Love, religion and nature
SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
READER A.J. Shelverton (Letters, August 11) talks about “traditional natural and normal” and “natural law and human rights” as a moral compass. Yet for centuries the Catholic Church has imposed the perverse doctrine of celibacy on many of its men and women. Other religions have routinely cast shame on “traditional natural and normal” conjugal behaviour. To what extent this systematic denial of human rights contributed to the widespread abuse of children is anybody’s guess, but “natural” it certainly isn’t.
Maybe it’s no surprise that people who (theoretically) have little sexual experience become obsessed with the topic and feel qualified to lecture the rest of us about it. If I remember my Bible correctly, the first Christian, a man called Jesus, made a big thing about loving each other and being tolerant. Perhaps the sanctimonious advice-givers should re-read it.
In another time and place, the same people would have burnt me at the stake for saying this.
Nonsensical
Richard Upton Battery Point READER A.J. Shelverton refers to natural laws. I am wondering whether they are the same natural laws which have been used to justify slavery, race segregation, war, polygamy, sexism and generally ignorant behaviour for the past few hundred years?
Trying to tie marriage to reproduction, Darwinian theory or the supposed needs of a child is not just irrelevant, but actually nonsensical. So if two adults, regardless of gender, choose not to marry, will that be to the detriment of any children which are born or parented within that relationship? Or is marriage itself so important that divorce or legal separation should be criminalised? Marriage is a choice which should be available to everybody, regardless of race, religion or gender. It is a matter of equity and should not require a vote, a plebiscite or the support of words written in a very old book.
Mike Radburn
Leslie Vale
What God wants
I AM sick to death of this stupid argument about marriage equality. The Government claims to need a plebiscite on same-sex marriage, but it is only a stalling tactic dreamt up by the powerful religious fanatics to delay the matter. All parliamentarians accept that in the final say it is left to the elected Parliament to vote on the matter and decide one way or the other.
So get on and do the job so we can return to more important problems such as health, education and the economy.
The claim by various religions that two people who love and respect each other getting married and living together in harmony is against the will of God should reflect a bit. What harm would it cause?
On the other hand, the cause down through the ages of most troubles has been man’s interpretation of the particular dogma they follow.
Christians and the Islamic faith and the Jews are the main culprits and cannot even agree among themselves, and fought horrific wars, committed terrible atrocities, all in the name of a mythical god.
Since a god does not seem ready to speak to his flock, it is left to the heads of the various sects to give their interpretation of what god would want.
They are people like our elected representatives. For heaven’s sake, pass the Bill and get on with governing the country.
F. Wescott
Lutana
Right on
WHY shell out $122 million for a postal vote on same-sex marriage? Surely our “strong leader” could negotiate with his party’s Right to come up with the most obvious acceptable solution — a show of hands at the annual general meeting of the Australian Monarchist League (“Long road yet to travel”, Mercury, August 10)? Stephen Jeffery
Sandy Bay
Church and state
THE political and religious conservatives confuse two separate definitions of marriage. In law, marriage is a contract entered into by two persons whereby they are recognised as being in partnership for tax, testamentary and other contractual purposes, and can describe themselves in society as being married under the law. Religiously, marriage is a contract entered into before God whereby, spiritually, they are recognised as conjoined. By convention, and in law, that religious contract is also recognised in civil law, subject to documentary formalities. Parliament and the voters have no right to alter the religious definitions of marriage adopted by different believers. Equally, only Parliament, the legislature, has the right and duty to determine the legal definition of and conditions for a civil marriage contract. Bill Godfrey New Town
Unpacked
UNSUITABLE. Ugly. Unwelcome.
It’s not rocket science
STEVE Old wonders why Tasmanian workers are not attracted to the hospitality industry (Mercury, August 14). Low hourly rates and no penalty rates says it all.
Gillian Taylor
Carlton
Slip slidin’ away
HOW far can Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull slide into US President Donald Trump’s boxer shorts.
Normal hours
NOT sure why Steve Old is shocked by a lack of interest in hospitality. The Tasmanian Hospitality Association was a prime mover in removing penalty rates for hospitality workers. Workers are now looking for work outside the sector where more normal hours of work allow for a social life. E. Altmann
Howrah
IVF queries
Moreeta Pennicott
Kingston Nick Millen
Sandford ON citizenship, I wonder what the law would be for someone born with the aid of IVF, especially if created using donor eggs, sperm or both. Maybe the High Court should rule on this while looking into the problems, or could a change to the Constitution be made to cover this possibility. Chris Wall Berriedale GPO Box 334, Hobart, Tas 7001
mercuryedletter@themercury.com.au
(03) 6230 0711
Letters should be no more than 200 words. They must be signed and must include name and address for publication and a telephone number for verification. Letters to the Editor are submitted on condition that Davies Brothers Pty Ltd, as publishers of the Mercury, may edit and has the right to license third parties to reproduce in electronic form and communicate these letters. Emails must be plain text and not contain any formatting or graphics. Quick Views letters should be less than 50 words.