A no vote - “he’s dreaming”
We may be of the same generation, Don McLean (‘Referendum Fears’, Gaz 20/6), but our views on same-sex marriage bear no resemblance. For instance: 1) You find validity in the works of Rita Panahi - I don't.
2) You see value in an institution (ie. marriage) merely because it has lasted thousands of years (how about slavery?) - I don't.
3) You would deny emotional and physical well being to the gay community, on the basis of refusing to expand on an institution - I don't.
4) You would subject your moral convictions on those who do not share them, thereby denying others' freedoms - I don't.
5) You see Margaret Court as a purveyor of truth - I don't (check out her discredited historic views on apartheid, or linking homosexuality with Nazism and communism), and unlike Alan Joyce, she has never been physically attacked.
6) You see the 2015 Irish Referendum on SSM as “no consolation to the pro lobby". Really, Don? 77 per cent of the population didn't vote NO to SSM.
7) You probably see some inherent danger to your marriage and mine - I don't.
Thank you for your unnecessary explanations of referendum and plebiscite, but you have failed to realise that Tony Abbott recommended neither, and Malcolm Turnbull proposed a plebiscite, which duly failed to materialise. I have no problem with either actions.
Finally, Don, make no mistake - the longer this debate continues the stronger the position of legalising SSM becomes, even more so when our generation disappears.
A Galaxy poll in 2012 indicated 64 per cent of Australians supported SSM (a figure that has grown in subsequent years), including a majority of Christians and a vast majority of 18-24 year-olds.
A resounding ‘NO’ vote, Don? As the famous Darryl Kerrigan of 'The Castle' said, "Tell him he's dreaming!" John Duck, Trafalgar tion and concept of marriage. There are many cultural and religious traditions surrounding the institution of marriage which cannot be simply tossed aside.
Yet among these different traditions marriage has always historically been viewed as a contract and a relationship between male and female.
Nor can we validate support for for same-sex marriage by labelling it “progressive’. Radical change is not necessarily progress.
In the current climate it has become almost impossible for those of us who would wish to maintain the traditional view of marriage to express our views without being branded as purveyors of hate and homophobia.
It should also be said that support (and opposition) to same-sex marriage are not limited to one particular religious or cultural group.
Perhaps it is time for for us to step back and re-consider the issue without resorting to rancour, ridicule and accusation. If we are the genuinely multicultural and openly democratic community that we claim to be we should be doing much better than this.
Lloyd George, Warragul