In general terms, the ''right'' to marry already exists. Any adult can marry provided that a proper person (not a sibling, minor, or member of the same sex) is also willing, for that is what marriage is. What we rightly lack is the right to marry anyone we choose without discrimination...extending marriage to include two men or two women... I would have to find a different word for my marriage, or add the rider ''heterosexual'' to the word ''marriage''.
The education of my children would be different. Same-sex marriage is symbolic of social acceptance of gay sex as a moral good. Most people still believe the physical make-up of humans points in another direction. But they would not be able to prevent their children being taught that consenting sex between any two persons is a matter of moral and physical indifference.
Human rights would be different. A right does not come into existence by mere claim and declaration. When human rights language is used in the wrong way, it cheapens the discourse. It makes it harder to stand up for human rights, and against real injustices.
Dr Peter Jensen is the AnglicanArchbishop of Sydney.
Hey Ned...the city of Sydney is so lucky to have a man like Jensen as a religious figurehead... promoting prejudice, discrimination and hatred towards SSA adults... and maintaining the rage against SSA Youth in schools.
Yeah Jed ... I need my marriage to be labelled heterosexual because my missus looks a bit like you Ned. You know the way we tell the difference in our marriage, Jed? Well, when I'm home, I wear a sailor's cap because marriage is about one ship, one captain. I don't want people thinking I'm faggot! Glad to see Pete Jensen doesn't think them homo-sexualists have any rights. If my mate Alan Jones can call for the drowning of the PM ...then I reckon it's OK for Sydney Anglicans to support those who encarcerate homo-lovers, who take more than 24 hours to report Ugandan gays to the police...for being gay!