Polygamy and same sex marriage

January 10th, 2013 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

Ms Wall provided research to the Herald which showed that all of the 11 countries that have legalised gay marriage have outlawed .

None of the 50 countries that recognised polygamy under civil law formally recognised same-sex relationships.

Ms Wall said that in most cases, polygamy was legal in countries that repressed women, not socially progressive countries like New Zealand.

“You have countries where you can be whipped, fined, flogged, sent to jail for the rest of your life [for being in a gay relationship] so to say that marriage equality is a stepping stone to polygamy completely misrepresents the truth globally.”

I have to agree with Louisa that the countries which have polygamy tend to regard women as chattels and homosexuals as criminals.

I wonder if any of those 50 countries that allow polygamy, allow polygyny (one man married to multiple wives) and polyandry (one woman married to multiple husbands) or just polygyny?

Interestingly NZ law does give some recognition under the Family Proceedings Act to polygamous marriages made overseas, if legal in the country they resided in.

Anyway I personally do not accept the argument that if you support you should support polygamous marriage. I don’t think people have any significant choice over their sexual orientation. I do think people have a choice about the number of people they want to be in a relationship with.

Tags: , ,

105 Responses to “Polygamy and same sex marriage”

  1. grumpy (240 comments) says:

    Interesting then, that Wall, in her other political views (together with a huge proportion of othern politicians pushing gay marriage) is only to eager to jump to the defence of Hamas and any other Islamic bunch of militants who not only outlay gays but also have a horrendous attitude to women.
    Just proves the point that this is a selfishly driven crusade, purely born of her own self interest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. kowtow (7,645 comments) says:

    If, as we’re told, it’s about “equality” then polygamy and polyandry should be on the cards.

    But it’s not about equality.It’s about legislating for homosexual “marriage”, which of course is a nonsense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Graeme Edgeler (3,267 comments) says:

    South Africa recognises polygamy to an extent (the current President, for example, has four wives), and it also recognises gay marriage.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Griff (6,825 comments) says:

    You forgot the links to bestiality and child molesting the anti gay marriage camp includes in their future prognoses

    It is not the states job to interfere in the choices people make in the partners they chose
    If someone wants to take multiple partners in marriage that’s is their business not any one else s
    There is no reason to discriminate against someone for their choice of partner/ s

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. cctrfred (41 comments) says:

    We already also have recognition of polygamous relationships equivalent to marriage during a property settlement following a relationship breakup. I understand that couples have parted and a third party (say the mistress of the bloke) has made an additional claim under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. This was an unintended consequence of the Matrimonial Property Act 1976 being amended by the Property (Relationships) Amendment Act 2001 to become the Property (Relationships) Act 1976.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Graeme Edgeler (3,267 comments) says:

    kowtow – polyandry is a subset of polygamy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    This matters why ?

    If people want to marry, then let them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. RRM (9,471 comments) says:

    Just proves the point that this is a selfishly driven crusade, purely born of her own self interest.

    Heaven forbid that a lesbian might want to protect and advance the interests of gays & lesbians through Parliament, eh?

    I – I mean, Parliament is for protecting and advancing the interests of good, decent, white farming folk! Come on! Everyone knows that!

    Such selfishness :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. kowtow (7,645 comments) says:

    grumpy

    Can’t say “crusade”,might upset the Muslims.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Graeme Edgeler (3,267 comments) says:

    This was an unintended consequence of the Matrimonial Property Act 1976 being amended by the Property (Relationships) Amendment Act 2001 to become the Property (Relationships) Act 1976.

    I don’t believe it was unintended.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. RRM (9,471 comments) says:

    I once knew a gay man who had seventeen wives.

    These gender-bending new laws, it’s only a matter of time… :mad:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Redbaiter (7,640 comments) says:

    Just vote Conservative Party.

    Send National’s liberals (who should be in the Labour Party) the message that you’ve had it up to here with their bullshit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    Anyway I personally do not accept the argument that if you support same sex marriage you should support polygamous marriage.

    Why not? The foundation argument for supporting redefinition marriage is the removal of discrimination. How can anyone, particularly libertarians, support gay marriage, but deny it to polygamists and polyandrists?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. scrubone (3,048 comments) says:

    Anyway I personally do not accept the argument that if you support same sex marriage you should support polygamous marriage.

    Which makes sense, because that’s not really the point. The point is that if you change one of the terms that define marriage, what is your basis for denying other claims that you might not agree with.

    So you’re addressing a straw man with your post

    I don’t think people have any significant choice over their sexual orientation. I do think people have a choice about the number of people they want to be in a relationship with.

    But that is just another straw man, since the debate isn’t about people’s orientation, it’s whether you can change what is defined as marriage to include what we currently call civil unions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    DPF,

    Anyway I personally do not accept the argument that if you support same sex marriage you should support polygamous marriage. I don’t think people have any significant choice over their sexual orientation. I do think people have a choice about the number of people they want to be in a relationship with.

    Indeed, THEIR choice. So what business is it of yours? The principle is the same: what doesn’t harm you or concern you is none of your business. I’ve never understood the relevance of whether homosexuality is a “choice” or not. It’s a red herring.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. RRM (9,471 comments) says:

    A Bain thread in full flight, and now a Gay Marriage thread commencing as well?

    This will do wonderful things for your page clicks stats DPF! ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    RRM – quite so. Controversy = ad revenue. Long live the free market :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. ben (2,399 comments) says:

    This is a classic process vs outcomes debate. Same with the Bain debate, actually.

    The outcomes folks oppose polygamy because it’s not something they’d do and it’s weird.

    It’s probably no less weird to the process folks, it’s just that the process folks recognise a consistent application of the principle which leads them to support gay marriage (consenting adults not harming anyone else shouldn’t be touched by the state) unavoidably leads to a view the state shouldn’t interfere in polygamy either.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. JMS (303 comments) says:

    Just vote Conservative Party.

    @Redbaiter

    you mean the party for right-wing nanny-state lovers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. wreck1080 (3,734 comments) says:

    I just don’t get why gay marriage is ok but not polygamy.

    Surely the arguments are the saem? If 2 women want to marry the same man then who am I to block them from doing so?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Nigel Kearney (864 comments) says:

    I support same sex marriage but these points are perfectly valid. People being allowed to marry someone they love is just as much an argument for polygamy as for same sex marriage. If the argument is that we shouldn’t discriminate based on sexual orientation, why should be discriminate based on single/multiple preference? If it’s none of the state’s business in one case, the same applies to the other.

    I don’t understand David’s point about having a choice. Of course both gays and polygamists can choose to continue in the relationship of their choice without getting married. Plenty of people opposed to same sex marriage think that gays can choose to be straight. If the definition of marriage depends on what some people think other people are capable of choosing, the whole thing is unresolvable in any principled way.

    The better argument for same sex marriage is simply to eliminate discrimination based on sex. The current situation where you can only marry the opposite sex is analagous to only women being allowed to be nurses and only men being allowed to be police. It is clearly sex discrimination and there is no need to go beyond that to justify a law change.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Harriet (4,524 comments) says:

    How can NZ gays find the likes of polygamy ‘too distasteful’ for Marriage?

    Afterall……Polygamists DO practice the ‘natural order of things’!

    And at the same time…..gays then abuse those who simply want Marriage to remain as it has for thousands of years?

    Gays would have a better arguement for ‘gay marriage eguality’ if they supported polygamist marriage…..rather than arguing against it!

    NZ gays are not only bigots…but fucken near brainless! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Harriet (4,524 comments) says:

    If there is no arguement for polgamist marriage……then there is no arguement for gay marriage! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Paulus (2,503 comments) says:

    With Wall trying to put her name in lights in New Zealand as a homosexual woman pioneer,
    why call it marriage – which it ain’t.
    Try another name – I am not clever enough to twist the language for another name.
    As a Pioneer will we see Wall’s face on our banknotes soon ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    Let’s not leave out marriage to animals, inanimate objects and relatives. If denial of the title ‘married’ is too unbearable for gays, then why not go the whole hog and make marriage all things to all people?

    Of course the title ‘married’ would then be meaningless, probably the liberal/atheist objective, but at least I’d feel justified in declining to answer any form-based questions on my marital status.. unless there is an ‘other’ category.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Yvette (2,692 comments) says:

    There doesn’t actually seem to be much of a demand from polygamists and polyandrists.
    No one much appears to be crying out for it, nor the Pope condemning it – he is more fearful of gay marriage single-handedly destroying humanity.

    So perhaps give up on the argument that same sex marriage requires acceptance of multi-combination marriages, or wedding animals as well, or bespousing several dogs at the same time – there isn’t a bill accepted in Parliament for either yet.

    Although I do worry about where some laws may lead.
    Like New Zealand firearms laws which allow farmers to deal with sick stock, people to control rabbits, goats and possums, and some hunters to kill defenceless deer, pigs and chamois – how long before someone actually uses a gun against another human being in criminals pursuits, simple vengence or to perhaps end a marriage.
    There – how far can you get in combining a same-sex marriage thread with that of the Bain killings? -
    Le prendre d’ici si tu peux

    Liberté, Fraternité :-) , Egalité!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. JMS (303 comments) says:

    Let’s not leave out marriage to animals, inanimate objects and relatives.

    Yep, provided the government is in no way involved, I have no problem with people “marrying” their cars, god, their dog/dogs, even themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. iMP (2,245 comments) says:

    The main argument here is NOT that conservatives suggest “gay” and “polygamy” are the same but that the SAME semantic arguments used by Rainbow Labour in favour of redefining marriage (ie equality, discrimination) apply equally to polygamy (among other things).

    The polygamy or threesomes comparison shows that the Redefining Marriage arguments are selective, and that if you support redefining marriage you’re advocating as much “discrimination” and “inequality” as conservatives apparently are, opposing changes to marriage.

    It demonstrates how disingenuous the political rhetoric and semantic nonsense around this debate really is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Ryan Sproull (7,033 comments) says:

    Anyway I personally do not accept the argument that if you support same sex marriage you should support polygamous marriage. I don’t think people have any significant choice over their sexual orientation. I do think people have a choice about the number of people they want to be in a relationship with.

    I don’t think it matters. Gay marriage shouldn’t be legally recognised because being gay isn’t a choice. All kinds of things aren’t choices. Gay marriage should be legally recognised because it’s none of the State’s business backing one consenting adult relationship over another. Ideally I don’t think the State should be involved in marriage at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Yvette (2,692 comments) says:

    iMP – What extravagances then would gays need to include as further equal groups, to allow the request that same-sex couples have what they are asking for.

    Or applying your argument that their seeking ‘equality’ “demonstrates how disingenuous the political rhetoric and semantic nonsense around this debate really is”, for those seeking the right to euthanasia, how many other groups of people should they include not to seem selfcentred?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. dime (9,468 comments) says:

    “Just vote Conservative Party.

    Send National’s liberals (who should be in the Labour Party) the message that you’ve had it up to here with their bullshit.”

    haha yeah vote Conservative and have some creepy dude tell you how much piss you drink, how many hookers you can bang and a bunch of other nanny state laws.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Andrei (2,506 comments) says:

    Ideally I don’t think the State should be involved in marriage at all.

    That is the real agenda behind gay “marriage”, to render it meaningless by whitewashing away the real purpose for which it was instituted.

    The Bolsheviks got rid of marriage after the Russian revoltion but reinstituted it after a few years because of the social catastrophe that ensued.

    But leftists never learn, and never give up and what the Bolsheviks did with a bloody revolution their intellectual heirs are doing by stealth.

    BIG GOVERNMENT types hate families because people from strong families resist becoming dependant on BIG GOVERNMENT and are often hostile to its aims, thus the deliberate undrmining of the family we have seen in the past two decades.

    Gay “marriage” is just the latest assault.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    haha yeah vote Conservative and have some creepy dude tell you how much piss you drink, how many hookers you can bang and a bunch of other nanny state laws.

    I am getting to like you dime :)

    They are all waiting for their righteous moral leader, Graham Capill, to be released ! A great example of the conservative right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Bob R (1,340 comments) says:

    ***I do think people have a choice about the number of people they want to be in a relationship with.***

    Men particularly tend to be hardwired to desire multiple s8xual partners – so I don’t think this is correct. However, for social stability monogamy is definitely a good thing.

    http://reason.com/archives/2006/04/03/one-man-many-wives-big-problem

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. JMS (303 comments) says:

    @Andrei

    you seem incapable to break free of state-based thinking.

    If you want to get married (in a private church ceremony for example) and then go on to form a strong independently minded family, go for it!
    Why do you feel this deep-seated need to get the tick of approval from big government?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Harriet (4,524 comments) says:

    Ryan Spoull#

    “….Ideally I don’t think the State should be involved in marriage at all….”

    Idiot!

    When your future husband eventually fucks you over for someone younger Ryan, and takes all your property, are you really saying the law should stay out of it all?

    A Family court judge will tell you that marriage involves property….and children too…..didn’t you know that Ryan? :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Harriet (4,524 comments) says:

    Ryan Spoull has just acknowledged that people should be allowed to Marry anything at all…….candyfloss…..tea cossies…..and ageing Dandys like himself! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Andrei (2,506 comments) says:

    Why do you feel this deep-seated need to get the tick of approval from big government?

    I don’t – marriage is a cultural artifact, usurped by the GOVERNMENT who have proceeded to trash it the way they manage to trash everything they get their sticky paws on

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. JMS (303 comments) says:

    marriage is a cultural artifact, usurped by the GOVERNMENT who have proceeded to trash it the way they manage to trash everything they get their sticky paws on

    So can we agree that government should never have gotten their sticky paws on marriage in the first place?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Harriet (4,524 comments) says:

    Andrei#

    Agreed….the government value everything the same…..so infact they now don’t value anything at all……….and that has emboldened the gays!

    Just look at the crap arguements for gay marriage from Ryan! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Andrei (2,506 comments) says:

    So can we agree that government should never have gotten their sticky paws on marriage in the first place?

    It is something that I have always regreted

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. RRM (9,471 comments) says:

    Harriet:

    When your future husband eventually fucks you over for someone younger Ryan, and takes all your property, are you really saying the law should stay out of it all?

    It doesn’t surprise me that this is a salient issue for you… just sayin’… :-P

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Rex Widerstrom (5,274 comments) says:

    Nigel Kearney points out:

    People being allowed to marry someone they love is just as much an argument for polygamy as for same sex marriage.

    Which is why, as I’ve said before the “Marriage Equality Bill” is no such thing, and has been named as such in an attempt to mollify people who might otherwise oppose gay marriage. I don’t, but I object to Wall disgusing the Bill’s intentions in this way, especially since I’m slightly acquainted with polyamorous couples whom I believe would like to acknowledge all parties in the relationship as equal but, usually because two met and married first before deciding they wished to be polyamorous, have a situation where two people in the unit have the relationship acknowleged and a third (the few I know are all triumvirates) does not.

    “In for a penny, in for a pound” as my old gran used to say. Either the status quo or proper equality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Matthew Flannagan (62 comments) says:

    David Farrar writes.

    “Anyway I personally do not accept the argument that if you support same sex marriage you should support polygamous marriage. I don’t think people have any significant choice over their sexual orientation. I do think people have a choice about the number of people they want to be in a relationship with.”

    Yet in his submission he offered the following central argument for same sex marriage: “same sex couple is of course different to a couple of the opposition gender. But this doesn’t mean that the law should discriminate in not allowing same sex couples to marry. Same sex couples fall in love, commit to each other, form households and raise children – the core of being a family. The law should allow such couples to marry. Why would we want an adult couple desiring marriage to not be able to marry?”

    Consenting incestous couples and polygamous people fall in love, they commit to each other, they form households and they raise children, moreover the current law discriminates against them. So in fact the reasons David gave in his submission apply with equal force to polygamy and incestous unions.

    I could go throw some other arguments David made and show the same thing. For example his argument that marriage benefits people and so should be extended to homosexual couples ( the same benefits would accrue to polygamous and incestous couples) the rejection that religious or traditional norms should be accepted ( the same norms that condemn polygamy and incest) his argument that Nero engaged in same sex marriage (Nero engaged in incest) and his argument that homosexual conduct is genetic ( in fact recent research states attraction to parents can be genetic) or his argument that the church has changed it’s definition of marriage over time ( the prohibited degrees of marriage have also been altered over time) In fact almost every argument David have an analogous one can be given for incestous or polygamous unions.

    This is simple BS liberals have given arguments, those arguments have logical implications, if they do not accept the implications they should retract the arguments. If they do accept the implications then they should be honest and tell the public what accepting this implications mean.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. bringbackdemocracy (394 comments) says:

    Why did we introduce civil unions?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. chiz (1,119 comments) says:

    MF: and his argument that homosexual conduct is genetic

    DPF has stated that he believes orientation to be innate from birth, but that isn’t the same thing as saying that it is genetic and I’m not aware that he has stated that it is genetic (rather than just being biological). He certainly hasn’t stated that homosexual conduct is genetic however, since he understands that conduct and orientation aren’t the same thing.

    ( in fact recent research states attraction to parents can be genetic),/I>

    You have a reference for this I assume?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. ChardonnayGuy (1,136 comments) says:

    Except that Canada turned down the opportunity to strike down Section 293 of the Canadian Criminal Code, which still bans polygamy, due to a “reference case” reported back in November 2011 before the British Columbia Supreme Court. As for so-called ‘consensual adult incest’, the European Court of Human Rights knocked back a German couple suffering from the psychopathology known as ‘genetic sexual attraction’, which occurs sometimes when seperated adult children are reunited with their birth families after early adoption in the case Stuebing versus Germany only last year.

    Shame that fact gets in the way of rhetoric, doesn’t it? And once again, the slippery slope doesn’t seem to exist. Mind you, Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism in the sixteenth century, did condone polygamy! Have a look at the Wikipedia entry for Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, and see what happens. There are many other details about the history of Christian polygamy which appear to have conveniently slipped Bob McCoskrie’s mind…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    Polygamy is the original”traditional marriage”…..the Christian liars blank that fact out as they do most others. If an arrangement doesn’t impact on any ones else individual rights then its no business of the state or anyone else…who cares?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Matthew Flannagan (62 comments) says:

    Chiz,

    David gave several arguments for same sex marriage if one of them commits him to supporting incest or polygamous marriage then he is rationally committed to this conclusion. The fact that he made other arguments that did not is neither here nor there. In this case I identified several such arguments, unless David is going to attract over half his submission he is committed to the conclusion.

    Second what David said in his submission was that homosexuality was inate like “being left handed” which would suggest he buys the genetic argument. If by homosexuality he means only orientation and not conduct then the claim that homosexuals can choose a partner to marry fails because that conclusion follows only if they cannot choose to refrain from forming a heterosexual union, and that’s an issue of conduct.

    Third, as to incest being genetic, your welcome to google genetic sexual attraction (GES) which is a genetic phenomena where a person involuntarily falls deeply in love and finds themselves overwhelmingly attracted to a sibling or parent. It’s involved in several cases of consensual incest.

    Fourth, I note you asked for sources, did you ask David to verify the multiple claims in his submission when he posted it. For example his claim that in claimed medieval canon law had the age of marriage at seven? ( in fact it was 14, 7 was the age of bethrothal which is not the same as marriage) I don’t recall any demands for verification then.

    The fact is David has offered several reasons for same sex marriage which apply with equal force to polygamy and incestous unions, he is not the only one to have done so, it’s a fairly common phenomena. If he thinks stands by these arguments he is committed to supporting incest and polygamy and his comments above are total BS. If he does not support these things then he needs to retract his arguments.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Reid (15,970 comments) says:

    Wouldn’t it be nice if the media gave equal prominence to a story about how someone slams Wall and the rest of the gay lobby for bullshitting about their “equality claim on gay bill” as the Herald headline currently reads.

    But no, that won’t happen will it.

    Can’t trash the equality meme, can we. How the hell else will all the useless idiots be fooled “some of the time?”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. SPC (5,397 comments) says:

    Matrhew Flanagan

    Richard 11 married a Princess of France when she was 6.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabella_of_Valois

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Dean Papa (743 comments) says:

    How’s about if you’re in a commmitted relationship with a goat? It’s a slippery slope I tells ya!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. SPC (5,397 comments) says:

    The distinction between homosexual partner marriages and some others who love each other, but cannot marry, is the legal status of the sexual activity.

    1. lesbian sex was never criminal, just categorised as abnormal and requiring treatment
    2. homosexual male sex acts were illegal until 1986.

    One reason fior this was that prohibition forced gay men under cover – where they married women and had their secret lives. After the HIV/AIDS scare this became a threat to public health (as was married men vcisiting prostitutes if no condomes were used etc). Thus a reason to end criminalisation and allowing gay men legal sexual activity – from this point the issue was always going to be when they too could marry. This does not apply to others – incest/close genetic/close relationship by marriage relatives.

    As to equality, equality regardless of race, religion, gender, sexuality does really infer no barriers to whom one can marry barring prohibitons that apply to all equally.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Reid (15,970 comments) says:

    As to equality, equality regardless of race, religion, gender, sexuality does really infer no barriers to whom one can marry barring prohibitons that apply to all equally.

    Yes well fucking d’oh SPC “equality” occurred when they got Civil Unions didn’t it and if gays want to adopt then let’s have a gay adoption debate and not a gay marriage debate.

    That’s the very simple logic that none, yes none, zero, of the slack-jawed useless idiots that buy into gay marriage because it’s “inequality” have never, yes never, refuted. Or even attempted to.

    And yet the very same slack-jawed idiots keep insisting their position is to correct an “inequality.”

    Idiots, aren’t they.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Ryan Sproull (7,033 comments) says:

    That is the real agenda behind gay “marriage”, to render it meaningless by whitewashing away the real purpose for which it was instituted.

    The Bolsheviks got rid of marriage after the Russian revoltion but reinstituted it after a few years because of the social catastrophe that ensued.

    But leftists never learn, and never give up and what the Bolsheviks did with a bloody revolution their intellectual heirs are doing by stealth.

    BIG GOVERNMENT types hate families because people from strong families resist becoming dependant on BIG GOVERNMENT and are often hostile to its aims, thus the deliberate undrmining of the family we have seen in the past two decades.

    Gay “marriage” is just the latest assault.

    You’re the one wanting State interference in marriage, Andrei, if you’re disagreeing with me on that point. You know, you and Stalin.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Ryan Sproull (7,033 comments) says:

    Idiot!

    When your future husband eventually fucks you over for someone younger Ryan, and takes all your property, are you really saying the law should stay out of it all?

    A Family court judge will tell you that marriage involves property….and children too…..didn’t you know that Ryan?

    The law’s welcome to deal with whatever contract I draw up with my wife. Hell, the state can provide a template like it does with employment contracts, if it likes.

    But if I haven’t made any legal agreement with my wife, yes, Harriet, the law can fuck off, as can the Nanny State and any other government agency you think should be sticking its nose in my business.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. chiz (1,119 comments) says:

    MF:Second what David said in his submission was that homosexuality was inate like “being left handed” which would suggest he buys the genetic argument.

    It doesn’t suggest any such thing. He stated in his submission that he believes that people do not choose to be gay and that he believes sexual orientation to be immutable, comparing it to left-handedness. He does not go any further on these points as to whether he thinks that sexual orientation is biological or whether he thinks that it is genetic. It’s not clear whether he understands that those two claims aren’t the same. Its possible that he thinks that claiming that orientation is biological is the same thing as claiming that it is genetic. Its possible on the other hand that he does understand that there is a difference between these two claims. There doesn’t appear to a basis, purely from his submission, for determining this. Your claim that he said in his submission that homosexuality was genetic isn’t true. He may well believe this but he didn’t say it in his submission as you claimed.

    If by homosexuality he means only orientation and not conduct then the claim that homosexuals can choose a partner to marry fails because that conclusion follows only if they cannot choose to refrain from forming a heterosexual union, and that’s an issue of conduct.

    I was referring to your paraphrasing of DPF in my comment. DPF understands that sexual conduct and sexual orientation aren’t the same thing and would never claim that “homosexual conduct” is genetic as you had him saying. If he believed that homosexuality was genetic he would say that and not mistakenly claim that it was the resulting conduct that was genetic. Your inability to accurately represent DPF’s views isn’t helpful.

    Third, as to incest being genetic, your welcome to google genetic sexual attraction (GES) which is a genetic phenomena where a person involuntarily falls deeply in love and finds themselves overwhelmingly attracted to a sibling or parent. It’s involved in several cases of consensual incest.

    Yes, I’m aware of this phenomenon. However you claimed:

    in fact recent research states attraction to parents can be genetic

    which appears to be making further claims than just the existence of GSA. Given that people are usually genetically related to their parents your claim that GSA can be genetic seems to be a claim that there is a gene behind GSA and, furthermore that there was research indicating this, which is why I was curious about it. If this isn’t what you meant then your phrasing was abysmal, which is atypical for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Reid (15,970 comments) says:

    This UK article makes another point in addition to the state intervention one, which is also reflected in this country: it’s useful to the conservative elites so they can pretend they give a shit.

    It seems clear that the radical civil rights imagery cynically wheeled out by gay marriage advocates disguises that this is in truth a highly elitist, debate-allergic campaign. That is because, fundamentally, gay marriage speaks to, not any public thirst for the overhaul of marriage, but rather the narrow needs of some of the most elitist strata in our society. The benefit of the gay marriage issue for our rulers and betters is twofold. First, it allows them to pose as enlightened and cosmopolitan, as bravely willing to to enact ‘civilising measures’, in contrast with the bigots who make up the more traditional, religious or lumpen sections of society. As one observer said yesterday, gay marriage has become a ‘red line’ in politics, determining one’s goodness or badness. Supporting gay marriage has become a key cultural signifier, primarily of moral rectitude, among everyone from politicians to the media classes to bankers: that is, members of an elite who have increasingly few opportunities for moral posturing in these relativistic times. And second, and crucially, gay marriage satisfies the instinct of the authorities to meddle in marital and family life; it throws open to state intervention previously no-go zones, including the very meaning of our most intimate relationships.

    Of course the elites are idiots as well, the fools don’t realise what they’re doing. They think it doesn’t matter, they’re giving away nothing, in their minds. And they’re getting the approval of the people, for being fweindly. That’s why Key etc is doing it. The fact the idiots don’t know what they’re throwing away, for free, without a fight, shows they’re entirely unfit to run the country. Were Hulun a [genuine and not faux] conservative, with her acute understanding of social engineering, she would never have done it. Of course most of the fools in this govt wouldn’t know a conservative value if it leapt up and smacked them in their moronic, supercilious faces.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    This is all pretty old news really..the next thing on the list is the lowering of the age of consent to 12 or 13..after that the legalization of paedophilia which will be called ”youth attracted adults” or some such euphemism..I cannot recall the exact wording.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. SPC (5,397 comments) says:

    Mathew Flannagan

    The concept of orientation is not based on genetics – a gay man and a lesbian woman would not have a greater chance of breeding another homosexual than anyone else. Not even when raising the child up in a gay partner home. Research sugests that hormones in the womb have some influence. That when combined with other factors, possibly genetic – such as the way a male is a male or a female is a female, may have some consequence.

    I will agree that behaviour can be influential, but who is to say who has the right to act on their nature and who without that
    nature (by apparently being bi-sexual for example) cannot choose to act the same way, if they choose too? Some women seem quite happy with woman partners after a failed marriage.

    As to orientation, not necessitating conduct.

    I will first note that the Catholic Church accepts that the orientation is real even for virgin men in the priesthood.

    I will then note that the Catholic Church laity person is quite capable of not acting on their attraction for people not of their faith and only acting on their sexuality with a fellow Catholic after a marriage. And to not use contraception during their marriage. Despite this it has been known that not all Catholics marry as virgins and not only to fellow Catholics etc etc and of course the number of priests in the USA who died of HIV/AIDS.

    The church can cite desire what is “natural” and good (only when within marriage and the act of proceation) and then try and label other desire as not fit for the marriage bed. All based on claiming to know what God wants for humanity.

    So what is it God wants? Is it for homosexual men to marry heterosexual women, for lesbian women to marry heterosexual men so children are raised by both their parents, even if this means marital partners cheating with their lovers? Or is it for these men and women to live out celibate lives without either children or marriage partners. Or is it otherwise?

    After all in a world where most Catholic women use contraception (have sex with no intention of having a child in the year they are doing so), where many practice oral sex with their partners and I won’t even go into what some other women get up to – what is the point of banning same sex partners doing on their marriage beds what heterosexual couples are also doing?

    Equality, if the sex is legal why should same sex partners be banned form doing it on their marriage beds too?

    But is this is confused by acceptance of oral sex on the m
    all it likes, and seek to regulate action or conduct all it likes based on its claim of knowing what God wants for humanity, but human nature is
    but what happens in each case is much the same.
    nd then expect the results of restraint of conduct to be any different in either case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. SPC (5,397 comments) says:

    Given there is no edit function I’ll repost.

    Mathew Flannagan

    The concept of orientation is not based on genetics – a gay man and a lesbian woman would not have a greater chance of breeding another homosexual than anyone else. Not even when raising the child up in a gay partner home. Research sugests that hormones in the womb have some influence. That when combined with other factors, possibly genetic – such as the way a male is a male or a female is a female, may have some consequence.

    I will agree that behaviour can be influential, but who is to say who has the right to act on their nature and who without that
    nature (by apparently being bi-sexual for example) cannot choose to act the same way, if they choose too? Some women seem quite happy with woman partners after a failed marriage.

    As to orientation, not necessitating conduct.

    I will first note that the Catholic Church accepts that the orientation is real even for virgin men in the priesthood.

    I will then note that the Catholic Church laity person is quite capable of not acting on their attraction for people not of their faith and only acting on their sexuality with a fellow Catholic after a marriage. And to not use contraception during their marriage. Despite this it has been known that not all Catholics marry as virgins and not only to fellow Catholics etc etc and of course the number of priests in the USA who died of HIV/AIDS.

    The church can cite desire what is “natural” and good (only when within marriage and the act of proceation) and then try and label other desire as not fit for the marriage bed. All based on claiming to know what God wants for humanity.

    So what is it God wants? Is it for homosexual men to marry heterosexual women, for lesbian women to marry heterosexual men so children are raised by both their parents, even if this means marital partners cheating with their lovers? Or is it for these men and women to live out celibate lives without either children or marriage partners. Or is it otherwise?

    After all in a world where most Catholic women use contraception (have sex with no intention of having a child in the year they are doing so), where many practice oral sex with their partners and I won’t even go into what some other women get up to – what is the point of banning same sex partners doing on their marriage beds what heterosexual couples are also doing?

    Equality, if the sex is legal why should same sex partners be banned form doing it on their marriage beds too?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. mikenmild (10,766 comments) says:

    I’m strongly with Ryan on this one. Get the state completely out of regulating personal relationships between consenting adults.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Reid (15,970 comments) says:

    SPC you still didn’t explain where the inequality is. Try again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Reid (15,970 comments) says:

    Get the state completely out of regulating personal relationships between consenting adults.

    Yes of course you are mm, your towering ignorance of how social engineering works is showing. Here it is in a nutshell from the same link I gave above, from the UK, the home of political correctness. After all, that’s where Travistock is based.

    It is striking that the report doesn’t once mention the creation of families and that every one of its eight mentions of the world ‘children’ is in response to, and criticism of, groups that petitioned the government to recognise the importance of marriage as an institution for the bearing and socialisation of the next generation. ‘Procreation’, ‘reproduction’, even ‘community’ – none of these appear in this new state ruling on what marriage is (though it does twice mention the needs of the ‘transgender community’). What is happening here is a naked redefinition of marriage by the state, the diminution of the social, generational role played by marriage in communities, and its replacement by a highly individualised, companionship-based conception of marriage that speaks to the narrow needs of gay campaigners and the prejudices of modern bourgeois elites. In essence, all marriages are being redefined in order to massage the identity needs of small numbers of homosexuals who wish to define their relationships as marriages. The report makes great play of the fact that it isn’t true that officials will start referring to mothers and fathers as ‘Progenitor A’ and ‘Progenitor B’, as some critics claimed; but that assurance rings hollow indeed in a long report that doesn’t once mention mothers or fathers, or family or community. The state’s demotion of the role of marriage as a fundamentally social, generational institution is implicit, and powerful, requiring no need for the explicit ditching of words like ‘mother’ or ‘father’; they’re simply not used rather than rewritten.

    There is something spectacularly disingenuous about this report. It continually seeks to assure us that the state is not overhauling marriage – ‘the administrative processes will remain the same for marriage’, it says, with words like ‘husband and wife’ still being used ‘for legal purposes’. Yet while the administrative aspects of marriage might remain intact, the moral meaning of this institution for great swathes of the population and for communities throughout history is being radically rewritten; the purpose of marriage, its definition, is being overhauled. It has in fact been long accepted that the state has the authority to oversee the ‘administration’ and legal aspects of marriage, to broker marriage; but it has never been accepted that the state can tell individuals, community and society itself what marriage should mean to us. Until now. Now, the state has colonised the very meaning of marriage, which is ‘about two people’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. SPC (5,397 comments) says:

    Why Reid? You seem to overstate the relevance of convincing you of anything.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Fletch (6,028 comments) says:

    “Marriage equality” is meaningless; a sound bite of propaganda.

    What about, say, Brother or Sister Equality? I should have the right to call you my sister, even if you’re not, because otherwise it’s not fair that I’m missing out on the familial relationship that I desire with you and which real brothers and sisters enjoy and I should have the same rights as a real brother – because I’m being discriminated against otherwise.

    That makes as much sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Reid (15,970 comments) says:

    Why Reid?

    Because SPC marriage isn’t about relationships it’s about families and socialisation, and you didn’t mention that, at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. SPC (5,397 comments) says:

    Reid, if it was about families – and the civil union legislation provided equality then the parents partner would have a step-parent staus just as occurs with some marriages.

    But no it did not so civil unions do not provide equality and they do not provide for family building.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Yvette (2,692 comments) says:

    Fletch – how Chinese do you feel, assuming you are some other ‘equal’ nationality?
    How ‘equal’ are you to Maori, who are ‘first’, and again I assume you are not?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Don the Kiwi (1,599 comments) says:

    . I don’t think people have any significant choice over their sexual orientation

    Rubbish.
    There is no evidence to support, and much evidence to deny, that same sex atteaction is nurture, not nature.

    Our actions are always a choice. In the last few weeks, I have had chats with 2 relatives – one is homosexual, and the other lesbian. They both agree that they recognise their same sex attraction, but it is a matter of choice whether or not they act on them. In fact, the lsbian relative is taking steps to overcome her orientation, which she is confident she will accomplish.
    If I have a tendency and a compulsion toward rape, or adultery, it is a choice whether or not I choose to act upon those impulses or attractions.
    Our society has lost its moral compass.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Fletch (6,028 comments) says:

    Or what about a cultural institution like fish and chips? What if I wanted sausage and chips to ALSO be referred to as ‘fish and chips’, even though it isn’t. Just because. :D
    Then what was originally fish and chips would have lost it’s meaning.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. chiz (1,119 comments) says:

    Don: There is no evidence to support, and much evidence to deny, that same sex atteaction is nurture, not nature

    Rubbish yourself, Don. There is good evidence that sexual orientation is nature, not nurture.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. SPC (5,397 comments) says:

    Don, why is same sex activity wrong or immoral? The same acts occur betweeen heterosexual partners.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Ryan Sproull (7,033 comments) says:

    Or what about a cultural institution like fish and chips? What if I wanted sausage and chips to ALSO be referred to as ‘fish and chips’, even though it isn’t. Just because.
    Then what was originally fish and chips would have lost it’s meaning.

    It’s a bit more like you saying it’s only fish and chips if they use terakihi for the fish, but if they use snapper then it doesn’t count.

    What makes marriage marriage is it being a committed loving relationship between consenting adults. What makes fish and chips fish and chips is that it’s fish, and it’s chips. Don’t whine just because you don’t think people should be into snapper.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Left Right and Centre (2,821 comments) says:

    You don’t need laws telling men they can’t have more than one woman.

    No bloke would dare take on more than one kiwi woman at a time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Left Right and Centre (2,821 comments) says:

    I wonder how many polygamists there are in NZ?

    I say if they want multiple person relationships… why not?

    and ben… I’m not sure if it’s the process or the outcome but maybe you could take a look at both and tell me. Something’s up with my bodily functions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Reid (15,970 comments) says:

    Reid, if it was about families – and the civil union legislation provided equality then the parents partner would have a step-parent staus just as occurs with some marriages.

    SPC, it IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! about families and that’s not MY “allegation” it’s civilised history’s OUTCOMES across every single human culture ever since homo sapiens started farming.

    How come this is difficult for some to understand?

    But no it did not so civil unions do not provide equality and they do not provide for family building.

    Yes but der, SPC, EQUALITY is about correcting a real ACTUAL unequal status in something real that humans designed, like, oh I don’t know, the law. Which Civil Unions supposedly addressed, in a full and final settlement, according to Hulun herself at the time, some years ago. Problem solved. End of story. No more unequal treatment in property rights etc. Over and out. Period.

    The fact that despite this new law, gays are still unable to give birth merely by fucking each other up the arse or giving each blowjobs or whatever the hell they choose to do with themselves in the privacy of their own home, IS NOT SOCIETY’S PROBLEM AND IT’S NOT SOMETHING THE LAW CAN REMEDY EITHER. I suggest if gays really do want children then they should all furiously study medicine and maybe in time to come, they can work it out for themselves. But meantime, it’s their problem, their problem alone, and it’s not discrimination because that, SPC, is just the way the world works. You may not like it, but hey, who cares. Just because you don’t like it, doesn’t make it discrimination, either.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. RRM (9,471 comments) says:

    So has anyone else here been to get their compulsory root up the arse yet?

    It was much less traumatic than I expected, these new Government Sodomy Centres are actually quite good…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Griff (6,825 comments) says:

    No but I had my sex with close family members card updated thank god it was with sis and not dad
    Dad would have been to catholic for my tastes

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. SPC (5,397 comments) says:

    Reid, you claim that civil unions provided for equality. But they do not. If civil unions were providing equality, then civil union partners of parents would be step-parents. As they are not, there is not equality with married partners.

    You then say that marriage is about more than relationship but also family. And this is one reason why civil unions do not provide equality, they do not make partners step-parents of children – this prevents families being established by these civil unions.

    So it appears that the flaw of civil unions is that they do not provide the equality and family building that a marriage does. Easily fixed and this year it will be.

    As for what Helen said, she no more defines what we do in the future than John Key does the future of super after he leaves office. What about that don’t you understand – you think what an ex politician says is binding on countries years later?

    As to breeding, infertile heterosexual couples do so now using methods available to same sex partners.

    out family

    claiming if it was about families – and the civil union legislation provided equality then the parents partner would have a step-parent staus just as occurs with some marriages.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. SPC (5,397 comments) says:

    edited …

    Reid, you claim that civil unions provided for equality. But they do not. If civil unions were providing equality, then civil union partners of parents would be step-parents. As they are not, there is not equality with married partners.

    You then say that marriage is about more than relationship but also family. And this is one reason why civil unions do not provide equality, they do not make partners step-parents of children – this prevents families being established by these civil unions.

    So it appears that the flaw of civil unions is that they do not provide the equality and family building that a marriage does. Easily fixed and this year it will be.

    As for what Helen said, she no more defines what we do in the future than John Key does the future of super after he leaves office. What about that don’t you understand – you think what an ex politician says is binding on countries years later?

    As to breeding, infertile heterosexual couples do so now using methods available to same sex partners.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Fletch (6,028 comments) says:

    Ryan, you’re doing it again, changing something to mean what you want it to mean: in this case my example, which is perfectly valid. A Terakehi is still a fish and that makes it still fish and chips. Which is like saying a woman is Chinese or English or American – but she is still a woman and a wife. My analogy to sausage and chips is more like what we’re talking about. A man can never be a wife.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Fletch (6,028 comments) says:

    And so, if I then went into a takeaway and asked for fish and chips, what would I be getting? Who knows, because what was “fish and chips” would have lost its original meaning. “Fish and Chips” would have lost the meaning it used to have and thus becomes meaningless for both those wanting the original “fish and chips” and for those wanting “sausage and chips” to mean the same as fish and chips. Thus both parties lose out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Griff (6,825 comments) says:

    Do you stick your sausage into fish then Fletch?
    No Fletch a man can not be a wife
    I believe that the correct term for a homo mans partner is bitch. Mind you I was once in a relationship when the agreed term was bitch and bastard. She was female and all so I suppose rules of language dont always apply.
    You dont own words or morality Fletch and never does your church.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. kowtow (7,645 comments) says:

    Don the Kiwi says…..

    “Our society has lost it’s moral compass.”

    So true. And we will reap the whirl wind.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. RRM (9,471 comments) says:

    So, somehow, gay marriage will lead to confusion in the fish & chip shop for Christian Taliban types who are a bit twisted out of shape about their sausages?

    :neutral:

    I think I’ve heard it all now…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Ryan Sproull (7,033 comments) says:

    Ryan, you’re doing it again, changing something to mean what you want it to mean: in this case my example, which is perfectly valid. A Terakehi is still a fish and that makes it still fish and chips. Which is like saying a woman is Chinese or English or American – but she is still a woman and a wife. My analogy to sausage and chips is more like what we’re talking about. A man can never be a wife.

    Fletch, you’re doing it again, changing something to mean what you want it to mean. You want “marriage” to include “a man and a woman” as essential to its meaning. I’m simply acknowledging that while it may have meant that once, it’s about love these days, not about the sex of the lovers in question. The sex of the consenting adults is incidental, not essential, to what marriage is. Or what the word “marriage” has come to mean.

    That’s why gay marriage is a thinkable proposition these days. It’s not a contradiction in terms like “square circle” or “free will”. Even when people are opposed to it, the majority of them are opposed to gay marriage, opposed to two men being married. The fact that they can conceive of such a thing enough to disapprove of it is just further demonstration of how “marriage” has come to be a romantic commitment thing in the majority of people’s minds.

    Obviously there are still people like yourself for whom “marriage” means something different from “a loving committed relationship between two consenting adults”. You are in the minority, and trying to get other people to conform to your outmoded definition will not get you anywhere.

    I don’t know what would actually get you anywhere, actually, in your desire to have the State enforce your religiously grounded definition on everyone. Never thought about that, what I would advise to an activist in that situation. Fear-mongering might help, if you can get people to think that gay marriage means gay parents, and that gay people are dangerous to be around children. Pull some dodgily funded studies from the States or something, get someone on TV putting that fear into people’s brains. Maybe actively work to confuse the issue of consent so that people get it into their heads that non-consenting relationships (pets, children, etc.) are next on some kind of spectrum, rather than being an entirely different sort of thing by virtue of their lack of consent and adulthood.

    Um. What else could you do.

    Outlawing gay sex would help, I’m sure, but that horse has already bolted.

    Hmm.

    You could try to promote some kind of idealised male/female marriage in the media somehow. Traditional gender roles, but not quite so traditional that you can’t sidestep complaints of gender inequality – a “look, she’s out in the workforce too” sort of thing. God knows how you’d do it, though. Write a really popular TV show. Oh, get Shortland Street writers on board. Have them write likable characters who stand for traditional values and won’t hold with all of this marriage-redefinition nonsense. Have someone who opposes them on the show turn out to be a paedophile or murderer or something. That could work.

    Um. No point swamping talkback radio, cos that’s just preaching to the choir. You need to plant those little seeds of fear. That’s your best bet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. mikenmild (10,766 comments) says:

    He’s trying hard here, but I don’t think people come to Kiwiblog to change their opinions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Andrei (2,506 comments) says:

    Obviously there are still people like yourself for whom “marriage” means something different from “a loving committed relationship between two consenting adults”. You are in the minority, and trying to get other people to conform to your outmoded definition will not get you anywhere.

    ROFLMAO You sir are an ignorant shit, a few western countries have gone down this path of degeneracy, that is all. For the vast majority of the planet this silliness is not even on the radar and if you were to ask the citizens of those lands about homosexuals marrying one another they would think you were bonkers – They’s be correct

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. RRM (9,471 comments) says:

    Andrei – perhaps you would like Uganda? I understand homosexuality is still a capital crime there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Reid (15,970 comments) says:

    So it appears that the flaw of civil unions is that they do not provide the equality and family building that a marriage does.

    No SPC that flaw is beyond the ability of human law to fix. Therefore not something the law should even try to address.

    Case closed.

    Like I say, the only “flaw” in the current law is apparently, gays can’t adopt. Fine. So it’s not a gay marriage issue is it, it’s a gay adoption issue, isn’t it.

    Lest you misunderstand understand, let me repeat the same point. The law cannot give gays their own family, therefore these is no inequality. The law may be able to give gays the right to adopt, so let’s debate that, but let’s do so on the accurate and factual understanding that gay adoption is not, repeat not, anything whatsoever to do, with gay marriage. They are two separate issues.

    Not difficult is it SPC. Not rocket science, as they say.

    And notice that still, none of the useless idiots arguing for gay marriage, has even attempted to explain why the logic I’ve outlined isn’t sound. [Pretending not to understand it or ignoring it doesn't count as an argument SPC.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Azeraph (603 comments) says:

    Stupid British allowing an Anglican bishop that is gay. Well the Aussies turfed it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Sofia (819 comments) says:

    Reid – gay adoption is not, repeat not, anything whatsoever to do, with gay marriage. They are two separate issues.

    But they ARE connected Reid. Gay marriage first. Gay couple adoption next!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Matthew Flannagan (62 comments) says:

    SPC I note the link you provided states:” Although the union was political, Richard II and the child Isabella developed a mutual respectful relationship.” But more importantly am not sure how Richard I doing something shows that Canon law put the age of consent at 7.

    Here is what David said in his submission to parliament.

    “In the 12th century European canon law documented by Gratian allowed marriage from the age of seven onwards, and stayed in force religiously until 1918.”

    Compare that with Thomas Aquinas writing in the 13th century, easily checkable.

    “Since marriage is effected by way of a contract, it comes under the ordinance of positive law like other contracts. Consequently according to law (cap. Tua, De sponsal. impub.) it is determined that marriage may not be contracted before the age of discretion when each party is capable of sufficient deliberation about marriage, and of mutual fulfilment of the marriage debt, and that marriages otherwise contracted are void. Now for the most part this age is the fourteenth year in males and the twelfth year in women: but since the ordinances of positive law are consequent upon what happens in the majority of cases, if anyone reach the required perfection before the aforesaid age, so that nature and reason are sufficiently developed to supply the lack of age, the marriage is not annulled. Wherefore if the parties who marry before the age of puberty have marital intercourse before the aforesaid age, their marriage is none the less perpetually indissoluble.”

    Who to believe about Medieval Canon law, David Farrar or Thomas Aquinas?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Ryan Sproull (7,033 comments) says:

    ROFLMAO You sir are an ignorant shit, a few western countries have gone down this path of degeneracy, that is all. For the vast majority of the planet this silliness is not even on the radar and if you were to ask the citizens of those lands about homosexuals marrying one another they would think you were bonkers – They’s be correct

    Sorry, Andrei, I should have been more clear. I was talking about the majority of New Zealanders, not the entire planet. They’s be the ones I’m talking about. Apologies for appearing like an ignorant shit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. SPC (5,397 comments) says:

    Mathew Flanagan

    I was correcting your misapprehension (you claimed that only betrothal was allowed at age 7), Richard 11 made an actual marriage to his second wife when she was 6 – and she became Queen from then on. Not by a betrothal, but by a marriage.

    It would seem that parents (King of France) form the contract for the marriage in these state liasons, thus the canon law may be a restriction of the behaviour of minors – but less so of parents, expecially royalty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. SPC (5,397 comments) says:

    Reid, why do you confuse adoption with step-parenting?

    A parents marriage to a a partner automatically makes them a step-parent, no adoption is involved.

    Yet a civil union partnership does not do so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Matthew Flannagan (62 comments) says:

    SPC,

    Actually its more likely that wealthy political leaders could get around Canon law for political reasons. Aquinas in context is not regulating the activity of children he is talking about what counts as a valid marriage per se and states canon law in his day places it at puberty. Gratian is online and the text David refers to refers to a bethrothal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. ChardonnayGuy (1,136 comments) says:

    I should point out that New Zealand’s only “exgay” outfit, “Exodus Ministries” in Auckland’s Manurewa, was defunded by the Charities Commission back in 2010 for not conforming to the definition of ‘charitable status’ under the Charities Act 2004. Since then, not a peep has been heard from that general direction. It has no website and it even seems to have stopped advertising in the fundamentalist Challenge Weekly. What was that about ‘gay conversion’ again, ‘phobes?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. ChardonnayGuy (1,136 comments) says:

    And while Richard II married whom we would consider a legal minor, much like the Saxon Edward the Confessor in the eleventh century, Richard later stated that he was to be considered a “Virgin King” like his illustrious and devout predecessor, suggesting that the monarch in question was asexual and celibate…and not a very good monarch, given that he was deposed by his cousin, Bolingbroke, Duke of Lancaster, later Henry IV, in 1399. It seems to be man-virginity that was the greater social threat, given that Edward the Confessor’s asexuality later led to the cataclysmic events of the reign of Harold II, the Battle of Hastings and Norman Conquest in 1066!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Liberal Minded Kiwi (1,563 comments) says:

    Fuck I can’t wait for this law to pass so I can see not only the looks on the faces of our fundy losers here, but also to sit back and wait for society to not fall over and life going on like it always does.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. ChardonnayGuy (1,136 comments) says:

    Or for the temper tantrums and weird accusations to begin. Marriage equality will not lead to random meterological disturbances, seismic events, zombie apocalypses, pet marriages, rains of frogs, sanguine rivers, mass can cans down Queen Street or Lambton Quay, massive rabid sheep offensives or any other imaginary ‘consequences.’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Adele Keyshia (39 comments) says:

    I think the problem that most liberal minded people have with polygamy is that it commonly involves the exploitation of a number of woman by a single man. This is an understandable concern but in principle if we truly wish to avoid discrimination believe everyone has the right to recognise the relationship with someone (or more) they love, most of the arguments in favour of gay marriage can also be applied to polygamous marriage. I’ll make it clear that I am not a proponent of polygamy and I do support gay marriage however from a philosophical point of view I struggle to reconcile Louisa’s view. There will always be explotative, unhealthy and violent relationships whether it’s a gay, lesbian, straight or polyamorous relationship. Furthermore these relatioships are going to exist whether they can be validated through marriage or not. But we don’t abolish the institution of marriage just because domestic violence exists. And it is discriminatory in my mind to, based on the stereotype that polyamorous relationships are exploitative, deny a loving, caring, healthy trio from recognising their relationship.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Ryan Sproull (7,033 comments) says:

    Well said, Adele.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Matthew Flannagan (62 comments) says:

    Liberal minded kiwi, perhaps you can point to who in here is a “fundamentalist” and also who ever argued society would fall over if same sex marriage is allowed.

    I am sure sterotyping and caricaturing people is par for the course for “liberal minded kiwis” but don’t pretend its anything other than that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.