Reasons for changing marriage remain flawed

Please hear me carefully, I am not saying that we must oppose same-sex marriage because it might lead to an even further dilution of marriage, my point is that the case for same-sex marriage is inherently flawed. The espoused 'equal love' cry is not an argument for monogamous life-long marriages, but an argument for embracing any kind of genuinely loving relationship as marriage.

Penny Wong is among several notable Australians who have mocked any connection between monogamous and polygamous marriage, but it is the very rationale she insists upon that is rationally being taken up by others. We are being naive if we ignore the fact that within hours of the Supreme Court decision in the United States, the pro-polyamorous brigade turned up the volume. Professor Fredrik deBoerof Prude University wrote, "Now that we've defined that love and devotion and family isn't driven by gender alone, why should it be limited to just two individuals? The most natural advance next for marriage lies in legalized polygamy".

In Australia there are community leaders advocating pushing beyond what the current bills before Parliament are intending. Earlier this year Simon Copland, a columnist with the Sydney Star Observer, published on the SBS the view that equal marriage might unfortunately limit expressions of sexuality, saying that 'while monogamous marriage still works for many, our society is increasingly questioning whether it should remain as the only option'.

Only last year, NSW District Court Judge, Garry Neilson, stated that 'the "only reason" that incest is still a crime is because of the high risk of genetic abnormalities in children born from consanguineous relationships'. Yes, he was reprimanded for his comments, but the fact remains that society's views on marriage have so disintegrated that he felt comfortable to share this opinion in an Australian courtroom.

My question is: what is it about marriage that, in the eyes of gay marriage advocates, makes some loving relationships fit the criteria and not others? If marriage is simply about recognising 'equal love' then it is incongruous to refuse polyamorous and incestuous marriages to those who desire them. However, if marriage is more than simply 'equal love', what are those other essential ingredients that properly define it as marriage?

Truth be told, the reasoning for change is big on emotion and little on substance. Given that this is the case, it would not only be unwise but incongruous for Australia to change the universal and historic understanding of marriage.