The bill put forward by the conservatives this morning has one rightful place, the bin. It does no good for either side of the argument.



The great thing about the past is that it is something to look back on. Living it, not so much. But, so it seems we’ve fallen through a time rip and woken in the sepia framed good times that the Bible promised us, as the same-sex marriage bill put forward by MP James Paterson attempted to redefine “traditional marriage” by using the same sharpened rock that Glorp used to demonstrate the size that Allosaurus he winged that time.



The bill hinges on the idea of protecting ‘relevant marriage beliefs’ aimed, or kept by the person. Which, I mean, fair enough. Yes, writing discrimination into a legal document seems to be a terrible idea, but let us assume that it will be used in the right way by the populace.

However, the definitions within, and indeed what constitutes a relevant belief are scarcely relevant in 2017. So much so, that even for those who are resistant to same-sex marriage would seldom point to the definitions of their union given, and say, yeah, that’s me. That’s what my marriage is. I mean, I’ll admit I voted no, but the definitions promoted, on either side makes no sense. It’s 1855 versus a now legally clear second class. This bill is the manifestation of the vicious stupidity that this argument has quickly become.



Ostensibly, the above states that sex should only occur in marriage. Considering that this piece of legislation was birthed by the bible belt, there’s an odd duality present. I mean if we’re not taking modern sensibilities into account, why not just copy and paste from the text? While 1 Corinthians 7:2 clearly states that sex before marriage is a sin, should we then take the same lessons of Leviticus 20:10, and enact capital punishment for adulterers? No, apples and oranges, right? Well, what does sex outside marriage have to do a belief in marriage?

I mean, if we were to shepherd the population into one room (and god help us) and ask whoever held off until marriage, to step forward. A handful would in front of the guffawing masses, but they’d be, at least in the eyes of the bill, the only ones worthy of marriage. That’s a shed load of marriages turfed.

To bill is obviously to placate the far religious right, but the disappointing this is that this bill is set to be discussed in the public eye, hence this piece and the many others just like it. We all have to endure this tripe, either side, further dragging the discussion through new depths of impossibility. As someone who disagreed, having this on the same side of my argument makes it nigh on impossible to explain it to someone who voted Yes. All it does it add more sulphur to an already caustic argument that is no longer a discussion.

Share via