Omniphobia – experiencing all of the so called "phobias" at once

 

I am told that to even question the “right” of same sex couples to marry, is a clear expression of homophobia and it must be true, because I read it in the newspaper. They say that it’s terrible to repress the rights of minority groups. So having thought about it, I think that I’m starting to agree Clearly, men should be allowed to participate in what has, up until now, been women’s sports and of course, use the women’s change rooms and showers. After all, men are a minority group in Australia these days – the last count that I heard showed that there were 100,000 more women than men in Oz and, by any mathematician’s calculation or statisticians’ “interpretation of the data”, that puts men in the minority. Now ladies, you must not complain or even say that you disagree with such a proposal, for to do so would be clearly malephobic, and it simply wouldn’t be right to preserve an institution such as women’s sport just for women – after all, men lost the privilege of “men only sports” quite a few years ago. Speaking of which, the “boy scouts” have also ceased to be, with both boys and girls being welcome in the new Scouting movement, so I presume that males (this Australian minority group) are now free to join the Guides.

 

Then there was that clearly Islamaphobic group of people in Bendigo, who were objecting to the right of the Moslem minority to build a mosque in their street – again this is another example of poor treatment of minority groups. Of course the Moslem minority should be allowed to build their mosque there – and surely this would also be a great place for other minority groups to have expression – maybe a gay bar could be built next door to the mosque, a needle exchange across the road and an intimate lingerie shop could fit into a shop front nearby.

 

Not appropriate? Why not?

 

The answer is of course, that there are limits to every set of “rights” that we demand. Who sets the limits and how are they set? Is it popular opinion? No, for if that were the case, the gay bar, needle exchange and lingerie shop would probably be approved. No, there has to be consideration of history, traditional values and moral rights. We heard that the same sex marriage issue was one of "marriage equality", but that is simply not the case. There is little support for those who practice poly-amorous love and want the right to marry more than one spouse - they are excluded from the debate, so they don't see any true equality on offer at all. What about an incest based relationship - e.g. a male wanting to marry his sister? The love between this brother and sister is seen to be in some way inferior to that described between a same sex couple. Is their love less important? Are they included in the "marriage equality" debate? Of course not, so equality is NOT the issue and has never been the issue.

 

OK, so let’s consider the issue of same sex marriage. Marriage has historically been between one man and one woman. As soon as change to that standard definition was legislated, the historical, traditional and moral base of marriage was destroyed and any group who want the definition of marriage to include their particular type of relationship, has legitimate ground to seek its inclusion under the new expanded and foundationless definition of marriage.

 

Of course, supporters of same sex marriage, will claim that such an assertion is “scare mongering” and suggestions of polyamorous and other relationship being included in the definition of marriage is absurd. But just how absurd is it?

 

Same sex marriage was approved in Canada, causing great offence to many who still hold traditional values, but giving opportunity to smaller minorities to test the water. The question of legal polygamy is already being debated in Canada and, given that gay couples can marry and given that there is now NO traditional basis for legal marriage, it is a fair question to ask. Why not polygamy? If gender is no longer important, why is number? If we want marriage EQUALITY, then it must be surely be equally applied to all sections of the community.

 

In the recent American Supreme Court ruling on same sex marriage, the Chief Justice wrote, in his dissenting judgment, that polygamy has deeper roots in history than same sex marriage and that the decision allowing same sex couples to marry "would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.” “If the majority is willing to take the big leap," he added, "it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one.”

 

Judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, in November last year, ruled that “there is no reason to think that three or four adults, whether gay, bisexual, or straight, lack the capacity to share love, affection, and commitment, or for that matter lack the capacity to be capable (and more plentiful) parents to boot.”

 

The Netherlands and Belgium were the first countries to give full marriage rights to same sex couples. Now in the Netherlands, polygamy has been legalised in all but name. Recently the first civil union of three partners was registered. Victor de Bruijn (46) from Roosendaal married both Bianca (31) and Mirjam (35) in a ceremony before a civil officer.

 

In Brazil, a lesbian trio recently had their love recognised when they took their marriage vows in the presence of Rio de Janeiro notary public Fernanda de Freitas Leitao.  “Our union is the fruit of love,” the businesswoman told the daily O Globo. “We are preparing for my pregnancy … The legalization is a way for the baby and for us to not end up abandoned and penniless. We want to enjoy the same maternal rights that everyone else has.” A similar ceremony was held in 2012 for a man and two women in Sao Paulo state. “The pillar that supports any family relationship is affection,” says Freitas. “And these three women have everything to start a family: love, lasting relationship, the intention to have children … In private law also what is not prohibited is allowed.”

 

So, despite the denials of those supporting same sex marriage in Australia, the evidence is that once same sex marriage is legitimized, other forms of “marriage” will inevitably be recognized. The same arguments that support same sex marriage can be used by the polyamorous community and potentially by others as well.

 

Australia needs to see that this is not a minority group issue nor is it an equal rights or discrimination issue – it is an issue of moral right and the values of traditional western  culture – not to mention the values etc of the Muslim world that seem to carry quite a bit of weight these days!