Sam-Sex Marriage Postal Survey – An Unbiased Secular Approach by Anonymous Lyrics

Firstly, I will highlight that this argument is to display an entirely secular approach, for the intention is to change the law, not religious doctrine. I will not be directly addressing nor debating the subject of same-sex marriage itself, but analyse the nature of debate surrounding, and elucidate dangerous misconceptions and over-exaggerations. It is these falsehoods that only further the divisions, leaving arguments irresolute. As a democratic society, and human beings regardless, the freedom of speech is an inalienable right that when threatened, endangers a fundamental principle of life, foreshadowing the protrusion of fascist ideology. The left has become increasingly regressive, in which 40% of liberal millennials believe it okay to impose limitations on ‘offensive’ free speech, immediately ceasing to hold such title. Let this be known. A dissent against one’s ideas must not be perceived as an offensive attack on personal identity. In effect, those who wish to ‘vote no’ are not necessarily doing so on a discriminatory basis, rather, oppose the idea of same-sex marriage itself. However, it seems that this level of disagreement has become tantamount to a crime, no matter how respectful or non-harmful the presentation. It may be that I do not agree with what you’re saying, but I will defend your right to free speech so long as you are not directly harming others or implanting falsehoods that exacerbate the issue - leading on to my next point: over-generalisation and over-exaggeration. The Marriage Postal Survey relates to Australia and the present context, therefore the information argued must be appropriated to the context to avoid gross misconception. I have stumbled across some concerning depictions in the media, creating the image that Australians are pitchfork and torch swaying bigots who seek to purge homosexuals in which mass hate crimes ensue. I do not condone any form of hate crime, however, inflaming and distorting the context to be riddled with such loathing only further obscures the debate. In Australia, there has been little issue on bias-related violence, in which the most recent statistics (1989-1999) show that 3.5% of homicides were hate related. While I do not discount the presence of hate crime, the issue is not to the extent in which the media portrays it to be - serving to further divide the community by employing abhorrent fallacies. Ironically, in a time where ‘progression’ is prized, regression eventuates. As one final thought, while I recognise the emotion encompassing this debate, if we wish to enter into a political/philosophical discourse we must do so with the intent to learn. For while we may not be able to change our opinions, debate nevertheless provides the opportunity to enhance them.