Last Week on Premier Radio…
… I took part in a brief conversation about “Gay Marriage”. The audio is now online, so click play below.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
… I took part in a brief conversation about “Gay Marriage”. The audio is now online, so click play below.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
Just one little point, Peter. It doesn’t affect the argument, but I mention it solely in the interests of accuracy. You said:
“The Roman Catholic Church don’t even view civil marriage as a proper marriage.”
Not strictly correct; it’s a bit more complicated than that. The Roman Catholic Church regards a marriage between two validly baptized non-Catholic Christians as a proper, valid, “sacramental” marriage, even if it’s a civil marriage. What it will NOT recognize is a civil marriage if either of the parties is a validly baptized Roman Catholic.
Thanks William
Well done Peter! I thought you made a good case.
Also a great response to Sharon’s argument that people shouldn’t discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation any more that they should on grounds of eye colour. As you say, sexual orientation is not an “intrinisic” characteristic in the way as eye (or skin) colour or are. It’s more like assumed characteristics such as cultural heritage or even political and religious beliefs (and, anyway, you probably COULD discriminate legally on eye colour, if you were mad enough to want to since, I think, it is not a protected racial characteristic!!!!)
Her counterarguments were really weak… for instance that you can’t see that she has aboriginal DNA, and making an equivalence with discrimination against people with mental health problems!! Surely, noone would argue that having a mental illness is equal to having normal mental health?