Welcome to Quadrant Online | Login/ Register Cart (0) $0 View Cart
Menu
October 14th 2017 print

SSM: Four Arguments for ‘No’

In the upcoming October edition of Quadrant four writers address the case for changing the definition of marriage and find it wanting. Released early in response to the postal survey, Keith Windschuttle, Greg Walsh, Shimon Cowen and Michael Kowalik lay out the 'No' case

Keith Windschuttle: SSM: Spurious, Specious, Misleading

One argument for altering the definition of marriage is that it will ‘dignify’ gay unions, but dignity in personal relationships cannot be conferred by the state and its impersonal bureaucracy. The best a state can offer is legal protection, which it does already. Dignity is beyond its reach

__________________________________

Greg Walsh: Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty

Any attempt to introduce same-sex marriage must respect conscientious objections. Liberals, whose party is pledged to defend ‘freedom of thought, worship, speech and association’, have been derelict in not revealing the specific legislation they propose should the Yes campaign succeed

__________________________________

Shimon Cowen: SSM: A Struggle of Worldviews

The ideology of ‘marriage equality’ emerged from the politicised and inevitably left culture of our universities. From those institutions come cadres of journalists, teachers, bureaucrats and others bent on imposing their worldview on all, including small children

__________________________________

Michael Kowalik: Same-Sex Marriage and Human Rights

SSM proponents paint ‘traditional’ marriage as increasingly dysfunctional, so why not endorse a distorted facsimile of those allegedly troubled heterosexual unions? This neatly ignores the traditional family’s need for more protection by the state and society

__________________________________