The Australian has run a column from the Family Council of Victoria’s Bill Muehlenberg, in response to last week’s column from Derryn Hinch. Hinch had changed his long-held position and now supported marriage equality for same-sex couples; Muehlenberg wants to tell us that Hinch “manages to mangle just about everything in the marriage debate”.

Let’s take a quick run through how many things Muehlenberg overlooks, fudges or gets just plain wrong.

[Hinch] totally misses the purposes of marriage for example. Marriage is a universal and historical institution which serves tremendous social purposes.

It regulates human sexuality, and it procures the wellbeing of any offspring from the sexual union.

Why should human sexuality be regulated so that homsexuality is taboo? Bill doesn’t offer any argument, so unless you accept the position that the gay sex is an abomination he’s lost you already and is now preaching to the choir. We’ll come back to the “wellbeing of any offspring” in a little while.

Governments have an overwhelming interest in heterosexual marriage. They have no reason to confer special rights and privileges on other types of sexual relationships.

Except for the standard democratic convention that all people will be treated equally under the law. But Bill thinks he has an answer to that:

Indeed, talk of inequality and discrimination is off base here. Those arguing for same-sex marriage are mixing apples with oranges. Everyone is entitled to the benefits of marriage as long as they meet the conditions and requirements of it.

Homosexual relationships simply do not meet the criteria, the most basic being to have one man and one woman.

Government must only recognise marriage as being between a man and a woman because marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. Congratulations Bill, you’ve gone full circle and you’re not even halfway done. What else have you got?

Of course various social goods are denied to all sorts of people for various reasons. A driver who cannot meet the obligations of low insurance rates (too young, too many accidents and so on) will not be eligible to receive those benefits. That is how life operates. If anything, it is a necessary and just discrimination.

Insurance rates are determined based on relative risk. But Bill doesn’t present any evidence that allowing same-sex couples to marry has any corresponding elevation in “risk” to society — again, you already have to accept his argument in order to think his argument makes sense.

Societies have always discriminated in favour of heterosexual unions and the children they produce because of the social good derived from them.

Procreation and the raising of children is an overwhelmingly important social good, and the mother-father unit cemented by marriage is an overwhelmingly superior way of ensuring the best outcomes for children.

Evidence? No.

The restrictions on marriage apply equally to everyone, whether heterosexual or homosexual.

LOLwut? So it’s okay to deny same-sex marriage because a homosexual could always marry someone of the opposite sex? In which case the distinction might be that for homosexuals, the restriction means they can’t marry the person they love. Bill doesn’t seem to think that matters.

The exact arguments used by those pushing for same-sex marriage are being used by the polyamorists.

If we legalise the former, is it not discriminatory and unjust to outlaw the latter?

No. Not that I’m personally completely opposed to the notion of recognising relationships with n > 2, but the “slippery slope” argument is false. Existing marriage law can easily accommodate any pairing of two people regardless of gender — entirely different issues would apply to extend those laws to a larger number of people.

And Hinch is quite wrong to suggest that same-sex relationships are long-lasting. Plenty of studies prove the exact opposite. A recent study of homosexual men in Amsterdam found that the “duration of steady partnerships” was 1.5 years.

This appears to be the study Bill is referring to (it’s commonly cited on many “family values” sites). The paper notes that “the participants classify their partners as steady or casual according to their own judgement”. It seems Bill wants the reader to compare the average 18-month duration with our idea of the average time a marriage lasts for — what was that thing he said about apples and oranges earlier? If we asked all heterosexual people how long they have been with their self-defined “steady partner”, I suspect the average would be considerably lower than the marriage data. Shonky argument, Bill. Have you got anything else?

The truth is, plenty of homosexuals do not even want marriage. How many homosexuals actually avail themselves of it when it becomes legally available? Let’s go back to The Netherlands. Same-sex marriage has been legal there since 2001, yet only about four per cent of Dutch homosexuals married during the first five years of legalisation.

So that’s 4% of Dutch homosexuals who would be deprived of their desired right if they were Australian instead.

Also, same-sex marriage demands are inexorably tied up with demands for homosexual parenting rights. But 40 years of social science research has overwhelmingly demonstrated the crucial importance two biological parents play in the wellbeing of children.

Citations? No. Experts (defined as actual researchers and not “family” organisations) quoted in support of this notion? No.

And a recent Galaxy poll found that a full 86 per cent of Australians believe children should be raised by their biological parents.

Bill would appear to be referring to a poll commissioned by the Australian Family Association. According to this AFA media release [84kB PDF] submission against same-sex marriage, the precise question was, ““Ideally, wherever possible, should children be raised by their biological mother and their biological father?” That question leaves a whole lot of unstated assumptions and implications between it and any conclusions about attitudes against allowing same-sex couples to raise children, let alone same-sex marriage. Especially considering there is evidence like this Galaxy survey [235kB PDF] demonstrating majority support for marriage equality.

But try to finish with a bang, Bill:

This of course is stolen from them in same-sex households. Heterosexual marriage is society’s most profound and valuable institution. It has been the bedrock of nations from time immemorial. To radically alter the nature of marriage and family is a recipe for trouble.

Precisely what that trouble might be, Bill has barely spelled out, let alone demonstrated. But I hope he feels better for having got that rant about his personal opinions off his chest.