An Australian MP has claimed that same-sex marriage should remain banned, citing his country’s actions against indigenous Australians.
During a debate in Western Australian Parliament, on a motion to allow a free vote on marriage equality, Liberal MP Peter Abetz set out why he was against extending marriage to same-sex couples.
Throughout his barely comprehensible speech, he included a string of shocking and controversial ideas in an attempt to justify his position.
Perhaps the most contentious remark was his comparison of same-sex parenting to the Stolen Generations, in which children were forcibly removed from their indigenous Australian parents during the early-to-mid 20th century.
He said: “Why have societies around the globe embraced marriage as a male–female relationship?
“The answer is quite simple: because it creates the stable context in which children may be born and nurtured, thus ensuring the future of society.
“The sad chapter of our history of the Stolen Generations surely points out to us that kids want to be brought up by their biological mum and dad, if that is at all possible.”
He also claimed that same-sex marriage isn’t needed because gay people are incapable of having monogamous relationships, as “particularly among homosexual men, [they] generally want what they term an open relationship”.
Quoting a gay author talking during a panel discussion, he said: “All the evidence we have suggests that monogamy is a myth. There are many longstanding gay relationships. There are virtually no longstanding monogamous gay relationships.”
He also likened same-sex relationships to the relationships of “an aged mother living with her single son, or two sisters living together” in that they are “valuable” relationships but “are not marriages.”
He ended his speech by concluding “no matter what arrangements people of same sex might make with each other regarding their sexual lifestyle and commitment, it is not marriage.”
The debate ended with MPs voting for the motion calling on the Federal Government to settle the issue with a conscience vote in the Federal Parliament rather than current plans for a public vote.