After attending an Equal Love Same Sex Marriage Rally just recently, The Annotated was interested to note that a group of 500 people banded together in Canberra for what was referred to as a ‘protest rally’ convened by the National Marriage Coalition. When it came to our attention that this rally had been reported on, our interest was again piqued to see exactly what argument this group would raise against the debate for Same Sex Marriage legalisation in Australia. The comments we discovered in The Australian newspaper (HERE) left us mired in a sea of illogical rhetoric. Through our annotations below, we’ve tried to right those wrongs:
‘…Mrs Hagelin told the 500-strong crowd at Parliament House that if you allowed gay marriage, "anything'' such as polygamy and marriage between paedophiles and children ''could be called marriage"…’
Is Rebecca Hagelin asserting that all homosexuals are paedophiles? Or that gay people would want to marry children? There is a painfully obvious difference between a consenting adult relationship and an adult abusing a position of trust to enter into a sexual relationship with a minor. As to Mrs Hagelin’s polygamy reference, I doubt any logical human could see any parallel to be drawn there either.
‘…Mrs Hagelin said there was "no greater evil" than the forces who proposed to legalise gay marriage and that they were in a "war for the future of the human race"…’
We’ll address this statement in two parts:
1.No greater evil facing the human race than gay marriage.
What an absurd comment to make when discussing an act of love and compassion. Hagelin should go easy on the hyperbole, particularly if she wants her points appear valid. Using comments fueled by hysteria and fear only makes her argument appear (perhaps rightfully) to be an ad hominem attack.
2.The people (in the forum) were in a war for the future of the human race.
Yet another hyperbolic comment, equating the push to legalise same sex marriage with a war that could end life as we know it.
To describe fighting the legislation of gay marriage as a 'war' surely contradicts Hagelin's own religious beliefs, a comment such as this incites and perpetuates hatred towards the gay community through inferring that homosexuals are a risk to humankind. This suggestion is, of course, unfounded – bordering on what must be considered derogatory hatespeech.
All societies change and evolve over time. If they didn't, slavery would still exist, women wouldn't be able to vote, freedom of speech would be restricted and there would be no freedom of religious choice.
‘…"Truly this proposition deserves to be laughed at and ridiculed. It doesn't serve any serious treatment," (Bob Katter)…’
If this issue was something deserving of ridicule, then Katter is doing a disservice to the Australian public by ignoring evidence such as this that indicates this is an important issue and not some joke.
Unfortunately for Bob, he has time and again shown a patent ignorance for how Australians feel about same sex rights. This is evidenced again here, in a comment that shows how little interest he has in considering same sex relationships worthy of political action. However, should Bob Katter feel that the proposition to allow same sex marriage is not worthy of serious treatment, why partake in a forum to protect marriage against what he does not consider to be a threat?
‘…The Queensland MP harked back to a time when the word "gay" had a different meaning from that of today, describing it as one of the most beautiful words in the English language.
After quoting the poet Alexander Pope, Mr. Katter said, "nobody has the right to take that word off us."…’
Ok then Bob, we'll make up a new word to classify homosexuals. Poofter's a good one. Faggot is also a widely acceptable name to classify those who love the same sex, these are both used quite freely to denigrate the homosexual population. At least we won’t need to educate people about the name change. There we go - problem solved. You can now go back to using "gay" in its pure, original form once again.
‘…"This is a destruction of marriage, not simply a redefinition"…(Liberal MP Kevin Andrews)…’
‘…He described same sex marriage as "nothing less than the overthrow of marriage in Australia." (Coordinator of the National Marriage Coalition, Gerard Calilhanna)…’
These are both logical fallacies.
Why isn’t divorce cited as a cause of undermining the marriage institution? Surely, if anything, filing for a divorce tells the community "hey, marriage isn't such a big commitment... if you get sick of it, there's an out!". All those heterosexual humans who have married and remarried again and again, time after time, demonstrate how trivial the community can treat the supposedly valued institution of marriage.
Same sex couples wanting to marry does not destroy the heritage of marriage. Instead, should this not be celebrated as an added dimension to a time honoured tradition?
‘…Nationals Senate leader Barnaby Joyce said his four daughters would be affected if same sex marriage was allowed.
"We know that the best protection for those girls is that they get themselves into a secure relationship with a loving husband and I want that to happen for them.
I don't want any legislator to take that right away from me."…’
Ridiculous. Barnaby, your daughters can do whatever you (or even they) like. You mention that your daughters need protecting from something, hence the secure relationship with a loving husband. Would they need protection from the gays, trying to enforce their same-sex marriage ideals onto them? (This is assuming they're heterosexual. Are all your daughters heterosexual, Mr. Joyce?)
The suggestion here is that allowing same sex marriage will result in his daughters not being able to commit to a heterosexual relationship. Even going so far as to say that a legislator might be ‘taking that right away’ from Mr. Joyce. That statement is, at best, ludicrous. In what sense would this result in heterosexual couples no longer being permitted to marry?
‘…"My electorate accepts that all people are equal, but my electorate also accepts, in fact rejects, that not all relationships are equal", the western Sydney MP said. (John Murphy)…’
So, by Mr. Murphy’s logic, if you're single and gay, you're considered equal to a single or married heterosexual person, but if you are in a homosexual relationship, then your value in society is diminished and you are therefore a lesser citizen. Or the homosexual relationship is called into question by merely existing and is not as important as a heterosexual one. By definition then, a hostile, abusive heterosexual relationship would be a more desirable and acceptable coupling than a committed homosexual one. This assertion is absurd.
Isn't it curious how John Murphy mentions that his community rejects that not all relationships are equal, however, some government institutions, such as CentreLink, actually *do* recognise heterosexual & homosexual couples as equal... primarily for financial reasons of course.
We do love people who both accept AND reject an ideal. Announcing "I would both love and hate sugar in my coffee," would really send a clear message to the barista preparing your beverage of a morning, wouldn't it? It's paradoxical comments like these that fill us with confusion.
Ahh yes, there's nothing like a clear statement of position. And that's nothing like a clear statement of position. I’m guessing John Murphy probably wasn't on the debating team at school with arguments such as these.
‘…Mr Murphy said there was a "silent majority" in his electorate that wants to defend the institution of marriage…’
A "silent majority" sounds like a suspiciously convenient way of excusing a lack of evidence about the opinions of an electorate. How did John Murphy find out about this secret majority? Does this silent majority have a plan of attack? How exactly will a silent majority defend the institution of marriage without a voice, or making themselves known to the wider community, in order to spread their message?
The Annotated takes a dim view of the opinions voiced at this particular conference, and we watch with interest to see what else might arise in the nationwide debate against same sex marriage.
