Children, Culture and Moral Boundaries: Beyond the Bernardi Outrage

Children, Culture and Moral Boundaries: Part One Of A Three-Part Examination

Recent headlines have once again reignited controversy surrounding comments made years ago by former senator Cory Bernardi during debates about same-sex marriage in Australia.

Cory Bernardi - Lead Legislative Council Candidate for One Nation South Australia

Bernardi’s remarks suggested that redefining marriage could open the door to broader changes in how society understands relationships and moral boundaries. At the time the comments were widely condemned, and they continue to attract criticism today.

For some Australians, the comparison he drew was deeply offensive. Critics argued that such arguments unfairly associate same-sex relationships with unrelated moral controversies and risk stigmatising LGBTQ people.

Yet the intensity of the reaction also reveals something deeper about our cultural moment. Discussions about moral boundaries, particularly around sexuality, have become increasingly difficult to have in public without immediately descending into polarisation.

It is possible to acknowledge that Bernardi’s comments were offensive to some while still recognising that societies inevitably wrestle with questions about moral boundaries. Those questions have existed throughout history, and they continue to evolve as cultures change.

Without speaking for every Christian, it should not come as a surprise that many hold the view that marriage is understood as a union between a man and a woman. This conviction is not rooted in contemporary politics but in long-standing biblical teaching.

In Genesis, the creation account describes humanity as male and female, with marriage presented as a complementary union: “a man shall leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). This understanding is later affirmed in the teachings of Jesus Christ in Matthew 19:4–6.

Within that framework, marriage is not simply a social construct but a moral and relational institution with a particular meaning. In a pluralistic society, not everyone will share that belief. But recognising that it exists, and that it is grounded in deeply held religious conviction, is an important part of understanding why debates about marriage and moral boundaries remain so sensitive.

These debates do not occur in isolation.

Across universities, advocacy movements, and public institutions, ethical questions about identity, sexuality, and the limits of social norms are actively being explored. Some philosophers have examined issues that challenge long-standing assumptions about human relationships and moral status.

One prominent example is the work of Australian philosopher Peter Singer, whose writings on utilitarian ethics and animal rights, particularly in Animal Liberation, have sparked decades of debate about moral boundaries and the ethical status of human and non-human life.

Singer has argued that “the boundary of the species is not morally relevant,” a claim that challenges traditional assumptions about human uniqueness and moral status.

Some people strongly disagree with this view. Yet the significance of such arguments is not that they are widely accepted, but that they illustrate how foundational moral questions are increasingly being re-examined in modern societies.

When long-standing assumptions about human identity, relationships, and moral limits are opened to reinterpretation, it is not surprising that broader cultural debates begin to reflect that uncertainty, particularly in areas as sensitive as sexuality and childhood development.

Throughout history, there have been individuals and fringe groups who have sought to challenge widely accepted moral boundaries, including those designed to protect children.

These views remain overwhelmingly rejected by society. Yet their existence serves as a reminder that moral limits are not always self-sustaining.

They require ongoing clarity, reinforcement, and, at times, careful defence, particularly when broader cultural and institutional conversations begin revisiting foundational questions about identity, relationships, and human development.

For people of faith, particularly those who hold to traditional Christian teachings about sexuality and marriage, this cultural shift raises difficult questions.

Christians are called to love their neighbours and treat every person with dignity. At the same time, Christian teaching has historically drawn moral boundaries around sexuality, marriage, and family life.

Navigating those convictions within a rapidly changing cultural landscape can be challenging, particularly when these debates intersect with childhood.

My concern in raising these questions is not hostility toward individuals who identify as LGBTQ. Many people simply wish to live their lives peacefully and with dignity.

Rather, my concern lies with the environment in which children are growing up.

Children today encounter conversations about identity and sexuality in ways previous generations rarely experienced. These discussions occur across schools, social media, entertainment platforms, advocacy organisations, and corporate campaigns.

At the same time, questions about who should guide children through these topics: parents, educators, institutions, or cultural movements, have become increasingly contested.

For many parents, this raises a simple but important question:

Where do families fit in shaping a child’s understanding of identity, morality, and sexuality?

That question became particularly relevant following a troubling incident back in 2024 at Renmark High School in South Australia.

Reports emerged that Year 9 students had been exposed to highly inappropriate material during a presentation delivered by an external speaker as part of a Respectful Relationships session. Both Education Minister Blair Boyer and Department for Education chief executive Martin Westwell later acknowledged that established safeguards, including parental notification and teacher supervision, had not been followed.

Parents had not been properly notified beforehand, denying them the opportunity to withdraw their children from the session. A teacher was not present in the room, and the material delivered by the presenter had not been reviewed by the department in advance.

The Department has since begun reviewing procedures surrounding external providers delivering programs in schools.

These steps are welcome.

But the Renmark incident raises broader questions that extend beyond one school or one presentation.

It highlights a deeper tension emerging across many societies: the balance between institutional influence and parental responsibility in shaping childhood.

Ideas debated in universities, public discourse, and advocacy spaces inevitably find their way into institutions.

Schools, health systems, and policy frameworks increasingly play a role in how young people encounter questions of identity and relationships.

Understanding that institutional landscape is essential to understanding why incidents such as the one at Renmark generate such strong reactions among parents.

In the end, the Bernardi controversy may matter less for what was said than for what it reveals.

Beneath the outrage lies a deeper question that societies are still trying to answer:

How should moral boundaries evolve in a changing culture, and can we still have that conversation openly, particularly when the wellbeing of children is at stake?

At the same time, the space for expressing traditional moral and religious perspectives in public debate appears to be narrowing.

For many people of faith, particularly those who hold long-standing views about marriage, sexuality, and human identity, contributing to these discussions can feel increasingly difficult without being dismissed or misunderstood.

This does not remove the need for respectful and inclusive dialogue. But it does raise an important question: can societies sustain meaningful conversations about moral boundaries if some perspectives are seen as beyond the limits of acceptable discussion?

I'll leave you to ponder that.

Stay tunned for part 2 - 'Institutions, Influence and Identity'