When one of my good friends recently told me that he'd like to eventually get married, I was not at all surprised. My friend is an intelligent, endlessly creative and inspiring person. He's been with his partner for over five years now, and is very happily loved. Together the pair make a formidable couple - a designer and artist they are forever inspiring one another. I have often envied their understanding of each other and the support that stems from this for each of them.

When my friend told me about his marriage plans we immediately set about discussing wedding invitation designs, outfits, music, the song they would dance to, and so forth. In our spirit of enthusiasm we both omitted to mention the location they might choose to get married. They are Australian citizens, each born here, and the Australian government is against my two good friends getting married. Their names are Tim and Daniel, and they are homosexual.

Just recently, the Rudd government announced the amendments to policy for greater equality to exist between homosexual and heterosexual citizens of Australia. These amendments still do not recognise the marriage of homosexuals. Marriage was defined by the Howard government in 2004 as being an "entered-into union of a man and a woman to exclusion of all others".

In Canada, Pierre Trudeau (acting Justice Minister) is famous for introducing the act that decriminalised homosexuality. In his speech he stated that "There is no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation." Having legally accepted that what occurs in the homosexual bedroom is none of our business, we, Australians, still insist on governing the ability to declare a homosexual union, to allow homosexual pairs to live legally as married couples.

In my research, the most common argument I have come across is that homosexuality and a homosexual relationships are not "normal". "Normality" is the term that the majority of heterosexuals use to explain their resistance to gay marriage. I am wondering, being heterosexual myself, if there was a press conference which I somehow missed that declared what normality actually was. Is there really such a thing as 'normal'?

Another argument against a declared homosexual union is in defence of children. We need to protect children who may be adopted/formed as a result of homosexual parents. "It is not fair," I have heard repeatedly, "to put children in a situation where their family is not normal, where their family is different". I wonder in confusion at the merits of these arguments. Is normality what is needed by society to progress safely? Is a minority group (being admittedly different, and outnumbered by the 'norm') in fact inferior as a parent body, or are they just different.

An interesting example to refer to is that of inter-racial relationships and marriage. At one point in history we did not accept inter-racial partnerships as healthy or "normal". As our common perspective has evolved we have come to know that a black person is by no means inferior to a white person, they are different, but human just as much anyone else. In fact, nowadays we do not even blink at the idea of inter-racial marriage. It is, in fact, "normal". How malleable the term "normal" becomes over time and with changing perspectives. The children of these multi-racial unions are often visually different to same-race children. This outward difference however, has not affected their wellbeing or moral health as children of a family that is "different".

For me, the argument boiled down to an understanding of what, in fact, marriage is. The answer, as with any long-standing tradition is multi-faceted. Each individual has their own interpretation of what marriage means for them, however, it is definite that marriage is the legal and symbolic categorising of a relationship. In popular western culture it seems accepted that it is a legally committing union of two consenting adult parties. We associate marriage with a union for the creation of a shared future, shared love and in many cases the potential symbolic and legal foundation for the creation of a family.

Each segment of this definition seems to me, as much a human right as it is a heterosexual one. The major difference is, if homosexual people marry, it will not be the union of a man and woman. This does not suggest that there will be a decline in male and female bonds, just that there will be another kind of bond added to the list, as was the case with same-race and inter-racial marriage. Most likely - as with society, there will still be a majority of heterosexual marriages occurring. There will still be the union of a man and a woman. I do understand how this will adversely affect heterosexuals. If anything, an increase in marriage may restore some hope to a crumbling societal structure.

Our greatest fear seems to be that if we allow homosexual marriage, it will in some way stain or harm 'holy matrimony'. If I have learnt anything from my research, it's that each person holds their own personal opinion of what marriage means to them. The fact that more people or different sexes can marry one another will not take away what marriage can mean to anyone. What marriage means is deeply embedded in our beliefs, our perspective, our love, our parents and our hearts. No one can take an ideal away. No one can harm your own union, as it is, by very nature, your own and no one else's. Everyone should be given the opportunity to form that ideal of a union in the eyes of their loved ones and their government if they so wish too. It will not harm us to see more expressions of love.

One of the more intriguing individuals that I interviewed stated that marriage for him, meant simply to link things together, as in marrying the ideas of peanut butter and chocolate. He said it was a "commitment by two or more parties to a long term relationship based on love and shared goals". Perhaps if we focused more on our own personal goals, love and relationships instead of limiting and interfering with those of others, society, and marriage in all its sanctity, would be far better off. Imagine a world in which peanut butter and chocolate were denied union? What a terrible loss that would be.

Image by babasteve licensed by Creative Commons