Equal Rights For Same-Sex Couples

In modern times where social and cultural diversity are encouraged, Australia's failure to accept same-sex marriage and adoption is a prominent signature of our archaic society.

Australia prides itself on being one of the most culturally diverse nations in the world, yet our tolerance falls short in the case of those whose sexually differs from that which many of us perceive to be socially acceptable. Former Prime Minister John Howard encouraged this homophobic stance stating that "preventing same-sex couples from marrying is a matter of survival of the species".

We should be questioning as a society why we and our government so whole heartedly oppose the union of two people, when all that differs is their sexual orientation. Are same-sex couples not still human beings too? Marriage is a union that recognises the love and commitment two people have for each other, it is a human right not a heterosexual privilege. Is it really the right of a governing body to deny people their rights to marriage? Would they maintain their homophobic stance if this were to directly affect members of their own family?

Many countries across the globe are beginning to acknowledge the need for the acceptance of same-sex marriages or civil unions; Canada, Belgium, Sweden, South Africa, Britain and some states in the US. The legislation of these unions in these countries has been a major forward movement toward equality for all. It would greatly benefit Australia, as a nation to take the initiative and follow on in the footsteps of these countries. Massachusetts, the only US state that has legalized marriages, not civil unions surveyed its citizens and found that 62% of voters were in favour of giving same-sex couples the rights to marry.

Much of the debate and controversy surrounding this issue comes from the idea that homosexuality is a sin and because of religious objection, we should not legalize same-sex unions. However religious objection should not have such an impact, society should not allow itself to be governed by the beliefs of any one group on individuals. Legalizing gay marriage does not force religious groups to accept this movement, nor does it obligate them to perform ceremonies. Any law passed would not include a jurisdiction dictating the involvement of any opposing organization in these unions, thereby maintaining the rights of religious movements to object to same-sex unions.

Each year in Australia we celebrate gay and lesbian couples through the "pride parade" Mardi Gras. Thousands of people attend these flamboyant spectacles across the country which promote awareness and tolerance for gay rights, yet we still fail to recognise its true significance, the promotion of equal rights for all, gay or straight, in every aspect of life.

Australia Marriage Equality a national organization which aims to obtain equal marriage rights for all, regardless of gender or sexuality, believes that same-sex couples wish to marry in order to "publicly proclaim and celebrate their love and commitment". AME also believes that same-sex couples have the same sanctity as any heterosexual couple. Each year hundreds of gay couples are forced to travel to Canada to have their unions legally recognised, yet even then their own nation denies these unions their rightful recognition. Many activists believe that the laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are the same as laws that once prevented inter-racial couples from being married. These laws, which society now views as racist and absurd have been overturned since the 60's, isn't it time we followed suit with same-sex unions?

Across the globe this same prejudice applies to same-sex adoptions. There are millions of children in this world who are orphaned or put up for adoption every year. These children are deprived of love, stability and warmth which can be provided only by a caring family environment. Yet governments maintain the consensus that it is acceptable to deny these children of a chance at a new life, simply because many of their would-be parents are the same gender. In a world where so many children miss out on opportunities many of us take for granted each day, should we allow ourselves as a society to deny them the chance for a loving family too?

Our earth is slowly becoming overpopulated, we are depleting our mineral resources and clearing out natural landscape to provide housing for our ever expanding populations. Would it not be justifiable to say encouraging same-sex adoptions, rather then forcing them to resort to IVF or surrogacy could help ease the burden being placed on our planet? Allowing same-sex couples to adopt could also aid in reducing the overcrowding experienced by many orphanages around the world. Rather then be forced to live in these poor conditions, children would be granted access to a better lifestyle.

Same-sex adoptions have most recently been declared legal in South Africa, Sweden, Germany, The UK and some parts of Canada and the US. In the UK Catholic adoption agencies have been in uproar over the new laws which allow same-sex couples to adopt. Former British PM Tony Blair denied Catholic agencies exemption from the new anti-discrimination laws, which disallows them to refuse to place their children with same-se couples. Mr Blair stated that "I support the right of gay couples to apply to adopt like any other couple".

Benefits of same-sex adoption can also be seen in the children themselves. It is after all Australia's lack of tolerance for these issues that is preventing couples from experiencing the wonders of parenthood. These children would have a far greater understanding and respect for those of other races, religions and sexuality, through their experiences of growing up in a same-sex parental relationship. Rather then being deprived of a normal family these children would obtain a much more sympathetic outlook toward the discrimination of any group of individuals. As for the debate that same-sex families deprive children of a normal parental balance it is entirely unfounded. Children in single parent families experience a similar situation, many of which adjust fine and experience normal childhoods. Would it not be fair to argue that same-sex parented children would perhaps be better off with two parents of the same gender, as opposed to one parent? After all how can you miss something you have never experienced?

There is also great debate about same-sex parents affecting their children's sexual orientation, many groups who appose same-sex adoptions arguing that the children are more likely to be "gay" themselves. However much of the research into this matter refutes these claims. There is no reputable evidence found that supports the theory that children with same-sex parents are more likely to be gay themselves as opposed to children with heterosexual parents. Inevitably this is the child's decision and in many cases they do not follow their parent's sexuality. Vanessa Schwartz a university professor and gay parent argues that "even if parents wanted to influence their child's sexuality they probably couldn't. She points to her daughter, Rachel, 4, who resists suggestions that Cinderella could be happy with another Cinderella. She says no, mum, she has to find a prince"

In more recent times, plagued with war and terrorism, much of our society seems to have forgotten that we are a nation built upon our cultural diversity. Such times of negativity call for a positive change in society to reaffirm out diverse stance. Now is an opportune time to take a step forward and accept same-sex couples as an equal part of our culture, perhaps if we do we can have a positive impact on our neighboring and allied countries. We must question if we truly believe it is right for our society to be dictated to be by books and bias governing bodies. Discrimination in any form should be unacceptable, yet as a society we are still able to tolerate those who discriminate against a person's sexual orientation, all because of religion. If the bible said that being Asian, Jewish or Aboriginal was "wrong" would it then be socially acceptable to discriminate and persecute these groups? We should be asking whether we let our government be dictated by a book or by what is truly beneficial to our society?