Free speech
AS A young person Clara Dijkstra (Letters, The Examiner, October 9) I commend you for expressing your opinion on same-sex marriage.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Be mindful that publicly expressing an opinion is always likely to attract an opposing voice. That is freedom of speech at play.
From the tone of your letter I am wondering how free your own children will be to make up their own minds about important issues.
What will be your response if one of your children is LGBTQI?
Ralph Marshall, Launceston.
Sex education
MANY readers would be very impressed with the thoughts expressed by Clara Dijkstra (Letters, October 9) on the controversial type of sex education being presented to our students.
How uplifting to experience the intelligence, thoughtfulness and principles of one so young. Thank you Clara.
A. McKenna, Youngtown.
What’s in a name?
AS NOTED by many the term marriage and its many language derivatives has, for thousands of years and hundreds of civilisations and nationalities, both religious and non religious, meant and still does mean, a union between a male and female.
Use of the term marriage does not provide equality for same-sex unions. Equality for these couples can be resolved in a way few could object to.
Legislate for two new entities with the same legal rights as for male to female marriage. The new entities could be Funion, for female to female and Munion, for male to male unions.
Same-sex couples could then be referred to as Funed and Muned and would be recognised in the same way as the term married is for male to female unions.
Celebration could be in a civil or non-compulsory religious ceremony.
The names of the new entities will clarify the gender of the unions for all as marriage now defines the gender of male to female unions.
Same-sex couples would then have the equality they are demanding. Problem resolved.
Now let the government get on with the real task of governing Australia.
Lindsay Millar, Hillwood.
Rebuttal
MARY T. Bates (Letters, October 5) is unhappy about rainbow flags being flown over council offices, which are government-funded and should therefore be neutral.
I wonder if she felt the same when the government-subsidised chaplaincy program was introduced into schools, and was clearly an endorsement of religion.
Unfortunately, religion has played a large part in the marriage debate.
Stephen Thompson (Letters, October 8) states that “God’s word is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow”. That’s fine for anyone who believes in God. For those of us who don’t, it carries no weight whatsoever.
I find it really frustrating that such an important decision, which affects many vulnerable people, should be influenced by someone who, in my opinion, belongs in the same category as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
This debate is about one thing only, affording equal rights to all of the population as far as marriage is concerned.
Val Clarke, Kings Meadows.