You can watch the video of last night’s “religious leaders” discussion on ABC Lateline here.
Also check out Michael Jensen on the Drum earlier the same evening.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
You can watch the video of last night’s “religious leaders” discussion on ABC Lateline here.
Also check out Michael Jensen on the Drum earlier the same evening.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Good job David. I particularly liked the part (about 8.30 mins in) where you explained the difference between the two different types of relationship. I found Emma Alberici’s curt comment in cutting you off (i.e. being different is one thing, being equal is another) as annoying but quite typical of her mindset. Obviously two relationship types that are so fundamentally different cannot be equal in any logical shape or form. My personal belief is that true ‘marriage equality’ can only exist within a monogamous gender-complementary relationship where both parties (because of their unique differences) are equally necessary and important to the relationship. This is in starkly different idea from the supposed ‘equality’ being sort by means of redefinition. IMO, that idea is a sham, a chimera and an impossibility.