to THE AUSTRALIAN
     Peter van Onselen produces a few furphies himself in his defence of a ‘yes’ decision for the postal survey (‘”No” side offers a masterclass in debating techniques’, 23-24/9). First of all, slippery slopes really do exist. The ‘no’ lobby has produced convincing evidence that an apparently innocuous change to the law could lead to several undesirable results, including compulsory application of ‘radical and gender programs in schools’ and serious attacks on the free speech of traditionalists.
     Secondly, while a comparison of children of same-sex couples to ‘the Stolen Generations’ may be excessive, that does not dispel the argument that children do significantly better with their own biological parents in a firm marriage.
     Thirdly, a ‘yes’ victory may not mean that every ‘yes’ voter endorsed political correctness or Safe Schools, but it will certainly strengthen those trends; so Tony Abbott is right to warn that if people fear them, they should vote ‘no’.
     Finally, same-sex marriage isn’t just about alleged ‘equal rights and freedom’, it’s about giving to one small minority at the expense of other persons, especially children.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic