Monday, September 18, 2017

Weighing in on the Equal Marriage Plebiscite...

Now, aside from the argument that this plebiscite is a colossal waste of money that could be directed at far more worthy issues - it is happening, by high court order, and so the debate has raged for a number of days now.

I heard this morning that there is an increased demand of mental health helplines. An increase of demand to the point of having to put on more staff. I'm sure the Government will now claim they have created more jobs *massive eye roll*.

I fall on the side of the 'yes' vote. I believe in equal rights that do not harm other people. As far as I can see, enshrining same-sex marriage in the law will not harm other people. It will not take away the right of heterosexual couples to get married. It will not affect freedom of expression of religious bodies, and as long as businesses can prove a direct link to religious bodies, it will not affect their choice to provide service to same-sex couples.

Having a personal opinion about same-sex couples will not change the status quo - if your personal opinion is that you should be allow to kill people who offend you, the law says you aren't allowed to do that either. So, no treating other people with respect, you know, because they are people, is no more allowable in society now than would be if same-sex couples were allowed to marry.

The argument that this is somehow going to support gay people in abusing children is preposterous, but let's go there for a moment. If gay people will be pedophiles after equal marriage becomes law, then what is stopping them now? And more to the point, have heterosexual people - who are allowed to marry - abstained from pedophilia because they didn't marry their defacto partners.

Gay couples can, and do, adopt or create children now - without marriage. How is legalising same-sex marriage going to change that? Single people are also allowed to adopt or have babies out of wedlock, who is publicly campaigning for the rights of those children to have a mother AND a father?

Then there is the argument that people are being bullied into voting 'yes'. Denying someone's right to equality isn't bullying?

So, here I come with my final point. One of the main arguments I've heard for voting 'no' is that it will create a slippery slope, of a range of things including, but not limited to, the undermining of the rights of people who disagree (???). It will also support the attach on the Church - because, you know, the Church has never attacked any population who doesn't support them.

People said the same thing about the indigenous people having the right vote, allowing them to keep their own children, allowing them use the same bathrooms, and have basic respect on the streets. Has society fallen apart in the wake of this? What about women being allowed to vote? The collapse of society? These changes have been about people being treated with respect and having their basic rights acknowledged. Defacto relationship didn't use to have the same rights married relationships, that also changed, with not even a ripple of public debate.

As far as I can see, voting 'no' is voting against people's right to equal respect in society and people who vote 'no' should really ask themselves if that sits well with their conscience.

No comments:

Good Job!