With the recent announcement of a Tasmanian proposal to make abortion more readily accessible, I was reading through the (extremely bias) leaflet explaining the changes. One thing that caught my eye was the following statement under the section explaining the reasons why the law needs to be changed:
The law needs to change to recognise unplanned pregnancies will occur
To which I certainly agree. However, turns out there are two ways to recognise this (any there could well be more.) I would argue that we need to make adoption more accessible (however I’m all for vetting all families wishing to adopt to ensure that they can provide a safe and stable home, but currently it’s ridiculous.) We should also be funnelling money to pregnancy support services to help women work through their unplanned pregnancy. We should be encouraging abstinence and sexual purity rather than encourage promiscuity (which, let’s be honest, our society does.) Pregnancy isn’t a disease, and doesn’t need to be cured with abortion. This is one path to take to recognise unplanned pregnancies.
This got me thinking of some arguments for gay marriage that I have heard. To be honest, upon inspection, these arguments don’t hold up. I want to take a look at two different ones.
Divorce has ruined the meaning of marriage and gay marriage isn’t anywhere near as bad.
I wholeheartedly agree that divorce has ruined the meaning of marriage. However, this isn’t a reason to allow gay marriage, which will further erode the true meaning of marriage of being between a man and a woman, for life. The ease of divorce has already ruined the latter. So instead of saying “oh well, marriage is already ruined, let’s allow gay marriage” we should be saying “both divorce and gay marriage is wrong, we should make divorce harder rather than make gay marriage legal.”
As a side, I am mostly referring to no-fault divorce. Divorce is a evil necessity in some cases when one person is at fault (for example, but not limited to, adultery.) It would be good to try and work it out, however in some cases it is simply not possible. I know people who are divorced, and in their circumstances it was justified due to fault on their partners side. The reason it is justified is that humans are sinful, and as a result divorce is in some cases a necessary evil. However, allowing no-fault divorce undermines the meaning of marriage, and the times when it is a necessary evil are certainly not the most cases. If it is the most cases, then it’s even further evidence our society is falling into a decline in morality. A high divorce rate as a direct result of adultery is awful!
People can decide to get married overnight and have a Vegas wedding, yet a gay couple can’t get married
This is just unfair isn’t it! Well, I agree, I don’t think people should be able to have Vegas weddings. Instead of saying we should allow gay marriage, we should instead be saying we need to restrict Vegas weddings. Australia actually does have this right (or at least more right than other countries) in that it requires at least 1 month notification of intention to get married (Marriage Act 1961, s42(1)(a).) Rather than using this as an argument for gay marriage, we should instead be working towards fixing this issue.