What is marriage?
The Labor Party motion to legalise 'same sex marriage'
My response to the Labor Party motion to legalise 'same sex marriage'
That's why we don't trust Labor. They don't trust us, the people, to have a debate about a change in our social structure that is profound. They just want to dictate to us from on high!
Labor, It's time you let the people decide!
Romany responded with this comment:
My rights shouldn't be up for a public debate with a platform given to hate speech.
My response to this:
No hate speech involved, Romany. And as to whether we are talking about anyone's rights is the point of the debate. No-one is denying that gays can live their lifestyle. But do they have the right to take to themselves a term that has for millennia meant to be a lifetime bond between a man and a woman?
This is a very significant change that will profoundly affect our society at many levels. At the very least the public whom it will affect should have the chance to debate such a profound change.
Sure, there will be strong words used, because there are strong issues at stake. But disagreement does not mean hate. It just means disagreement. That is all.
On an issue as significant as this, let the people decide!
Comments on the 'gay marriage' debate
In response to an article in The Australian I responded to a comment:
From a man named John:
I've had a gut full of the whole thing. Marriage is between a man and a woman: full stop! And it will be ever thus.
Wait and hear the gays cry louder than ever when they lose the plebiscite. Also think of all the skullduggery that will occur to try and swing he vote. It will be worse than the skullduggery at elections.
To which I responded:
A correspondent to The Australian, 'Save the Krill' asked the question:
What have I missed? In the sixties and seventies, the gay movement as it was then, were fervently against marriage. Now they are terminally miserable and cannot live without it. Can someone tell me what happened?
Yes, I have noticed that too. And having researched it a bit it has become clear to me that the activists driving this have the aim of destroying marriage.
On the matter of redfining marriage, a reader of The Australian named Rob made this comment that clarifies the issue nicely:
A matter of critical national importance is legislation providing for apples to be called oranges. This issue goes to the very heart of citric equality. The question can only be properly determined by a national plebiscite. And anyone who suggests that some apples will be juiced in this process is just a scaremongering bigot and dictatorial autocrat. Cider is simply alcoholic juice after all.
Interesting article on gay 'marriage' from Rex Ahdar, law professor at Otago University in New Zealand
OPINION: It is an empty argument to say that gay couples deserve equal legal recognition, Rex Ahdar says.
The catchcry of same-sex marriage proponents is "equality": gay couples have a right to equal treatment and to deny them legal marriage is blatant discrimination.
Yet this claim deflects attention from the real issue: what is the true nature of marriage?