Same Same - Why don't we allow gay marriage?

I’ve chosen not to get married.  Not because I don’t love my partner, it’s just that we’re not into the whole big frou frou wedding thing (that and we get to call our daughter a little bastard with impunity).  That’s the point though; we’ve chosen not to get married.  We could if we wanted to -should we get drunk in Vegas again we just might - but it’s an option we have.  At the moment there is a whole subsection of the population that don’t have the ability to make the same choice as everyone else.

A recent poll showed that 60% of the population (I’d call that a majority, wouldn’t you?) support gay marriage (here).  And that number is rising.  The politicians are slow to come to the party, but are getting there slowly but surely (here).  Ironic that we seem to be able to agree on this topic, but have a hard time choosing a government.

For the first time in a while I’m quite proud of my fellow Aussies; and somewhat pleasantly surprised.  60% is a good start and once people realise that allowing gay marriages won’t set their suburb ablaze and modifying the Marriage Act won’t turn their children and pets into one of “The Gays”, we’ll have genuine acceptance.

But we’re not there yet.  There’s a long way to go.  We’re up against righty Christian’s, who say that marriage is about procreation and furthering the species.  OK, fine.  If that’s the case, any hetro couple that don’t want kids or are barren can’t marry either.  Banned.  Old people too.  If they can’t create a sprog, then they’re shitcanned as well.  I mean, I’m only trying to be consistent here.  It’s only fair.

Another argument (and I use the term loosely) is that god created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.  Which, to give them credit, is kind of amusing and looks good on a t-shirt.  But when you examine it as a reasoned argument, it is as based in reality as the Easter Bunny, Santa and Jordan’s breasts.  The bible also has sea monsters, giants and unicorns (here), so how about we not use that as an enlightened legal argument in the 21^st century, OK?

Gillard is still opposed, but I’m unable to figure out why.  I mean, she’s an atheist, so doesn’t have a book of fairytales telling her gay marriage is wrong, so what’s the problem Jules?  Think you’d be seen as too radical to want gay marriages?  Well at least we’d see you believe in something.  

Let’s take this back to basics.  Disregarding the whole gay/straight thing - what if someone told you that the person you loved with all your heart wasn’t allowed to marry you?   Everyone else can have a pirate themed wedding or a marriage with fireworks and a pink cake (here), whatever, but you, YOU’RE not allowed to have a wedding.  Doesn’t sit that well does it?  What if we said anyone Aboriginal wasn’t allowed to marry.  Or anyone over six feet tall?  What it all comes down to is one simple word - discrimination.  Anyone who says differently is either naive or a bare faced liar.  Or both.

This debate will drag on for a while.  Predictably all the reactionary commentators will be dragged out of the closet (ahem) to say this is the end of Western civilization and that we as a species will die out and that we’ll all be forced to eat AIDS for breakfast.  I’ve got an answer to all that.  If the likes of Fred Nile and Andrew Bolt don’t like it, then they shouldn’t marry another bloke.  Let the rest of us live in a society where discrimination isn’t institutionalised and freedom is a basic right for all to exercise.