As I lay in bed this morning doing my daily scan of the various papers on my iPad, I came across an article that caught my attention.
The article, In their own words: Aussie men voice opinions for or against same-sex marriage, appeared to seek to provide “deeper” analysis of Australian men’s attitudes to same-sex “marriage”.
This followed on from a recent Galaxy poll conducted by Australian Marriage Equality into the topic indicated that 42% of Australian men believe same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry.
It was meant to be an in-depth examination of six Australian men and their opinions, however before we even got a chance to read the opinions of the six men, the author let us all know how he saw the discussion by surmising the issue as thus:
Statistics reveal heterosexual men less supportive of equality.
The author is Matt Young, an openly gay man who is proud of his sexuality. Not that there’s anything wrong with that (apologies to Seinfeld). I applaud him on living his life how he wants, for that is his right.
What I took exception to in relation to the article was not the topic itself or people’s position on it but rather that the author let his own obvious bias shine through immediately by conflating an opposing opinion to somehow being less supportive of equality.
How can a person’s legitimate opinion and opposition to same-sex marriage be boiled down to being less supportive of equality? WTF? That’s quite a leap of logic, a conclusion that is driven by the authors own biased viewpoint of the situation.
It just means that there are individuals who don’t agree with Matt’s and Australian Marriage Equality’s own biased view on the subject. If you dont agree with Matt’s and others like him then you are tarred as some kind of unenlightened bigot that is somehow against “equality“.
The only thing I can take from this is that Matt is less supportive of other people holding different opinions to his own. I presume Matt supports diversity, but only if your opinion is the same as his.
You’re not voicing your own opinion, thoughts and values, you are somehow oppressing someone somewhere who thinks differently to you.
Your opinion is worth less than theirs, for you my friend are not as enlightened as they are, don’t you know?
There is barely enough room for everyone at the top of Mount Sanctimonious in our post modernist world.
It looks crowded up there in the rarefied air of the moral high ground from down here in the cheap seats.
I am definitely opposed to discrimination of all sorts in relation to how people treat each other, whether that be by the colour of their skin, their sexuality or choice of religion, for we are all humans who should be allowed to live how we want to.
However, I believe that words have distinct meanings and language is built on words having meanings, otherwise language breaks down and becomes meaningless.
In his book The History of Human Marriage (1921), Edvard Westermarck defined marriage as:
…a more or less durable connection between male and female lasting beyond the mere act of propagation till after the birth of the offspring.
While this is an old source, marriage by definition is universally given to be a union between a man and a woman. A marriage requires a husband and a wife. These are gender specific terms that describe the participants in a marriage.
A man cannot be a wife, nor can a woman be a husband. A cow cannot be a bull, nor can a gander be a goose. They are what they are and no amount of wishful thinking can ever change these things.
This perverse need to alter and change language, and more importantly the underlying meanings of words is crux of the problem, for in the post modern world we have groups with agendas and barrows to push.
These groups seek to co-opt words that have distinct and legitimate meanings for a large proportion of our society and change them to suit an increasingly vocal minority’s viewpoint.
If you don’t agree with them and their opinions, they denigrate you and call you words that have long been the bastion of evil and hate.
Words like bigot, racist or misogynist.
Now these words are thrown around like confetti in order to silence any legitimate discussion of issues of great import. As this happens more and more, the opportunity to hold an opposing view is lessened more and more.
If new circumstances, such as the prominence and acceptance of homosexual relationships, appear then create a new word to describe that new circumstance or tradition, don’t seek to change words that have had traditional meaning for thousands of years to thousands of people to suit the worldview of a minority and seek to railroad the majority who think differently with threats of being branded bigots or somehow against equality.
Yet we are being railroaded into redefining this important word to suit the wants of a minority of people in our society, regardless of the wants of the majority. If you disagree with their point of view, then you are “against equality”.
We are being hemmed into supporting a position for fear of being branded as being oppressive and I think many people just don’t want the trouble that comes with holding a differing opinion these days.
I can’t and won’t speak for anyone else but I am not against equality at all.
What I am against is people redefining words that mean something to me and others to suit them and them only. Where is my opportunity to be allowed to retain traditions that mean something to me and many like me?
This whole issue reminds me a seminal and timeless classic from the twisted minds of Monty Python and The Life of Brian.
The pertinent lines for me are the last in the scene.
REG: What’s the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can’t have babies?!
FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
REG: Symbolic of his struggle against reality.
I would like to also provide a disclaimer to my viewpoint before I am howled down as being a homophobe or against equality; My uncle is gay and has been out for over 15 years. I support his right to living his life how he wishes, unequivocally.
My uncle and his partner are integral participants in our family celebrations for just about as long as he has been open about his sexuality. His partners part in our extended family is beyond question with my nephews calling his partner “Uncle Derek”.
We love both of them unconditionally, in fact whenever they are unable to join us in our various family occasions there is a distinct feeling of us missing out for they bring a unique sense of humour and celebration to our gatherings.
At my sisters 30th birthday fancy dress, Derek came in drag as a gangsters moll for the theme was the Roaring 20’s. His costume was an absolute scream and he played both the part and the crowd perfectly. There is something about seeing a 6ft 4 black man in gold lame dancing with your father on the dance floor as the disco tunes pump from the DJ’s booth but that is a post for another day!
Dacka? How’s tricks my up and coming celebrity blogster???
You know me and I you. I would not for one second allow you to tell me that something I know as true, and just, in fact isn’t so! In my own personal development, the same process we all inevitably follow, from child to youth to adult, I have had the (‘perhaps somewhat important?’) opportunity to develop my own ‘opinion’, my own ideologies, beliefs and values…I hear you and I echo your sentiments, however, call it what you will, same sex ‘marriage’ is ‘their’ call…who am I, you, Julia or Kevin to tell these people that they can’t ‘unite’? That they can’t hold ‘union’? Like I said, I have my views. You yours. Call it what you will, the more discussion on this topic the better…it can only help to shape what the generations beyond ours call their ideologies, their values, their own beliefs. At the end if the day, Is this not how our society, our community, should function? Ideas and values and beliefs born through education, discussion and opinion?
Keep em’ coming my man. I thoroughly enjoy your take on ‘our’ issues. Mind you, as always, I have my own…’take’ and ‘issues’…
Cheers mate,
Clint.
Hey Clinton,
You are right in that this is a tricky question, but I guess the point of my post was not to say that people in same sex relationships shouldn’t be able to “unite” but rather that the word marriage has had traditional connotations for thousands of years for millions of people.
I believe that this tradition should not be altered in a very short time to placate a very vocal minority of people, who are a minority even within their own sub-culture, who just a few years ago wanted nothing to do with traditional structures such as marriage, without taking the views of the majority into consideration.
Another important distinction is that any resistance to this rather new push by the minority should not automatically be conflated with the view that we are against equality and that by holding a contrary opinion does not automatically make one a homophobe.
Where is the equality of opportunity to hold a contrary position if ones opposition is denigrated by way of abuse from those that propose something that some legitimately would like to be retained?
Those that preach tolerance are increasingly intolerant of any position that does not reflect their own views. The irony would be delicious if it wasnt becoming more of an issue and part of the reason why society is becoming more divisive.
This phenomenon can be seen in a number of issues, such as global warming / climate change where people who debate not only the existence but the long term effects of any warming are tagged “deniers“, a term which is deliberately used to tie in with denying the Holocaust.
Hold a contrary position on the “stolen generations” and how to tackle Aboriginal disadvantage and you’re obviously a racist.
Hold a contrary position on illegal immigration and how to handle people smuggling and you’re obviously a xenophobe.
And in this case, hold a contrary position to SSM and you’re a homophobe who is against equality.
What about the rights of those that dont agree with SSM? Or are their views, values and beliefs disposable in comparison to an increasingly vocal and intolerant minority?
Consider that the most recent “census” into sexual orientation of Australians was last held in 2002/03, which I admit is a few years ago but I think the stats are illustrative for my point, which is that in a telephone interview with 19,307 respondents between the ages of 16 and 59 the study found that 97.4% of men identified as heterosexual, 1.6% as gay and 0.9% as bisexual. For women 97.7% identified as heterosexual, 0.8% as lesbian and 1.4% as bisexual.
Nevertheless, 8.6% of men and 15.1% of women reported either feelings of attraction to the same gender or some sexual experience with the same gender. Half the men and two thirds of the women who had same-sex sexual experience regarded themselves as heterosexual rather than homosexual. (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation#Australia)
So homosexual people are only very small minority of Australians. Would this number change in the future? Most likely but they will always be a minority. While our society will no doubt become more “tolerant” of different lifestyles, there is an evolutionary necessity that homosexuality be a minority.
In my post the following para encapsulates my position on this situation:
“If new circumstances, such as the prominence and acceptance of homosexual relationships, appear then create a new word to describe that new circumstance or tradition, don’t seek to change words that have had traditional meaning for thousands of years to thousands of people to suit the worldview of a minority and seek to railroad the majority who think differently with threats of being branded bigots or somehow against equality.”
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, so no one is actually saying that individuals are not allowed to cohabit with the partner of their choice. They are also afforded the same legal rights as de facto couples, which is parallel with the rights of heterosexual couples.(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia)
In that article there is also an interesting map of Australia that shows what types of unions are already allowed in each of the States and Territories. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Same_sex_marriage_Australia_map.svg)
My general point is that if SS couples wish to establish their own traditions then there is no barrier for them to do so in our society.
Why do they feel the need to hi-jack and subvert an existing traditional concept/definition which is dependent on gender specific roles to suit their own needs without taking into consideration the views and objections of those whose tradition they propose to change?
Just call it something else and leave the word “marriage” to heterosexual couples. Maybe Garriage or something? /sarc.
I really dont care what they call it but just call it something else and stop trying to guilt and shame people into agreeing with a view of the world that they dont agree with or support.
If I dont agree with someones position it does not make me a bad person, nor does it mean that I dont respect them, it just means that I dont agree with them.
Nor should I be made to agree with them through a process of marginalisation and intimidation that just a few years ago this very same group used to rail against themselves.
If only some would actually live by the own credo of each to their own. Tolerance is a two way street, not a one way highway.
But thank you for voicing your opinion, for you are entitled to it, as we all are.
Unfortunately, as I mentioned in my post, the opportunity to hold contrary opinions is becoming less and less the more society becomes “tolerant” and “enlightened”.
I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments you express. As much distaste as I’m sure many of my fellow progressive friends would express at my stance on this issue, I simply cannot support changing the Marriage Act. Not because I am a homophobe or anything of that nature. But rather because I object to redefining words on the basis of changing societal mores. I’m all for homosexual couples having their relationships legally recognised. But marriage is something between 1 man and 1 woman, and has been for, well, eternity. I must admit, sometimes I get a gutful of cynical, wishy washy, airy fairy post modernism, which I get plenty of in the course of my education. Unfortunately, you’ll hear some otherwise incredibly progressive leftie types justifying, for example, Muslim men subjugating their wives on the basis of cultural relativism, using very similar logic to that used in this debate.