Beginning this by saying that I think that same sex marriage is NOT what we should be discussing, and then immediately talking about same sex marriage may make some of you think that I’m inconsistent enough to be Tony Abbott.
However, I want to make the point that we shouldn’t be talking about same sex marriage because it should have been put to a vote and passed by now. The main arguments I’ve heard against gay marriage are in fact arguments against gay relationships themselves. For example, the argument that children deserve a mother AND a father has often distracted us into arguing that the children of people raised by those in a gay relationship haven’t turned out to be three-headed monsters, rather than making the simple point that – as this is already something occuring in our society – why shouldn’t these people be allowed to solemnise their relationship with a marriage?
Ok, Cory, I understand that you don’t approve of gay people, but they exist and have lives and some of them have children and and you seem to be saying that can’t stop that, but you can sure as hell, stop them getting married just to show them that they’re not normal like you. Thank god, say most of us!
Similarly, the idea that caterers or wedding photographers or printers could be forced to abandon their principles and service gay clients strikes me as slightly absurd. For a start, I’m not sure that too many people would want a photographer or caterer who had made it clear that they disapproved. And if people want to put a sign in their window telling us all that they don’t want to provide wedding services to gay people then that’s ok. Some of the rest of us could point out that we don’t want to provide services to people like them and I’ll leave it to others to boycott their business, but as far as I’m concerned they can just take their business and …
Oh, I seem to be distracted.
Anyway, I find the whole argument as strange as the one about Adam Goodes where people asserted that they had every right to boo whomsoever they liked, but nobody could call them racist because that hurt their feelings.
And as for the idea of a plebiscite, well, that sounds all very well. Unfortunately, the thing about deciding people’s “rights” to vote doesn’t have a very good history. Partly because the people who are seeking rights are often the people denied a vote. “The men took a vote and decided that there was no reason to give a vote to women!” If everybody votes that people with the surname “Murdoch” should surrender all their wealth and work as slaves, it might get through because of a certain hostility to one member of the family; for the rest of the family it may be considered a breach of their rights.
Mm, I planned to talk about Abbott’s strange love of coal and his determination that come what may we must protect our coal industry. He seems to have no similar commitment to cars, textiles or ships.
Yet I found myself talking about same sex marriage.
By the way, the title of this – Tony Abbott: Verbis tribus tantum is Latin:
“Tony Abbott: Three Words Only!”
It seems his motto!
50 total views, 4 views today