Live video sex chat without registering alexz johnson and tim rozon dating
To remove the sexual specificity from the notion of marriage makes marriage not a realisation of the bodily difference between male and female that protects and dignifies each, but simply a matter of choice.This is precisely what many pro-revision advocates themselves argue: that a new definition of marriage would establish marriage as a new thing altogether. J Graff puts it, a change in marriage law would mean that marriage would "ever after stand for sexual choice, forcutting the link between sex and diapers".The argument is that applying the word "marriage" to some relationships and not to others is unequal treatment, and thus discrimination. But it is the duty of the law to judiciously discriminate and to appropriately recognise difference with, at times, unequal treatment of things that are not the same.It isn't automatically wrong to discriminate In fact, it may be the case that offering supposedly "equal" treatment is incoherent, as it is in this case.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.One of them is this: if the Marriage Act changes, this is not the end of the world for me. I am more distressed by our inattention to children in detention, or our national greed problem, than by the possibility that the definition of marriage might be changed.Another is that I stand adamantly against the bullying and vilification of people of minority sexual identities.
They should exercise leadership, not follow opinion.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.