The Magpie Said

CANTA is the magasine put out by the compulsory student union at the University of Canterbury. In the 25/May 09 issue of CANTA the political commentator Hayden Munro (aka the Magpie) wrote an article entitled "Ok, this could get kind of tricky" which he has also posted on his blog. In his article he discusses minority politics in general, the "Christian Right" and more specifically, myself. It is essentially a response to an article of mine that was published in the previous edition of CANTA which discussed abortion law in New Zealand. Hayden is not only on the ball when it comes to discussing this subject, but he does so in an impressively balanced and reasoned way. I'll let you have a read of the article - all I want to do here is address one or two comments in the article which Hayden's thrashed out onto the keyboard perhaps a wee bit too quickly.

"Andy is... strongly against any gay marriage"

As far as I know I haven't stated this anywhere. Just to be clarfiy though, I believe homosexuality is immoral, but if two homosexuals wish to enter into a civil union - to be officially recognised as a couple before the State, I have no problem with this. However the issue of gay marriage is so convoluted that I will not deal with it right now.

yellow card: that's not on!

"...even intelligent, dedicated activist’s [sic] like Andy can slip into really rabid rhetoric. Insinuating that Helen Clark shouldn’t try to save a dieing [sic] friend, since she believes in abortion, is not going to win you any friends amongst moderates."

That's just bad logic. One thing I try hard to avoid is rabid rhetoric, character slurs, exaggerations and the like. Helen Clark should be commended for attempting to resucitate her dying friend. However I was questioning the inconsistency in her actions rather than implying that she should have left her friend to die.

My major ideological disagreement with Hayden in this article though, deals with the issue of homosexual couples adopting children. He states that legislating against this would "deny them the chance to raise a family, one of the fundamental joys in life". Heck yeah, I completely agree. But that's their problem. I stand by my comment on 4 May, "It is empirically evident that two homosexual adults are unable to provide children with the stability and security that is essential for every child as he or she grows up." Raising children isn't a flippin' game or an experiment or a right. Rather, it is a privilege.

But what's with the magpie? Hayden's weekly column is named "Quardle Ardle Oodle Wardle Ardle Doodle" and is a reference to a famous New Zealand poem. Flicking through the glossy colour pages of half-clothed drunken students, bizarre and disturbed cartoons, screeds of large advertisments and (almost always) boring opinion pieces is Hayden's political column which is more often than not a good read in a particularly mind-numbing lecture. Anyway, oneday the overpaid staff at CANTA may get their act together and regularly upload Hayden's column which you should be able to find here.

Children Need Mum and Dad

The Supreme Court in the State of Iowa in the US has recently passed into law an act allowing for homosexual marriage. The Court's review of the law blatantly ignored concerns regarding the implications for children brought up by two "parents" in a same-sex marriage, relegating the issue to a footnote, saying:

“The research appears to strongly support the conclusion that same-sex couples foster the same wholesome environment as opposite-sex couples and suggests that the traditional notion that children need a mother and a father to be raised into healthy, well-adjusted adults is based more on stereotype than anything else.”

Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., writing for NCRegister.com responded,

The court offers no citations to any evidence in support of this remarkable claim. If we took that statement out of the context of the same-sex “marriage” debate and applied it generally throughout society, we would create enormous problems. But put that point to one side for now. Just realize that the Supreme Court of Iowa did not do the public the courtesy of citing a single source in support of this claim...

...The debate over marriage hinges in large part on what people think is the subject: Advocates of genderless marriage believe it is about fairness and equality. Advocates of conjugal marriage believe it is about the role of marriage. By dismissing testimony so obviously germane to the functions of marriage in society, the Iowa courts prejudged the case and tacitly declared equality to be the only issue.

What an utterly ridiculous, amateur and unfounded assertion for the Supreme Court to be making; that in terms of raising children, "same-sex couples foster the same wholesome environment as opposite-sex couples". It is empirically evident that two homosexual adults are less able unable to provide children with the stability and security that is essential for every child as he or she grows up.