Friday, April 20, 2012

Lucia No Right Turn launches bigot attack at Judith Collins

This is No Right Turn's reasoning. Rainbow Wellington asked Judith Collins her opinion on various issues, including the redefinition of marriage. Judith replied that:
The Government has no plans to introduce same-sex marriage in the current Parliamentary term. As you are aware, there is considerable diversity of opinion on same-sex marriage.

NRT translates this into: "Or, translated, "there are bigots and National wishes to pander to them".

He then goes through Judith Collins' voting record on marriage related issues and finds she comes down on the the conservative side, so she's a bigot as well. Nice. As I've found there are some people that believe if you don't agree with them, you're a bigot. A difference of opinion on certain sacrosanct issues of liberal morality are just not allowed.

Related link: Collins on same-sex marriage

Previous related post: The intimidation of bigotry, where the charge of bigotry is used as a form of intimidation

12 comment(s):

leftrightout said...

I'm with NRT on this one.

In the past, I was opposed to same sex marriage, but out of a knee jerk reaction, not out of any sense of right or wrong.

The more I read the "arguments" of those opposed to same sex marriage, the more I was forced to evaluate my own opinion. I examined my opposition to same sex marriage and could not find a single anti-argument that stood upo to scrutiny.

They fell in to various categories, such as appeal to authority, tradition, the church and some strange idea of marriage only being able to take a single form, yet history and culture show a wide array of amrriage forms.

Eventually I had to concede that my opposition to same sex marriage was based on bigotry, and if I removed the bigotry, the opposition fell away.

So, please tell me, what possible objection can you have that doesn't rely on bigotry?

Lucia Maria said...

LRO,

Give me an example of a successful society in the past that had a wide array of marriage forms.

In the meantime, you might find this old post of mine useful: Same sex marriage creates a more powerful state.

Lucia Maria said...

And this one: Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry

leftrightout said...

So, let me get this right.

1. You are intent on overthrowing the state to institute a theocracy?

2. The Roman Empire fell due to same sex marriage rather than due to the introuduction of xtianity by Constantine?

joyfulpapist said...

Lucia Maria, my apologies for going off topic, but I want to ask leftrightout about his second point. Leftrightout, are you saying that the Fall of the Roman Empire was caused by Constantine's legalisation of Christianity?

Lucia Maria said...

JP, no problem. Though, if I could answer, there is a school of thought that blames the fall of the Roman Empire upon Christianity (and probably Constantine as well). It's rubbish, the Empire was already in serious trouble by then. There was at least one Emperor following Constantine that tried to bring back state paganism as a supposed remedy, but that didn't last long.

LRO, In answer to you.
1) No. A theocracy - where did that come from?
Render to God what is God's and to Caesar what is Caesar's.

2) No and No. But there are many references to the destruction of marriage and family in the Empire prior to Constantine, I just read some in the new book I'm reading on The Three Marks of Manhood in Chapter 2. Same-sex marriage is just a modern anomaly (as the ancients never had this concept of sexual identity) that has turned up at the tail end of the destruction of marriage in the West.

Now are you going to answer my question?

joyfulpapist said...

Back to the point, why should the State recognise gay marriage - or, indeed, any marriage?

If 'marriage' is simply social recognition of a couple's commitment, then what reason is there for the State to be involved. After all, we don't legally recognise other - equally valid - commitments.

I can see why there might be a need for a legal contract to protect property rights; but then why should relationships that involve sex be privileged over other relationships? What about two sisters who pool resources? Why shouldn't they be able to register a legal commitment to one another?

Lucia Maria said...

JP, the state should recognise marriage between a man and a woman because proper marriage and commitment is vital to it's own existence.

joyfulpapist said...

Lucia Maria, my point is that the only justification for the State to legislate marriage is that they have a duty to legislate in favour of supporting the relationship that is known to provide the best possible environment for tomorrow's citizens: a relationship with four features - one man with one woman, permanent, exclusive, fruitful. The no-fault divorce legislation got ride of permanence and exclusivity; abortion legislation and government support for contraception has put the kibosh on the fruitfulness, and civil unions legislation has removed the final remaining requirement.

So the involvement of the State in marriage is immoral, because they are favouring some relationships over others, without the justification of social need.

Lucia Maria said...

JP, I agree with everything you said above - except for the conclusion. Just because the state has exceeded it's mandate does not mean that it should just be absolved of all responsibly.

Marriage is a public good that needs to be witnessed by the community who then should hold the couple to their vows. Take that away, and everything falls apart. As it is doing.

joyfulpapist said...

Yes, I believe you are right. But I nonetheless would like to hear how those who reject the four grounds of marriage justify the State's continued involvement in marriage.

ZenTiger said...

LRO Said: "So, please tell me, what possible objection can you have that doesn't rely on bigotry?"

LRO, if I were to insist that a "de facto" relationship, although similar in many regards to marriage, is NOT marriage, would you call me a bigot for holding that opinion?

If so, why?

(And please be careful to address the main point of my comment. I am not arguing either way about having "de facto" equal "marriage" in the eyes of the law. I'm arguing that I wish to hold the opinion that my definition of marriage means "de facto" does not mean a de facto couple can be called a married couple.)

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.