Currently, there are serious attempts in Australia to redefine marriage by the homosexual lobby. We are told that marriage need not be between a husband and wife, a man and a woman, and that any other position is discriminatory. Marriage, we are told, can also be between two men, or two women. It seems that the magic about marriage is the number ‘two’. If you have two, and consent, they call it equal marriage.
But this is not 'equal' marriage. If all the proponents change from the definition is excise 'man and woman' and include 'two persons', they have not removed discrimination from the definition, and the law will still discriminate against many groups.
Firstly, unless they have a wider agenda, by doing no more, they discriminate against those who want to marry a close relative. We have provisions in our law against the marriage of close relatives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_incest#Australia). Suppose a person wishes to marry their adult daughter or son with consent. What if a man and a woman are of age, and they love each other. Why should others deny their marriage, just because they are brother and sister, or father and daughter, or mother and son, or two brothers, or two sisters, or an uncle and a nephew. It wasn’t their fault they were born that way. You might not like it, but so what? Love + Love = Marriage, on their own reasoning. Who are you to judge their love? But of course, equal marriage advocates aren’t seeking to remove the provisions against prohibited or incestuous relationships. So they discriminate against incestuous relations.
Secondly, by limiting marriage to heterosexuals or homosexuals, they discriminate against the bi-sexual, who may wish to marry both a husband and a wife, or more. Of course, so many groups like the Greens claim that they are looking after the interests of the GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bi-Sexual and Transgender) community. But why then are they saying that only ‘two’ marry? That doesn’t allow the bi-sexual the freedom to be what he or she is. If the homosexual can’t help it and was born that way, neither can the bi-sexual. Why are you making them choose, by limiting them to only one person at a time? The bisexual then is not permitted to express their love in marrying all the people they love. You are denying their human rights. So the equal marriage advocate discriminates against the polyamourist.
Third, what if ever since a person could remember, they've been attracted to many members of the opposite sex? Maybe they are polygamous by nature? (I use a human argument) Why can’t that person marry any number of them? Muslims allow a man to marry up to 4 women at a time? Why is that anyone else’s business, if they are of age, and it is consensual? So equal marriage discriminates against the polygamist. I’m not surprised that the Muslims are so quiet against same sex marriage. I reckon they feel they are the next logical cab off the rank. And who can logically argue against polygamy, if you allow same-sex marriage?
Fourth, why is the ‘death do us part’ bit necessary? With the ease of divorce, effectively it is ‘until one partner wants to end it’. So wouldn’t it be more honest to allow that? For better or worse, until one partner wants to end it. Then, of course, we could allow the Shi-ite practice of ‘Muhtah marriage’. A person could be married for a certain period of time. And who are you, to say that is not marriage, you bigot!
In fact, why do we discriminate against the single person. Why can't the single person have the status of marriage, even if they don't have another partner. That is discriminatory.
Do you see how narrow minded and bigoted they are, these advocates of ‘equal marriage’, in saying that marriage is just between two persons for life?