THE PROBLEM WITH RELIGION - ANTI SAME SEX MARRIAGE MOVEMENT PART 4

The continuing take down on the Family First flyer... part 4;

14. AN IDEOLOGY FORCED ON ALL
If marriage is redefined, everyone would be subject to the new definition. Anyone who disagrees with it would be at odds with the law. This will directly affect ministers, faith-based organisations and schools, and marriage celebrants, amongst others. If same-sex marriage is seen as a fundamental human right, then all will be forced to recognise it. You can't be selective about which groups will recognise fundamental human rights. The author of the bill, Labour MP Louisa Wall, promised that the bill did not require any person or church to carry out a marriage if it does not fit with the beliefs of the celebrant or the religious interpretation a church has. This assurance is now being seriously questioned by legal experts including NZ Law Society and members of the Victoria University law faculty.

This is the biggest piece of anti-gay propaganda he has so far written.  I had to read it a couple of time before just to be sure I wasn't misreading it.  His Fight to stop same-sex marriage which he says is not gay hating is about as believable as the proponents of Intelligent Design saying that they are not saying it's god.  The only thing he has written here which is actually not a load of bullshit is the fact that if marriage is redefined everyone will be subject to the new definition.  Well, yes, but so what?  Changing the definition of marriage, again, is not going to hurt anybody.  This whole reason #14 is a massive straw man argument without a shred of evidence to back up the hollow statements so lets quickly blow it down and move on to the next "reason".

15.  WARNING SIGNS FROM OVERSEAS EXPERIENCE

The alarming examples of what happens when attempts are made to redefine marriage are endless.

In Australia, tennis great Margaret Court came under attack when she expressed opposition to same-sex marriage early in 2012.  Court was accused by same-sex marriage activists of spreading "hateful comments" and "inciting the bigots out there";

Reason #15 is a long one so I thought I would approach each point as it comes.

Margaret Court barely hides her anti-gay viewpoint in her comments that can be read in this article (which is just one of many) in Compete Network.  Granted this is a gay orientated website so here is another article in The Sydney Morning Herold.  Her complaint about coming under attack is a little hypocritical.

In 2011, a respected Canadian sports anchor was fired after expressing support for the traditional definition of marriage on his Twitter account;

This one is a very vague statement and I had dig a little to find what was been talked about.  From what I read, Bob is hoping nobody will find out for themselves if this is true.  The article I found mentions that, in essence, the Tweet was the last straw.  Make your own judgement here CBS Sports.

In 2011, dual gold-medalist Peter Vidmar was to be chef de mission for the United States team at the 2011 London Olympics but was pressured to resign simply because he had supported Proposition 8, the measure which defined marriage as between a man and a woman in California;

Once again, there is more to this story than what Bob is saying.  I doubt there was pressure but who knows because there was nothing like that reported.  USA Today.

In Canada, Sakatchewan's highest court ruled that marriage commissioners who are public servants cannot refuse to marry same-sex couples, whatever their person conviction;

This is correct.  If you refuse to marry same-sex couples in a country or state that has legalised it you are in violation of the Human Rights Act and will be fined accordingly.  Any questions?

In Maine, USA, where recently a referendum allowed same-sex marriage, any notary public who preforms marriages may not refuse to perform a same-sex "marriage" for any reason, otherwise they will be charged with a Human Rights Violation;

This is correct, it is a violation of the Human Rights Act.  What is your problem with this, Bob?  It is a state given capability to marry couples, not a religious one.

In Denmark, same-sex couples have won the right to get married in any church they choose, even though nearly one third of the country's priests have said they will refuse to carry out the ceremonies;

...but have no problems with molesting children.  Seriously though, even though they have the right I doubt many will exercise said right and get married in a place that actively hates them and what they stand for so I wouldn't be too worried.

In New Jersey, USA, a judge ruled against a United Methodist retreat house which refused to allow a same-sex civil union ceremony to be conducted on it's premises;

I'm not even going to look that up because it's just another case of discrimination in violation of The Human Rights Act and by bringing all these points up you are in fact making the anti same-sex marriage proponents look worse ergo, your own primitive views are being shamed to the rest of the world.

In Israel, the Jerusalem Magistrate's Court ordered the owners of an Israeli reception hall to pay $25,000 damages to a lesbian couple after refusing to host their same-sex wedding on the grounds of the religious beliefs;

This is just another one of those discrimination cases... they seem to keep coming up again and again.  What are you trying to tell us, Bob?  That people of religion are being fined because of their intolerance and that's a bad thing?  Lets have a look at that religious belief shall we?  There are four versus in the bible about homosexuality, two are from Leviticus calling homosexuality an abomination and that homosexuals should be put to death.  That is discrimination and, well, murder as ordered by god.  Bob, why are you not murdering homosexuals?  Are you not going against god's word?

In the UK, a housing trust worker lost his managerial position, had his salary cut by 40%, and was given a final written warning after posting on his personal (and private) Facebook account that hosting gay weddings in churches was "an equality too far";

I read into this and, indeed, it does seem like Adrian Smith was treated unfairly but something about the case doesn't seem right.  If we know everything then this is a clear case of discrimination against Mr Smith and should be treated that way but I feel there is something we don't know about.  The phrase "Mr Smith's damages payout was limited to £100 because of legal technicalities." raises a red flag but there is no further information so I can't comment any more than that.

And UK primary school teachers could face the sack for refusing to promote gay marriage if same-sex unions become law.  An education minister refused to rule out the possibility that teachers, even in faith schools, could face disciplinary action for objecting on grounds of conscience.  Labour MP Louisa Wall recently suggested that integrated faith-based schools in New Zealand receiving government funding should not be promoting a traditional view of marriage.

Well, after reading this article from the Daily Mail, it seems like a thought experiment and bad reporting to me.  Nothing like this would happen or has happened in schools.

16.  BANNING "MOTHER", "FATHER", "HUSBAND", "WIFE"

The health department in the US state of Washington is to remove the words "husband" and "wife" from marriage and divorce certificates, after same-sex marriage was approved in a recent referendum.  The UK Government has said the words "husband" and "wife" will have to be removed from official documents if marriage is redefined.  In France, the words "mother" and "father" are set to be stripped from official documents, under it's plans to redefine marriage.  In Spain, terms such as "mother" and "father" have become "Progenitor A" and "Progenitor B" on birth certificates.

I for one don't see this as being such a big deal.  The only people that have a problem with this are the Catholics and Christians so far as I have been able to research and like I keep saying, this is a state issue, not a religious issue.  If we have to use more neutral words to bring equality then so be it.

17.  WHAT NEXT?

If marriage is redefined once, what is to stop it being redefined again?  Allowing only same-sex marriage on the basis of love and commitment would then open the door for polygamous, polygamory (group), and consensual adult incest-type marriages.  Why would discrimination against these loving adults be OK?  They may be illegal now, but it wasn't that long ago that same-sex marriage was illegal also.

This is the biggest bunch of hyperbolic clap trap he has said yet.

More to come...

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