When discussing the redefinition of marriage, has anyone ever told you that…
Marriage is a human right?
On the other hand, there is a recognised and undisputed right for a child, wherever possible, to know and be cared for by its mother and father (Article 7(1) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child). Redefining marriage will deprive children of this right.
Same-sex couples should have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, and civil unions don’t allow for this?
People in same-sex relationships have equal access to government entitlements and superannuation benefits as people in heterosexual relationships.
A redefinition of marriage is not necessary in ensure that same-sex couples are protected by the law.
It is hateful/homophobic to oppose the redefinition of marriage?
All relationships matter. All people in relationships matter. But not all relationships are “marriage”. All people deserve to be loved and protected, but preserving marriage as the relationship between one man and one woman who come together to found a family is not discriminating against other relationships, it is merely society distinguishing this biological reality as distinct to other types of relationships.
Treating different relationships differently is not discrimination.
Children of same-sex couples do just the same, if not better, than children of heterosexual couples?
Many of the studies that have looked into the wellbeing of children raised by same-sex couples often use subjective indicators of child wellbeing, and many of these studies have been based on small numbers of self-selected participants, limiting their reliability.
What we do know is that when children grow up without a mother or a father, their long-term wellbeing is harmed, and for this reason marriage is worth preserving! Children are too important to be the subjects of a social experiment.
If marriage is all about children, then why do we allow infertile or elderly couples to marry?
In addition, the fact that infertility is a loss for married couples simply demonstrates the connection between marriage and procreation.
And although not every married couple have children, all children have a mother and a father. And our focus is, and should be, primarily on the children.
My marriage won’t affect your marriage?
How will this affect us? Let’s look at what has already happened in Australia. 40 years ago, no-fault divorce was legalised. Today one in three marriages end in divorce. Divorce does not shock and sadden us in the same way as it did before 1975 because this generation’s understanding of marriage has changed. In the case of same-sex marriage, removing the heterosexual requirement of marriage will diminish the idea that marriage is linked to children, and generations to come will consider the emotional relationship of adults, and not the wellbeing of children, is the primary reason for marriage.
All love is equal?
Denying same-sex marriage puts young, LGBTI Australians at risk of suicide?
This is not only an obligation from Churches and others who favour the current definition of marriage, but also for those who advocate for its redefinition. Young LGBTI people can feel particularly excluded when they are told the Church and supporters of maintaining the Marriage Act see them as less worthy than those who do not have same-sex attraction.
The BeyondBlue report also tells us that sometimes, a health professional will address the sexual orientation of the young person and not any underlying mental health issues. Defining people by their sexuality does not help, and part of what the Church tells young LGBTI people is that they are not defined by who they are attracted to. They are more than their sexuality.
It is irresponsible and dangerous to tell young people that marriage will make them happy. Many Australians, irrespective of their sexual orientation, will never marry. Suggesting that marriage is the only path to happiness puts them unnecessarily at risk.
Denying marriage to same-sex couples is the same as denying marriage to those from different races or religions?
A same-sex union, however committed, cannot be a marriage because it lacks one of the fundamental components of marriage: the ability to generate new life.
The overwhelming majority of Australians support same-sex “marriage”?
Only 23% of those surveyed saw the redefinition of marriage as a “very important” issue.
Furthermore, 172 out of the 193-member countries of the United Nations currently define marriage as being between one man and one woman. Australia’s current law accords with laws in the overwhelming majority of countries around the world.