Earlier this week there was controversy over the Coopers Brewery's apparent (and subsequently retracted) support of the Bible Society's "Keeping it Light" pretend debate between two Liberal politicians about a matter their party had already determined it would stall progress upon.
In this press release, which was contradicted a day later with one that distanced themselves from the matter, there was the assertion that "As a mature community it's a debate we need to have".
More BusinessDay Videos
IN FULL: Coopers 'incredibly sad' apology
In an awkward video release, Coopers executives apologise for the brewery's involvement with the Bible Society's controversial video debate and pledge support for marriage equality. (Edited with subtitles)
This idea - that it's terribly, terribly important to have a debate about same sex marriage - is an unexamined premise that's all but become an article of faith in all discussion about this issue. Debate is a good thing, right? And this is a debate which, as a society, we need to have.
But… do we? Do we really?
We did have to have this debate, absolutely. And so we did.
And then we had it again.
And then we had it again, and again, and again, and again and again and again and again, over and over since the Gillard government first baulked at changing the Marriage Act back in 2010. At what point do we get to say "you know what? We've probably adequately debated this"?
After all, everyone that remotely cares is aware of the arguments for and against marriage equality by now, surely?
![Coopers Brewery directors Melanie Cooper and Dr Tim Cooper speak in an apology video.](/web/20170512223503im_/http://www.theage.com.au/content/dam/images/g/u/y/5/x/o/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.guyhax.png/1489573538415.jpg)
You may think that all civil liberties need to be extended to all Australian citizens regardless of sexuality because there are certain responsibilities and protections which LGBTIQ folks don't have, and this causes avoidable suffering with zero apparent gain.Â
Alternatively, you may think that marriage is sacred and unique to heterosexuals. Chances are your beliefs are connected with your religious faith: it's not impossible to find atheists who oppose changing the Marriage Act to remove the current references to gender, but they're thin on the ground.Â
![Liberal MPs Tim Wilson, left, and Andrew Hastie, right, hold up Coopers beer bottles in the video.](/web/20170512223503im_/http://www.theage.com.au/content/dam/images/g/u/w/2/f/z/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.guyhax.png/1489572871176.jpg)
Then again, you might think marriage is an outdated institution that needs burning down. Or you might not care a whit either way.
Those are pretty much the positions at this point, and it's hard to imagine how anyone's going to be disabused of their position by the unctuous rhetoric of Tim Wilson.
![The Hollywood Hotel in Surry Hills is one of a number of pubs to boycott the brand after the video was released.](/web/20170512223503im_/http://www.theage.com.au/content/dam/images/g/u/x/c/b/r/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.guyhax.png/1489554644412.jpg)
In fact, I'd suggest that at this point anyone saying that we need to have this important debate is signalling that they'd very much prefer talk to any risk of action.
And that's weird since the talk in question tends not to have much meat to it.
![Canning MP Andrew Hastie makes light of the furore brewing on Twitter over his discussion about gay marriage.](/web/20170512223503im_/http://www.theage.com.au/content/dam/images/g/u/y/g/k/n/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.guyhax.png/1489549008753.jpg)
For example, the aforementioned video had Andrew Hastie unleashing his knock-down argument against changing the law: that the state has no business defining marriage since it's an institution which predates the existence of the state.
And it's a peculiar line of argument since a) that claim is impossible to verify since both marriage and organised human society predate any kind of record keeping, b) things predating the establishment of the state aren't magically exempt from having laws enacted around them (murder also presumably predates the state and we legislate around that with merry impunity) and most importantly c) in any case that would seem to be an argument for eliminating the very Marriage Act Hastie is so keen to protect, since the Act literally defines marriage on behalf of the state.Â
But the strength of the argument isn't the point: it's the having of the argument, so that it suggests that there's more controversy or discord on the matter than there actually is and that now is not the time to go hastily extending rights to gays. We must discuss it more. And then, once that discussion is had, we should probably have a chat about that. Heck, it's a debate we need to have.
And why wouldn't anti-marriage equality folks use this strategy? It's worked a treat for killing progress on climate change.
The science on that has been settled since the eighties and we're now in 2017 turning the bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef into a political football and talking about using public money to subsidise an unprofitable coal mine.
And that's not all! We can stall change on gender pay disparities by having more debates on whether feminism is all about hating men or not. We can stall progress on multiculturalism by claiming that free speech is under attack and that we need to make it easier for racists to be loud in public.Â
(Incidentally, was anyone else confused that the same people who had been claiming that free speech is paramount and that precious snowflakes should stop crying about having their feelings hurt by hateful abuse have now spent the best part of a week furiously insisting that The Australian's late cartoonist Bill Leak had been "hounded to death" by politically correct types calling his cartoons racist? After all, if words are so fatal, then having protections like 18C would literally be a matter of life and death, right?)
So sure, we can have these discussions. But let's acknowledge that they're no longer a way to decide any sort of strategy: wasting time having discussions has become the strategy in itself.
Debates are fine and good, but before you start pressing for one: do you have a new argument, or has some excellent new data come to light? No?
Then maybe stop being a troll, eh?Â
0 comments
New User? Sign up