“I Do” or “I Don’t”

Originally published September 22, 2017

---

With the upcoming postal vote, there’s a lot of campaigns promoting same sex marriage and supporting LGBT+ relationships. Though I 100% believe any one should have the freedom to marry who they want, I realised there isn’t any good arguments for the other side. The latest campaign against the same sex marriage debate was plain stupid. The arguments didn’t have anything to do with the current issue, and were just trying (and failing) to make us connect with the advertisers through fear tactics about our children. That may have worked back in World War II to scare American citizens against communism, but it won’t work today, especially with an ad like that.

But don’t worry all you ‘NO’ voters, I’m not one sided or biased. I came very close to not considering fully the other aspect, the possibility of a ‘no’ vote. But luckily a good argument turned up at my door step. At first, my inner ‘YES’ was having demanding answers, but by the end of the article I had a LOT to read about. The arguments were good, I’ll admit, even if I don’t agree with all of them.

On Page 9 of the Fremantle Herald (Volume 28 No 35, 2 September 2017) is an article titled Why I’ll be saying ‘I don’t’ by Sherry Sufi. It is worth a read. If you are for same sex marriage, your hackles will be raised, but try to read through until the end and consider the points. If you can read the article, read it first and develop your own opinions before reading on. If not, go ahead, I’ll present the arguments I’m talking about, just know that they aren’t word for word at all, and just brief evaluations of my own.

The first point that jumped out at me was the lack of VALID arguments AGAINST same sex marriage. Surely someone, somewhere, has a strong enough feeling of opposition AND a working brain to bring up a single valid point against the vote. And if not, then why is it even down to a vote? Why are we delaying, and what ridiculous reasons have we been given (my internet is currently down writing this, so I can’t research the answers to my own questions).

The second point made sense, but I disagree with it all the same. It said that LGBT+ relationships already have equality; they have the same benefits as straight couples for taxation, superannuation, immigration, social welfare, medicare, aged care and child support. So why are they fighting for equality when they already have it? Sufi seems to believe that they are fighting for equal classification, not equal treatment. Legally, LGBT+ relationships are treated equally to straight relationships. But this isn’t about the legalities, which is what makes it a difficult argument. This is about love, and beyond that, about respect.

Yes, if people truly love each other, they shouldn’t need writing on paper to state it. But there are so many other beliefs out there that people share. No kids before marriage isn’t an option for LGBT+, they never have the privilege to call each other husband and wife in any way (a note on that below). Even if those beliefs don’t matter to the couple, it might to their family and friends. This marriage vote isn’t about being equal regarding financial support and government treatment. It’s a step towards being considered equal by the people in our lives, and treated with the same respect and compassion as a straight couple.

In an ideal future, would there even be ‘straight’ and ‘not’? Wouldn’t it be amazing if people were just couples, and there was no urge to classify them into categories? I can’t wait for that day, and I hope to one day see it.

The last point that caught my interest from Sufi’s article was the definition of marriage. Marriage “specifics both the gender and the number of participants”. If we are fighting to reconsider the definition of marriage and open our minds to more than the simple man and woman (though us simple couples are cool too!), why not welcome polygamous relationships? I really hope that’s the right word, no google and I only have a chemistry dictionary with me. There are many instances of abusive polygamy, in other countries where women are forced to serve one man, and he can take whomever and whatever he wants based on social status and wealth.

But it’s not always like that. I believe it’s rare. I’ve seen multiple LGBT+ relationships, but never a polygamous relationship. But surely, somewhere, there are people that through circumstances have fallen in love… in a three. Or a four. Or more. There’d be hardships and struggles, like any relationship (I think even more struggles to be accepted than normal), but what is wrong with that? If we are talking love, then love has no boundaries. If we are talking legalities, then I still don’t see the problem. I honestly haven’t considered polygamy much, it isn’t something that comes up often. But I am open to exploring the pros and cons of allowing polygamous relationships into our society, and giving them the same freedom as everyone else.

The problem is, where do you stop? What defines love in a way that leads to marriage? You can love your best friend just as much as your partner, but that doesn’t mean you’d consider proposing to them. What goes into a marriage? It can’t be a sole value. The prospect of living together? I currently live with my best friend, not my boyfriend. Raising a family? People can be married and not raise a family, so that doesn’t HAVE to be a standard either. Is it down to the sexual aspects of marriage? But people can be involved with someone sexually without the emotional attachment that is key in marriage as well. There are so many different aspects that constitute the basic idea of marriage, and I don’t even know what they are, to be honest.

I don’t know how to redefine marriage without breaking down the barriers that make it. Marriage is set in stone, and though I WILL be voting yes, and I WILL support the freedom for anyone to marry should they want that future for themselves, I also don’t know what the definition of marriage will become. For me, being a person open to many things, I’m not scared of that future definition. If I can marry who I want if I want, then that’s the only way it affects me. I don’t see why there is a no vote, when if you are against same sex marriage, then just don’t be in a marriage with someone of the same sex. It is a personal choice, and people are trying to choose for others and take that choice away. That’s where the freedom is removed and chains created.

What are your thoughts? I’m open to anything, yes or no, couples or triples, male or female or bother or neither. Share your opinions and ideas below, or send me an email.

I’m sort of curious. If you had a same sex couple, two females or two males, and they got married, what would they call each other? Would one choose to be the husband and other the wife, or would two females call themselves both wives, two males husbands? Would there be any two females that call themselves both husbands (husbands are generally portrayed as stronger physically and in the workforce, so why not?). Or would they interchange the titles based on certain things. If one person was doing the dishes and the other mowing, would they be respectively wife and husband that week, and switch the next. Or if one was going to a fancy former dinner for work, and the other went to support them, would they agree beforehand to introduce each other a certain way for a certain reason? Like introducing the one trying to find work as the husband, or switching it based on who they spoke to?

My question is really a vote for same sex couples to take. If you were married would you:

1. Be husband and wife (and how would you choose)

2. Be husband and husband (and are you male or female)

3. Be wife and wife (and are you male or female)

4. Interchange it depending on the circumstances (and can you think of any circumstances)

If you know anyone in such a relationship, or are in one yourself, please feel free to vote in the comments section, or contact me to let me know.