We seem to have been totally underwhelmed by the discussion at the ALP national conference about whether or not to permit people to enter into marriage relationships with a person of the same sex.
This is not a straight forward discussion. There are all sorts of questions that have yet to be answered.
What is it really about? Is it about ensuring the not unimportant right for people to be allowed to enter into committed realtionship, and to not arbitrarily deny to some what we would advocate for others.
Or is it about who might, or might not be allowed to adopt children.
There are for the Churches, theological issues; but these are of little or no concern to the Parliament. The great religious traditions (by and large) have not seriously addressed the question of how they might honour faithful same-sex relationships. All of them more intent on demonising homosexual people.
A couple of things appear clear to me: and they are that in a world where people are fickle and exploitative it surely behoves us all to encourage commitment rather than promiscuity; and that in a compassionate world we should not arbitrarily prevent people in ordering their lives in the way that they see fit.
I may not agree with or approve of anyone's particular choices; but that doesn't give me the right to impose my world view on anyone else. Particularly when my world view doesn't seem to have genmeral acceptance any way, and I have not been able to implement it terribly well myself!
1 comment:
The big problem I see is that there are two clearly different 'types' of marriage - yet are still tightly entangled in the minds of the public.
The marriage as a religious/personal/ideal belief
and marriage as a legal contract.
Now the second, marriage as a legal thing is now so far separate from the marriage ideal that, in my opinion, makes religion completely meaningless when it weighs into the debate
Just bare with me, I didn't explain that very well - with the changes to laws regarding people living together - de facto relationships and what centerlink considers a relationship to be (now including homosexual relationships) completely separates a civil union from a religious one - you can effectively be legally married without being married at all!
if the religious zealots were really concerned about protecting the sanctity of marriage then same sex unions is the LEAST of their concerns !
Civil unions should be open to all, the Church can but out - I don't know how true it is but someone told me that people having 'religious marriages' were declining.
Post a Comment