Yes to intellectual rigour

MARRIAGE

I AGREE it is important for Australians to exercise “intellectual rigour” when considering their vote on marriage equality (Letters, October 10). Most people would also agree that being rigorous involves resisting taking assertions at face value, and double-checking source material and qualifications of those doing the asserting. So I exercised my intellectual rigour and double-checked the arguments made by Robin Banks (Talking Point, October 7) and discovered her assessment that marriage equality will not erode Australians’ education, speech or religious freedoms is corroborated by law societies, legal academics and the Human Rights Commission.

In contrast, when attempting to research US, Canada and United Kingdom examples often mentioned as proof of freedom loss, the materials fail to reflect all available facts. For example, UK instances cited either occurred in Northern Ireland which does not have marriage equality, or were breaches of other laws in place years before marriage equality was passed. Space constraints don’t allow me to list all the red herrings, but yes to intellectual rigour, and no to misinformation and double standards.

Just a certificate

THERE has been a lot of discussion by the No faction of the marriage argument that bringing it into law will change religious beliefs, freedom of speech, curriculum changes and so on. Marriage equality is about two people, whether male and female or other combinations being able to get married. There have been gay unions without a marriage certificate for years with many gay couples having families through adoption or IVF. Religious beliefs, education, freedom of speech etc have not been affected. How will a marriage certificate change all that?

No certainty

GOVERNMENTS and ministers change frequently therefore there is no certainty to any lasting legislation. Countries where same-sex marriage has been legislated show the following has happened: slow removal of gender from language and parenting records, changing of gender with the filing of a form, coercion to use transgender language; confusing legal minefield; freedom of belief, speech, association and conscience eroded for churches and Christian businesses; Christian professor sacked for moral views; radical changes to sex education, removal of parental rights and the clear definition of mothers and fathers.

Ask why Wrest Point refused, why billboards supporting the No vote were taken down or defaced and why businesses, sporting bodies and local councils deny “a fair go for all”. The last census shows the majority of Australians are Christian. We are not all secular minded.

If love is love

HAVE those who use the argument the definition of marriage should be changed because all love is equal and therefore two people who love each other should be able A new way to have your say themercury.com.au readers have a new way to have their say. It’s free to use, just register and have your say. For more details and to register, visit the website. to marry, thought through the repercussions of this argument? What about parents and their children, men with 10 wives, or even an adult and a 13-year-old? Those in these relationships could contend they also have genuine love for each other and therefore should be allowed to marry. How can proponents of this idea deny these people the right to marry? Put forward your reasons for advocating a Yes vote by all means, but please stop putting forth this argument that does not stand up to scrutiny unless you are willing to also advocate that people in the above situations should also be able to marry.

Greater emphasis

The No case seems to be run mostly from those against it on religious grounds and these seem based on Judeo-Christian beliefs. It is certainly true the Old Testament in several chapters indicates homosexuality is an offence against God. The New Testament contains no such passages. Jesus is recorded as saying he fully supports the teachings of his Jewish religion but that he wanted to add to it a greater emphasis on love. That would seem to indicate that his view on homosexuality might have been “Go and sin no more”. But that is a mere extraction from his life’s teachings; there is no record of his having spoken on this subject. It seems equally likely he would have said every expression of true love should be looked on favourably. I am not a Christian but if I were I would be making that interpretation of his teaching.

What next

SAUDI Arabia will allow women to drive cars in 2018. What next? Children and dogs behind the wheel? Beware the slippery slope.

Hot under the collar

WHO is paying for the pin-up boy of the anti-science brigade to tour the world and make unfounded and outrageous claims on weather in London? Oh hang on, that would be us taxpayers.

Children first

AS a Christian I was pleased to see reports the Coalition for Marriage has the welfare of children as their first priority. This is wonderful, how happy will all Australian children be when they know every parent has the right to marry.

No words

TONY Abbott ... enough said.

Nice, original

NICE letter, Sid Abraham (Letters, October 6). Short term thinking and a cargo cult mentality have resulted in a miserable return to Australians from our vast gas reserves. Not even enough has been retained for local industry and home heating. Also, nice to see an original cliche (can I say that?): “Slap on the wrist with a wet tram ticket”.