As we now understand it, marriage is not merely the expression of a love people have for each other.It is, or is intended as, a life-long union between two people who exemplify the biological duality of the human race, with the openness to welcoming children into the world.
Sex chat no sigh in one to one dating agency
) New Zealand, and we ought to get with the programme.
The Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, in line with the new ALP dogma, has announced that he is introducing a private members bill into Parliament next Monday. I believe we have to change this law which discriminates against adult couples on the basis of who they love. The terms in which the pro-marriage redefinition case are stated make it sound as inevitable as the dawn, and as unstoppable as the tide.
But simply saying "it's time" doesn't make an argument.
Neither does the need to keep up with the O'Haras, the Smiths, and the Pedersens.
It won't be "marriage equality": it will be an entirely new thing.
This is where Bill Shorten again misunderstands what marriage is.
Nevertheless, I don't think that the case for change is anywhere near as convincing as its proponents think it is.
The case has been made almost entirely in terms of "equality" and its alleged opposite: "discrimination".
To remove the sexual specificity from the notion of marriage makes marriage not a realisation of the bodily difference between male and female that protects and dignifies each, but simply a matter of choice.
This is precisely what many pro-revision advocates themselves argue: that a new definition of marriage would establish marriage as a new thing altogether. J Graff puts it, a change in marriage law would mean that marriage would "ever after stand for sexual choice, forcutting the link between sex and diapers".
Wisely, our politicians don't listen to surveys on that issue (and I agree with them).