I WRITE in agreement with Narell Tassel (The Border Mail, January 23) regarding homosexual unions.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
I refuse to use both “gay” and “marriage” in discussing the topic.
These people have stolen “gay”, once a festive adjective, and the same must not happen to “marriage”.
Marriage is the formal union between a man and a woman and must forever remain so.
I have no issue with a certificate of same-sex union. But I doubt that would appease these people, who are a very minor percentage.
I believe less than 5 per cent of the population is truly homosexual in that genetically they were born that way.
I am related to some homosexual people and I know they have serious feelings for one another and would love to have some celebration of their commitment.
I am not entirely unsympathetic, but hands off marriage.
I cannot see why putting the matter to local councils or state governments achieves anything.
It means nothing, only the federal government has the power to change the Marriage Act.
It is absurd any minority — religious, homosexual or other — can expect to change our laws just by having a loud voice.
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Pick any other word to describe a homosexual partnership you like.
— TERRY DULHUNTY,
Lavington