Same Sex Marriage has become very topical and pretty hotly debated but aside from the usual up front "Are you for or against?" line designed to knock people off the fence and choose a side, what about the side issues. Yes the side issues that exist for those of any leaning.
General answer is, its as Senator Richard DiNatale said, currently its a denial of a fundamental human right. To put it more accurately, from the Greens website "The Greens believe that freedom of sexuality and gender identity are fundamental human rights"
Well they probably, quite genuinely & honestly do believe that, but strangely from a Biblical point of view, they're quite right. You DO get to choose. You may be denied human rights but Scripture is clear, we choose to follow God's Word or break it. So actually, the only denial a person faces is via the law of the land. At present if you identify as Same Sex Attraction oriented, you're good to go, no long wagon train to a concentration camp. Your persecution really exists as not being able to be legally married as Men & Women have since laws became laws in Australia. In fact if you look closely DiNatale gives the impression you are denied a human right by not having the freedom to identify sexuality & gender. No such denial exists. You are denied the legal process of a legal marriage though.
For most of us, what people do, chose to do is their own business. But the REAL issue is can a same sex couple marry? Currently no but is it a human rights violation? No one has tested that but currently the answer is no. In Richard Di Natale's (and the Greens) case its a recognised fundamental human right...well if so how so, please present the standard by which you make the claim.
If we look to The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, go to Article 16 it states...
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
No mention or inference nor clear cut clarity on Same Sex Marriage. You can argue "Men and women" means mixed gender marriage or it means both genders have the right to marry any gender but it doesn't say anything like that. In 1948 I'd suggest it was not the latter that was intended. Irrespective there is no clear case that denying SSM is a fundamental human rights issue. If you think it is, you should change the standard before making the claim.
If the Greens truly maintain that view then things will go awry when SSM is actually passed as law in Australia. How, why?
Its then possible for a same sex couple to approach a priest and ask the priest to perform the ceremony, to be married by him in his church. Now according to Di Natale's current claim that being unable to be Same Sex Married is indeed a denied "fundamental human right", the priest can be reported for refusing to marry same sex couples because he is effectively committing a human rights violation against the intending couple. Even if the priest/pastor is following their own Scriptures.
Yep I know, the argument will begin, but here's the thing human rights apply to humans, governments & groups. You cannot have a government denying human rights (by denying SSM) without a priest denying it if he denies to marry a couple when SSM becomes law.
A priest can deny human rights, but a whole country cannot?
Silliness. Dizzy yet?
Whether you support or oppose SSM, you cannot legitimately agree that DiNatale's "fundamental human right" is a legitimate argument when it fails intellectually flat. Say its unfair, or its get with the times or whatever else, but its not a Human Rights Violation.
Slavery, torture, murder, forced marriages, marriages of under age people, rape, genocide, child soldiers and any number of other Human Rights Violations occur every day in immense numbers in a lot of countries. Its estimated that 40,000 female sex slaves are sold & smuggled into Japan every year. Sorry, although not our country, that's a bigger travesty than SSM on the Human Rights Abuses list. Religious, cultural and racial persecution. Real human rights violations. Greens utter silence compared to their loud voice on SSM. There is some validity for saying the Greens will always push for preservation of human rights, more so when Christianity gets placed second or gets placed outside. I've heard the argument that they're more accommodating of eastern religion than Christianity or Judaism and it does kinda look that way from time to time.
But aside from that, at least the priest isn't intellectually corrupt. He can claim that SSM or Same Sex relations are immoral. How? Well he has a Moral Law, handed to him from a transcendant moral law giver. He actually has, through proper in context exegesis of Christian Scriptures, the ability to cite a moral law given by a transcendent creator God with which to judge an action as being moral or immoral. He cannot judge or condemn the person though.
Oh but if you don't believe there is a God, morals are just evolutionary traits, designed to make the gathered group work together better and more safely thrive. Mighty good for the group, but not binding until a legal system comes along and even then not morally binding.
If it were the case that there is no God at all, Morals are useful, engender co-operative interaction but really aren't binding. Morals are just a preferred but non binding code of practise, a code of conduct.
In fact if we notice some cultures have some things being ok, whilst others its not. Cannibalism is and was quite ok with some cultures, it wasn't just morally ok, it was a spiritual imperative for self improvement. European culture has a different view, even without the European being in the pot cooking we observe to opposite cultures. We soon see that whilst some will call them cultural differences, or regional points of distinction, fact is they're different and for the atheist, they are all invented by humans over time. They are relative and they're only binding by whatever legal system is in place.
Meaning (if you're an honest atheist) in countries of the Middle East where SSM is not allowed under law, its cultural and/or regional, decided by the majority as a part of law. Some its a result of religion, but if you don't believe in God its not moral or immoral. Its the law and its based on cultural differences. In any case its relative, not universal as a Human Right is supposed to be. Keep it, break it, change it but its not a fundamental human right.
Headline of the future maybe...
"PASTOR IMPRISONED FOR HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS"
because perhaps he stuck with his religion & refused to marry a Same Sex couple.
If we stick with the DiNatale line, a Priest/Pastor refusing to marry a SSM is breaching Human Rights. Strangely if a Priest/Pastor who is forced to marry SSM against their will, that has its own human rights violations problem. See Article 18 of the Declaration of Human Rights.
"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."Come on Richard, support or oppose SSM. Support a Plebiscite or Act of Parliament, we really don't care, but apply rigor to your argument, keep it uncorrupted and cogent.
Now here's the thing, its bad enough that the SSM issue is an issue at all. Its somehow, in the mind of the Greens, leap frogged all other Human Rights Violations in priority even though SSM will affect less than 2% of the Australian population. How did an issue affecting so few, come to impact so many at potential a huge cost to the public purse?
The Courier Mail reported the Greens propose to decriminalise Ice & party drugs in general.
I think I could be forgiven for thinking the Greens have little credibility in areas of great harm and their moral compass has dead batteries.
Legal Ice is good, Illegal SSM a breach & violation of human rights. Yep, I got it.
Richard needs to get his act together or go harder so he is taken for the loud fool he is and therefore more readily dismissed by clear thinking Australian.
Now before you yell Intolerant Bigot at me, I haven't even said I support/oppose SSM.
But if you yell that you should first be reasonable about the dangerous absurdity of DiNatale's basis of claims and be well hoarse in the throat before you "GUESS" where I stand and make a condemning judgement. Maybe you need the wise council of a good pastor.
If that Pastor uses proper in context exegesis to explain his moral compass and you reject it, he might yet tell you not to follow Richard's themes because they're twisted and not actually human rights abuses as Richard claims. Remember just because you like something doesn't make it moral or ok.
Just because you don't like something or you're being denied something, you should not use emotional leverage like citing Human Rights to bolster your otherwise bland and lacking argument.
Richard, stop the tricky dicky. Prosecute your position with proper reason please.
No comments:
Post a Comment