Tough de­ci­sion for some is a no-brainer for oth­ers

The Courier-Mail - - LETTERS -

CON­GRAT­U­LA­TIONS for your Ed­i­to­rial, “Re­spect for all views key to mar­riage vote” ( C-M, Sep 29).

It was bal­anced, co­gent and thought­fully pre­sented.

This is­sue is a dif­fi­cult quandary for some and a given for oth­ers.

Your ar­gu­ment pre­sented both sides with a sen­si­ble and thought-pro­vok­ing view. Barry Breb­ner, Aroona THE asser­tion that same-sex mar­riage will have no un­in­tended or un­fore­seen con­se­quences flies in the face of mod­ern his­tory.

It was not long ago that ho­mo­sex­u­als in Queens­land were ar­rested, charged and im­pris­oned.

Fol­low­ing on from the le­gal­i­sa­tion of ho­mo­sex­u­al­ity we now have civil unions.

From there we went to al­low­ing ho­mo­sex­ual cou­ples to adopt chil­dren. There will be fur­ther con­se­quences if same­sex mar­riage is le­galised.

It is just that we don’t know them.

Same-sex mar­riage is part of a po­lit­i­cal agenda by a stri­dent mi­nor­ity to force a world view on an ap­a­thetic and com­pli­ant ma­jor­ity. Ge­off Roberts, Bren­dale IT IS dif­fi­cult to dis­agree with your Ed­i­to­rial, in that those who are not par­tic­u­larly en­gaged with the mar­riage yes/ no vote must be heartily sick of the con­ver­sa­tion.

I am also per­plexed that the is­sue has aroused such deep and on­go­ing di­vi­sions in the com­mu­nity.

One would have thought, given that many peo­ple have prob­a­bly voted by now, the sce­nario would be wind­ing down.

But no, we con­tinue to be as­sailed by those on ei­ther side at­tempt­ing to over­ride the other.

Thank­fully, this vote is not be­ing held at the same time as a gen­eral elec­tion, where the two sides would be fall­ing over one an­other to is­sue “how to vote” pa­pers.

We can be thank­ful for small mer­cies. Claire Jolliffe, Bud­erim

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.