skip to content »

ik-kem.ru

No sign up or fees sex chat in hobart tasmania

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".

No sign up or fees sex chat in hobart tasmania-74

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.Neither does the support of TV stars, comedians, or even Bono. It is not even the case that "all the surveys say Australians want it" is a sufficient argument.The surveys say that Australians want capital punishment.He has said: It's time for our laws to reflect the values of modern Australia and to include everyone as equals ... And these same terms make opposing a redefinition of marriage sound primitive and even barbaric.There are those in favour of change, we are told, and then there are the bigots.We are told there are those in favour of same-sex marriage, and then there are the bigots.

But allow me to make the case for traditional marriage as being between one man and one woman, writes Michael Jensen.

It is crucial to notice that the proposed revision of marriage laws involves exactly that: a revision of marriage.

In order to offer the status of marriage to couples of the same sex, the very meaning of marriage has to be changed.

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".

In which case, what same-sex couples will have will not be the same as what differently sexed couples now have.