Polyamory

April 24th, 2013 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

A group is calling for the Government to consider legalising multi-partner marriages.

The group set up a Facebook page just before the Marriage Amendment Bill passed through Parliament last week, legalising gay marriage.

A statement on the page described multi-partner – or polyamorous – marriage as “responsible, adult, committed non-monogamy,” and said all committed loving relationships between adults regardless of number should be respected and given legal acknowledgement.

“Some Australian Greens have now got a lobby group going, there are several MPs around the world coming out as poly and poly-friendly and it seems the time is right to at least bring it to the attention of the New Zealand public and New Zealand parliament,” the group said.

“This will be a long-term project but with the rest of the world getting on the bandwagon legal multiple partner marriages/unions may one day be accepted.”

It’s an anonymous Facebook group. I’ll take this debate seriously when there are actual New Zealanders living in polyamorous relationships who are willing to step forward and say they want to be able to have multiple husbands or wives.

Most people have gay friends or acquaintances. I know probably a few thousand people and don’t know any of them who are in a polyamorous relationship. There was some Auckland celebrity who was in one a few years ago, but I can’t recall who they were.

Is this a debate that we may have one day? Possibly.

As it happens polyamorous marriages are already recognised in New Zealand law, if they were married in a country which allows them and now live here. I wonder if Stats NZ or DIA has any data on how many of these there are?

Tags:

107 Responses to “Polyamory”

  1. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    Ohh ahhhhhh! :-o The slippery slope! Sodom! Gomorrah! You were warned…..etc

    ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    I don’t agree with it at all. It just encourages insanity.

    Anyone that after being married to one person, wants to multiply the initial insanity by adding another wife/husband/other has to be certifiable.

    Having said that – I’d happily marry the entire All Black team providing they throw SBW’s in as an extra.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Urban Redneck (234 comments) says:

    Most homosexuals don’t want to get “married” either but activists away from the coalface made it happen.

    Make no bones about it, civil unions and homosexual “marriages” are a bridgehead to the inevitable legalization of incest polyamory and “intergenerational love” as gay activists are calling it.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. DylanReeve (166 comments) says:

    I can’t find much reason to oppose polygamous marriage. However the legal issues with a union of more than two people in that way are MUCH more complex than a same sex relationship and for that reason I don’t think it’s likely to be addressed any time in the near future.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. peteremcc (344 comments) says:

    I know one person in this type of relationship.

    But since when is “I don’t know anyone who wants this, so there mustn’t be many people who do” a very good argument against something?

    If it’s all consensual, and they’re not hurting anyone, then the default should be that they’re allowed to do it, not that they should have to go out and campaign to be able to.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. DylanReeve (166 comments) says:

    Incest is totally unrelated to polyamory – and what “gay activists” are calling it anything? What has it even got to do with homosexuality?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Liek any other form of relationship between consenting adults, there is no need for state regulation or registration. Given that there is, by way of the Marriage Act, there is no reason why this legislation needs to discriminate against polyandrous relationships.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. graham (2,335 comments) says:

    Most people have gay friends or acquaintances. I know probably a few thousand people and don’t know any of them who are in a polyamorous relationship.

    Maybe they’re like gays were a few decades ago and scared to “come out” until it’s more socially acceptable?

    Sure it’s a bit difficult to take a Facebook page seriously – but don’t make the mistake of thinking this isn’t already happening in New Zealand. I’m quite naive myself, but not THAT naive. There’s at least one NZ website that I found which seems to be genuine promoting polyamory.

    http://www.nzpoly.org.nz/

    There’s a homestay in Canterbury which seems to cater to various sexual tastes and fetishes, including polyamory (on a work computer, so I didn’t look around too much …)

    http://tawsemanor.co.nz/html/polyamory.html

    And here’s a story about a polyamorous family in Australia.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/love-sex/8213560/Twos-company-but-threes-better

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. PaulL (5,981 comments) says:

    It’s a stalking horse, almost certainly set up by someone opposed to gay marriage. It will fade away when it turns out nobody’s asking for it, and when the floods don’t come to wipe us off the face of the earth for approving gay marriage. I see France also legalised today.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. jptucker (18 comments) says:

    Since we’re posting article links this one popped up via Facebook the other day which was interesting, albeit from the US. Perhaps something in my profile suggests I need a second wife!

    http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/04/legalize_polygamy_marriage_equality_for_all.html

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. mikemikemikemike (324 comments) says:

    I’ll bet you when the very first discussion were had about legalizing homosexuality they followed very much the same theme as above. Give it 20 years, it’ll change.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. graham (2,335 comments) says:

    So PaulL – are you saying that you don’t believe polyamory is going on in New Zealand? Because the evidence seems to prove that it most certainly is.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. PaulL (5,981 comments) says:

    No graham, I’m saying that I consider it far more likely that this is a site set up by someone attempting to run a slippery slope argument about gay marriage than by someone who wants polyamory to be recognised as a marriage. And that now that gay marriage is legal, it will fade away. But I might be wrong.

    I’d also say that I don’t particularly have anything against polyamory, so if people are running a slippery slope argument around that, it’s not scaring me.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    And like gay marriage it will affect the rest of us not a jot….at least not the stable ones without repressed insecurity issues …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Kea (12,777 comments) says:

    I’d happily marry the entire All Black team providing they throw SBW’s in as an extra.

    Judith, you little whore. You need stoning ! ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Ed Snack (1,872 comments) says:

    The odd thing is that polyamory is relatively common in human societies and should be far more supportable than homosexual marriage which, despite efforts by the campaigners to find genuine historical examples, was essentially ahistorical.

    What have we to fear from polyamory after all ?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. graham (2,335 comments) says:

    When I found http://www.nzpoly.org.nz/ after one minute of searching on Google, they had a forum which you had to register to even view. I didn’t bother registering, but I do wonder if this is being discussed in that forum.

    Would be interesting to know.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Grendel (1,002 comments) says:

    i know a few people who have been in polyamourous relationships and some others who are. as petermcc states quite correctly:

    >
    If it’s all consensual, and they’re not hurting anyone, then the default should be that they’re allowed to do it, not that they should have to go out and campaign to be able to.
    >

    its not super common, but who cares. from memory the guy that plays Castiel on Supernatural is in a polyamourous relationship.

    and dylan is also correct that the legal set ups are much more complicated, having done an insurance review for a triumvirate (which is what a three person version is called where they are all monogomous to each other i think), it can get very complex.

    but if people can make it work, all power to them, none of our business.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Fletch (6,359 comments) says:

    It’s an anonymous Facebook group.

    Yes, well there is also a group set up in Australia as well called the Polygamy Action Lobby who are far from “anonymous”. They also have a Facebook page and have set up a petition on change.org that says –

    The House of Representatives:

    For too long has Australia denied people the right to marry the ones they care about. We find this abhorrent. We believe that everyone should be allowed to marry their partners, and that the law should never be a barrier to love. And that’s why we demand nothing less than the full recognition of polyamorous families.

    You think they aren’t serious?

    And who are they? They are mostly affiliated with the Greens, as Andrew Bolt points out in a piece in the Herald Sun.

    But who is behind the Polyamory Action Lobby? PAL’s president is Brigitte Garozzo. PAL’s spokesman is Timothy Scriven. And Kieran Adair is also one of PAL’s founders. And what do these militant polyamorists have in common? I will tell you. They are all associated with the Greens. Brigitte Garozzo, also known as Brigitte McFadden is listed as the contact officer for the New South Wales Young Greens at the University of Sydney.

    Timothy Scriven describes his political views as ‘anarchism and revolutionary libertarian socialism’, though the University of Sydney Greens Facebook page last year said:

    Timothy Scriven is an active member of the Greens on Campus and on our executive…

    Kieran Adair’s Twitter profile promotes the 2011 Greens New South Wales election campaign. Further, a ‘Kieran Adair’ said, on the New Matilda website when commenting on the 2011 annual Marxist conference, ‘I don’t identify as a socialist; I’m a Green.’…

    Polyamorous marriage is on the agenda. Greens activists are now pushing publicly for it while other polyamorists are lying low, waiting to be the next cab off the rank—no doubt, I suspect, having been given a nod and a wink by other Greens, who are still advocating marriage for all.

    So, don’t for one instant think that these people aren’t serious, or that a bigger push won’t be made in NZ.
    It will come, just as some have said.

    It only needed same-sex marriage to give it the hand up it needs.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Kea (12,777 comments) says:

    What have we to fear from polyamory after all ?

    Multiple mothers in law ! :(

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. rosina (10 comments) says:

    What about the rights of children and division of property. Women fought many years to have an equal division, although I feel the law now goes too far for a livein relationship when there is no children. It could get very complicated.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. graham (2,335 comments) says:

    And many people here on Kiwiblog are saying they don’t have a problem with it.

    So I wonder … all those people, including MPs, who were laughing at the “slippery slope” argument and saying we were just being silly, not to worry, of COURSE that wouldn’t happen … maybe they secretly had a suspicion that it was actually a strong possibility but didn’t want to say so because it wouldn’t help their argument. And they didn’t really care either, one way or the other, but knew that if they said so it would open up a debate they didn’t want. So they kept quiet.

    Looks like we’re well and truly on the slippery slope. Would’ve been nice if people had been a bit more honest about the possibility four weeks ago.

    Reminds me of the civil union debate. “Of COURSE we’re not going to touch marriage, don’t worry about that, civil unions will be quite satisfactory.”

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    I think that eventually there will be no legal marriage in NZ. The government will abandon the issue and civil union will be the required status for couples/multiple humans wishing to make their relationship legal.

    If they wish to then get the blessing of the church, then that will be done separately.

    I think any talk of marrying your goat is just pathetic – like goats are that stupid.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. alloytoo (540 comments) says:

    @ Rosina

    You’re absolutely right, frankly I couldn’t give a damn what consenting adults do regarding their relationships, but there must be a legal framework for :

    a) Ending the marriage (or at least one party’s leaving it. )

    &

    b) Provision for the children (maintenance etc)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. lofty (1,310 comments) says:

    A pointless post, the gates are open, the horse has bolted.
    It is impossible to argue against poly(whatever) Multi(whatever).
    The job has been done.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Nigel Kearney (1,012 comments) says:

    All the speeches in Parliament in favour of same sex marriage are equally valid as arguments for polygamy. Polygamists love each other. Polygamists are discriminated against by the current law. Polygamists cannot adopt as a threesome, though two of them can adopt as a couple. Other countries have done it and the roof didn’t fall in.

    I support same sex marriage but not polygamy. But that’s because I have a logical and coherent view about what marriage is for. Some of the bible bashers also have a logical and coherent view though unfortunately it is based on utterly false premises.

    Most other people have just been talking irrational crap on this issue and now the polygamists have come out of the woodwork there’s nothing they can say in response that doesn’t completely contradict what they were saying last week. I suppose like David you can pretend they don’t exist they same way people used to pretend that gays didn’t exist.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Fletch (6,359 comments) says:

    rosina, that is part of the problem.

    Same sex marriage and other forms like polygamy end up causing more involvement of the Govt in our lives. Within a natural marriage, it is the mother, father and any siblings who raise and care for the new child and guide its upbringing. That is why traditionally the Govt regulates marriage. When families care for new members there is less for the Govt to do. Anything that weakens marriage (such as same sex marriage and no fault divorce) causes more government intervention – in things like custody battles, child welfare, foster care and the like. This ends up costing the taxpayer more.

    These types of faux ‘marriage’ cost society in monetary ways, government intrusion (even in things like the smacking law), and disintegrating families (and thus a disintegrating society).

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. graham (2,335 comments) says:

    Nigel – why do you support same sex marriage but not polygamy, based on a “logical and coherent view about what marriage is for”? Explain please.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. lastmanstanding (1,293 comments) says:

    Well it didn’t take long did it. Slowly like the frog in the slowly boiling water the extremists will get their way.

    Oh its not really that bad and You don’t have to if you don’t want to. All the same undermining of traditional family values lead by the Greens and Socialists wimmin in particular who see Mum Dad and the kids as Sooooooooo last century.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Urban Redneck (234 comments) says:

    Judith Levine is perhaps best known for her book “Harmful To Minors: The Perils Of Protecting Children From Sex”, in which she suggests the liberalization of age of consent laws in the Unites States and the concept of children as sexual beings, which Levine argues is existent in Western Europe. Levine argues for weakening most of the laws governing possession of child pornography, the access of abortions to minors, and conduct classified as statutory rape. The book won the LA Times book prize and was named by SIECUS, the Sexuality Information & Education Council of the USA as one of history’s most influential books about sexuality.
    BTW – This book was given a glowing review in the NZ Herald by a lecturer at the University of Auckland’s School Of Education.

    Although most gay organizations publicly distance themselves (but not condemn) man-boy sex organizations like NAMBLA, many are none the less working to incrementally lower the age of sexual consent. Lithuania, for example, dropped its age of consent in 2004 to just 14, as a result of pressure from the International Lesbian and Gay Association which maintains a register on its website of the age of consent of every country around the world. And because of an explosion in the number of prosecutions of men going on sex tours, seeking out underage sex in Sri Lanka, the government there passed a law dropping the age of consent from from 16 to 13 in 2005.

    The Dutch decision to lower the age of consent to 12 is worth examining. Firstly, one of the biggest organizations lobbying for the right of adults to have sex with 12 year olds was the Dutch Association for the Integration of Homosexuality – the oldest and most established gay rights organization in the world and one of the biggest in Europe, quaintly known by the Dutch acronym “COC”. The advantage of setting the age of consent to 12 i that it encompasses certain children who are on the cusp of puberty. Similar activism took place in Spain where the age of consent was initially lowered to 13 (then later I believe some minor vestige of common sense prevailed and it was raised a year to 14)

    And readers may recall, Helen Clark’s Labour party proposed lowering the age of consent to 12. Ostensibly to decriminalize statutory rape in the case of a 16yo boy having sex with a 14yo girl. And that’s assuming I believe (which I don’t) that was the genuine intention of the activists working behind the scenes for this law change Rest assured, although we may think these issues are done and dusted, they will reappear in due course.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Kea (12,777 comments) says:

    all those people, including MPs, who were laughing at the “slippery slope” argument

    graham, yes and we are still laughing. It does not effect you or anyone else outside the relationship. It is not a slippery slope, it is a level playing field of personal liberty.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Fletch (6,359 comments) says:

    What have we to fear from polyamory after all ?

    Multiple mothers in law !

    LOL.

    Did you know that you can rearrange the letters in “mother in law”, using every single letter and make the phrase “woman hitler”. ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. wreck1080 (3,905 comments) says:

    Even if 3 people want to live in a polygamnous marriage why should the rest of us deny it?

    Anyone who disagrees with polygamy marriages is a bigot.

    I just don’t get how this differs from the gay marriage thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. ByterNZ (26 comments) says:

    Officially recognized Polyamory must *never* be allowed. Unlike Gay Marriage, where the “threat” that those relationships had to heterosexual relationships melted away with technological advances (the Pill and IVF) [Sorry, DPF, people grew up with gay people back in the 1920's, 1950's, etc. It just wasn't talked about publically. That's not the reason why Gay Marriage and homosexuality went from being illegal to recognized over the last 30 years], I don’t ever see the basic threat of Polyamorous relationships (a few highly “ranked” men taking a harem of women and therefore making it hard for normal men to breed -> extreme violence!) going away due to technological advances.

    Sure, there’s “unofficial” polyamory happening, especially with people who have a net worth greater than 100M, or other people who are highly ranked for whatever reason, but it’s risky, and things have to be handled in a discreet fashion.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. wreck1080 (3,905 comments) says:

    I just read “Nigel Kearney”.

    You are a bigot. What right do you have to stop consenting adults from marrying? Absolutely none.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. JC (955 comments) says:

    Fascinating.. a week or so back anyone suggesting that polyamory would follow SSM was slammed as a dinosaur and that it would never happen..

    JC

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. graham (2,335 comments) says:

    Kea, go ahead and laugh. As I say, I just wish people had been a bit more honest when this was first brought up.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Fletch (6,359 comments) says:

    JC, we’re all on the slide to the bottom – or (in this case) maybe multiple bottoms.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. gump (1,647 comments) says:

    Wealthy men have practised polyamory for thousands of years.

    It’s usually called “keeping a mistress”.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Kea (12,777 comments) says:

    graham, they are different topics for most people. Some may have supported gay marriage but not polyamory. I support both and for much the same reasons. It is not about what “I” would do personally (I am pretty conservative) but about the freedom others have to choose their own way.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. radvad (765 comments) says:

    The definition of marriage is always subject to change as long as it is defined by politicians. They always eventually respond to the squeakiest wheel.

    The sole role of the state should be to provide a justice system to adjudicate on breaches of agreement between consenting adults. That does not include the state assuming what any such agreement might be.

    Beyond that politicians can butt out and good riddance.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Ed Snack (1,872 comments) says:

    You don’t need polyamory to have multiple mothers in law, or not to have two. Adopted plus natural mother works, and I speak as one who has experienced something of that nature ! Some MiL’s are great, and some are simply horrifying, and if you have two of the latter…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. b1gdaddynz (279 comments) says:

    I know of 2 such arrangements both of which are a man and two women…One are my age [37] and have been together since university and the other are in their 50’s now having been together for 27 years. So both very stable relationships but neither are in the least bit interested in marriage and actually wonder where this is coming from as no-one in the “community” they have spoken to has any interest. The whole point is that it is alternative to the tradition and they like that. Obviously there will be others that are interested but they would seem to be a monority within a tiny minority.

    I think a lot of people would be surprized by how “normal” they are and it’s not a wall to wall orgy as some might think.

    The older “triple” have quite a beautiful relationship because one of the women was paralysed from the chest down in a car accident and has two very loving caring people who take care of her; she enjoys a lifestyle far better than what she had before they got together.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    graham (1,853) Says:
    April 24th, 2013 at 12:20 pm

    Kea, go ahead and laugh. As I say, I just wish people had been a bit more honest when this was first brought up.

    People were honest. It was brought up numerous times previously and numerous people, like myself, said it should be permitted also.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    JC (739) Says:
    April 24th, 2013 at 12:16 pm

    Fascinating.. a week or so back anyone suggesting that polyamory would follow SSM was slammed as a dinosaur and that it would never happen..

    JC

    I’m not sure it was so much the suggestions regarding polyamory as much as it was the claim that SSM would lead to incest and sex with minors.

    Of course some, for political reasons, would want to not let a discussion on polyamory undermine progress on SSM. But of course if we’re going to complain about politics then it is equally true that conservatives dishonestly championed civil unions as providing equality when in fact they originally opposed that also.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. redeye (629 comments) says:

    I’m not sure if it’s still a goer but the last I heard Jack Thompson of Breaker Morant fame has been living happily with 2 sisters in a type of marriage since the 80’s.

    And like homo marriage it’s his business and no-one else’s as far as I’m concerned.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Kea (12,777 comments) says:

    Genesis 4:19
    And Lamech took unto him two wives.

    Genesis 16:1-4
    Now Sarai Abram’s wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. And Sarai … gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived.

    Genesis 25:6
    But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had….

    Genesis 26:34
    Esau … took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite.

    Genesis 31:17
    Then Jacob rose up, and set … his wives upon camels.

    Exodus 21:10
    If he take him another wife….

    Deuteronomy 21:15
    If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated….

    Judges 8:30
    And Gideon had threescore and ten sons of his body begotten: for he had many wives.

    1 Samuel 1:1-2
    Elkanah … had two wives; the name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other Peninnah.

    2 Samuel 12:7-8
    Thus saith the LORD God of Israel … I gave thee … thy master’s wives….

    1 Kings 11:2-3
    Solomon … had seven hundred wives … and three hundred concubines.

    1 Chronicles 4:5
    And Ashur the father of Tekoa had two wives, Helah and Naarah.

    2 Chronicles 11:21
    Rehoboam … took eighteen wives, and threescore concubines.

    2 Chronicles 13:21
    But Abijah waxed mighty, and married fourteen wives….

    2 Chronicles 24:3
    Jehoiada took for him two wives….

    Mt.25:1
    Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Manolo (13,735 comments) says:

    I’m convinced that after testing the waters/checking the wind direction, the brave and principled Neville Key (and National Party) will support this progressive initiative.

    PolyamoryKiwiBlog will be rightly behind him (no pun intended).

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    the legal issues with a union of more than two people in that way are MUCH more complex than a same sex relationship

    and 

    What about the rights of children and division of property. Women fought many years to have an equal division,

    The law already provides for a division among more than one ‘spouse’.  The Property (Relationships) Act does not require a marriage, or even co-habitation, to apply to a relationship.  This is shown very well by this recent article on Stuff. The upshot of the story is that any married person who is engaging in a long term affair is already a poly-amorist, as far as that particular Act is concerned.

    So it is not a problem when it comes to relationship property, the only obstacle is the obvious bigotry of the people who are against it!!!  :D

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. graham (2,335 comments) says:

    Some people were honest about their attitudes, Weihana, and I acknowledge you were one of them.

    But many people were not honest, either about their attitudes or about the possibility that it could even be on the cards. Louisa Wall would not admit the possibility and said the argument that allowing same-sex marriage would be a stepping stone to multiple partners was undermining an otherwise civilised and principled debate. Whaleoil rubbished the idea. Pete George said he hadn’t heard of any plans for it to happen. Kevin Hague considered the idea ridiculous and a distraction.

    And I’m sorry to say this, but DPF is not being entirely honest either. he states that he’ll take this debate seriously when there are actual New Zealanders living in polyamorous relationships who are willing to step forward and say they want to be able to have multiple husbands or wives, and that he knows “probably a few thousand people” and doesn’t know any of them who are in a polyamorous relationship. He is inferring that polyamorous relationships are simply not happening in New Zealand, when the most briefest of research shows that they clearly are.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Scott (1,792 comments) says:

    But yes we do have a slippery slope – yesterday gay marriage, tomorrow multiple marriages with multiple people. And then of course bestiality and incest and of course the lowering of the age of consent. So Conservatives and Christians are right. It is a slippery slope. And most of you liberals won’t oppose it.

    Who will save us from our sins?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. RRM (9,915 comments) says:

    Our Lord Jesus Christ maybe?

    I, for one, welcome our new polygamist overlords.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. simian (29 comments) says:

    Jeez people it’s just a Facebook group calm down, I don’t see this gaining much traction as it’s not a liberty thing anyone can now marry anyone (of legal age) you just have to divorce first.

    Of course change is inevitable so who knows, the world didn’t end with legal gay marriage and wouldn’t end with this, and it could be good for traditionalists as it could spark a swing back that way as many may start to get feed up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. RRM (9,915 comments) says:

    And then of course bestiality and incest and of course the lowering of the age of consent.

    Bullshit.

    Evidence please.

    If you can quote just one public call for legalising beastiality, just one public call for legalising incest, and just one public call for the lowering of the age of consent, I’ll accept your claim there is the potential for a slippery slope here.

    Otherwise, bullshit.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Scott (1,792 comments) says:

    RRM– “Just one public call for the lowering of the age of consent”

    Why the Age of Consent Should be Lowered to 14 BY PETER TATCHELL
    Peter Tatchell is a human rights campaigner and social commentator, best known for his LGBT activism.

    http://www.freedominapuritanage.co.uk/why-the-age-of-consent-should-be-lowered-to-14/

    RRM– I will accept your apology now RRM and your acknowledgement that it is you that are talking bullshit!

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Right of way is Way of Right (1,122 comments) says:

    Why anyone want more than one Mother in Law is beyond me!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. RRM (9,915 comments) says:

    Scott – Public calls for age of consent lowering in New Zealand please, as we are talking about NZ laws, I don’t give a shit what some UK blogger I’ve never heard of says on his blog.

    Also I’m still waiting for verification of your beastiality and incest claims.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Scott (1,792 comments) says:

    Oh for goodness sake,where the UK goes NZ will eventually follow. And considering conservatives were right about the slippery slope from gay marriage to polygamist marriage I would expect liberals would be a bit quieter and even a little shame faced right now.

    Sin always grows. That’s a rule you can count on.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Urban Redneck (234 comments) says:

    People often mistake polyamory and polygamy – polygamy is one husband and multiple wives. Polyamory is any relationship group imaginable – or indeed, unimaginable. From a governance aspect, imagine the laws and statutes required to transcend all of the legal hoops that would arise.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. graham (2,335 comments) says:

    Thanks, Urban Redneck, I wasn’t aware of the difference to be honest.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Urban Redneck (234 comments) says:

    I concur with Scott.

    It’s been barely a week since homosexual “marriage” was “legalized” and we are already softening up the public for polyamory. The downward spiral of this society is reaching fever-pitch, with so many new examples of cultural decline and social suicide that one wonders if we are not going to hit rock bottom any second now. Things really cannot go down the tubes much further one would think. Perhaps if we legalize polyamory, euthanasia, drugs and get a Labour/Green government in 2014. I believe that will pretty much send us on a death-spiral into the abyss once and for all.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Nigel Kearney (1,012 comments) says:

    > Nigel – why do you support same sex marriage but not polygamy, based on a
    >“logical and coherent view about what marriage is for”? Explain please.

    Too long to explain properly in a blog comment but the essence is this:

    I’m fine with the ‘not the government’s business’ argument but then there would be no legal marriage at all. Given that there is, we have to decide who can marry. I don’t really buy the argument that tradition reflects the accumulated wisdom of our ancestors. Mostly tradition is the result of prejudice mixed with inertia. The criteria for legal marriage should be based on practical consequences, of which there are two main ones:

    1. Whether the form of relationship makes society stronger
    2. Whether it makes sense to assign the bundle of legal rights that accompany marriage

    On the first one, polygamy has the problem of ‘left over’ single males (and it will be males). This is a recipe for trouble. It’s entirely logical that polygamy and wars go together because each tends to increase the incentives for the other. Polygamy also restricts the gene pool which is bad in the long term even if the short to medium term effects can hardly be detected. The same problems hardly exist for same sex relationships. Also, withholding official recognition won’t affect the number of same sex relationships (even if we wanted to which I personally don’t). Same sex relationships exist regardless of the ability to marry and are likely to be more stable after marriage which is good. Regardless of your view about whether gays can change, the fact is that usually they don’t. The same is not true for multiple partner relationships which could easily increase if the current social stigma against them is reduced by offical recognition.

    On the second point, there are lots of different situations. But let’s say a guy is in a coma and one wife wants to switch off life support and the other doesn’t. Marriage is how you choose the person who gets to decide. But it doesn’t work if you marry two people. No such problem with same sex relationships.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Scott (1,792 comments) says:

    Thanks for your comments urban redneck. Indeed one can easily imagine a Labour/Greens government being elected in 2014. The Conservatives and Bible believing Christians know that they have no place in National and so the centre right and traditional thinkers part of the electorate will be split.

    And so Labour and the Greens will run the country into the ground – I understand nationalising the electricity industry will be the first step. We will all re embrace socialism as a nation. And then not only will we be spiritually bankrupt, we will be actually financially bankrupt as well!

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Kea (12,777 comments) says:

    Scott, 14 is already the age of consent through out most of the world. Including many developed countries NZ likes to compare its self to. Educate yourself.

    http://www.avert.org/age-of-consent.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. JC (955 comments) says:

    Weihana,

    We can sit here all day debating the pros and cons of gay marriage and polyamory and it doesn’t hurt us in any way because we’re educated, brought up in the rough and tumble of the newsgroups and have established stable patterns in our lives.. but there are others listening in, reading and talking about this stuff who are different..

    Lets start with religion.. for some decades now its been popular to dish it but amongst the educated it hasn’t changed things much.. they still believe or not, they still go to work, form stable relationships, look after their kids and push them to get educated etc..

    But there are some groups for whom loss of faith has consequences, eg, Blacks and Hispanics in the US, Maori in NZ. These groups turned off religion big time and then they turned off marriage even more; with no moral guidance 70-90% have kids outside marriage, form the bulk of the beneficiaries and solo parents.

    And somewhere there’s a NZ Muslim kid tapping into a dodgy Muslim site and saying “They legalised SSM!”.. and then that kid gets radicalised and contemptuous of NZ.

    From my POV the weakening of marriage has little effect on the educated and stable but its been devastating on other socio-economic groups, and that going to have its (bad) effects on all of us for the forseeable future.

    JC

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Fletch (6,359 comments) says:

    Kea, Jesus made clear in the NEW Testament that marriage was between a man and a woman.

    Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

    Oh, and the ‘ten virgins” are bridesmaids.
    Nothing to do with multiple partners.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Scott (1,329) Says:
    April 24th, 2013 at 2:08 pm

    We will all re embrace socialism as a nation.

    I wonder how many old farts bloviate about socialism while collecting their super from the government…

    The truth is almost everyone loves socialism. From public infrastructure to education to health care to superannuation etc. etc. etc. One can’t help but wonder… if this isn’t already a demonstration of a nation embracing “socialism”, then what is?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Fletch (6,359 comments) says:

    Of course, the same sex marriage law has been passed now, so all debate is over….

    Oh wait….

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Kea (12,777 comments) says:

    These groups turned off religion big time and then they turned off marriage even more; with no moral guidance 70-90% have kids outside marriage, form the bulk of the beneficiaries and solo parents.

    Your dirty book of filth provides no moral guidance to anyone. If people actually followed your disgusting gods word, they would be locked up for life. Anyone who says otherwise has either not read the bible or is lying. ( insanity is another defence)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Kea (12,777 comments) says:

    Kea, Jesus made clear in the NEW Testament that marriage was between a man and a woman.

    Fletch, yes indeed. Why are you telling me that, I know what the bible says.

    The bible is crystal clear about homos. You kill them. No ifs or buts and especially none of this cowardly lying that the new testament changes all that. It does not. Jesus himself said so.

    20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

    Here are some more christian morals:

    20:14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.
    20:15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.
    20:16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

    20:27 A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    JC (740) Says:
    April 24th, 2013 at 2:14 pm

    But there are some groups for whom loss of faith has consequences, eg, Blacks and Hispanics in the US, Maori in NZ. These groups turned off religion big time and then they turned off marriage even more; with no moral guidance 70-90% have kids outside marriage, form the bulk of the beneficiaries and solo parents.

    Turned off religion? You must be kidding… I find Maori more religious than your average person. Every person who is or was on the DPB that I can think of is religious. Blacks and Hispanics are also very religious. Take California for instance. It wasn’t the liberal whites voting against gay marriage.. It was Blacks and Hispanics motivated by their churches. And you are suggesting that their problems stem from a lack of religion? Please.

    Perhaps Blacks are affected by… gee I don’t know… the fact that only a few decades ago they couldn’t cross a particular street without being pulled up by the police for being in the wrong neighbourhood. Or the fact that despite comparable drug usage statistics they are often the only ones arrested and prosecuted for it while well-to-do white kids do not get profiled or get well-paid lawyers to help them out when they do get caught.

    But no, white racism has nothing to do with the situation of minorities… it’s their lack of religion. :roll:

    And somewhere there’s a NZ Muslim kid tapping into a dodgy Muslim site and saying “They legalised SSM!”.. and then that kid gets radicalised and contemptuous of NZ.

    That’s a somewhat ironic example of dhimmitude right there. We do not owe Muslims any apologies for living our lives free of their religious dogma. But perhaps it is understandable that having an army of robots patrolling their skies and undertaking summary executions gives Islamic terrorists a political platform to justify their actions.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Doctor Who (52 comments) says:

    The main problem with voluntary euthanasia is that’s it’s voluntary.

    The Eskimos used to put the old toothless grandparents out on the ice. There is a problem with that in Auckland, of course. There’s no bloody ice.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Fletch (6,359 comments) says:

    Kea, the Bible also says in the Old Testament about stoning adulterers.
    But what did Jesus do?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Kea (12,777 comments) says:

    But what did Jesus do?

    He introduced enternal torture in HELL for anyone who did not devote their lives to worshipping him ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    People often mistake polyamory and polygamy – polygamy is one husband and multiple wives. Polyamory is any relationship group imaginable – or indeed, unimaginable. From a governance aspect, imagine the laws and statutes required to transcend all of the legal hoops that would arise.

    You aren’t quite right. It is polygamy. One man with many wives is correctly referred to as polygyyny (“guné” being Greek for “woman”). One woman with many husbands is called polyandry. Polygamy just means multiple marriage in Greek.

    Whatever we want to call it, it is a monumentally bad idea. The general exception to consensual agreements within liberalism is when society bears significant negative externalities because of those agreements. Polygamy is an obvious case. For a start, legalising polygamy will mean a big increase in polygyny over the other kinds, because most people who want multiple marriage are men who want more than one wife. This means we end up with a lot of angry, wifeless spare men. The FLDS solve this by periodically evicting teenage boys from their community.

    Upper middle class latte liberals who enjoy swinging aren’t the people who will lose from introducing polygamy. It will be younger women in religious communities who will bear the brunt of it. We have enough problems dealing with the damage these nutters cause without giving them legal ammunition to make the situation worse.

    The other thing is that polyamory has been tried on a fairly large scale and found wanting. Hundreds, if not thousands, of commune devoted in whole or part to free love were established in the 1970s. Almost all of them failed. The large ones invariably ended up sanctioning sexual abuse (Centrepoint is the best known NZ example). This argument cannot be leveled at consensual homosexual partnerships, because history is replete with examples of successful ones. In the case of polygamy, the history is usually of women being treated as chattels under dictatorial husbands. Like I said, the social experiments of the 70s were failed attempts to show that consensual polyamory works on a large scale.

    But the underlying problem is that liberalism has no working concept of depravity. Liberals respond by pretending it doesn’t exist. This means that they have to defend pretty much any consensual sexual practice. It doesn’t take much imagination (or a Google search) to understand that this means allowing in principle some horribly vile stuff (like consensual erotic cannibalism, which has happened).

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    Tom Jackson, I wouldn’t have thought that you, of all people, were a bigot. Obviously I am wrong and you are in fact a bigot, but I am surprised and, to be honest, a little disappointed.

    Polyamory is all about allowing the individual’s choice to be married to multiple people. How can you not support that?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Tom Jackson,

    But the underlying problem is that liberalism has no working concept of depravity. Liberals respond by pretending it doesn’t exist. This means that they have to defend pretty much any consensual sexual practice.

    The suggestion that liberalism implies an absence of morality is unsupported rubbish. Further, this reductio ad absurdum that liberals support any consensual sexual practice is also rubbish. If a child consents to sex it does not imply that liberals support it as they have a reduced capacity to consent and thus are subject to exploitation. Similarly, if someone consents to be cannibalized that too does not imply the support of liberals as such consent is inherently irrational and indicative of a mental defect which undermines the value of their supposed “consent”.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Tom Jackson,

    Upper middle class latte liberals who enjoy swinging aren’t the people who will lose from introducing polygamy. It will be younger women in religious communities who will bear the brunt of it. We have enough problems dealing with the damage these nutters cause without giving them legal ammunition to make the situation worse.

    You really think these sort of closed communities give a shit about what the government does and does not recognize? The problem is the religious brainwashing, not anything the government does or does not do.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. JC (955 comments) says:

    Weihana,

    Here is a recent poll showing non whites in the US favour SSM more than whites:

    http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1147a5GayMarriage.pdf

    Other polls that I looked at show Blacks are a bit more liberal on SSM than other groups.. but not by much.

    In 1968 72% (Lindsay Mitchell) of Maori babies were born to married Maori, now its just 21%. Plus of course Maori sole parents are hugely overrepresented in the statistics.

    Say what you will, those results show a huge loss of faith in religion and marriage.

    JC

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Chuck Bird (4,880 comments) says:

    “Public calls for age of consent lowering in New Zealand please”

    How about Phil Goff’s testing the water call to lower the age to 12?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    The suggestion that liberalism implies an absence of morality is unsupported rubbish. Further, this reductio ad absurdum that liberals support any consensual sexual practice is also rubbish. If a child consents to sex it does not imply that liberals support it as they have a reduced capacity to consent and thus are subject to exploitation. Similarly, if someone consents to be cannibalized that too does not imply the support of liberals as such consent is inherently irrational and indicative of a mental defect which undermines the value of their supposed “consent”.

    The standard view is that minors cannot consent. But to simply assume that the decisions of adults who wish to do something you find repugnant are evidence of diminished capacity has no warrant. People have made similar claims about forms of sexual behavior liberals find unproblematic. It’s just disguised paternalism in both cases. Disguised so you won’t have to admit that informed consent isn’t sufficient.

    Come up with a better argument. I’ve heard that one a hundred times.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Scott (1,792 comments) says:

    Tom Jackson-not sure of your point. What are you saying about children and consent?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Wreck1080 –

    I just read “Nigel Kearney”. You are a bigot. What right do you have to stop consenting adults from marrying? Absolutely none.

    Do you support the right of consenting adults (eg a mother and son, or a woman and her uncle) being able to ‘marry’?

    If you oppose this, are you a bigot?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    JC (741) Says:
    April 24th, 2013 at 4:39 pm

    Weihana,

    Here is a recent poll showing non whites in the US favour SSM more than whites:

    http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1147a5GayMarriage.pdf

    Other polls that I looked at show Blacks are a bit more liberal on SSM than other groups.. but not by much.

    In 1968 72% (Lindsay Mitchell) of Maori babies were born to married Maori, now its just 21%. Plus of course Maori sole parents are hugely overrepresented in the statistics.

    Say what you will, those results show a huge loss of faith in religion and marriage.

    Why does support for gay marriage imply a loss of faith in religion? Last I checked plenty of religious people supported gay marriage. Similarly with regards to Maori babies born out of wedlock. How do you know that they lack religion?

    I just find the whole notion of “the problem with Blacks is that they lack religion” to be crap. Blacks in the US have historically been a marginalized minority and policies like the war on drugs continue to destroy black families, to empower gangs and engenders a culture that is neither conservative nor liberal: it is just dysfunctional. The same is true with Maori in New Zealand. Their use of drugs, for instance, is comparable to whites yet their criminal statistics are much higher.

    We pretend we live in a colour-blind society when we simply do not.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Tom Jackson (449) Says:
    April 24th, 2013 at 4:45 pm

    But to simply assume that the decisions of adults who wish to do something you find repugnant are evidence of diminished capacity has no warrant.

    Evidence of diminished capacity? Do you also want evidence that the sky is blue?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. KevinH (1,227 comments) says:

    @Nigel Kearney

    Question: How many polygamous relationships are there currently in New Zealand, and is it justifiable to change the law to accommodate this group of people?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. graham (2,335 comments) says:

    Weihana:

    Similarly, if someone consents to be cannibalized that too does not imply the support of liberals as such consent is inherently irrational and indicative of a mental defect which undermines the value of their supposed “consent”.

    Hmm. I agree on the cannibalization, but are you really saying that anything you (or I, or anyone else) doesn’t agree with must therefore be inherently irrational?

    Some would find the very idea of a man penetrating their anus with their penis disgusting and degrading. They likely could not understand why anyone would want to subject themselves to it. Does this mean it is irrational for others to do so?

    There are people with various types of fetishes, some of which I can understand and some of which are frankly beyond me. For example, I cannot understand why someone would consent to have someone else urinate on them (golden shower).

    Therefore, such consent is inherently irrational and indicative of a mental defect which undermines the value of their supposed “consent”. So would a liberal object to such behaviour, simply because it makes no sense to them, and must obviously be the product of a deranged mind?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Scott Chris (6,133 comments) says:

    Not sure that the term ‘diminished capacity’ is the correct one in this context.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Harriet (4,967 comments) says:

    In sum, proponents of counterfeit ‘gay marriage’ pretend that normalcy, biology, history, morality and sanity are all irrelevant to the debate. They are not.

    As counterfeit money devalues the dollar, counterfeit ‘gay marriage’ devalues the institution of legitimate marriage. :cool:

    The social engineers have declared war on “heterosexism”. So what is that? :

    The belief that there are two different genders, and men and women are in fact different. Well this is evil, politically incorrect thought, in the eyes of the militants, and must be stamped out at all costs.

    So they have declared war on biology, and the school system is happy to run with this insanity!

    And taxpayers foot the bill for it all. Talk about a perfect moral storm:

    vices have become virtues and virtues, vices. The authors of 1984 and Brave New World would be shaking their heads in disbelief at this. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Kea (12,777 comments) says:

    I cannot understand why someone would consent to …Therefore, such consent is inherently irrational and indicative of a mental defect …

    Can you understand the electrical system in your car ?

    This is a very flawed argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. JC (955 comments) says:

    Weihana,

    “Why does support for gay marriage imply a loss of faith in religion? Last I checked plenty of religious people supported gay marriage. Similarly with regards to Maori babies born out of wedlock. How do you know that they lack religion?”

    Well, the point you made was that Blacks were very religious and used the California SSM vote to prove it.. I just proved that nationally at least Blacks are slightly more supportive of SSM than Whites.
    Secondly, you cannot reconcile with Black/Hispanic support for SSM with high religiosity when it conflicts with nearly all the religions they follow.

    And you can’t reconcile high religiosity among Maori with a collapse of marriage and the traditional family.

    As for drugs.. before they become a major problem Blacks, Hispanics and Maori had strong families and were strong in religion but as racism abated and these minorities gained equality they took to drugs and the dysfunction followed.

    JC

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. graham (2,335 comments) says:

    Kea: I agree. That’s the point

    Tom Jackson pointed out that, because liberalism has no working concept of depravity, liberals would have to pretty much agree to and defend any consensual sexual practice. Weihana responded by stating, in essence, that if somebody consents to something that – in Weihana’s opinion – is “inherently irrational and indicative of a mental defect”, this devalues their supposed “consent”.

    But Weihana is making a judgement call that something is irrational IN WEIHANA’S OPINION. Weihana is arbitrarily determining that “something” is irrational. Why? Because s/he can’t understand it? Because s/he thinks it is irrational? Who made Weihana the judge of what is rational, and what is not?

    How is that any better than some of the arguments against same-sex marriage?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    vices have become virtues and virtues, vices.

    But who decides what are vices and what are virtues?
    It appears to me that you are basing your argument on religious belief to determine the answer – however many no longer believe in any God or the at least the same god that you do.

    Therefore, in a secular society, who gets to make that judgment call?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Chuck Bird (4,880 comments) says:

    “Therefore, in a secular society, who gets to make that judgment call?”

    It should be the people not just the politicians. Those who claim to support equality should support this.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Shunda barunda (2,983 comments) says:

    But who decides what are vices and what are virtues?

    Not the bloody government for a start.

    It appears to me that you are basing your argument on religious belief to determine the answer – however many no longer believe in any God or the at least the same god that you do.

    It doesn’t mean that Christian morality is just arbitrary crap either. If you believe that it is just a made up religion, maybe some of those ‘values’ were based on the history of a society substantially older than ours. People don’t seem to understand that a big part of the reason the Romans eventually accepted Christianity was because their own morality was seen as lacking, they had started this process well before Constantine took charge and made Christianity the state religion. There are plenty of Roman historians that mention the rampant roman hedonism as a negative, destructive aspect of their culture, and that predates Christian influence.

    Therefore, in a secular society, who gets to make that judgment call?

    How about science? how about we end this feel good ‘not hurt feelings’ bullshit and simply have a look how animals treat population ‘anomalies’ shall we? what happens to the odd ones out in the animal kingdom?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. hmmokrightitis (1,590 comments) says:

    KevinH, good question:

    “Question: How many polygamous relationships are there currently in New Zealand, and is it justifiable to change the law to accommodate this group of people?”

    Whats the threshold for a law change accommodating some fringe belief or behaviour? Should we enact and allow goat fuckers? Or left handed homosexual labour voting goat fuckers?

    Or people who support weddy? Admittedly that last group is very small, but you get my point :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. wat dabney (3,756 comments) says:

    Therefore, in a secular society, who gets to make that judgment call?

    Nobody. You base it on human rights and whether someone’s action harms others.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Kea (12,777 comments) says:

    Opponents often claim the slippery slope argument, typically terminating in Goat fucking and kiddy fiddling.

    This over looks a key difference. The difference is informed consent and the lack of any “victim”. It really is a simple position to understand, once you clear the religion out of your head.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. BR (81 comments) says:

    Islam. Coming to a town near you.

    Bill.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. hmmokrightitis (1,590 comments) says:

    Kea, absolutely. I think Rex posited something like this a long time ago. I could be wrong. Smart man that Rex. That Im not wrong about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Kea (12,777 comments) says:

    BR (67) Says:
    April 24th, 2013 at 9:30 pm
    Islam. Coming to a town near you.

    Bill.

    BR, I do not think Islam is big on gay marriage, or sexual liberties generally. They have enough problem getting their heads around the fact women might like a bit of cock now and then.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. NK (1,243 comments) says:

    Isn’t this just a bunch of swingers who don’t want to find a place to swing?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. NK (1,243 comments) says:

    I mean basically stay at home to swing in marriages?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    “Question: How many polygamous relationships are there currently in New Zealand, and is it justifiable to change the law to accommodate this group of people?”

    Well, if we allow for about 2% of the population being homosexual, then that means that there are about 80,000 gays in the country.  Now, how many of them actually want to get married?  My guess is a lot less than that.  So the inability of multi-partner relationships to legally formalise their relationship really only needs, say, 10 – 20 thousand people to be affected before you start to have a similar situation.

    But, really, it is inevitable that poly-amorous people will eventually be able to marry each other legally, so why would anyone not want to be on the side of history?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. cossackstomper (24 comments) says:

    Yes I laughed when I sighted this in the paper yesterday I thought there you go let the morals fly away ,and this is the sort of crap that comes at you. Mark my words within 5 years there will be a gay adoption bill go through with no consideration for the Children, and again no referendum. What I have noticed is that DF is really sitting on the fence on this one. Would like to support but after the Gay Marriage cockup is staying away from giving a definite yes.

    Roll over John and Labour lite will probably try and rush it through before the next election to appease one or two activists. Maurice Willamson will give another speech in the house that will go down like a ton of lead. Then be ordained as the Bishop of the New Mormon Church in Pakuranga

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. jabe (1 comment) says:

    polyamory is in New Zealand, though I’d hazard a guess that many in these relationships are not too interested in pursuing the marriage equality issue. Polyamory has a fairly well established community in Melbourne and other parts of Australia . I’m guessing that it’s unlikely to become well established in NZ, simply because Kiwi’s have a fairly low bullshit tolerance and prefer to call a spade a spade. So essentially will probably stick with shagging around rather than trying to intellectualise the practice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. PolyPoly (1 comment) says:

    Hi all, I realise that these posts are from a long time ago but I have only just now come across them. Thanks to all of you who recognize that love comes in all forms and even if it isn’t your cup of tea it’s still ridiculous to deny people their right to publically commit to their loved ones in a way that society understands and provides legal support.

    I am in a polyamorus relationship, and no, I’m not just giving a fancy title to being a slut as some people have intimated. There are various forms of polyamory, some of it would be recognised more as an open relationship and there are people like me who are in committed multi partner relationships. I have a male partner and a female partner. We have five children who are loved and adored and have yet thankfully to feel the unwelcome sting of public disapproval of their family. It is exactly for that reason that I would wish to be married to my loves. I would like for our family not to have to be specially explained to everyone we choose to share with, I would like to not have to choose to share our ‘secret life’. I would like any nervousness regarding my children’s first days at kindy, school, playcentre etc to be because like any Mum I wonder how they’ll cope, it’s a big change in their wee lives. I don’t want to have to worry about them being bullied, or corrected, of course you don’t have three parents at home, I hope they never are made to feel ashamed of a decision their parents made to love each other.

    I never expected this relationship, I didn’t grow up dreaming of a white wedding to Mr and Mrs, or to being the ‘secret’ partner when it comes to the bank, IRD, my partners jobs. Of my partners having to take annual leave instead of paternity/maternity leave when our three-month old son was born because his current boss is a bigot and he didn’t want to risk losing his much worked for promotion and she works for the government and our relationship could technically be seen as a breach of her code of conduct. That was hard to swallow, his previous employers were lovely and happily accepted his ‘girlfriend’ having a baby. To be honest it has caused an unhappy wrinkle in our relationship as I struggle to cope with being relegated to the shadows as the secret mistress with the bastard baby. It has hurt in a way that can’t be easily smoothed over. In my head I can understand that this is the way it has to be, in my heart, it just hurts and this is all because not that we can’t marry but that it is ILLEGAL if we did. That’s what creates the f’ing social taboo that hampers our family as we try to grow and become active members of our local community. Decriminalize it at the very least, I know some people who are obviously bigoted morons will say, decriminalizing is legalizing but it’s not, it will however send all of society down this so-called ‘slippery slope’ of doom and destruction. Oh no, wait a minute –

    “Decriminalization or decriminalization is the abolition of criminal penalties in relation to certain acts, perhaps retroactively, though perhaps regulated permits or fines might still apply (for contrast, see: legalization). The reverse process is criminalization.
    Decriminalization reflects changing social and moral views. A society may come to the view that an act is not harmful, should no longer be criminalized, or is otherwise not a matter to be addressed by the criminal justice system. Examples of subject matter which have been the subject of changing views on criminality over time in various societies and countries include:
    abortion
    breastfeeding in public
    drug possession, and recreational drug use
    euthanasia
    gambling
    homosexuality
    polygamy[1]
    prostitution
    public nudity
    steroid use in sport

    While decriminalized acts are no longer crimes, they may still be the subject of penalties; for example a monetary fine in place of a criminal charge for the possession of a decriminalized drug. This should be contrasted with legalization, which removes all or most legal detriments from a previously illegal act.”

    If we could simply decriminalize our relationship then we could start to become accepted as a minority but real part of our national community and my children could go to school without Mummy spending all day worrying that the love their Mummy, Mama and Daddy have is causing them even a seconds unhappiness.

    As I said, the three of us never expected this relationship, we three weren’t out looking for it, it just happened, naturally and beautifully, of course we’ve had ups and downs like any relationship, there has been jealousies and learning curves and the natural and normal negotiation that occurs in any relationship as it progresses and moves from dating to co-habitation to commitment and children. Sure some of the things we’ve grappled with are different from yours, but likewise your relationship is likely very different from your next door neighbours or that couple up the street. Every relationship is different so please don’t effectively criminalize mine.

    Yes I know, there is nothing in New Zealand law saying we can’t all live and love together, but when there is a law that says marrying, committing publically and legally to that relationship is against the law, you will be prosecuted and may face a prison sentence (true even if unlikely) you are effectively saying that my relationship is wrong, dirty, immoral and allowing my children to be open to ‘justified’ public scrutiny and bullying.

    But to those of you out there who don’t agree to love and let love, please don’t be that person whose snide comment, rude look or cold shoulder teaches my children that their parents are wrong. Please don’t be the person who views the world in harsh black and white and teaches my children that their colourful world full of love is ugly in your eyes. Please let them be, keep your ‘morals’ and disgusting opinions behind your closed doors-that’s what we are forced to do.

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