Quite recently in the news in regards to gay marriage, Peter Dutton said that someone (specifically the CEO of QANTAS, although I’m certain that it applied to all CEOS) shouldn’t use a company  or shareholders’ money to push their agenda and that companies should stay out of  politics.

That’s definitely not an exact quote. I’m pretty sure that Peter Dutton did say things differently and that wasn’t the exact representation of the intent behind his words, but it’s as close as I can get now without reading the article again, which is something that I don’t want to do right now as I think I understood it well enough.

I think that Peter Dutton is right, but about the wrong thing. When it comes to politics, I think that companies shouldn’t be given as much leeway and concessions as they seem to receive. I don’t think that they should be (mostly) ignored for some of the things of which they are part.

Beyond that, I think that a company (or CEO) are able to support what they want, so long as it does represent the interests of their employees, shareholders and customers and so long as it’s not something that could be seen as being a bad decision.

Furthermore to this, I don’t see there being an issue with a CEO or a company supporting the idea of marriage equality.

Yes, the conversation should be open to everyone,so it’s a good thing that it has been for years. If a CEO or a company want to support something that can be seen as a step forward for civilisation, then there’s nothing wrong with them showing support.

I think that there’s significantly bigger issues than that (among other things), such as how badly we’re damaging the natural environment (regardless of if you believe as to whether global warming is real or not, you cannot deny that the environment is getting screwed over pretty badly in some areas) and I really wish that everyone who is continuously protesting for rights would shut up and actually start working harder toward supporting the natural environment. With that being said, I don’t think that who has sex with who is anyone’s business (obviously taking consent into consideration here), or that attraction to someone of the same sex is grounds for preventing them from being able to marry if they so choose simply because denying people the right is, in a sense, saying that they’re not deserving of being treated as equal.

Denying people this right based on “the sanctity of marriage” is an utter garbage excuse. It would be much more respectable if you admitted that you didn’t like them simply because you think that the god you believe in told you through a book.

It’s also utter garbage because you think it’s wrong.

I don’t think that you can justify a lack of understanding via refusal to learn. Letting ignorance grow because you’re not willing to allow your views to be challenged is disappointing.

Most people who are against marriage equality seem to be against the idea of change despite something like this not affecting them at all. The thing is that change is inevitable, for better or worse. There are some things you can try to prevent (and some things that are worth preventing), but most of the time you have to accept that you have to learn and support or move on.

I’m probably not adding anything to the conversation at this point, but the thing is that I think it’s something that’s worth fighting for (and writing about) despite my belief that it’s not anywhere near as important as trying to reduce the damage being done to the planet because I think that denying someone of something simply because you don’t agree with their actions, despite their actions not hurting anyone is wrong.