Thursday, November 22, 2012

Lucia The same-sex marriage debacle continues

So many bad arguments are being put forward to the select committee looking into Louisa Wall's same-sex marriage bill.

One of the first couples in New Zealand to have a civil union say that was a compromise and only being able to marry would give them equality.

I'm sorry to have to inform these two men that in order to gain full equality, in the way that they define it, is to have the ability to bear children. Interesting that they are not arguing that, as they are in France.
“As a lesbian couple, me and my partner can’t just wake up in the morning and say, we’re going to have a baby,” she said. “But without [Medically Assisted Procreation - MAP for short], procreation is near impossible. It would be terribly hypocritical for the Socialists to introduce an ‘equality’ bill without allowing us the same parenting rights as our heterosexual peers. Half-hearted equality is not equality.”

Even then, true equality is not there, as heterosexual couples will still be able to have babies without medical intervention. The only true equality will be when all procreation is medically assisted. If we want to follow the equality argument to it full conclusion, that is.

Then there was the sentimental argument from long time foe, Jordan Carter, who used to be a blogger, and seems now to be working himself towards becoming a Labour MP.

Submitter Jordan Carter asked MPs to consider how they'd feel if they were in the minority rather than homosexuals.

I'm in the minority here in New Zealand as a practicing Catholic and I feel sad for those who aren't Catholic. All those who aren't Catholic are missing out on so much by not having access to the Sacraments and to Our Lord Himself. However, I won't be agitating for a law to pass, making it mandatory for everyone to attend Mass, no matter how good it would be for them, and how much better it might make me feel (though I know it wouldn't be a true conversion, so I wouldn't end up feeling any better about it).

As I've said previously, sentimentalists are not reasonable people, they are ruled by their feelings, and so see nothing wrong in trying to make an emotional argument rather than a logical one. It will get some people, making them feel guilty for making someone else feel different.

So many silly arguments, starting with Louisa Wall herself, so little time to comment.

4. At the outset, much of the opposition has been motivated by a basic premise that some people consider homosexuality is unacceptable or a sin. There have been attempts to revisit issues that have already been determined. In other words some opponents need to be honest and declare that what they truly seek is to repeal the Homosexual Law Reform Act 1986. This is evidenced by the number of vocal opponents who argue from a first principle position of homosexuality being a sin and homosexuals being sinners. It is also evidenced by their pragmatism in changing from a position of opposition to the Civil Union Act 2004 to one of expressing support for that Act in order to oppose this Bill. That position promotes the view that all homosexual New Zealanders are different and should be satisfied with the created institution of Civil Union.

Again, homosexuality is not a sin. Acting on homosexual desires is a sin, just as acting on heterosexual desires that aren't directed at your spouse is a sin. Lustful thoughts are a sin, viewing pornography is a sin, masturbating is a sin, using contraception is a sin. A person can be attracted to those of the same-sex, but never act on those attractions and therefore that person is not sinning. There might be people who are confused as merge the sinner and the sin into one, but that is not the stance of Christians who know their faith well. Louisa Wall is either talking about a small minority of people here, or those she has created in her head to attack. Also, homosexual New Zealanders (those that are attracted to persons of the same sex) are different, otherwise we wouldn't have words to describe them, and otherwise Jordan Carter above wouldn't be trying to get everyone to emotionally connect with him as to how it might feel to be in the minority.

Let's hope and pray that when this abysmal bill actually gets back to Parliament, that our MPs wake up from their feel good, let's change the world frame of mind, and actually think about what they might be doing for the whole of New Zealand, rather than a very vocal, but small lobby group.

8 comment(s):

Cyrus_NZ said...

lol the first half would be funny if this was a joke - so ridiculous.

Hmmm, but I can see that happening if the direction isn't reversed - all procreation being illegal without a special government license.

Cyrus_NZ said...

...maybe even only "professionals" will be allowed to raised children, and not the biological parents

big news said...

just thought I`d let you know that the gay couple you refer to do have children and Jordan Carter is still a blogger. And I think that many Christians would not share your view that using contraception is a sin. Also if equality means having kids, this would mean that infertile couples do not have equality nor can they have it. Does that mean God, who created them, does not believe in equality? Finally it's not a homosexual lobby group you should be concerned about, I would have thought you`d be more concerned about the willingness of most MP's to vote for the passage of this bill.

Unknown said...

Hi Lucia, I do understand what you are talking about, about the need not to act out on homosexual impulses. But I think you missed the point. Homosexuality is a sin. Homosexual behaviour is a sin. It all falls short and misses the mark.

But I think you miss the point badly. What Louisa Wall is saying is that homosexuality is now established and we should drop our opposition to it. As Christians our position still is that homosexuality is a sin. That indeed the 1986 legalisation of homosexuality was a mistake. Because it has become a slippery slope to full legitimisation of gay rights, gay marriage and gay adoption being the last hurdles.

The church should never drop its opposition to homosexuality. Indeed we of course love and accept the sinner who suffers from homosexual desires but does not act out on them. That is good and acceptable to God. But that is not what is being debated here. Louisa Wall wants homosexual desires and homosexual behaviour all fully legitimised. Basically she wants what she is doing to be accepted into law as the equivalent of a man and a woman in marriage. That is very wrong and we should oppose it. And we do.

Lucia Maria said...

Unknown,

"But I think you miss the point badly. What Louisa Wall is saying is that homosexuality is now established and we should drop our opposition to it.... Louisa Wall wants homosexual desires and homosexual behaviour all fully legitimised. Basically she wants what she is doing to be accepted into law as the equivalent of a man and a woman in marriage."

I'm very aware of what Louisa Wall wants and just because I didn't spell it out in this post doesn't mean that I missed the point, which is blindingly obvious. As bloggers tend to do, I've picked out an aspect of what she's said and concentrated on that rather than attacking her main premise. No need to explain it me - I get it.

"Indeed we of course love and accept the sinner who suffers from homosexual desires but does not act out on them. That is good and acceptable to God."

Then stop saying things like the following: "Homosexuality is a sin."

That implies to people like Louisa Wall, that the opposition is to her personally, because she has same-sex desires (whether or not she acts upon them is irrelevant at this point), and for no other reason. That sort of talk, if you understand that it what the person does, rather than what temptations they are subjected to, that she has no control over, is that which can be sinful, then at least we can talk from a position of respect, rather than total condemnation of the person.

Do you get that?

Lucia Maria said...

Hi Dave,

"just thought I`d let you know that the gay couple you refer to do have children"

Ok...

"and Jordan Carter is still a blogger."

Just barely.

"And I think that many Christians would not share your view that using contraception is a sin."

Up until 1930, all Christians considered the use of contraception to be sinful, with the Anglicans being the first to cave. Even now, though many Catholics are somewhat ignorant on what they are supposed to believe, Catholicism as the largest Christian grouping in the world does still consider contraception use to be sinful in the mortal sense - ie, it cuts you off from God and requires Confession in order to be brought back into His friendship.

Contraception also destroys the self-giving required in marriage. Rather than saying with your body, I do, you say to your spouse, I only want to have pleasure with you and not give you everything that I have and am. No wonder so many people split up today - they have no idea how to even give themselves totally in the one act that is supposed to renew the marriage vows.

"Also if equality means having kids, this would mean that infertile couples do not have equality nor can they have it. Does that mean God, who created them, does not believe in equality?"

I think the whole argument is stupid, personally, but I was just extending it out along the lines of same-sex marriage conferring equality (it doesn't, btw, in case you are confused as to my position). Equality does not depend on what you can do, it is there as a result of who we are - human beings made in the image and likeness of God.

"Finally it's not a homosexual lobby group you should be concerned about, I would have thought you`d be more concerned about the willingness of most MP's to vote for the passage of this bill."

I'm concerned about both, and also about the number of people that are taken in by the rhetoric (ie marriage equality) and that seem to have no idea as to what marriage actually is.

Scott said...

Lucia,with respect,this is not the time for finer theological distinctions.When you say homosexuality is not a sin then you give aid and comfort to those who are determined to impose gay marriage on this nation.
We need to have a clear message. Homosexuality is a sin and we should not be condoning it by giving it the sanctity of marriage. It's as simple as that really.

Lucia Maria said...

Hi Scott,

"When you say homosexuality is not a sin then you give aid and comfort to those who are determined to impose gay marriage on this nation."

I strongly disagree. Our position should be to be absolutely clear and truthful about what the Church says about homosexuality (down to the finer theological distinctions). The other side can reduce the argument down to simplistic slogans, but we need to be more thoughtful.

But sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts, being ready always to satisfy every one that asks you a reason of that hope which is in you. ~ 1 Peter 3:15

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.