Monday, July 30, 2012

Somewhat Queerly, Conservative Prediction is Fulfilled

I honestly do not go out looking for these sorts of things, things that are a bit further up the thick end of the wedge. But tonight coming home from work I tuned into Radio New Zealand (our public broadcaster, pretty reliable on news and views) only to find an item citing a lobby group called Queer Avengers who both support the proposed gay 'marriage' bill and promise to push beyond that, including pressing for legal marriages involving multiple partners. 


The written up version of that RNZ item does not mention the name of the group, but we can find out more about the group through the Blogger's Friend (Google). Here is an excerpt from a Yahoo news item featuring QA:

"She adds that there are many family structures which marriage and adoption law does not cover, for example polyamory and whangai adoption. "This is not the final struggle," Sara concludes. "We're looking ahead to the struggles beyond marriage.""

Well whangai is a "customary Māori practice where a child is raised by someone other than their birth parents – usually a relative." Not much to disagree with there. But polyamory? Provided for by law to be able to adopt children with X Mums and Y Dads?

Now, ADU does not presume for a moment that all supporters of Louisa Wall's bill are also supporters of polyamory.

But what does interest ADU about this item is that it bears out a conservative prediction about Western society's liberal, progressive pressure for change to the laws on marriage: it comes without commitment to make this the last change.

It may be just the first!


It is fascinating that responsible news outlets such as Radio NZ and Yahoo are quite sanguine about publishing the views of an obscure group which surely must be whistling in the wind if they think they have any kind of significant (though minority) support.

But then it was an Anglican bishop who once pressed his fellow bishops to expand their horizons:

"Speaking in response to papers offered in March [2010] on Human Sexuality to the US House of Bishops meeting in Texas, Bishop Robinson stated the church should move beyond the stale categories of hetero- and homo-sexuality.  It was time to move beyond speaking of “GLBT” (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered) orientations for there “are so many other letters in the alphabet,” and “there are so many other sexualities to be explored."

The conservative point here is to probe what the bigger picture of progressive vision is on sexuality.
We are on a hiding to nothing. In response to casting doubt as to whether we are being treated to an honest and comprehensive exposition of that vision, we are liable to be labelled as bigots, told we are protesting too much, or simply held up to ridicule as out of touch with both human society and divine spirit.

What is also fascinating from a conservative perspective is that it is actually harder than it looks to change the church's theology of marriage. At the recent TEC General Convention, it decided it was too hard to change its own canons in order to authorise a rite for blessing same sex partnerships. Some bishops approving that change have gone back to their diocese and promptly announced they are not going to permit such blessings to take place. In our own church my post below On Marriage is intended to pose a challenge to those pressing for change: what changes do you propose to the canon on marriage to give liturgical and theological effect to the blessing of same sex partnerships?


Perhaps that question could be answered before conservatives are denounced for resisting change.

LATER: I was in Auckland a few days ago and read this opinion piece in the NZ Herald.




17 comments:

Father Ron Smith said...

"Now, ADU does not presume for a moment that all supporters of Louisa Wall's bill are also supporters of polyamory." Dr. Peter Carrell -

Except, Peter, that it's hard to disguise your cry of triumph at finding this evidence of 'polyamory'

I suspect, again, that you are provoking an unnecessary climate of fear about the movement for the marriage of monogamous Same-Sex people. And any evidence you can dip up on an extension to all sorts of other possibilities for the union of other than a heterosexual marriage relationship - you will fearlessly hunt it out - providing a smoke-screen for your opposition to what is really at issue in this instance - Same-Sex Marriage.

I invite you to view the following link posted on 'Episcopal Cafe'. It may quieten your irrational fear for a few moments:

http://youtu.be/gvJrmMK8Hl0

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Ron,
Have you actually read what I wrote?

(a) No hunting out of this news. I turned on the bog standard middle NZ news at the time of day when people listen to the news and found the item seeking me out.

(b) My point was not to ramp up fear, but to point out how when one has some reason to probe, and question what the bigger picture is, nevertheless one is vilified.

By all means interpret my post as a smokescreen or whatever. But there are other issues at stake here.

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Ron,
I have no problem understanding what your video link points to, it is just about family, not about politics. That is so: all sorts of relationships with all kinds of complexity and variety make up family life. (Sometimes those complexities strain family life too!)

What I do have a problem with is a message implicit in this kind of presentation that we are done and dusted when we extend the definition of marriage to include same sex couples. We might be. But no one is offering any guarantees that we will have reached the end of progress. So my question remains: what is the whole agenda?

Shawn said...

The homosexual agenda has never been about equality, fairness, or any of the other claims we are told. It has always been an attack on ANY limitations to sexual freedom. That is why pro-pedophilia groups have often been allowed to march in Gay rights parades.

The American Psychiatric Association has been moving for two years now to normalize pedophilia, and at least some Gay rights groups are supportive.

The useful idiots in our churches who are pushing for the redefinition of marriage either have no clue about the nature of the movement they support, or they are willfully complicit. In the latter case, I would not want to be them come judgement day.

This is the way a civilization ends.

carl jacobs said...

There is no natural analog to complementarity for homosexuality. The whole of the case for SSM rests upon the self-serving assertion by the homosexual that his desires are natural for him, and therefore morally good. We are left with the assertion that 'is' becomes 'ought' merely because the homosexual says so. Sexual desire becomes its own intrinsic justification. Once homosexuality is justified according to this logic, then there is no consistent way to avoid applying that same logic to other consensual desires. The boundaries that limit the reach of human sexual appetite get swept away by the overriding imperative of enabling human autonomy. There is no natural stopping point because there is not practical limit on the reach of human sexual desire.

The Left has been targeting the nuclear family for 300 years. It sees the family as an inherently conservative and patriarchal institution, and it has been looking for something to replace it. The ideal solution would be to completely sever procreation from sex and mass-produce children in a factory a la 'Logan's Run.' Then human sexuality would be liberated from family formation and allowed to fulfill its ultimate purpose - personal gratification. In the meantime they are trying to destroy the institution that has done more to frustrate Leftist Utopian notions than any other. It always involves the dilution of particularist family ties for the sake of elevating loyalty to the collective. And it always fails - but not without doing grievous damage.

carl

Father Ron Smith said...

" I would not want to be them come judgement day.' - Shawn -

If only you could wait till judgement day, there wouldn't be so much homophobia around the prospect of allowing two people who want to share their lives together in a marriage-type relationship - where fidelitiy is more important than the sexual activity you are already judging to be outside of God's will for intrinsically gay people.

You have already made yourself Judge and Jury, which Scripture has warned you about: "Judge not - that you be not judged with the same degree of judgement that you have judged other people!"

I wouldn't be so nasty as to say that I wouldn't like to be in your shoes on Judgement Day, but the thought is tempting.

Shawn said...

“What is true, just, and beautiful is not determined by popular vote. The masses everywhere are ignorant, short-sighted, motivated by envy, and easy to fool. Democratic politicians must appeal to these masses in order to be elected. Whoever is the best demagogue will win. Almost by necessity, then, democracy will lead to the perversion of truth, justice and beauty.”

— Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Father Ron Smith said...

"Almost by necessity, then, democracy will lead to the perversion of truth, justice and beauty.”

— Hans-Hermann Hoppe & Shawn -

That sounds very much like the same demagoguery used by the Third Reich and the various strands of Russian Chinese & North Korean Communism.

Rather dangerous in a free society like New Zealand, where jack is as good as his master - except to the would-be religious dogmatists. I can see slavery rearing its ugly head in such a society.

Saint Paul told a different story when he declared that faith in Jesus Christ can 'set you free'.

Anonymous said...

"Democratic politicians must appeal to these masses in order to be elected. Whoever is the best demagogue will win. Almost by necessity, then, democracy will lead to the perversion of truth, justice and beauty.”

This is really true, with capital D-Democratic politicians in the US now demagoguing against Chick-Fil-A for upholding Christian marriage.
Anyone who has studied the history of the Pelopponesian War (as recounted by Athenian Thucydides) is no defense against the lack of personal virtue in the populace. The Great Gay Cause is being used as a stick against Christians by atheists. Quite bizarre when you think how few people really are homosexual, and how few of them want to be "married". What a weird cultural obession.
Martin

Anonymous said...

"The Left has been targeting the nuclear family for 300 years. It sees the family as an inherently conservative and patriarchal institution, and it has been looking for something to replace it."

The Bolshevists tried to abolish marriage in Russia. They didn't succeed, at least in name, but the prevalence of divorce there and extremely high rates of abortion (now leading to population in freefall) means they achieved their goal by other means: by wrecking the nation.
Martin

Father Ron Smith said...

" The Great Gay Cause is being used as a stick against Christians by atheists. Quite bizarre when you think how few people really are homosexual, and how few of them want to be "married". What a weird cultural obsession."

- Anonymous Martin -

Truly bizarre - especially when one actually realises where the true 'obsession' lies - in homophobic statements like this one.
Shame on you!

Anonymous said...

Mr Smith, I have made up my mind not to comment on you or on your statements.
Would you please return the comment and ignore me? totally? completely?
You are not my pastor, priest or bishop, and I am not yours. My responsibilities as a priest are to other people, not you, and you have none to me. Your words betray little understanding and certainly no knowledge of me, and you do youself no favors, as a priest or a man, wasting your time on the internet condemning people you have never met. For the sake of your own dignity, please ignore me completely.
Martin

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Ron,
There is nothing homophobic in observing the pressure Christians are being placed under by atheists (to say nothing of Christians being pressured by other Christians) because we insist that marriage is between a man and a woman and not any other combination. There is nothing remotely homophobic in protesting that marriage is not malleable in the direction some would want it reshaped.

By all means push for the malleability yourself. But please, as one Christian to another, desist from calling homophobic those who do not share your cause.

Bryden Black said...

Er; like I said on the "Ships passing" thread, but it obviously bears repeating!

When society becomes subject to the whims and any contemporary currents of political power and control, then every citizen should be very afraid. Or have readers of this blog been asleep during the lessons of the 20th C?! Sadly; “those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it” - Herbert Butterfield.

Father Ron Smith said...

I have usually found that people who constantly use other people's words to express what they are trying to say for themselves, are either trying to show their erudition or are just lazy thinkers. - Or is it that they've found, at last, someone who thinks as they do, but more clearly and expeditiously?

Peter Carrell said...

You have not exhausted the possibilities, Ron. Using other people's words can be a matter of respect to the original thinker.

I would certainly hope that quoting Jesus' words would not be an incurrence of the charge of lazy thinking!

Shawn said...

Ron,

It is more about both respect for those who have, in certain fields like politics and economics, done a great deal more work than I have, and promoting those, like Mr Hoppe, who I think have something important and valuable to say.

I'm not interested in promoting my "erudition".

As far as I can tell everyone who posts here has quoted somebody else at some point, Not sure what your objection.