New Zealand's current leading intellectual is one Ali Mau--touted in the media, celebrated in the salons. She has become the public face promoting homosexual "marriage". Mau's startlingly profound philosophical defence of homosexual marriage is the sovereignty of her will. She wants it; therefore she has a right to it. By this means, the argument elides into one over human rights. Homosexual "marriage" becomes, consequently, a human right. Not to grant it in law and protect it becomes "discrimination".
We are not kidding. This is the "Mau position". It is shared and endorsed by every simpering simpleton who finds such inanities to be compelling argument.
OK. Let's apply the Mau principle to the following case, as reported in the NZ Herald.
A 32-year-old man and his 18-year-old daughter have admitted having an incestuous relationship. The two people appeared in Dunedin District Court yesterday charged with committing incest between August 2010 and May this year, knowing of their relationship as parent and child.Here is a "love" relationship. Both parties want it. Applying the Mau principle this means not only they have a right to live in an incestuous" marriage" as in a freedom right, but it represents a human right, and therefore is a civil right, one which must be recognized and protected in law. How could the Mau principle be applied any other way? The incestuous couple meets every authenticity test and every ethical standard demanded by Mau's advocacy of homosexual "marriage".
Because of his age at the time of the girl's birth, he had little contact with her until she was about 16. He had been told he was the girl's father. And when the girl was a teenager, she was made aware of the identity of her father.They "love" each other. They want to be "married". They are now living together in having perpetual sexual congress. They are of an age. According to the Mau argument they indeed have a fundamental human right to do so because they want it; not to recognize and protect their relationship as bona fide marriage is discrimination pure and simple.
The father made contact with his daughter's family in 2010. A visit was arranged and, after several more visits, the father moved into his daughter's family's home. During that time, a relationship developed between the two which became a sexual relationship in August 2010. The girl and her family moved south early last year and her father moved with them. The sexual relationship continued, resulting in the birth of a child.
After a complaint to the police, both were interviewed last month and freely admitted their sexual relationship and that they knew they were biological father and daughter. The young woman said she was in love with the man, her father, and they had been living as husband and wife.
Come on Ms Mau--these people need your help as well. If you fail to rise to the defence of this rights-abused "couple" people will start to draw the conclusion that your defence of your personal quest for homosexual "marriage" is driven by your own lusts and appetites rather than the principle of the thing. We invite you not to be hypocritical, but to stand in public and defend the "right" of this father and daughter to be married--a right enunciated and defended by the now infamous Mau principle which you have expounded in such scintillating fashion.
We look forward to you on prime time media, breathlessly and indignantly leading the charge.
No comments:
Post a Comment