But simply saying "it's time" doesn't make an argument.Neither does the need to keep up with the O'Haras, the Smiths, and the Pedersens.

Ladyboy line id for sex chat-62

He has said: It's time for our laws to reflect the values of modern Australia and to include everyone as equals ... And these same terms make opposing a redefinition of marriage sound primitive and even barbaric.

There are those in favour of change, we are told, and then there are the bigots.

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.

We are told there are those in favour of same-sex marriage, and then there are the bigots.

But allow me to make the case for traditional marriage as being between one man and one woman, writes Michael Jensen.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.Nevertheless, I don't think that the case for change is anywhere near as convincing as its proponents think it is.The case has been made almost entirely in terms of "equality" and its alleged opposite: "discrimination".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.