Hinch Says

Your Say

Reply to Hinch’s latest questions and posts.

• President Obama has changed his mind. In spectacular fashion, months out from a presidential election, he has come out in support of same sex marriages. Back home Julia Gillard has again stated her opposition to it. The Age online had a telling headline: Yes we can. No I won’t. Where do you stand now?

  • PeterBee

  • I'm affronted by your new zealotry re homosexual 'marriage'.
    You assert, fairly aggressively, that those conserving societal mores ('mor-ays') are blinkered, bigoted, morally reprehensible, irrational and discriminatory (as if 'discrimination' is intrinsically evil).
    That's extreme, in my opinion, and far too PC.
    
    Society created certain constructs for the safety and comfort of the community at large.
    'Children' are a creation encompassing young humans, refined during the industrial revolution.
    Invalids are those to which we direct special care and financial benefits.
    Seniors are accorded special consideration.
    Those asset-less are given accommodation.
    The homeless are helped with food and shelter.
    Penalties against those attacking police or defence force personnel are harsher than for ordinary citizens.
    Terrorists, attacking randomly, are especially severely dealt with.
    Wives are those females who traditionally care for children while the husband earn the means.
    A marriage is a union between TWO people of the opposite sex; not THREE or more.
    We reject marriage between multiple partners, with minors and with species other than homo sapien.
    We don't marry our offspring, or parents.
    Siblings rarely, if ever, marry each other.
    Forced marriages are prohibited.
    Honour killings are illegal.
    Teenagers still below the age of 18 are declared children.
    Adults may not touch children in sensually suggestive or sexual ways and especially around their genitalia.
    Children may indulge in sensual and sexual affiliation, including manipulation of genitalia. As long as the two children are within two years of each other's age then carnal knowledge is not prohibited.
    Children may not be punished in the same way adults are.
    Others.
    
    These are long-developed, functional, societal standards.
    
    Your new 'enlightenment' is advocating a HUGE change to one of these fundamental constructs, and it begins the creeping erosion of our foundations.
    We have a decimal number system because we have ten fingers.
    We have mums and dads because two gametes of opposite gender combine.
    We combine in pairs because two gametes of opposite gender combine.
    Our cars are two-persons wide because of heterosexual coupling.
    Women dress exhibitionally so that men can choose healthy hosts with whom to breed.
    Women live longer because they gestate babies.
    Mother-baby bonding and feeding has evolved via hormone secretion to induce caring for helpless infants; the default role for men is to gather sustenance.
    Swords are worn on the left hand side so that men can draw them with their right, dominant, hand and defend their women, who walk on the left side of their men, even down the aisle.
    Men walk on the kerb side of a footpath so as to protect the 'more valuable' (in the biological sense) partners.
    Men are mechanically stronger and therefore became warriors, leaving the default role for women as nurturers; while not absolute, they are a effective pair.
    Others.
    These phenomena emerge from nature, from evolution, from our fundamental being.
    
    The argument that some/many heterosexual marriages end in grief and therefore flaw the model is, I regret to have to say, febrile.
    Let same-sex groupings enjoy their mutual friendships and the financial specificities they have established - but marriage is ours.
    They can devise another description; go back to Latin, or Greek. Invent.
    
    I disagree with you, and your wives, strongly.
    Those who don't understand social evolution are destined to rediscover it at their peril, and that of others.
    Soft radio; turned off.
  • 14/05/2012 04:41 PM

  • tonym

  • If Professor George's publicly stated opinion were that I shouldn't be able to marry my dog or my garden gnome or that I shouldn't be considered to be an aunt to my nephew, would that also disqualify him from his position as equal opportunity/human rights officer.
    
    Throughout history, human societies have recognised the biological reality whereby, via the complementarity and union of the sexes, and most effectively expressed within the formalised commitment of marriage, children are begotten and nurtured for their good and for the good of their community .
    
    Your response reflects the secular fundamentalist dogma that allows anyone (for the moment) to entertain whatever fanciful (according to secular totalitarian dogma) notion that they like in private, but must toe the party line in public, without any allowable reference to the Good the True or to God.
  • 15/05/2012 07:22 PM