tommyiscooldotcom

I've been talking up how one day I'm going to make a post on Gay Marriage to generate controversy and get lots of comments, but after the 116 comment bonanza that came about after REDACTED's anti-terror legislation, it's almost redundant. I don't think I could say anything controversial enough to generate 116 comments, and if I tried I'd just end up saying something stupid like George Bush Doesn't Care About Black People.

But what the hell, let's talk about homo marriage


HOMO MARRIAGEAn in-depth report by Tommy (hehe in-depth)


As I've said before on this blog, I'm a different strokes (hehe strokes) for different folks kinda guy. I don't care who you worship (unless you're a Mormon), who you vote for (unless it's Liberal) or who you want to shag (unless they're ugly). I also believe that people should be allowed to live their lives as they see fit, unless their decisions impact negatively on another person. Which is why I fire up when I hear Mosman Councillor's say brown people aren't welcome, or hear Muslim Clerics defend gang rapes, or see films or games or TV shows get unecessarily censored because they offend some people.

So in 2004, when the Howard Government introduced and passed completely unecessary legislation (they were outlawing something that wasn't legal in the first place) to ban gay marriage in Australia, and were supported by a Labor Opposition who didn't want to get on the wrong side of religious conservatives in an election year, I fired up. And though the legislation doesn't affect me (Freddy Fittler said 'no' when I proposed), I'm still fired up.


Why Freddy :(

Every citizen of this country, no matter who they prefer boning, should be allowed to get married. Every couple should possess the right to have or adopt children. Every couple in the country should be afforded the same rights in regards to superannuation, inheritance, visitation and medical decisions. State-by-state laws are insufficient in giving homosexual couples the same right as heterosexual couples. Discrimination based on sexuality is no different to discrimination based on race or religion, it is immoral and unjust in a modern democracy.

There is a religious argument against gay marriage, and I fully support the rights of churches and parishioners not to condone such unions. However, in the year 2005, marriage is not the sole possession of the Church. Marriage is a Government-recognised, legal agreement -it can be performed outside of Churches by civil celebrants. Churches should be free to express their beliefs in regards to same-sex marriage, but their opposition should not be a consideration in legislation. It's that pesky little 'seperation of Church and State' thingy that always pops up in democracies.

The argument that marriage is the bedrock of 'family values' and any moves to allow homos to tie the knot would 'undermine our social fabric' or would 'pose a threat to society' conveniently ignores the fact that 40% of marriages in this country end in divorce. Call me crazy, but I think if marriage was such an important part of the social fabric of our country, the skyrocketing divorce rate would have done us in ages ago. I fail to see how letting two people who love each other join the ranks is going to have a negative effect on society. How come the thousands of de-facto homosexual couples don't pose a similar threat to society? Do they only generate social upheaval when they share the same last name?


Sesame Street turned deadly when Bert and Ernie finally tied the knot

The above argument also just happens to be the same one used to prevent interracial marriages a century or two ago. A variation on that argument was also used to justify the White Australia policy. In fact, pretty much every advance in civil rights has been opposed by claiming a 'threat' to moral fibre or social values or the moral fabric or bedrock or tradition. Some things are just not worth defending.

I'll probably cop a bit of shit for saying same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt children. It is the worst example of discrimination in the whole bunch. The typical argument is that the most desirable outcome for a child is to have strong female and male role models. It was the same argument used to villify single mothers a few decades ago. And I agree, in a perfect world, every child would have a Mummy and a Daddy wholovedthemverrrryyymuch. And Daddy wouldn't drink. And Mummy wouldn't fuck Daddy's best friend. And they wouldn't get a divorce when the child was 12. And Mummy's new boyfriend wouldn't hit the child when he had a lousy day at work. But in case you haven't noticed yet, the world isn't perfect.

And studies conducted over the last two decades show little difference in the emotional or mental health of children raised by homosexual couples compared to their heterosexual counterparts. A child raised by pillow-biters doesn't necessarily become a pillow-biter. And while some of these studies are criticised for using flawed methodology, there are few studies which show a decidedly negative outcome for children raised by homosexuals.

Call me crazy, but I don't think the sexuality of a child's parents has anything to do with how well they raise their kid. And there are plenty of other scenarios worse than a kid having two mums or two dads, yet I don't see them being outlawed. If a homosexual couple do not have the same rights as a heterosexual couple in regards to adopting and raising children, then neither should single parents.


So yes, that's about it.


Here is a picture of some lesbians.