Final comments down the home straight
Many people, particularly those of you who read this blog every day, will know that I opposed the Civil Union Bill, and gave provisional support to the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill for a range of reasons. However I have also opposed some of the methods and strategies of the vocal opponents as much has I have opposed the utter dishonesty of MP David Benson Pope and some of the gay lobby.
Both sides are as bad as each other: Gay Express with its "ugly faces of homophobia" cover, the campaign against civil unions running a campaign which was more of a campaign about it's hatred and aversion of homosexualitythan anything else. I was disappointed with David Benson Pope's dishonesty and his attitude to those who did not agree with him. Yes, Pete Coleman, if you are still reading my blog, he is a hypocrite-the biggest hypocrite of the whole debate. Betcha he WON'T get a civil union.
I was appalled at Human Rights (ha!) panelist Jacquie Grant's hate-filled e-mail to the civil union bill opponents, and Georgina Beyer's attitude to the Destiny marchers saying, "your intolerance is intolerable". Both these people are clearly bigots. There, I've said it - bigots. Intolerant Christophobic bigots, at that. I`m most happy to explain why by email.
Generally speaking, I am of the opinion that MP's for the bill were more hostile to opponents than the other way around.
I was not impressed with the "love doesn’t discriminate - neither should the law" slogan from the campaign for civil unions. Love does discriminate and so does the law. It will continue to do so irrespective of tomorrow's vote. I was not impressed with the Destiny march and some of the comments I received when talking to Destiny leaders. Brian Tamaki is clearly homophobic - that is, he has an aversion to homosexuality which permeates his thinking. Don`t lump the rest of the church in with him - or with Margaret Mayman for that matter. Don’t lunp all gay people in with Jacquie Grant and Geogina Beyer, either. Most gay people do not have an aversion to christianity or anything against what they believe in.
I was not impressed with the Society for the Promotion of Community Standards harping on about Tim Barnett being a "practicing , experienced homosexual" - but they don’t call Don Brash a practising experienced heterosexual. This says more about an attitude to homosexuality than civil unions.
I was also not impressed by the undemocratic process of the bill and the fact that Labour MPs - especially the list MPs - were told not to vote against the bill, even though it was supposed to be a conscience vote.
I have gay workmates and gay friends. I have transgender friends. I have straight friends and I have Christian friends. Many are not affected by the civil union bill as most of the gay friends I have do not have a partner. I believe the bill will pass 63-56. If I get invited to a civil union ceremony, I will be most honoured. I`d even bring my 12"s and DJ if I`m asked.
This bill has brought out bad elements of people on both sides of the debate. However I would mention two people who did not enter into the public argy-bargy of back-stabbing. One was Labour MP Tim Barnett, the other Greg Fleming , boss of the Maxim Institute. Tim was totally supportive of the bill and Greg and his Institute totally opposed. The attacks on Tim over the years, primarily by Christians, were totally unwarranted, as was the abuse dished out to Maxim Institute by supporters of the bill. Both did not react with abuse. They must have been tempted to. Apart from Tim Barnett's most recent speech attacking extremist submissions, which will never be reflective of public opinion, they have my respect.
God loves gay people, and its about time some of his followers - and opponents - showed some of that love to all people. I'm happy for his followers to oppose bills such as the Civil Union Bill, but it would have been better sticking to the issues of the bill and not to the merits or otherwise of homosexuality, as was the tendency.
And as for the directive for the Catholic church for parishoners not to vote for Labour or Greens at the next election, and the Civil Union Bill Supporters Society advising people not to vote for those who oppose this bill, I'm just so happy I`m not Catholic and gay.
It was fun debating and discussing the issues and observing the abusive behaviour on both sides. Tomorrow it will be over and we can move on.
Until next year.
6 comments:
Now, if they'd just boost the legal age for alcohol consumption back up to twenty, my joy would be complete...
Craig
Well written Dave. The world will go on after today and admittedly some people will be happier and some people will be sadder. It seems to me, if you believe the MPs speeches, submissions to the Bill, and the media, that we live in a very polarised world today. If that is true, then at least we all know where everyone stands, rather than living in some sort of wishy-washy no-man's land where no-body expresses an opinion. Whether you think New Zealand is getting better or worse, at least we can all agree that we have the freedom to say what we think, without fear of reprisal.
On the topic of fear: Brian Tamaki may well be homophobic, but I disagree with how you stated that. Homophobic means a fear of homosexuality and/or the person (depending on how you see things). The last time I checked aversion is different to fear. I have to say that I have an aversion to the act of homosexual sex - just ask me to try it and you'll find me running a mile. I suspect the same could be said of homosexuals. BUT that doesn't mean I'm homophobic, or have a fear of homosexual people, or homosexual sex.
Check out the dictionary definition of fear:
A feeling of agitation and anxiety caused by the presence or imminence of danger.
A state or condition marked by this feeling: e.g. living in fear.
A feeling of disquiet or apprehension: e.g. a fear of looking foolish.
Extreme reverence or awe, as toward a supreme power.
A reason for dread or apprehension: e.g. Being alone is my greatest fear.
Check out the dictionary definition of aversion:
A fixed, intense dislike; repugnance: e.g. formed an aversion to crowds.
The cause or object of such a feeling.
The avoidance of a thing, situation, or behavior because it has been associated with an unpleasant or painful stimulus.
Matthew.
It was a shame that the most extreme points of view got the most airtime. Yes it made for good entertainment, but the broadcast media failed to provide a decent presentation of the pros and cons, but opted for a catchy soundbite and an attention-grabbing pronouncement from one or other radical fringe.
No evidence was supplied that this law will ultimately be good for society. The main arguments I heard for CUB were "gay rights", removal of "oppression", and that NZ should "enter the 21st century".
If this is the best justification that progressives have for discarding the wisdom of the ages, they can stick it where the sun don't shine. They have failed to represent the electorate, which is overwhelmingly opposed to this ideological and unnecessary measure.
Basically the legislation is a further violation of God's plan for humanity and will incur a penalty. Some notional good may come from it, and advocates may have motives they consider to be "good", but since it is a clear rebellion aginst the Creator's intention it will not bear truly good fruit. It is born from the rebellion and original sin in every man's heart. It is a repeat of the first sin, eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, in an attempt to be like God. Unfortunately these arguments, obvious to Christians who read their Bibles, carry little weight in our selfish, humanist, secularism-soaked society. Progressives replace God with the State and his eternal laws with man's earthbound and blinkered legislation.
Time to pray for NZ.
One must remember God is in control Rev 19v6
The darkness must get darker so that the light can be brighter.
that the fullness of the gentiles can happen and then the end.
Jesus is coming.
looking busy won't cut the mustard.
your either His or not.
aversion is a great word.
tolerance and diversity are now barstadised as words in the greater society.
I was never a homophobe even Before Christ and certainly not now I am His.
I always thought sex with a man or sexual love with one was not natural.
That hasn't changed, what has, is being fearful of what others think of me on the subject.
Gay friends or not, so called Homosexual love goes against design and the human form, no amount of legal approval will change that for me.
I love some men but that is friendship love with not sexual attachments at all.
That's natural.
The man who wants to be known as Georgina Beyer still has male DNA & no change in birth certificate like in the UK will ever change that.
The lines are parallel not divergent and never will, be regardless of law or mores changes in society.
Best
Mike
In general I agree with your blog on the Civil Union debate. One thing I cant agree with though is where you say:
"God loves gay people, and its about time some of his followers..."
I dont claim to speak for God, but his book does. Anyone taking even a cursory glance at the Bible can see that its pretty clear on this issue. He does NOT love gay people. This is a deception and an attempt to rewrite scripture. Four your information there are also many other things condoned or at least tolerated in modern society that he does NOT like either. Turning him into an all-ecompassing, all accepting deity may suit current society, but it's dishonest and disingenuous.
Hence I think a lot of the polarisation. A lot of Bible reading Christians know this is the case. It doesnt make them Homophobic (a widely abused term) but it may make them opposed to homosexuality. There is a difference.
I know this is not what the Bill was about but since you mention it...
Paul G
Paul
You have mistaken or misquoted scripture, which I'm not sure.
God does love people who choose homosexual behaviour.
it is their deliberate choice he doesn't love as it is rebellion to Him.
It clearly says that He is a liar (from His word) and attacks His character.
The word says He has given them up to their passions/choices.
That doesn't change the fact that He can't wait for them to get up in the morning to be with them.
even if he turns His face from them.
Whilst God is the judge the maker of all things the creator etc etc He also adores us and clearly made the universe and the time space contineum for us to inhabit.
If we're honest and look at some of our choices in a day, do they really please Him?
Are we so focussed on Him throughout the day.
Do we long to walk in the garden with God as Adam did at the close of day/afternoon?
But you are correct in that the word says quite clearly and in theme as well as actual word it self, keep sharing that with all and sundry that you have relationship with.
This clearly destroys all that the liberal thoelogians might state.
Gen 2.24 says it clearly with no arguement.
"a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife and they shall become one flesh"
then in v25 "and they were naked and unashamed"
God shows the type of relationship this is supposed to be in all the realms.
the picture of Jesus and His bride is clearly pointed to here.
and lastly ourselves between us as brothers and sisters, no barriers.
honestly I've come to think that Lloyd Geering and others are apostate.
Knowing the word now and knowing that homosexual/fornication/adultery behaviour choices lead to death before God.
Anyone who claims to be a brother or sister and votes for it or encourages it in any way essentially is calling God a liar.
that's serious stuff even a salvation issue.
for the word says "if you love me you'll obey me".
Can you see Jesus encouraging anyone in that behaviour knowing He will have to turn them away on the last day.
that could include voting for people that you know stand for it and will vote for it.
best
Mike
Post a Comment