Pushing a wobbly barrow
PRESIDENT Trump popularised the expression “fake news”. Add to that the idea of “disinformation”. We have both in spades with the “same- sex marriage” debate.
Let’s start with the LGBT “community”. No, they are not a community. There is little in common between them and many have little direct interest in homosexual marriage. So, then, what is their real agenda? “Love is Love” is starting to appear in Facebook profiles.
Cute, but what is this saying? If they are saying there are no morals, and no boundaries and anything is good so long as there is a rush of hormones to justify it, well, we have no grounds for a discussion.
But if, as I suspect, they are not saying that, then consider the tradition was that any sexual activity other than a man and woman in a lawful marriage is out of bounds ( choose what word you want here).
Of the multiple of options out there, why do you think homosexual activity is good and others bad, such as incest, bigamy and paedophilia?
What is your criteria in choosing? It is clear for some: scripture is specific. But what about you?
“A referendum/ postal ballot is divisive.” Nonsense. Or it is offensive to the LGBT “community” if other people’s opinion is sought?
In fact there will be despair and suicides if we have a civil debate. Nonsense. Or “Most people want SSM”. Says who? There have not been the ballots to justify such a conclusion.
“Disagreeing with SSM is to say gays are second- class citizens.” This one is plain bizarre. No one is claiming unmarried people are second- class, and there are lots of them.
Next, the question that has been posed: “What difference does it make to me anyway if a couple of guys in the next suburb marry?”
We will get back to that. First, what difference does it make to them? They can live together, call themselves a couple ( similar to many heterosexual couples) make the other a beneficiary in their will, have a party and say vows, and anything else you feel like.
Almost no one nowadays is bothering you. What they get out of SSM is the official affirmation by their country that they are legitimate. They can use the word “married”.
That is where it affects everyone. Many are not happy with the idea of their nation, with its longstanding values, legitimising what they feel is wrong, and going on a moral journey they believe is seriously unwise.
Let’s leave off for now looking at the rush of divorces and other civil cases that will shortly overload the family law courts after the rush of “marriages”.
Nor consider what further social engineering will be taken up after this one, if it succeeds.
Do you imagine the radicals pushing this barrow are going to politely go away afterwards? Really? ROGER DALTON,
North Ward.