This is the second part of exploration into the anti gay marriage debacle with more questionable statements from the Family First publication "21 reasons to keep marriage as is." This was produced by Bob McCoskrie who is operating out of a Christian organisation to stop gay marriage. I, for one, would accept any logical reason why two homosexual people cannot get married in what is called a same sex marriage, but this guy is making some unsubstantiated claims that seem to be above board, but when you dig down a little we find some very unsavory statements that appear to be invoking gods word. God (an invisible man in the sky) may not be mentioned but those that support the intelligent design crew know that the what they are referring to is God. We know what they are implying and they (the Christians) use an implied god as a reasons why two people that love each other can't be married in the eyes of the law because they are homosexual. Let's dive right in shall we...
4. DEFINITION, NOT DISCRIMINATIONIt is perfectly possible to support marriage while also recognising and respecting the rights of others. Changing the law so that marriage includes same-sex marriage unions would be a massive change to what marriage means. The issue is one of diffinition, not discrimination.
This is not the first time marriage has undertaken a big change. I talk, of course, about the law change which allow people who are married to be able to get divorced. In 1867 people who were married were able, by law, to get divorced thus changing the meaning of marriage forever. It is now no longer bound by law and allows families who would generally rip each other apart through many problems including abuse to get on with their lives. This also null and voids the "till death do us part" and rightfully so because two people who marry in a non-secular ceremony are promising to a non existent god that they will never part until death.
5. EQUALITY IS NOT SAMENESS
Equality is not sameness, and difference is not inequality. As popular NZ HERAOLD columnist Jim Hopkins wrote: "(Discrimination) happens all the time. If equality was parliaments objective, there'd be no minimum drinking age, no ban on bigamy or specified drugs, no requirement to pass a test to get a driver's licence and no Maori seats either."
This is complete bollocks and a good example of a straw man argument as well as an argument from authority, although I'm not sure how much authority a New Zealand opinion columnist can conjure up. Lets clear this up, equality is about making prejudice irrelevant. Biologically I can, to an extent, agree that homosexuals are not the same as they have chemical differences, but in all other parts of life they are still Homo Sapiens Sapiens so this argument falls a little flat. Apart from a possible campness of male homosexuals there is no telling them apart from heterosexuals. Bob bases this discrimination on the quote of one person... doesn't wash.
6. THE "RIGHT" TO MARRY?
Marriage rightly discriminates. A 14-year-old cannot get married. Three of four people cannot get married to each other. A person who is currently married cannot marry another person. A father cannot marry his adult daughter. A mother cannot marry her adult son. Even those wanting "equality" believe there should be restrictions - which shows that even they believe that marriage is not an absolute right for everybody or every type of romantic relationship.
Does that mean Downs Syndrome people cannot get married? Of course this is a hyperbole but so is that statement. Statement 6 is full of Straw Man Arguments designed to bring attention away from discrimination.
7. SPECIAL RIGHTS?
In 2004, the government introduced civil unions and changed over 150 pieces of legislation to provide legal recognition and protection for same-sex relationships in NZ. There is currently no discrimination in the law against same-sex couples. Why do we now need to provide special rights?
I don't know where to start on this one, it is so far out of reality I don't know what to say. But lets try, after all, I'm a writer. The amount of legislation that changed to acknowledge black people to be equal to white people is about the same... to provide legal recognition to our fellow humans. We do not need to provide "special rights" for gay people, we just have to acknowledge them as human hence allowing them to be married in the eyes of a non judgmental government which has allowed religions of all kinds, no matter how stupid they are, to practice their myth based beliefs.
8. WHAT ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS?
For many, marriage is more that what merely affects us personally. This bill isn't just a simple change in the wording of a current law. It is proposing the complete redefinition of an institution as it has existed fro thousands of years.
Most of what this statement is saying is just wrong. Wrong. Marriage is an evolving institution, which more and more has nothing to do with god or anybody else that the people who are being married to have anything to do with. If you want to get married in a secular way without the utterance of the magical being called god then you can; this could be considered another straw man argument based on the logical fallacy called argument from antiquity. The changes in the laws of marriage over the thousands of years make statement # 8 void of all meaning. If you are getting married religious or secular to the one you love, do all other marriages make any difference to you whatsoever? I think not. This is a bond by the law of the land, not some 1600 year old book.
This is the second part, many to come - after all, we have 21 points to get through. Please comment as this is not just a one sided debate and please, if you agree with what I have said, spread the word.
I write this blog because it is a passion of mine to explore the myth of god and along the way I may even learn some cool stuff but it takes a lot of time and energy to write so if you enjoy reading this blog please make a donation by clicking the DONATE button on the right so I can put more time into creating a better blog.
Thank you all
Justin
No comments:
Post a Comment