Tea, coffee, marriage?

Observing the discussion surrounding the issue of same-sex marriage it is clear that two things dominate the atmosphere. One is the disgraceful barrage of emotional manipulation of advocates for change and the second is the disheartening capitulation of politicians in the face of this manipulation.

The most common tactic used by homosexual couples and their supporters to manipulate the debate is to dramatise the situation that they find themselves in. Making your situation sound worse than it really is is the recourse of those who are bereft of a good argument. It points to some other agenda which cannot be substantiated. What this agenda might be is irrelevant to anyone except those who are trying to hide it, but in public discourse and where millions of dollars and countless hours of time are being wasted, there is no room for emotional manipulation.

A matter of rights

As it stands homosexuals cannot gain government recognition of their relationship by having it called a marriage. For the sake of the argument let us say it is their right in relation to the government but there are rights and there are rights. Not all rights are of equal value. The right to choose between coffee and tea is a right but if only coffee is available then it is no great drama. If I am a slave with a chain around my neck and I have no freedom to come and go or live my own life then it is a grave denial of my rights and every effort should be directed in pursuing my freedom.

The same-sex lobby would have us believe that it is a fundamental human right to be able to have a certificate from the government saying they are married. The denial of such a right is a matter which should involve the United Nations and be written into their charter of human rights. It is up there with apartheid, abolition of slavery and a woman’s right to vote.

If the denial of such a right is so extremely painful then how is it that so many human beings who have that right do not bother to take it up?  Millions of people around the world live together as a couple enjoying everything in a relationship that those with certificates have. They could get a marriage certificate but do not because they do not see any point in it. It causes them no pain whatsoever to not have a marriage certificate. It is just not that important.

How is it that one group of people feel such pain and another group of humans with the same physiology feel nothing?  Are homosexual people saying that those who do not have a certificate are just numb to their own pain or in denial in some way? Are those people not fully human because they do not feel the angst that other humans feel who are unable to procure a certificate? A fundamental human right is something that goes to the very core of what it means to be a human being and such rights should be embraced with every ounce of our being and yet here we have a situation where it seems to be little more than a personal preference like tea or coffee.

Dramatising the pain is an easy way to manipulate others. No one likes to see their fellows in pain and want to do whatever is necessary to ease their pain but we must look critically at the evidence to see if pain is really appropriate to the situation. To suggest that your pain is akin to slavery is a gross manipulation of the facts and it is also an insult to all those who choose not to go after a marriage certificate. It also trivialises the plight of many around the world who live under severe hardship and have real issues to confront.

A matter of love

Stories are told of the heart-break that some homosexuals feel at not being able to express their love by having a marriage certificate from the government. They say that this is an insult to their love and that homosexual love is not valued as much as heterosexual love. They say they feel like second class citizens.

What message does this send to their fellow human beings who do not have marriage certificates? Does it mean that their love can never be as valuable or real since they do not feel the devastation of not having a certificate? Does it mean they are second class citizens? Does it mean that they do not want to express their love and so it cannot be as real as that of homosexuals who clamour for a certificate?

What arrogance this implies. A marriage certificate is a sign of love and anyone who does not have one simply does not love? Or is it simply a preference like tea or coffee?