I see that a new advertisement in support of gay maariage will now be playing on TV.
After the disappointing rejection of gay marriage by Australian politicians, it looks like New Zealanders in support of gay marraige want to make sure the same does not occur here.
There was a very revealing segment discussing this new advertisement of Breakfast TV this morning with psychologist Nigel Latta speaking in support of marriage equality and Bob McCoskrie of Family First New Zealand speaking against it (see here). I was so impressed with Nigel Latta, who faced with the completely irrational arguments of McCoskrie, calmly and assertively pointed out the flaws in his argument. When McCoskrie started to use the old “it all depends on which “research” you believe” type of argument, Latta shut him down brilliantly with a response I think we all need to be aware of, as this type of argument that you can legitimately select the science you want to support your political position is increasingly being used by everyone from the PM down.
I wasn’t as impressed as you were Michael.
I won’t go through it blow by blow but it was clearly set up to ridicule (mit smirks) an old tradition of marriage and its followers. Marriage and marriage ritual is much older than Christianity. Of course it reflects older cultural traditions which discriminated but there are plausible explanations for that.
But one conceptual problem. Equality does not mean “the same as” (Latta). A does not equal A. A is A. But A can equal B (in some respect); ie under the law, quantity, colour, or some other quality. In fact equality only makes sense in the context of difference, as Derrida and others maintain, and cultural relativism requires. Most satisfactory solutions in society are better describes in terms of equity.
I also have a niggling misgiving about co-opting, something the Roman Church was happy to do during its early expansionary phase and Marxists recommended but I thought was questionable in these post revolutionary times. Would we approve of wealthy western couples flying into the Sepik River for an “authentic ceremony”? Presumeably Christians cannot marry in a mosque although I may be wrong. I think there is an element of cultural or political arrogance in this step or an example of respecting every other culture but your own.
Personally I suggested civil ceremony to my beloved 42 years ago but Anna saw marriage as a community and family commitment and endorsement. A couple of memorable events from the service was the minister who shall remain nameless but whose dentures were loose and his discrete fart during the rehersal. Keeping a straight face was an exercise of iron will for all concerned.
Hopefully in the absence of other commentary, possibly due to a fear of being terrorised and browbeaten by the thought police I will have provoked some further discussion and as always I am open to better arguments.