So we’re flashing back to the gay marriage debate thing here. I found this article and while it is perfect for a video…I’m too damn tired do one of my videos. So I will merely snark along to the article. My comments are in (italics) to make it clear. Enjoy.

~~~~~~~~~

Nick Jensen threatens to divorce in protest of gay marriage in Canberra CityNews article

Nick Jensen, who posed with his wife Sarah on the cover of the latest issue of Canberra CityNews, writes of the Christian couple’s decision to end their marriage under the headline, “Gay law change may force us to divorce”.

(I can already tell this is going to be good. This is going to get people going I’m sure of it. Nothing like a strong position of opposition to rile people up).

“My wife and I just celebrated our 10-year anniversary. But later this year, we may be getting a divorce,” he writes.

(Go on…)

“The decision to divorce is not one we’ve taken lightly. And certainly, it’s not one that many will readily understand. And that’s because it’s not a traditional divorce.”

(Well that’s good. Traditional divorces are messy, horrible things that ruin lives, fortunes, hopes, dreams, and mental states. I am all against divorces, pretty much against marriages, so you know what let’s try a non-traditional divorce. What could possibly go wrong).

Mr Jensen goes on to explain the divorce plan, where the pair will continue to live together, have more kids, and refer to each other as husband and wife, but will legally end their marriage because they believe “marriage is not a human invention”.

(Well, that really doesn’t sound like a divorce to me, so I guess it is a non-traditional divorce. You seem to have thought out your non-tradition well. Good job. Hopefully it will not do the things a traditional divorce does as well. I’m not sure about this “marriage is not a human invention” thing, but you could be right. There are animals that mate for life, so I guess they could be considered married. And this does sound like that, since you’re mated and living together for life..but not “married.”)

“Our view is that marriage is a fundamental order of creation. Part of God’s human history. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman before a community in the sight of God. And marriage of any couple is important to God regardless of whether that couple recognises God’s involvement or authority in it,” he writes.

(I don’t know about fundamental order of creation. Then again, I did mention animals that mate for life so, okay, I guess you got me there. And I suppose even polygamy could be viewed as a marriage between a man and a woman, since the women didn’t marry each other even under Abrahamic religions, so I can’t say you’re wrong there. Your definition sounds like what came out of the Medieval Church more than the Torah, so I don’t know about “God’s human history. But hey, I can’t really fault you for not being a religious scholar. People have to make a living after all, and that gets in the way of studies. And Gods know Venus, Juno, and Frigg will get involved in marrages regardless of if a couple recognizes it or not. Also, what kind of paper can’t spell recognizes properly, or is that how the Australians spell it?)

In the piece, Jensen describes the intervention of the state into marriage as “odd”, and says he and his wife refuse to recognise the government’s regulation of marriage if its definition includes same sex couples.

(I don’t know why you find it odd. Governments like to intervene into everything. And I do mean everything. They have since human history started. Or divine history for that matter. That’s what governments are, giant organizations of busy bodies who can’t stand to let people do whatever they want when said governments can control other people’s behavior. And you’re talking about getting a divorce, legally, so you are still recognizing the government’s regulation of marriage if that definition includes same sex couples…you’re just choosing to not be legally married under the state.)

“If our federal parliament votes to change the timeless and organic definition of marriage later on this year, it will have moved against the fundamental and foundational building block of Australian society and, indeed, human culture everywhere,” he writes.

(Eh, fair enough. Again, that really sounds like government being government. They do love to transgress against eh fundamental natures and foundational building blocks of any society. I don’t know much about Australian society other than it was built by a bunch of convicts who got shipped out of England, who then hung out with a bunch of natives and turned into a really awesome group of multiracial peoples living in a land where everything tries to kill you, but really, did you guys think you were so bad ass that your government wouldn’t try to do this to you? They did Ban GTA down there because a bunch of feminists got their panties in a bunch because you could kill a hooker and rob the corpse…or course you could do that to every NPC in GTA, but hey, you know, misogyny. #malelivesdon’tmatter)

“Indeed, it raises a red flag when a government decides it is not content only having sovereignty over land, taxes and the military — but ‘words’ themselves.

(I’m completely giving this dude that one. It does raise red flags. Again, those red flags typically get waved around like war banners as governments go marching around, but hey, red flags. But hey, 1984 isn’t just going to happen. Someone has to make those thoughtcrimes illegal to start with.)

“This is why we are willing to divorce. By changing the definition of marriage, ‘marriage’ will, in years to come, have an altogether different sense and purpose.”

(I can’t really argue with this one either. Of course, that’s already happened several times with marriage as customs and social pressures change. Marriage used to be solely about business. Now its about a love between a man and a woman. Soon it may be between two people who love each other. Later it might be about any number of people who love each other.)

The Canberra CityNews, an independent publication distributed in local businesses and published online, has faced comments from angry readers “appalled” by its decision to publish the piece.

(Oh boy. Now this is going to be the fun part)

“This is absolutely disgusting, not to mention homophobic. I can’t believe such an article was published. You should be ashamed and you definitely owe to gay community an apology,” Natalie Sarah wrote on Facebook.

(Well Natalie, thank you for standing up for censorship. It is nice to know that you believe certain people’s voices and narratives should not be heard, that their life experiences do not matter based on their race, sex, and gender, not to mention their religion. Thank you, for standing openly as a sexist, you don’t get that kind of honesty much these days. Now, the fact that two people who seem to love each other are looking at divorcing is disgusting. They should completely be forced to remain married regardless of any circumstances. I mean, can’t they think of the children? I’m not sure how it’s homophobic though. I mean, their issue is with nature of marriage changing, not that gay people can’t get married. If anything, the couple is saying that gay people will be marrying. Heck, they aren’t even really saying that the government can’t or shouldn’t change things so gay people can be married, only that if it does, they will no longer be married. That’s not homophobic. It might be govophobic or authorophobic though. I don’t see why the paper owes the gay community an appology. It was simply stating someone’s views. If the gay community can’t handle the fact that some people don’t like the government interfering in their lives, all be it ostensibly for the sake of gay people, then that’s the gay communities problem. Not the paper’s. Sounds to me like the gay community might need to grow up, and understand that not everyone is like them, or believes like them, and that’s okay. Because remember, diversity is good, and that means we aren’t all the same.)

“I hope this is a publicity stunt. If it isn’t then you massively shot yourself in the foot with this one Canberra CityNews,” Ross Kosub Garrett said on Facebook.

(So it’s better if they make up something fake…then actually report how people are really feeling if you don’t like those feelings. Ross, I would like to talk to you about a little thing called Islam. See, Islam doesn’t like homosexuality. In fact, Most Muslim nations kill their gay people because they do not agree with it. It violates what they believe is morally right. We call this totalitarianism. We also call that wrong. People should have the freedom to their own views, even if those views are offensive to those around them. Frankly, Ross, you’re sounding a bit totalitarian towards people who do not share your beliefs. Also, if a news organization shoots itself in the foot for telling the truth, but would not have shot itself in the foot for making up this story…I’m guessing you don’t really understand the concept of reporting. I would recommend you educate yourself.)

The magazine’s editor, Ian Meikle, has defended his decision to publish the story, rejecting suggestions it was supporting a “homophobic” view.

(Well, at least someone had the courage to stand up for once.)

“I think this couple had an interesting angle, and that it was newsworthy,” he told news.com.au.

(I agree, for a community/lifestyle article it was news worthy. Perhaps not as worthy in terms of crime or political news stories, but given how Ross and Natalie were acting it could well end up leading to those sections of the paper too. But this is a debate we really need to have. Nearly 2/3rds of the world population is of a belief system that says gay marriage is wrong. Even among Pagan religions, there is some debate due to historical precedent, even when those religions feel that homosexual relationships are perfectly acceptable. Combine this with the fact that by all accounts the homosexual population of the planet is maybe 2-5%, do we really give unilateral power to 2-5% of a population to dictate what is morally and legally right for the other 98-95%, especially without a debate? That is not a democracy. That, in and of itself, describes a tyranny. and if we want to complain about the wealthiest 1% of a population controlling everything and making divine amounts of money compared to everyone else, how is it we can’t even discuss 2% of the population dictating the terms and meanings of just about the most personal relationship people can have? I support gay marriage for the most part, but I am seriously worried about 2% or even 5% of the population getting to dictate what the other 98% get to believe or do in their daily lives! Because if you believe money has power, you have no idea the power of ideals. And if we do want to give 2% of the population the right to dictate like that, do we really want the morality superiority of their position to simply be that they fuck someone of the same sex?).

“The article does not reflect the opinion of the paper. We published arguments and I decided it was a serious enough argument to genuinely warrant some attention.

(And he’s right, this does deserve serious attention. We are talking about radically changing a tradition that is over a thousand years old in the world. A tradition that was built upon even older traditions than that, traditions that took place in lands that supported and encouraged homosexuality. The Greeks were some of the most liberal, enlightened, and certainly Gay people in all of human history. Depending on the city, there was a bisexual rate of 100% for hundreds of years…and they never had gay marriage. Such a society was the opposite of Homophobic and they still didn’t support gay marriage. So not supporting gay marriage is not in itself homophobic. And we do need to have a serious discussion before we unilaterally force 98% of the population of any nation, much less the world, to live by the dictates of 2% of a population. Now, most places are moving towards suporting gay marriage, and that’s fine, but I sometimes wonder if that doesn’t have to do with the fact that it seems {at least in the USA} that people someone believe the homosexual population is not 2%, but 25% of the population. I wonder if support would change if people realized what the actual population numbers were?)

“It’s an unusual love story, and what would life be if people didn’t have different ways of life.”

(Which is an wonderful point. Here are two people who love each other, willing to give up the legal status of that love, to defend their belief of what their love is. Homosexual people have no more right to define what is love and what love should look like, than they claim that heterosexual people should have. If Straight people cannot declare that homosexual love is wrong, the homosexual people cannot, and should not, declare what kinds of heterosexual love are wrong. The fact that this couple is willing to sacrifice for what they believe is right, rather than the gay community which seems to feel others should sacrifice for what the gay community feels is right, kinda makes me feel this couple is standing on the higher ground!)

Mr Jensen is referred to in the article as director of the Lachlan Macquarie Institute and has previously been employed by the Australian Christian Lobby.

(And here we have journalistic integrity showing who this person is and what his links are, as well as how they are tied to his position. You used to not see this kind of thing in the last couple years. Glad it’s coming back.)

The conservative lobby group is publicly against same sex marriage and encourages people to email MPs and senators to vocalise their objection under its “preserving marriage” campaign.

(Not a surprise. They’re fighting for their beliefs same as the homosexual community is).

Mr Jensen concluded his article saying he and his wife “know we are not alone” in their decision to divorce in protest.

(Now I will admit, this is a bit surprising. I wonder how many people will be joining them if Australia legalizes gay marriage, or if this idea will spread to the states.)

(Gay people have the right to have their oaths respected. That is the fundamental reason why I have supported gay marriage. Because I believe that as long as you are a law abiding citizen of your nation, that nation should recognize the oaths you make, the legal contracts you commit too.

I believe in equality. I do not believe that a person should be discriminated against based on sex, gender, religion, race, or any of that stuff. Gay people are as much people as you are (and I theoretically am).

But I don’t think that 2% of a population should have the right to dictate what is right or wrong to the rest of the population. I don’t think 2% of a population should have the right to dictate what the rest of the population believe, or can say, or can do in reaction to what that 2% obtains, achieves, or desires. I don’t believe that 2% of the population has the right to declare that the rest of the population, or any part of said population, should be censored and silenced for disagreeing with them.

I don’t believe 2% of the population should do that. I don’t believe 5%, or 10%, or 25%, or 50%, or 75% , or 98% of a population has that right. No one, should have the right to censor, make illegal, or socially ostracize any other part of a population simply because they disagree with that other person’s position.

Because if we want to give that kind of power to 2% of the population, we might as well give it to White Supremacists, or Black Supremacists, or West Borough Baptist, or Islamists, because guess what, according to their stances by any rational definition, they have a stronger moral high ground than the Gay community does. White and Black supremacists want their people to live safe, happy, prosperous lives (at the expense of others sure). WBB and Islamists want to define the world’s actions in accordance with their interpretations of a very angry God who is prone to fits of genocidal rage (which, I can understand not wanting to anger a God like that to an extent). Homosexuals, on the other hand, seem to define their lives and their deserving of any and all rights based on their own self pleasure wrapped around who they fuck.

Now, I’m not saying they’re wrong for seeking pleasure with whomever they feel like, but in terms of “doing something for “noble” reasons” I’m going to put giving larger populations happier lives and not getting everyone killed by an angry God higher priority on my “reasons to get shit done list.” I mean, I love sex as much as the next person (maybe more, but I don ‘t get it like I’d like) but if my choices were “get laid” and “save 3 billion people from starvation or death,” I have to admit that even with as evil and selfish as I am…I’d be willing to forgo a few sexual encounters. And I’m sorry, but I have a fairly low opinion of anyone who says “my right to fuck who I please outweighs your right to live a moral life and not spend eternity getting punished simply because I think you believe in a fairy tale and i get horny.” The believe in Self pleasure giving one the right to oppress another has lead us down some very dark roads in human history, including slavery, genocide, mass rape, and so forth. And I can’t really support that kind of belief. Just like I can’t support white or black supremacists, or WBB or Islamists. No one should have the right to dictate another’s life simply based on their beliefs, no matter how morally strong their position is. Does that mean it’s okay to deny gay people the right to marry? No. But it doesn’t give them the right to enforce their view of marriage on anyone else either.)

 

 

asd