintain that no same-sex couple can achieve a marriage union; they also reject the practice of homosexuality. Dr Adam, the principal of Ridley College, an Anglican theological college, has stated that the Bible's book of Leviticus was the main source of his beliefs that God did not accept homosexuality.
Dr Adam has further stated, ''I believe that God's teaching in Scripture, as held by the vast majority of Christians from all traditions for the past 2000 years, is that we should refrain from homosexual practice.'