A Particularly Stupid Comment

A person who hides behind the pseudonym of 'Kimpatsu' writes :'As to Lillian Ladele, you are therefore saying you would find shift-swapping acceptable if a registrar did not wish to conduct interracial marriages because of their religious or political conscience'.

No, I am not. As any reader of this site must know, I would be disgusted by, and would certainly under no circumstances defend, any refusal of any kind under any circumstances to conduct marriages between people of different coloured skin. That would be bigotry, the product of unreasonable prejudice.

There is no comparison between an objection to civil partnerships, which is a moral opinion taken about a public act of choice with implications for the morals and customs of our society, and racial bigotry, which is a logic-free discrimination between equal persons, on a matter of no significance about which there is no choice.  

The introduction of a category called 'interracial marriage' is done only to confuse the matter, on the usual bait-and-switch method of the unscrupulous debater.

No such category as 'interracial marriage' exists in law or morals, nor ought it to. No case involving an unwillingness to conduct such marriages exists or is under discussion.

Such a concept would in any case imply that there were (as there are not) differences between people whose skins were of different colours. The law in this matter correctly recognises that there is one race, the human race. 

The issue under discussion is not marriage, but to do with the freedom to hold differing and unconventional opinions on sexual morality, according to conscience.  

The same person asserts 'If you would accept the one, you must accept the other, or you are a hypocrite.'

Since there is no such connection in fact or logic, this is factually false, and his or her comment is a particularly stupid smear, and I draw attention to it as a striking example of how not to argue, if you wish to be considered a civilised person. I would say "Here is our old enemy 'Liberal Bigotry' at work again."

 

This sort of thing explains why I don't in general even attempt to engage in the civil partnership/homosexual marriage argument - because of the wicked, dishonest and disreputable filth and slime that is directed against anyone who takes a conservative Christian position.

I was discussing the behaviour of Lillian Ladele's employers and colleagues, quite independently of the merits of the issue of civil partnerships (about which, as it happens,  I expressed no opinion of my own). I reflected on their unwillingness to offer her the tolerance they demanded for their own opinions, and also on the unilateral introduction of entirely new conditions of employment for registrars, in my view unfair under any concept of natural justice.

Yet Detective Sergeant Kimpatsu of the Thought Police burrowed into the text,  to confect a baseless suggestion that conservative moral opinions are equal to racial bigotry. In the case of Lillian Ladele, this allegation is of course particularly absurd.