Sorry, dear, you don't have a daddy...
I guess that in the future we will have children in our state who will be very puzzled by the (increasingly) archaic celebration of Father's Day.
Especially since, with the passing of the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act, children will be conceived and born in Victoria without a legal father (cf. "Singles, lesbians win fertility rights" (David Rood, The Age, December 5, 2008)).
Also, the innocent question of "where do baby's come from?" will get more and more complicated to answer as the social reform agenda of the present Brumby government gathers pace.
Of particular concern are the narrow parliamentary margins by which these radical changes are being voted into law in our society. This latest Act was passed by 20-18.
In reflecting whether this has all come about due to a lack of familiarity with the biblical creation narrative, I realised that it is probably more true to say that the current push is coming from people who have a total cognitive dissonance in relation to the overarching meta-narrative (IOW, they've lost the plot). It isn't just the biblical narrative with which they have lost touch, it is the entire "Boy meets Girl" narrative that has been the fuel of human story telling since God-knows-when. (Does anyone know if Mills & Boon have released a line of romantic novels for lesbians? - Sorry, a google search has just answered that question for me. Iiiyyiich!)
But of course, we know that the little tikes conceived in the test-tubes of our Assisted Reproductive Technology Units DO have daddies. They simply are not given any part in the story.
Today's Cathnews links to a great article "Do you have the courage to defend Christian marriage?"
by Joanna Bogle (of "Come on in, it's Awful!" fame). She says:
I'm with Teaching about God's plan - that the human race is precious, that God loves us all, that the future of humanity passes by way of the family, and that a family is centred on a man and a woman united in marriage - requires courage. Are you brave enough to stand with me on this?Yes, I am with you on that, Aunty Jo. (Only, not to quibble, but what you describe isn't just "Christian" marriage - it IS marriage per se).
posted by Schütz @ 9:38 am
6 Comments
.JPG)
6 Comments:
I think it's really important to critically examine this kind of legislation and use good logic and compelling argument.
When you start using phrases like 'social reform agenda' you get down in the mud of unprovable, not particularly useful, assertion that is the stuff of rhetorical gridlock.
IMO we need to have the 'courage' to avoid this kind of thing!
Well, I could have said "social revolutionary agenda" which would probably have been more accurate.
My point, Tony, is that the various bills on Abortion, Stem Cells, IVF, and Euthanazia are not random, isolated moves.
There is quite clearly an "agenda" here - The way in which all this raft of socially radical legislation is being proposed all at once by the Brumby Government shows a kind of hastiness that is more characteristic of revolutionary reformation than orderly government.
It is just dizzying for those of us who have to live under this regime, let alone the poor pollies who have to decide these issues.
I think the burden of proof lies with those who are wanting to deviate from traditional practice/ideas to show that these things will not harm society. That's what's reasonable. That's what we should be demanding.
Having said that, logic and rationale is on the side of tradition in most or all of these matters. It's not hard to show the Social Engineers why they are wrong, it's just that they will not listen.
'social reform agenda', "social revolutionary agenda", "social engineering' are all perfectly accurate phrases, capable of being proved and accessible to anyone of ordinary intelligence who is not part of the agenda in some way.
Oh bollocks Louise! If you have to resort to these hackneyed phrases you're in shock-jock and tabloid territory.
I'm not saying it's a monopoly of one 'side' or the other, but it's just lazy wherever it comes from.
Argue the issues, not the cliches.
What makes you think I don't argue the issues? If a phrase happens to be accurate, I don't really see why it shouldn't be used as a kind of short-hand once it's been defined and shown to exist.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home