Ironic twist to debate on marriage

OH. MY. Godlessness! It is like a Mardi Gras for opinions.

Ranty pants have been bedazzled and frilly knickers knotted.

Bibles are being quoth with self-righteousness. Flung with fervour.

Waved in the way half crazy old men wave their walking sticks at all the scary things that have popped up in a world they no longer recognise and thus fear.

This is the same sex marriage debate - or at least it would be if stereotypes were reality and it was being played out face-to-face in public forums rather than in digital and social media.

We can't really see what all those anonymous self-appointed arbiters of what's holy and sinful are wearing and waving. Nor their opponents, the bastions of rights and Wongs.

But the fashion trend is as obvious as a conical brassiere on preacher - martyrdom is the new black.

Religious conservatives claimed the position of the downtrodden last week, arguing the debate over same sex marriage had become so poisonous they were unable to speak out against changing the marriage act without being persecuted.

They were able to make these proclamations, free from persecution, in media outlets around the country.

I. R. O. N. Y.

That's not to say they were not insulted. Indeed, they were. Heavily (and at times unfairly). But the gap between insult and persecution is a canyon.

It is insulting to tell somebody they are not fit to be a parent purely because of their sexual orientation.

It is an act of persecution to deny a person the opportunity to express their love in the form of a civil marriage simply because the one they love happens to be the same sex as them.

The former makes one feel a lesser member of society; the latter makes one a lesser member of society by law.

The ``think of the children'' defence, which has become one of the key arguments put forward against same sex marriage, is insulting.

The argument is as follows: Children from homes with both male and female parents do better and have greater life chances than those from single parent and single sex parent households, thus we should not allow gay marriage because it encourages the type of environment which is not optimum for children.

Let's leave aside the all too common problem of confusing correlation with causation in statistical analyses, and the debate around the veracity of the research.

Let's assume religious conservatives are right that children are better off living with a mum and a dad.

Using this as the basis for a civil law determining who should and shouldn't be allowed to marry - and by implication procreate - is persecution.

It's also amoral socially manufactured Darwinism, the type of thinking of which most god-fearing types accuse those pesky atheists.

I .R. O. N. Y.

Indigenous children face far fewer life chances than the average Australian; their health and wealth outcomes are appallingly low in comparison.

Some charitable sorts once thought it would be a good idea to stop them breeding. As a nation, we apologised for that abhorrence a few years ago.

Children born into families with less wealth do worse than those born into wealth. Children born into families on Sydney's eastern suburbs do better than those born in Tasmania.

Will we be banning the poor and the Tasmanian from getting married next?