?

Log in

No account? Create an account
athgarvan

Parliament bursts into song

Further to my post of yesterday re same-sex-marriage here is an interesting take on it from NZ Parliament.

Originally posted by soon_lee

Comments

I'm afraid we have some very bigoted groups here in the USA. Their purpose is to spread homophobia. They will lie and distort to advance their purpose. They use Christianity as a defense of their prejudice.

I very much doubt that Jesus would have problems with people committing to each other to love and protect each other.
Christians should seek to understand not to condemn.

In a word, no, not a word of truth.

'Family.org' groups originating in the US tend to be far right groups of bigoted hatemongers intent on spreading hatespeech, narrowmindedness and evil via this variety of lie and they are really not worth your notice.

Think the likes of Fred Phelps and his ilk.

Some of them would be well advised to read Luke on hypocrites- passages I'm sure you know well. :o)
Does the following article contain any truth? Only to those whose cognitive bias blinds them to seeing all sides of an argument. Reading up on the Illinois Family Institute has left me with the impression of suited up and less outspoken, thereby more dangerous, version of the Westboro Baptist Church. Both groups have been designated as hate groups. What this woman has admitted to is that she personally is more interested in equal polygamy, than actual marriage. There are such groups, but they are no more representative of all gay people, as the Westboro Baptist Church is of all christians
The article is muddling up a number of issues with the intention of causing fear. I have come across radical lesbian feminists like the woman quoted and they do have an idealogical objection to marriage -- largely based on the old idea of the woman becoming the property of a man when she marries. However, the majority of people, hetero- or homosexual do not view marriage in that way and there is no truth that there is some long term gay agenda to dispense with the institution of marriage.

Marriage has already been redefined in the UK by (among other things) the Married Woman's Property act. No longer is a woman (and any children from the marriage) a man's property to control as he wishes, but a married woman can own property in her own right instead of it automatically belonging to her husband. Marriage is now -- rightly in my view -- seen as an equal partnership of people who feel they are stronger as a couple than as two individuals. I seen no reason why the two people involved shouldn't be of the same sex.

As someone who has been married for nearly 40 years, I don't in any way feel that my marriage is threatened by gay marriage. Rather the opposite in fact. It shows that other people aspire to have what I have been lucky enough to have.
My problem is with the word 'radical.' These views are bigoted & not, in my view, in any way radical. Radical has as much to do with this kind of feminism as sex does about gay marriage.
I assume that the reference to "radical" was in answer to my comment? That's what we called them on the OU's Issues in Women's Studies course I did back in the 90s. It's very likely that the nomenclature has changed, but I believe "radical" refers to "roots" and means going back to the roots of the issue (in this case the assumption that the whole of society is organised along patriarchal lines) and then working up from there.

It seemed to me that the quotes from the woman who was talking about her children having 5 parents were being taken out of context and twisted by those with a right wing conservative and/or Christian agenda. She was the one I was referring to as a "radical lesbian feminist", not the writer of the article. They are not radical at all in any sense of the word.

Edited at 2013-04-18 17:35 (UTC)
internet finally let me read the whole article.
There is a hidden point in the statistics he quotes.
The gay & lesbians who do marry obviously want what "traditional marriage" represents. Those who have no interest in those concepts and values don't marry. - Just like heterosexuals.
No confusion - I assumed that's what/who you meant. :)
The Listener has an excellent summary of the third reading & vote, with links to the speeches by the different MPs (scroll down to "Third reading, April 17"). The MPs were broadly in favour of the Bill, but what was said, by both proponents & opponents is worth a look & listen.

My favourite was by MP Maurice Williamson:


I am heartened that the yes votes were noted with pink highlighter.

A rather flippant response to a very serious subject, I thought.
I thought it was appropriate. It was from the third reading after all, with substantially more debate & discussion having taken place previously during the first reading, select committee hearings, & the second reading.

A speech by Chris Auchinvole during the second reading (he was on the Select Committee) provided a useful (to me) distillation of the issue.

ETA: The link is to the transcript of the speech, but also to the youtube clip (which is IMO well worth watching).

Edited at 2013-04-19 20:12 (UTC)
Not a lick of truth, love. And again I will say that the fact that you are trying to understand something so far outside your ken is impressive indeed.

Keep asking. Knowledge is a good thing to search for.
Thank you.
Your question was "Does the following article contain any truth?" I would say, in honesty, yes. There is a small group of individuals that would like to see marriage done away with all together. The ones that I know are all lesbian separatists, but I am sure there are some from other groups as well. However, having said this, the article comes from and extremely homophobic organization, so this is painted in the very worse possible light.

First of all, there is NO HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA. Trust me on this. I have been a part of the LGBTQ community for over 30 years. We are not all running around trying to figure out how to destroy the institution of marriage. During the brief time in California when it was legal, droves of my friends RUSHED to the altar to get it done before it went away. This is not the action of people who wish to destroy marriage. This is a group of people who wish to fully participate in the system.

Secondly, I am spending a great deal of time, energy and money to become an ordained minister in a religion that has always favored same-sex marriage. I can't WAIT until I can marry couple after couple. Again, I don't want to see it destroyed. I want to see it come to fruition!

Now, the reason why I have to be honest about this is the reason why I, personally, didn't get married during this period. It just so happens that my partner is one of those people who do not believe in marriage. She believes that it is an outworn patriarchal system of slavery, where fathers blithely trip down the aisles to "give away" their daughters to other men, and in turn the daughters give up the name given to them by their fathers and take the name offered to them by their new owners... their husbands. I think there is a certain amount of validity to that argument, but I don't think marriage should be done away with all together, nor do I think that people should be forced to give up the cherished traditions of their ancestors. So, while I won't be getting married anytime soon, I am very excited about the possibility of becoming a full citizen of the U.S.... and, that is what this means to me. The right to marry as I choose in the U.S. means that I will finally be granted full citizenship rights.

Finally, even though my partner doesn't believe in marriage, she doesn't sit around thinking of ways to destroy it. She just refuses to participate in it, and thinks that all her LGBTQ friends are a little nuts for wanting to. She gives it no energy whatsoever, and tries to avoid the subject at parties, because she disagrees with nearly everyone else.
Thank you for sharing. Isn't it amazing how varied peoples' views on marriage are"?

BTW, you say "I can't WAIT until I can marry couple after couple". As I understand it the couple has always married each other while the minister merely witnesses and blesses the union for Church and State records.