It's about lifestyle- or is it really?
Presuming to speak for me, Peter Berry had the following to say:
Careful Peter, your homophobia is showing. Oh an you missed a line. After "justifying a lifestyle" you meant to put in "that is dirty, dangerous and against God's teachings".
Really, I feel the other way. I want marriage to include as many people as possible. Why on earth do certain members of the heterosexual community feel the need to keep marriage as a heteros only club? Before I got married I used to joke that gay folk should have the right to marry and be as miserable as much as anyone.
But now as a married man, I want to be inclusive. Being married is actually much more important to me than I thought it would be. I thought I was satisfying a traditional requirement, but now it feels like more than that. I can't really express it, but lemme say this; it's pretty damn good.
To me, it's the equivalent of not offering mirgants the vote. Oh sure, we want you to contribute, to work and so on, but we don't want to include you.
What a load of rubbish. It's 2008- we can do better.
KEVIN Rudd, like John Howard before him, has done the right thing intervening against Jon Stanhope's proposed changes to effectively redefine marriage."This is now simply about justifying a lifestyle by forcing society to accept, despite its better judgement and legitimate concerns."
An honest examination of the situation reveals this is not about rights, as claimed. Previous areas of unreasonable discrimination against homosexual couples have been addressed through new legislation. Consequently, there is no good reason to dismantle and redefine this age-old and time-proven institution.
Our society and our children need marriages to be supported and strengthened, not diluted. This is now simply about justifying a lifestyle by forcing society to accept, despite its better judgement and legitimate concerns.
Peter Berry, Chirnside Park
Careful Peter, your homophobia is showing. Oh an you missed a line. After "justifying a lifestyle" you meant to put in "that is dirty, dangerous and against God's teachings".
Really, I feel the other way. I want marriage to include as many people as possible. Why on earth do certain members of the heterosexual community feel the need to keep marriage as a heteros only club? Before I got married I used to joke that gay folk should have the right to marry and be as miserable as much as anyone.
But now as a married man, I want to be inclusive. Being married is actually much more important to me than I thought it would be. I thought I was satisfying a traditional requirement, but now it feels like more than that. I can't really express it, but lemme say this; it's pretty damn good.
To me, it's the equivalent of not offering mirgants the vote. Oh sure, we want you to contribute, to work and so on, but we don't want to include you.
What a load of rubbish. It's 2008- we can do better.
1 Comments:
It sounds like zealotry is alive and well in Australia. It's absurd to think that marriage, as an abstract concept, will be systematically undermined by being inclusive and egalitarian.
Post a Comment
<< Home