This probably doesn’t come as a surprise, after all they are a religious (though ecumenical) organisation dedicated to “the family” whatever that means to them. That in itself is an interesting thing, family is really quite a nebulous term, and I am not convinced that narrowing the definition to the current idea of a nuclear family does anyone any good. Surely families are more than two opposite sex individuals and their 2.4 children living in suburban Australia. Surely family includes grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, your best friends, siblings, your best friend’s kids (if they have any), your neighbour, nephews, nieces, and anyone else that you consider part of your family.
But anyway, the Australian Family Association is all about the rigidly defined nuclear family. One woman, one man, and any children that they may have during that relationship. They appear to be a bit fuzzy on children that aren’t from that relationship, and that’s one of the points which will I’ll use to nail them in their “Arguments defending children’s rights over same-sex couples’ rights” (yes that’s right. And the only reason I’m linking to it is to prove that I’m not making it up).
So, apparently redefining marriage is bad because (all quotes unless stated otherwise are from the article linked to above):
Marriage between one man and one woman actually makes sense.
It ensures the right of children to be raised by their biological mum and dad, and for children to know their family history, their medical history and to explore Ancestory.com to know their ancestors. This right of children is fundamental to their identity, to their health and happiness.
Australians have been concerned and angry at the “stolen generations” of children who have been denied the right to know their biological parents.
Yes, they really did compare the Stolen Generations (a racist policy which removed children with Anglo and European ancestry from their parents to “breed out the colour”), to children who may be raised by non-biological parents. The massive failure to grasp what the Stolen Generations was and it’s impact is astounding.
The biggest failure in this entire article is the belief that girl meets boy, they get married and have children and live happily ever after, eventually dying after a long, satisfying and religious life, and after their children have reached adulthood. At no point has someone had a child from a previous relationship, has someone died and left a parent a widow, the relationship survives and doesn’t end in divorce, and/or the couple were fertile and didn’t rely on a donor who wished to remain anonymous.
The state must not sanction the creation of yet another “stolen generation” of children who, following the legalization of homosexual marriage, will invariably be born via surrogacy and IVF to more same-sex couples. Such couples cannot fulfil the right of children to know and be raised by both their biological parents.
What about those children who are already born by surrogacy and IVF to infertile heterosexual couples?
These basic facts alone demonstrate that state’s overriding interest in defining marriage as being between “one man and one woman only” is essential to reinforce the bond between mother, father and child.
Conversely, the state should not intervene in personal relationships except to protect the interest of children, particularly their right to be raised by their biological parents.
So those children that were adopted out by religious organisations, or because society thought that some women could not be good parents in the middle section of last century were wrong? Are we going to have an apology and compensation now? No, I didn’t think so.
So the state shouldn’t intervene in personal relationships, unless there is a child being raised by queers, or single parents, or widowed parents, or a step-parent. Guess we’re going to have to get better at raising the dead, and forcing unhappy people to live together for “the best interests of the child”.
First, redefining marriage would mean abandoning the most important legal and social safeguard of a child’s connection to his or her heritage and identity. Let’s not repeat the mistakes or earlier generations of Australians on this vital matter of children’s rights.
So no more overseas adoptions, because those children may lose their connection to their heritage and identity. No more adoptions or even fostering of children, because that’s not in the child’s best interests according to the Australian Family Association.
Second, legalizing same sex marriage means that adoption agencies and IVF/surrogacy services will be forced to provide same sex couples access to children as is happening in other countries; schools will be required to teach that marriage can be between a man and a woman or between two men or two women; even photographers who choose not to provide their services at a same sex wedding will face discrimination and possibly legal sanctions.
OMG, we’ll have to provide services to the queers! That’s just so unfair and rude, and we don’t like them so please make it stop, make it STOP!!!
If you are discriminating against a particular group for no real reason (religion isn’t a good enough reason), then you should be called out on it, and face legal sanctions when that is required.
Third, if same sex marriage is legalized, will the state then bend to pressures from other groups arguing that they face discrimination unless polygamy or polyamory (marriage between any number of men and women) is legalized?
Ah, the slippery slope argument. A logical fallacy from logical fallacy land.
While two men might each be good fathers, or two women good mothers, neither couples can be both a mother and a father of their child. Children need not only the love of their own biological mum and dad, but to define their identity through that intimate, unique biological relationship. No same sex couple can define a child’s identity.
Actually studies have shown that same sex parents make good parents for children. And not all children from heterosexual relationships have both parents – parents may be absent, divorced, dead, or unknown. If those children can become well balanced adults, why are queer parents such problems? What are the Australian Family Association likely to recommend in this circumstance.
Marriage is a cultural institution built around a very real biological fact: that the sexual union of a man and a woman is an inherently procreative relationship.
…
Giving same-sex couples “the right to have children” negates the rights of all children with respect to their biological origins and natural families, not just those born into same-sex marriages.
Marriage is an institution centred around property (including women) that has undergone multiple reinterpretations since “biblical” times. Women now no longer have to marry their rapists. Women are no longer property. Marriages can be based on love or convenience, and not on the alliances families want to build. Marriage is currently defined to one man and one woman, when it has previously been one man and as many women as he could support. The definition has not been static, it’s changed as society has changed.
Giving infertile heterosexual couples the “right to have children” negates the rights of all children with respect to their biological origins and natural families – is the Australian Family Association likely to suggest that we should stop those?
Same-sex marriage creates new forms of discrimination and limits civil and religious freedoms.
First, schools will be forced to teach children about same-sex marriage in sex education classes, as happened in Massachusetts after the courts ruled that same-sex marriage was legal.
OMG, we’ll have to teach the children about teh gay! They might feel comfortable with queer friends and might even be queer themselves, and know that that is ok, and might not feel any guilt or shame about natural human relationships!!!
Seriously, no one should have the right to discriminate against someone because of who they love.
Second, it will discriminate against children conceived by donor-conception, children who are denied the right to know and be raised by both their biological parents.
This already happens with heterosexual couples conceived by donor-conception when that donor wishes to remain anonymous. I note that the Australian Family Association doesn’t appear to have an issues with those heterosexual couples.
Legalising same-sex marriage makes marriage no longer about children but only about “sexual love”.
If marriage is only about “sexual love”, then marriage law could logically be extended to include polygamists or any mixed or same-sex group of three, four, six or more people.
Slippery slope argument again, and something odd called “sexual love”. Now I don’t know what “sexual love” is, but last I checked people in same-sex relationships LOVED each other in the same way that heterosexual relationships love each other. To suggest that the love shared between two same-sex couples is something different and unusual than the “normal” love shared between heterosexual couples is bigoted and offensive.
And if two (or more) people are in a relationship because they want to fuck each other senseless, then good on them. Who cares what consenting adults get up to? Oh yes, that’s right the homophobic bigots who wish that they were in charge of your bedroom.
Legalising same-sex marriage means more same-sex couples claiming “the right” to have children by donor IVF, surrogacy and adoption.
This treats children as commodities to satisfy adult desires and demands. Nobody has the “right to a child”, any more than a man has a “right” to a woman. Children need a mother and a father to function best in a society made up of both sexes.
Quite true, no one has the “right to a child”, but children don’t need two opposite gender parents to function best in society. It’s like the Australian Family Party forgets that children interact with a wide range of people as they grow up, and they don’t grow up in a bubble. There are aunts and uncles, cousins, grandparents, teachers, neighbours, other children, etc. And if you’re not going to force heterosexual couples to remain together “for the children” then children having two same sex parents and moving about in the world cannot be banned either.
The fact is, marriage is a form of government regulation. Through marriage, the government regulates a specific category of private relationships, by registering them as lifelong, exclusive, “solemn and binding” relationships.
A government needs very clear policy reasons for having any role in the most intimate of all human relationships. Because opposite sex relationships are inherently geared towards producing children, the government does have a serious reason for regulating those relationships, albeit in a very limited way.
The same reason obviously does not extend to same-sex couples. Submitting more kinds of relationships to government regulation just to make marriage more “inclusive” is not a well-reasoned policy initiative.
Ah yes, the lifelong, exclusive, “solemn and binding” relationships (I’m not sure what they mean by solemn and binding actually). Divorce, which the Australian Family Association must not be in favour of, doesn’t exist, and isn’t Government interfering with the lifelong part of marriage.
No brain to comment on the second paragraph of that section, so I’ll leave it for your enjoyment. I found this article incredibly offensive, the frequent (and I’ve omitted them to save your blood pressure) references to the Stolen Generations being equivalent to children of same-sex couples, the bi/homophobia, and the bigotry.
It wouldn’t surprise you to know that Margaret Court is listed as one of the patrons of this group.
I don’t think that people who are different should be treated with disrespect but at the same time if people like gays or lesbians want to force other people to like them or accept them then that is another thing.
No one could force anyone to like them, and at the end of the day same sex couples are different to the traditional man and woman relationship. I feel like some gay and lesbian couple are trying to force people to thinking that they are not different… they are in the traditional sense and they should embrace that.
Maria I think you almost, but not quite get the point.
No one is saying that you have to “like” queer people, but they are saying that their human rights are equally as important as anyone else’s and that they should not be second class citizens when it comes to accessing state institutions (like marriage).
I would argue that the only reason that same sex couples are different to “the traditional man and woman relationship” is due to societal conditioning, the patriarchy, and religion. In a couple of hundred years everyone will be wondering why people of today considered same-sex couples different to any other couple, the same way we now wonder why men of yesteryear thought that women were incapable of understanding politics and therefore should not vote.
Tradition had women as property of men (and not sentient property either), slaves of non-white people, Indigenous Australians as non-citizens of Australia, and nobility as wonderful people and the lower classes awful. All of this has changed, and the sky has not fallen in. Marriage is an institution of the state, and it too can change.