The right to choose

Font Size:

So Magda Szubanski has spoken in favour of same sex marriage, do we care? Personally I believe everyone has the right to proclaim their support for whatever takes their fancy, the fact that they happen to be a celebrity holds no weight for me. Celebrities seem too eagre to speak up for this cause or that cause and honestly, it becomes a little predictable.

However, Ms Szubanski made it clear that she was in favour of legalising same sex marriage as a gay woman and for this she should be applauded.  Why should she, just because she is not attracted to men, be denied the legal right to proclaim her love and wish to spend the rest of her life with her chosen partner?

There has been a lot of scare mongering in the media and by those who know no better, about the demise of society should same sex marriage be legalised. Those who have not bothered to actually find out what is being proposed proclaim that this is not what God envisaged when he thought up the whole idea of holy matrimony. I’m sure God didn’t envisage mass corruption and child abuse being carried out in his name either. No one is suggesting that the church change its view on marriage. No one is demanding the right for two men or two women to get ‘married’ in the eyes of God. All that is being asked is that two people who have chosen to spend their lives together are able to do so by obtaining the legal document, which everyone must have, regardless of whether they choose to have a civil or church ceremony. This is purely an issue of legality, not morality.

No one should pass judgment on how people live their lives, being gay isn’t a lifestyle choice; it’s in a person’s DNA. If people were more concerned about what happened within the walls of their own homes rather than what was happening behind the pink chintz curtains of next door, perhaps we could overcome many of the issues, such as hooliganism, vandalism, child-abuse and drug-abuse which really do threaten the fabric of society.

I recently answered a dilemma from a subscriber named Marg who had found out her son was gay. Quite understandably Marg was upset and struggling to come to terms with the news however, out of love for her son, she wanted to find ways of processing the information and dealing with her son’s homosexuality. I was overwhelmed with the compassionate and sensible responses (in the main), which this dilemma received. I had wrongly assumed that older Australians were less tolerant of gays and lesbians. I was delighted to have been proved wrong and for those who restored my faith in humanity, I thank you.

On the issue of same sex marriage no doubt there are people for and against it, that’s OK. However, no one be they man, woman, priest, minister, rabbi, lawyer or politician, has the right to tell someone who they can and cannot love.

Join YourLifeChoices today
and get this free eBook!

By joining YourLifeChoices you consent that you have read and agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy

Written by Debbie McTaggart


Total Comments: 23
  1. 0

    I have no worries about two people who love each other, wanting to spend the rest of their life together. They should have exactly the same rights as any other couple. I do not believe, however, that that couple should bring children into the world or get or want to get married in a church. Churches are a religious icon and as such, if you have read your bible, you will find that the protestant religions for one do not condone homosexuality. If we allow, as a people, gay marriage, it flies in the face of everything our country believes in and is governed by. It is another step towards anarchy and immorality and should not be allowed at any cost. I believe you are not born homosexual but become homosexual with the life that has been dealt to you, the company you keep and the way you have been raised. If homosexuals wish to be bound more than just living together, surely they can do that with a civil union. Many celebrants would perform this ceremony for you.

    • 0

      Jennyya I read the first 2 sentences and thought this is a broad minded lady but governed by your religious beliefs in which you were brought up and influenced by but to presume that homosexuals are “not born homosexuals” but become one due to various influences shows that in fact you are quite judgemental. With the associated stigmas attached to being homosexual no one would “choose” such ostracism as they have had and still have. Maybe science will tell eventually show this is in the DNA and those have chosen like yourself to be broad- minded within the confines of your religious up bringind will also stop branding homosexuals with a stigmata that they don’t deserve. Any one of your children could have been born a homosexual would that have meant they would not be accepted by your church to receive a blessing? Any children they may have not be accepted into church? Acceptance that these are fellow human beings has a long way to go before sexual discrimination stops.

  2. 0

    Firstly, thank you Debbie, for your comments.
    But, OH NO! here we go again……I totally agree with Debbie, but I know there are people out there who will weigh into this, TOTALLY uneducated, and take up the gauntlet that this is a personal affront to them (them, not even being gay!)

    I think we all know who that will be……..(with any luck they won’t rear their ugly heads) but some of them just can’t help themselves!!

    • 0

      Yet again ibis I totally agree with you & Debbie. Let’s hope Nautilus doesn’t weigh into this debate with his pontifical, right wing, prejudiced, & arrogant opinions.e loves to hijack a debate to push his own agenda!

  3. 0

    Why, oh why does Magda need to tell everyone. I am not at all interested. It seems to be the “in” thing for celebrities to make it known. I do wonder if some of them are just saying it to make a name for themselves, all publicity is good publicity!!
    Just keep it to yourselves.

  4. 0

    What I find interesting is that on one hand we have people in society telling us “why get married? It’s just a piece of paper” and so we have many people living together and on the other hand we have society clammoring for the rights of gay people to marry. I don’t get it. Doesn’t anybody else think thats ironic?

    • 0

      It’s an equality issue. Everyone should be given equal rights and not be treated differently so also the right to marry or not depending on their wishes. How is marriage equality going to hurt anyone? Surely it just makes us a more broadminded, up to date, tolerant, loving, & therefore better society. Let’s move on & leave the bigoted, ignorant, narrow minded past in the past where it belongs!

    • 0

      Hear hear Daz. That a portion of our population are being denied basic human rights in 2012, is simply appalling. Nobody wants to make gay marriage compulsory! But we are all citizens and deserve the same rights.

  5. 0

    It’s an equality issue. Everyone should be given equal rights and not be treated differently so also the right to marry or not depending on their wishes. How is marriage equality going to hurt anyone? Surely it just makes us a more broadminded, up to date, tolerant, loving, & therefore better society. Let’s move on & leave the bigoted, ignorant, narrow minded past in the past where it belongs!

    • 0

      Sure Daz – I can marry (and did) or not so it’s never been an issue for me. None of my (few) gay friends see their marriage status as an issue. But it obviously means a lot to some, so best of luck.

  6. 0

    Yes, I see your point Fefried. Why do gays seek the approval, right or whatever of the government, church etc. Can gays just enjoy their life together with their chosen companion and relax?

  7. 0

    Because Actual Cat, everyone should have equal rights to CHOOSE!

    I am not gay, I have been in a live in relationship for over 20 years, that’s my choice, but we should ALL be allowed to choose. Why does being gay, equate to being second class citizens in some people’s eyes?

  8. 0

    Do the people who quote the dictionary for the definition of marriage realise that language is fluid and not set in stone? Presumably they know that gay was not what it was in the 40’s.
    We also have changed “hero” from a brave and noble person to someone who can “kick a footy good.” We can lament the loss of the language if we want to, but do not but we adapt to new concepts every day ie .05 driving limits and no smoking on the train, is it such a stretch to allow all fellow human beings to “marry”. It seems alright for celebrity chefs and gastronomes to say that the shrimp and marries the white wine sauce and yet they are not stoned at the city gates. Please don”t justify your personal feelings (which you are certainly entitled to ) by quoting a dictionary it is merely a snapshot of the language at the time of printing.

  9. 0

    How can a country argue about whether gays should be allowed to marry, when we have a Prime Minister who, according to the old rules is “living in sin”. The leader of our country no less. Surely that alone blows the moralistic approach out of the water. It wasn’t so long ago in America that it was against the law for a white person to marry a black person – the world didn’t fall apart when that law was revoked. Grow up Australia. There are surely more useful things to be lobbying about than gays getting married.

  10. 0

    A clear majority of voters do not want the Marriage Act changed and I agree with them. That was established when members went back to their electorates to consult in accord with Adam Bandt ‘s demand. It is timely to add at this juncture that same sex marriage, then re-titled gay marriage has occupied significant amounts of time of the Senate and the the House of Representatives usually as a result of resolutions by the Greens.

    As someone has already suggested, there are debates of some very serious matters that have been put off to satisfy the Greens on this.

    It is interesting to read here ridiculous claims that gays are not being treated fairly when the exact opposite applies and scores of laws have been changed to ensure fairness, equality and freedom from discrimination.

    It telling that marriage has been reduced by gay activists to reduce marriage to simplistic and trivial notions such as ‘love’ and ‘making a public statement of love’ to justify trashing the marriage laws, but the institution of marriage means much more than that as certainly most women would attest. For starters it implies a certain proven best practice for the having and raising of children, specifically that they should have – and have the right to- a mother and father. Regrettably that doesn’t always apply and single parent families, ie fatherless families, have grown in number, but marriage sets an achievable and desirable standard and demonstrates where government (and society) should place its faith and support.

    That some marriages fail is also no reason to destroy the Marriage Act, to throw the baby out with the bathwater so to speak. It means that society and governments should be looking to where marriage can be assisted and certainly where government policy could be deficient.

    Few would object to gays having civil ceremonies, but even so, two facts are intriguing:

    -First that gays can already have their de facto (common law marriage if you will) recognised with Centrelink, but very few have opted to do that and now could be considered as breaking the law. Now just what should that be taken to mean?

    Secondly, very few (any at all?) of the vocal public advocates for gay marriage say they intend to marry. Again, that seems to be odd. Has Senator Bob Brown, leader of the Greens who drive the agenda on gay marriage come out to say he will propose and marry if and when a change is made? A simple answer should be possible.

    This isn’t a rights issue, or if some activists claim it is what about providing some proof? However even if it is still contended that it is about ‘rights’ why then do the gay activists dismiss the rights of Muslims and others who love more than one person to marry?

    There appears to be very sound reason to ask if it is the will of a majority of gays that is driving the agenda, or is it instead the mission of the Greens and some on the Left who think they know what is best for gays. For example, just how many gays really wanted the State to tell them when they are in a de facto relationship and to make rulings on disposal of assets and income when they separate? There is no doubt that the wishes of some, no doubt many gay, have been overridden by leftie academics who presume to know what is best for them and are now telling them how to run their lives. Of course discrimination needed to be removed, but the remainder of the freewheeling, carefree and independent (of State interference) lifestyle of gays has been compromised forever as well. Civil agreements would have sufficed instead of the sledgehammer of the de facto and family law provisions. Gay marriage might deliver the gold standard demanded by Greens and activists but who says they represent the majority of gays anyhow?

    • 0

      Very well put Nautilus. A lot of thought has gone into your comment.

    • 0

      “A clear majority of voters do not want the Marriage Act changed and I agree with them.”
      Thought you’d eventually give your pontifical,verbose, right wing, prejudiced, ignorant & arrogant opinions.You love to hijack a debate to push your own agenda!
      Every survey done recently has shown a majority of Australians support marriage equality, so get your facts right.

Load More Comments



continue reading


What the new consumer law changes mean for your rights

Australia's consumer rights and protections are set for a major shake-up from 1 July this year and it means that...


Friday Funnies: Star signs

Whether you believe that your heart and mind are mapped out in the stars or not, you'll have a chuckle...


Revealed: Who cleaned up in the most popular household product awards?

Australians spend about 17 hours every week doing housework, according to data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in...


Higher costs, more errors when medicines scarce due to COVID

Nial Wheate, University of Sydney and Elise Schubert, University of Sydney You've just come from your monthly GP appointment with...


One-Bowl Chocolate Banana Muffins

If you've well and truly mastered baking banana bread by now, why not mix things up a bit with Deliciously...


The emotional stages of brewing your own beer

Why buy beer when you could brew it yourself? Of course, we all love a hand-pulled beer, but with social...

Health Insurance

Here’s how you can beat the double health insurance premium hike

Australians are about to experience a double whammy of health insurance premium increases. Prices already went up on 1 October...

Superannuation News

How did your super fund perform in 2020?

This time last year, the coronavirus pandemic was hitting our radar, but few could have predicted what was coming with...