Family First opposes “big families”

ŠĒ• Family First

Bob McCoskrie and his Family First organisation are opposed to “big families”…and a bloke enjoying having two or more mothers in law. I’m starting to believe that these guys actually aren’t Family First.

Family First NZ is calling for the National, Labour and Green party to state where they stand on the issue of redefining marriage to allow polygamy and polyamory.

‚ÄúPolygamy and polyamory have been¬†added¬†to the same-sex marriage debate in Australia because the ‚Äėdiscrimination‚Äô argument being used to argue for allowing same-sex marriage also applies to any number of adults who love each other and want their relationships recognised,‚ÄĚ says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. ‚ÄúAt the moment, the New Zealand marriage law does discriminate against three or more people getting married, or a married person marrying another person.‚ÄĚ

‚ÄúIf the definition of marriage was extended to allow same-sex marriage, and only same-sex marriage, it could then be argued that we are discriminating against those seeking polygamous, polyamorous, or adult incestuous unions ‚Äď if all that matters is love and commitment. If we are going to have a debate about same-sex marriage and liberalising adoption laws, it is essential that the politicians acknowledge just how far this is going to go, and what relationships will continue to be discriminated against,‚ÄĚ says Mr McCoskrie.

I mean seriously? Loads of shark jumping here. I mean seriously if a bloke wants two mothers in law then all power to him.

  • Erin

    In any case, polyamorous people are covered by our anti-discrimination laws or by the ICCPR, homosexual people are

    • Le Sphincter

      No they are not.
      Its not discrimination because nobody can have more than one current husband or wife

      McCloskey must be  drumming up some more money

      • grumpy

        Just like nobody is stopping a poof from marrying a woman…………..?????

      • Le Sphincter

        where  does the law say a man can only marry a woman ?

  • Alex

    Yet another of the so called “conservative” wing getting their knickers into a twist about things that don’t matter.¬† Just who is advocating for legal recognition of polyamorous relationships.¬†¬† They wonder why mainstream NZ doesn’t take them seriously.

    • Blokeintakapuna

      yep – agree. To put it bluntly – it’s none of their fucken’ business to dictate or attempt to define who can or can’t do what or what not to who, when, where or why under the sanctimonous guise of “defining rights”

      Just keep your nose out of other peoples lives… your own life will be so much better…

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OK7Y7PCSTJ27RCKZ2MGRSAYCTE NEIL

        Didn’t we have a term called “Nanny State” for this type of nonsense – or is that only applicable when Labour do it….agree totally with you B.I.T.

      • Pukakidon

         Live and Let live, none of our business

  • pidge

    Long ago, my Grandfather was on the local Immigration Committeein the north of England, and were interviewing a chap from the middle east, who wanted to bring over his additional wives, and could not understand why they could not join him.¬† My grandfather listened to his arguments, and they declared “Eh lad, we learnt long ago that one was enough”.

  • Throbz

    but if they are twins it would only be one MIL – just saying.

    • Sam

      Or even just sisters…. ¬†hot!!

  • LesleyNZ

    Mentioning Bob and Family First always brings out the nastiness in some.    

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

    Polygamous societies devalue women.  I mean, look at Muslim societies and think about the value of women in those. 

    So, while you could say that family first opposes big families, I could say that you Whale, support the status of women being downgraded to that of your family goat.

    An exaggeration?

    • Cobolt

       Strawman argument Lucia. Some polygamist societies devalue woman Рtrue but not all. On that same basis Religion devalues women Рnot entirely true is it but true enough.

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

         And Family First opposes some big families.  Specifically those that contain multiple wives.

        So, which polygamous societies don’t devalue women?

      • Random66

        Of interest is there any polygamous society where a woman can choose multiple husbands if she so desires?¬† You know have one with heaps of money, another who is great in bed, perhaps one who is a wonder around the house.¬† I’m thinking not because the reality is polygamy¬†was¬†created by man for man¬†and while he might be ok with a woman in this shared¬†role I doubt he would want to be devalued to play the same part.¬† I’m in agreement with you here Lucia in that this is a downgrade for a woman and either she has no pride to allow a man to treat her this way¬†or she has had no say in the matter (which I gather is the case in some countries).

      • James Gray

        Typically,¬†poly-amorous¬†societies, when men can have multiple wives, put women in a stronger position as women are free to choose men with the most resources, without being constrained by who is already taken. The big losers in poly-amorous societies are the lower men on the social ladder… Hence the proposal of blowing yourself up to get 72 virgins in heaven having quite a bit of sway

    • 4077th

      I think you will find women are devalued in the Catholic Church my dear. Suggest you fix the problems in your own back yard before leaping to conclusions about others…that is to say the Catholic Church has a disproportionate goat population!

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

        Considering that the Church considers the Blessed Virgin Mary, a woman no less, to be the most perfect human creature He ever made as a starting point.

        Um, no.

        And then the Church insists upon monogamous marriage where a woman gets her own man for life to look after her and her children.  What other religion insists on that?

      • Cobolt

         So the church is right because it preaches monogamy and monogamy is right because the church preaches it. Circular reference much?

        But then the catholic church will not allow woman priests or allow a woman to make her own choices regarding her own body and will even excommunicate a woman who leaves her violent husband.

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

        How many Women Catholic Priests are there?

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

        Whale,

        I was going to mention that not being able to become priest does not devalue a woman, but I took that bit out, thinking, surely no one’s going to raise that.

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

        Cobalt,

        So the church is right because it preaches monogamy and monogamy is right because the church preaches it. Circular reference much?

        That’s not what I said.

        But then the catholic church will not allow woman priests or allow a woman to make her own choices regarding her own body and will even excommunicate a woman who leaves her violent husband.

        1) The Church has no authority to ordain women as priests.  If you have a problem with this, take it up with Our Lord, who did not even ordain His own mother.

        2) Don’t know what you are going on about here with regards to choices about her own body.

        3) No, the Church will not excommunicate a woman who leaves her own violent husband.  Where did you get that from?

      • 4077th

        I feel odd replying to myself…Anyway, Lucia my post was exactly what WO said (women catholic priests). With all due respect, how could you not think someone was going to bring that up when you felt the need to insult Muslims?¬†

    • Pukakidon

       Lucia

      That is a bit strong. Just because someone is different culturally that does not make them wrong. ¬†¬† You will find that most Muslims have only one partner and are very respectful of their wives and children.¬† Of course there are some bad ones but that is the same for both sides of the religious divide.¬† Society’s where polygamy is practiced seem to be doing alright and we should not be imposing our cultural or religious beliefs upon them. So long as the situation is through mutual agreement.¬†

      A real Muslim who follows the Koran is a very tolerant individual.

    • Dion

      Correct me if I’m wrong Lucia but I very much doubt Whale has a family goat.

  • Gaz

    Pukaki –¬†fixed that for you

    ¬†“A real Muslim who follows the Koran is a very tolerant individual. /tongue-in-cheek

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OK7Y7PCSTJ27RCKZ2MGRSAYCTE NEIL

    O/K so lets ask the question – do Family First members have large families and they just don’t want other joining in?¬† Do they claim working for families money?

  • Russell Belding

    nI today’s Herald
    Belle Glasby, Marc Glasby and Dorothy Loader appeared on television talking about their ‘poly’ relationship. Photo / Supplied
    Marc Glasby and his two partners – wife Belle and identical twin sister Dorothy – last night poured new fuel on the growing debate over sexuality and marriage in 21st century Australia.
    Their appearance on SBS Television’s Insight programme added polyamory to the already furious debate over same-sex marriage and the associated debates over gay adoption and lesbian access to IVF birth programmes.
    Advocates of polyamory – intimate relationships involving three or more people – have ruffled feathers in the gay community, caused grief for the Greens, and strengthened religious determination to preserve male-female marriage as the nation’s only legal option.
    The debate is being hammered out in a parliamentary inquiry into two bills aiming to legalise gay marriage and to recognise those performed abroad.
    Gay marriage was a fraught issue long before polyamory’s entry. It split the Labor Party and became policy only after Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who opposes the move, struck a deal requiring a conscience vote in Parliament. ….

    If anyone would like a quick fix the the “marriage problem” please think again. Opening “marriage” to genderless unions and opening “marriage” to more than two persons are so close you can’t have one without the other unles you are ready yo discriminate on some basis.

    We all know and can see traditional marriage as we practice it is full of problems. It is a high maintenance activity with high rewards.¬† A solution to its problems is mainentance not abandonement, Maintenace as in love, respect, cherishing one another …

  • Maaik

    What happens at the moment, under our caring and sharing laws, if one of a threesome that have been living together for years suddenly drops dead intestate? Do the surviving couple have any rights to the estate?

    My 5 cents on this issue is that the problem is not gay marriage of polygamy, it is marriage. We should realise that marriage is just a relic of the days when the church tried to control the personal life of everybody in the country. We should leave marriage to the churches, so they can make the rules on what they consider married – some will marry gays, some will allow poligamy, some will refuse to re-marry divorced people. Whatever, it is their call. The state should not recognise any of that (in a legal sense), and allow people to make arrangements on who turns off their life support, who brings up their children, who gets the family silver etc purely on a legal, contractual basis. Those who are too lazy or stupid to formalise their relationships legally, will suffer whatever happens to them should the state be forced to make a call on these issues because they did not. Fair enough?

    • nzd.gbp

      100% agree. Either make marriage civil and allow anyone to include themselves in the list of names on the contract or drop it and leave it up to adults to draw up their own agreement. Find a religious institution of your choice to give their blessing.

      I think, worse than having the state restrict who can call themselves married, is the state TELLING you you are married if you’ve been together as defacto for X period of time. It’s none of their business either way.

82%