December 25th 2010

  Buy Issue 2843

Articles from this issue:

EDITORIAL: China: absolute power corrupts absolutely

CANBERRA OBSERVED: Prime Minister Gillard's mishandling of WikiLeaks

UNITED STATES: WikiLeaks founder should face criminal charges in US

THE GREENS: Why Liberals and Labor must preference Greens last

EUTHANASIA: Wrong response to epidemic of isolation among seniors

CULTURE AND CIVILISATION: Why C.S. Lewis wrote his science fiction trilogy

RUSSIA: Will Putin challenge Medvedev in 2012?

TAIWAN: WikiLeaks rattle Taiwan's external relationships

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS: Offended by the offended

ENVIRONMENT: Frog extinction: another 'global warming' myth

SEXUAL ANARCHY: From temptation to tolerance to approval

OPINION: Greens' flawed policies burden families

WikiLeaks 1 (letter)

WikiLeaks 2 (letter)

Logical flaws in push for same-sex marriage (letter)

A miracle for Nicholas? (letter)

AS THE WORLD TURNS: Parents, police perplexed at rise in cyber-bullying / Stalin's American dupes exposed

CINEMA: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, in 3D (rated PG)

BOOK REVIEW: THE TYRANNY OF GUILT: An Essay on Western Masochism, by Pascal Bruckner


Books promotion page

Logical flaws in push for same-sex marriage (letter)

by Lucy Sullivan

News Weekly, December 25, 2010

A recent ABC television Q&A program was on the subject of same-sex marriage. Those on the panel in favour spoke largely of equal rights, and those against, of society not being ready for it. This prompted a young woman in the audience to ask if there is any material reason for rejecting same-sex marriage.

Well, yes, although none of the panel responded to her question. Marriage is an institution whose raison d'etre is the protection of the procreation of children and all that flows therefrom, including identifying their parents in advance. In the absence of the biological necessity for one male and one female in the making of every child, there would be no such institution.

By biological definition, same-sex partners cannot be candidates for marriage. If procreation is omitted from the definition of marriage, then there is no logic in confining its extension to same-sex couples.

Marriage does not exist to support sexual activity in isolation from procreation. As we are well aware in our promiscuous society, its practice needs no institutional prompting.

If love and commitment are the criteria, then in the name of equality it should be made available to any committed friends who hope for a long-standing and mutually supportive relationship; or why not to any two people at all, or three, or four, for the asking.

The whole proposition is absurd and, if effected, would only serve to confuse us further as regards the essential function of marriage.

As institutional support for marriage in its fundamental role has been eroded over the last several decades, so has the proper care of children deteriorated.

Lucy Sullivan,
Windsor, NSW

All you need to know about
the wider impact of transgenderism on society.
TRANSGENDER: one shade of grey, 353pp, $39.99

Join email list

Join e-newsletter list

Your cart has 0 items

Subscribe to NewsWeekly

Research Papers

Trending articles

FOREIGN AFFAIRS Coronavirus: China must answer hard questions

HUMAN RIGHTS A Magnitsky-style law for Australia?

COVER STORY Wildfires: Lessons from the past not yet learnt

COVER STORY Coronavirus: China must answer hard questions

NATIONAL AFFAIRS Bushfires: Never let a good crisis go to waste

CANBERRA OBSERVED Submarine build gives us a sinking feeling

GENDER POLITICS In trans Newspeak, parental consent is a 'hurdle'

© Copyright 2017
Last Modified:
April 4, 2018, 6:45 pm