Tuesday, 24 August 2010

And the Greens won...

After a short break to ponder the horrors of the bad behaviour on all sides (most especially including some claiming to be campaigning in support of catholic values) this election brought out, I'm back...

And don't we live interesting times.  There is no clear outcome from the Australian Federal election, with counting in some key seats running very close and unlikely to be finalized for some weeks.

At the moment, the most likely scenario seems to be a worst case one: a Labor minority Government with the support of a Green Independent and one or more of the independents in the Lower House and the Greens holding the balance of power in the Senate.  That's worst case in my view because it could force Labor to make concessions in areas the Greens care about.

Indeed, whatever the outcome, we should be starting to argue the case now in a much more serious way on gay marriage, because it seems inevitable that there will be a serious push on this subject from the Greens in the coming Parliament.

1 comment:

wotstheanswer said...

Terra

I my view a significant reason for support on this issue is the lack of an effective opposition that’s given air time and can be rational.

There needs to be a game changer:

1. many, if not most, homosexuals are asking for same-sex "marriage" because they feel the indignity of discrimination and injustice on the basis of sexual “identity”. Objectively, we have see such discrimination. But we need to address the root-cause, which actually sees homosexuals as different for this reason. We need to see homosexuals as the same because of the humanity. Paradoxically, this is what most homosexuals would say too.

2. we then need to ensure that it is that basic humanity (from a Catholic viewpoint their and each of us being made in the image of God) as the source of their (and everyone elses's) dignity. Human dignity is not dependent and should not be reduced to a person’s their sexual identity, race, colour, religion, status, married or otherwise, income or any other “status”. This is reductive, narrow and limiting.

3. having neutralised this, we recognise the basis of The Greens proposal is actually insufficiently radical. We need a radical re-acceptance the we are equal and have dignity in our common humanity, not in the difference of sexuality.

4. therefore, we ask how do the Greens formulate their policy? What philosophical basis inform them to define marriage as “the union of two one persons"? Why is it limited so? What do the Greens not admit other relationships (equally based on life choice or genetic disposition or biology) to be called marriage too? If the Greens are drawing lines, they are discriminating and discriminatory. Where does this discrimination come from?

5. To highlight this logically inconsistency, perhaps opposition members would need to move amendments to the bill that extend the definition of marriage numerically and "specially": so encompass the union between one or more species. This would make concrete the ideology behind the Greens policy and its lack of rationality and discriminatory character.

There needs to be a game changer

WTA