A lesson in logic

While reading the Gay.com news tonight, I stumbled across an article entitled "Kirby states case for gay marriage".

High Court Justice Michael Kirby, a man who is quickly rising in the ranks of my personal heroes, has spoken out about the controversy surrounding calls for gay marriage in our country. He is gay and has been in a relationship for 38 years. Gay marriage is an issue that I bring up quite a bit, on this blog and in real life; it's an issue very close to my heart.

Justice Kirby said it was in society's interest to support stable and sustainable relationships, in whatever form they may take.

"It is a source of puzzlement to Johan and me, as we go about our tranquil lives, that there are many fellow citizens, some of them well educated and very important, who seem to be threatened and upset by such relationships and who feel the need to discriminate against them by laws enacted or unenacted by our nation's parliaments."

The point that keeps cropping up by people opposed to gay marriage is that it will denigrate marriage. The logic behind this is quite beyond me. How could my getting married possibly affect anyone else except me and my partner? Unless, that is, they let it? What annoys me most about this line of opposition is the inherent homophobia -- these people don't feel threatened by heterosexual de facto relationships, only homosexual ones. If my getting married reduces the worth of my grandparents' 51 year marriage, so too should my cousins' de facto relationship shouldn't it? That is a logical conclusion to make. Furthermore, why make legal allowances for straight people who choose not to marry (and there are many places in the law where de facto couples are treated as married) when there are no legal allowances for gay couples who can not marry? It defies logic.

We live in the world of the free market. For example, a Dominoes Pizza and a Pizza Hut service a town side by side. Their products are virtually the same although some citizens prefer one over the other. They are the only fast food outlets available to the citizens of this town. Occasionally one or the other will make a pizza that cannot be eaten -- perhaps there is too much chili sauce on a pizza from Dominoes, or perhaps anchovies were put on a pizza from Pizza Hut when it was ordered without them. Is the mere fact that these fine establishments make the odd unpalatable pizza reason to shut down the pizza industry altogether? Of course not. Now consider that this same town, home only to pizza restaurants for as long as anyone can remember, is selected as the new site for a MacDonald's. Some citizens choose to dine at MacDonald's, while others still prefer their pizza. Is the simple fact that "there has never been a MacDonald's here before" a good reason to shut it down? Is the fact that "most people prefer pizza" a good enough reason? Does the fact that some people prefer MacDonald's lessen the values of the preference of others who enjoy Pizza?

Justice Kirby told the conference he and his partner of 38 years, Johan van Vloten, had considered marriage but it was not a priority.

"Naturally, we recognised that this was hardly the relevant question - the issue is not whether marriage is wanted by everyone but whether ... it should be available to all citizens who feel the need for that form of public affirmation of their relationship," he said.

This argument annoys me the most: that because not all gay couples wish to marry, it shouldn't be made available. What annoys me the most is that this is an argument used by gay people themselves. Where is the logic? Not all straight couples choose to marry either, should we do away with marriage altogether? Of course not! Then why do these arguments get used against gay marriage? It defies logic.

A small ice cream shop serves a small community. They serve a variety of flavours, the most popular two being vanilla and chocolate, although there are people who prefer strawberry and lemon. While placing orders each weekend, the proprietor takes the popularity of each flavour into account, but he still orders them all. Would it be fair to all the lemon fans to discontinue their ice cream of choice just because others prefer another flavour? Furthermore, would it be fair to them to discontinue it because others dislike their favourite ice cream? Does the fact that strawberry ice cream is consumed lessen the pleasure a child gets from his chocolate ice cream? The fans of vanilla would be up in arms if this skewed logic was used to take their ice cream away!

So whether you like vanilla, chocolate, strawberry, lemon, or any other type of ice-cream, you are entitled to exactly the same right to consume it as the next person. If you prefer pizza from Pizza Hut, pizza from Dominoes, or MacDonald's, you should be able to have the choice, and the option, to legally eat your favourite fast food.

Can't we all just eat in peace?