Last night I was trawling my twitter feed when I came across an opinion piece by @tedlapkin aka Ted Lapkin who penned the article “Too much to bear’ in The Age / SMH. You can read it here http://bit.ly/oHbQad.

In brief, Mr Lapkin outlines his view of Marriage Equality leading to an inevitable ’slide down the slippery slope of social disintegration’. Aside from his glittering use of alliteration he further states that Marriage Equality will ultimately lead to polygamy and sex between siblings.

I read the article in quiet disbelief and posted the following update:

‘This article is so crudely ignorant and offensive to the #marriageequality fight it made me cry http://bit.ly/oHbQad’

Although I’m not following the author in question on Twitter, I quickly received this pearl of wisdom from him ‘@serenaeryan Time to toughen up rather than go all teary. How about reasoned rebuttal rather than calling my argument names? Not impressed’.

A mate of mine weighed in with a witty play on words referring to Mr Lapkin as a lapin, which he assumed, was a spelling error but in fact is the name for a castrated rabbit. I suspect my mate responded to the exchange because like me, he heard the tonal screeching of the article as something akin to the sound of castration, sorry, dissent.

To this we received ‘@serenaeryan @philjengkane Let me know when you evolve beyond puerile name calling, and perhaps I’ll deign to debate the issue with you.’

I won’t bore you with the rest of the exchange because frankly, it’s not worth it. I’m the last person to turn on the tears whenever something doesn’t go my way but rather, my tears were that of frustration and I’d like to explain why.

The article by Mr Lapkin commenced with an attack on Adam Bandt, referring to his passion for Marriage Equality as nothing short of thespian which I found peculiar because thespian implies make believe and I’m sure Adam’s views are anything but. To liken the Marriage Equality debate and its supporters as a thespian performance reads as an extrapolation of the term ‘drama queen’ which Mr Lapkin has not been bold enough to use.

But the message is clear.

I get it.

The author quickly follows this up with acknowledging that ‘all Australians are entitled to the same rights and privileges of a democracy. Each and every one of us – gay or straight, black or white, believer or non believer – is entitled to identical protections of law in our individual persons and property’.

I perked up when I read this thinking that maybe the article would progress to a deeper understanding of the Marriage Equality debate but then I read the next line and realised I’d peaked too early. Mr Lapkin acknowledges the importance of identical protections for individuals unless it relates to same sex unions i.e.  ‘same sex marriage does not pertain to individual rights’. If the Marriage Equality debate doesn’t relate to individuals, then what, pray tell, does it refer to? I’m of the opinion that the debate is much broader that what goes on in the bedroom but according to Mr Lapkin, my sexual congress is the only thing that defines me.

I can tell you that it isn’t.

I’m an old fashioned lesbian. I subscribe to the belief that as Mr Lapkin was born Jewish, I was born gay. The influence of gays in my family runs for about three generations, from my ancestral home of Ireland, where I can be partnered and live with equal rights beside my heterosexual family members.

I didn’t choose to be gay. It chose me and I’m proud of it.

Similarly, Mr Lapkin no doubt hails from a long line of proud Jewish ancestry who sadly, faced rampant extermination in the war that caught everyone’s attention. Surely given Mr Lapkin’s stated heritage this would inform a more tolerant view?

Sadly, no.

As I read further Mr Lapkin states that ‘sexual activity is volitional’. Yes, sexual activity is an intimate agreement between consenting folk but sexuality isn’t. Basing an argument solely around sexual behaviour fails to extract the deeper issues relating to equality and equity for the gay and lesbian community. We are more than the sum of our sexual activity; we live our lives like anyone else. We go to work, we fall in love, we have children, we pay taxes and we vote. Surely this entitles us to the same rights of our heterosexual counterparts.

The countries that have embraced Marriage Equality have not experienced the social disintegration that Mr Lapkin forecasts for Australia. New York appears to be coping admirably with same sex marriages, as does Spain . I refer to these two regions given the strong Jewish and Catholic populations that reside there. I’m not aware of any huge push from either religious faction in these regions to oppose Marriage Equality.  Sure, there will be individuals and secular factions within that are opposed but that’s the beauty of democracy, the inherent freedom of speech.

Similarly, Mr Lapkin’s comments about children needing the ‘superior child rearing environment of a heterosexual home’ are without base when recent research confirms that adolescents raised by lesbian mothers are better adjusted and tolerant to a range of stressors than children raised in heterosexual homes. You can read this research here http://t.co/fkA4lGZ

The grudging acknowledgement that gay families can provide loving homes to children is glib at best with the author claiming this to be the exception rather than the norm and again, is stated without evidence.

So whilst Mr Lapkin patronisingly gives his consent for same sex couples to continue to live together and love each ‘as they have been for time immemorial’ his message is clear. He believes that  ‘marriage should remain as it’s always been – the union of a single man and single woman who come together for the primary purpose of rearing the healthiest children possible’.

The statistics on single parent families are compelling and divorce rates have never been higher as Miranda Devine so eloquently outlined in her recent article ‘The problem of a fatherless society’.  I don’t believe that if Marriage Equality is approved that these statistics will alter greatly but rather, it will normalise them as a true cross section of our society, which the gay and lesbian community is a part of.

The endorsement of Marriage Equality will not end the world, it will not create a push for polygamist marriage and I suspect it will not create any desires for siblings to have sex. There is no evidence to suggest that these issues will take precedence if the gay and lesbian community is allowed to marry and the suggestion of it is farcical and ignorant.

It denigrates our fight for equal rights as individuals, as couples and as a community.

So my parting comment is this Mr Lapkin. I can’t see the sense in your commentary: it just evades me.

But I’m a reasonable girl with an enquiring mind so I’d like to invite you in as a guest on the radio show that I co-host with Pete Dillon: Salt and Pepper on Joy 94.9 so we can chat this through further. I don’t believe I’ve engaged in any puerile behaviours however you clearly feel you need an audience so let me offer you one.

Just before I sign off you suggested that I ‘toughen up’ and engage in a reasoned rebuttal. I believe I have done this.

So, Mr Lapkin, am I tough enough for you now?