I was surprised by this WikiNews stub documenting — amongst other things — the House of Representatives affirming support for heterosexual marriage.
The pollies in question blundered around the bush a fair bit, called on existing precedents and so forth, but apparently failed to ask a crucial question: “What is marriage for?”
With that one question answered clearly, the nature of legislation surrounding it becomes much simpler.
This appears to my odd little mind to be related to a question generally not being asked about the software we use: “What is it for?”
Once that answer is clear, decisions about what to buy (if anything) & where are also much clearer, because we would better know what effects were important to consider, each way.
Without that main/core answer in hand, the reasoning goes all wonky, becoming much more prone to backyard deals & hidden agendas. This applies to almost anything, not just families or software.
I suspect that the pollies dodged the core question here because many of them were either truly unaware of most of the background involved (either way), or were terrified of the consequences lurking behind any forthrightness they might indulge in.
It’s interesting to see our pollies discussing the other side of this issue (the less-trendy side), but I’d be much heartened if there were core reasoning about the motivation behind change (or for maintaining existing rules) also presented.
Here, I see pollies basically voting (one way or another) for their favourite team but without really exploring that most fundamental of questions: “Why?”
With a clearly spelled-out motivation laid out, an answer which, er, satisfies more sides of the question is more likely, as is one which is structured to allow sensible modification without carelessly ploughing up a participant’s position.
How say you?