Short answer – Yes.

When it comes to marriage, the question boils down to this; what “right” does someone with a heterosexual sexual orientation have that someone with a homosexual sexual orientation does not? The immediate response from those in the pro-homosexual camp is that homosexuals can’t get married. This is clearly not the case. What needs to be kept in focus during this debate is that “rights” are accrued to individuals. This is an issue regarding the law as written and concerns “rights”. Does a homosexual person have less “rights” than a heterosexual person in virtue of their sexual desire? Of course not. A heterosexual person can marry an eligible member of the opposite sex of their choice. The same-sex attracted person has the exact same “right”. If they say they don’t want to marry someone of the opposite sex, then my response is that they don’t have to. This is not meant to be cold hearted. It is an answer with regard to legality and “rights”. What is being sought here is a right that nobody has had previously under that government. Clearly not an equality issue. Heterosexual people can’t marry someone of the same sex either. In both cases, each individual is treated exactly the same by the law.

When it comes to individuals, this argument is compelling with regard to rights proper. But what happens when the rights of homosexual couples are brought into the equation? And in this regard they may seem to have a legitimate complaint. The problem is that constitutional “rights” are accrued to individuals, not groups. Governments always treat couples differently than they do individuals. For example, if two people enter into a contract to buy a house, then there are certain laws and obligations that apply to those two people as a couple that don’t apply to other couples who aren’t buying a house. Why? Because their circumstances are unique. And because they are unique, they get unique treatment under the law. The question then becomes; Is the unique treatment under the law justifiable given the unique circumstances? And given our example, those involved in the sale of a house are treated differently to those couples who are not. So the government does not treat you the same, because the circumstances are different.

Homosexuals have the freedom to do all the things that married people do – pledge their love, live together…etc. But the State does not recognise that relationship. It will not licence it, privilege it or control it. Why? Because it has no reason to do so. Governments are free to make provision for homosexual couples, and they do in some cases (civil unions), but civil unions between same-sex couples are not the same as marriages between opposite-sex couples. This is because they function differently in the culture. Long term heterosexual unions, as a rule, as a group and by nature, produce the next generation. Same-sex unions do not. Heterosexual unions are very different to same-sex unions in a way that matters to the State. This is why it is appropriate for the State to treat those unions differently. They are not obligated to declare them exactly the same when they clearly are not the same to the State when it comes to policy purposes.

While this may seem quite reasonable to most people, the homosexual activist will most definitely not be convinced. This is because they don’t really care about the facts of the matter; the issues of law. What they care about is getting public approval of same-sex relationships. That’s what it’s all about. This is not about equality of rights but rather a restructure of culture so that there is complete public and official government approval of homosexuality.

The distinctions offered here are entirely legitimate. Will they make any difference to the homosexual lobby or those sympathetic to them? No. Not one bit. Because what they want is for everybody to say that their lifestyle is the same as everybody else’s and that what they do is just wonderful. I’m not willing to say that. There are many others not willing to say that. The State of California was not willing to say that (Prop 8). Legitimate distinctions have been made with regard to public policy, to which the other side has become so unhinged that they broke things and punished people (in response to the Prop 8 decision).

Anyone who thinks should be able to see the difference. And I don’t know why we should apologize for the obvious. But this is what the politically correct leftist culture is forcing upon us.

What is demanded of us is a rationale. And when a rationale is given, it becomes very clear that they do not want a rationale, they want things their way. They want approval. Which strikes me that homosexual people are the thinnest skinned people on the planet. This then leads us to ask the question, why?

[Paraphrased from Greg Koukl's radio show, Stand to Reason]

An associate of mine, who goes by the pseudonym Noc Nocterro, recently notified me and some others about an article he had published over at UrbanPhilosophy.net called “Love Knows No Gender.” The aim of the article was “a comprehensive analysis on the debate over the moral permissibility of homosexual behaviour,” in which he argues that homosexual activity is morally permissible when it is similar in circumstances to heterosexual activity that is morally permissible. I will leave it to Mathew Hamilton to address the sociological arguments when he returns from his sabbatical. My purpose in this response is to evaluate whether or not the arguments Nocterro presents withstand critical scrutiny. And his basic argument reasons in this way:

Premise 1: In cases where the good-making properties of a behaviour are much greater than the bad-making properties, then that behaviour is prima facie morally permissible.

Premise 2: There is a subset of homosexual sexual relationships where the good-making properties are much greater than the bad-making properties.

Premise 3: There is a subset of homosexual sexual relationships that are prima facie morally permissible.

Premise 4: If there is a prima facie support for the permissibility of some-thing, and there are no good reasons to support its impermissibility, then it should be deemed permissible.

Premise 5: There are no good reasons to suppose this subset of homosexual sexual relationships are impermissible.

Conclusion: This subset of homosexual sexual relationships is permissible.

Read the rest of this entry

So Tavarish published his “last reply” defending failed pro-choice rhetoric (at his blog ironically called The Usual Rhetoric), tackling my recent response to his five so-called counter-arguments against the pro-life stance. Since his arguments have not changed in any way, and my response already confronted them head-on, there is very little for me to add to this dialogue. This will be, then, a very brief summation.

Read the rest of this entry

In what is thus far the most commented article on this site, penned by our newest staff member Adam (see “How to respond to empty pro-choice rhetoric”), one of our regular visitors and a gentleman I enjoy talking with, Tavarish, recently posted five counter-arguments against the pro-life stance advocated by our staff writers. Not wishing for these issues to get archived deeper into the site as the article ages, I am addressing his five counter-arguments in a fresh article. And I am addressing each of them head-on, as he seems to suggest that no one has directly confronted them. For a full and proper context, please see the comments field to Adam’s article.

Read the rest of this entry

Last weekend, our very own Adam brought to our attention an article that was published in Australian’s Sydney Morning Herald on Wednesday 5 May. The author, Ms Nina Funnell, lamented that she believes women still do not have total authority over their own bodies. There is the Pill (which, I might add, recently became 50 years old) but yet there is still no widespread abortion-on-demand in Australia. On the latter, she is of course right: in Australia, only the State of Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory have decriminalized abortion. In all other states and territories, abortion remains illegal in just about all circumstances. As Ms Funnell points out in her article, a 19 year old woman and her boyfriend face a possible jail term of up to seven years for procuring an abortion in the state of Queensland. She doesn’t, however, provide any reason as to why this couple sought an abortion but we are expected to feel sorry for them, regardless.

Read the rest of this entry

According to a recent (Dec 13, 2009) WorldNetDaily article following President Obama’s signing of the expanded “hate crimes” law, Canadian law practioner Gerald Chipeur believes that this legislation will have far worse ramifications for America than the mess it has already caused in Canada.

“I would be shocked if you did not have 100 times more problems with this legislation than we are. Your system is set up to encourage lawyers to do this, and you have so many more people, there is more opportunity for people to take offense,” he said.
…
“There are certain people in society who look to the government for everything, including to help them with their hurt feelings. The government was never made for that,” he said.
Regardless, “there are those who want the government to bless their approach to life, whatever it is, because they have this view. They come to the point they want the government to say … you are right.”
…
Then those interests want the “power of the state to punish anyone who disagrees,” he said. The result is, “doing exactly what we did 500 years ago. They will be going on a witch hunt, [repeating] the Spanish Inquisition.”

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=118710

I’m not exactly sure how comparative Australian legislation is on this issue, although I am aware of the trial of two Pastors in Victoria who were charged under the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 a few years ago simply for teaching their congregation the history of Islam. I’ll stand corrected on the details, but as I understand it no-one was claiming that what they taught was false, simply that they taught it was considered sufficient grounds to arrest them for vilification of another religious group. (Read the preamble on page one of the Act – and the first link below – and you’ll get the gist of it)

Now while the focus of the WorldNetDaily article was more about what certain homosexual activists may do in light of such laws, this is neither here nor there, because as Benjamin Bull alluded to in the WorldNetDaily article, there is nothing tolerant about silencing your opponents point of view, whatever that may be. In the marketplace of ideas, certain views are being censored, and that is exactly what the pseudo-tolerance mongers have in mind.

Religious vilification in Australia
The Intolerance of Tolerance
When Tolerance Is Intolerant

Those of you who think that the issue of gay equality is about fair-mindedness, tolerance and respect for differing views, think again: a Mississippi high school has cancelled its annual student prom shortly after they declined the requests of one of its students – a lesbian – to bring along her girlfriend as her prom date and to wear a tuxedo instead of a dress. The teen, Constance McMillen, has since been encouraged to sue the school. She was also awarded a scholarship check of $30,000 from talk-show host Ellen DeGeneres for her bravery in challenging the School District’s ruling.

But does she have a right to attend her school’s prom on her own terms? And should the school be forced by law to hold the prom in order to cater for McMillen’s requests? Should the school be coerced into making provision for the exception?

Read the rest of this entry

While the French government unveiled its plan to ban the burqa worn by some Muslim women, the reign in Maine leaves much to explain by proposing to allow transgendered people to use the bathroom of their choice. The contrast between the two stories is quite clear: the French move to protect its public while the Mainers move aside to endanger theirs.

Two burqa-wearers walk into a post office …

The stance taken by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, declaring last year that the burqa was not welcome in France, is one taken in the interests of security and as an act against the debasing of women. The burqa (actually, it is techinically the naqib – a head-to-toe covering that leaves no exposed skin bar slits for the eyes) is seen as something that is incongruent with French society. Yet the ban is not intended to marginalize Muslims or to oppress them in any fashion: the ban would see any form (Muslim or otherwise) of veil or other covering of the face in public become illegal, except at specific festivals and cultural events.

France has approximately six million Muslims within its borders, of which less than 2000 Muslim women wear the burqa. That’s a mere 0.03% of the French Muslim population. Ought there really be such a fuss?

Well, to some extent, the French government have recently been given just cause to make such a fuss: a post office was robbed by two burglars just last week. And the burglars were disguised in – yep, you guessed it – burqas.

Read the rest of this entry

One thing that hasn’t been abstaining from the news in the past fortnight is culture’s attitude towards sex. There are two counts in particular that caught my interest: one was State-side, aroused by curious questions from Oprah Winfrey on her namesake’s show; the other was a reactive orgasm from Australia’s media and some members of it’s Federal Government (including the Deputy Prime Minister, no less) towards remarks made by the Opposition Leader.

Both instances concerned the topic of sexual abstinence and, while both were delivered a world apart, both were raised in praise of abstinence. In the US, it was Bristol Palin’s (daughter of 2008 US vice-presidential candidate, Sarah Palin) commitment to abstain from sex until marriage; in Australia, it was Liberal Party leader Tony Abbott’s parental exhortation for his three daughters to remain virginal until marriage.

In either case, neither of the comments made were received with any measure of intellect. Just an incredulity and a penchant for political power play.

Read the rest of this entry