MarkJessum24December

return to republican homepage

Mark Jessum's post of 24 December. Although occasionally combative, Mark is an honest adversary who has made some good points, and shown a welcome willingness to engage in dialogue.

Hi, I decided to just reply to your dialogue on Cain and Abel. I have added in line breaks to make it clearer. I have in some places split the dialogue into two as your answer was about two diferent things and I thought it made it easier if I gave two seperate answers. I have finished with some simple questions and statements in order to slightly extend the dialogue. I am happy not to have debate what the story of Cain and Abel is about.

----------------------------------

MJ: The bible and marriage equality: The story of Cain and Abel is not very relevant to the gay marriage debate

GF: The Cain and Abel story relates to the relationship between church and state, which is central to the debate over the incorporation of homosexuality into the institution of marriage. Therefore it is relevant. Whether it is "very relevant" is for the individual to judge.

MJ: If it is an interpretation then it is open to debate. I think easier to just get to the point and talk about the seperation of church and state? Avoid wasting time arguing over different interpretations of the story and just address the core issue. Seperation of Church and State doesn't need a metaphorical introduction.

----------------

MJ: and this particular interpretation of the story (as a metaphor for the relationship between the state and religion) is convoluted and a hindrance to understanding the core issues.

GF: "this particular interpretation" is the orthodox interpretation, and there is no other more meaningful interpretation of which I am aware. Biblical scriptures may be noted or ignored, but neither way do they hinder understanding. Another's different point of view is never an obstruction to one's own understanding.

MJ: Already we are wasted time debating your particular interpretation. Does it illuminate the issue at hand? Not really. If it is so orthodox then you should be able to cite all the places where this interpretation is used? To me this just side tracks the main debate.

----------------------

MJ: Far better to just get straight to the point. Here is my response to your claims:
There is a claim that "The secular press has depicted Christians opposed to this move as [racist?] bigots". Firstly, Some commentators have depicted some opponents as bigots. This is because some opponents are bigots. Are all opponents bigots? No clearly not.

GF: The press (APN and News Media) has actually depicted all opponents as bigots, through the use of classic propaganda techniques adopted from the Third Reich. They have not depicted specific individuals as bigots - which would be justifiable if it was true and actionable if it was not - but both the New Zealand print media empires have depicted opponents of homosexual marriage as bigots and paedophiles in a general sense.

MJ: You need to cite these examples. This is what the web is for - specific links and citations. Please link to these comments and give examples. I stand by my original comment until I see fiurther examples. I 'd prefer less generalisations and more specific examples. Also there is a difference between discussing the quality of the debate and actually debating the core points. Two seperate but related issues.

-------------------

MJ: A lot of antagonism to marriage equality has however come from people who still see homosexuality as unnatural and/or morally wrong and who refuse to budge from this view. Naturally these people become the focus for gay marriage proponents who see them as them as being at the core of entrenched gay prejudice and discrimination. Unfortunately some churches still insist that homosexuality is wrong and so they are the target of criticism for encouraging discrimination and prejudice.

GF: You would expect opposition from people who see homosexual acts as morally wrong. Those people can only be called prejudiced if they have come to a judgement without considering all the relevant facts and arguments available to them. In every other case, you might take issue with their judgement, but you cannot call them prejudiced. People can also be expected to discriminate against those who they believe to be a bad influence, and whose behaviours they believe to be wrong. Having said that, they should discriminate with judgement, wisdom, compassion and humility. My personal view is that the practice of homosexuality is socially destructive, and that is a view to which I will hold until persuaded otherwise. Criticism of that point of view is acceptable. Libel, slander, and black propaganda are not.
"People who still see homosexuality as unnatural and/or morally wrong" are at the crux of the problem for the homosexuals, who want to be accepted as people, and want homosexual acts to be accepted as "natural" and "good". The first desire is unexceptionable. The second is quite unrealistic, and even though homosexual marriage will provide state sanctification of homosexual acts, it will fall short of the absolute sense of social approbation sought by homosexuals.

MJ: Firstly you are conflating two different definitions of discrimination. Discrimination (making specific choices in some matter) and discrimination (treating the individual based on a generalisation of the group) are two different things. This is one reason why you seem to think your arguments are sound (when in fact that are fallacious) See this definition of discrimination Secondly I would like to read some specific examples of how "the practice of homosexuality is socially destructive". I argue, like most people, that homosexuality is very natural and acceptable behaviour. The state already allows all homosexual sexual acts. The gay marriage debate is just tidying up the last remaining bits of discriminatory legislation. No one is claiming it will end discrimination but it will help enlarge social approbation by increasing the legal protection of gay people.

-----------------------------

MJ: You claim that "The secular press has depicted Christians opposed to this move as child molesters. Really? You'll need to give an example. I don't recall anyone being labeled a child molester let alone claiming all christians who are opposed are child molesters. This seems a distortion of your oppositions' argument.

GF: Yes, really, and no, it is not a distortion of the propaganda campaign in favour of homosexual marriage. One example is the cartoon in the Dominion Star Times which depicted a Catholic priest (obviously intended to be representative of the Catholic church as a whole) denouncing homosexual marriage while concealing a bunch of small children beneath his clerical robes. Another is the cartoon in the New Zealand Herald which depicted a Christian pastor as a malevolent opponent of Rosa Park's campaign for civil rights for black people in the United States.

MJ: So, two cartoonists have identified moments of Church hypocrisy in order to comment on that. Not quite the same as 'the secular media'. Again your comments regarding this is about the wider debate and not on the actual issues. (Two seperate but related issues) The Catholic church is an easy target due to the large amount of paedophiles it has sheltered. In essence what they are saying is that paedophilia is socially destructive. Homosexuality is not. The Catholic church is an easy target as it has undermined its moral authority by repeatedly taking dubious moral positions (examples being child abuse, rape, women's rights, the jewish holocaust etc). The other cartoon is really just pointing out that equality on the basis of sexuality is just as important as equality on the basis of race/ethnicity.Both rely on generalisations and like all generalisations are often unfair. To me this is about the quality of the debate rather than the core issues. I stand by my claim that some opponents of gay marriage are bigots who can't accept that fact that bi-sexuality and homosexuality are a natural part of human diversity.

------------------

MJ: Clearly, Christianity is not the same as religion so the two terms should not be confused. Some religious groups and some christians actually support gay marriage so this is not an attack on Christianity or religion per se. I think its fair to say though that this change challenges those Christians who think their religion is the only valid religion and it challenges any christian who thinks that their church has the right to define what marriage is or isn't.

GF: Many proponents of homosexual marriage do see this as an opportunity to "have a go" at religion. The fact that some representatives of the churches are prepared to go along with them does not change what they feel in their own hearts - that religion is getting its come-uppance.

MJ: 'Some' proponents rather than 'many' I would say. I prefer to be specific when talking about 'religion' (incorporating all religions) the churches (implying Judeo-Christian-Islamic denominations) and Christianity (all denominations) and specific churches ie: Catholic Church. Its important not to make generalisations and to be precise with the language.

GF: Marriage has been defined from time immemorial. It is the state which is taking upon itself to change the fundamental meaning of words, in this case the word "marriage". That is wrong, it is arrogant, and it sets a dangerous precedent.

MJ: Yes the state is redefining the legal definition of marriage so that it does not exclude gay people. Clarifying legal terms is not without precedent given that all statutes include definitions of key terms. It is not arrogant for the state to define marriage. That is what it is for. The state is now clarifying its definition of marriage in a way that does not exclude people according to sexual preference so that they are in accordance with the Bill of Rights. Also when you say time immemorial what do you mean? Just because in the past it has been defined differently doesn't mean it cannot change. Other states have already redefined marriage to include gay marriage. "The times [immemorial] they are a changing..... "

--------------------- -----------

MJ: This debate is about the relationship betwen church and state. It is part of an assertion that the state should be neutral in matters of religion and spiritual belief. Marriage should therefore be defined by statute and the state should remain neutral with regard to sexuality or gender.

GF: When the state offends the sensibilities of religious believers it cannot claim to be neutral in matters of religion, even if it believes that it has right and justice on its side. In this case, the state is violating the fundamental tenets of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and many other religious traditions by taking up and promoting the homosexual cause. It is taking the side of those within the churches who endorse homosexuality against those who remain vehemently opposed to the practice. It is disingenuous for the homosexuals to argue otherwise. They know that the state is not neutral, but is their friend and ally in this enterprise.

MJ: Within each of the three main monotheistic religions (and the fourth mormonism) there are sects and denominations that are happy to condone homsexuality. So clearly the churches are not all in agreement amongst themselves. The state is neutral with respect to what different Christians believe. The State is not 'promoting' the homosexual cause except to say it will no longer participate in discrimination against homosexuals (in the same way it promotes non-discrimination and seeks to protect minority interests) . It is simply refusing to promote heterosexuality over and above homosexuality and vice versa. Citizens are free to practice which ever suits them. Gay, straight or bisexual. It is up the the individual to decide what makes them feel fulfilled and producetive members of scoeity. I sense that what annoys you is that public opinion is in favour of gay marriage by roughly two to one. The same ratio as parliament.

----------------------------

MJ: The state will sanction any two adults who are in a committed relationship (and who are of legal age etc) and who wish to have that legally recognised . The state does not mind what the religion is of the people getting married. All religions are entitled to marry people ( so long as the person performing the marrige ceremony is recognised as legally allowed to perform a marriage). The aim of the legislation is that the state will no longer care what the gender is of the married people and will be more interested in ensuring that the marriage is 'real' (ie not a fraud perpetrated toget a student allowance or to qualify for a change in immigration status).

GF: The state is not so impartial. It will continue to discriminate against Muslim and old-order Mormon polygamists.There has been a fundamental change in the attitude of the state towards homosexuality, but it goes deeper than simply "not caring" The state stopped caring about homosexual practices in 1986 when homosexual acts were decriminalised. It has moved from "not caring" about homosexuality to actively promoting those practices.

MJ: Firstly, Polygyny is a different issue. Polyamorous marriage is a different issue. I am at a loss to understand why opponents of gay marriage can't see that. The issue is about two people. If people who want the state to recognise group relationships want the law changed then they will need to gather up two thirds majority support on that issue. That the state might still be discriminating does not negate the fact that it will be discriminating less once it recognises gay marriage. This is pretty simple logic so please don't go repeating this argument. It's flawed (and repeating it is tedious). Secondly, the state actively promotes homosexuality? What are you referring to here? Is it promoting it over and above heterosexuality? Is it letting young people know (in light of decades of oppression) that it is okay to be either gay or straight.

GF: How will the state judge whether a homosexual relationship is "real" and not "fraudulent"? Historically, the way of determining whether a marriage is genuine is to obtain evidence that sexual intercourse has taken place. The comparable test of a "genuine" homosexual marriage would be whether sodomy or some other specifically homosexual act - something more than hugging, or kissing - has taken place. Emotional commitment will not cut the mustard. So if the state is to take its obligations seriously it will once again be involved in determining whether homosexual acts have taken place, with the difference that this time the state will be demanding that people give proof of having engaged in those acts, rather than demanding that they refute allegations of homosexuality.

MJ: You are getting sidetracked. My main point is that the state must remain neutral with regard to gender and religious belief. The gender of the two consenting adults are not be important and the metaphysical beliefs they attach to 'marriage' is not be important. Did the New Zealand state once obtain evidence that sexual imtercourse had taken place? The answer is not that relevant. What is relevant, to the state, is not that two people are having sex at all. The state no longer defines marriage by the amount or type of sex a couple have. Judging a 'legitimate relationship' (for immigration or benefit purposes where a legal right results) it takes into account several factors the length of the relationship, cohabitation, physical intimacy, sexual relationship, exclusivity, financial interdependence etc. No one thing however defines a marriage. Once married however a person's partner has a legal right over their partner. They are the next of kin (unless otherwise defined) they inherit, they decide what happens to them after they die etc.

-------------------

MJ: Some people see marriage as a spiritual thing ordained by their gods but others do not.

GF: Marriage has been a religious institution for millennia. Secularists may choose civil union, or a non-religious marriage.

MJ: Human pair-bonding pre-dates religion. It's an animal thing. In the past organised religions have sort exclusive control over that aspect of human relationship and then defined it in a way that privileged heterosexuals over homosexuals and men over women. Similarly one particular religion or church sort to control the state and assert its beliefs over others. In diverse societies this has just caused inequalities and unnecessary hierarchies so now wthe aim is to avoid allowing one group to dominate. Some gay couples will choose non-religious marriage and just get married in a secular ceremony. Having civil unions (for both gay and straight people) and marriage (only for straight people) is duplicate legislation. Easier to just call it marriage.

------------------------

MJ: The state does not care what a couple's spiritual beliefs are.

GF: That is not strictly true. The New Zealand state is based on the British model, in which there is a tacit understanding between church and state, rather than an absolute separation. Hence the Queen is both Head of State and Head of the Church and Defender of the Faith, and marriage is administered by the state in accordance with the tenets of the church (to this point in time).

MJ: Yes because the Anglican church and Christian Churches in general have managed to dominate the state up until now. As New Zealand moves toward a more secular view this will change. My main point is not about the established churches however. It is about metaphysical beliefs. Some couples see marriage as a 'spiritual' thing. Others have no belief in a spiritual realm. The state takes no view on the metaphysical implications of marriage. To argue that the church has defined marriage or that god or religion defines marriage is to negate the fact that not everyone believes this. A religion or denomination cannot claim a monopoly on defining marriage. In essence pair-bonding (often for life) is an animal trait that humans exhibit. Humans are diverse. Some get married once. Some will get married six times. Some think they are soul mates. Some don't. Each to their own.

----------------

MJ: Marriage equality asserts that no particular spiritual grouping should be able to define what marriage is or isn't.

GF: Marriage is already defined, as it has been for millennia. Neither the state, nor any "particular spiritual grouping", nor militant homosexuals should be allowed to redefine it.

MJ: So once defined by one particular religious history then no one is allowed to redefine it? Marriage is where a man takes possession of a woman and owns her and is allowed to rape her? I think that particular definition has changedhgasn't it. Also what is a militant homosexual? Is this debate driven by 'militant homosexuals'

----------------

MJ: You claim that "Few couples have chosen to join in civil union". About 300 couples a year have entered into a civil union including some heterosecual couples (who did not want to be part of 'marriage' if it excluded gay people). The number of people making use of the legislation is not important. It is there primarily to give legal recognition to same sex relationships.

GF: Over the last three years homosexual civil unions have been running at a rate of just under 100 per year, compared with over 20,000 marriages. If homosexuals constitute no more than 1% of the population, then the number of homosexual civil unions would be in proportion to heterosexual marriages. But if, as some suggest, homosexuals constitute up to 4% of the population, then the number choosing to commitment through civil union would be disproportionately low and would suggest that homosexuals do not really seek exclusive committed relationships akin to marriage. Their real aim, as Mark has conceded, is to have their sexual practices sanctified by the state, and that object underlies the campaigns for both civil union and homosexual marriage. That is the significance of the low takeup of civil unions by homosexual couples.

MJ: You'll need to link to where you got your information from. According to the Department of Statistics in the six years ended 2011 there were was an average of 370 a year. 296 gay of which were gay civil unions. In the last three years the average is 362 (283 of which were gay). However as I said the actual number is not that important. You are also you are forgetting that the majority of young people who live together are in de facto relationships - some estimates as much as 75%. Not everyone seeks the state's approval to live together and I would imagine a lot of gay people fall into this group. Gay marriage is not about having the state sanction gay sexual practices. It already sanctions them. Gay marriage is about making sure that those gay people who choose to get married have the same rights and protections as other couples irrespective of how many choose to do it.

----------------------

MJ: The legislation was aimed at giving legal protection to same sex relationships and at allowing the public to get used to the idea of gay marriage. I don't think that is any revelation or anything to get worked up about. People are now used to the idea of gay marriage. They are accepting of it and two thirds of voters now support it. So its time to move on to just unifying the legislation and calling a civil union what it is - it is a marriage.

GF: Parliamentarians never told the public that civil union was "aimed at.... allowing the public to get used to the idea of gay marriage". On the contrary, they said that civil union was an alternative to marriage and that there would be no interference with the institution of marriage. Parliament and its homosexual caucus have deceived the public - and not for the first time..

MJ: Different parliamentarians said different things. Civil unions have allowed people who were previously opposed to feel more comfortable and to let go of some of their prejudices and fears about gay relationships. Two thirds of people now support gay marraige. This contradicts your claim that parliament is out of step with the majority of New Zealanders. Do you dispute the level of public support for gay marriage? A May 2012 One News/ Colmar Brunton found that 63 % of New Zealanders think same-sex couples should be able to marry, while 31 % were opposed.
--------------

MJ: I ask you these questions? Are you a Christian and are your views on homosexuality shaped by your spiritual beliefs? Is homosexuality or marriage an an assault upon the religion of God? Is Hindiusm the religion of God?

GF: Different religious tendencies differ on the question of what it is to be Christian, but in this context it does not matter whether I am a Christian or Mark is a homosexual. You don't need to be able put a label on someone in order to address their arguments. Views on homosexuality may be shaped by one's spiritual beliefs, upbringing, experiences in life, or by what one is told through the mass media. These may be interesting questions, but views on homosexual marriage must be based on reason, regardless of religious affiliation or spiritual or ideological influences.

MJ: I agree. Views on homosexuality are always shaped by wider ideological beliefs. If however someone's argument is based on certain unstated assumptions it is helpful to make those assumptions more evident so as to sort out where their arguments come from (Hence my use of the term 'pair-bonding'). You talked about 'an assault on the religion of God'? What is the religion of God?

--------------------------------

MJ: Should one religion or one church be able to define what the spiritual meaning of pair-bonding is ? Or should each couple be free to decide for themselves whether their relationship has a metaphysical implication?

GF: No religion, and no militant homosexual political grouping should be able to redefine the institution of marriage, if that is what you mean by "pair-bonding". Couples can decide the nature of their own relationship, but they should not expect others to endorse their choices when they depart from accepted social norms.

MJ: Again your reference to a 'militant homosexual grouping' makes me wonder what you mean by this? I would say that Marriage is not an institution any more than a funerals are. Marriage is the legal-social recognition of pair-bonding and the rights and obligations it confers on the two people involved (and, yes, possibly more than two). The recognition is marked by some sort of a ceremony. Homosexuality is a social norm. It never used to be an accepted social norm but by and large it now is. Either way it has always been a social norm whether it was accepted or not. Being different or in a minority is no reason to take away a person's rights.

-------------------------------

MJ: You claim you are a radical but to my mind your arguments are inherently conservative. What is wrong with homosexuality? How does a certain percentage of relationships not being heterosexual damage society? How will heterosexual marriages be hurt by homosexual marriages? How will gay marriage lead to an increase in discrimination against gay people? How is your opposition to gay equality a radical stance? I would think more reactionary than radical? I think that reducing state discrimination against gay people will support gay people who choose to marry and in general support gay people by making it clear that no one, not even the state, is allowed to discriminate against them. It will give better legal protection to gay couples, streamline the marriage/civil union laws and allow gay couples to adopt children if they want to (and are otherwise eligible to do so). These are all good things as far as I can see.

Reply by Geoff Fischer

GF: As Mark observes, the cartoons (one showing a representative Catholic priest as a paedophile, the other showing a representative Christian pastor as a racist bigot) are about the "quality of the debate" and not the "core issues". However, whether a debate is free, fair and open does matter in terms of the effect upon immediate political outcomes. I have not attempted to comprehensively survey the media, but I have noted two cartoons which deliberately associate opponents of homosexual marriage with racism, bigotry, and paedophilia. One is from the New Zealand Herald, published by APN, the other by the Dominion Post published by Fairfax Media. In other words the two leading daily newspapers, published by the media empires which exercise an effective duopoly over newspaper publishing in New Zealand. They are, I suggest, representative of the general tenor of the two media networks and the secular media in general. Mark seeks to justify the cartoons, while saying that they are not the real issue. He says that the Catholic church has been associated with paedophilia and hypocrisy. So have homosexuals, from the Emperor Nero to Oscar Wilde and into our own century. However if a cartoon was published showing homosexual marriage advocates as the Emperor Nero marrying a slave boy he had previously subjected to genital mutilation, I am sure that Mark would cry foul, as he should. On the other side of the debate the secular media have portrayed selected older homosexual "poster boy" couples as paragons of fidelity (which their readers are obliged to take on trust), and reproduce images of younger homosexual couples entering into marriage surrounded by an aura of saintliness. The secular press has not been free, fair or open in this debate. On the contrary, it has behaved disgracefully.

GF: This would not be the first time that politicians have claimed to be merely "clarifying" legislation when they are fundamentally altering it. It is disingenuous to call this bill a "clarification" of the Marriage Act. The existing act is perfectly clear and the new legislation will be totally different. Mark then says ".. to define marriage... is what it (the state) is for". The state has never defined marriage in the past, so it is hard to see how that can be its natural and proper role. Perhaps Mark is implying is that the state exists to legislate as it sees fit, and cannot be accused of arrogance because it is the sovereign power. I maintain that states are like individuals in that they can over-reach themselves, become arrogant, violate the principle of the rule of law and treat non-state institutions with unjustified contempt.

MJ: Judging a 'legitimate relationship' (for immigration or benefit purposes where a legal right results) it takes into account several factors the length of the relationship, cohabitation, physical intimacy, sexual relationship, exclusivity, financial interdependence etc. No one thing however defines a marriage.

GF: Sexual intercourse is the one necessary condition of a relationship in the nature of marriage for immigration or benefit purposes. The allegation that a beneficiary of is in an undeclared relationship in the nature of marriage would be completely and absolutely refuted if the beneficiary was able to show that sexual intercourse had not take place between the pair. It would not matter if they had cohabited for decades and were financially interdependent etc. Their relationship would be deemed to be a brother/sister, parent/child, or best friend relationship as the case may be, and not a defacto marriage. The converse would apply in the case of an application for permanent residence. The simple fact is, and remains, that marriage is an institution designed for one purpose: to govern sexual relations. That has not changed, and will not change.

GF: Everyone can see that polygyny and polyamory are different issues to monogamous homosexual and lesbian marriage. But they throw into question the bonafides of the "marriage equality" movement which actually or ostensibly stands for "marriage equality" for monogamous homosexuals and lesbians only. Polygamous heterosexuals wanting "marriage equality" are told they must shift for themselves. This shows either that the "marriage equality" movement exists to advance the interests of monogamous homosexuals and lesbians rather than to promote any general principle of "marriage equality", or, alternatively, that it has a hidden agenda by which polyamory will be the next demand to be made in the name of "marriage equality".

MJ: Secondly, the state actively promotes homosexuality? What are you referring to here? Is it promoting it over and above heterosexuality? Is it letting young people know (in light of decades of oppression) that it is okay to be either gay or straight.

GF: Homosexual marriage promotes homosexuality in the same way that normal marriage promotes heterosexual union. Which is as Mark would think it should be. The state is not promoting homosexuality over and above heterosexuality, but it is promoting homosexuality over and above asexual relationships. For example the state will not grant residence to the homosexual partner of a New Zealand citizen, but will not grant the same privilege to a good friend, soul mate, close companion, confidante or fellow believer. Since the state is attaching privileges to homosexual relationships, there is really no denying that it is promoting homosexuality

GF: I don't believe that the churches have dominated the New Zealand state at any time in the past 170 years and their present influence is probably an all-time low. That may not be so good for the future of the state. No religion or denomination has had a "monopoly on defining marriage". There has been a consensus to which the state and every major Christian denomination has subscribed and which other religions, such as Islam, have by and large accepted. That consensus is now in the process of being torn apart by the secular state, and there will be unforeseen consequences.

GF: "In 2011, 301 civil unions were registered to New Zealand residents. These comprised 232 samesex unions (99 male and 133 female) and 69 opposite-sex unions. In addition, 76 civil unions were registered to overseas residents, bringing the total number of registrations to 377. About one in five civil unions involved overseas residents in 2011, compared with roughly one in 10 marriages" (Statistics New Zealand: Marriages, Civil Unions, and Divorces: Year ended December 2011). In each of the preceding two years the number of homosexual (male samesex) New Zealand resident civil unions was less than 100. The significance of the low number is that it shows homosexuals are not particularly interested in entering into legally binding and permanent monogamous relationships. The level of interest among lesbians is somewhat higher.

MJ: You claim you are a radical but to my mind your arguments are inherently conservative.... I would think more reactionary than radical?

GF: I don't object to being called either "radical" or "conservative" or "left" or "right" wing, and neither do I claim to belong to any of those categories to the exclusion of the other. "Reactionary" is a pejorative term often applied to by Marxists conservatives who wish to restore the status quo ante. People are free to judge me as they find me, but I am conscious that the old order has reached its end and I do not wish to see it restored, even thoughn I may welcome the return of certain elements from the past.

Ends