Sunday, 4 September 2011

Opposition to Gay Marriage is not discriminatory

If there is one thing that gets my blood pressure up and causes me to froth at the mouth, it is when matters like gay or lesbian marriage, the ordination of woman, abortion, euthanasia and so the list goes on, is made into an issue of prejudice when in fact is not a prejudice but that way for a completely different reason. 

Discrimination means that I, because of a prejudice, will not permit a person to participate in an existing institution or activity on the basis of that person’s gender, race, religion or sexuality, and for no other reason, even when other people are able to do so.

When black people were denied the right to vote, because of their race, it was rightly considered discriminatory because all white people had the right to vote. However, now that a black person has the right to vote, he or she cannot demand that an 8-year old black child should also be given the right to vote. Nobody in the country who is underage, regardless of gender, sex, race or religion, is permitted to vote. So to deny this right is not discriminatory because it applies across the board. It is not a prejudice against children.

If I objected to a woman marrying her 30-year old son, would my objection be considered discriminatory? Would I be branded as a misogynist for denying her this right? I can say with absolute certainty that I would most certainly not, because I would simply be obeying the rules around marriage. Nobody in the country, regardless of gender, sex, race or religion, is permitted to marry his or her child. It has nothing to do with prejudices against her for being a woman. (I should have said that currently I would not be considered to be discriminating. There are enough twisted sicko’s in this world that it may not be long before they actually argue for this right.)

In the same way, if I objected to a gay man getting married to a woman, on the basis of the sexual orientation of one or both of them, then I would rightly be considered to be discriminating. If a straight man can marry a woman, then a gay man also has the same right to marry a woman, regardless of his sexual orientation. However, to argue that I am homophobic and discriminating because I will not allow two men, gay or straight, to get married, is as ridiculous as arguing that I am misogynistic for preventing a woman from marrying her son. The tradition of the institution of marriage is for a man and a woman to enter into the contract of marriage. It is not about a prejudice against gays and lesbians.

The problem that our world faces today is that people do not want to accept any restrictions on themselves whatsoever. We live in a world where we want what we want. Just look at the debt crisis that the world is facing. We lack any self-discipline or self control. We want what we want and for that we spend what we don’t have, in order to get it, regardless of any consideration or care for the consequences of such action on society. What I find particularly sad is when I see intelligent people resorting to the most ludicrous arguments in order to defend or support some of these ridiculous causes.

We have become like spoilt childish little brats. We need to grow up, stop throwing tantrums, put aside our ridiculous logic and realise that just because we want it doesn’t mean that we should get it. Some things in life are the way they are for good reasons, even though it may not suit us and even though we may not always understand it.

That goes for the subject of the ordination of women priests too. I am not a misogynist, even though I am adamant that woman cannot be ordained as priests. I am not prejudiced against woman. This is not about prejudices against woman. It is about the absolute faith and belief in the fact that Jesus was God. He was True God and True Man. God cannot make mistakes and so Jesus was perfect and did not make mistakes. He chose men to be his Apostles. He must have had a reason, which we may not understand. But we know, without even a moment of doubt, that he didn’t do so by accident. Neither did he do so to protect the sensitivities of people at that time.

No comments:

Post a Comment