The right answer to the wrong question?

by Richard on March 28, 2012

(Posted as an experiment with a new Twitter feature, but it points to a useful contribution to the ‘gay marriage’ debate, albeit one I ultimately disagree with)

{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }

1

Bob Gilston 03.31.12 at 3:43 pm

Ned Lunn stated “For me the questions need to be asked not about ‘what’ is being suggested or the supposed ‘why’ but ‘how’ and what’s really going on underneath this discussion. The reason I want to veto this Act is not in anyway because I disagree with the morality of gay couples committing their lives to each other sacrificially but because the Act won’t change anything. If we want equality and loving relationships there needs to be a radical overhaul of the social politic we live in; a Kingdom based not on the individual but in a narrative of selfless love of the cross.”

This suggests that he would have vetoed the Road Safety Act of 1967 because of people’s attitude to drink and driving, or the Tobacco Smoking (Public Places and Workplaces) Bill because of people’s attitude to smoking.

He may not have vetoed those Acts, but in this particular issue of marriage for gay couples, sometimes law is required because of society’s attitude. I know there are good and bad laws. Will this be a bad law? I think not.

2

Ned Lunn 04.01.12 at 3:43 pm

The reason for the Acts you cite was for safety to human life the Same-Sex Marriage Act is not about safety of human life. Again, I’m not saying that this law is good or bad (I can see the immense benefits of it) what I am suggesting is that this law is not solving anything nor is holding off the passing of such law for a deeper conversation about the nature of family in a changing culture going to lead to death. Again, I’m not saying that the passing of this law should be held off indefinitely but at some point we need, as a society, to stop and admit we have no common authority and do cannot collate together the people within the politic. This is a massive issue! Society only functions when there is a shared authority. The Human Rights Bill is being flaunted as such an authority but we have issues with using that Bill in Britain, a liberal democracy who are discovering the cost of over commercialisation and individualisation. The crumbling of communities and the family unit are being shown by researchers and any person with eyes as sources of low sense of well being, increase in fear and sense of isolation and this leads to broken, hurt people with no sense of stability or security.

Is this a good or bad law? It’s the wrong question and the wrong priority. If we want equality we need to agree upon the measure by which we are deemed equal which we don’t have.

3

Bob Gilston 04.05.12 at 9:34 pm

Ned – I quoted two Acts of Parliament as examples. There are many which do not relate to the safety of human life. I have a beef about a number of things in the Human Rights Bill but accept there is merit in the Equality Act 2010.

“If we want equality we need to agree upon the measure by which we are deemed equal which we don’t have“. The measure surely is whether a man is treated as equally as a woman, an able bodied person is treated as equally as a disabled body person, a person with a religious faith is treated as equally as a person with no faith, etc, etc. So why not a same sex marriage treated as equally as a male/female marriage? Is it the case that you don’t accept the two marriages as equal? If so, then that will be your argument against the measure being used. The question we all have to ask ourselves is whether we share that view.

Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>