No right to deny others their rights
How did a definition of marriage become such an issue that the nation has to be polled on it?
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Why do I get a say on whether two people who love each other should be denied the right to marry? It has no effect on my live whatsoever if two people choose to bureaucratise their relationship under the Marriage Act. It has no effect on anyone else. Why should we care?
Marriage is not the preserve of religion – it is the preserve of government. Up until 2004 the Marriage Act defined marriage between two people, there was no prescription of gender. That was changed in 40 minutes to prevent the ACT from legislating ‘gay marriage’.
A plebiscite will be a nightmare. Already Tony Abbott is urging anyone who is against political correctness and religious freedom to vote ‘no’ on any plebiscite about marriage equality. One of the political leaders is already blatantly subverting the process for political gain.
Equal rights and non-discriminatory legislation are not ‘political correctness gone mad’, it is at the core of Australian values. It is ‘fair dinkum’, ‘true blue’ and above all a ‘fair go’.
If we have to vote and you are opposed to marriage equality, please consider doing the honourable thing and either vote yes or abstain. Please don’t encourage our government to continue to actively discriminate against one section of our community. Either we all have should access to marriage or no-one should.
Scott Howie, Uranquinty
Yes or No
Can someone please explain to me why the ABC and SBS are so fascinated with Tony Abbott when he came out and said he will vote no to the same-sex postal vote?
As soon as he did he was vilified by the left and the gay lobby.
Why is voting no different than voting yes? I thought it was a democratic right given to every Australian to vote how you think or feel. No one will tell me how I should vote, I will execute my right to vote the way I see fit.
Russell Breed, Wagga
‘No discrimination’
I see that supporters of homosexual marriage are worried about the nature of any opposition to the proposal. But anyone who reads the media will see that the reverse is true as the media is manipulated to promote homosexual “marriage”.
It’s obvious that these two ideas do not belong together. Homosexuality is a sexual interest in the same sex. That’s it.
But what is marriage? Perhaps it is about love as the homosexuals (and others) suggest? Love and marriage go together like a horse and carriage. No doubt the presence of love makes for a good marriage, but it is not essential. Many marriages are arranged by parents. This tradition goes back a long way in the highest levels of society and is practiced in very large numbers.
What about marriage and religion? Once, religion was the only way to publicly announce a couple’s marriage. But it’s different these days. There are civil forms available, not just for marriage but for announcing a birth and also a death. In our country the religious forms are not actually sufficient to be considered legal.
Marriage is a social structure (in all societies) whereby children are legitimized. If two people are married then their children are considered legitimate. Children born outside a marriage are not. Thus it’s obvious there must be a male and a female for marriage to exist. Only that combination can produce children. Laws covering such things as inheritance are founded on the same basis.
The present legislation does not discriminate against homosexuals. Any homosexual can marry a person of the opposite sex. That’s no different from people who are not homosexual.