Today the NZ Herald is running a ‘poll’ on the ‘same-sex marriage’ bill based on the loaded question: “Does equality require same-sex marriage?”

See: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10877696

The background article presents the case for the bill (“Yes”) put by Sam Clements, followed by the case against (“No”) by Professor of Law from Otago University, Rex Ahdar.

Sam Clements begins his case (quoted in italics) by stating:

It is logically flawed, and a nonsensical argument to suggest the redefinition of marriage by the state is in effect an attempt “‘to abolish it”. How absolutist and sweeping a statement.

Response from SPCS

Mr Clements has failed to distinguish between the effect of an action by a person or agent and their intention. They are two quite distinct matters. Likewise he fails to appreciate that the effect (consequence) of any action may be intended or unintended. His simplistic comments overlooks these matters. Clement’s accusatory sweeping and simplistic statement is itself logically flawed.

Traditional (conjugal) marriage is universally recognised as an honourable institution and highly beneficial to society. If its universally accepted meaning as involving one man and one woman is degraded, altered, negated, or compromised by tampering with its definition, for whatever reason, this will undoubtedly have a negative social/societal impact, in particular in relation to the welfare of children.

It is not logically flawed to claim that the effect of legalising same-sex ‘marriage’   (SSM) could or will lead to the ‘abolition’ of the true meaning of the term “marriage”. It is quite another matter to assert that the state is deliberately attempting to do this. Many of those opposed to the bill do see it as an attack on religious freedom and the institution of marriage, given that it renders the concept “marriage” meaningless. Why? Because expanding it to include SSM degrades it as SSM is an oxymoron.

Many homosexual activists pushing for the bill have publicly stated that civil unions are “meaningless” even though they campaigned so passionately for them in 2002 to 2004. What utter hypocrisy!  Just nine years ago homoxsexuals were dancing in the streets applauding the passage of the Civil Union Bill into law, now they say it is largely irrelevant after having got on their knees before the select committee to plead with them to accept their claim that civil unions are so meaningfull to their communities.

Sam Clements continues:

This bill seeks to grant same-sex couples the ability to marry, and in so doing bring formal societal recognition to their committed and loving relationships, which are no different to those of heterosexual couples.

Comment from SPCS

The so-called “equity” argument he uses is deficient. Of course all persons have the human right to love (within lawful bounds) whom they will. A woman school teacher can fall in love with her 14 year-old female student and the feeling may be mutual, but that does not entitle her to lawfully have sexual relations with her student, let alone ‘marry’ her. Loving relationships expressed intimately within the marriage bond are fundamentally different to ‘loving’ (commercial) relationships expressed between a man a prostitute even if she happens to have a deep affection and love for him.

Conjugal traditional marriage is not equal to same-sex marriage. The first involves the complementarity of the two sexes – physically, emotionally, psychologically and spiritually which SSM does not. It also has a biological orientation towards procreation which SSM does not. No amount of sexual activity between members of a same-sex couple will ever result in a child. Those in traditional who chose to adopt a child, often when they cannot have their own, can offer that child a mother’s and father’s love. A homosexual couple cannot.

Sam Clements continues:

Some appear fixated with the idea that “sexual union” is only truly possible from a marital perspective when it is between a man and a woman.

In essence, placing the ability to procreate as emblematic proof of this. This is one of the sadder and more naive statements often raised by opponents of the bill.

Response from SPCS

Clements: In a condescending tone Clements describes the bill’s opponents as sad cases who are naive.

For from it. Opponents of the bill actually understand the true nature of traditional marriage and why it must be differentiated from SSM (as noted above), while bill supporters ignore them.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10877696

Sam Clements holds graduate degrees in arts and commerce from the University of Auckland. He is a lifetime inducted member of international honour society Beta Gamma Sigma. samclements9@gmail.com

To view a decisive rebuttal of Clement’s position read Rex Ahdar’s view below Clement’s.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10877696