So, there I was on Facebook doing absolutely nothing in particular when I saw a post from a friend of mine. His name is Travis Rogers and, knowing him outside of the Internet I know him to be a magnificent human being. He’s kind and works hard to help the community around him—especially those in the low-prospects areas, like the local aboriginal community (and I don’t mean to denigrate them so much as recognise the hardships faced by them on no grounds what so ever). So it pains me to see someone like him have to face nonsensical bigotry on the grounds of his sexual orientation.
He’s a good guy, that’s all that matters.
The Rights of Humans.
“If only SA would legalise same sex adoption. Congratulations to the people of Tasmania in legalising this today. As I am getting older the thought of being a father and providing a good life for a child is getting stronger. I dream of being a father, grandfather and great grandfather. A family unit would ultimately complete my life’s mission. I believe this will happen soon!” – Travis Rogers
From the prevalence of creationist teachings in our country’s science classrooms to legislation which prevents people from adopting children on the basis of their sexuality appals me. That it’s perfectly okay to force children through foster schemes which place them in homes of dubious health and not to loving, caring, people because they openly admit homosexuality is obscene. This kind of law belongs in the dark ages it grew from. It belongs on the same pile of bigoted nonsense that most holy scriptures do. It does not belong in the legal standings of a progressive, modern, nation.
We are Australians and I damn well hope that we are better than this. So it is that I must offer a nod of approval to Tasmania. While it’s still a far cry from the complete dismantling of discrimination based on sexuality, it is a wonderful step forward. If the other states follow in Tasmania’s example, then our country as a whole will be the better for it.
God Hates Gays.
The most vitriolic nonsense of all is where these mentalities originate and, while not limited to the Bible, is clearly evident in any position on the subject adopted by organised religion. The Catholic Church in the United States, and it’s present position, speaks volumes as to where such values are derived. On their website, and under the heading of “homosexuality”, can be found the following present statement:
The Administrative Committee of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has called for a constitutional amendment to protect the unique social and legal status of marriage.
In Catholic belief, “marriage is a faithful, exclusive and lifelong union between one man and one woman, joined as husband and wife in an intimate partnership of life and love,” the 47-bishop committee said in a statement released Sept. 10.
“What are called ‘homosexual unions,’ because they do not express full human complementarity and because they are inherently non procreative, cannot be given the status of marriage,” the committee said.
This is coming from an openly advertised attempt to amend the United States constitution—a document well known for it’s secular approach to government—to constitutionally ban same-sex marriage. It is an undisguised attempt to legislate religion; to enforce religious doctrine upon those who do not even believe it.
If you think this kind of religious legislation only occurs in America, you would be damned wrong.
An Opinion, No Matter How Popular, Should Not Be Made Law.
Even if your religion was the majority in a country, it doesn’t follow that it’s values should be made law. The entire purpose for the existence of law, in the modern context, is to protect minorities from the whims of the majority. Modern democracy, while founded on the principle of the majority election of government, is not grounded in pandering to the majority. Pandering the majority, after all, is necessarily inconsistent with the philosophy of free speech. Just ask minorities in radical religious countries such as pre-war Afghanistan. The price for free speech was often beheading.
Law, ultimately, should arise from a careful analysis of the evidence which may or may not support the necessity of such regulation. The restriction of the sales of alcohol or consensual sexual activity based on age are good examples of laws which work to protect our society. Trying to determine the extend of love and companionship between to people based on their sexuality is a good example of a bad law.
As an Atheist, I Really Don’t Care What Your Bible Has To Say.
Let’s be honest, your Bible also tells you to stone unruly children (Deuteronomy 21:18-23), tells you about a (loving) God who destroys the life of his most devout follower to prove a point to his enemy (the Book of Job), and to kill anyone who disagrees with the Bible (Deuteronomy 13:6-10, Leviticus 24:13-16). Hopefully, if you are religious and reading this, these particular passages don’t inform your morality. Of course, the next question would be, if this doesn’t inform your morality, then why does any of the rest of it?
We, as people, make our own moral decisions. As such, if you say and encourage bigoted things, then you are a bigot. It’s not your book telling you to do these things. It’s all you.