No member ship required sex chat love air dating
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 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.It won't be "marriage equality": it will be an entirely new thing.This is where Bill Shorten again misunderstands what marriage is.
Now, having put that opinion forward, I fully recognise that there are many people of intelligence and good will who disagree. What I do hope is that my contribution here will not be derided as bigoted or homophobic out of hand, but that it will be seen as part of a civil discussion.
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.
It will be called marriage, but it won't be marriage as we know it.