van Ryn to bulldoze sacred institution (journalism)



I don't normally get out of bed at 11:30 at night cause I'm so pissed off at what someone wrote in The Examiner, but this is an exception.

Let's start here: Claire van Ryn is a lovely young lady who I've known for a long time & has a great moral compass & I'd be very happy to leave my son with her any time. She has gone out of her way to write articles about global poverty & often writes articles that are unpopular with the majority of Tasmanians. This takes a shitload of courage.

I do not want to attack van Ryn, but I sure as hell want to attack her ideas!

This article, is shit:

http://www.examiner.com.au/story/256191/premier-to-bulldoze-a-sacred-institution/

"As a married woman I am uncomfortable with the plan to redefine marriage. Can you even do that - redefine an institution that so many of us have used as the axis of family and life? "

Yes. Yes, you can. Marriage has meant many different things in many different cultures. Sometimes you couldn't marry someone of a different race. Sometimes you couldn't marry someone of a different class. Sometimes a bloke could marry heaps of chicks! In the beloved Bible the wise King Solomon thought it was a good idea to have 700 wives & 300 kind-of-wives!

So yeah, we can change who can & can't get married. And strangely, I think you would agree that every time it has been changed so far, has been for the good.

And why would two blokes getting married make a married woman uncomfortable? Does it make your marriage less valuable? What about the heterosexual couple across the road from my house that scream at each other 3 nights a week? What about the couple that only stay together for the good of their kids? What about the third of heterosexual marriages that end in divorce?

God, what a stupid argument.

Comments