LETTER TO THE EDITOR:
I READ Harriet Shing’s article headed ‘Shing urges people not to boycott marriage equality postal survey’ (Gippsland Times 22/8) with compassion for her anxiety over this issue.
I have noticed that since this bill was first proposed, any opposition is quickly labelled as discriminatory or judgemental or “hate speech” by those in agreement with the proposed changes to traditional marriage laws, even if the opposing viewpoint is respectfully and compassionately stated.
Judgment becomes harmful when it is made against people, instead of actions, objects or behaviours.
It is judgemental to say, think or believe that people should be condemned for their sexual orientation or their life choices.
In the case of people with same sex attraction, we can’t judge what caused this or the process which led them to an LGBTQI lifestyle, and many of these people have endured great pain, alienation and personal struggle in coming to terms with their sexual orientation, the decision to embrace it and the reactions of others.
In this they need our understanding and compassion, and if they have this then we are not discriminating against them, even if we disagree with their lifestyle or whether they should or should not be able to marry.
It is not discrimination to have an opinion.
I believe that a discernment that couples with same sex attraction are not eligible for marriage on an equal footing with heterosexual couples focuses more honestly on their relationships dissimilarities, in terms of their sexual and reproductive complementarity.
For years people with same sex attraction have been fighting to be open about their identity, celebrate their differences and to “come out of the closet”, and now that they have achieved that, I cannot understand the push to change the whole traditional concept of marriage in order that their relationships appear no different to those of heterosexual couples.
The catchphrase “It’s all about love” doesn’t address this — it simply seeks to blot it out under sentiment and to suggest that denying marriage is denying love.
No one is denying that same sex attracted couples love one another, but that is not sufficient reason to change the law governing the meaning of marriage.
One thing that stood out was that Ms Shing seems to have a negative view of how people will respond to an unregulated postal survey, perhaps because it is not a clear “yes” or “no” vote.
Her fear around this issue may have coloured the rest of her argument.
I think we should all remember that people with and without same sex attraction are firstly people.
Whether we agree or disagree with others, it is important to consider carefully how we state our preferences and to own those preferences but, having said that, it is also vital that those who disagree with the proposed changes to the Marriage Act are not silenced by opposition, “political correctness” or fear of the consequences of clearly and respectfully stating their views.
