Saturday, 15 December 2012

It's All About Love, Part II

Big Fat Red Herrings

In the "debate" between TV breakfast host Rawdon Christie and Bob McCoskrie (together with the sniggering court jester) the issues of human rights and discrimination loomed large.  The whole piece was set up by some homosexuals asserting that they were "in love" and that not to permit them to "marry" was discriminatory. 

Christie then turned on McCoskrie and demanded that he concede that by arguing against the right of such people to "marry" he was propagating active discrimination against homosexuals.  This is an accusation which McCoskrie failed to handle well.  It is a nettle which he should have grasped with both hands.  More importantly he should have insisted that his opponents grasp it as well.

You can watch the TVNZ Breakfast clip here: 

Firstly, he should have pointed out that Louisa Wall's Bill, which permits homosexual "marriage and which is now before the Parliament of New Zealand, is a thoroughly discriminatory document.
  If discrimination and denying one's rights is a problem, then Wall's Bill should be thrown out immediately.  But Wall and the proponents of the Bill, such as Christie and the sniggering court jester, are actively promoting the Bill.  Therefore, objections that opposition to it reflects discrimination are of no weight.  Proponents of the Bill either have to admit they believe the discriminatory aspects of Wall's Bill are entirely acceptable or they have to object strenuously to it, as strenuously as they are now opposing those who want to see the Bill voted down.  Either discrimination is a legitimate ground for arguing against opponents, or it is not.  Clearly, it is not.  It is just an emotive pretext.

Wall's Bill is short.  It consists of three short pages.  One third of the Bill calls for discrimination against fifteen types or classes of people by forbidding them to marry.  They are as follows:

(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.
Now in one sense there is nothing new in this schedule of prohibited marriages.  But imagine two siblings who deeply "love" each other.  (Remember, "it's all about love".)  Not to allow them to consecrate their desires discriminates against them.  So, Wall's Bill promotes and codifies discrimination against fifteen classes of human beings, thereby denying their human rights.  They are human, after all.  They do have desires.  They do love and who can deny love?

But Wall, and Christie, and the sniggering jester and all their cohort are actively promoting and advocating that these fifteen classes and types of people be discriminated against and their human rights be traduced.  Either discrimination in these cases is wrong, or it is acceptable.  Clearly, since it is acceptable to Wall and the supporters of her bill, attempts to refute opponents of the Bill on the grounds that they are fostering discrimination is worthless and carries no weight.

Since discrimination when it comes to marriage is necessary and inevitable, the only issue worth discussing is whether homosexuality is a sufficient ground for discrimination or not.  Clearly, we Christians say that it is.  Homosexuality is an immoral perversion against God and His creation.  That perspective may not be agreeable to Christie and others.  They may choose to discriminate against our position.  But attempts to slur opposition to Wall on the pretext that we are guilty of discrimination is a big fat red herring.

When it comes to marriage we must all discriminate.  The issue then turns around whether homosexuality is a moral or immoral practice.  We Christians believe it to be immoral.  Proponents of the Bill don't.  The argument needs to focus upon that difference, not upon whether one side or the other is being discriminatory.    

No comments: