Homosexual Hypocrisy

Libertines and Their Fellow Travellers

In the propaganda that is swirling around the push to institute homosexual "marriage" in New Zealand, the proponents are amongst other things are engaged in special pleading.  They want homosexual "marriage" to be put in a special category, deserving (in their minds) special treatment which they are unwilling to grant to other human beings.  To this point, their argument is nestled amongst a putrid swamp of hypocrisy.  

The Wall bill to institute homosexual marriage is replete with restrictions and definitions which prohibit marriage for certain types and classes of adults.  Yet at the same time it claims that homosexuals must be allowed to enter homosexual "marriage" because it is a fundamental human right.  Why is homosexual marriage a fundamental human right while other forms of marriage are not?  Why is homosexual "marriage" so privileged?  Why is it in a special category?

Consider the Preamble to the Bill:

Marriage, as a social institution, is a fundamental human right and limiting that human right to 1 group in society only does not allow for equality. This Bill will ensure that there is equality for people wishing to marry regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity and will be in accordance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the Human Rights Act 1993.

Marriage is a fundamental human right, but not for a whole bunch of types of people apparently.  The second schedule of the Bill contains an extensive list of "marriages" that currently are (and would be) prohibited by the law.  People falling into these categories and relationships would be forbidden to marry.  Pity about their "fundamental human rights". 

Under the Bill the following shall be prohibited from marrying:

(1) A person may not marry their—
(a) grandparent:
(b) parent:
(c) child:
(d) grandchild:
(e) sibling:
(f) parent’s sibling:
(g) sibling’s child:
(h) grandparent’s spouse or civil union partner:
(i) parent’s spouse or civil union partner:
(j) spouse’s or civil union partner’s parent:
(k) spouse’s or civil union partner’s grandparent:
(l) spouse’s or civil union partner’s child:
(m) child’s spouse or civil union partner:
(n) grandchild’s spouse or civil union partner:
(o) spouse’s or civil union partner’s grandchild.
(2) The prohibited degrees of marriage apply whether the relationships described are by the whole blood or by the half blood.
(3) In this Schedule, spouse and civil union partner includes a  former spouse or former civil union partner, whether alive or  deceased, and whether the marriage or civil union was terminated  by death, dissolution, or otherwise.

Given the reasoning and the foundational arguments to permit homosexual "marriage" we insist on the propagandists and protagonists for homosexual "marriage" to explain why--if they are to be taken seriously.  Why should some people have their fundamental human rights traduced?  Why should they be victims of discrimination?  Do some classes of people have rights that are more fundamental than others? 

Consider the "arguments" of the latest public protagonist for legitimising incest, for example, reported in Breitbart News:

Writer-director Nick Cassavetes unveiled his new movie “Yellow” at the Toronto Film Festival this weekend and found himself defending the main character’s incestuous love affair with her own brother....
“I have no experience with incest,” he told TheWrap in an interview on Sunday. “We started thinking about that. We had heard a few stories where brothers and sisters were completely, absolutely in love with one another. You know what? This whole movie is about judgment, and lack of it, and doing what you want.
“Who gives a shit if people judge you?” he continued. “I’m not saying this is an absolute but in a way, if you’re not having kids – who gives a damn? Love who you want. Isn’t that what we say? Gay marriage – love who you want? If it’s your brother or sister it’s super-weird, but if you look at it, you’re not hurting anybody except every single person who freaks out because you’re in love with one another.”

The ethic is that of the Libertine.  But that is precisely where Louisa Wall and the champions of homosexual "marriage" are coming from-with respect to homosexuality.  If you want to do it, do it.  To paraphrase, the whole propaganda push for homosexual "marriage" is "about judgement [bad], and lack of it [good], and doing what you want."  So why would the happy clappers cheering for Libertine homosexual "marriage" not get serious and argue for incest as a properly recognised marriage (provided of course the parties really want to)? 

Answer: deafening silence.  Wall and her supporters are feeling good about themselves, taking the high ethical ground: the appeal to fundamental human rights.  But it is all a sham.  These same people support a Bill which denies those same fundamental human rights to those who would want to enter into incestual "marriage". 

Either the appeal to "fundamental human rights" is genuine or it is not.  If it is, then get rid of all the restrictions upon who or who not may marry.  Rewrite the Bill and entirely remove Schedule II.   Be consistent.  How can you blithely disregard the fundamental human rights of some, whilst promoting the human rights of others?  Are you saying that some groups (homosexuals) deserve special, privileged treatment? 

But if the appeal to human rights is not genuine, then tear off the hypocritical mask.  Either way, homosexual "marriage" would then be seen for what it is: it is not about rights at all, but the ethics of the Libertine.