Here are nine responses you can make to people who say they oppose Same Sex Marriage.
1.
Marriage
is by definition between a man and a woman.
Wrong.
That is not the “definition” of marriage. The word marriage simply means “joining together.” It’s like saying the definition of alcohol
is “a beverage that cannot be sold to anyone under 18 years of age.” The
definition of alcohol is a beverage that contains ethanol. “Between a man and a
woman” is a local limitation placed on marriage just like the age restriction
is a limitation placed on alcohol. It’s not the definition.
This is demonstrated that, just as the age you can legally drink changes from place to place, many countries recognise Same Sex marriage as the same as Male-Female marriage, so the “between a man and a woman” condition is clearly a local issue.
This is demonstrated that, just as the age you can legally drink changes from place to place, many countries recognise Same Sex marriage as the same as Male-Female marriage, so the “between a man and a woman” condition is clearly a local issue.
2.
“I
don’t mind same sex couple living together but it shouldn’t be called a ‘marriage’.
Give it another name.”
This is pretty much the same as saying, “I don’t mind a bunch of women going out onto an oval with stumps, a bat and a ball and bowling the bowl and hitting it with the bat and scoring runs but don’t call it ‘cricket’. Cricket is a game played by men.”
Things should be called by their proper names. Cricket is cricket and marriage is marriage.
This is pretty much the same as saying, “I don’t mind a bunch of women going out onto an oval with stumps, a bat and a ball and bowling the bowl and hitting it with the bat and scoring runs but don’t call it ‘cricket’. Cricket is a game played by men.”
Things should be called by their proper names. Cricket is cricket and marriage is marriage.
3.
Legalising
Same Sex Marriage will change our societies forever.
Yes, for the better.
Yes, for the better.
4.
Legalising
Same Sex Marriage will change our societies for the worse.
Firstly, “legalising” is not a good word. Same Sex Marriage is not currently illegal. It is perfectly legal for Same Sex couples to live in marriage-type relationships.
Secondly, those marriage-type relationships ARE currently recognised as legal marriages by a many government and private organisations. Centrelink, the ATO, the Family Court and courts in general will recognise those relationships as de facto marriages and treat the partners accordingly.
“Ahh,” says the homophobe, “But de fact marriages are not real marriages.”
Yes, they ARE. That why they include the word “marriage”. Saying a de facto marriage is not a marriage is like saying a yellow car isn’t a real car. Yes, it is a real car, it’s a yellow car.
Firstly, “legalising” is not a good word. Same Sex Marriage is not currently illegal. It is perfectly legal for Same Sex couples to live in marriage-type relationships.
Secondly, those marriage-type relationships ARE currently recognised as legal marriages by a many government and private organisations. Centrelink, the ATO, the Family Court and courts in general will recognise those relationships as de facto marriages and treat the partners accordingly.
“Ahh,” says the homophobe, “But de fact marriages are not real marriages.”
Yes, they ARE. That why they include the word “marriage”. Saying a de facto marriage is not a marriage is like saying a yellow car isn’t a real car. Yes, it is a real car, it’s a yellow car.
5.
“Why
should a small minority of people (meaning gays) tell us what to do?”
The gay community is not trying to tell others what to do. They are not trying to place restrictions on Male Female relationships, so why are people trying to place restrictions on gay relationships? They only want to be able to do what everyone else is doing.
The gay community is not trying to tell others what to do. They are not trying to place restrictions on Male Female relationships, so why are people trying to place restrictions on gay relationships? They only want to be able to do what everyone else is doing.
6.
“The
people have a right to be consulted about this change.”
Why? They weren’t consulted when the “a man and a woman” clause was added only a few years ago. They weren’t consulted when homosexual acts were decriminalised.
As I’ve mentioned before, had you conducted a plebiscite in the state of Mississippi in 1960 as to whether African Americans should be able to vote, it is highly probably that the majority of Mississippians would have voted “no.” If that were the case, should the government have legislated accordingly and restricted the vote in that state to whites only? Of course not. It is not part of the democratic process that any majority can deprive a minority of rights that they themselves enjoy. The right to vote must be universal. The right to marry whom you want must also be universal.
Why? They weren’t consulted when the “a man and a woman” clause was added only a few years ago. They weren’t consulted when homosexual acts were decriminalised.
As I’ve mentioned before, had you conducted a plebiscite in the state of Mississippi in 1960 as to whether African Americans should be able to vote, it is highly probably that the majority of Mississippians would have voted “no.” If that were the case, should the government have legislated accordingly and restricted the vote in that state to whites only? Of course not. It is not part of the democratic process that any majority can deprive a minority of rights that they themselves enjoy. The right to vote must be universal. The right to marry whom you want must also be universal.
7.
“I’m
sick of being bullied by these LGBTI extremists.”
Cry me a fucking river. Do you want to talk about the bullying that gay, lesbian and trans people have had to put up with for two thousand years?
Cry me a fucking river. Do you want to talk about the bullying that gay, lesbian and trans people have had to put up with for two thousand years?
8.
“It’s
such a huge change.”
No, it’s just a technicality. It only means that Same Sex couples get to sign a marriage certificate at the end of their wedding. That’s all. It’s just about a certificate which then gets filed with the Registry of Births Marriages and Deaths. It creates a public record of your relationship which is what "legal" marriage is really all about.
No, it’s just a technicality. It only means that Same Sex couples get to sign a marriage certificate at the end of their wedding. That’s all. It’s just about a certificate which then gets filed with the Registry of Births Marriages and Deaths. It creates a public record of your relationship which is what "legal" marriage is really all about.
9.
“Just
because I’m opposed to Same Sex Marriage doesn’t make me a homophobe."
Yes it does.
Yes it does.
Hey Ian, I want to thank you for writing such an awesome piece. I saw your daughter share it on FB and wanted to make a few comments, but couldn't due to privacy settings.
ReplyDeleteLet me start by saying I am a massive SSM campaigner. So I'm all for this change and like a lot of good, reasonable people, can't really understand why we're still talking about making this change.
There's one thing i really felt compelled to say though, and it's about point #9. I honestly believe it IS in fact possible for someone to be against SSM without being a homophobe. Earlier in your piece you invoked the definition rule. Well, the definition of a homophobe is "a person with an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people". I know people who are genuinely completely fine with people's sexual orientation, and would just prefer that the official, legally recognised union they have, that gives them all the rights that hetero couples enjoy, wasn't called marriage. And even though I think that's a bit lame, I do in fact understand that. Giving people labels is always dangerous. It's why we're here having conversations like these in the first place. And calling people homophobes is possibly not accurate, and certainly not constructive. I can see how wanting to deprive same sex couple of the right to get married is a SHIT thing to do, i'm just not convinced it's necessarily a homophobic thing to do. (Although I'm also certain a subset of opponents ARE also homophobic.)
If i'm not mistaken, the UK originally got around this problem and resistance by creating a thing called a civil union. Where same sex couples could effectively have a 'wedding' and be recognised in the same way other couples were when married, just without officially calling it 'marriage'. My same sex couple friends there still say they are 'married' and refer to their partners as their wives and husbands etc, it's just that for anyone who actually cares, which is almost no one, their legal term is 'civil union'. I can see why this isn't a 100% cool solution as it still differentiates, potentially needlessly, but then, using your cricket anaology, we do in fact call it 'cricket' (without feeling the need for adding men in front of it) and then the WNCL - for Women's National Cricket League. Because it's useful to know which version of cricket we are watching. Perhaps the same reason we call the men's soccer team the Socceroos and yet the women's team are called the 'Matildas'. Still equal. But different. And so given a different name.
All that said, here's to a 'yes' vote. Here's also to providing those in society with genuine, non-homophobic reservations about SSM, the same sort of tolerance and understanding we expect from them in return. :-) <3