Entry 1433, on 2012-08-31 at 09:46:23 (Rating 4, Politics)
I can understand that some people might not appreciate certain other people's lifestyles. I can understand that some people, who might be a bit less tolerant of diversity, might prefer to ignore the way other people live. Everyone is different and everyone has an opinion which might or might not be worthy of respect. But I don't think it's fair to try to push a personal opinion onto other people when the subject being appraised has no real effect on the holder of the opinion.
I'm talking about the subject of same-sex marriage of course - just in case you hadn't already figured that out considering the prominence the subject has gained recently.
A recent Herald poll asked if New Zealand was ready for same-sex marriage. Here are the results: "now is the time for full marriage equality" 35%; "nearly, most people are probably on board" 4%; "I think most Kiwis don't really care because it doesn't affect them" 21%; "no, we're not ready, it's a step too far" 12%; and "definitely not ready and never will be" 28%.
So it's really a remarkably even split. Whether this poll is statistically valid is highly questionable, of course, but I think it's OK to use it as a guide. Other polls I have heard of seem to indicate that there is a significant majority in favour of marriage equality and the first reading of the new bill got a fairly impressive majority (80 for and 40 against) in favour of it, so I think there is a good case to say that it is something that most people are happy with, or at least unconcerned about.
But the question I want answered is why anyone would object. Whether a same-sex couple live in a relationship which is called a "civil union" (as is the case now) or a "marriage" is irrelevant surely? How does this really effect anyone not associated with the people in the relationship? I can't see how it does and when I ask people who object to same-sex marriage they usually just give some fairly inadequate answer like: "marriage is a relationship between a man and a women". Yes, I know that's what it is now, but social norms change, and what exactly is wrong with changing the current definition?
Another objection is the old "thin end of the wedge" argument. Some people say that same-sex marriage will inevitably lead to marriages involving more than two people, or to bigamy, or to incest, or to marriages involving other species. We can't tell for sure whether this is likely or not, but if society gets to the point where marriage involving multiple people is considered appropriate then why not? If there is good support for an idea and if "its time has come" then we should change the law to suit.
Yet another issue I hear is that this law could "cheapen marriage". Ironically at least one proponent of this theory himself comes from a failed conventional marriage. Given the number of dysfunctional heterosexual marriages and the number which end in divorce, sometimes after mere days (especially in the case of some celebrities), it's hard to see how marriage could be cheapened much more than it already is!
The history of the world has shown a trend towards social liberalisation. Sure there have been periods in history when that trend has been reversed. The "Dark Ages" spring to mind as a well known example. The reversals in greater individual freedom seem to have mostly arisen from religious zealotry. The Dark Ages resulted from the Catholic Church imposing its intolerant and joyless philosophy on the world. Have we not learned from this? We either escape from the oppressive influence of the church which is still with us today and, I think, a major cause of objections to this bill, or we admit that we are still in its power, at least subconsciously.
It is also interesting to note that many of the strongest objections come from Christians. I'm not religious myself (as if that wasn't already obvious) but I do know a bit about Christian philosophy and I was under the impression that it highly prized tolerance and understanding. Does the bigoted and often hateful attitude to gay and lesbian rights really reflect this ideal? I don't think so. It's yet another example where most atheists uphold positive values - which many Christians claim as their own - far better than the Christians themselves do.
So I think it's time for people to confess where their objections really come from. If they just dislike a group of people whose sexual habits are different than their own then that's OK but why try to impose your views on others where there is no real effect on you? If their objection is religious then that's OK too, but don't go around telling us how tolerant and understanding your religion is because that's just a lie.
And if you just don't like change then think about it: do you want to undo other social changes from the past? Should we go back to the time when slavery was OK, when there was no democracy, or if there was only certain groups could vote? Social liberalisation is almost always positive, in fact I can't think of an example when it wasn't. You can either accept the inevitability of this or look like the out of touch bigots who objected to the abolition of slavery or the vote for women.
If you want to live in the past and base our laws on religious myths then go and live in a country which is still in the dark ages. Try Iran, I think they have fairly strong laws based on religious bigotry. That should suit you well!
Comment 1 by INRI on 2012-09-03 at 20:53:34:
Needless bigotry? One adjective too many perhaps as it implies that there also exists a needed bigotry. Perhaps we do need people with strong and unreasonale opinions as it reinforces the validity of moderate viewpoints. A kind of reductio ad absurdum.
Whilst I understand that same sex couples would like to validate their arrangement by giving it a name it certainly makes no biological sense. Whilst the debate is superficially about equality it’s actually at attack on the English language. Calling black white does not make it white. The Emperor still has no clothes.
And anyway, as you say, marriage is already so devalued why should gay couples even want to taint their relationship with such a label. Have they really stopped to think about it? The current fashion is rapid serial monogamy, whether defacto or otherwise. If society is really ready for a change surely a kind of serial polygamy would be favourable if people were really being honest.
You could have a sliding scale of 0 to say 3 contemporaneous partners of whatever sex you like. That way all the bases are covered. For example -people could be single and happy, partnered up, partially divorced by a subset of partners and therefor not having to endure a separation alone (the Relationship Property Act would need some tweaking) or fully divorced (and hence happily single again)
Comment 2 by OJB on 2012-09-03 at 22:53:27:
Yes, I'm not sure why I added "needless". Maybe because it's an issue which has no effect on the bigot making the bigotry even more unnecessary than most others. The problem with extreme views is they make less extreme but still unreasonable views seem OK in comparison.
Marriage is a social construct, not a biological one. The whole issue has no real practical relevance, it is purely symbolic (at least that's how I interpret it, I guess you would need to ask a same-sex couple to get their reasons to really know).
I think groups who see themselves as being repressed want the things that they don't have even when those things may not have any real practical value. As I said, it's all symbolic. I don't think serial polygamy is acceptable to society at his point but who knows about the future?
I'm beginning to think you might be engaging in some extreme examples to make a rhetorical point. As I said in the post, we need to look at current issue, not what more extreme cases my result in the future.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE