Why is it that in most political debates today (and I use the term “debate” loosely), a person is inevitably categorised as either a ‘lover’ or a ‘hater’?
You are either all accepting or you are a bigot, a homophobe, a xenophobe and a list of other phobes. I truly don’t understand.
Where is the discussion and debate?
Where are the well-reasoned arguments for and against?
Why is the topic of marriage so venomous?
Not every person who disagrees with gay marriage is a religious bigot.
I’ve seen my friends and family torn to shreds on social media this past two weeks. They are people with a voice, expressing differing opinions and paying the price for it. It seems that once you state an opinion or position, everything about you that is true in terms of character and how you have carried yourself for years, is suddenly wiped and you are classed as either ‘accepting’ or a ‘bigot’.
My query is this: doesn’t everyone just want to have a voice and be represented?
Isn’t that why we now have the Greens, Sex Party and Motoring Enthusiast Party?
If today, a member of the Sex Party took a public stance for traditional marriage, or became pro-life, or pro-censorship what would tomorrow’s headlines be?
What would the media and keyboard warriors be shouting? Would you not question their motives and loyalty to the party and to their members?
I agree with Patrick McIvor. It’s not about a single issue, it’s about representation and I don’t believe Darren Chester had the right to be fluid with this decision.
If he had been a member of another party I couldn’t have cared less about his stance. But he isn’t.
If people who like cars are allowed to be represented, then so am I.
Darren’s own survey said 66 per cent of Gippslanders believe marriage should remain between a man and a woman. Who is now federally representing that 66 per cent?
With all respect, it’s not Darren Chester, so who is?
