Right: with more public figures now "coming out" as homosexual, acceptance of "minority" sexual orientation is now fairly widespread. However, not all Australians agree with gay marriage, despite public knowledge of well-known same-sex partnerships, such as that of former Greens leader Bob Brown and Paul Thomas.
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments against the legalisation of gay marriage
1. Gay couples already have their legal rights protected
It has been claimed that the legal rights of gay couples are already protected under Australian law and thus there is no need to guarantee them further by making marriage available to homosexual partners.
In an opinion piece posted on the ABC's Religion and Ethics site on August 4, 2011, the Reverend Rod Benson stated, 'It is important to note that the federal law in Australia has already been changed to give same-sex partners the same legal rights as those who are married and in an increasing number of states to register their unions.'
Since December 2008, in all Australian states and territories, cohabiting same-sex couples are recognised as de facto couples, and have the same rights as cohabiting heterosexual couples under state law.
The reforms were chiefly adopted through two Acts of Parliament introduced by the Rudd Labor Government: the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws-Superannuation) Act 2008 which received assent on 4 December 2008 and the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws-General Law Reform) Act 2008 which received assent on 9 December 2008.
These "omnibus" pieces of legislation amended a wide variety of existing laws to include same-sex couples. They received support not only from the governing Australian Labor Party, but also from the opposition Liberal Party, the Australian Greens and independent members.
In more than 100 areas of law, 'de facto partner' is now defined to include both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. The rights extended to same-sex couples include, among others: joint social security and veterans' entitlements, employment entitlements, superannuation, workers' compensation, joint access to the Medicare Safety Net, hospital visitation, immigration, inheritance rights, and the ability to file a joint tax return and gain the same tax rebates as married couples.
Same-sex couples also have access to domestic partnership registries in New South Wales, Tasmania and Victoria. Civil partnerships are performed in the Australian Capital Territory. On 30 November 2011 the Queensland State Parliament successfully passed the Civil Partnerships Act 2011 which allows for same sex couples who are Queensland residents to enter into a civil partnership.
2. Legalising gay marriage could lead to the legal recognition of other non-conventional unions
Critics of the legalisation of gay marriage have argued that this would be the first step toward a more general liberalisation of legally sanctioned unions. They claim that legalising gay marriage will ultimately lead to the acceptance of polygamous marriages and perhaps even incestuous unions.
In an article published in The Australian, Ean Higgins notes, 'The agenda now is to seek recognition and the removal of prejudice against multiple-partner relationships, perhaps legislation to grant them civil unions and even legalised polyamorous marriage.'
In an opinion piece published in The Herald Sun on December 5, 2011, Andrew Bolt stated, 'When you destroy the traditional idea of a marriage being between a man and a woman, in favour of a union between any two consenting adults, you invite more changes.
Why stop at two? Why not also "respect" unions between a man and two women? After all, polygamy has what same sex marriage does not - religious backing in Islam, and historical precedents everywhere.'
Bolt further expressed the view, 'I do not trust the dismantling of marriage to stop at same-sex unions, just as I do not trust the gay marriage push to stop at letting priests object. Once you start smashing, where do you stop?'
NSW upper house MP Fred Nile has similarly stated, 'I warned people this would be the next stage. You'd get threesomes, foursomes, fivesomes, wanting the same rights. Some people even say they want to marry their pet animal.'
On February 17, 2007, The Free Republic opinion site of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, posted a piece by Adam Kolasinksi in which he explained what he believes is the rationale behind this argument. 'The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognise a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction that love between three, or five?'
3. Legalising gay marriage would help to normalise an unsafe lifestyle
There are those who claim that the homosexual lifestyle is a health risk and that by sanctioning gay marriages Australia would be promoting a hazardous mode of living.
In an opinion piece published in The Australian on December 3, 2011, Jim Wallace, the managing director of the Australian Christian Lobby, stated, 'A homosexual man has a life expectancy some 20 years less than the average male.'
Wallace further cites a Canadian gay activists group which had acknowledged 'lower life expectancy than the average Canadian, suicide, higher rates of substance abuse, depression, inadequate access to care and HIV-AIDS ... all kinds of health issues that are endemic to our community'. Looking at the Australian situation, Wallace claims that a homosexual male has '25-26 times the chance of contracting HIV compared with a heterosexual man'.
Wallace concludes, 'If our schools are concerned about discouraging smoking for its 7-10 year shortening of life, how can we in all honesty encourage a lifestyle for men that shortens it on average by double that?'
On February 20, 2012, The Family Council of Victoria posted the following statement on its Internet site: 'Countless studies have documented the high-risk and unhealthy nature of the homosexual lifestyle. So why should governments be endorsing and promoting such activity? Various studies show that homosexuals account for the majority of new cases of sexually transmitted diseases.
For example, a male homosexual is 14 times more likely to have syphilis than a male heterosexual, and eight times more likely to have hepatitis. And of course HIV/AIDS remains an overwhelmingly homosexual disease in Australia, with the overwhelming number of cases due to male homosexual activity, or intravenous drug use.'
4. There is no clear, popular attitude in relation to gay marriage
In an opinion piece published in The Australian on November 30, 2011, Paul Kelly, the newspaper's editor-at-large, argued that popular support for gay marriage is not as clear-cut as its proponents claim.
Mr Kelly explained that a recent and sophisticated polling survey, sample 1200, conducted by the Sexton Group for the Ambrose Centre for Religious Liberty, found a 49-40 per cent majority for changing the Marriage Act. Despite this apparently clear index of significant popular support for gay marriage, Kelly claims that when the survey results are examined in detail they reveal a more complex picture.
The survey found, for example, that only 14 per cent 'strongly' wanted to change the Marriage Act. It also found that opinion is sharply split along party lines, with Labor voters backing change 57-33 per cent and Coalition voters backing the marriage status quo 56-34 per cent.
It also found that support for gay marriage does not equate with opposition to the current institution of marriage. Thus, 69 per cent of those surveyed agreed that man-woman marriage should be upheld for its traditional meaning and as an important social institution. Opponents of gay marriage argue that many of its supporters would be likely to change their position if they believed that the legalisation of gay marriage would weaken the current institution or have other negative social effects.
A similar point was made by David Penberthy in The Punch on December 2, 2011. Mr Penberthy has stated, 'The polling which has been done on the issue is relatively limited and, despite what both sides of the debate claim, has failed to provide any clear sense of mass support or opposition for making the change.'
5. A majority of gays do not want marriage
It has been claimed that a majority of homosexuals do not want to marry and thus it is not necessary to alter the marriage contract in order to accommodate them.
In a set of arguments posted on the website of the Family Council of Victoria on February 20, 2012, it was stated, 'Consider the Netherlands where same-sex marriage has been legal since 2001. Studies have shown that only around four per cent of Dutch homosexuals have gotten married during the first five years of legalisation.'
In Britain the situation is apparently similar. On June 7, 2012, The Daily Mail reported the findings of a recent survey among 541 gay, lesbian or bisexual adults regarding their attitudes to marriage. 27 per cent indicated they would marry if the law permitted it; however, 26 per cent indicated they would prefer a civil partnership. The remaining 47 per cent were apparently not seeking any form of permanent, legally recognised union. The poll found that fewer than half believe the argument put forward by many gay rights campaign groups that a legal distinction between civil partnerships and same sex marriage perpetuates discrimination.
Dr Austen Ivereigh, director of the British media advocacy group Catholic Voices, which commissioned the poll, has stated, 'What it shows is that for gay people this is very far from being an important issue of human rights, equality and discrimination. Gay people do not regard same-sex marriage as a priority, and show no more enthusiasm for it than for civil partnerships, which give the same legal advantages.'