A Letter to Murray McCully - he replies

The reply to my original letter is posted here as a PDF MurraryMcCully or as a picture below,

This is a response to a letter I wrote to my MP, who had changed his mind about supporting the "same sex marriage" bill, one of ony 4 MP's to do so in the negative way.



I'm not convinced it's a form reply.

I've let his secretary know by way of a reply what I think .

Erica

Thank you for your reply.

Please, if you would be so kind, and should the Minister care to know,  tell him that, should he be standing at the next election, he will not be receiving my vote, as he has enjoyed in the past.

Of course there are more pressing matters of Economy, Welfare, Education, Health and Security but he had it in his grasp to be someone who actually did something for everyone, and not because he has a fear and loathing of the real meaning of equality, and was cowered by sanctimonious religious bigotry.

You'll recall I've been married 25 years, I've no axe to grind, no flag to fly, but to take a stance that it's all equal except for some is morally bankrupt, and frankly he's disappointed one time to many.

It might only be one vote, but it might make a difference.

Related articles

• A Letter to Murray McCully (pdubyah.com)

A Letter to Murray McCully

I expect a form letter asnwer.

 

Mr.McCully,

I understand that you're voted in for your opinions and preferences, but I can't let it pass without comment that you changed your vote to change your support of Marriage Equality to be opposed to it.

As the National MP in the ECB you've secured my vote for the previous elections. Mostly because you're inoffensive and are in a party that by and large suits my own thinking. By and large.

Being the intelligent, well travelled, and well rounded man that you are I can't begin to understand how you can vote against something that I've enjoyed for coming up to 25 years this year, that of being married.

I can't begin to understand how you could support it one day and be against it the next. You're now one of only 4 people who've been swayed, cajoled, or harangued into taking a contrary position to one which you came to on your own.

I'd lay Dollars to Cents that you've been lobbied by the religious element in this. Modern marriage is a construct of religion, religion that does all it can to deny minorities the status that they themselves confer upon themselves.

The world will not end, churches will not crumble, men will not start eyeing me up lustily in the streets, people will go about their lives. Traditional marriage, and denial of it to all people, is about religious dogma. Traditional Marriage isn't for life, as the number of divorces will attest. Marriage isn't for everyone, else everyone would be married.

At a time when Atheism or non-religion becomes more prevalent and religious dogma and teaching become less relevant you find yourself in a position where you are in danger of becoming a dinosaur of a past age.

Mr. MCully I ask you, if you could travel back in time would you yourself would have voted for women's suffrage? And whilst not comparable in moving society forward, I ask you why you would vote against Marriage Equality, something that clearly brings equity to everyone?

I'd ask that you do me the service of not sending me a stock/form reply, because that's just avoidance, and my one vote might not make a difference, but then again it might.

Philip Walter

Faith, Same sex marriage, and Children.

New Zealand is on track to remove barriers to same sex marriages. We have Civil Union legislation, but this is a sort of half-way house thing. Removing an arbitrary sex based barrier to marriage is of it's time.

However those of the faith and the religiosity have got their collective underpants all bunched and they're going to come out swinging on a number of 'points'.

And they are all nonsense. And they are all nonsense because there is not one logical argument that could be put forward that would or could justify their position. Not a one.

"Marriage is between a man and women" Since when? Since a when the 'church' decided to Ponce up some ceremony and add some bells and whistles is a when. The church is big on dogma and protocol. But I can't find any evidence that before the church decided to dress up a ceremony that marriage wasn't a thing. I can't find any evidence that before the church decided to restrict it's 'blessing' that all marriages were between men and women.

In different ancient cultures, marriage was more of a business arrangement, joining families together for mutual benefit. Under Roman law in the first centuries of the Common Era, there were proper opportunities for divorce and the dissolution of a marital union for both parties. However, as the Christian church grew, marriage became more ecclesiastically governed; the church dictated the rules of marriage.

Historically then a marriage was a means to ensure a continuance. That is all. If you had not confirmed or announced partner then you had no estate to pass. Marriage brought with it some assurances.The churches brought with it dogma, and protocol and restriction.

Same-sex marriage is rejected as un-Christian and immoral on the basis of a myopic reading of a very few Biblical texts. And the texts in question are scant indeed.

The most referenced texts are Genesis 19; the holiness codes of Leviticus 17-26, and in the New Testament, Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians 6:9 and his Letter to the Romans 1:26-27.

Not only does one have to "hunt" for references to same-sex practices, but there are no gospel texts that treat the matter.

There is nothing attributed to Jesus of Nazareth that has anything to do with same-sex orientation. According to the gospels, Jesus never commented on same-sex practices; that fact certainly bears repeating to anyone criticizing the gay community on Christian grounds.

Largely, same-sex practice is a topic of little interest to the Biblical authors.

It beggars belief that you would refer to an ancient book of myth and stories to cherry pick what your faith is. Sure the Bible might say "husband" and "wife" but it doesn't as far as I know define the gender of either in terms of what constitutes a "marriage".

The restriction or constriction is therefore one made up by the church and religion as a method of control.

Children

In New Zealand we have out share of conservative doom-sayers

Conservative Party leader Colin Craig said he was planning a "research-based" campaign on the advantages of heterosexual relationships and traditional family structures.

 "I'm keen to be part of a campaign to get out there on this issue. It would look intelligently at the differences between homosexual parenting and a Mum and a Dad. Does gender matter, does role-modelling matter?

I don't mind having it on record that the idea of two men having responsibility for a child is a little beyond me. I couldn't do it. I assisted with a more maternal and capable mother in raising our children from birth. But I am talking about baby children, not toddlers, or schoolers, or teens.  I don't have the same doubt about females raising children. Call me a bigot if you like, but I have first hand experience of a woman raising our child and she did a great job. I'd hire her again :-)

I have no idea what feeling or compulsions you have a person in relation to children and your level of altruism in wanting to look after, nurture and care for a child. I just don't.

I have my understanding. I have an idea of what is acceptable and required from my experience, and I have the insight from a number of people who I've associated with who've raised children. I have experience.

Just because I don't think I could does not mean I don't think you should. It might make you shudder, cringe and gasp. It doesn't mean that you can't raise a child as a parent.  To have any other position on this indicates you live your life in a cave. There are lots of children raised by single parents. There are heaps raised by same sex parents, mostly female I'd wager.

The world did not stop when Elton John and David Furness adopted a child. Money makes it better or acceptable? Get a grip.

Related articles

• Key will back early stages of gay marriage bill (radionz.co.nz)


• Same sex marriage bill delights gay community (radionz.co.nz)


• Gay marriage to be legalised in Scotland despite two thirds of people opposing change (telegraph.co.uk)


• Gay marriage in Scotland is a 'dangerous experiment', says Catholic Church (independent.co.uk)