SAME SEX MARRIAGE - IT’S ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS
Elsa Schieder PhD is a former professor of Humanities at John Abbott College in Canada. She blogs and conducts interviews, focussing on Western rights and freedoms.
I’m reading an article on Does God Exist? Does It Matter?
Suddenly I come to: Take the Same Sex Marriage laws. These were foisted upon us before most people had a chance to think through the consequences. Now that these laws have passed, we are finding that it is no longer possible to make any legal distinction between the sexes. This promises to destroy women’s sport. It takes away the rights of women to have their own public toilets. It will undoubtedly lead to a myriad of unexpected and destructive consequences.
MY RESPONSE: THIS IS ALL NONSENSE. THE AUTHOR IS MIXING APPLES WITH PICKLES.
Same sex marriage laws only pertain to marriage. You might as well argue that allowing women equal entry into various professions means “that it is no longer possible to make any legal distinction between the sexes.” Also nonsense. And what about extending the vote to women. Shouldn't that likewise mean “that it is no longer possible to make any legal distinction between the sexes.” Total nonsense, very clearly.
Not making a legal distinction between the sexes on the basis of genetics, relates to transgender issues and gender identity issues, not to same sex marriage.
AS FOR ISSUES RAISED BY PEOPLE IDENTIFYING AS MEMBERS OF THE SEX THEY DON’T GENETICALLY BELONG TO, HERE’S MY RESPONSE. If we as a species can develop sex-change operations, and send both men and women (and transgenders, I am sure) to the moon, then surely we as a species can develop laws that protect genetic females from non-genetic females in sports, and that keep public toilets as safe as possible.
AS FOR SAME SEX MARRIAGE, THIS IS, FOR ME, A SIMPLE HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE. It’s always been that way. I’ve always been for human rights. I grew up in a family with lots of social concerns.
Same sex marriage is, for me, akin to interfaith marriage, interracial marriage and the remarriage of divorced people. All the latter have been illegal, or anyway prohibited by some religions. Many religions traditionally did not allow, for example, interfaith marriages. Interracial marriages have been forbidden by law, for instance in many American states.
I don’t see how same sex marriage is different from frequently prohibited marriages between opposite sex people.
Same sex marriage: it’s for 2 people above the age of consent who wish to marry. No coercion.
Does this violate the religious freedom of religions which are against same sex marriage? No. Each religion can have its own rules on same sex marriage - just as religions may refuse to marry divorced people, etc.
On the other hand, prohibiting same sex marriage denies freedom of religion to religions that are in favor of performing same sex marriage.
While religions may choose not to perform same sex marriages, I hold that governments have no right to prohibit such marriages, as this violates an underlying ethical principle: liberty until harm (John Stuart Mills, 19th century philosopher). In other words, we have the right to liberty until such time as we harm others.
More re same sex marraige. One can also turn to the command in the New Testament: do onto others what you would have them do onto you. In this case, it would be: Do onto gays and lesbians as you would have them do onto you (you in this case being someone heterosexual), if the situation were reversed and only gays and lesbians had the right to marry.
The obvious answer: you’d want them to give you the right to marry.
I’ve often asked myself: WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THE COMMON AUSTRALIAN NEGATIVITY RE SAME SEX MARRIAGE? Where I live - Quebec, Canada - the acceptance rate for same sex marriage is over 90%. So I’ve been stunned when, over and over in writings from Australia, people hold opinions like the one above, that permitting same sex marriage means “it is no longer possible to make any legal distinction between the sexes.”
As I’ve said, it makes as little sense to me as being against interracial or interfaith marriage, or the remarriage of divorced people. It’s consensual. It takes nothing away from those in one-race, one-faith, male-female first marriages.
A Christian friend and his large Christian family recently celebrated their first-ever same-sex marriage - his daughter’s marriage. It was attended by everyone in the family. Many of the family members came from quite a distance - half a continent away - and from quite traditional communities. Some family members, especially older ones, did have a bit of learning to do. But in the end, everyone welcomed the happiness of the 2 brides. Good to see.
One last comment: I heard that this piece might put off many readers, make them less ready to listen to something else I might say.
My answer: what if readers are put off by my interview with Tommy Robinson, published last week? Should I then not post it?
One of the many things I admire about Tommy is his strong honesty, his willingness to speak out, in his case about the Islamic rape gangs and about the content of Islamic ideology, despite the huge cost to him. Once again, because he dares to speak out, he has been unjustly thrown into jail, and now moved to a jail with a large population of Islamic violent offenders. May he be safe.
Let's hope this doesn't happen again!
I think of Tommy.
It doesn’t make sense to me to be silent.