Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

'New Zealand!' is not an argument for same-sex marriage

By Blaise Joseph - posted Monday, 22 April 2013

New Zealand has done it!

The sun will still rise!

It's inevitable!

These are not arguments.

This should be obvious, but the aftermath of the New Zealand vote to redefine marriage has once again shown how the same-sex marriage lobby tends to ignore reason and arguments in favour of meaningless platitudes.


We have heard countless times the last few days that since New Zealand has legalised same-sex marriage, Australia must follow suit. I wonder how far people are willing to take this logic. For example, New Zealand has a very creative pronunciation of the letter'i'. Does this (or thus?) mean Australia should adopt their pronunciation?

New Zealand MP Maurice Williamson said that "the sun will still rise tomorrow" if we allow same-sex marriage. Well, yes, most people would concede that. But you see, if the best you can say about a policy is that the sun will still rise, it doesn't reflect particularly well on the policy.

On our side of the ditch/dutch we heard NSW Premier Barry O'Farrell say that he now supports same-sex marriage, claiming that the idea that it would denigrate the institution of marriage was "utterly ridiculous." Evidently, it wasn't "utterly ridiculous" enough for him to risk speaking out about it during his previous 14 years in parliament. When a politician jumps on the bandwagon it does not make the case for same-sex marriage stronger.

It may encourage the usual chorus cry "it's inevitable!" but again this is devoid of any intellectual substance. Firstly, it is very hard to know that something of this nature is inevitable, as opinions polls and social attitudes can change quickly. Secondly, and more importantly, it has no bearing on whether or not it is a good idea. We say that every impending disaster is inevitable, but that doesn't mean that we should support it.

In spite of all the rhetoric about inevitability and opinion polls on same-sex marriage, the reality remains that millions and millions of Australians do not support redefining marriage. The decision last year by Tony Abbott to ensure the Coalition voted together in favour of the current definition of marriage is representative of the views of a significant proportion of Australians, and almost certainly a majority of Coalition voters.

So why do so many Australians oppose same-sex marriage? It is important to note that most Australians had no problem at all with removing all practical discrimination against same-sex couples back in 2008. This shows that disagreement over same-sex marriage isn't due so much to different views on same-sex couples as much as it is due to different views on marriage.


The current public purpose of marriage lies mainly in encouraging a man and a woman to look after their child when they have one. The social importance of mothering and fathering, as recognised by marriage, comes from thousands of years of human experience across most cultures. Obviously, there are other important aspects of marriage, but the link to children is the only logical reason for government to remain involved in the institution. The point is no logical alternative viewhas been offered, other than to deregulate marriage altogether.

That is, the new proposed definition of marriage, a union between any two consenting adults, raises lots of new questions about the purpose of marriage. Why does a marriage have to be a sexual relationship, as opposed to a platonic relationship such as between siblings? Or between life-long friends? What is the justification for government regulation of adult personal relationships? If tradition and a link to children are not the basis of marriage, then what is? Why are polyamorous relationships excluded from the institution if it is just about love? To date, these questions have not been addressed. Meaningless platitudes about "equality" have become a substitute for in-depth discussion about what marriage is.

The current definition of marriage has a very deep cultural, social, and religious significance for many people, who understandably object to replacing it for no practical reason with a new definition which no one wants to explain.

Blaise Joseph is a third-year commerce student and Co-op scholar at the University of New South Wales with a strong interest in social policy. He is the editor of Conjugality, a website dealing with marriage and family issues.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

73 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Blaise is a first-year commerce student and Co-op scholar at the University of New South Wales. He is originally from Canberra, and took a gap year in 2010 working at the Department of Broadband, Communications, and the Digital Economy.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Blaise Joseph

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 73 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy