Mr Barnett we support your idea.

[Guest guest]

 Dear Maharajas, Matajis and Prabhus, we are about to submit this letter to

the local newspaper. All glories to Srila Prabhupada and his servants of whom I

have little or no qualification to represent.

 

Your servant,

Bhakta Jason

 

Dear Editor and readers of the West Australian newspaper.

 

As it is said we all have a right to an opinion, and that also presented

without ridicule or disrespect, I would like to express mine regarding the

controversy stirred by the words of Mr Barnett of the Western Australian

Liberal party and his views on the legal and parental rights of those engaged

in same sex relationships.

 

Particularly of interest to me was how Mr Barnett said that although a gay

parent may demand the right to parent within the relationship, we must first

acknowledge and observe the right of the child to have heterosexual parents.

 

I found his words to be inspired by, in the least, common sense. This is why.

 

When we discuss the issue of a person's rights, we cannot but acknowledge, that

another person exists somewhere, sometime, who will be bound by the obligation

to observe the rights of that same individual. Imagine the absurdity of a world

where although everyone had rights, no-one had obligations to anyone else.

 

In discussion of rights there are catagories which stand out to me such as

those of animals, those of human embryos, human infants and those relating to

adult human rights such as that of homosexuals or gays.

 

In interesting observation has been made apart from this present discussion,

and it is this, that of all beings whose rights are being debated upon at this

point in history, it is only the class of adult or adolescent humans who have

obligations to uphold those rights. In plain language, although every living

thing has rights, only adult humans have obligations.

 

Is there or has there been a secular or non secular government anywhere in

existence that would punish an animal or small infant for a so-called crime? If

it is true that the government regulates things the way they should really be,

then animals and infants do not have obligations, but are dependent on those

that do, us, the aspiring adult humans of the world.

 

Therefore as there are so many living beings with rights in this world (count

all the different members of all species on all continents, a countless

number), and relatively few with obligations (six billion humans are on Earth

who are also not all adult), it suggests that those with obligations, the adult

humans, have many other living beings with rights with whom they must give

proper respect and attention.

 

Is it possible that we stand to lose more individually and collectively by not

meeting our obligations to others, than what we stand to lose by not getting

our rights met by others? I think so. I am also not alone in having these

convictions.

 

Therefore all gays and non gays, please, let us try to understand what we owe

before demanding what we think we deserve. If that means that only married,

heterosexual couples should parent children, so be it. When dealing with

babies, human embryos, or even animals, we must be very careful what choices we

make on their behalf. Thankyou.

 

Jason Rapp