Earlier this month I was trawling my Twitter feed when I came across an opinion piece by Ted Lapkin (\u2018Too much to bear\u2019) arguing that allowing same-sex marriage in Australia is a step too far.<\/p>\n
Lapkin outlines his view of marriage equality as leading to an inevitable \u201cslide down the slippery slope of social disintegration\u201d. Aside from his glittering use of alliteration, he states that marriage equality will ultimately lead to polygamy and sex between siblings.
\nI read the article in disbelief and posted \u201cThis article is so crudely ignorant and offensive to the #marriageequality fight it made me cry\u201d.<\/p>\n
Although I\u2019m not following the author in question on Twitter, I quickly received this pearl of wisdom from him \u201c@serenaeryan Time to toughen up rather than go all teary. How about reasoned rebuttal rather than calling my argument names? Not impressed\u201d.<\/p>\n
A mate of mine weighed in with a witty play on words referring to Lapkin as a lapin, which he assumed, was a spelling error but in fact is the name for a castrated rabbit. <\/p>\n
I suspect my mate responded to the exchange because, like me, he heard the tonal screeching of the article as something akin to the sound of castration, sorry, dissent.<\/p>\n
To this we received \u201c@serenaeryan @philjengkane Let me know when you evolve beyond puerile name-calling, and perhaps I\u2019ll deign to debate the issue with you\u201d.<\/p>\n
I won\u2019t bore you with the rest of the exchange because frankly, it\u2019s not worth it. I\u2019m the last person to turn on the tears whenever something doesn\u2019t go my way. My tears were of frustration and I\u2019d like to explain why. <\/p>\n
Lapkin\u2019s article started with an attack on Adam Bandt, referring to his passion for marriage equality as nothing short of thespian. This I found peculiar because thespian implies make-believe and I\u2019m sure Adam\u2019s views are anything but. <\/p>\n
The author quickly follows this up by acknowledging that \u201call Australians are entitled to the same rights and privileges of a democracy. Each and every one of us \u2014 gay or straight, black or white, believer or non-believer \u2014 is entitled to identical protections of law in our individual persons and property\u201d.<\/p>\n
I perked up when I read this, thinking maybe the article would progress to a deeper understanding of the marriage equality debate, but then I read the next line and realised I\u2019d peaked too early. <\/p>\n
Lapkin acknowledges the importance of identical protections for individuals unless it relates to same-sex unions i.e. \u201csame-sex marriage does not pertain to individual rights\u201d.
\nIf the marriage equality debate doesn\u2019t relate to individuals, then what, pray tell, does it refer to?<\/p>\n
I\u2019m of the opinion that the debate is much broader than what goes on in the bedroom, but according to Lapkin, my sexual congress is the only thing that defines me. I can tell you that it isn\u2019t. <\/p>\n
As I read further, Lapkin states that \u201csexual activity is volitional\u201d. <\/p>\n
Yes, sexual activity is an intimate agreement between consenting folk but sexuality isn\u2019t. Basing an argument solely around sexual behaviour fails to extract the deeper issues relating to equality for the gay and lesbian community. <\/p>\n
We are more than the sum of our sexual activity \u2014 we live our lives like anyone else. We go to work, we fall in love, we have children, we pay taxes and we vote. Surely this entitles us to the same rights as our heterosexual counterparts?<\/p>\n
The countries that have embraced marriage equality have not experienced the social disintegration that Lapkin forecasts for Australia. New York appears to be coping admirably with same-sex marriages, as does Spain. I refer to these two regions given the strong Jewish and Catholic populations that reside there. <\/p>\n
Similarly, Lapkin\u2019s comments about children needing the \u201csuperior child-rearing environment of a heterosexual home\u201d are baseless when recent research confirms that adolescents raised by lesbian mothers are better adjusted and more tolerant of a range of stressors than children raised in heterosexual homes.<\/p>\n
The grudging acknowledgement that gay families can provide loving homes to children is glib at best, with the author claiming this to be the exception rather than the norm and again, is stated without evidence. <\/p>\n
So while Lapkin patronisingly gives his consent for same-sex couples to continue to live together and love each \u201cas they have been for time immemorial\u201d his message is clear. He believes \u201cmarriage should remain as it\u2019s always been \u2014 the union of a single man and single woman who come together for the primary purpose of rearing the healthiest children possible\u201d. <\/p>\n
The endorsement of marriage equality will not end the world, it will not create a push for polygamous marriage and I suspect it will not create any desires for siblings to have sex. There is no evidence to suggest these issues will take precedence if the gay and lesbian community is allowed to marry and the suggestion of it is farcical and ignorant. <\/p>\n
It denigrates our fight for equal rights as individuals, as couples and as a community.<\/p>\n
A guest column by Serena Ryan. <\/p>\n
Ryan co-hosts radio show Salt and Pepper on JOY94.9.<\/p>\n