un couer en hiver

Not uncommon in debates, is a polarisation between two opposing sides: one that seeks radical change, and another that prefers to conform to tradition. Often, a more rational position can be attained by understanding the positions presented by each side, and finding a logical midway point that does justice to whatever merit each argument has.

At first glance, same-sex marriage appears to be a textbook example of such an argument. However, on closer inspection, I find it difficult to even positively assess one side's viewpoint, let alone incorporate aspects of it within my own opinion.

Perhaps I should explain exactly what my view is.

My firm belief is that, in a utilitarian society (which, in most aspects, Western nations clearly resemble), the concept of enforcing a system that limits human rights, despite there being no evidence of the alternative causing significant personal harm or societal damage in any way, is absurd. And yet, this is the current situation in Australia - there is no universal legal recognition of same-sex couples, certainly not on equal par with that granted to heterosexual couples, should they choose to formally commit to each other.

I would like to address some of the major arguments opposing my view, to show just how weak the current governmental and societal paradigm is.

One such argument claims that, as marriage is primarily the domain of monogamous couples, and (most likely reflecting a lack of awareness about homosexuality on the arguer's part) that monogamy is not really an aspect of the 'gay' lifestyle. This assumption, even if it were true, is completely irrelevant - for, even if the majority of homosexuals did indeed prefer promiscuity, that is no reason to bar the remainder from exercising their desire to commit to the (theoretically) unconventional lifestyle. Indeed, if there was only one couple who desired to be legally united, I do not see why their rights should be denied because of the preferences of others.

Another argument states that marriage entails the right to parent children, and is thus inappropriate for homosexuals, as the ideal environment for a child to be raised is with two parents representing each sex. This proposition is seriously flawed, as it ignores the fact that single-parent families are far from uncommon in this day and age. One might counter that such a situation is far from ideal, but the fact remains that the law grants the single mother the right to be parent to her child - how then can it be logically argued that it would be less desirable if the single mother was replaced by two mothers, or two fathers?

Indeed, there is little logical basis to even suggest that heterosexual parents are in any way more adept at raising children than their homosexual counterparts. While it is true that heterosexual parenthood is the natural order, the fact is that advanced technology, changes in gender roles and highly available information give homosexual parents as much chance as heterosexual parents of  raising children in a healthy, positive environment.

The last major argument appeals to religion, but I choose to discard this completely - after all, the tenet of the separation of church and state is one that predates this debate by centuries, and thus, religious opposition should have no impact on the making of laws.

In conclusion, there seems to be little, if any credence to arguments against same-sex marriage, and neither does there seem to be a reason why it is not yet a wholly accepted part of society. This is a situation that must change - and soon.