Friday, August 17, 2012

Marriage is discriminatory. Get over it!

The unassailable no 1 blogger in NZ is Cameron Slater at Whale Oil. Right of centre might be more accurate to describe the political leanings of his blog than centre-right (which could apply to the no 2 blog, David Farrer's Kiwiblog).

Whale Oil is consistently, vigorously, and repetitively pro gay 'marriage'. But it is also democratic and defending of free speech. So a couple of days ago a guest post spot was given to Matthew and Madeleine Flanagan, themselves popular Kiwi bloggers at MandM (arguably second most popular religious blog after Bosco Peter's Liturgy). The title of their counter-Whale-post is "Critiquing the Case for Same-sex Marriage."

Here is an excerpt from their guest post:

"At this point, some play the race card. The state would act unjustly if it refused to recognise someone’s union on the basis of their partner’s race. It is argued that refusing to recognise someone’s union on the basis of their partner’s sex is analogous to this, and so it is unjust for the same reasons. 
The analogy is questionable. First, it assumes that discrimination on the basis of race is on par with discrimination on the basis of sex. It is not. If a mall had racially segregated toilets that would be an outrage, but having separate toilets for the sexes simply upholds privacy. Refusing pregnancy services to people on the basis of their race would be racist, but refusing pregnancy services to men is sensible. 
The point is that there are important physiological differences between men and women that justify treating them differently in various contexts that are not present between races, so racial and sexual discrimination is not on par. Until proponents of this Bill are willing to offer pregnancy services to men and prosecute all mall owners that have male and female toilets, we can safely put to one side the idea that discrimination based on a person’s sex is on par with racism. 
Further, anti-miscegenation laws differ in important ways from the prohibition on state recognition of same-sex marriage. Advocates of the former object to someone’s union because their partner is of a different race; the thinking is that people of different races are physiologically different, they come from different clans or ethnic groups. The position is based on the idea that other races are inferior; it is part of a broader attempt to keep people of different races apart to avoid the inferior contaminating the superior. 
Whereas those opposed to same-sex marriages object to someone’s union because their partner is thesame-sex. Like the prohibition on incest, the issue stems from the physiological similarity between the couple. The objection arises because the couple are from the same group as each other. This means the rationale is very different; the position is not based on the idea that other sexes are inferior, neither is the intent to keep members of the same-sex separate to avoid contamination. On the contrary, it is based on notions of other sexes being equal and complementary."

The whole argument is here. I suggest you could run around the world of states contemplating changing laws on marriage and not find a better argued case against gay 'marriage.'

7 comments:

Father Ron Smith said...

This posting - about the anti-gay-marriage posting of MandM - seems to say a lot more about the justice of discrimination on the basis of toileting habits than it does about the justice of allowing two people who love one another, and want to declare that love in a contract of marriage (who just happen to be Gay).

Mind you, most of the Anti-Gay stuff really is about what happens in the en-suite bedroom, than it it about the Christian virtue of LOVE.
I think the tone of the debate needs to be raised a little - especially when the exponents affect to be 'Christians'.

Andrei said...

Mind you, most of the Anti-Gay stuff really is about what happens in the en-suite bedroom, than it it about the Christian virtue of LOVE.

Nonsense - we long ago agreed that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes is not our business.

You always go for the fluffy aspect of this - loving monogamous couples and seem to take the view that homosexual couples display more fidelity than heterosexual ones - contradicted in reality by even a cursory glance at the real world.

This is a very dangerous development, dare I say it evil, a direct challenge to God and his creation. Not an argument that pass muster in secular circles of course, where it will only garner mockery.

Here is the deal, people such as myself, our host here, and yourself I think marry, raise our families and try and raise them according to our ways. We baptize our children and bring them up in our faith in the hope that they will do the same in their turn.

And this is something the secular loath - they'd rather our children where bought up in their secular ways. They are the all wise elite unlike us the rubes. In this way the world will be returned to their vision of the Garden of Eden

And so secular policy, has been to subtly undermine the family and parental authority for years and years now - policies disguised with the well meaning sounding fluffiness of good intentions but actually pernicious.

An example of where we are headed, that has nothing to do with gay marriage but everything to do with the real agenda behind it.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/06/29/german-court-bans-male-circumcision/

MichaelA said...

Marriage is not discriminatory - my wife just said so!

Father Ron Smith said...

"This is a very dangerous development, dare I say it evil, a direct challenge to God and his creation.' - Andrei -

This sounds so fearful & demonic, I almost wonder whether a Christian could utter such an anathema! But, of course, one only has to look at 'virtueonline' for similar calumny.

"See how these Christians love one another". The irony is that some 'christians' seem more willing to consign secular people to Hell, than help them find the way to God.
This is definitely anti-gospel. No wonder Jesus found better company among the prostitutes, the outcast and the disenfranchised poor of the world than he did among the (self-) righteous.

"
"I came, not to heal the well, but the sick" - and that's all of us. Well, maybe not some of us, but certainly me. Even Saint Paul said: "My righteousness is as filthy rags" A bit of reality-therapy never hurt anyone. Christ 'walked into the midst of it, proclaiming God's love'. Now that's the mark of a Christian! Not criticism from the outer sanctum.

Peter Carrell said...

Hi Ron,
If you are going to call out other Christians for their calumnies, how about calling yourself out for the same?

(1) Our parliament is considering a significant and radical change to our marriage law. The Flanagans have offered a serious, careful, rational critique of such change. You dismiss it with a metaphorical wave of the hand. Are all changes to the laws of our land to be decided in the court of emotion?

(2) The Jesus who called us to love one another said not one word, not one, which implies that would have approved the joining of two people of the same gender into a marriage-like relationship. Yet you consistently play up the 'love' talk of Jesus and consistently ignore the quite serious and repeated talk of Jesus about the importance of marriage, always in terms of its constituency between a man and a woman. There is an inconsistency in your talk here which does your credibility no good at all! Nor does it justify you inveighing against Christians who have no wish to demean or deride anyone yet hold to marriage being a state permitted to a man and a woman and no other combination of people.

Shawn said...

The "Christ" followed by Liberals is a false idol of their own creation, unrelated to the real Christ of Scripture. This false idol is created by selectively quoting Jesus on love and forgiveness, and ignoring His words on sin and Hell.

This is why Ron will attack people on this blog for using language that both Jesus and the Apotkes use. In fact the denunciations against sin, false teaching are far more fierce in Scripture than anything said here.

The concerns being raised on this blog by Peter and others are serious and well founded. They desece better responses than facile liberal dogma and ad Hominem.

Matt said...

"this posting - about the anti-gay-marriage posting of MandM - seems to say a lot more about the justice of discrimination on the basis of toileting habits than it does about the justice of allowing two people who love one another, and want to declare that love in a contract of marriage (who just happen to be Gay)."

Actually if you read the article most of it addresses the argument you just made about "two people loving each other" one sentence refers to toilets, moreover it does so to make a point about the relationship between discrimination on the basis of race and discrimination on the basis of sex. Which you did not address.