SPCS

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.

Poll: “Does equality require same-sex marriage?” – NZ Herald’s loaded ‘question’

by Leave a Comment

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

 

Finding true essence of marriage – Rex Ahdar, Law Professor, Otago University

by Leave a Comment

It is an empty argument to say that gay couples deserve equal legal recognition, Rex Ahdar says.

The catchcry of same-sex marriage proponents is “equality”: gay couples have a right to equal treatment and to deny them legal marriage is blatant discrimination.

Yet this claim deflects attention from the real issue: what is the true nature of marriage?

Two rival visions jostle for supremacy. The conjugal model says marriage is a lifelong union between a man and a woman. The partnership model says marriage is a contract between committed loving couples.

Conjugal marriage is a comprehensive union (mental and physical, emotional and sexual) of a man and a woman.

Marriage has a true essence, a fundamental core; it is a real phenomenon, not just a human invention or convention.

A crocodile is a crocodile, a tree is a tree, a river is a river. We did not invent crocodiles, we simply discovered them and named them. We can call a hippopotamus a crocodile if we want but that does not change its essential nature.

All it does is lead to confusion.

Marriage is a pre-political institution.

States recognise marriage; they do not invent it. States value the institution in which men and women commit indefinitely and exclusively to each other and to the children their sexual union commonly (but not invariably) produces.

Gay marriage proponents will argue that defines marriage so as to exclude gay couples, a neat trick that fools no- one.

Not so. Recall their key claim: gay couples deserve equal legal recognition.

That is an empty argument. To insist upon equality is to require that “like things be treated alike”.

So X and Y should be treated equally for X and Y are alike. But we need to know in what respects X is like Y and whether these characteristics are morally valid before we can be confident that they merit equal treatment.

We must have a standard for deciding which characteristics count and which don’t.

Is gay (partnership) marriage “like” conjugal marriage?

In some respects, yes: both may involve monogamous couples who have a deep commitment to each other.

Both can express this commitment in a sexual fashion and raise children (if any) in a caring way.

In other respects, however, the answer is no: lacking sexual complementarity, gay couples cannot achieve complete sexual bodily union.

And lacking reproductive capability they cannot be biological parents.

They can nurture children but they cannot provide the example that a father and a mother can, the intangible things that only a father and a mother can supply. They lack the inherent structure to rear well-rounded, psychologically secure children.

Who says these attributes – sexual complementarity, reproductive capacity – are “essential”?

Who says this is the standard?

We did. We decided that marriage involves the comprehensive sexual union of a man and a woman.

We decided that, ideally, children are best raised by their biological father and mother.

When I say “we”, I mean every culture, tribe and race since antiquity has recognised these as essential elements of this thing called marriage and accorded such unions special status.

Perhaps every society throughout the ages has got it wrong and we alone in the West have now stumbled upon the truth.

But I think not.

The wanton use of the slogan “equality” just skews the debate.

The tactic is to brazenly repeat that conjugal marriage and partnership marriage are equal – as if this were somehow self-evident – then require that those who deny this to show why “unequal” treatment is justified.

And who can be against “equality”?

Opponents must show why this enlightened proposal is wrong, rather than gay marriage proponents having to demonstrate why the partnership model deserves to replace the existing institution. And make no mistake.

To redefine marriage is to abolish it.

Partnership marriage does not keep the existing institution and simply allow more persons to join it. Instead it eviscerates it and substitutes a radical experimental concept.

Gay couples should not be permitted to marry because they lack the essential traits that constitute true (conjugal) marriage.

We may treat gay couples the same as heterosexual couples when it comes to property division, pensions, inheritance and so on, but not when it comes to marriage.

Here, the two are simply not alike.

In the end sit still, close your eyes and quietly ask yourself: can a man marry another man and a woman wed another woman?

What on earth have we come to?

Rex Ahdar is a law professor at Otago University.

Source: http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/8521106/Finding-true-essence-of-marriage

Finding true essence of marriage: Opinion – Rex Ahdar

Published The Dominion Post. 8 April 2013, p. A9

Fairfax NZ News

Redefining marriage is unnecessary – Gordon Copeland

by

THE DEBATE on same-sex marriage lacks context because its promoters have failed to take into account the equal rights already established in New Zealand law for same-sex couples.

Everyone remembers the passing of the Civil Union Act in 2004 because of the publicity it generated. The Civil Union Act was followed by a companion Relationships (Statutory References) Act in early 2005 – the Relationships Act. It was passed by Parliament without fanfare and little publicity. It has therefore been missing from this debate because its purpose and legal effects are largely unknown to New Zealanders. Yet it is of crucial importance.

So what did the Relationships Act do? It amended more than 130 acts of Parliament to add, after every reference to “marriage” , the words “civil union and de facto” so there would be a complete and perfect legal equality between marriage, civil unions and heterosexual or homosexual de facto relationships. It means all couples, in any of these relationships, have the same rights under New Zealand law, with the possible exception of the adoption law.

Therefore, nothing is to be gained from redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, since equal rights have already been granted. That battle was fought and won in 2005.

In 1893, New Zealand was the first nation to grant women the vote, but we did not do that by redefining men to include women, but rather by recognising the equality of women. In the same way the Relationships Act does not alter the definition of marriage but rather recognises the equality of same-sex unions, be they civil union or de facto, at law.

The mantra of “marriage equality” needs to be viewed against that background. In my view, that mantra does not stand up to scrutiny because all of us can surely agree that a marriage between a man and a woman is biologically different from a union between two women or two men. Just as women and men are different, so those relationships are different (de facto relationships are different again because they exist in fact, but involve couples who are not married or in civil unions). Let us not forget that New Zealand law does permit homosexuals, who so choose, to marry [a person of the opposite sex] and some have.

Recognition of the reality that women and men are biologically different does not constitute discrimination, inequality or a denial of rights. We separate women and men for sport and boys and girls for sport and education. Most Wellington secondary schools, for example, are single-sex, but that does not mean boys from Wellington College are not the equal of girls from St Mary’s. Our laws against discrimination are founded on the principle of “different by equal”.

Consequently, although it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender, nationality, race, religion, marital status, and so on, in employment, housing, voting and the like, the law also recognises differences in many ways. Indeed, in our language we always, without exception, give different names to different things because life would  become confusing if a rake was called a spade or vice versa.

Marriage is too important to the stability of our society and the raising of children to risk such a radical change to its traditional definition without sound reason. In my view, no such reason has been advanced,

Marriage can result in lifelong loving relationships between the spouses. It remains the best and most stable environment in which to raise children. It has stood the test of time and is common to all cultures and nations. Like democracy, it is not perfect, but it is better than all the other models. It would be greatly strengthened if governments invested in the delivery of pre-marriage preparation and post-wedding marriage enrichment programmes by non-government organisations, because marriage underpins a successful society, while the root cause of much poverty and delinquency arises from causal, stable or broken relationships.

The Relationships Act created “relationships equality” and nothing more is necessary or desirable. The redefinition of marriage bill should not proceed.

____________

Source: Opinion Piece: Published The Dominion Post. Thursday, January 24, 2013. , p. A9

Gordon Copeland is a former MP who was in Parliament in 2004 – 2005 when the Civil Union and Relationship (Statutory References) Acts were passed. He opposed both.