Marriage – a dandelion in the wind?

ŠĒ• Financial Times

A brilliant piece of writing from Robert Shrimsley that shows up the intellectual dishonesty of the arguments against marriage equality:

My marriage is under threat; its very existence is being undermined. I know this because the Catholic Church says so. I’m not Catholic myself, you understand, but if there’s one thing those priests know about, it’s marriage. Similar warnings are coming from other faith-leaders and the rightwing commentators.

And it’s all because of those pesky gays.

It turns out that the very foundations of our union will be irrevocably eroded if gays are allowed to marry. No less an authority than Rick Santorum, currently running second for the¬†Republican presidential nomination, says redefining wedlock to include gays could ‚Äúcheapen marriage‚Ķ make it something less valuable, special‚ÄĚ. Scotland‚Äôs leading Catholic bishop appears to argue that if gay marriage is legalised, the clamour will start for polygamy to be similarly blessed. But it‚Äôs not just marriage at stake. The Pope says that allowing gays to call themselves married is one of a number of threats to ‚Äúthe future of humanity itself‚ÄĚ. Yikes.

The mass end of marriage as we know it…oh no!

Marriage, according to our religious leaders is less a robust, timeless institution than a precious, delicate thing ‚Äď a dandelion in the wind, easily blown away by others you‚Äôve never met enjoying the same benefits. It‚Äôs like being a member of an elite club and then finding out that Katie Price has joined. You wonder if you still belong.

I understand where they are coming from. I recently bought an espresso machine to which I was hugely attached until I noticed Whittard was selling the same model to gays. Suddenly my macchiato seemed cheapened; and questioned my commitment to the morning shot. Now the Illy languishes untouched and I have begun dallying with an old jar of Maxwell House I was once close to. We’d fallen out of touch after I’d committed to proper coffee but recently reconnected via Facebook. So I’m wise to the dangers of gay marriage. We all saw what happened when homosexuality was legalised. Crime rates soared, obviously because people felt their previous law-abiding status had been devalued by the decision to stop treating gays as criminals.

Yes crime rocketed here too when homosexuality was legalised…didn’t it?

My wife and I are resigned to our fate if the government presses ahead with reform and have already begun discussing custody arrangements. It’s a pity; because we’ve been happy together. But it’s clear that at the first glimpse of Boy George at the altar I’ll abandon my family and move out to small flat above a Pizza Hut. Across the nation, young couples will cancel their engagements, put off by the weddings of other adults who love each other and increased competition for wedding venues from gays and polygamists.

When otherwise intelligent people rely on such specious arguments, you have to wonder whether it isn‚Äôt because they daren‚Äôt say what they truly believe ‚Äď that gays are lesser human beings who should be denied the same rights as others. It would be wrong to tar everyone in this way, but it is striking how many of the most vociferous objections come from those with a less-than-stellar record on gay rights.

The arguments against marriage equality are specious. No one yet has made a cogent, reasoned or logical explanation opposing marriage equality. They are all emotive and largely dishonest. Heterosexuals have destroyed the so-called “sanctity” of marriage long ago.
  • http://truebluenz.com/ Redbaiter

    “Heterosexuals have destroyed the so-called ‚Äúsanctity‚ÄĚ of marriage long ago.”

    Oh yeah, the heterosexuals- they’re the villains alright.

    • Kosh103

      You are at any rate.

  • http://truebluenz.com/ Redbaiter

    “Heterosexuals have destroyed the so-called ‚Äúsanctity‚ÄĚ of marriage long ago. ”

    Oh yeah, those nasty heterosexuals- they’re the villains alright.

  • Grumpy

    Whale, you are out of your depth here. Blaming everything on the Catholics is the last gasp tactic.

    Your normally astute and incisive mind has deserted you on this subject.

    Is there something going on we don’t know about?

    Is kosh Lindsay period and you are just winding us up?

    • Grumpy

      Bloody spell check, lindsay perigo

      • Shaun McC

        right first time
         

      • Grumpy

        Yep it was too good to be true :-)

  • Agent BallSack

    I will be the first to admit I didn’t agree with legalizing homosexuality. Out of sight, out of mind as the old saying goes. Now I wonder what all the fuss was about.

    • Peter Wilson

      Hard to disagree there, you do wonder what all the fuss is about sometimes. Gays have finally realised the nuclear family is the basic fabric of our society, and, all regrets aside, they now wish to be part of it, simple as that. Heteros need to take a deep breath, be forgiving and welcome them and the contribution they bring as honorary heterosexuals.

      • @BoJangles

        …..honorary and horny heterosexuals.

  • Steve P

    “The arguments against marriage equality are specious. No one yet has made a cogent, reasoned or logical explanation opposing marriage equality. They are all emotive and largely dishonest…”
     
    Funny… I have yet to see a cogent, reasoned or logical¬†¬†argument for “marriage equality”; one¬†that isn’t specious, emotive or largely dishonest… indeed the very act of calling it “marriage equality” is itself specious.
     
    Heck, even I could come up with¬†some actual arguments for “gay marriage” – but then of course I could also refute those arguments.
     
    “Heterosexuals have destroyed the so-called ‚Äúsanctity‚ÄĚ of marriage long ago.”

    So that’s an argument… marriage is practically dead as it is so we might as well finish it off?

    And no, I am not a bigot, a hater or homophobic. I am opposed to polygamy, but as a straight male I most certainly do not have a “fear or intense dislike” of sex with lots of women.

    • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

      How can two people who genuinely love each other and are prepared to commit to one another for the rest of their lives possibly “finish” marriage off? Isn’t that precisely what marriage is about?¬†

      In this day in age where commitment seems to last only as long as the latest Bachelor series shouldn’t we be celebrating anyone who is determined to commit for the long haul?

      What I fail to see is how ones sexual preference has any impact on ones ability to be in a marriage the way God intended – loving, faithful and committed.

      If you are going to bring up fertility then of course I will refer you to all those heteros who cant conceive….many of whom were ‘born that way’.

      Like I have said below, the argument isn’t about marriage per se, it is about whether you think it is OK that 2 people of the same gender have sex. So in essence you are defining their entire charactor by what they choose to do as consenting adults in the bedroom….for what, may 20 minutes 3 x per week if they’re lucky?

      I am certain God is not so limited.

      My suggestion: try reading What’s So Amazing About Grace for a start.

      • Rufus

        Unsol –
        in fact, the current debate is totally about marriage Рhomosexual sex is already ok, apparently.

        Ask Kosh.  Or Cam.

        It’s marriage they want.¬† Not sex.¬† They’ve got that already.

        As for 1 John 4:7 Рway to take a text out of context.  Nothing to do with this debate whatsoever.

      • Steve P

        “How can two people who genuinely love each other and are prepared to commit to one another for the rest of their lives possibly “finish” marriage off? Isn’t that precisely what marriage is about?”So how come you get to define what marriage is “about”?”In this day in age where commitment seems to last only as long as the latest Bachelor series shouldn’t we be celebrating anyone who is determined to commit for the long haul?”Do you have any evidence that gays are, on the whole, more faithful, monogamous and committed than straights? I’m not being judgemental, I’m just¬†asking for statistical evidence that gay marriage would strengthen the institution of marriage as a whole. And if the point is irrelevant, why raise it?”If you are going to bring up fertility then of course I will refer you to all those heteros who cant conceive….many of whom were ‘born that way’.”Some drivers are worse than others, and some drivers are so bad they lose their license, however blind people don’t get to drive at all. Blind peoples’ rights aren’t being violated because nobody has a right to drive; if driving was a right you wouldn’t need a license – oh and hey, you need a license to get married too, because marriage isn’t a right either.”…it is about whether you think it is OK that 2 people of the same gender have sex….”Please don’t conflate the legalisation of homosexuality with gay marriage.“I am certain God is not so limited.”I’m an atheist; I don’t particularly care what some people think God is or isn’t capable of.

      • Steve P

        Oh great, my comment lost all its formatting.. after the second attempt to post…. is it just me or is this site playing up today?

      • BJ

        Yes some heterosexuals can’t conceive but they can at least try with their GOD given equipment that is complimentary – penis/vagina. Do you really think that GOD, that designed our ‘perfect’ bodies (generally speaking), intended for a man to put his penis inside another mans excrement orifice. If as you have said marriage is about love why do homosexuals find it necessary to do such things for sexual gratification. ¬† ¬†¬†

      • Steve P

        “How can two people who genuinely love each other and are prepared to commit to one another for the rest of their lives possibly “finish” marriage off? Isn’t that precisely what marriage is about?”So how come you get to define what marriage is “about”?”In this day in age where commitment seems to last only as long as the latest Bachelor series shouldn’t we be celebrating anyone who is determined to commit for the long haul?”Do you have any evidence that gays are, on the whole, more faithful, monogamous and committed than straights? I’m not being judgemental, I’m just¬†asking for statistical evidence that gay marriage would strengthen the institution of marriage as a whole. And if the point is irrelevant, why raise it?”If you are going to bring up fertility then of course I will refer you to all those heteros who cant conceive….many of whom were ‘born that way’.”Some drivers are worse than others, and some drivers are so bad they lose their license, however blind people don’t get to drive at all. Blind peoples’ rights aren’t being violated because nobody has a right to drive; if driving was a right you wouldn’t need a license – oh and hey, you need a license to get married too, because marriage isn’t a right either.”…it is about whether you think it is OK that 2 people of the same gender have sex….”Please don’t conflate the legalisation of homosexuality with gay marriage.”I am certain God is not so limited.”I’m an atheist; I don’t particularly care what some people think God is or isn’t capable of.(repost to see if formatting will take this time)

      • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

        How on earth is 1 John 4:7 not in context? Or any other verse that pertains to the kind of loving charactor God is?

        And if you’re going to debate context then I could easily argue the same for every single verse you quote regarding God being anti same sex relationships. In fact I could probably argue context where most of the bible is concerned. Except God’s love. That is constant.

        So to put the reverse on you, you are saying that even if homosexual sex is OK (oh, is that just with people of the same gender or do you mean hetero couples too?) gay couples should not be able to get married.

        Why? Why deny others who don’t believe the same things as you one of their basic human rights?

      • Steve P

        Unsolcitedious – please refer to my comment on WO’s more recent post here:

        http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2012/03/two-queens-on-the-throne/ 

        Kosh: …ehhh, why would I even bother…

    • Kosh103

      It is as simple as equal rights. Thats the argument. We are not second class when compared to hetros so therefore we should have every single right you do.

      Now, we know gay marriage will not damage hetro marriage, nor will it cause an increase in straight divorces. Nor will there be a rise in child abuse, nor will Duncans horses turn and eat each other. Marriage is a social construct that over the many centuries has changed according to societies demands/whims/requirements.

      So, what is the REAL REASON people like you dont want us poofs to marry?

      • Patriot

        KOSH,

        Lesbian civil contractual legal rights are in the framework called¬† — CIVIL UNION

        Thats where you go — civil union¬†CIVIL UNION pal,¬†¬† ¬†– not Marriage between husband & wife

        Its all equal rights but under TWO names — hope u get the idea KOSH

      • Kosh103

        If you think patriot that a CU and a marriage are equal then more the fool you.

        • Patriot

          KOSH — help yerself to a Civil Union — be proud of it ,,,¬† rather than being on the other side dreaming of a Marriage .
          — Harden up Man¬† — take him into a Civil Union and get yer rectum going — fart & all

      • Bunswalla

        I’m going to take a stab at this one…….

        It’s because your poofs

  • Ciaron_A

    WO, I’m keen to know if you still identify as a Christian, and¬†what has led you to believe that God in fact¬†approves of homosexual¬†marriage?

    • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

      I think he does as do I in terms of values not label. Marriage is almost irrelevant in the argument. What you are asking is whether God approves of gays…..if He does then it stands to reason he would automatically approve of gay marriage.

      In my view God is about love. God loves mankind, God loves you, me, everyone whether gay, straight or somewhere in between. And for me, anything else is irrelevant.

      The institution of marriage was undermined a long time ago, in fact it is has probably always been faulty as human beings are faulty.

      For the Catholic Church, or anyone for that matter, to say that gay marriage would have a detrimental impact on marriage as a value is naive and cruel.

      For that argument to stand they need to first prove that is a perfect concept; that all those who get married do so for the right reasons, do so because the truly love each other and are prepared to commit and be faithful to one another forever – regardless of what curve balls life may through them.

      They must prove that all heterosexual marriages are healthy & happy, that all married couples are more than flatmates/co-parents. They must prove that staying married is synonymous with something more than reproduction and the divvying up of household responsibilities.

      And they can’t. Straight people have been getting married then cheating, beating, ignoring, emotional & verbally abusing each other since marriage began…..no doubt in the times where polygamy was acceptable. Straight people also have difficulty conceiving – more so in this day and age than any other (re BJ’s post below) so again, that has no validity in terms of quantifying this claim that gay couples shouldn’t marry.

      And then there is the fact that the law allows a gay celebrant to marry 2 straight people…..go figure

      So for anyone to try and take the moral high ground against any 2 people who genuinely love each other and are prepared to commit for the rest of their lives is hypocritical. 

      It is also unfair: why shouldn’t gay couples be allowed the same legal rights, the same next of kin status as their heterosexual counterparts. And why shouldn’t a gay celebrant be able to marry their own partner?

      End of the day I think God is more concerned about the hypocrisy, judgment and consumerism of this world than whether gay couples are allowed to marry. I think He is more concerned about how this world has no concept of selflessness, generosity, empathy and kindness. A world that has no honor.

      • Ciaron_A

        So you are not a Christian. Thanks for pointing that out, but the question was not directed at you.

      • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

        No I value my faith in God far too much to put myself down that way.

        Judging by your snarky tone I can only assume you are in fact a Christian. How those Sundays treating ya?

      • Ciaron_A

        Very well, thankyou. From your reply, can I assume you have a definitive opinion on everything?

      • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

        Absolutely.

      • BJ

        Sometimes I just don’t get this argument. It could end very simply.
        Why don’t the gay couples that wish to have a legal commitment and all that goes with it, lobby for a new Act with a New Name for their desired status that mirrors the rights and responsibilities within the context of marriage without demeaning what it all encompasses for me – I made a loving commitment and together with an opposite created/contributed something new out of our expression of that love. I can’t be held responsible for all those that have not honored their commitment in marriage and I certainly do not have to show that the concept is perfect for my argument to stand

      • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

        BJ РNZ has Civil Unions, that is the new Act. But it is not the same as marriage Рthat is, the Marriage Act therefore, equality is being denied. NZ law says that a gay celebrant or a gay Minister can marry hetero couples but not get married themselves. 

        While I personally think the Civil Union gives gay couples pretty much the exact same entitlements as marriage (esp re where next of kin is concerned), it is the principle of the thing – the Marriage Act what a ‘couple’ is should be redefined.

      • Ciaron_A

        ¬†Yes I have definitive opinions on everything – including what kind of person you are most likely to be……the kind the puts most people off church!I guess that would make you the kind of stiff-necked person who just cannot subjugate themselves to God’s will and needs to pick and choose the bits that fit for them.

      • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

        CA “I guess that would make you the kind of stiff-necked person who just cannot subjugate themselves to God’s will and needs to pick and choose the bits that fit for them.”

        Gosh you must have a really close relationship with God that you are able to appoint yourself as judge and jury.

        Sounds like the same ole sales pitch – one of scaremongering, badgering & judgment which is just bad form – it’s not attractive and doesn’t result in those who are not in your version of ‘in’ respecting your point of view.

        When you say things like that you need to ask yourself whether the payoff is worth it – does it make you feel more righteous, closer to God, more Godly? As the recipient it just makes me think you’re just another self-righteous Christian who is worlds apart from the kind of charactor God expects us to demonstrate.¬†

        Trying to throw personal attacks at me indicates you’re not interested in stating your arguments.

        If you’re going to pass judgment on gay couples who want to get married then at least have the decency to explain why.

    • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz Whaleoil

      yes I do, God doesn’t approve of many things, but thankfully due to the intercession of Jesus as our saviour we are saved from our sins.

      I accept unreservedly that I am saved and so I am…saved. My sins are between me and God and no one else.

      • Ciaron_A

        So that answers the first part… what of the second?

      • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz Whaleoil

        God doesn’t approve of adultery but plenty of people in the sanctity of marriage partake…God doesn’t approve of gossiping, but again plenty of people in the sanctity of marriage do that too…

        All sin is equal and the ages of sin is death…however through God’s grace and the gift of the plan of salvation we can all be saved no matter our sin.

        You profess to know that god disapproves of gay marriage…really? Why is that?

        Sin is Sin, all sin is equal and so whatever your sin…and from here it looks like pride…it is the same as my sin and Kosh’s sin…but the good news…is that you too can be saved.

        AS I pointed out, sin is between the sinner and God and if they know God then they can be assisted in reducing the sin, but since there is no person alive who is without sin it is an extremely hypocritical person to sit in judgement over other sinners.

      • Ciaron_A

        WO, I agree with most of what you say, however, is it not a condition of God’s Grace that we turn from sin, accept and pray for the Holy Spirit to work in us to make us righteous?

        Therefore, does it not follow that we, as Christians, should endevour to turn from sin in all its forms be it gossip, lies, fraud, adultery or whatever?

        And by extension, does it not also mean that we should not knowingly endorse or enable that which is sinful?

        You insinuate that I am a hypocrite for judging others in sin, I say I am not judging their sin, as you correctly point out, that is between them and God, but I refuse to be an enabler of their sin,  or encourage people in behavior that removes them from God.

    • BJ

      Ciaron – if you read WO’s response again carefully you will see that he has answered your question in as much as I think his response to you explains exactly why he approves of homosexual marriage.

      • Rufus

        Nope.  He conveniently avoided answering part two. 

        Unless he recognises his stance on homosexuality is a sin and is telling us to leave that between God and himself. 

      • Ciaron_A

        I am not satisfied with his answer. God’s Grace allows us to stumble, not to say: I submit to The Lord in everything, except when I don’t.

    • Kosh103

      There is no proof anywhere that God is anti gay. None at all.

      All the so called proof has been created by the church over the years. Even old Christ when here on Earth said not a thing about this supposed massive sin. So if it wasnt even worth Christs time to utter a word on the matter, what makes you think it is right to claim God/Christ is anti gay?

      • Ciaron_A

        I guess that depends on which “god” you are referring to.

  • BJ

    I don’t consider gays lesser human beings -they have the same ‘human rights’ as the next person but when you are talking about ‘group rights’ it is a relative thing to weigh up ones position as opposed to anothers. ¬†They will never be equal in marriage for the simple fact that they don’t meet all the requirements for equality in that domain as it is already defined – yes they may meet the two people, love, long term commitment requirements but their origins and their abilities to perform within that relationship will never meet the requirements of functionality to belong to the already defined group of married people. By their own admission of being different they cannot possibly be in a married relationship the same as mine and I don’t want them to be, so why should my rights to belong to an already defined group be put behind another new group. As far as I am concerned they need to find another word for what their declaration of commitment to the world means because it is not marriage – the coming together of two opposites to compliment each other with the express reason to ¬†contribute something made with two opposites (man and woman) to contribute new life from their union. Like Yin and Yan ¬†North and South Positive and Negative Hot and Cold- all these things are polar and their varying degrees of influence help create balance in the world. Two of the same weighs the scales down all at one end and if we lose that balance then we are doomed.

  • Andy

    Why don’t you go and preach “marriage equality” in Saudi Arabia or some other Muslim country?
    I’m sure the Grand Mufti will fully support your quest.

  • Rufus

    cue Kosh, spitting bile, screaming bloody outrage and flinging poo. 

    3…2…1…

    • Kosh103

      Oh look, rufus is being a dick again, what a surprise.

      • Rufus

        ¬†didn’t take long, and true to form.

      • Kosh103

        Oh look rufus is being a smug dick again, gosh call the papers.

  • Rufus

    WO – do you agree with the following statements?

    1.¬†homosexuals have the same rights as anyone else to marry. (ie. “marriage equality” exists)

    2. the current legal definition of marriage requires two members of the opposite sex.

    3. anything else than this is not “marriage” as it is understood.

    I’d be very interested in hearing your arguements for gay marriage.¬† A witty quip that no-one should be denied a mother-in-law, funny though that is, is not a reasonable argument.

    • Rufus

      it’s funny seeing Whale¬†adopting the language and tactics of the Left – the same tactics he usually derides.

      No-one in these enlightened times would dare oppose or deny “equality”.

      But then we’re not really talking about “equality” are we?¬† We’re talking about special treatement for a small, vocal and militant minority.

      • Whalehunter

        I agree Rufus. It really bewilders me that Whaleoil – a blog that appears to dedicate its self to what is generally a right wing as well as anti-pc stance has so simply taken the side of the “politically correct” minority in this case.¬†

      • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

        whalehunter – being pro gay marriage isn’t hardly synonymous with being pc! the two have no correlation whatsoever.

        and here’s another thing to think about: the child abuse rate in gay households in ZERO>

        when it comes to the welfare of children, why would anyone think the majority has got it right?

        i say change the law so gay celebrants can get married to their own partners and adopt children.

      • Auto_immune

        Whalehunter – Being right wing does not automatically equate to being socially conservative, just as being left wing does not automatically equate to being socially liberal.
         
        A lot of WO’s posts about marriage equality relate to Conservative PM David Cameron persual towards it – I’m pretty sure the Conservative party is¬†supposed to be right wing.

      • Ciaron_A


        and here’s another thing to think about: the child abuse rate in gay households in ZERO>

        Really? who’d a thunk it?

        Would you like to guarantee that it will never happen?

      • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

        I will guarantee it in so much as you are prepared to guarantee that approving gay marriage will result in undermining the institution of marriage marriage and subsequently result in a short cut to hell.

      • Rufus

        Unsol – you make some very outrageous claims.

        “and here’s another thing to think about: the child abuse rate in gay households in ZERO”

        Indeed.¬† Got any proof?¬† Methinks you’re simply making stuff up.

      • Ciaron_A

        @Unsolicitedious; As an annihilationist, I don’t believe in the “popular” hell. but if you are in fact¬†refering to the second coming of the Lord, well, thats going to happen regardless…

      • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

        rufus Рcheck the stats out for yourself! 

      • Rufus

        Unsol – what stats?

        Oh, there aren’t any.¬† Doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen though.

        To make your claim, you have to have intimate knowledge of every gay household, everywhere, ever.

        If you don’t, to avoid looking like said pillock, then simply¬†retract or reword the claim.

      • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

        CA – “annihilationist”,….just when I thought I had heard of all the variations.

        The second coming of Christ you say – is that somewhere someday on earth or someday somewhere else?

      • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

        Rufus – dont be lazy. Do your homework. It’s easy enough to quantify.

      • Rufus

        Unsol Рquantify?  Easy?
         
        ok, you do it, after all, you’re making the claim.

      • grumpy

        What about the Aussie gays that have had their adopted son taken off them in the US? Appears they were using him to make gay pedophile porn……

        Don’t want to talk about that one eh?

    • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

      Rufus – I have already found them, that’s why I said it. I can also tell you that what age, demographic, socio economic status, sexual orientation and ethnicity has the highest rate of reported abuse.

      • Rufus

        link,  buddy.

  • Cato

    ” No one yet has made a cogent, reasoned or logical explanation opposing marriage equality”
     
    Which is to day that nobody has made an argument that Whale Oil finds cogent, reasoned or logical explanation. Certainly plenty of very good, principled arguments have been made against gay marriage – but proponents either choose not to engage them or do not have the capacity to comprehend them.

    Whale Oil, I think, probably falls into the latter. He is a entertaining read and good brawler, but I don’t think anyone would accuse him of being a sophisticated analyst – and I am sure he agrees.

  • Sancho

    What is this “them” and “us” argument being bandied about? I’ve been married for 10 years (in a relationship for 20) and I have never felt like I have been part of an exclusive group. I married my wife and only my wife, I couldn’t give a flying fuck what anyone else does… this is especially noticeable in the fact that I don’t give a rats ass about the divorce rates and I bet no one who bitches about gays getting married cares about the divorce rates either. Why don’t you care? Because we all live our own lives. I don’t care if you get straight divorced and I don’t care if you get gay married. Why should I? Why does anyone else?

    • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

      You should care about the divorce rates…..they are a reminder that marriage means a daily choice to love, commit and communicate with each other :)

  • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

    You know there is only one thing to consider here: Everyone who loves is born of God Р1 John 4:7

    Period.

    • Whalehunter

      Here’s some Bible quotes for you Unsolicitedious:
      “Sodomites are wicked & sinners before the Lord exceedingly (Gen.13:13), are violent & doom nations (Gen. 19:1-25; Jgs. 19), are abominable to God (Lev. 18:22), are worthy of death for their vile sex practices (Lev. 20:13; Rom. 1:32), are called dogs as filthy, impudent & libidinous (Deut. 23:17,18; Mat. 7:6;Phil. 3:2), produce in society mass intoxication from their wine made from grapes of gall from the vine of Sodom & fields of Gomorrah, poisoning society’s mores with the poison of dragons & the cruel venom of asps (Deut. 32:32,33), show their sin & shame on their countenance (Isa. 3:9), are shameless & unable to blush (Jer. 6:15), workers of iniquity (Psa. 5:5), liars & murderers (Jn. 8:44), filthy & lawless (2 Pet. 2:7,8), natural brute beasts (2 Pet. 2:12), are likened unto dogs eating their own vomit, sows wallowing in their own feces (2 Pet. 2:22), will proliferate at the end of the world bringing final judgment on mankind (Lk. 17:28-30), have been finally given up by God to uncleanness to dishonor their own bodies, to vile affections, & to a reprobate mind such that they cannot think straight about anything (Rom. 1:23-28); and, unable to blush, be ashamed, or repent (Jer. 6:15), they have no hope of Heaven (Rev. 22:15). “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” Heb. 10:31.”

      Period.

      • Sancho
      • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

        Well you have certainly been paying attention in church. Well. Done. You. Spoken like a true Christian – gays are not just gays, they are apparently lying filthy murderous dogs who like to eat their own vomit and are condemned to hell. Awesome – who wouldn’t want to know a God like that.

        If you’re going to quote a bible verse then please also state the context – the time period, the wars, who God was actually talking too.

        And then list every single verse where God says love for mankind comes first.

        Those verses will easily outnumber your wee list 10 to 1. 

      • Agent BallSack

        Wow all that’s in the bible and still priests bugger little boys.

      • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

        Agent – but they’re priests and Godly therefore can’t possibly be molestors…

  • Salacious T Crumb

    WO’s comment “Heterosexuals have destroyed the so-called ‚Äúsanctity‚ÄĚ of marriage long ago” rings very true.

    High rate of separations/divorce, solo parents, declining marriage rates and the new terms like¬†“civil union” show how far we have become removed from the traditional ideals of an everlasting relationship.

    The slippery slope didnt start with the advent of gay rights – it was¬†already well¬†established¬†by liberal attitudes towards the nuclear family, militant feminism, welfarism and¬†society’s gradual shift away from¬†judeo-christian values.

    • Rufus

      yes – but using that as an arguement for changing marriage is nuts.

      Just because humans can’t live up to God’s ideal¬†doesn’t mean His ideal is somehow the problem…or needs to be “improved”.

      • Salacious T Crumb

        I would argue about what is “Gods Ideal”.

        Personally, I think it is more about common decency and being accountable for your actions which is the underlying basis of most mainstream religions.

        In our evolving society with its shifting (some say declining) views of morality, why shouldnt institutionalised concepts such as marriage be evolved?

        Afterall, if we accept those things I originally posted as normal these days, why bother with selective adherance to old fashioned institutions like marriage?

      • Rufus

        But Salacious T –
        If you read the Bible, and you might, you will see that God’s ideal (for marriage) is 1 man, 1 woman, for life.

        Just because we can’t do that doesn’t mean it’s not a great thing to aim for.

        Not everyone’s views on morality are evolving.¬†

        Not everyone accepts as normal those things you posted.

        And if you¬†are advocating “evolving” (destroying)¬†something like marriage, what will you use as your moral compass in deciding what¬†you will¬†allow, and what will you deny?¬†

      • Salacious T Crumb

        There¬†have been many other¬†non-christian societies that have practiced lifelong, monogomous relationships. I wouldnt say it is unique to christianity – how would these non-christians¬†respond to the notion of¬†“Gods ideal”?

        And no, I certainly do not advocate “destroying” marriage as you put it. I think fundamentally we are on the same page regarding this but what I am trying to articulate is that we have a small sector of our society who wish to enter into the sanctimony of marriage, an institution we should all hold with the utmost of respect, and yet society at large deems it somehow¬†not appropriate.

        This from the same society that has allowed and perpetuated a decline of our notions of family, accountability and morality. The origins of which were where our concept of marriage came from in the first place.

      • Rufus

        Salacious T – I hear you.¬† But I still don’t think that anyone can use that as an arguement to change marriage – because you will have to to allow gays in.¬† You will have to distort its meaning to the contrary.

        But I hear what you are saying.

    • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

      Rufus – I think the question is whether marriage should have been denied to gay couples in the first place.

      The answer is no.

      • Rufus

        Unsol – Your question is irrelevant as we live in the here-and-now, standing on thousands of years of history.

        If you read the Bible, and you might, you might notice that God instituted the first marriage between Adam and Eve.  All throughout the history of the Bible, a marriage relationship was meant to be between a single man and a single woman, for life. 

        Now humans, being humans, continually stuffed this up in many ways.  Still do. 

        But that doesn’t invalidate the ideal.

        Unsol – your question is aimed at God, not us.

      • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

        Rufus – it is only irrelevant if you believe that the Bible is not a contradictory book written by a flawed man.

        “All throughout the history of the Bible, a marriage relationship was meant to be between¬†a single man and a single woman, for life.” – so what about David lying with Ruth and Rebecca (I think that was their names) and the many other examples of polygamy?

        If you’re going to get all literal….well the bible condones an eye for an eye, slavery & polygamy…just to name a few!

        You clearly have a religious view on this. But look at it logically: ‘sinners’ get married all the time. Therefore as same sex couples are legal, gay celebrants and gay ministers can marry others it is fair, reasonable and right to allow them to marry their own spouse.

        If you are going to cast dispersions on one group of so-called sinners then to be fair you should cast dispersions on all of them/us; no one but the purest most perfect of souls can get married.

      • Rufus

        Unsol – did you not read my logic –

        God set the ideal.¬† Humans mess up.¬† Our failure doesn’t invalidate the ideal.¬†

        We need to try harder – not change it.

        All your other babbling is just that.

      • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

        No rufus what you and your ilk need to do is to stop producing gay children.

        And there is no logic to your argument whatsoever.

        Blabbering is better suited to waffly and lofty references to the bible that do everything but project the love, life and example Jesus led.

  • Andrey

    ¬†Heterosexuals have destroyed the so-called ‚Äúsanctity‚ÄĚ of marriage long ago.Here is the proof:
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/celebrities/5885879/Kim-Kardashian-files-for-divorce

  • BJ

    About 30 mins ago Steve P provided the “cogent, reasoned or logical¬†explanation opposing marriage equality” that WO said he hasn’t seen.¬†

     Look for his post that refers to driving license Рit is total logic. Slam Dunk

  • STEVE AND MONIQUE

    So you have to go to church to be allowed to get married.So only Christians can get married.This is what seems to be invading some posts on here.If so all hetros who have got married,and dont go to church,and have not got married in gods church have commited a sin,and god forbid they proberly lived together beforehand to,so double bad.And keeping to this line of thinking,then ungod-loving heteros have caused more damage to the sanctitity of marriage then the gays have,and proberly will.Since the damage is already done.

  • Whalehunter

    There is no sane reason to put forward alternative, unhealthy, unnatural unions as substitutes the ideal of the nuclear family comprised of heterosexual parents.¬†Political correctness has singlehandedly¬†enticed¬†homosexuality out from behind it’s darkened closet doors, into our communities where an open and aggressive demand for marriage rights that are not theirs to take is now¬†perceived¬†as acceptable by the brainwashed masses.¬†Dismantling the sanctity and history of the definition of marriage and trying to force¬†legitimacy¬†on what God states time and time again are abominable sexual practices reveals societies “head-in-the-sand” attitude to the cancer that develops when moral justice is perverted and communities forced to accept yet another law that violates their own core belief system of right and wrong.

  • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

    Only if you’re illogical

    • Whalehunter

      “Should children be handed over as trophies to the homosexual “rights” movement – adopting them into households where they’ll face dramatically higher risk of exposure to domestic violence, mental illness, life-threatening disease and premature death? An environment which increases the chances they’ll engage in high risk homosexual behavior themselves?”

      Nope.

      • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

        “”Should children be handed over as trophies to the homosexual “rights” movement – adopting them into households where they’ll face dramatically higher risk of exposure to domestic violence, mental illness, life-threatening disease and premature death? An environment which increases the chances they’ll engage in high risk homosexual behavior themselves?…Nope”

        Good God. Statements like this illustrate everything that is wrong with this world.

        The fact that anyone believes such cruel, naive & destructive statements like this is so sad.

        Further, such is my faith in mankind being able to actually live up to the standards set by Jesus that I am incredulous and amazed that anyone actually still believes such garbage.

      • Kosh103

        Hey sunshine, its in straight households where all that happens.

        Not in gay family households.  Get ya facts right.

  • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

    Grumpy Рsorry, I should have been more specific as it was Lesbian couples I was referring to. 

    But you have found only one case – I think you will find that it is examples like this that are more the norm:

    http://poundpuplegacy.org/node/15183

    • Grumpy

      Strangely, I have several lesbian friendsvwho are in long term relationships and who have children from previous hetero marriages, they arebgreatbparents.

      I think we are allntalkingbabout male homosexual couples. They only include lesbians to make them look good. Lesbians have more in common with straight males than homos.

      • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

        “Lesbians have more in common with straight males than homos.”

        Oh so you don’t mind same sex couples if they are women? No surprises there.

        Good grief the stupidity knows no bounds on this post!

      • Kosh103

        LMAO – yeaaaaaa thats only becuase you get off on 2 chicks together.

  • Whalehunter

    If same-sex marriage is approved, it won’t be long before we’ll be fined or imprisoned for expressing any opposition to homosexuality. People with religious moral convictions will be considered worse than racists.¬†¬†Free speech and religious rights will be¬†irreversibly removed¬†because opposition to homosexual rights will be¬†criminalized as ‚Äúhate speech‚ÄĚ just like in Canada.¬†

    • Guestosterone


      People with religious moral convictions will be considered worse than racists”

      a bit harsh, they’re¬†no worse in my book

    • Kosh103

      If it is genuine hate speech then you can deal with the consiquences of your nasty evil words.

      • Rufus

        ¬†yes, and how do we know if it’s genuine hate speech?¬† Why any view contrary to Kosh’s of course.

        Fascist to the core.

        Can you honestly not see your own hypocrisy here?

      • Kosh103

        I see you are talking garbage again rufus.

  • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

    Cameron are these people for real..the outrageous nonsensical comments on here void of any real logic, respect or empathy for ones fellow man make me wonder whether this is the blog version of the Rock’s WWW.

    • Patriot

      Standard Marriage Vow ….¬† Groom:

       I,____, take thee,_____, to my lawful wedded Wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part

      Never ever will I accept that a wife has a penis — ie a wife has a vagina & is female¬†….¬†

      Marriage via a  Marriage Vow is a creation of a Husband & wife   Рa male & a female

      Only men & women can marry by traditional definition

      Lesbians can have the same legal rights as in a Marriage — but in a legal Civil Union contract in NZ.¬† Nothin wrong with that .

      Two Vaginas or two Penis’¬† get the rights under a Civil Union — end of discussion

      • Kosh103

        It is only the end of the discussion in  your tiny backward mind.

        Watch this….

        I Bob take the Steve to be my lawful wedded husband…….

        Fast foward to the end  РI now pronounce you husband and husband.

        Look how easy that was.

      • Patriot

        KOSH,
        are you really getting thicker every day .

        “I now pronounce you husband and wife – you may kiss the bride ” — thats Marriage

        “I now pronounce you in a Civil Union “– thats a Union .

        Geez get with the deal

        – you pricks Unionise — seeing you wanna get personal , thats fine , i can tear you apart with hurling insults too , you upthearse Unionist — get your half brain on the legal status of Civil Union .

        No marriage for you Kosh — Union it is for you — Cant be proud of it ehhhh … ashamed of a Union ehhh¬† !!!
        you Dumb turd with an arse dick

      • Kosh103

        Oh patriot, you can dig your toes in as much as you like, but eventually there will be marriage for all.

      • Patriot

        KOSH ,
         you speculate and dream that there will be Marriage for all .

        – what¬†¬† !!!¬† are you still ashamed to do a Civil Union — you are so FEEBLE Minded that only a ragnbone man would be desparate enuff to partake your faeces .

        UNION for you — anything else is spitting on the Dick for you . .

      • Kosh103

        Poor patriot – such a panic over something that cannot be stopped.

      • Patriot

        KOSH – you are speculating that¬† ” it ” cant be stopped ….. pity that you underestimate¬† what the NZ Law is telling you¬†
        – Civil Unions for you
        –¬† Marriage for me & my Wife
        .. what a shame you are so blind & spiteful that you can t tell what is Law & what is not¬† — time for you to try to think again¬† or maybe, as you put it, — your tiny mindblown brain cant cope .
        .. You loose again .

    • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz Whaleoil

      As I said, not a single cogent, rational argument against same sex marriage…only emotional claptrap

  • Kosh103

    Well all I have seen is the usual homo bashing from the homophobes all the while they offered nothing to really defend thier position.

    Oh and given that more kiwis are of no faith than of faith, to try and make an argument using God as a shield (God who mind you has never stated he is anti gay) is just plain stupid, because you will never win with that one.

    • Rufus

      ¬†Sure Kosh, if you ignore vast chunks of the Bible that state God’s teachings on sexual matters – you know, the do’s and don’ts.¬†

      But whatever.¬† Don’t let fact stand in your way.

      By the way, what rights of yours are being denied again?

      • titanuranus

        Seriously ? In the 21st century you refer to a collection of bronze age myths collated around 1500 years ago,plagiarised from most of the cultures gone before your particular skyfairy was dreamt up .
        Facts? LoL 

      • Rufus

         yeah Рme and billions of others throughout the last couple of thousand years. 

        You’d think there must be something to it…

      • Kosh103

        Say Rufus, I am willing to bet a large amount that I attend church more often than you, have read the Bible more than you, have discussed the Bible with religious leaders more than you.

        So if you want to talk facts I suggest you check again becuase I am more than happy to knock you on your nasty homophobic arse.

      • Travdog

        you certainly don’t talk like a church-goer kosh.

      • Kosh103

        Thats because I am human trav. ;0)

        And you should hear how some clergy speak.

      • Rufus

         Kosh you silly man, you know nothing about me at all.

        Pompous blustering aside, what rights are you being denied?

      • Kosh103

        Nice side step there rufus. At least you know when you are beat.

      • Rufus

        ¬†Kosh –

        Travdog rightly pointed out the incongruity in your claims to be a “better” church-goer than me (whatever that means) and your language and behaviour towards people you don’t like.

        You evade by a glib statement “that’s because I am human Trav”.

        How do you square that with Jesus teaching in Matthew 12:37

        “35
        A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and an
        evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him.
        36 But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken.
        37 For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.‚ÄĚ

        And Paul’s command in Ephesians 4:29
        ¬†“Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what
        is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may
        benefit those who listen.”

    • Peter WIlson

      How about being kinder to the heteros Kosh. You have to remember it’s hard for us to take homosexuals seriously. I guess it’s how AB supporters look at the All White supporters. Sure, they believe in their team, but, well, it is just soccer,¬†why bother, when you can go for the real thing. Makes one think…..¬†

      • Kosh103

        I am very kind to hetros. As I have stated before most of my very close mates are hetros.

        Its homophobic fucktards I am not a fan of.

      • Rufus

         yes, and a homophobic fucktard is anyone who dares hold a view contrary to Kosh. 

        There are millions if not billions of us “fucktards” today.¬†

        Kosh represents a tiny subset of the liberal western world.

      • Kosh103

        Oh rufus, poor rufus. Reduced to dribbling out blather because he has failed.

        Ahhhh, it is always fun to watch a homophobe flop like a fish out of water.

      • Grumpy

        I’ll see your “homophobic fucktards” and raise you 2 heterophobic fuckturds.

    • Peter Wilson

      To claim that God never stated he is anti-gay is not really a valid position Kosh. You would know far better than me, but God probably didn’t have a direct view on child porn, or the excesses of socialism either. I’m sure there are vague references to honouring children say and love thy neighbhour, just as there are references (I’m guessing) to the glory of man and wife.¬†

      Your protagonists would claim that was because he couldn’t have seen the damage it would cause, taking into account his gift of free will.

  • http://nzconservative.blogspot.com Lucia Maria

    WhaleOil said The arguments against marriage equality are specious. No one yet has
    made a cogent, reasoned or logical explanation opposing marriage
    equality.”

    Have a look at this: Same-sex Marriage creates a more powerful State

    Marriage between men and women is a pre-political, naturally emerging social institution. Men and women come together to create children, independently of any government. The duty of caring for those children exists even without a government or any political order.

    Marriage protects children as well as the interests of each parent in their common project of raising those children.

    Because marriage is an organic part of civil society, it is robust enough to
    sustain itself, with minimal assistance from the state.

    By contrast, same-sex “marriage” is completely a creation of the state.

    Same-sex couples cannot have children. Someone must give them a child or at
    least half the genetic material to create a child. The state must detach the parental rights of the opposite-sex parent and then attach those rights to the second parent of the same-sex couple.

    The state must create parentage for the same-sex couple. For the opposite-sex couple, the state merely recognizes parentage.

    That’s just part of the post.¬† I dare you to read all of it, and the links.¬† It’s one thing to say there’s no explanation, it’s another to ignore explanations and then say there aren’t any.

    • Steve P

      “Because marriage is an organic part of civil society, it is robust enough to¬†
      sustain itself, with minimal assistance from the state.”
      I don’t entirely agree. As I’m sure you’re aware, the Bolsheviks in the early soviet state wanted to abolish marriage as an economic unit (they of course thought that the state should be the only economic unit), accordingly they enacted cheap and easy divorce, and in 1920 the Soviet Union became the first country in the world to legalise abortion. The Soviets expected that people would still get and stay married out of love and affection, however illegitimacy soared and marriage rates collapsed – nearly taking the state with it. In 1936 Stalin reversed many of these changes, tightening up divorce (and had many of the legal theorists of the 1920s taken out and shot).

      Interestingly, in 1968 the divorce laws were once again liberalised, and in 1989, 21 years later – barely one generation – the Soviet Union collapsed… sheer coinky-dink, of course.

      Point being, incentives matter. If people don’t believe they are better off married, then they won’t get – or stay -married. The various matrimonial property acts were ¬†supposedly to “make things more fair” – and yet marriage rates continued to fall. What those acts actually did was to incentivise divorce (making it “more fair” – usually for the woman; most divorces are initiated by the woman) and disincentivise marriage.

      • http://nzconservative.blogspot.com Lucia Maria

         SteveP,

        “Minimal assistance from the state” is different from the state actively working to undermine marriage.¬† Which is the case in NZ and other parts of the world right now.¬† Consequences being as they are, people that should be aren’t getting married.¬† They don’t even know what it’s for any more with all the free sex that’s about and homosexuals want it as a political statement.¬† Unfortunately, the ramifications are huge.¬† The state will collapse if it continues along this path.

      • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

        No I don’t think it is about people believing they will be better off getting married, I think it is about the fact that so few people have faith in the concept of marriage – divorce rate is extraordinarily high with most of us in our 30s coming from broken homes or from homes where our parents treat marriage as little more than a permanent flatting arrangement.

        That’s why I say we should celebrate anyone who is prepared to publicly declare their love for someone else and promise to commit to them for life.¬†

        I think it is sad that so few people are prepared to sign on the dotted line for their relationship yet easily do so for a house, car etc.

  • Peter WIlson

    Its time to accept that homosexuals deserve acceptance and forgiveness. It must be hard to ignore the fact you are heterosexual, and then pretend to be someone you’re not. A bit like being the bridesmaid, rather than the bride I guess. Counselling and compassion would be the christian thing, rather than condemnation.

    • Patriot

      Yes – they have a place , always have had, after all they are people too – with equal rights along with all of us ….¬† equally. No issue with that at all..

      —- However they do NOT have more equality than any other person and there are provisions made for their committment to each other , if they choose to share their life together — in the lesbians case — an armoury of¬†strap on rubber penis . In the male case , always having a penis in the faecal rectum¬†—- not for every one ….. hygeinewise. ¬†

      But they have equal rights thru a Civil Union — which is not ¬†a Marriage in name , but has the same property rights as if.

      May they be happy in their Union. —-¬† I shall remain happy in¬†Marriage to my wife & she to her husband..

      • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

        Marriage is not a Christian institution – loads of people from all different walks of life, views, values & religions get married.

        There is no logical reason why marriage cannot be extended to same sex couples; if a gay minister or celebrant can marry two heterosexual couple anywhere on any day with or without religious components then that same celebrant or minister should be able to marry their own spouse.

        And even if one did view being in a gay relationship as ‘sinning’ well, then if lack of sin is the standard to get married then who on earth could? Certainly not the Christians!!!!!

        Like I have said earlier: this argument is not actually about whether gay couples can marry, it is actually about peoples refusal to accept gays as equals in every single aspect of societal life. 

        It is about people having some misguided sense that those in same sex relationships are not only doing something wrong, but doing something more wrong than anything they might be doing wrong. They seem to conveniently overlook look the fact that that where sin is concerned (not that I believe being gay is a sin – I don’t understand it, but I accept it) it is not how far out from the cliff you jump that matters, but the fact that when you do jump you fall…..and we all jump off….or at least, last I checked. I have yet to meet anyone who is perfect.

        So here’s a thought for all those people – the bigots: if they have such a problem with homosexuality then I suggest THEY stop producing the gay children.¬†

        More straight people produce gay kids than gay couples – not hard to quantify that given the sheer difference in straight vs gay fertility!!!!

      • Patriot

        UNSOLICITEDIOUS,

        No where did i say Marriage was a Christian institution, nor did i say they were not equal¬† ¬†— comeon read my words .

        Your arguement FAILS AS YOU HAVE MISQUOTED ME
        Your arguement FAILS cos you have not addressed the point

      • Steve P

        Unsolicitedious: “There is no logical reason why marriage cannot be extended to same sex couples…”

        If that’s the case, then there is no logical reason why marriage should not be extended to *any* group of people who want to get married… indeed, some are already arguing this:

        http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/blogs/over-the-rainbow/4407748/Is-polygamy-such-a-bad-thing 

        So what *is* wrong with polygamy? Well, nothing as such, except that “polygamous* societies almost always are actually *polygynous* societies, and polygyny is inherently unstable: you end up with an excess of unmarried males ¬†excluded from family life, and to maintain stability you have to do like they do in Saudi Arabia – public execution of adulterers. Is that what you want?

        And as for people who rubbish the idea of the slippery slope, take a look at this:

        http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=11517 

      • http://unsolicitedious.wordpress.com/ Unsolicitedious

        Patriot: you’ve missed the point. You say on one hand that gay couples have the same equal rights – not more – as heteros but them deny them those equal rights by saying that Civil Unions will suffice.

        So if you do not have a religious view on the matter then why is it you seem to think that it is OK for one group of our society to be denied the basic human right? The right to marry the person you love?

      • Patriot

        UNSOLICITEDIOUS,
         At Last , some logical debate rather than the Hate speech coming from  Kosh .

        By definition Marriage creates a HUSBAND & A WIFE¬†- Marriage Vows state that ,as being the STATUS of the participants to a Marriage — i repeat again

        I , Don take Betty as my Lawfully wedded WIFE¬†, TO HAVE & TO HOLD, IN SICKNESS¬† & in Health¬†¬† ETC ETC ….. ¬†

        The point is that two women ( with vaginas )  { not getting into transgender issues here ]  cannot  Marry and nominate who will be the HUSBAND.

        Two Wives cannot Marry¬† — Two Husbands cannot Marry¬† — One Wife cannot Marry herself -¬† A husband cannot Marry himself¬† – a wife cannot¬† Marry a Frog – a husband cannot marry a tree – a husband cannot under NZ Law marry 2 wives¬† – a wife cannot legally Marry 3 Husbands

        Only a Man & woman can Marry — to create a Husband marrying a wife . Thats NZ Law as it stands — any other participant to a NZ¬†Marriage is not legal at the moment¬† — correct ????

        Two women have the equal status of a Civil Union by their choosing Рif they choose to contract themselves together . 

        Who says a Civil Union is unequal to a Marriage — not me – not any legislation¬† — the notion that a civil union is unequal to marriage is rubbish …¬†it is only in the mind of those that think it is unequal to marriage .

        Lesbians in a Civil Union are equal to me & my wife in Marriage  , as people .
        I repect their choice Рthey must respect my choice  AND THE LAW of Marriage ..

        They is no ISSUE¬† — it’s definate , its Law .¬†¬†

        ¬†Speculate all you wish –¬†but I will vigorously resist changing a Marriage between Husband/wife to ¬†¬†include a woman as a Husband or a man as a wife .

        People like Kosh — can put up as much Hate , bitterness, bitching , dreaming, as he wishes — until he comes against the silent majority who will fight his extremeism ¬†every step of the way .¬† Turn to battle him every word for word — we wont lie down either .
        If Kosh wants war we will give him war .

  • Peter Wilson

    I wonder if gays realise the financial disadvantages in getting married. Especially as superannuitants, hehe. The married rate is a lot less than two singles.

  • titanuranus
  • Steve P

    Here’s someone else who doesn’t think marriage should be restricted to one man and one woman:

    http://shine.yahoo.com/love-sex/bride-marries-herself-more-singles-throw-solo-weddings-202200537.html 

    Brilliant! Now everyone can enjoy the benefits and rights of marriage, even the socially inept, the hideously ugly, and those who just can’t be bothered…

59%