Suf­fer the child­less

The Sunday Times - - YOUR SAY - DON­ALD WIL­SON Mya­ree

I read the ar­ti­cle by An­drew Hastie with in­ter­est and felt it was one of the best con­structed yet un­der the “No” ar­gu­ment.

How­ever, from my point of view it is in­her­ently wrong. An­drew states the ba­sis for marriage is pro­cre­ation. There is no vow in the three re­li­gious marriage cer­e­monies that he men­tions that says pro­cre­ation is part of the rea­son for marriage. To gen­er­alise, re­li­gious vows are made to love and hon­our each other, in sick­ness and health.

He also states the Com­mon­wealth is not in­ter­ested in reg­u­lat­ing peo­ple’s ro­man­tic feel­ings, but only in marriage be­cause of its long-term wel­fare and health of chil­dren. To read that a par­lia­men­tary rep­re­sen­ta­tive has cast many child­less cou­ples into the dis­in­ter­ested cat­e­gory is dis­tress­ing. Are child­less cou­ples now go­ing to suf­fer the dis­crim­i­na­tion that same-sex cou­ples are en­dur­ing? Same-sex cou­ples are as ca­pa­ble of lov­ing re­la­tion­ships as het­ero­sex­ual. If they adopt chil­dren and pro­vide them with a lov­ing, sta­ble up­bring­ing, so­ci­ety could not ask for more from them.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.