One common argument from those that oppose same-sex marriage is that, if Australia were to legalise gay marriage, the nation will be one step closer to accepting polygamy, incest, objectophilia and beastiality.
However, have polygamists and other types of unconventional relationship advocates ever used same-sex marriage to justify their own marriage perspectives? The answer is no.
That’s because when discussing gay marriage, it’s clear that we are speaking about a legal agreement between two consenting adults, and not the idea of marriages or relationships between an adult and multiple other adults, an adult and a child, an adult and an animal, or even an adult and an inanimate object.
The fact is that the Australian Marriage Act currently states that matrimony is defined as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life. Removing such a statement to include the marriage of same-sex couples will not open the doors to those wanting to marry something other than another human being. Also with the ability to divorce and, not to mention, the increasing rate of marriage dissolutions, if the section regarding “entered into for life” is no longer relevant and has been altered to keep up to date with contemporary society, then how come the section “the exclusion of all others” has not?
We are all arguing for one issue: to overcome and accept same-sex marriage, which will have no effect and will create no precedents for polygamous, incestuous or any other such relationships, just like it will have no affect on heterosexual marriages.
Plus, most animals don’t have opposable thumbs, which means they can’t sign marriage contracts, and even if they do… well, they can’t consent to it anyway.