Why Not Same Sex Marriage?

First posted 16 August 2011

Every time a spokesman from the NSW Council of Churches opens his or her mouth I get a warm tingly feeling knowing that inspiration is just around the corner. These pious hypocrites rarely miss an opportunity to spray their particular brand of bigotry before us.

Once again it’s that sanctimonious prig, Rod Benson, who comments on the bill before the Australian parliament that seeks to change the current definition of marriage to allow same-sex couples to marry.

Rather than waste my time trying to inform knuckleheads like Benson by pointing out the obvious hypocrisy of refusing to allow a loving couple to express their commitment to one another in a simple marriage ceremony, on this occasion I would like to take issue with an assumption regularly made by representatives of the NSW Council of Churches and many other opponents of gay marriage. This is the myth that a heterosexual marriage is not only the best chance we have of producing and nurturing children but the only chance.

To quote Benson, “The debate should be about marriage being a comprehensive union between a man and a woman of the kind that may introduce norms of permanence and exclusivity and thereby produce children.” And this, “If the definition of marriage is changed to include same-sex couples … then that is going to affect … children in particular, because (a same sex) marriage will primarily serve the interests of adults whereas we believe that marriage, in its ideal form … is there to serve and protect the interests of children.

“… norms of permanence …” If it’s so permanent then why do heterosexual marriages have close to a 33% failure rate. I get it, Rod defines permanent as 67%.

I’m not going into “exclusivity” because I suspect Rod has an impeccable record in that regard. However it is also likely he judges everyone else by his own high standards, which means he is destined for disappointment. Call me a sceptic but any man who takes religion with him into the boudoir may be asking more of his partner than she will forever give. The missionary position can be very limiting.

Producing children is certainly the provenance of heterosexual couples however as history has shown, producing children is not always possible for married couples and all too often possible for unmarried ones. Many heterosexual couples adopt children and raise them beautifully. So do some gay couples, proving at least that the ministrations of any religious organisation is not a prerequisite. Children do not require biological parents to be loved and nurtured and to preach otherwise only illustrates the narrow mindedness of the preacher.

As for heterosexual marriages being the best opportunity to serve and protect the interests of children, when my drunken father was chasing me around our backyard with an axe handle for whatever misdemeanour I had been falsely, or otherwise, accredited with, any notions I had of my interests were confined to keeping at least an axe handle and a bit out of his reach. Interests, my arse, though occasionally it was.

Yet, Benson’s most bigoted claim is that the primary motivation of a same sex couple to have children is to serve the interests of themselves rather than the interests of the children.

Shame upon you, you stupid man.