THE EDITOR: Congratulations are in order for the Senate for the bold and daring stance taken on June 22 concerning the Domestic Violence (Amendment) Bill. Thank God there are still men and women leading our nation who can recognise good-making qualities as opposed to bad-making qualities relative to the well-being of our society, and who have the courage to make decisions that uphold the moral fabric of our society. That is quite allowable, as there are also positive nuances to the notion of “discrimination,” on which I wish to expound in this article.
There seems to be an agenda to whittle down the notion of discrimination to one meaning only: “the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people.” All other nuances of this word are basically ignored by same-sex advocates to the point where any form of critical analysis done on their world views is deemed unfair; it does not matter whether or not the critical action contributes to the welfare of society.
According to the online Etymology Dictionary, the word “discriminate” also means “to separate, distinguish, discern, perceive, or sift.” Thus, discrimination must also allow for making distinctions between things of good quality as opposed to things of bad quality. Every responsible citizen of our society has the right of distinguishing right from wrong, and making informed decisions accordingly. Every parliamentarian or leader of our nation has the human right to consider what measures or practices would contribute to the quality of life of the nation, as opposed to engendering deterioration of the same.
Just as it is absurd to label a parent as discriminating if she cautions her child about a toxic relationship that could end up in danger for the young person, in the same way it would be preposterous to label a person as discriminating against another if that person simply identifies the bad qualities of certain sexual behaviours, and cautions about the possible dangers to individuals, families and society as a whole.
The growing popularity of a practice does not determine the right and wrong of it; nature itself is the truth-maker. If a sexual practice disagrees with the laws of nature, and the human responsibility associated with such laws, one is not unfairly treating another by pointing this out. To oppose this right is to put a society in danger of crumbling under the pressure of defilement and moral corruption, as evidenced in other jurisdictions.
Further, this myopic view of discrimination ignores the empirical evidence of the hard sciences, and causes legitimacy to hang in the air, so to speak. Ironically, the sociologist, the feminist, the humanist and the like, with their non-empirical, non-scientific and sentimental postures, become the rulers of society and the determinants of our future, right in the face of God, our Creator, whose supremacy is clearly enshrined in our constitution. Look around our world today and see what God has to say about that – covid19 plus.
Moreover, this overemphasis on discrimination claims by a particular sector of a society, while at the same time ignoring the rights of the rest of society, can best be labelled as “reverse discrimination,” defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as: “The act of giving advantage to those groups in society that are often treated unfairly, usually because of their race, sex, or sexuality.” That is as bad as discrimination itself.
Finally, I wish to point out that the very attempt by same-sex advocates to separate gender from sex is a circular or fallacious argument. Why? Sex is “biological and fixed,” so they claim, but gender is a “social construct” and hence variable in various cultures and societies. In reality, however, the practice of every “gender-type” (some 80 plus now) demands a corresponding change in sexual behaviour, making sex a “social construct itself,” a nonsense result. Thus, we come right back to the starting block: there is no difference between sex and gender.
J VERNON DUNCAN
Divine Encounter Fellowship